38

CHAPTER 3

KINGDOMS IN DECLINE: THE DISCIPLINE OF CURSING

The monarchy continued to show itself unable to lead the nation after the messianic model of David whether in the breakaway northern kingdom of Israel or in the remaining southern portion of Judah. In the north, dynasty after dynasty failed to lead the nation in repentance from idolatry and back to Yahweh. In the south things were not much better. Although the Davidic dynasty survived in Judah, at one point it was hanging by the mere thread of a male child less than six years old (II Kings 11:1-3). Both kingdoms continued to decline from the original condition under David.

Because these kingdoms were under the special election of God in history, their decline is a special case illustrating the sovereignty of God over historical processes. Processes such as political intrigue, climatically-induced economic adversities, and the rise of foreign powers are not left without interpretation by the biblical writers. At point after point the Hebrew nation is confronted with God’s freshly spoken words through His prophets. We are not left to speculate why things happened as they did. The “facts” of history are explained in terms of the reign of the Great King Yahweh over not only His chosen nation but also over all the pagan nations surrounding it. History becomes “His story”.

All the material in II Kings, II Chronicles, the minor prophets (e.g., Obadiah, Joel, Amos), and the major prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel) refutes the unbelieving critics of Scripture. For the past two centuries these critics, operating from a pagan frame of reference, have tried to “educate” the world into seeing this period of biblical history as the model of “social reform”. The prophetic cries against social evils, these critics claim, are early examples of the modern radical agenda of revolutionary socialism, world government, and environmentalism. These unbelievers insist upon using the biblical prophets as their forbearers, overlooking the obvious truth that the prophets believed unswervingly in the Creator-Savior-Lord of the Bible!

In this chapter, therefore, I will show exactly the opposite from what is commonly taught in high school and college classrooms. We shall discover that the biblical prophets were reactionaries, not revolutionaries. Moreover, they operated under the authority of God’s transcendental ethical standards that applied to all men everywhere; they were not inventors of “progressive” and “new” standards in so-called human social evolution. In direct opposition to the usual secular propaganda, these prophets will be seen to originate vast amounts of literary prophecy—literature that utterly contradicts the critics’ own secular view of history! Out of this study will emerge further insights into divine chastening and our sanctification. Read here II Kings 17-25 along with some sections from the minor and major prophets.

COVENANTALLY-INTERPRETED CURSING.

Adversity cannot be cursing unless there is One Who is responsible for administering the adversity for His Own purposes. Without the two-level Creator-creature worldview, there is no ultimate responsibility. All men would then be victims in the vast mystery of the cosmos along with the gods, goddesses, and animals. During the reigns of Jeroboam and Ahab we noticed the rise of prophets like Elijah to remind the Hebrew nation of their obligations to Yahweh. Elijah sought to correct the idolatrous deception of the Baal cult in order to bring about true repentance. From Elijah’s day until the fall of Israel to the Assyrians in 721 BC and the fall of Judah to the Neo-Babylonians in 586 BC, a steady line of prophets sought to continue his work. Each of the prophets stood under the authority of God’s prior Covenants and interpreted national adversity in terms of them.

The Covenant Background of the Prophets. In Parts II and III of this series, I noted that God structures history according to verbally-revealed contracts between Himself and man. These covenants establish observable boundaries of behavior on both God and man. Subsequent history, therefore, reveals the character of the two: God is ever faithful, and we are ever sinful. The case is proved through event after event inerrantly recorded in the Bible as a legal testimonial record.

The prophets arose as God’s spokesman to interpret the historical experience of the nation so that the Hebrews could understand what God was doing and what He expected them to do in response. What God was doing, of course, was administering His perfect plan which He earlier had outlined in the great covenants. Let’s review:

1. Abrahamic Covenant. The Abrahamic Covenant is revealed in Genesis 12:1-3; 15:7-21; 17:1-22 and other passages. God made three promises. First, He promised that Abraham would supernaturally father a family (“seed”) that would become very numerous and which would survive throughout all history (Gen. 12:2; 13:15-16; 15:5,13-16,18; 17:1-8; 22:17). This family would include not only Isaac, Jacob, and the twelve tribes, but also the prophesied Seed of the Woman (Gen. 3:15). Second, God promised that this family would possess eternal title to specific real estate from Egypt to the Mesopotamia (Gen. 13:14-14-17; 15:18-21; 17:8). This promise included not only land for the Hebrew nation but also for the location of the future cosmic Temple of God, the everlasting Jerusalem. Finally, God promised exceeding blessing upon this family that would reach outward to all men (Gen. 12:3; 22:18). The covenant constituted God’s sovereign election of the nation Israel as the spiritual counter-culture in paganized civilization..

2. Sinaitic Covenant. In contrast to the Abrahamic Covenant, the Sinaitic Covenant revealed not God’s obligations to Israel, but Israel’s obligations to God. Rather than God’s swearing to Israel as was the case with the Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis 15:7-17, God required Israel to swear allegiance to Him to institute the Sinaic Covenant policies (Exod. 19:8; 24:1-11; Deut. 5:27-28). The outcome of these policies was contingent upon the response of the people: obedience would reap blessing; disobedience, cursing.

At first glance, there appears to be a conflict between the Abrahamic Covenant that guaranteed a redeemed destiny for Abraham’s seed through the sovereignty of God and the Sinaitic Covenant that required a human response of repentance before blessing. How can God’s sovereignty guarantee future bliss when such bliss is contingent upon human conformity to His holiness? Specifically, how could the prophets speak of a future kingdom of God when there was no permanent repentance in Israel after all their efforts?

We must review here the doctrine of election expounded in Part III in connection with the Abrahamic Covenant:

(1) Election rests upon creation, specifically, the Creator-creature distinction. Without the Creator-creature distinction there can be no final plan to cosmic history, only chance or impersonal fate. The Creator-creature distinction implies that human reasoning and choice are only finite replicas of God’s omniscience and sovereignty. After discussing this very problem of Israel’s destiny under God’s election with all of the national unbelief, Paul concluded, “How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways” (Rom. 11:33b).

(2) Election rests upon the fall. Both Isaiah and Jeremiah used the potter illustration to show that God, after the pots had become marred, left some pots alone in their marred state (passive) and others He freely chose to transform into new vessels (active) (Isa. 29:16; Jer. 18:2-10; cf. Rom. 9:21-24). The unrepentant Israelites were thus in danger of being revealed as those fallen creatures left in their sin if they did not repent sometime during their lifespan.

(3) Election reveals new thoughts from God’s mind. Election disrupts the normal chain of cause-effect that mankind gets used to seeing. Until the moment of the actual call, election rests solely within God’s omniscience, hidden from human view (Heb. 11:3). Those to be included, therefore, in the Abrahamic Covenant are those

whom God calls with His Word through the prophets. Until the prophets do their work in a given generation, the elect seed of Abraham in that generation do not exist.

(4) Election is God’s basic eternal promise. If the final state of the elect is promised, then every factor leading up to that state must be also promised. Implicit, therefore, in the Abrahamic Covenant promise to Abraham’s supernaturally generated seed are the ministries of the prophets among them. Whatever requirements that the Sinaitic Covenant required due to God’s holiness (repentance, circumcision of the heart, blood atonement) must have been included in the Abrahamic Covenant.

The prophets, therefore, from Samuel to Jeremiah had a “dual track” ministry. On one hand, they prosecuted Yahweh’s case against the nation for its disloyalty to Him and announced the imposition of His Sinaitic Covenant cursings upon it. On the other hand, they also preached that the nation would certainly enter a future Kingdom of God promised in the Abrahamic Covenant. Different prophets had different ways of expressing this duality.

The Messages of the Prophets. Many prophets are mentioned in Samuel-Kings and in the major and minor prophetic books. Some ministered in the northern kingdom; others in the southern kingdom. Their messages were expressed in their own unique ways under the guidance of the Spirit of the Lord. Both themes—Israel’s suffering from the Sinaitic curses and Israel’s future destiny in the Abrahamic promises—were included in many of their messages or oracles.

Whatever was coming to pass in their day or would come to pass upon the nation after their death would always be within Yahweh’s covenantal framework. The Old Testament theologian, Walther Eichrodt contrasts Israel’s situation with the situation of surrounding pagan nations:

“A clear divine will becomes discernible, which can be depended upon and to which appeal can be made. The covenant knows not only of a demand, but also of a promise: ‘You shall be my people and I will be your God.’ In this way it provides life with a goal and history with a meaning. Because of this the fear that constantly haunts the pagan world, the fear of arbitrariness and caprice within the Godhead, is excluded. With this God, men know exactly where they stand; an atmosphere of trust and security is created. . . . .[2] (Emphasis supplied) In other words, severe though the discipline might be, the purposeful, loving heart of God lay back of it. The cursing would not be fruitless; it would bear fruit and fulfill the election promises. Let’s look at some of the prophetic approaches to expressing the dual themes of cursing and promise.

(1) Yahweh ruled surrounding pagan nations as much as He ruled Israel and Judah. It was important to Hebrew faith to assure the nation that its fierce enemies who defeated it did so not because their gods were stronger than Yahweh, but because Yahweh was as much in control over them as He was over his chosen nation. He alone was the Creator over all. A clear picture of this approach is given in Isaiah 36. The fearsome Assyrian military machine had already destroyed the northern kingdom in 721 BC and now threatened the southern kingdom under King Hezekiah. Their ambassador, while trying to intimidate Judah, made a crucial mistake: he impugned the glory of Yahweh by claiming that Yahweh could no more save Judah than the pagan gods had been able to save their nations from Assyrian invasion (Isa. 36:18-20). Hezekiah understood clearly the issue. The Assyrians had triumphed over other nations because their gods were mere idols created by men. Now in the case of Judah, Yahweh must show Himself to be the sole “living” God, active over all history (Isa. 37:16-20). God’s answer through Isaiah is that the Assyrian victories were not due to their power but due to God’s plan from eternity past (37:26-27). The Assyrians were merely carrying out (unintentionally) the sovereign plan of God! Now that Assyria had defamed the Lord, they would be defeated in a supernatural way. The Angel of the Lord (the pre-incarnate Lord Jesus Christ) in one night destroyed the heart of the Assyrian army, 185,000 solders, the equivalent of over seven and a half modern army divisions (37:36)! Soon afterward, the Assyrian tyrant Sennacherib was assassinated (37:37-38). Isaiah’s message to the nation recalled the basis for this deliverance to be the national election under the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants (37:35).

Other prophets besides Isaiah also assured the nation of Yahweh’s reign over the entire international scene. Nahum prophesied against Assyria; Habakkuk, against Babylon; and Zephaniah, against Philistia, Moab, Ammon, and Ethopia. In doing so, these prophets were really recalling the original basis of non-Hebrew civilization prior to the call of Abraham. God ruled over all the sons of Noah then, and He continued to do so in the days of these prophets. In no way had God become too weak to keep His promises to Abraham.

2. Israel and Judah had broken the Sinaitic Covenant and could therefore have no claim on Yahweh’s protection. The Sinaitic Covenant had stipulated the behavioral standards valid for both northern and southern kingdoms. The prophets brought Yahweh’s case against the nation in terms of covenant-breaking. Isaiah, Hosea, and Micah are most clear in this approach. All three of these prophets used a message format called a “rib” (pronounced ‘reev’) procedure. The rib format was an ancient version of a special lawsuit used whenever a vassal king (lesser king) tried to break a treaty with a suzerain (greater king). Such a suzerainty-vassal treaty was used in ancient Near Eastern international relations and, as I showed in Part III of this series, looked very much like the Sinaitic Covenant. Yahweh was the suzerain, and the twelve tribes were the vassal-kings. When, therefore, Judah and Israel broke the Sinaitic Covenant-Treaty by rebellious adherence to idols, God initiated the rib court procedures through His prophets.

The Sinaitic Covenant had a section much like the suzerainty-vassal treaties had a “invocation of witnesses to the treaty” section. Moses had been forewarned of future covenant-breaking in Deuteronomy 31:16-30 so he composed Israel’s national anthem in chapter 32. In this song he develops a structure similar to the rib format that the prophets would later use. The prophets follow this structure in convicting Israel of its covenant-breaking. Here are the biblical parallels with the Ancient Near Eastern rib procedure (RP):

1. Court Procedure. RP calls upon witnesses to the treaty, introduces the case, and presents judicial evidence of the faithfulness of the suzerain and unfaithfulness of the vassal; compare with Deut. 32:1-14, Isa. 1:2-4, Hos. 4:1, and Mic. 6:1-4.

2. Indictment: RP specifies the points of the treaty that have been broken by the vassal; cf. Deut. 32:15-18, Isa. 1:5-23, Hos. 4:2, and Mic. 6:9-12.

3. Announcement of Judgment: RP invokes the curses given in the suzerainty-vassal treaty; cf. Deut. 32:19-26, Isa. 1:24-31, Hos. 4:3, and Mic.

9:13-15.

By pursuing His lawsuit against the nation God proved that Israel did not merit further relationship with Himself. Israel had freely broken the Sinaitic Covenant; God, therefore, was no longer obligated to care for the nation. The entire national existence since Sinai had been predicated upon continued loyalty to Yahweh. Now that this condition no longer existed, there remained no legal basis for the nation’s security and blessing. Prophets like Habakkuk developed the theme that the true basis for security could not be obedience to the law but faith in God’s work (Hab. 2:4). Paul later would utilize this discovery in his epistle to the Romans.

To empower the prophets’ communication of His disgust and hurt over the nation’s disloyalty, the Lord put them through many carefully-designed personal trials. Hosea was called into an adulterous marriage so he could personally experience something of the Lord’s own grief over the nation. Jeremiah spoke also in the analogy of the marriage and the Sinaitic Covenant (Jer. 3:1-10).

To show just how far Yahweh went in judging his elect nation, let’s observe what He did to the Davidic Dynasty. Although His covenant with David guaranteed eternal survival of David’s line, that line became very thin at times as we saw in the introduction to this chapter where I mentioned the case of Joash who was the Davidic offspring who had to be kept hidden in the Temple for his first six years of life (cf. II Kings 11:1-3). What we must now realize is that the survival entire monarchy itself was contingent upon the godliness of the nation under terms of the Sinaitic Covenant. Samuel had declared the contingency of the monarchy in Saul’s day (I Sam. 12:25). Whereas the line of David was secure under God’s sovereignty, the institution of monarchy in which it would serve was contingent. Thus there existed a tension between the Sinaitic and Davidic Covenants similar to that between the Sinaitic and Abrahamic Covenants.

As the nation declined toward its final days, the prophet Jeremiah past on a shocking announcement from the Lord: the Davidic monarchy would terminate with Jehoiakin (Coniah) the last king before the exile (Jer. 22:24-30; 36:30-31). In Part V of this series I will show the implications this announcement had on the genealogy of the Lord Jesus Christ. This judgment of Yahweh upon the monarchy in addition to His other judgments underscored the prophetic emphasis upon the broken Sinaitic Covenant and the end of blessing upon Israel as an independent nation.

3. Yahweh, solely because of His sovereign, elective grace will Himself bring about the righteousness necessary for the blessing of Israel. A third prophetic approach to the dual themes of cursing and blessing looked to the future resolution of the tension between sovereign election and contingent holiness. Many of the details were unknown, but at least one thing was clear: in no way would God compromise His righteousness in the future after making Israel’s lack of holiness and loyalty to Him such an issue in administering the Sinaitic Covenant.

Nevertheless, in Moses’ original song that became the basis for the later prophetic rib format, a very unrib-like feature occurs toward the end. In Deuteronomy 32:26 the judgment announcement abruptly ends. Israel will be judged but not into oblivion. Notice in 32:27 the issue of God’s election glory enters: if the pagan nations were to eradicate Israel they would conclude that they had triumphed over not only Israel but Israel’s God. In the last of Moses’ song, 32:28-43, an extensive text teaches us that God is committed to that which He has elected. In the future He will “vindicate His people. . .when He sees that their strength is gone” (32:36). At that point He exposes the false gods Israel had trusted in and shows Himself to be the only true God (32:37- 39). At the very end of the song is an invitation to all nations of the earth to bow before the God of Israel that they, too, may enjoy the future judgment/salvation (32:43). Somehow, then, the covenant breaking of Israel will be resolved by the Lord in the future.

Also found in Moses’ writings is an indication that the failure of Israel to conquer the Promised Land will be resolved. In Part III of this series, I showed that the Lord ceased to bless Israel in holy war to secure all the areas promised to the twelve tribes. At Bochim (Jud. 2:3,20-23) the Lord announced He would no longer give victory to Israel over the pagan inhabitants of the land. From the Abrahamic Covenant, however, the land was definitely promised to Israel. How was this tension to be resolved?

Through Moses Yahweh made an elaboration upon the land promise of the Abrahamic Covenant. In Deuteronomy 29:1 He makes another covenant which is said to be distinct from the Sinaitic Covenant. Biblical scholars generally refer to this extra covenant as the “Palestinian Covenant” although this term is objectionable [3]. Notice that before elaborating the terms of this land covenant, Moses rehearses Israel’s future history just like he later does in his song of chapter 32 (cf. 29:2-28). Then Moses refers to a time after the cursings of the Sinaitic Covenant have occurred (30:1). In this future time, Israel will repent and return to submission to Yahweh. When this submission occurs, Israel will be regathered into the “land which your fathers possessed” (30:5). In this final state, Israel will receive the economic, military, and spiritual blessings promised under the Sinaitic Covenant (30:8-10).

The prophets repeatedly reminded the nation of these truths which had been originally revealed to Moses. Isaiah spoke of a future time when Israel would be again settled “in their land” and “in the land of Yahweh” (Isa. 14:1-2). Ezekiel wrote that after a future judgment Israel would serve Yahweh “in the land” (Ezk. 20:40). Amos saw a time in Israel’s future when its ancient cities would be rebuilt and the people would be planted by the Lord “on their land” (Amos 9:15). Clearly these prophets were not inventing a new message as Bible critics try to say to their students. Far from any new message, the prophets’ visions and teaching had to pass the truth test of Deuteronomy 13:1- 5 which required theological continuity with Moses. From this foundation in the Torah, they were led by the Holy Spirit to expand upon Moses and deal with their contemporary scene so each prophet is slightly different in style and emphasis.

The prophets foresaw that Israel’s historic failure to be loyal to Yahweh proved that only God could supply the necessary righteousness; man had nothing within him to establish it. An excellent example of how clearly these Old Testament prophets saw the necessity of faith in Yahweh to supply the righteousness is Habakkuk. He writes toward the end of the nation’s decline that the proud or autonomous man is unrighteous but the one who “lives by faith” is righteous (Hab. 2:4). To Habakkuk the whole issue could be summed up in a simple choice: do you want to be your own final authority or do you yield to Yahweh as your final authority and wait on Him to supply your need? In Part VI of this series we will study how Paul develops the New Testament of justification by faith from this discovery in the declining hours of

the nation (he even cites Hab. 2:4) and from the earlier foundation in Abraham. Tightly bound to this realization of the necessity of faith to be counted as righteous enough to enter Yahweh’s kingdom, was the perception that not all Hebrews would so believe. Beginning with the prophet Elijah we read more and more about the “faithful remnant”. Yahweh Himself claimed in Elijah’s day that there were seven thousand believers in the northern kingdom (I Kings 19:18). Isaiah foresaw the “remnant of Israel” who would “return” (Isa. 10:20-23) and whom the Lord would surely deliver (46:3-4).

The highlight, however, in this prophetic revelation is the amazing announcement of Jeremiah: that Yahweh would establish a New Covenant with the nation in the future. Jeremiah pointed out that the Sinaitic Covenant had failed because of Israel’s sinful nature, made up as Israel was of fallen mankind (Jer. 11:1-8). The needed spiritual circumcision demanded in the older covenant (Deut. 10:16) had not occurred. The announcement was made: “Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of Egypt; which covenant they brake. . . .But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those day, saith Jehovah: I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God and they shall be my people. . . .They shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith Jehovah: for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more.” (Jer. 31:31-34).

Notice that this announcement foresees a time when, not just a remnant, but the entire nation of Israel would obey the law of God and that God would permanently uphold the nation in her elected calling. Obviously, it must be that after the historical judgments, eventually the unbelievers are removed from Israel so that the faith remnant is identical to the nation.

Commenting on Jeremiah’s announcement of the New Covenant, Alva McClain writes:

“The moral problem posed by the failure of the Mosaic Covenant will under the New Covenant be met by God’s own sovereign grace and power. . . .By these means the benefits of the Mosaic Covenant will be attained, and at the same time its moral requirements will be secured; not as a legal condition of blessing but as its divinely caused result. . . .The New Covenant, therefore, is in the gracious spirit of the earlier Abrahamic Covenant, rather than in the legalistic spirit of the Mosaic Covenant which it supplants. It is true that under the latter there was promised divine forgiveness in the case of Israel’s failure. But here it is deeply significant that when the sin has been confessed. . . , it is not on the basis of any surviving rights in the broken Covenant of Sinai but simply because Jehovah remembers His earlier ‘covenant with Jacob, . . .with Issac, and. . .with Abraham’ (Lev. 26:42).”[4]

Table Comparing the Biblical Covenants

Covenant	Parties	Sign(s)	Legal Terms	FoundingSacrifice
New World (Noahic)	God; and Noahic human race & animals saved on Ark.	Rainbow.	Eternal survival of human race; no more global flood.	Noah’s sacrifice.
Abrahamic	God; and Abrahamic progeny.	Divine oath; circumcision.	Defined real estate; chosen seed; and worldwide blessing.	God’s sacrifice.
Sinaitic (Mosaic)	God; and tribes of Israel.	Sabbath.	Hundreds of laws to express loyalty.	Moses and elders’ sacrifice.
Davidic	God; and progeny of David	Surviving royal line.	Father-son relationship; chastening but not rejection; Jerusalem centered reign.	?
New	God; and future nation of Israel.	Jesus’ blood.	National regeneration; post-dispersion	God’s sacrifice (Jesus).
			Regathering; world-wide dominsancy

Let’s compare this New Covenant with the previous four covenants that we’ve studied in detail in the following table. The parties to the New Covenant were Yahweh and the nation of Israel (Jer. 31:27). The sign and the sacrifice of the New Covenant would be revealed later in history with the Lord Jesus Christ at the last supper—the sign being His blood (I Cor. 11:25) and the sacrifice being His death (Luke 22:20). The legal terms included: national regeneration (31:33-34; cf. Deut. 30:6), regathering back to the historic land (31:23-24; cf. Deut. 30:3-5), and worldwide dominance (31:36-37; cf. Deut. 30:7). God’s elective purpose expressed in the Abrahamic Covenant would be fulfilled, then, with all the righteous requirements of the Sinaitic Covenant simultaneously met.

This third approach of the Old Testament prophets to Israel, then, created a forward-looking hope toward Yahweh’s future work to deliver the nation from its sin. History, interpreted covenantally by the prophets, showed clearly the unchanging faithfulness of God and the widespread disobedience of man—both the people and their leadership. The chosen nation was being horribly chastened by the “rod of man” under the sovereign control of Yahweh with no appeal left for survival on the basis of the Sinaitic Covenant. Yahweh had divorced his queen-nation, yet He would somehow remarry her in the future.

The Unresolved Mystery Left by the Prophets. The “dual track” ministry of the prophets had emphasized the tension between Israel’s sin and God’s election. The prophets announced that a solution was forthcoming to resolve this tension. What they did not do, however, was spell out just how the holy, righteous Yahweh would reconcile the rebellious, sinful nation to unbroken, eternal fellowship with Himself.

These prophets could not separate out the disciplinary, suffering theme and the glorious finale theme, especially as they pertained to the identity of the persons involved and to the sequence and timing of their occurrence. The Apostle Peter said of them: “[they] made careful search and inquiry, seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and glories to follow” (I Pet. 1:10b-11). These themes defied logical consistency as it was known in Old Testament times. The basic apparent contradiction in the Old Testament Word of God was, according to the Apostle Paul, how God could retain His holiness at the same time He permanently entered into an eternal relationship with the sinful nation—how he could “be just and the justifier of the one who has faith” (Rom. 3:26).

The Old Testament believers, therefore, had to walk by faith with an unresolved paradox. They are a model for us who must also walk by faith with other unresolved paradoxes such as how God could have created a universe in which creatures would surely chose evil (the so-called “evil problem”). We must be very careful here. These Old Testament saints were not like modern existential theologians who tell us that faith is deliberately submitting to the irrational. On the contrary, these saints, as people made in God’s image, had minds and consciences that were finite replicas of God’s omniscience and holiness. They demanded a reason and a moral resolution to the prophetic announcements as Peter said. They emphatically did not “deliberately submit to the irrational”.

What they did was accept the Creator-creature distinction and conclude that “His understanding is inscrutable” (Isa. 40:28) and sufficient to include rational concepts of every part of the universe (40:26). Far from an irrational faith, the Old Testament saints’ faith rested in the rationality of their God instead of their own rationality. Somehow, they reasoned, He would do a “new thing” (43:19) and “would not remember their sins” (43:25). Faced with this unresolved mystery, these saints of old give us a wonderful example of how to live under the authority of an incomprehensible God.

Living as we do on this side of the Cross, we have the added revelation that they did not have. We see that, eventually, God resolved what looked to them as an irresolvable paradox through the substitutionary death of His own Son. In the words of John Frame:

“Justice, as defined by the prophets, cannot be merciful, or so it seems. But God does solve the problem, in a way that none of us would likely have expected, in a way that amazes us and provokes from us shouts of praise. . . .Here is the lesson for us: if God could vindicate his justice and mercy in a situation where such vindication seemed impossible, if he could vindicate them in a way that sent far beyond our expectations and understanding, can we not trust him to vindicate himself again?”[5] Resolution of the Old Testament mystery in New Testament times ought to encourage our faith to trust the Lord whether or not we can logically resolve each detail with the rest of known truth. Indeed, the New Testament says to us that the “peace of God. . .surpasses all comprehension” (Phil. 4:7).

This period of Old Testament history during the decline of Israel and Judah reveals much of how God disciplines His people. Through the prophets, He adds to His Word as He explains His historic working with the Hebrew nation and the pagan nations around about. Always He respects His previously-revealed contracts and provides evidence of His trustworthiness to us. At the same time He reveals more and more of His grand plan to provide salvation by grace for sinners to receive by faith alone. Following this Old Testament history our hearts are turned more and more to Him and less and less upon ourselves.

SANCTIFICATION AND CHASTENING-II: LESSONS FROM KINGDOMS IN DECLINE.

In the previous chapter we saw that chastening is necessary when hearts have become cluttered with idolatrous reconstructions of God’s true nature. Believers ought to follow the model of David—quick to respond to God’s rebuke. Nevertheless, genuine believers can follow the model of Saul and the later kings by staying out of fellowship long enough to allow false ideas of God to become embedded in the mind. These false images of God prevent restoration to fellowship. They constitute strongholds in the mind nurtured by the powers of darkness. Only after their destruction can we experience true conviction of sin and genuinely confess our sin.

The period of the declining kingdoms featured the problem of entrenched carnality and idolatrous strongholds in the hearts of the people and their leaders. The prophetic history in Kings and the prophetic books thus reveals how God sanctifies through chastening. Following the “dual track” emphasis of the Old Testament prophets, we learn that the nation could not obey the Lord thoroughly and consistently enough to ever enjoy the uninterrupted blessings of His Kingdom. Under the Sinaitic Covenant arrangement, blessing was forever contingent and uncertain. This period of history exposed the underlying truth glimpsed earlier at Mt. Sinai when the people broke the covenant even as it was being received! From that event we learned in Part III of this series of the necessity for a “circumcised heart” and a gracious intercessor for the nation.

In this chapter, we learn more about this truth. We observe from the prophets’ dual track emphasis that God, in order to secure His election purpose for the seed of Abraham, will do a future dramatic work. Somehow, He will bring about the holiness of personal loyalty to Him in the hearts of the nation Israel in such way that the blessings of the Kingdom will be forever secure. Somehow, He will eternally separate the good from the evil so that Abraham’s miraculously born seed will inhabit and reign in that future Kingdom according to His election promises.

Let’s examine the doctrine of sanctification again and see how these truths advance our understanding of it beyond that of Part III. I will develop these contributions under the five aspects of sanctification covered in connection with the conquest and settlement.

Phases of Sanctification. Earlier we studied two of the three phases of sanctification: positional (what God promises to do) and experiential (what He expects us to do). Positional sanctification is revealed in the Abrahamic Covenant. His three great promises—a land, a seed, and a worldwide blessing—were certain elective purposes. They implied a proper relationship with Him through election, justification, and faith. This covenant of promise provided Israel’s meaning and purpose in history. The second phase of sanctification was revealed centrally in the Sinaitic Covenant in the hundreds of commands covering every area of life. This contract defined the Hebrews’ obligations to Yahweh. This experiential sanctification was made the central issue throughout the kingdom period of Israel’s history. The verdict is clear: apart from a special work of God, man cannot become consistently obedient to Him.

The prophets (under the ministry of the Holy Spirit) introduced truths of the third phase of sanctification: final or ultimate sanctification. In ultimate sanctification the conditions required in experiential sanctification become existent and permanent so that positional sanctification becomes actual. The New Covenant becomes operational. Israel will inherit the Kingdom, will rule in the land, and be home to the Temple and Presence of God Himself on this planet.

Aim of Sanctification.

Always God has required of man loyalty to Him, even before the fall. Man was created to reign over creation for God (Gen. 1:26- 30; 2:15; Psa.8). Being a responsible creature made in God’s image, man could not acquire obedience by instinct: he had to learn it by experience. This principle is clear from the biblical statement that even Christ, the sinless God-man, had to learn in his humanity obedience to His Father (Heb. 5:8). Learning obedience by historical experience, them does not inherently involve sin. After the fall, of course, sin does become an inseparable “drag” on sanctification, but from the beginning it was not so. We diagrammed this before and after picture in Part III as follows:

BEFORE THE FALL AFTER THE FALL

Aim of Loyalty> Aim of Loyalty>

Impediments of Sin

Sanctification, therefore, is not merely doing away with evil in our experience; it also includes gaining loyalty or positive experiential obedience. Even if we were not in Adam as fallen beings we would still have to go through sanctification.

When the OT prophets revealed the New Covenant in the kingdom period, they opened up powerful energy sources for developing a loyalty to God. The fact that God would not only save the nation from Egypt but also save the nation from itself showed clearly God’s fantastic love. The fact that after the Sinaitic Covenant had been conclusively shown to be broken, God would pursue His people for a final restoration revealed His incomprehensible grace. What this revelation supplied to the embattled saints was the source of hope and motivation. The old covenant at Sinai motivated by fear of failure; the New Covenant to come motivated by gratitude for His deliverance. Behind believers in their daily struggles after this prophetic revelation was neither God with a big stick nor mere human vacillating love; undergirding their struggle was the Infinite Personal Creator Who chose them for victory.

Means of Sanctification. Two instruments of sanctification were discussed previously: law (in the sense of revelation) and grace. No one can believe apart from the Word of God or revealed law. Thus the OT prophets again and again critiqued the nation on the basis of Moses’ words. They did not resort to economic analyses, political commentaries or programs, and psychological success techniques. Under the guidance of the Spirit they went straight for the basic issue: man’s relationship to God. In so doing what they did, they teach us that our sanctification must proceed under the authority of Scripture. All of life must be reinterpreted in the light of the text of the Bible, not by the latest version of “psycho-babble”. They teach us the SUFFICIENCY OF SCRIPTURE (II Tim. 3:16-17)!

This historical period also revealed the NECESSITY OF GRACE. Nothing could be clearer than the insufficiency and continuous failure of the flesh. Again and again the OT prophets went back behind the Sinaitic Covenant to the Abrahamic Covenant to find their confidence in God. No remedy existed for the broken covenant other than Yahweh’s gracious promises “somehow” to fix the situation.

Dimensions of Sanctification. Life has two dimensions: the existentially present moment and the long-term progress due to the sum of many past moments. At any given moment we either choose to trust God for His promised help and obey His will for us or to rely solely upon our capacities and ignore His will. We either are in fellowship with Him or out of fellowship. We walk by the spirit or by the flesh. In the David model, he shows us the way to be restored quickly to fellowship with God.

Prolonged walking in the flesh, however, does damage to the soul. Spiritual growth stops. As carnality compounds, retrogression begins. Solomon retrogressed from a godly wise king to a fleshly foolish one. God will not tolerate such retrogression to continue in His people as we learned in this kingdoms-in-decline period of OT history. His chastening intensifies as we observed from Elijah to Jeremiah. He ejected his beloved nation from His Kingdom! He even ejected David’s seed through Jehoiakim from the throne! They remained his people and his royal family, but they went through horrible suffering outside of the land and His Kingdom.

It is a sad fact of Scripture that believers can lose their lives, their rewards, and a place to reign in the Messianic Kingdom to come by prolonged sin and refusal to acknowledge their sin after the model of David. The last generations of the northern and southern kingdoms illustrate this truth. God can not, and will not, compromise His holiness in His Kingdom. Those who reign with His Son cannot do so using principles antagonistic to His character. The New Testament repeats this same truth in numerous places: Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-10); Paul’s judgment against a hardened believer (I Cor. 5:1-7) and his warning against those making a mockery of communion (I Cor. 11:28-32); James’ warnings about illness and death (James 5:9-20); and the Lord’s warning to the seven churches (Rev. 2-3). Note Suffering Pattern #6. These passages have been variously interpreted as defining so-called “mortal sins”, loss of salvation, and exposures of merely “professing” unbelievers. They teach none of these doctrines. The passages refer to the same truth we have observed during the decline of the OT kingdoms: the Great King will never compromise His holiness in His Kingdom whether believer or unbeliever is involved.

Enemies of Sanctification. Finally, we learned in Part II about the enemies of sanctification, those impediments to spiritual growth: the world, the flesh, and the devil. Back in the conquest and settlement we saw that these operated under the sovereignty of God and were ultimately for our good, although they intend our harm. Back there we came to realize that the winning approach against these enemies was the indirect strategy of loyalty to God rather than the direct strategy of frontally attacking them. The diagram was:

DIRECT STRATEGY INDIRECT STRATEGY

--world, flesh, devil loyalty to God

world, flesh, devil

To this previous revelation, we now add insights from the prophets. They reminded Israel that the enemy nations surrounding them were God’s tools of chastening. In the dramatic instance of Hezekiah and the Assyrians we saw the enemies defeated, not by Hebrew armies, but directly by Yahweh just as it had happened earlier at Jericho. The key wasn’t in Hebrew military strategy but in Hebrew repentance, confession, and restoration to fellowship with Yahweh.

These enemies of sanctification under the sovereignty of God actually help our sanctification! The NT book of Hebrews says that all angels—godly and fallen alike—are “ministers” of God to us. All the enemies force us to get right with God or suffer (Patterns #5 and #6). Moreover, they minister through us to others (Patterns #7-11).

The OT period of the kingdoms’ decline is an important one for those seeking to understand how God sanctifies His people. Through it we learn the tough side of God’s discipline. Hopefully, we shall gain greater respect for our God!

END NOTES FOR CHAPTER 3

1. See previous discussion in Part III under the Call of Abraham and the Giving of the Law at Mt. Sinai.

2. Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, trans. J. A. Baker, I, (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961), 38. Here is an excellent model for parents regarding discipline of children. Discipline can be harsh at times, but it must be predictable to have beneficial effects!

3. The term “Palestinian” is a Roman one given to the land by Hadrian after the Jewish revolt under Bar Chochba (A.D. 132-135) as part of his policy to “de-judaize”

the land. The biblical term is “eretz Israel”—the land of Israel.

4. Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom (Chicago: Moody Press, 1959), p. 158.

5. John M. Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., 1994), p.184.