A Christian's Deliberations

LXXXIV: Prophesying Uncomfortable Truth

2009-06-14T20:44:00.002-04:00

It is difficult to ever say that one "takes comfort" in Jeremiah. Jeremiah's message, after all, is extremely distressing and disconcerting. He is the epitome of the "doom and gloom" prophet.

On the other hand, there is a reason why he must be the "doom and gloom" prophet. He is given the unenviable task of prophesying the most uncomfortable truth, a truth that the people do not even want to consider.

Some of the best insights from the book of Jeremiah have less to do with what Jeremiah and more with the people of Israel around him. After all, as we read Scripture and understand the historical events, it is easy for us to wonder why it is that no one ever seems to listen to the prophets. Did they not understand? Did they not consider the message?

When we see the "one side" of the story-- the presentation of the true prophets of God-- these questions are difficult to answer. Yet, when we see the perspectives set forth in Jeremiah, it is more easily understood.

What we set forth must be understood in context, and we cannot allow our understanding of what will take place to slant our perspective. The disaster of 586 BCE is still in the future for these people; they do not know, as we know, what exactly will take place. These are the Israelites, the people of God. Sure, God exiled the northern tribes, but they were clearly in sin because they served the golden calves in Dan and Bethel (cf. 1 Kings 12, 2 Kings 17). They lived in Judah. The Temple of YHWH was in their midst. The mighty Assyrian empire came a century earlier, and, indeed, devastated the region, but God struck them so that they could not take Jerusalem (2 Kings 18-19). Isaiah had indicated that such would take place.

Yes, there was the new menace of Babylon, but was Babylon really any stronger than Assyria? After all, YHWH is the God of Israel. YHWH would not allow His holy Temple to be defiled by the Babylonians.

In this context, the "prophecy" of Hananiah makes complete sense:

And it came to pass the same year, in the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah king of Judah, in the fourth year, in the fifth month, that Hananiah the son of Azzur, the prophet, who was of Gibeon, spake unto me in the house of the LORD, in the presence of the priests and of all the people, saying,
"Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, saying, 'I have broken the yoke of the king of Babylon. Within two full years will I bring again into this place all the vessels of the LORD's house, that Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon took away from this place, and carried to Babylon: and I will bring again to this place Jeconiah the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, with all the captives of Judah, that went to Babylon,' saith the LORD; 'for I will break the yoke of the king of Babylon'" (Jeremiah 28:1-4).

And Hananiah spake in the presence of all the people, saying,
"Thus saith the LORD: 'Even so will I break the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon within two full years from off the neck of all the nations'" (Jeremiah 28:11).

Let us revisit the question: why do the people not listen to the prophets? Hananiah really provides the answer: the people do listen to prophets. They just listen to the prophets who speak the message that is consistent with their perspective and their expectations.

Jeremiah stands up and dares to assert that YHWH will hand over His city, His Temple, and His people Israel to the pagan Babylonians, and that all nations will have to submit to the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar, since YHWH has handed all things over to him (cf. Jeremiah 27). Meanwhile, Hananiah says that YHWH will destroy Nebuchadnezzar and restore the fortunes of Judah. Which message do people really want to hear? Which message is consistent with their expectations?

We can understand this further from some of the words of the enemies of Jeremiah:

Then said they, "Come, and let us devise devices against Jeremiah; for the law shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophet. Come, and let us smite him with the tongue, and let us not give heed to any of his words" (Jeremiah 18:18).

These enemies do not like Jeremiah, in part, because he dares to challenge their fundamental worldview. He prophesies what is "impossible." After all, God said in the Law that the priests would always set forth the Law to the people. There had been prophets speaking the word of YHWH since Moses.

Thus, one of Jeremiah's great hindrances is that he dares to prophesy uncomfortable truths-- truths that thoroughly disturb the people of Judah to their very core. Yes, it is true that in reality the people have misplaced their confidence: they should trust in YHWH and seek to do His will, and not rely on the idea of YHWH's Temple or His priests or prophets. Nevertheless, it was easier to continue to believe the lie than to face the uncomfortable reality, even after the uncomfortable reality came to pass.

Hananiah was dead wrong. Jeremiah, unfortunately, was right. Jerusalem was captured by the Babylonians. The king's sons were killed, and the king was blinded and imprisoned. The city and Temple were thoroughly burned and plundered. A large proportion of the population was exiled. Some remained. Difficulties ensued, and the people consider moving to Egypt (Jeremiah 39-41). Before they go, they want Jeremiah to ask YHWH whether they should stay or go. He does, and YHWH's message is clear: stay in the land (Jeremiah 42).

If ever there were more justification to listen to Jeremiah, this would have been the time. What he spoke happened without fail.

And it came to pass that, when Jeremiah had made an end of speaking unto all the people all the words of the LORD their God, wherewith the LORD their God had sent him to them, even all these words, then spake Azariah the son of Hoshaiah, and Johanan the son of Kareah, and all the proud men, saying unto Jeremiah,
"Thou speakest falsely: the LORD our God hath not sent thee to say, 'Ye shall not go into Egypt to sojourn there;' but Baruch the son of Neriah setteth thee on against us, to deliver us into the hand of the Chaldeans, that they may put us to death, and carry us away captive to Babylon."
So Johanan the son of Kareah, and all the captains of the forces, and all the people, obeyed not the voice of Jehovah, to dwell in the land of Judah (Jeremiah 43:1-4).

What indignity! After everything that happened, after all that Jeremiah personally suffered because of his prophesying, his motives are now questioned! Even after all the devastation, despite all the distress, people still rebel against the word of YHWH. They still refuse to trust in YHWH and not in their own reasoning. Jeremiah 44 indicates that many of the Jews did not even trust in YHWH, but returned to making offerings to the "queen of heaven, " believing that their distress was caused because they stopped making offerings to her!

For many such Jews, the disaster did not bring them back to repentance; it merely solidified their previously existing beliefs. But it did chasten many others. Many Jews would return to the land and not commit the same sins as before. Yet they were still wedded to their particular worldview.

Jesus therefore said to those Jews that had believed him, "If ye abide in my word, then are ye truly my disciples; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
They answered unto him, "We are Abraham's seed, and have never yet been in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, 'Ye shall be made free?'" (John 8:31-33).

When they were not taking pride in the Temple, the Jews took pride in being the "children of Abraham" and therefore "entitled" to the privileges of covenant. When Jesus dares to assert that, in truth, they have become children of Satan because they sin without repentance, the Jews who believe in Him turn against Him, ready even to stone Him (John 8:34-59)! Uncomfortable truth still did not sit well with people.

Today we do not have inspired prophets speaking forth the word of YHWH as before (1 Corinthians 13:8-10). Nevertheless, I believe that those who believe in Jesus Christ and seek to serve Him do have a burden to speak the prophetic word. It may not be directly inspired, but it is to be based in the message of the prophets of old and the message of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, this prophetic message is going to involve the same types of uncomfortable truths as in days of old.

We are living in very trying times economically. There are many "prophets" out there who are trying to make people feel better and promote a message that is satisfying to them. "The economy will recover soon." "Job growth will happen." "Everything will be back to the way it was soon." These messages are popular-- they comfort, and they appeal to people's expectations.

This is not limited to the economy. It is also true about climate change, healthcare, violence, and a host of other issues. Plenty of "prophets" stand up and say what people want to hear. They will make statements that satisfy people's expectations.

On the other hand, what if the economy will not recover soon? What if this economic downturn really is exposing major faults in the way that we view the world? What if the challenges we are suffering with the economy, climate change, healthcare, and other matters really reflects fundmental worldview problems that need to be addressed?

The uncomfortable truth for Americans is that we are reaping what we have sown. We have lived on credit and the bill is coming due. Things will not really get better until we scale back our expectations and our lifestyles. We must return to the virtues of self-discipline and sober-mindedness (1 Peter 4:7). We must return to God's intention for finances: work an honest job, making honest money, having enough for one's needs, and having something to give to those in need (Ephesians 4:28). If we scale back in our consumption and work to exist sustainably on the earth, we will be also addressing some of the root problems of climate change. If we return to a more holistic and proper diet, we might even reduce healthcare costs over the long term!

Why is this message not being shouted on the rooftops? The same reason why Hananiah's messaeg was more popular than Jeremiah's. Sacrifice is not easy, especially when society has presenting the message of self-gratification for years. Long-term gains come only at the cost of short-term sacrifices and challenges, and humans rarely have the stomach to suffer in the short-term for the benefits of the long-term. It is quite telling when presidents of this country boldly affirm that the standard of life that Americans have come to enjoy is not negotiable. Such a statement evokes the "confidence" of the Jews of Jeremiah's day: "the law will not perish from the priests, nor the word from the prophet." We shall certainly see!

But the challenge of "prophesying" uncomfortable truth is not just present on the societal level. It is also quite true in the church.

While many would focus on the "distinctive issues," and declare that speaking about them is "uncomfortable" for many, such is not really the truly uncomfortable truths that bedevil the church. While some in the church may have some discomfort in terms of the "distinctives," most people in the pews entirely agree regarding the "distinctive issues." It has come to the point where preaching on the distinctives constantly is, essentially, "soft preaching." It is unoffensive to the people who sit in the pews, since they are already in agreement, and everybody walks out the door afterward feeling as if the Gospel has been preached and their worldviews validated.

The "uncomfortable truth" is whenever our mentalities or worldviews clash with revealed truth. The Scriptures speak a lot of "uncomfortable truth" about the role of women and how they are to "submit to their husbands" and be "workers at home" (Ephesians 5:22-24, Titus 2:4-5). There's "uncomfortable truth" about being as diligent to do good things as we are in avoiding evil (Romans 12:9, James 4:17). Other topics include matters of marriage, divorce, and remarriage, association with those who practice adultery on account of their views of marriage, divorce, and remarriage, women and the assembly, involvement in the political realm, and a host of other challenges that have faced the church for years.

But a lot of "uncomfortable truth" that does not get said or realized is the sad state of affairs in the area of congregational growth.

There is a natural tendency to appreciate "comfort" in religion. People seek stability and comfort from their religious beliefs. To a point, that is well and good, as Paul indicates in 2 Corinthians 1. On the other hand, Christianity was never meant to be static or "comfortable." Jesus demands change; after all, that's what repentance means (Acts 2:38). We are called upon to be transformed to reflect the image of Christ, and that process is neither easy nor comfortable (Matthew 10:37-39, Romans 12:1-2, Galatians 2:20).

Furthermore, we are called to be lights in the world for Christ, constantly seeking to build up the Kingdom (Ephesians 4-5). If all things work properly, growth is the result.

Most everyone will agree with much of what is said. The difficulty, however, that is a challenge to face is that we're not really growing.

When anyone starts talking about why we are not successfully reaching people with the Gospel, talk immediately begins to shift toward "the other." People are just not interested anymore, many will say. People aren't willing to change, say others. Christians who fall away? They should just "know better."

All of these are the "easy" answers. They are comfortable in our worldview because they absolve us of any challenge.

But here's the rather uncomfortable truth: part of the reason why we are not more successful in our evangelistic endeavors involves ourselves and our habits.

Are believers active in reflecting Christ's love and speaking to others about the truth of God? How well does the church climate welcome those who are not of the fold? When those who are outside see the association of believers, do they see anything different about them, or do they see the same type of worldliness they see everywhere else? Are there unspoken yet strongly present prejudices that hinder effective encouragement of the lost soul? Are the members of the congregation rather welcoming? Are they honest and open with one another, living out authentic Christian lives? Or, quite frankly, is the church acting like a holy country club that is full of a bunch of people who are putting on pretenses?

That sounds harsh and is doubtless not true about many, at least according to their intentions. On the other hand, uncomfortable truth is no more easily swallowed today than it was in the days of Jeremiah. Sure, it is true that even if our efforts were everything they were supposed to be, many would not heed the call. Many in the world are attracted to that which pleases them according to their own perspective and expectations, and in twenty-first century America, there is no lack of religious organizations that try to accommodate those expectations. Nevertheless, the situation is likely not nearly as grim as it is often portrayed.

It's just easier to always blame "the other" and not ourselves. If we have a share in the responsibility, that challenges not only our actions but our perspective, and that may lead to some discomfort. Yet, in truth, spiritual growth only comes through discomfort (James 1:2-3).

At many points in life, a prophetic message of uncomfortable truth is exactly what the Great Physician orders. We can either choose to swallow hard, accept the hard truth, change, and grow, or we can refuse to accept that message and choose to continue to look at things the way we always have. We just need to remember that we can hold off hard reality for only so long. The day of reckoning will come.

ELDV

LXXXIII: Babel, Ecclesiastes, and Human Pretension

2009-05-09T22:08:00.002-04:00

And they said, "Come, let us build us a city, and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven, and let us make us a name; lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth" (Genesis 11:4).

Man, now separated from God by sin, collects together and attempts to fulfill his inner yearnings through brick and mortar. Since death is inevitable, man seeks to make a name for himself. Man does not want to be alone, and if there is some beacon that can summon everyone to it, man will never have to be apart again.

While God frustrates man's design through the confusion of speech (Genesis 11:7-9), the inner desire of man is not removed. Nearly five millennia later, man finds himself in a similar condition. His language may be confused, but he has learned to adapt and speak different languages. He still desires to make a name for himself. He's still looking to build that tower, be it literal or metaphorical, and trying to avoid being scattered like the wind.

This message is instilled in our youth. You can become whatever you want. Search for a career that will provide meaning. Do something that makes a difference, or makes an impact. Make a name for yourself.

Then we come to Ecclesiastes. The Preacher's message has the reputation for being downright depressing and cynical. The message only seems cynical and depressing, however, when one is enraptured with the human pretension of significance. In reality, the Preacher's message is precisely what man must remember: everything earthly is vanity (Ecclesiastes 1:2). Heaping up of possessions, seeking after pleasure, buildings, monuments-- all vanity (Ecclesiastes 2:1-11). As it is written,

I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind (Ecclesiastes 1:14).

The Preacher does not attempt to depress; instead, he tries to help us to understand reality. Man apart from God is nothing. Man is insignificant. He will be forgotten.

The career that provides meaning or makes an impact? The name is barely remembered after a few generations.

The statues and memorials of man? If they are not relegated to history's dustbin, they will not be much more than things recited in history class by disinterested teenagers.

Make a name for yourself? More likely than not, your name will just end up as one of many written in genealogical books or as a curiosity in the archives of the local paper.

Man's pretension, when stripped away, is simply vanity and striving after wind. It is empty. It is futile. In the end, it is a lie.

And what a devastating lie it is! How many have reached the depths of despair when the "cruel" reality of their own earthly meaninglessness and insignificance is made manifest? How many live lives of despair because, for whatever reason, they did not reach their "potential"? Then again, how many are discouraged because they reached their "potential" but saw that it was not what it was cracked up to be?

Would they have suffered this devastation had they never been told the lie in the first place? If the urge to make a name for themselves was properly handled, would it have led to such discouragement?

The Preacher does not mean to discourage, but he attempts to get us to understand how we can truly live.

And also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy good in all his labor, is the gift of God. I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor anything taken from it; and God hath done it, that men should fear before him (Ecclesiastes 3:10-14).

Life, in the end, is a gift from God, and God provides many things for us to enjoy. Work is one of them. Everything must gravitate toward serving Him, since He is all that will last (Ecclesiastes 3:11).

Human effort goes nowhere. All the works of man, whether small or great, will be destroyed at the last conflagration (2 Peter 3:9-12). Whatever God does not plant will be rooted up (Matthew 15:13). God extends the hope of eternal life (John 3:16). When man does the work of God to His praise and glory, that work will endure (Matthew 6:19-21). Apart from God, we are meaningless and insignificant. In God we have purpose and meaning, able to take part in the most significant of matters-- God's eternal plan (Ephesians 3:11). Through God, even the works of man that represent vanity can have meaning-- working as for the Master, giving us the opportunity to direct ourselves and others to that which has ultimate significance (cf. Ephesians 6:5-9).

All that which man does to aim high will be frustrated, humbled, and brought low, just as with the Tower of Babel. But when man recognizes his limitations, dispenses with the pretenses, and in all humility clings to God, God will raise him up and give him everlasting life.

We are nothing, and God is everything. When we come to that realization, we do well.

ELDV

LXXXII: The Christian and Violence, II: Violence for Protection?

2009-02-10T21:27:00.001-05:00

Even though human beings, by in large, are not instinctual creatures, there are many practices and habits that are quite intuitive for us. We have many natural impulses and desires that drive us to act as we do.

Some of these intuitive impulses are very normal, natural, and without difficulty: we get hungry or thirsty, and we find and consume food or drink. Humans have sexual desires, and God has established the marital relationship to fulfill that desire (Hebrews 13:4).

Yet not every intuitive impulse and desire is commended by God in the Scriptures. In fact, Scriptures indicate that the Kingdom stands for the opposite of what is intuitive, "normal," or expected. While it may be intuitive for men to show respect and women to show love, God commands men to love their wives and women to respect their husbands (Ephesians 5:33). While it is normal or expected for those who are "great," wealthy, and/or powerful to be highly esteemed and exalted, God says that such will be humbled, and it is the servant, the lowly one, the slave, and the humble who are greatest (Matthew 20:25-28). In the Kingdom, the poor in spirit, the mourning, the meek, the peacemakers, and the pure in heart are blessed (Matthew 5:3-10), which is not what is normally expected.

One such intuitive impulse involves self-preservation and protection of one's "possessions." In any given situation, a human being will do whatever is necessary to preserve one's own existence and/or to preserve the possession or existence of persons or objects dear to them. This intuition is especially built into men: throughout the world, men are expected to provide for the family and protect the family and its goods, even if it leads to violence.

These are very natural impulses. God designed men to work (cf. Genesis 2:15, 3:17-19), and expects them to provide for their households (1 Timothy 5:8). It is very intuitive for the man to do whatever it takes to protect his family, just as it is quite intuitive for a woman to do whatever it takes to protect her children. A image found often in the Old Testament involves a she-bear robbed of her cubs-- she represents fierce anger, hostility, and violence (2 Samuel 17:8, Proverbs 17:12, Hosea 13:8). That same impulse is present in humans!

Yet the New Testament seems to show that God has established a standard for Christians that would stand against this intuition.

"For whosoever would save his life shall lose it: and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake shall find it" (Matthew 16:25).

"Ye have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:'
but I say unto you, resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man would go to law with thee, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Ye have heard that it was said, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy:'
but I say unto you, love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you; that ye may be sons of your Father who is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust. For if ye love them that love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the Gentiles the same? Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matthew 5:38-48).

"But I say unto you that hear, Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you. To him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and from him that taketh away thy cloak withhold not thy coat also. Give to every one that asketh thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. And if ye love them that love you, what thank have ye? for even sinners love those that love them. And if ye do good to them that do good to you, what thank have ye? for even sinners do the same. And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? even sinners lend to sinners, to receive again as much. But love your enemies, and do them good, and lend, never despairing; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be sons of the Most High: for he is kind toward the unthankful and evil. Be ye merciful, even as your Father is merciful" (Luke 6:27-36).

Render to no man evil for evil. Take thought for things honorable in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as in you lieth, be at peace with all men. Avenge not yourselves, beloved, but give place unto the wrath of God: for it is written,
"'Vengeance belongeth unto me; I will recompense,' saith the Lord."
But if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him to drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good (Romans 12:17-21).

These messages are consistent, and they are quite counter-intuitive. It is intuitive to love your friends and hate your enemies; Jesus says to love both. It is natural to resist those who do evil to us; Jesus says to turn the other cheek. When we are wronged, we naturally seek revenge; Paul says to do no such thing, but instead show kindness and mercy.

When we see what Jesus and Paul have to say in these passages, and if we are to accept them at face value, the conclusion is hard to resist: Christians are not to respond with violence in any situation for any reason. If they are wronged, they must show love and kindness. If evil is committed against them, they are not to commit evil in return. If their physical lives are ended, so be it.

These are difficult teachings. Is this really what Jesus and Paul are after?

Some say that Jesus and Paul have persecution and matters of revenge in mind, and thus do not condemn using violence to protect against indiscriminate or non-religious aggression. No one denies that we should not be violent in the face of persecution or in terms of matters of revenge, but on what basis is the distinction being made? Jesus makes no statement in Matthew 5 or Luke 6 that limits enemies to "spiritual" enemies. Jesus has "everyone" in mind. "Any man" (Matthew 5:40). "Whosoever" (Matthew 5:41). Furthermore, Paul's statement to not be overcome with evil, but to overcome evil with good (Romans 12:21), is unqualified. It is certainly true in terms of revenge, but it is just as true if one suffers indiscriminate evil.

Many believe that Jesus commands people to take up swords for self-defense because of what He says in Luke 22:36:

And he said unto them, "But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a wallet; and he that hath none, let him sell his cloak, and buy a sword" (Luke 22:36).

Is Jesus saying here that we must have swords for defense? It is important for us to consider what Jesus says as He continues:

"For I say unto you, that this which is written must be fulfilled in me, 'And he was reckoned with transgressors:' for that which concerneth me hath fulfilment."
And they said, "Lord, behold, here are two swords."
And he said unto them, "It is enough" (Luke 22:37-38).

Jesus attaches the need to have purses, wallets, and a sword with the need to fulfill the prophecy found in Isaiah 53:12. When two swords are brought forth, He says that it is "enough." Are we really to believe that two swords are sufficient for the self-defense of no fewer than thirteen people?

We should also consider what Jesus says when such a sword is used:

And when they that were about him saw what would follow, they said, "Lord, shall we smite with the sword?"
And a certain one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and struck off his right ear.
But Jesus answered and said, "Suffer ye them thus far." And he touched his ear, and healed him (Luke 22:49-51).

Matthew's description of the event is even more profound:

And behold, one of them that were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and smote the servant of the high priest, and struck off his ear.
Then saith Jesus unto him, "Put up again thy sword into its place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Or thinkest thou that I cannot beseech my Father, and he shall even now send me more than twelve legions of angels? How then should the scriptures be fulfilled that thus it must be?" (Matthew 26:51-54).

Peter uses the sword of which Jesus spoke previously and finds himself rebuked by the Lord! Jesus indicates that those who live by the sword die by it. If Jesus really wanted the disciples to have the swords for protection, why were two sufficient for all of them? And why would He not allow them to be used?

The interpretation most consistent with the events described in the Gospels establishes that Jesus' statement about the disciples taking up swords in Luke 22:36 is said so that the prophecy can be fulfilled: the disciples are seen as insurrectionists following Jesus their leader, and thus Jesus is "numbered" with "transgressors."

Many dispute this interpretation and point to Mark 15:27-28:

And with him they crucify two robbers; one on his right hand, and one on his left.
And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, "And he was reckoned with transgressors" (Mark 15:27-28).

This passage would seem to say that Jesus was numbered with the transgressors by being crucified between the thieves. Yet, if one notices in many of the modern versions, Mark 15:28 is italicized or has a note attached to it: the earliest and best manuscripts do not include the verse. It would seem that a later scribe interpolated the verse here from Luke 22:36, and/or he believed that Jesus being between the thieves fulfilled the prophecy. It would seem that Mark did not associate Jesus' crucifixion with the prophecy of Isaiah 53:12.

Even if that possibility were granted, it does not explain how Jesus refers to the prophecy in Luke 22. He clearly associates His charge to the disciples with the fulfillment of this prophecy. If we were to imagine that He wants them to have the swords so that when the prophecy is fulfilled and they are on their own, we still have to come to terms with the idea that two swords would be "enough" for the purpose of protecting the disciples against a band of the Roman army. No other interpretation makes as much sense of the entire passage as the one that we put forth. It is also consistent with Jesus' other commands in other places, along with the way that Peter, Paul, and others will conduct themselves after the death and resurrection of the Lord. We can see, therefore, that Luke 22:36 does not justify anyone having a weapon for self-defense; that is not what Jesus was after at all.

It is also claimed that part of "providing" for a family in 1 Timothy 5:8 involves protection of the family.

But if any provideth not for his own, and specially his own household, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever (1 Timothy 5:8).

As we can see, the text speaks only about "providing," and is placed in the context of discussion of the physical support of widows. There is no basis to assert that "protect" is part of "provide," and it is not a necessary inference in the least, especially if there are Scriptures present that would go against that idea, as quoted above.

It makes as much sense to justify a man using violence to protect his family by saying that he is "providing" as it is to justify a man stealing bread to "provide" for his family. If it is not a justifiable practice to begin with, it cannot be justified here!

One can provide for one's family while one is dying, as Jesus powerfully demonstrates on the cross:

When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, "Woman, behold thy son!"
Then saith he to the disciple, "Behold, thy mother!"
And from that hour the disciple took her unto his own home (John 19:26-27).

If Jesus can thus provide for His mother, even in the midst of dying, we can "provide" without needing to assume that protection by violence is necessarily implied.

Another argument involves Jesus' image in Matthew 12:29 and Luke 11:21-22:

"Or how can one enter into the house of the strong man, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? And then he will spoil his house."

"When the strong man fully armed guardeth his own court, his goods are in peace: but when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him his whole armor wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils."

It is argued that since Jesus uses the image of a strong man guarding his things that this justifies a man engaging in self-defense to protect that which is his.

In context, Jesus is addressing the Pharisees' accusation that He casts out demons by Beelzebub the prince of demons (cf. Luke 11:15). The purpose of the image is to show that while Satan is strong, One can come and bind him and "plunder his house," or release souls from his bondage. Jesus is using an understandable image to convey a spiritual truth.

Just because the image is understandable does not make it a legitimate practice. After all, we would never dare to assert that on the basis of these images it is authorized for Christians to go and plunder strong men! If we recognize that the image would not authorize that action, we must understand that on the basis of this passage by itself, one cannot justify self-defense or defense of goods. It is being used as a means to understand a greater spiritual truth, and not a legitimization of the practice itself.

It is interesting to note that there are no commands in the New Testament for anyone to inflict violence on others for any reason. There are no examples of Christians engaging in violence, either in aggression or for protection. In fact, there are plenty of examples to the contrary. Jesus gave Himself up to the authorities and experienced terrible suffering at their hands, and yet He did not resist them (Isaiah 53, Matthew 26-27). Stephen stood before the Sanhedrin, and when they stoned him, he did not do anything to protect himself (Acts 7). Paul suffered constant violence at the hands of unbelieving Jews and Gentile authorities, and yet there is no evidence that he ever hit anyone back or attempted to protect himself or others with violence (Acts 9-28, 2 Corinthians 11:24-33).

While it is understandable that the intuition to protect and defend, even with violence, is strong, the New Testament speaks strongly and counter-intuitively: be wronged. Do not wrong in return. Do not commit violence because violence is committed against you. Do not be overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

If we believe that an adversary hurting us would be an evil thing, if we likewise hurt them, are we not ourselves doing an evil thing? If we are doing the very thing to them that they would do to us, how are we overcoming evil with good (Romans 12:21)?

Many seek to point out extreme circumstances and appeal to the heartstrings. It is understandable and natural to do so, but we must go on what the Scriptures teach. How many times are we going to experience attackers coming in to violate us, possibly kill us, and take our things? It is not very likely at all!

But even if we found ourselves in such a terrible circumstance, what is the best course of action? What are we holding onto so tenaciously that we are willing to risk sinning to injure or kill someone else? Why not be defrauded? Why not be wronged? Why not obtain the commendation that comes from suffering unjustly while doing good (1 Peter 2:19-20) if that is what the situation would require?

No one will say that this is easy. But is it worth sinning to protect ourselves or others? That is the question with which we must wrestle.

Something must also be said about the underlying assumption that pervades much of these types of discussion: in order to protect, we must use violent means. On what basis does this assumption exist? Experience? The view that if people intend to use force against us, then the only thing that will get them to not do so is to use force against them?

The Scriptures provide examples where people were able to avoid suffering violence through persuasion or other non-violent means. When Paul was facing scourging at the hands of the Romans, he informed them of his citizenship, and they did not scourge him (Acts 22:25-29). When Paul was informed of a plot on his life, the information was passed on to the Roman authority who safely transported him out of danger (Acts 23:12-31; it is also no justification to suppose that since the Roman soldiers might have used force to defend him if necessary, that such justifies self-defense-- far too many inferences and assumptions concerning which the Scriptures say nothing).

There are ways, therefore, to avoid danger without using violence. In this circumstance, everyone wins: violence is not committed, and one's person or materials are safe. We maintain our peace with all men, and return good for intended evil (Romans 12:18-21).

These are difficult things to consider. It is very natural and intuitive to seek to preserve one's own existence, one's possessions, and to protect the ones we love. Yet the Scriptures present many things that are counter-intuitive. There are many times when we are told to take a higher way, a way that is not as easy, and requires us to put down our natural inclinations (cf. Colossians 3:1-2). It was difficult for Jesus to suffer unjustly. It was no doubt difficult for Stephen, Peter, and Paul to suffer unjustly also. But they did it because they had a higher calling and were to follow a higher path, and their purpose was to glorify their Lord who died for them. It is hard to glorify the Lord by doing the very types of acts that led to His death. The way of Jesus is not the way of violence, but the way of love, mercy, and compassion. To follow that way may lead to being defrauded. It may lead to being injured. It may even lead to death for no seemingly good reason.

But we must remember what our Lord told us, no matter how difficult it may be.

"He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that doth not take his cross and follow after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it; and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it" (Matthew 10:37-39).

Again-- these are difficult things. I encourage you to consider them and study the Scriptures. I encourage you to consider where using violence for self-protection, the protection of others, or protection of property is authorized in Scripture with a positive commendation by command or example. I encourage you to consider Jesus' statements in Matthew 5 and Luke 6, and see whether they only refer to "spiritual" matters or if there is no such limitation. Consider the full meaning of Matthew 26:52: those who live by the sword also die by it. That is not the way of Christ! No one says that this is easy, but in the end, let us be faithful servants of God!

LXXXI: The Christian and Violence, I: Christians, the Government, and Military Participation

2009-01-30T19:51:00.002-05:00

One significant “gray area” of the faith involves Christians and military participation. For generations, brethren have disputed whether Christians can or should serve in the military of a government. The dispute seems to always come to a head whenever significant military participation is demanded by the country, from the Mexican War until now.

The disputation has seen great fervor because of great passion for the Kingdom of God and for nations, particularly the United States of America. And yet the Scriptures do not explicitly affirm nor condemn Christian participation in the military. Each person must search the Scriptures and be fully convinced in his or her own mind (Acts 17:11, Romans 14:5, 23). Nevertheless, when the whole of God’s new covenant message is considered, I believe that it poses significant difficulties for participation in the military, especially in any role that involves the taking of life.

Arguments regarding this issue have been formulated and considered for well over one hundred years. In time we will consider many of them; there has been little innovation in these arguments since the days of the Civil War. One feature that has often been lacking in such discussions and disputations involves a Kingdom perspective.

In terms of the Kingdom of God, there is general agreement that God’s purposes cannot be accomplished through military action. Jesus establishes that His Kingdom is not of this world, and the proof of such is that His disciples were not fighting (John 18:36). Paul makes it clear that our conflict is not with flesh and blood, but with the spiritual forces of darkness (Ephesians 6:12). God has never sanctioned conversion at the edge of a sword or the point of a gun.

Yet there is much more to a Kingdom perspective. A Kingdom perspective looks at the world through the eyes of the Body of Christ, so to speak (cf. Ephesians 5:22-33). Its worldview is the view of its Savior (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:1, 1 John 2:6).

The Kingdom perspective transcends any individual nation’s view. Jesus’ Kingdom broke in pieces and consumed the earthly kingdoms of His day, and it is to remain forever (Daniel 2:44). Its membership is not limited to any particular nation-state; anyone can become a member, and there are members of the Kingdom who live in many different nations (Galatians 3:28). Furthermore, the advancement of the Kingdom and God’s purposes for the Kingdom represent the most pressing priority for every constituent member (Matthew 6:33). Wherever there might be a conflict between God’s purposes for His Kingdom and a nation-state’s purpose for its promotion and advancement, the Christian must choose God over men (cf. Acts 5:29).
We also must give consideration to nation-states and how they function. It has been noted that nation-states rely on the selfless devotion of its citizens in order to achieve its rather selfish purposes. Every nation-state attempts to instill fervent devotion to its doctrines and existence into its citizens. When these principles are combined, we can perceive that nation-states have a vested interest in inflaming and preserving fervent nationalism. Devotion to the nation-state and its purposes must be strong if the state will survive and its purposes achieved. Some nation-states, like Rome, were quite explicit in divinizing the state and its leader: “Roma” was served as a god in many places, and the Emperor cult was legendary. Many other nation-states have been less explicit in this type of idolatry, yet the devotion they demand is idolatrous or easily leads to idolatry.

Ever since God broke off the branches of unfaithful Israel (cf. Romans 11), He has not considered any given nation-state His peculiar possession. The establishment of Christ’s Kingdom as transcending any individual nation-state precludes any such selection. Many nations have attempted to claim God’s elect status, and yet, in truth, God has not selected any such nation.

We can hopefully see that God calls all believers to devote themselves to the Kingdom of Christ and its advancement, and that Kingdom transcends any individual nation-state and its affairs. Meanwhile, nation-states seek the type of devotion God demands from His believers from its citizens for its own purposes to achieve its own ends.

It should not come as a surprise, therefore, that when God does speak regarding nation-states in the New Testament, He shows indifference or hostility. The Christian’s obligations to the government are enumerated in Romans 13:1-7, 1 Timothy 2:1-3, and 1 Peter 2:13-17: obey the laws of the land. Pay taxes. Respect authority. Pray for all people, especially government authorities, so that Christians can maintain peace and tranquility. When a governmental power turns and persecutes the Kingdom, God shows His hostility; consider John’s presentation of God’s wrath against Rome in Revelation 13-19.

None of these passages presuppose that Christians are intimately involved in the affairs of government. In fact, they all seem to show indifference to the affairs of governance—the government is the “other,” and we as Christians must live peaceably and lawfully so as to not cause it offense while we pursue the purposes of the Kingdom (cf. Philippians 3:21). When government stands against Christians, Christians do not fight back—that is left to God (Romans 12:19, Revelation 13-19).

Yes, it is true that Paul took advantage of the privileges of his Roman citizenship (cf. Acts 16:37-39, Acts 22:23-29). Yet we see that he uses this privilege not for political gain or to involve himself in Roman affairs, but to allow him to promote the Gospel. We are also told that there are believers among Caesar’s household (Philippians 4:22); we know nothing else about them, and they were likely slaves who attended to the needs of the emperor.

We see no imperative, therefore, that Christians are to serve in the military of a nation-state or any imperative to tend to the affairs of nation-states. The New Testament seems to show indifference to such nation-states, and presupposes that believers of Jesus Christ are more focused on His Kingdom and His purposes than what happens to the authority of the countries in which they live (Matthew 10:37-39, Matthew 28:18-20, 1 Timothy 2:4).

Can Christians participate in functions of government? Some Christians did participate in governmental functions (Cornelius, Manaen, servants of Caesar; cf. Acts 10, Acts 13:1, Philippians 4:22). It is not inherently sinful, therefore, for Christians to participate in governmental functions. Yet, as in all things, we must take care to serve God over men. If performing a function of government would compromise the faith, we must not perform that function of government.

Military participation provides many opportunities for compromising the faith.

First, there is the oath. To participate in the military, one must swear an oath of devotion to the nation-state and its ideals. In the Roman world, this oath, called the sacramentum, invoked pagan deities. The American oath does no such thing, but it can still lead to conflicts between what God says and what the government demands.

As it is written,

But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by the heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any other oath: but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay; that ye fall not under judgment (James 5:12).

The Lord makes a similar comment in Matthew 5:37. There is great concern in being bound by an oath to serve the purposes of any nation-state; in so doing, you oblige yourself to follow the orders of your superiors and to accomplish their initiatives, regardless of the moral legitimacy thereof. If the nation fights an imperialist war or defensive war, you have obliged yourself to fight. If asked to perform a task that conflicts with God’s will, you compromise one of your obligations whatever you do: you either fulfill your oath and violate God’s will, or you fulfill your commitment to God and violate your oath. This is precisely the reason that Jesus would not have us swear oaths: in so doing, we set up a master that may be at variance with our Lord.

There is also the matter of taking life. Jesus commands His followers to love their enemies, to pray for those who would abuse them, to turn the other cheek when wronged (Matthew 5:38-47, Luke 6:27-36). Paul advises Christians to not take vengeance and to not be overtaken by evil, but return good for evil (Romans 12:19-21).

We all recognize and confess the legitimacy of these passages in terms of our personal lives and our spiritual conflicts. Yet many seek to make exception for the purposes of government and “institutional” conflicts.

On what basis can these exceptions be granted? If the Christian is to love his enemy in his personal life, on what basis can anyone argue that he is not to love the enemy of the nation-state in which he lives? If we recognize that the taking of life is “evil” in our personal lives, what makes it less evil when a government commands it?

The whole argument presupposes some kind of distinction between “sacred” and “secular,” and yet no proof or evidence is offered for this distinction. The New Testament does not presuppose any such distinction. The Christian is called to serve God and to abide by His principles in “sacred” arenas and “personal” arenas. He or she is to be a living sacrifice (Romans 12:1). He or she is to have no greater loyalty (Matthew 10:37-39). In fact, he or she is to pattern their lives according to Jesus Christ, and allow their relationship with God to inform the rest of their activities (Galatians 2:20; cf. Ephesians 5:22-6:9). If the taking of life is abhorrent to God in one’s personal life, it is abhorrent to God in any sphere of life.

After all, what would happen if two nation-states fought a war, and each nation-state had Christians within it? What if Christians signed up for military service on each side, took weapons, and fought against their brethren? This is no abstraction—it happened for certain during the American Civil War, and it has doubtless happened in other conflicts. We have servants of God taking up arms and killing fellow servants of God in the name of some nation-state. Can this really be acceptable to God? On what basis can this be defended from the New Testament, since the New Testament makes it abundantly clear that God’s purposes for His Kingdom are to be tantamount in our lives (Matthew 6:33)?

If we recognize the dilemma when speaking about fellow Christians, how is it any different if the Christian is fighting non-Christians? God is no respecter of persons (Romans 2:11). He desires all men to come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved (1 Timothy 2:4). You cannot lead them to the truth while killing them!

God makes it clear that the taking of life is wrong. God’s purposes for the Kingdom are not advanced on any human battlefield. Where there is war there must be sin somewhere; the Kingdom of God stands against sin.

Many protestations abound. What of John the Baptist and his advice to soldiers in Luke 3:14? We first must recognize that John stands as the last representative of the old covenant, as Jesus Himself confessed (Matthew 11:11-13). Furthermore, his concerns only speak of extortion. If we assume that the soldiers are Roman soldiers, why would he only speak to them regarding extortion? Many believe that since he passes over the matter of soldiers killing in silence he shows that God permits it. But silence is silence—it does not inherently permit or condemn. It could be just as easily advanced that the Roman legion around the Jordan River in 27 CE served more as police than soldiers, and John passes over it in silence because they are not engaged in killing at the time. Since we have nothing else but what John says here, any firm conclusions are entirely speculative and assumptive.

What about Cornelius and the positive example of other centurions (cf. Matthew 8:5-13, Acts 10)? They are commended for understanding authority, and Cornelius is marked by his generosity and faithfulness to the God of Israel. They are never commended for taking life or for execution of military procedures. As with the above, they most likely served more as policemen than true soldiers during this time.

Examples abound in the second century and beyond of soldiers converting to Christianity and deserting the military; many such persons died for their faith. We do not know what happened with the centurions and with Cornelius. But we do know that if Cornelius were instructed to go and persecute Christians, he would refuse. He would not be party to executing faithful believers in Jesus Christ. If we all would agree to that, why would we believe that he would act any differently if he were called upon to kill Jews? Parthians? In the New Testament, whom has God singled out for death on earth while others are to live? We all deserve death for our sins (Romans 5). Yet Jesus died on the cross so that anyone who would believe could be freed from their sin (Romans 5, 1 Timothy 2:4). Who are we to deem some unworthy of life because they live in a different nation-state against whom our nation-state fights?

The fact that some who were in the military heard God’s call and became obedient servants of Jesus Christ does not inherently justify or condemn military participation. All things must be judged by what God has revealed in the New Testament (1 John 4:1, 2 Timothy 3:16-17).

What about a draft? According to Romans 13:1-7, we ought to obey the government. If the government calls for a draft, the Christian has the opportunity to be considered as a conscientious objector. Since any military has plenty of tasks that do not involve the taking of life, in the circumstance of the draft, it is in the best interest of all parties involved if the Christian serve in such non-violent capacities. The Christian then does not need to compromise his belief about the value of life, and the government need not be concerned about the commitment of the troops on the front lines.

I would ask everyone to consider what has been written and what the New Testament says—and does not say—in regards to Christians, the government, and military participation. Judge for yourself and be fully convinced in your own mind (Romans 14:5). How can the Christian with the obligation to promote the Kingdom of God to all men reconcile that supreme calling with participation in the military affairs of one particular nation-state?

Then saith Jesus unto him, “Put up again thy sword into its place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword” (Matthew 26:52).

ELDV

LXXX: The Role and Work of the Holy Spirit, III: Functions of the Spirit

2009-01-13T00:24:00.003-05:00

We have been considering what the Scriptures reveal about the role and work of the Holy Spirit. In previous editions we saw how God continues to give the gift of the Holy Spirit to believers, and some of the contours of how that gift is manifested. We also considered one of the main roles of the Spirit—His work of revealing God’s message to mankind, and how it is that the Spirit is still able to assist believers in their understanding of that which was previously revealed.

It remains for us to consider other functions of the Spirit as listed in the Bible beyond that of revealing God’s message. Some believe that the work of revealing God’s will is all that the Spirit does. Nevertheless, let us consider what the Scriptures have to say.

The Spirit as Intercessor. As it is written:

And in like manner the Spirit also helpeth our infirmity: for we know not how to pray as we ought; but the Spirit himself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered; and he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God (Romans 8:26-27).

If we accept the surface meaning of the passage, it is clear that one of the functions of the Spirit is to intercede for Christians, petitioning God on their behalf.

Yet this interpretation is often criticized. Some would reject the idea that the Holy Spirit is under consideration in this passage, believing that “the Spirit” is the spirit of each person. This view does not make good sense of the passage: where do we get the idea from Scripture that our spirit has a mind independent of our own minds? If our spirit is part of us, how can “the Spirit” help “us” in our weaknesses? Do we believe that our own individual spirits have greater knowledge than ourselves? How can our individual spirits be considered a singular “he” that makes intercession “for the saints”? This line of reasoning ends up causing more difficulties than it is worth.

Others would cast doubt on the Spirit’s role in intercession, claiming that only Christ can intercede for Christians. Yet the Scriptures make it plain that this is not the case. Yes, Jesus is our only Mediator (1 Timothy 2:5), but mediation and intercession are not the same things. This is made abundantly clear from 1 Timothy 2:1-5, where Paul exhorts believers to make “intercessions” for all men while confessing that Jesus is our one Mediator. Furthermore, both Christ and the Spirit are described in the Scriptures as parakletos, which means “advocate, comforter, intercessor” (Thayer’s; cf. 1 John 2:1, John 14:16).

The best sense of this passage is to accept it at face value: the Holy Spirit is active as an intercessor in prayer on behalf of Christians. What a comforting thought—the Spirit prays on our behalf for things that we may need that we do not even recognize!

The Spirit and Sanctification. As it is written,

But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, for that God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth (2 Thessalonians 2:13).

According to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied (1 Peter 1:2).

From these passages it seems evident that the Holy Spirit has a role in the sanctification of the believer.

The word sanctification is the Greek hagiasmos, meaning “consecration, purification” (Thayer’s)—the idea of being made holy, being separated out. It is the process by which a Christian is taken from sin and death and conformed to the image of the Son. Paul speaks toward the Spirit’s role in this process in Titus 3:4-6:

But when the kindness of God our Saviour, and his love toward man, appeared, not by works done in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour.

Paul says that we are saved through the “washing of regeneration” in baptism, which Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 12:13 as being “in one Spirit,” and the “renewing of the Holy Spirit.”

We have confirmation of this idea in Romans 8:1-11, where Paul establishes that those who are redeemed in Christ are those who set their minds on the Spirit and who “have” the Spirit “dwelling in” them. In Galatians 5:17-24, we must “walk by the Spirit” and manifest His fruit.

So how does the “sanctification of the Spirit” work? Its precise nature is not revealed. We can be sure that the Spirit is not going to work on the unwilling—the believer must strive toward holiness and godliness, striving to walk by the Spirit and to manifest His fruit. It is certainly feasible that the Spirit might assist the believer in doing so. It cannot be ruled out.

The Spirit’s role in sanctification is sufficiently significant to become part of the rather “Trinitarian” introduction of Peter’s letter: we are foreknown to God to obedience and cleansing in Jesus Christ in the sanctification of the Spirit. When we consider Romans 8:1-11 in connection with this, it would seem that the believer’s consecration to God is made evident by the reception of the Spirit: by this he is made separate from the unbelievers who have no such blessing. We are set apart by having the Spirit and walking by the Spirit. We can see, therefore, that the Spirit has a significant role in our sanctification.

The Scriptures describe many features of the Spirit that involve His presence with the believer and connection with God, but these seem to represent the actual functions of the Spirit: agent of God’s gifts to believers, revelation, intercession, and sanctification. As we can see, there is no good basis upon which we can simply identify the Spirit with the Word; the Word, preeminently, is Christ the Son (John 1:1, 14), and while the Spirit reveals the Word, the Spirit also intercedes and works in sanctification.

Quench not the Spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:19).

The role and work of the Holy Spirit involve matters of great contention and dispute, and it is important for us to be able to set aside our prejudices and our post-Enlightenment rationalist worldviews and attempt to understand what the Scriptures reveal. We must not be afraid that we will appear too much like denominationalists, or too little like them—our concern must be that we honestly and accurately represent what God has said regarding the Spirit. We must not quench the Spirit, but appreciate Him and the work which He has accomplished and which He continues to accomplish. Let us give due consideration to the role and work of the Holy Spirit in our lives, and give praise and glory to the God who provides Him to His children!

ELDV

LXXIX: The Role and Work of the Holy Spirit, II: The Spirit and His Revelation

2009-01-05T20:58:00.001-05:00

Let us continue our analysis of the role and work of the Holy Spirit. We recognize that since the Spirit represents one of the Persons of the Godhead, much is unknowable about Him. Nevertheless, we can strive to understand what can be understood through the revelation He has provided us.

Previously we considered the relationship of the Holy Spirit and the believer. Let us continue by considering the role of the Spirit in the revelation of God’s will.

Preliminary Consideration: The Word of God

Before we begin considering the Spirit and God’s revelation, we must make clear what has often been confused. We read constantly about the “word of God,” and normally equate that with God’s revelation. Since the Spirit is the one responsible for revealing God’s message to mankind, many have equated the role of the Spirit with that of the Word.

But the Word of God is not, pre-eminently, the book revealed by the Spirit. John 1 is quite clear about the Word of God: He is with God and is God (John 1:1), all things were made through Him (John 1:3), and He became flesh and dwelt among us as Jesus the Christ (John 1:14). Therefore, when God said, “’let there be light’, and there was light” (Genesis 1:3), that is the Word of God coming forth from the Father and creating. Later on, the Spirit reveals the information regarding the Word to inspired authors, which becomes the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:21).

Therefore, the word is really about the Word. The Scriptures are there to provide the contours of the Word of God so that we can understand about God and His work, but the Bible is thus not an end to itself: instead, it points to the substance of what is revealed, to the Word of God and His interaction with men (John 1:1-14, 1 Corinthians 10:1-5), and how one can “abide” in the Word (cf. 1 John). It points you to faith in Jesus Christ; it is up to us to have that faith (Hebrews 11:6).

The Spirit and His Revelation

While Jesus is the Word personified (John 1:1-14), Jesus is neither a book nor a letter. Instead, when God communicated to mankind through various persons, He did so through the Holy Spirit:

For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21).

We see here the process: men did not prophesy by their own will, but God “moved” them by the Holy Spirit to speak. Thus we have the common phrase in the Old Testament, “the word of the LORD that came to x prophet.” The communication is spoken by the prophet or person according to their own language yet the substance is guided by the Spirit for God’s ends.

In this way countless persons have spoken God’s will, from prophets like Isaiah and Jeremiah to kings like David and even people like Caiaphas (cf. John 11:49-51)! For many generations, such is the only way that people would hear a message from God!

But there were always people who pretended to speak a word from God, but God did not inspire them to do so. Such is why God intended for all prophets to be tested: they were truly from God if their message came true (Deuteronomy 18:19-22).

Meanwhile, many of the inspired statements uttered by those prophets were collected and written down. God was also inspiring other people through the Spirit to write history and prophecies that would eventually make up the Scriptures, as is revealed in 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.

As the Kingdom of God was inaugurated through Jesus Christ, He promised His disciples that the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, would be given to them so that they could teach the people regarding the new covenant (Matthew 18:18, John 14:16-17, John 15:26-27, John 16:12-14, Acts 1:8). This was powerfully fulfilled on the day of Pentecost when the Spirit was poured out on the disciples, and they spoke in tongues and testified regarding Jesus (Acts 2). Through the laying on of hands, the Apostles could provide similar abilities to those who believed (Acts 8:14-17, Acts 19:1-6). It was through these means that the Christians of the period of the New Testament spoke regarding Jesus and encouraged each other.

It was also through these means that God inspired the creation of the New Testament, written by the Apostles and their associates by the Spirit’s direction (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Such was the situation in the first century. After this period, there is a marked difference in the attitude of Christians toward their own abilities and that which came before them. They no longer testified by their own authority; they preached and spoke in the name of what the Apostles and others had revealed in the New Testament. No one was claiming the same prerogatives of inspired revelation. There were clear distinctions between what came before and what existed then.

Such was predicted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:8-10:

Love never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall be done away; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall be done away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; but when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away.

For the purposes of the new covenant, God’s revelation was complete. The Spirit was not going to be revealing any new information. The focus of the Christian was now to understand what God had previously revealed through the Holy Spirit and apply it to his life.

But does the work of the Holy Spirit in terms of His revelation end with the end of the first century and the completion of the New Testament?

Based upon what Paul reveals in 1 Corinthians 2:10-16, it would seem that the Spirit does still have a role in assisting the believer in understanding that which has already been revealed:

But unto us God revealed them through the Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For who among men knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of the man, which is in him? Even so the things of God none knoweth, save the Spirit of God. But we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God; that we might know the things that were freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth; combining spiritual things with spiritual words. Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, and he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he should instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Many might say that Paul is writing to a first century audience, and because the Spirit is not providing the gifts of speaking in tongues, prophecy, and knowledge in 1 Corinthians 13:8-10, this passage is not applicable today.

This view, however, is problematic. Yes, it is true that “knowledge” is listed in 1 Corinthians 13:8-10, but this by no means can mean the abolition of all knowledge. We still have the repository of that which has been previously revealed, and God would certainly still have us to know of it (2 Timothy 2:15, 3:16-17). 1 Corinthians 13:8-10, therefore, indicates that the Spirit is not providing new knowledge. This is not a hindrance to the Spirit helping the Christian understand that which already has been revealed.

Many of the promises enumerated in 1 Corinthians 2:10-16 still apply today. Christians receive the gift of the Holy Spirit today (Acts 2:38-39). As we have seen previously, Christians still receive “spiritual gifts” from God through the agency of the Spirit, as seen in Romans 12:3-8, 1 Corinthians 12:12-28, Galatians 5:17-24, and 1 Peter 4:10-11. And, from 1 Corinthians 2:12, we see that by having the Spirit, we may understand the things God seeks to reveal to us in His word.

Some may protest and say that since God has revealed all things to us in the Bible, the Spirit does not actively assist in understanding the Bible. Yet this view would seem to get Paul’s logic backwards. Paul says that by having the Spirit we understand God’s revelation, not that we understand God’s revelation because of what the Spirit did.

We again return to the issue we spoke of beforehand. We recognize that it is sheer folly and presumptuousness to say that everything we have we have gained by our own power and strength. We saw previously how it would be sheer arrogance to say that we, by our own power alone, have inculcated all the character attributes that God would have us demonstrate. Is it not the same to say that we have understood the Bible based entirely on our own intelligence, insight, and understanding?

Some may say that the Bible is so straightforward that we do not need any help in understanding its message: it is plain as day, and that is sufficient. If it were so straightforward, why is it that many sincere people entirely disagree on how to interpret it in many instances? Yes, I recognize that many times it is based in one’s own lust and to justify oneself, and there are times when people have distorted perspectives based on deceptive teachings, but that does not answer every disagreement that has ever existed. As Paul himself said, God’s message is not comprehensible to those with carnal mindsets—to have the mind of Christ you have to have the Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:10-16). To have spiritual understanding, it must be guided by the Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:10-16, Galatians 5:17-24)!

Human beings, according to their own designs, are led into all kinds of error (cf. Jeremiah 10:23). Why, then, would we presume that we understand God’s revelation entirely based upon our own insight, wisdom, and understanding?

Objections likely abound. If the Spirit does guide people in some way, why do so many people disagree? To this we must recognize that the Spirit is not accountable to us, and that the Spirit is working according to the will of God. After all, Paul says that God’s truths must be discerned spiritually (1 Corinthians 2:10-16), and one must have the Spirit in order to be led by Him (Galatians 5:17-24, Romans 8:1-10). Perhaps those who disagree either do not have the Spirit or do not heed His voice. The Spirit, after all, will not coerce someone to believe anything they refuse to accept.

Perhaps the biggest objection and concern involves how “Spirit guidance” is abused among denominationalists. We must recognize that truth is truth, and if truth is abused, that does not mean that in our reactions we should forsake truth. It is true that the idea of the Spirit guiding the believer is abused among many in denominations. Many will make statements about how “God spoke to them” and “God said this to me” and “the Spirit told me this.” Did God speak to them? Only He would know.

Yet, in the New Testament, we see how the Spirit works, and the Spirit does not work in this way. The New Testament authors do not make a statement and say that it is true because “the Spirit says so.” Such a claim is not falsifiable and not inherently persuasive. Instead, in Acts 2, Peter stands up and proclaims Jesus as the Christ by his own personal testimony to the resurrection, the common knowledge of the works of Jesus Christ, and by demonstrating from the Scriptures how it was so. He even quotes Joel to demonstrate why it is that they are filled with the Spirit! In Acts 13, Paul stands up in a synagogue and proclaims Jesus as the Christ through the Old Testament Scriptures. In Acts 17, Paul stands up before Athenians and uses their own literature to attest to the One True God. Throughout the letters of Paul, Peter, James, and others, truth is spoken forth freely with proofs and demonstrations. “Do this because the Spirit says so” is not seen.

This is because God’s truth is open for examination. God’s truth stands on its own merit, and does not depend on subjective appeals. The Spirit would not all of a sudden change and act differently in the modern era.

Therefore, anyone who would say that a particular claim is true “because the Spirit says so” represents a red flag that something is seriously wrong. If the Spirit is aiding Christians in understanding that which He previously revealed, He will show that truth in ways that can be sensibly and persuasively proven on the basis of the text itself, just as He did through the Apostles and others so long ago. The Spirit will not require mentioning.

It should also go without saying that the Spirit is not going to compel us to understand without us engaging in the pursuit of God’s truth. Just as the fruit of the Spirit is not manifested solely by the Spirit’s work, but by the believer striving to obey God and thus assisted by the Spirit, so the Spirit, if He is going to assist in our understanding, will only do so based upon our study and deliberation on His revelation (Deuteronomy 6, 2 Timothy 2:15). The description of the Holy Spirit as the Comforter, or Helper (parakletos, John 14:26), is apt, and on what basis can we say that He still does not provide comfort and help to believers today?

Believers should always have a good dose of humility in regards to their lives and how God works with them. On the one hand, if God indeed is working in our lives, or if we are gaining understanding by the Spirit, we should glorify Him for it. On the other hand, we do not know exactly how God operates, and we ought not presume that we understand a given truth because of the Spirit or that certain events that took place definitively did so by God’s hand. We do not know exactly how God is operating today—but we firmly believe that He still does work in our lives.

We ought to thank God that He has revealed to us His will through the Scriptures by the agency of the Spirit. We also should be open to the possibility that our understanding is not based merely on our own knowledge and effort but might be assisted by the Spirit. This ought not become a prop for an argument, and it should not provide an opportunity for an inflated head in the belief that a given idea “must be right” because we are “sure” that it came from the Holy Spirit. We must always “test the spirits” (1 John 4:1), to see if what we are believing is from God, from our own lusts, or from the evil one. The humble servant of God (Luke 17:7-10), diligently striving to be approved (2 Timothy 2:15), in the midst of study of and devotion to the Scriptures, might just have an idea pop in his or her head that makes good sense of the passage. Is it possible that said idea just bubbled forth from their unconscious? Of course. Yet why is it impossible for the Spirit to be the one behind that thought? According to 1 Corinthians 2:10-16, it is not impossible in the least. It is, in fact, part of the work of the Spirit in the life of the believer.

It is quite inconsistent, and perhaps even blasphemous, for us to recognize our dependence on God for our position in life but to deny that He has any active role in how we understand His revelation to mankind. Let us at least be open to the idea that we can be guided by the Spirit to a better understanding of that which He has revealed.

ELDV

LXXVIII: The Silencing of God: The Dismantling of America’s Christian Tradition, IV: The Apocalyptic Scenario

2008-12-11T16:33:00.002-05:00

We have been considering a DVD produced by World Video Bible School featuring Dave Miller of Apologetics Press entitled The Silencing of God: The Dismantling of America’s Christian Tradition. We have, so far, considered the presuppositions of the material and have found them lacking. It presupposes that America was a “Christian nation” and that we must work, especially by political means, to “restore” America’s “Christian heritage.” Yet we have seen from the Scriptures that we must work to promote God’s Kingdom, and that God’s Kingdom cannot be limited to any individual nation-state. Furthermore, we have seen that, in truth, America has never been nor will ever be a “Christian nation.”

Yet, as we have noted before, the material in the DVD is designed, at least in part, to promote fear of secular authorities and secular organizations. The DVD speaks of “America’s Trilogy of Spiritual Terror,” presuming that what Hollywood, liberal politicians, and liberal secular universities seek ought to strike fear in the hearts of those who have a spiritual worldview. There ought to be fear also over what God will do to America because of abortion and homosexuality (and involving no other issues). The material in the DVD intentionally preys upon Christians’ fears and other emotions in an attempt to galvanize them to some response.

Let us consider, for just a moment, a truly apocalyptic scenario, at least in “Christian Americanist” terms: the complete and utter success of this “liberal agenda” (if it even really exists in truth). Let us fast forward to a time when “godless secularism” has succeeded. At this time, it is now illegal to practice Christianity. Those found practicing Christianity are gathered up, imprisoned, tortured, and executed for show. It is illegal to own a Bible or to speak against socially acceptable practices like abortion, adultery, homosexuality, greed, and such like.

This sounds utterly tragic! Would it be the death of the church? Would the name of Christ no longer be heard on the lips of men?

It is almost certain that the number of people who would at least profess Jesus Christ as Lord would diminish significantly. A majority of people who were inconsistent Christians before are no longer present. Perhaps even some avid churchgoers are not seen among Christian assemblies.

On the other hand, churches are then reduced to the core group of dedicated, devoted disciples of Christ. Furthermore, some who used to be “on the fence” finally counted the cost and were willing to more strongly commit to Jesus. Strangely, some men who otherwise were never seen among Christian assemblies are now present; the danger of belief, and the strong example of their wives, led to their conversions (cf. 1 Peter 3:1).

While it would seem that this extreme loss of freedom and growth of persecution would hurt the church, the church is actually flowering. Many of the divisions of past days have been healed, and Christians are now coming together as one: without church buildings, diminished resources, and concern regarding a greater foe, many have put aside whatever differences existed among them to work together to promote the Kingdom. And their witness is strengthened: people are seeing that Christianity is something worth dying for, and their interest has become stronger. Many more commit to following Jesus, fully cognizant that it may lead to their own humiliation and death.

So, in the face of the terrible, tyrannical, persecuting foe, Christianity is in fact stronger than ever. To many, this may seem presumptuous, even blasphemous. Yet it is no such thing—it is, in fact, a description of the church as it began!

We must remember that the early church existed in the midst of the Roman Empire. For the first 250 years of the church’s existence, the Roman Empire’s attitude toward it was at best indifferent and at worst highly antagonistic. In the 60s, Nero used Christians as human torches to light Rome in the night. By the second century, Christians were often food for lions and bears, to the delight of the Roman crowd. In the late third century, copies of the Bible were confiscated and burned.

And yet the church did not die—it blossomed. As Tertullian said, “the blood of the martyrs is seed.” Christians saw quite sharply what was important and what was not, and there was little opportunity for being noncommittal, lukewarm, or complacent. Like soldiers in the trenches, the bond among Christians was tightened as they opposed and withstood the fires of persecution. Thessalonica was a great example of this—consider what they experienced in Acts 17:1-9, and then see Paul’s commendations in 1 Thessalonians 1 and 4. They loved one another because they learned the value of the spiritual family through suffering!

Does this mean that the persecution was easy to experience? Absolutely not. Does this mean that we should pray for the government to oppose Christianity? By no means—the Bible does not tell us to do so. But what it does teach us is that come what may, we must still follow Christ.

“And be not afraid of them that kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28).

It is easy to forget about our real foe and confuse those whom he has deceived with him himself. Fellow human beings are not our real foe—Satan is (Ephesians 6:10-18). Our fellow human beings are just acting on the basis of the one whom they are following, and it is quite likely that most are afraid of God in some way or another.

Therefore, we are commanded by our Lord and Savior to have no fear of any earthly authority. The worst thing that any person or government could do to us is humiliate us, harass us, beat us, and kill us. To a human without God, there is nothing worse. But to the Christian whose trust is in the Lord, it is “slight momentary affliction” in comparison to eternity (cf. 2 Corinthians 4:17). We know that it is far worse to suffer at the hands of God than it is to suffer at the hands of man. But yet we are so easily manipulated into fearing the designs of men.

I put forth this exercise to demonstrate that there is no reason to be afraid—even if America turns hostile to Christianity, the Lord’s Kingdom will remain, and might even grow stronger. Will it mean that America might face the wrath of God in ways that Jerusalem or Rome did in days of old? Quite possibly, and even rather likely. But to whom is our ultimate loyalty? What are we really trying to preserve?

America is strong on “freedom.” Americans cherish freedom like nothing else. Prayers are offered in churches around the country that we may be able to maintain our “freedom.” Many, no doubt, see no problem with such a focus on freedom, and shudder at the idea that they could ever lose it.

But it must be remembered that freedom in the New Testament is not license. Freedom in the New Testament is freedom from sin and death—to instead subject oneself to God (cf. Romans 6, 8:1-10). We are “free” only in respect to sin, death, and the Law of Moses. Otherwise, we are constrained by our expected service to God (cf. Luke 17:7-10). There is truth to the old Stoic concept that we are all slaves. Paul says the same thing in Romans 6: you are a slave of righteousness or a slave of sin. Your only “freedom” is your choice of which master you serve.

This idea might be disconcerting to Americans, but such is what God has revealed to be truth. Furthermore, despite American protestations to the contrary, freedom is not necessarily always beneficial. Yes, freedom means that you can believe as you wish, within reason, without molestation, but it also then provides so many choices that many are led to despair. Freedom gives you license to act within appropriate bounds, but it also leads to individualism, and in many senses, relativism (After all, in the days of the Judges of Israel, there was no king, and “everyone did what was right in their own eyes,” according to Judges 21:25. See how well that worked out!). Freedom may give us security against persecution, but it also often leads to complacency and endless division.

We must confess that anything that involves mankind must be imperfect (Romans 3:23); that means that freedom is imperfect too. It provides benefits and detractions. Persecution and difficulty provides benefits and detractions. There is no “ideal climate.”

Does this mean that freedom is not valuable? We should be thankful in all circumstances (Colossians 3:17). We should appreciate the freedoms we have, but recognize that the future is in God’s hands, and we will experience what is willed for us to experience. We should take advantage of the freedoms we have to promote the Gospel of Christ, just as Paul constantly used his privileges as a Roman citizen to that end in the book of Acts. Nevertheless, we ought not idolize our freedoms. We must recognize the limitations and hindrances that come on account of freedom, and resolve to not get caught up in them. We must show the urgency of the Kingdom, devotion to Christ, the love of the brethren, and the mercy and compassion of Christ as if we were suffering and persecuted although not, substantively, experiencing suffering and persecution.

We must make the best of whatever circumstances are before us. We live in 21st century America, a land that is in many ways “post-Christian” and in great need of evangelization. This gives reason for hope and reason for despair. While many despair of the lack of general religiosity in the nation, it also requires a more sharply defined decision for Jesus. Since many are confused and hurting, having no moral grounding and little spiritual instruction, we have the hope of greater harvests (cf. Matthew 9:37-38). The decision is before us. We can sit around and complain about how things are not like they were, and establish self-fulfilling prophecies about the future of the nation and the church. Or we can recognize that every generation presents new challenges but also new opportunities, and do the best we can to promote the Gospel of Christ to lost and hurting souls.

Which, do you think, would Jesus choose?

ELDV

LXXVII: The Silencing of God: The Dismantling of America's Christian Heritage, III: A "Christian Nation"?

2008-12-11T15:39:00.004-05:00

We have been considering a DVD produced by the World Video Bible School entitled The Silencing of God: The Dismantling of America’s Christian Tradition. The DVD features Dave Miller of Apologetics Press. The DVD is an attempt to galvanize Christians regarding the current state of culture, especially in regards to abortion and homosexuality. Most of the emphasis on the DVD is how America used to be a “Christian nation” and how that foundation has been “eroded”.

We previously demonstrated that the primary concern of God’s people should be the conversion of souls, not the fate of a country. We also saw that Christian Americanism is far from representing New Testament Christianity, and that under no definition with any viability can America be called a “Christian nation.”

I would like to continue our analysis by considering whether any country can really be a “Christian nation.” Perhaps, when considering what the Scriptures say about such a question, we can see how the approach espoused by Miller et al is fundamentally flawed.

Perhaps one of the greatest failures of “Christian history” is one that is often seen as a triumph: the legitimization and eventual political success of Christianity following Constantine’s “conversion” around 312 CE. Before this point, Christianity represented a minority belief that was often persecuted. This was its condition from its beginning.

After 312, many compromises were made to accommodate the new reality. The Roman Empire, having been demonized since the end of the first century, was now approved and justified. Augustine wrote The City of God in part as a defense for Rome taking up the cross and being a “Christian empire.” He also set forth the theory of the “just war,” which has been used and abused ever since.

Ever since, those countries that would in some way claim a Christian heritage have abused power, compromised the religion, and, in the end, both have suffered. The Crusades, the Protestant Wars of the sixteenth century, the Spanish Inquisition, and even Nazi rhetoric all show the great shame that comes upon the cross when it becomes a political object.

The process seems to have some consistency. Christianity is promoted by the state, and thus in some way receives the state’s protection and/or blessing. Those practicing Christianity now feel obligated to justify the state and its actions, and are more than amenable to compromising or leaving the rough edges of the religion aside so as to promote the state’s purposes.
This has happened in America, it happened in most of Europe for a millennium and a half, and it has not yet led to a state truly espousing every Christian value. It has led to a host of difficulties and compromises justified in various ways.

There is a lesson to be learned in this.

It is without a doubt that the New Testament never foresees the existence of a “Christian nation” in terms of a physical nation-state. No instruction is given about how one would go about setting up such a government. No guidelines are ever given for its rulers. Indeed, whatever one would come up with would come mostly from the Old Testament and how God worked with Israel. We will consider that matter later.

The reason that the New Testament does not foresee such a nation is because it is impossible for such a nation to exist. Consider the following explicit commands in the New Testament:

But Jesus called them unto him, and said, “Ye know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Not so shall it be among you: but whosoever would become great among you shall be your minister; and whosoever would be first among you shall be your servant: even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:25-28).

“And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. And if ye love them that love you, what thank have ye? for even sinners love those that love them. And if ye do good to them that do good to you, what thank have ye? for even sinners do the same. And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? even sinners lend to sinners, to receive again as much. But love your enemies, and do them good, and lend, never despairing; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be sons of the Most High: for he is kind toward the unthankful and evil. Be ye merciful, even as your Father is merciful” (Luke 6:31-36).

Avenge not yourselves, beloved, but give place unto the wrath of God: for it is written, “’Vengeance belongeth unto me; I will recompense,’ saith the Lord.” But if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him to drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good (Romans 12:19-21).

These are just some of the many statements made about the Kingdom of God that simply do not function within kingdoms of men. Servant leadership might be praised in political circles, but when is it practiced? Loving your enemies? Doing only good to them and not harm? Not taking vengeance on wrongs?

How long would a state last that tried these principles? Probably not very long. And guess which principles in the New Testament are the first to be compromised in terms of the nation-state? These very passages.

There is also wisdom in what Jesus Himself does and says. After all, if anyone would start a “Christian nation,” one would expect it to be Jesus Himself. Who else could be sufficiently worthy?

Jesus therefore perceiving that they were about to come and take him by force, to make him king, withdrew again into the mountain himself alone (John 6:15).

If God was going to establish a new set of guidelines to run the affairs of men, this was the chance. And yet Jesus did not take it. Jesus could certainly have been a king, and this was His opportunity. Yet He did not take it. Why?

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence” (John 18:36).

His Kingdom was not of this world. Instead, it transcends the world and conquers the world.

And in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the sovereignty thereof be left to another people; but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever (Daniel 2:44).

Jesus did not become a king of a physical nation because His Kingship was greater, and His Kingdom more enduring, than any nation of the earth. Indeed, many mighty empires have risen and fallen in the past two millennia, and yet Jesus’ Kingdom remains. Many great rulers have erected monuments to their greatness; some are still there, others have fallen, but people around the world gather even today to partake of the bread and fruit of the vine in the Lord’s Supper.

Jesus’ intentions never involved setting up an earthly kingdom. Instead, He is Lord of all (Matthew 28:18). His Kingdom is greater than any other kingdom. It cannot be limited by physical boundaries, the whims of a government, or any other such thing.

Furthermore, His call demands complete loyalty. Those who are in Christ’s Kingdom are to put it first (Matthew 6:33). Those who make anything greater than their devotion to Christ and His Kingdom—family, friends, and yes, even a country—are not worthy of Him (Matthew 10:34-39). Those who follow Jesus should be citizens of the Kingdom first and foremost (Philippians 3:20), and that is to be the source of our ultimate loyalty.

The Kingdom of God transcends every nation-state and any loyalties to a particular nation-state, even though each nation-state would demand complete loyalty and self-sacrifice. These are perhaps the greatest reasons why there cannot be any one state or nation that is a “Christian” nation.

Ultimately, any concept of applying “Christian” standards to a government requires a return to the Old Testament and God’s relationship with Israel. In that covenant, God did have a chosen physical nation, Israel. He did establish rules for that country, and even guidelines for the country’s leadership. The Old Testament is replete with stories of how God fought for Israel at times, against Israel at times, and was personally involved in that nation’s dealings and circumstance.

Could governments gain a lot from the standards of the Law of Moses, especially the pronouncements of the prophets? Absolutely.

But the danger enters in when we start looking at a modern country and believing that as God blessed Israel, God is blessing that country.

This is the trap into which Christian American has fallen headfirst, and it fell from the beginning. Views of America as the new Israel go as far back as Puritan days; perhaps the greatest extreme can be seen in Mormonism, which posited that some Israelites departed from Israel and traveled to America in days gone by.

The problem is that there is a new covenant, and one that does not operate under the same principles.

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day or a new moon or a sabbath day: which are a shadow of the things to come; but the body is Christ's (Colossians 2:16-17).

But now hath he obtained a ministry the more excellent, by so much as he is also the mediator of a better covenant, which hath been enacted upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then would no place have been sought for a second (Hebrews 8:6-7).

And for this cause he is the mediator of a new covenant, that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance (Hebrews 9:15).

In the old covenant, God specifically chose the people of Israel. In the new covenant, however, God calls people of every nation (Matthew 25:31-46, Revelation 5:9, 7:9). In the old covenant, God’s specific care and concern was the singular nation of Israel. In the new covenant, God’s care and concern would extend over all the citizens of the Kingdom of His Son.

Therefore, if Christians live in almost every country on the earth, which one is God going to choose over another? Which nation gets to be “Christian” to the detriment of others?

Is it still true that God operates in the affairs of nations? It is entirely possible. The downfall of Hitler and the Third Reich is likely not coincidental. Neither, perhaps, is America’s ascendancy. But the ways of the Lord are not necessarily known to us, and we should not presume to know them (Deuteronomy 29:29, Isaiah 55:9-10). Furthermore, there is Matthew 5:45:

“That ye may be sons of your Father who is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust.”

Many people automatically attribute God’s blessings upon a country as a sign of divine favor. The early Americans did so with America. Many do so today. And that certainly could be the case. But is that necessarily the case? After all, there are many other very wealthy and blessed countries, and we would not automatically believe that they would fit the designation “Christian.” God’s blessings (or, for that matter, withholding of blessings) is no sure guarantee that God looks with favor or disfavor upon a certain country or not. It just means that a country has received blessings or disfavor.

God’s desire is for all men to come to a knowledge of salvation (1 Timothy 2:4). The Gospel is His power to save souls (Romans 1:16). Nevertheless, God does speak about the role of a Christian in terms of government. The Christian is to render obedience to earthly authorities and show honor to those in leadership (Romans 13:1-8, 1 Peter 2:13-18). Christians are to pray for authorities so that they may live tranquil and quiet lives (1 Timothy 2:1-3).

These are not statements that you make to people who are going to be in positions of power, or even to those interested in positions of power. Instead, they are statements you make to people who live by a higher authority with greater governance.

We return to the superiority of the new covenant and the Kingdom of God to all which came before and exists on earth now. The Kingdom demands our highest loyalty (Matthew 6:33). How can it be, then, if God tells us to love our enemies in His Kingdom, that we can fight earthly enemies of a nation-state (Luke 6:31-36)? After all, there are Christians in all sorts of nations. Can we imagine a scene in which two Christians, part of God’s Kingdom yet citizens of different countries, lining up in battle to kill each other for the glory of their particular nation? What a travesty! And yet this is what happens with the compromise of the values of God’s Kingdom with the demands of nation-states.

The Lord provides a higher calling (Philippians 3:14). The Lord’s interests are greater than any particular nation-state. The Lord’s interests involve every soul in every country (1 Timothy 2:4), and those in His Kingdom must be devoted to His work (Matthew 9:37-38).

What is too often forgotten is that, in the grand scheme of things, the quibbles of nation-states are just that: quibbles. Countries before them quibbled, countries quibble now, and they will continue to do so until the Lord returns. America arose, America is ascendant, and time might see America fall. The Lord’s Kingdom will remain. If America is mostly righteous or mostly sinful, the Lord’s Kingdom will remain. If America puts on the pretense of honoring God or not, the Lord’s Kingdom will remain. If abortion and/or homosexuality are condemned or accepted in American society, regardless, the Lord’s Kingdom will still remain. The only shame that would exist is if America presented a distorted view of the Kingdom of God that hindered souls from entering in (cf. Matthew 23:13). That is something concerning which we should be greatly concerned.

The sad reality is that according to what we read in the New Testament, we cannot have confidence in the salvation of most of the souls that have ever inhabited America. Yet it is deemed a “Christian nation.” And many are willing to expend much effort to make it “Christian” again. Certain issues are pressed, and yet greater issues of concern—covetousness, hyperindividualism, a lack of compassion, mercy, and community—are swept under the rug or ignored. Is it really worth it to re-instate a pretense that does not conform to reality?

I wholeheartedly agree that we need to work quite diligently to make America Christian. But we cannot do that by changing the government of the country, what it stands for, or what it legislates. America can only be Christianized when its constituents subject themselves to the King of kings and Lord of lords, and become part of something greater than themselves, greater than America, and greater than any other earthly thing: the Kingdom of God. That Kingdom cannot be limited to any country, nor can any earthly country claim the mantle.

Countries can promote righteous behavior in their constituents, for it is indeed righteousness that exalts a nation, as Solomon says in Proverbs 14:34. But it is people acting righteously—not the pretense thereof, or legislation—that truly exalts the nation. That is something that government cannot truly coerce or compel. It must be the choice of the constituents of that country.

No one, therefore, is going to be saved because they were a good American, or stood for “Christian American” values. The only way anyone will be saved is through obedience to the Gospel of Christ (Romans 6), being part of His Kingdom (Colossians 1:13). Let us never put the interests of a country before God, and neither devote our energies to that which perishes when so much is to be done for the Kingdom!

ELDV

LXXVI: The Silencing of God: The Dismantling of America's Christian Heritage, II: Christian Americanism

2008-12-06T15:16:00.003-05:00

The Silencing of God: The Dismantling of America’s Christian Heritage, II: Christian Americanism

We have been considering a DVD that a church of Christ in Tennessee sent out to many churches of Christ throughout the country entitled The Silencing of God: The Dismantling of America’s Christian Heritage, produced by the World Video Bible School and featuring Dave Miller of Apologetics Press. Previously we demonstrated that evangelizing 21st century America, and not pining for some idealized version of 18th and 19th century America, should be our primary motivation and purpose, and all of our energies should be expended toward that purpose.

Yet perhaps the greatest difficulty of the DVD is its inherent acceptance of the Christian Americanist interpretation of not only American history but also of the Bible. This view is especially popular among the Evangelical community in the United States, which makes sense. They see little delineation between the old and new covenants, and since strong parallels were drawn between Israel’s election and America’s election by God even in Puritan days, the view continues to be perpetuated. This view supposes that God specifically blessed America because of its particular values, that America is a “Christian nation,” in a sense chosen by God as Israel was chosen in the past. This often leads to religious justifications for America’s actions both at home and abroad, regardless of the inherent legitimacy of those actions.

This view makes complete sense for Evangelicals who tend to have an ecumenical strain, especially in terms of fellow Evangelical/Protestant groups, and who have a fuzzy understanding of covenant distinction. But this view does not make as much sense in terms of churches of Christ, who tend to be far from ecumenical and who, at least formerly, respected the distinction between God’s covenant with Israel and God’s new covenant with all mankind through Jesus Christ.

Perhaps the greatest problem within the whole DVD is the insistence that America is a “Christian nation.” This presupposes many things about America’s past and present, and it also presupposes many things about the Scriptures, which we will analyze in this section and also in the next.

Is America a “Christian nation”? Has it ever been? How, exactly, is “Christian” being defined? According to the New Testament, we believe that Christians are those who have been immersed in water for the remission of sin, striving to serve Jesus Christ according to all that He has revealed (Romans 6). If the standard of definition is New Testament Christianity, then America is not a “Christian nation,” has never been a “Christian nation,” and is likely never to be a “Christian nation.” It is a nation that has Christians in it, but that is also true of almost every country on earth.

Herein we come to Miller’s inconsistency/self-contradiction. If I am not mistaken, he is the same person who wrote the book Richland Hills and Instrumental Music: A Plea to Reconsider, in which he demonstrates how instruments should not be used in Christian assemblies. If he represents what the majority of members of churches of Christ believe, he has serious reservations about whether Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Catholics, and members of other denominations, in terms of both their salvation and what they believe. If he represents the practice of most churches of Christ, he has little to no spiritual association with such churches or its members, because they are teaching that which is false.

After all, in the New Testament, those who would bind circumcision on Gentile believers were considered “dogs,” “false brethren,” and Paul sought their emasculation (Galatians 2:4; 5:12, Philippians 3:2-3)! Those who followed after them would become accursed (Galatians 1:6-9). If Paul has such strong words for those who bind circumcision and other Jewish rituals, what would he say to those who would espouse original sin and demand that infants be baptized? What would he say to those who do not even immerse in baptism, but sprinkle or pour? What of those who deny man any level of participation in salvation, and who teach “once saved, always saved”? What about those who, through their eschatological speculations, overthrow the value of the first advent of Jesus Christ and seriously distort the Biblical picture of His impending return? And what of Roman Catholicism and all of its traditions set against the Scriptures?

Yet it is these denominationalists who represent the majority of “Christians” in America. If America can be considered a “Christian nation,” it means that such people really are “Christians.”

And herein is the contradiction. If they are “Christian” enough to consider them part of a “Christian nation,” what right have we to refuse their association? If we are going to claim them as “fellow Christians” in any sense whatsoever, how have we not participated in ecumenism?

But if they are not really “Christian” because they have distorted the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, and they are in fact accursed according to Galatians 1:6-9, how can they be “Christian” in any way, shape, or form? How can they be claimed as representing the faith?

If members of churches of Christ are going to call America a “Christian nation,” it means that we have sold out to ecumenism or use the term “Christian” in such a narrow sense so as to lose its value, and the term becomes hollow.

At one point in the DVD, while explaining an elementary school primer, Miller notes that there is some Calvinistic teaching involved, confesses it, and tries to minimize it. He has no problem justifying the recitation of creeds; would he justify them in his own assembly of Christians? He also advocates for prayer in school. Yet these very issues raise the question: if religion is going to be taught in our schools, which religion is going to be taught? Hardly New Testament Christianity! If children’s schoolbooks are full of Calvinism, then that stumbling-block is placed before them. If the prayer in school is led by a woman, or involves mention of Mary or the saints or some false doctrine, that stumbling-block is placed before them.

I do not understand why we would even want to claim participation as part of a “Christian nation” when we, as the minority viewpoint on many doctrinal issues, are already subjected to various levels of persecution for taking a stand for Jesus’ teachings. How do “cults” fare under religious leadership? Ask the Anabaptists of central Europe in the sixteenth century. Ask the Mormons in nineteenth century America.

This is another instance when our “different” reality in early 21st century America is promoted as being entirely evil, yet things were “better” in earlier days. This remains the foolishness condemned by the Preacher in Ecclesiastes 7:10. It was not “better” when denominational teachings were more ascendant; it was “different.” When people have no belief, or no understanding of anything about God, they are more easily taught the truth. When they have been raised to believe what a denomination has taught them, it is more difficult to “unteach” the denominational doctrines to teach the truth. Just as the Serpent deceived Eve with a lot of truth and a little bit of lie in Genesis 3, so it is that beliefs closer to the truth with a little bit of lie tend to be more insidious.

Furthermore, how can we be the “salt of the earth” in the midst of a denominationally minded country if we latently accept the denominations as “Christian”? If we go around and say that America is a “Christian nation,” and then try to tell Americans that we preach a distinctive doctrine that is the truth and the doctrines of all the denominations are false, why should they believe us? After all, we have accepted the denominations as being “Christian” since they make up this “Christian nation.” Now we are no better than they—only worthy of being cast underfoot (Matthew 5:13).

This problem is real. Christian Americanism is quite prevalent; in fact, statistics show that most people in this country believe in God, Jesus, and that they are going to Heaven. Yet we have precious few souls that work diligently to obey Jesus Christ. Is this God’s fault? Is there some defect in the Scriptures that leads to this? Of course not; quite the contrary. People do not read the Bible and do not get their spiritual understanding from it. Instead, most people get their spiritual understanding from whatever contact they have received from various churches and what they gain from the media. They gain enough to know that there is a God, His Son is Jesus, that you need to believe in God and Jesus, and if you believe, you’ll be alright, as long as you are a good person. God also loves America and therefore Americans have better standing before God. Does the Bible really teach these things? Not really, but most of the people who accept this understanding do not know any better. That is why belief in America is quite pervasive and yet also quite shallow. There is nothing distinctive in it. The call of God to come out and be separate is lost, because how can you come out and be separate when the nation is already “Christian” (cf. 2 Corinthians 6)?

But even if we were to grant a rather shallow and hollow definition of “Christianity,” would America really be a “Christian nation,” or was it ever really a “Christian nation”? What proof is offered?

Miller marshals all kinds of evidence, but all that evidence involves what Americans said and wrote and etched. All it really proves is that Americans felt like they were a “Christian nation” back in the day, and that they knew their Bibles and used a lot of Biblical imagery in their statements.

But does their claim make it true? After all, the British in the eighteenth century would also claim to be a “Christian nation.” So would the French in olden days. So would those in the Holy Roman Empire and Russia. The Papal States had a pretty good claim on being the “Christian nation,” since the Pope claimed to hold the keys to both physical and spiritual kingdoms!

And yet all of these countries fought against one another and engaged in all kinds of sinful conduct. Were any of them “Christian nations” in truth? Would America be any better?

Perhaps the greatest problem is that the “Founding Fathers” were more Enlightenment thinkers than Biblical scholars. This is evidenced quite strongly in their influences and their writings. Miller attempts to combat this notion by claiming that the Bible is the single most often quoted work in the Constitution, and yet the percentage is under 50 percent. The Bible’s great importance in western civilization would guarantee that it would be the most singularly cited work, but it is clear that the foundations of American government lie elsewhere. You do not simply read the Bible and come out with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. No; our government has more debt to Athenian democracy and Enlightenment philosophy for its construction than the Bible. There is more Locke than Jesus in the Declaration of Independence; more Montesquieu than Moses in the Constitution.

Both of these documents are marshaled as proof of the Founding Father’s “Biblical worldview,” and yet the statements within the text betray an Enlightenment understanding of the Bible. The Declaration of Independence declares that “[all men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Yet you fail to find in the New Testament that “liberty” as understood in the Declaration of Independence as an “unalienable right.” Slaves could very easily remain slaves their entire lives and yet serve Christ (Ephesians 6:5-7), and freedom in Christianity is freedom from sin and death to serve Jesus Christ, not liberty in any eighteenth century understanding (Romans 6). Discussions of “unalienable rights” comes from John Locke and read into the New Testament, for better or for worse. The same is true of governments “deriving their power from the consent of the governed,” when Romans 13 would place it in God’s hands. We have no problem accepting Locke’s view of government and calling it Biblical, but we would likely abhor Thomas Hobbes’ defense of the divine right of kings half a century earlier based upon Romans 13.

The Constitution, its separation of powers, and checks and balances was quite consistent with Enlightenment ideals. You will search the Bible in vain to find a similar system. Nor do we have any basis to believe that these documents are divinely inspired or guided. We would not expect, after all, for a divinely ordained document to consider African slaves to be three-fifths of a person in a census (Galatians 3:28)!

Then again, the entire Revolution was justified in Enlightenment terms, that somehow George III being a “tyrant” justifies rebellion. Miller seems to give great acceptance to a quotation of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin saying “rebellion against tyranny is obedience to God.” While that may be consistent with Enlightenment ideals, it is a far cry from New Testament Christianity. In the days of Nero, a far greater tyrant than George III could ever dream to be, Paul tells Christians to “be in subjection” to the government (Romans 13:1) and Peter tells Christians to “be subject to” and “honor the Emperor” (1 Peter 2:13-17). This is hardly a call to revolt or any refuge for those trying to justify revolt!

The New Testament teaches that Christians are to be subject to the government, even if the government is tyrannical, and yes, even if the government does not live up to the ideals set forth in its documents. Earthly authorities are to be respected regardless of their character. It requires a bastardization and distortion of these teachings to justify rebellion, and no matter how justified it may be in the eyes of man, it remains sin in the eyes of God.

Therefore, these men who believed themselves to be Christians were strongly sinning by rebelling against the authorities of their day, and even believed that God was behind it. How can this possibly be justified according to the New Testament and the New Testament alone?

What will be our guide to understanding the Bible—God or the Enlightenment? As it is written,

Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ (Colossians 2:8).

We cannot and must not abandon the Bible to Christian Americanist viewpoints that are more than willing to accommodate what it teaches to fit American ideals and movements. Such is no better than the compromises that countless thousands have made over time.

For all of the panegyrics about America’s glory and virtues, precious little is ever confessed about America’s faults. Miller does admit that slavery was a stain on the country, but seems too eager to blame the British for it. A quick survey of arguments in the antebellum period shows that not a few Americans believed in slavery’s legitimacy and used the Bible to defend it. Miller claims that “Christianity does not advocate slavery,” which is true but not the point: Christianity allows for slavery in Ephesians 6, and neither approves it nor condemns it. Many of those Christians that made up “Christian America” strongly defended slavery with their Bibles, and the Civil War was the manifestation of the greatest theological crisis in American history to that day: two different groups using the same book and coming to very different conclusions. This should not be minimized.

No discussion is ever presented about the Native Americans and how all of those good “Christian Americans” extorted, cheated, or flat-out killed them in order to obtain their land.

The pretense of religion that existed throughout the country is accepted, and left relatively unquestioned. Yet it seems clear enough that drunkenness, foul language, adultery, theft, murder, and a whole host of other sinful behaviors have been prevalent throughout American history.

Does this mean that America is evil? No more or less so than any other country. And that’s the issue. America has always had its virtues and its vices. It is not becoming to attempt to wrap the cross in the flag of America since America is a nation like every other nation that has ever existed. It has no more right to bear the name “Christian” than its European forebears. In its name many atrocities and unspeakable events have transpired. In its name many have believed and hoped for better things. But America is by no means, under any definition, a “Christian nation.” It is a nation like other nations with many Christians who are its citizens, yet is plagued with sins like any other. Why, therefore, should we be guilty of defaming the wonderfully holy name of Christ by associating it with a nation that has often spurned His call?

Christian Americanism, therefore, does not represent New Testament Christianity. Christian Americanism will not lead to the salvation of souls; at worst, it distracts souls from the true Gospel of Christ and leads them down the road to condemnation. Let us be careful what we approve and what we endorse, and recognize that America, with all its virtues and vices, is no more or less “Christian” than other countries!

ELDV

LXXV: The Silencing of God: The Dismantling of America’s Christian Heritage, I: Evangelism

2008-12-06T00:16:00.003-05:00

The Silencing of God: The Dismantling of America’s Christian Heritage, I: Evangelism

Not long before the 2008 election, we received at the church building a copy of a DVD produced by the World Video Bible School and featuring Dave Miller of the Apologetics Press entitled The Silencing of God: The Dismantling of America’s Christian Tradition. We received the DVD from a “church of Christ” in Tennessee, no doubt a liberal one. I want to emphasize this: a church felt compelled to spend their resources to send this DVD out to a good number of churches, and the WVBS and Miller also felt that it was worth the investment of time and resources to present this DVD.

The premise of the DVD is that America is losing its “Christian values,” and Miller spends the vast majority of his time demonstrating how many of America’s founders and monuments and other representatives show a “Christian heritage.” The concern of the DVD is that we are in the midst of a “culture war,” and that Christians must labor diligently to fight that culture war to “preserve America’s Christian values.”

The material presented in the DVD betrays its Christian Americanism roots. Christian Americanism has many different features, depending on the context, but especially within the Evangelical community, it features a belief in God’s election of America, the need for America to be a “Christian nation,” and the belief that such is how America began.

Again, I would like to add that this is a feature commonly seen within the Evangelical community. I am pleased that, in general, members of churches of Christ do not entirely buy into Christian Americanism, because Christian Americanism is not New Testament Christianity.

Much could be said about Miller’s distortions of history and current situations, let alone the dangers of his presuppositions and perspective. Future discussions will highlight some of these concerns, which are quite significant.

These concerns must serve as secondary compared to the major concern:

What are we doing here in America? What is our goal? How is that goal achievable? And how does a DVD with this type of presentation, being sent out using precious resources, really advancing these purposes?

There were two quite telling difficulties with this DVD:

1. Miller copiously cites American authorities in various ways. You hear of Americans up and down, left and right, and all over the place. Yet never once does Miller attempt to justify his presuppositions regarding America being a “Christian nation” from the Scriptures. Not once does he ask the question, or even seek to answer the question, of whether America ever has been, is, can, or should be a “Christian nation,” and what such a statement would even mean.

2. The need to promote the Gospel to those in America is only brought up toward the end of the final section of the six hour DVD, and then only for a few minutes. Granted, Miller does say that it is the “#1 thing” that Christians can do to “solve” the situation, but this DVD is by no means an evangelism-minded tool.

The purpose of the DVD is to “inform” Christians about the “Christian heritage” of America the “Christian nation,” to scare Christians into taking political action to try to return America to the way it once was (at least, the way the mythical America of the past was), especially in regards to the “two critical issues of our day,” abortion and homosexuality.

Is this really a profitable use of time? Is this really the way a church should be spending its resources?

Can anyone be saved by the United States of America, its ideals, or its legislation?

For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek (Romans 1:16).

God is quite clear about His power to salvation, and it was not Caesar. It was the Gospel. The promotion of the Gospel is all-important. It is the only way that souls can be saved.

What is the way that morals can be reformed? What is the way to “turn people back to God”? Through laws? When has that worked?

Furthermore, what is the value in extolling a particular presentation of the past that is as mythic as it is factual? Wise is the Preacher:

Say not thou, “What is the cause that the former days were better than these?” For thou dost not inquire wisely concerning this (Ecclesiastes 7:10).

We cannot turn souls back to God by re-creating eighteenth and nineteenth century America. We can only turn souls back to God by recognizing the situation we are in, recognizing what God has revealed, and promoting in word and deed what God has revealed in the midst of the people of our own day.

We can all agree on one thing: it’s not 1788 anymore, nor is it 1825, 1931, 1950, or 1985. It is 2008, for better or worse. We have moral plagues in our midst today; they did back then, too. Life has its difficulties today; it did back then, too. It is folly, according to the wise Preacher, to dwell upon the past as it if were these rosy golden days compared to the present. On the one hand, it idolizes the past into a role it never really held and it does not deserve. On the other hand, it hinders us from recognizing what we must do now to deal with the situations of now.

And what do we have now? A culture that moves too fast, having ambiguous beliefs and morality. A culture that too often forgets about God and anything truly spiritual, and seeks instead that which ultimately cannot satisfy. Is there much to complain about regarding modern culture? Absolutely. But there has been plenty to complain about with every culture that has ever existed. Merely complaining about culture profits nothing.

Neither, quite frankly, do political emphases. What can possibly be accomplished via the government? You can certainly make every sin illegal, but that does not make anyone a Christian. It does not guarantee that a single soul will be saved.

This does not mean that there is nothing to be done. There is plenty of work to do, and little of it is helped by such a DVD, and the attitudes fostered by the substance of the DVD militate against it.

Yes, we must represent the light of Christ to the world in our preaching and practice (Matthew 5:13-16). We must represent that distinctive salt, so very different from the world. We must not conform to this world but be transformed in the renewing of our mind to the image of Christ our Savior (Romans 12:1). We must know the Scriptures of God (2 Timothy 2:15).

But we must also interact with our culture. What good does it do to declare war on culture when our war is not with flesh and blood but with the spiritual forces of darkness (Ephesians 6:10-18)? How can we possibly expect to promote the love of Christ if those in our culture perceive us to be their political enemies?

Those involved in “America’s Trilogy of Spiritual Terror,” as Miller puts it in the DVD, are not our real enemies. Satan is our real enemy. We are to show love and mercy and compassion on those who have been deceived by his schemes, for we were once no better (Titus 3:3-8). But we cannot show them love and mercy and compassion when we are demonizing them to justify ourselves.

We must understand culture in order to evangelize culture. Both Peter and Paul knew this. Peter stood up before the Jews and demonstrated to them how Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled the promise of Scripture in Acts 2. Paul did the same thing for Jews in Acts 13, and in Acts 17 used pagan authors to demonstrate the truth of God in Jesus Christ. Peter would not have been able to appeal to the Jews unless he knew how Jews thought, felt, and for what they hoped. Neither would Paul. Likewise, Paul would not have known how to present the Gospel message to the Greeks unless he had some understanding of Greek thought and culture, whether it was provided by his educational background or the inspiration of the Holy Spirit or both.

Does this mean that we are changing the Gospel? By no means. It is the same message, just presented differently to a different audience. Does this mean that we must accommodate to culture? Again, by no means—we must not be conformed to this world (Romans 12:1). But we must live in this world and interact with the people of this world in order to show them the love of Christ (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:10).

In this we have the example of our Lord and Savior. We did not see Him come to the earth to stand in a synagogue and condemn all those sinners and the “Jewish Trilogy of Terror” of Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians. We do not see Him preach how unless they understood what God had said about two specific issues (to the exclusion of all others) and acted upon it that everything they knew would be lost. We do not see Him calling for a “culture war” against complacent Hellenistic Judaism in order to return to the “glory days” of Ezra or the Maccabeans or some other such group. No, He did none of these things.

Instead, He ate with all those nasty sinners.

And it came to pass, as he sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with Jesus and his disciples.
And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, “Why eateth your Teacher with the publicans and sinners?”
But when he heard it, he said, “They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what this meaneth, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice, for I came not to call the righteous, but sinners” (Matthew 9:10-13).

Who are the publicans and sinners? Well, in modern terms, the “abortionists and homosexuals” who are so strongly condemned in the DVD. People who know that they have sinned and that they need redemption. The religious authorities are not eating with Jesus here. They believe that they are “whole.” They believe that they are “right with God” because they are part of “God’s chosen nation” and they abhor the sinfulness of the people.

And yet they are blind—blind to their spiritual condition, deceived by their arrogance and liable to condemnation (Matthew 23, John 9).

Who did Jesus come to call? Not the righteous, but sinners. That should cause all of us to pause, because we all know in our heart of hearts that while we may not have aborted a baby or committed homosexuality, we have lied at times for our own advantage. We have held on too strongly to worldly ties, including love of country. There have been times when we should have taken an opportunity to love, show mercy or compassion, and to play the role of the neighbor, but have not done so (Luke 10:25-39, James 4:17). Whether we would like to admit it or not, we are all sinners (Romans 3:23). That is why we all need Jesus.

But it is often easier to deceive ourselves by our own “righteousness” and fall into the same trap as the well-meaning yet condemned Pharisee (Luke 18:10-14, Titus 3:3-8). We must avoid this.
Therefore, it is not wise for us to spend all of our time condemning culture, especially when we create an idyllic picture of the past that likely never existed. It is our job to point out to all men how culture deviates from God’s Word (2 Timothy 4:1-2), and leave the ultimate condemnation to God (James 4:12). Whenever we speak about culture, we must equip those who hear with understanding so that they can more effectively promote the Gospel to people within the culture so that we may accomplish God’s ultimate end: the conversion of souls.

Toward the end of the DVD, Miller asked the question of what Jesus would be concerned about if He were to return today. The insinuation presented indicated that Miller believes that Jesus would be quite concerned about abortion and homosexuality. Far be it from any of us to presume what concerns God or what does not concern God beyond that which is revealed in the Scriptures. In Matthew 25:31-46, we see a significant element of Jesus’ concern at His return: whether or not the “least of these” were clothed, fed, visited, and the like. His concern will also be with the saved and their number (Hebrews 9:27-28). Only when obsession exists over a few specific issues-- to the detriment of other issues and the big picture itself-- can we imagine that Jesus’ concern would involve two moral deviancies in a sin-sick and dying world.

The tragic irony of all of this is that the World Video Bible School has also come out with a DVD entitled Searching for Truth, which attempts to guide an interested person in six lessons to a basic understanding of the Gospel and their need to obey God. If the particular church in Tennessee really wanted to advance God’s Kingdom by distributing a DVD, that one could actually profit the Kingdom. Instead, they sent out a politically charged DVD with a particular Christian Americanism perspective in contradistinction to New Testament Christianity that is hardly likely to lead any soul to faith in Jesus Christ according to the Bible. Instead, it will likely antagonize and divide without any real opportunity to show the blessings that can come in Jesus Christ.

Let us not get so wrapped up in our particular political perspective, national worldview, or anything of the sort that we forget about God’s most pressing need: the promotion and advancement of His Kingdom (Romans 1:16).

ELDV

LXXIV: A Treatise on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

2008-12-05T16:57:00.002-05:00

A Treatise Concerning 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church (1 Corinthians 14:34-35).

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 has engendered controversy for years. What does it mean? Does it require complete and absolute silence? What does Paul mean that the “law also says” these things? What, precisely, is Paul referring to as “the church”?

When the answers to these questions are usually considered, they are done so assuming that Paul is speaking primarily about good and proper order within the church, and therefore the answers to the question must primarily involve “church matters.”

Based in the context, there is no doubt that Paul does have proper order within the assembly in mind. But what does a woman speaking in church have to do with proper order in the assembly?

To answer this question, let us consider God’s intentions for the roles of men and women.

We gain understanding from two passages: 1 Corinthians 11:3; 7-10 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15:

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God….For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man: for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man: for this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels.

Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression: but she shall be saved through her child-bearing, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety.

1 Corinthians 11:3; 7-10 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15 explicitly refer to creation in Genesis 2 for the basis of the relationship. Adam was formed, then Eve; Eve was made for Adam from Adam’s rib (Genesis 2:18-23). Eve was deceived and compelled her husband to eat (Genesis 3:6).

All of these passages help us to understand that God does have a divine hierarchy in mind as elaborated in 1 Corinthians 11:3: God -> Christ -> man/husband -> woman/wife. This hierarchy exists on the basis of authority and primacy. Man came before woman, and woman was made for man. Woman sinned and led man into sin.

This reasoning is powerful, and it means that we do not have the right to cavalierly cast off what Paul commands in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (or, for that matter, 1 Corinthians 11 or 1 Timothy 2) as if it were “cultural.” The reasons go back to the creation and the order that God has established.

These are the general principles on account of which women must learn “in all quietness,” so that they do not “usurp authority” (1 Timothy 2:11-12). In this limited sense, all men have “authority” over all women, because it is not “usurping authority” for a man to get up and teach women in the church (cf. 1 Timothy 3:15), but it would be for a woman to get up and teach a man. We can also observe that the logic in 1 Corinthians 11:3-12 demands that all men and all women are under discussion in that passage, not just husbands and wives, because what is true of Adam and Eve is true of all men and women, respectively.

From 1 Corinthians 11:3; 7-10 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15, therefore, we understand the divine hierarchy and the reasoning for it. When we go back to Genesis 3:16, however, we gain a bit of understanding that also helps us better understand 1 Corinthians 14:34-35:

Unto the woman he said, “I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy conception; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” (Genesis 3:16).

This verse represents Eve’s punishments for eating of the fruit. While many have interpreted the woman’s desire in sexual terms, it is hard to reconcile such a view with the conclusion of the matter. Instead, it seems that desire does exist for a woman to have some kind of dominion or equal standing with their husbands, but God has charged that the husband will rule over the wife.

This command, coupled with the principles from the other passages we have considered, lead Paul to elaborate specifically on the relationship of the husband and wife in Ephesians 5:22-24:

Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, being himself the saviour of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their husbands in everything.

A wife is to be in subjection to her husband as to Christ—this respects the divine hierarchy (1 Corinthians 11:3). Please also notice that the wife is to be subject to her husband “in everything” (Ephesians 5:24).

Let us now return to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35:

Let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church (1 Corinthians 14:34-35).

In our attempts to universalize the passage we forget that Paul seems to presuppose that the “women” under discussion are really “wives,” for if they desire to learn anything, they are to “ask their own husbands at home.” Why, then, is it shameful for a woman to speak in the church?

“Because they should ask their own husbands at home” would seem to be the answer from the text itself! This seems to entirely fit in with the picture we have painted so far: Paul’s concern indeed is the divine hierarchy and that the divine hierarchy remains respected, and part of that divine hierarchy is that the wife is to be in subjection to her own husband “in all things” (1 Corinthians 11:3, Ephesians 5:24). For a wife to ask a question and receive answer from another than her husband is a violation of Ephesians 5:24, and thus is shameful in the assembly!

I fear that sometimes “the family” gets missed in discussions regarding “the individual” and “the church.” God indeed has responsibilities for the individual and for the church, but He also has responsibilities for families. One of these responsibilities, as we have seen, involves the husband, and he is to have headship over his wife and his family. This headship is of great significance, for God even desires for it to be maintained within the assembly of the saints!

This would also make sense of Paul’s statement that wives are to “be in subjection, as the Law also says.” While the Law says no such thing about the assemblies of Israel, we do have Genesis 3:16 which describes how the husband is to rule over the wife, which requires that the wife be in subjection to her husband.

Therefore, Paul’s logic is that since a wife is to be in subjection to her husband, and the divine hierarchy involves God -> Christ -> man -> woman, it is shameful for a woman to speak in church, since in doing so she no longer subjects herself to her husband and violates the divine hierarchy.

When the passage is viewed in this way, all the pieces seem to come together, and Paul’s short tangent on this subject makes sense in context. A woman remaining in subjection is part of having a decent and orderly assembly, yet the main issue is respecting the divine hierarchy and the headship of the husband.

Therefore, any attempts to make delineations between a “Bible class” and a “regular assembly” would be entirely legalistic and contrary to Paul’s whole message. When we understand 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 in terms of the divine hierarchy and the headship of the husband, whether or not a Bible class is “the assembly” is no longer the point. Instead, the point is whether a woman asking a question or making statements within a Bible class would respect the divine hierarchy and her husband’s headship.

Any such discussion about Bible classes is of great importance in terms of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 since it would seem that the events going on within the assembly in Corinth has many affinities with our Bible class system. After all, how does a woman violate 1 Corinthians 14:34-35? She would “ask a question” in an attempt to “learn.” Paul says that she would do better to “ask her husband at home.” Who asks questions during preaching? What forum is more conducive for questions? A Bible class. Christians came together to devote themselves to the Apostles’ teachings (Acts 2:42), and it would certainly seem that part of that devotion involved something akin to a Bible class. The delineations that many would like to make between a “Bible class” and “the assembly” do not seem to fit the situation as reflected in the first century, and certainly cannot stand up to Paul’s reasoning in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, Ephesians 5:22-24, and 1 Timothy 2:11-15.

What, then, about singing and saying an “amen” to a corporate prayer? Many attempt to reason that Paul’s declaration of “silence” in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 preclude singing and saying “amen” to a prayer. Yet, when we understand what Paul is saying and why, this difficulty is resolved. By necessity, singing in the assembly and the corporate prayer are collective activities: we are to sing “to one another” in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16, and we understand from 1 Corinthians 14:14-17 that a prayer led in an assembly is really a corporate prayer to which all give assent by saying “amen.” In these contexts, women are as much a part of the assembly as men since they are communal actions of the whole (Galatians 3:28). A husband’s authority is not in question in such communal activities, no more or less so than by the wife partaking of the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:23-28). Singing and saying “amen” to a prayer, therefore, are not in view in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.

What about single women, spiritual widows, or widows indeed? By limiting the discussion in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 to women with husbands (literally, “their own men”), are they entirely left out of the picture? Paul recognizes that they exist, considering he even advocates for women to remain single if possible in 1 Corinthians 7.

Yet, in this apparent silence, should we believe that they are automatically granted license to speak? We must remember the overall divine hierarchy as enumerated in 1 Corinthians 11:3. We must also remember that there is no such specificity about husbands and wives in 1 Timothy 2:11-15.

By what authority can we say that unmarried women, spiritual widows, or widows indeed can speak in a Bible class or in the assembly? The only argument that could be made would be that it is a liberty. On the other hand, 1 Timothy 2:11 explicitly charges women to learn quietly “in the assembly” (cf. 1 Timothy 3:15), and every Biblical principle would indicate that the women should remain quiet. If they want to learn, they can ask their fathers or the elders of the congregation. It is hard to understand how it would be any less of a violation of the divine hierarchy for a widow or a single woman to speak in the assembly than it is for a married woman.

Thus we can see that Paul’s main concern is the divine hierarchy with special emphasis on the role of the husband as the head of his household in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. This passage is no aberration, but entirely consonant with other Pauline discussions of the relationship between men and women. Furthermore, Paul is not acting as a spiritual maverick of sorts, but is entirely grounded in the relationship between man and woman as specified in the very beginning— Genesis 2 and 3. It is upon this basis that women are to remain silent within the assembly, that they do not violate the divine hierarchy, and that those who have husbands remain subject to their authority “in all things.”

These teachings are difficult in our feminist age; nevertheless, may God be true, and every man a liar. Let us strive to understand what God has said, even if it may be culturally unacceptable.

ELDV

LXXIII: The Role and Work of the Holy Spirit, I: The Gift of the Holy Spirit

2008-11-29T17:42:00.003-05:00

Preliminary Comments

First of all, far be it from me that I make any hard and fast claims about what the Holy Spirit does or does not do. The Holy Spirit is God, and therefore all we can know about Him is what has been revealed to us. Since the role of the Spirit seems to be rather "subjective" in the Bible, making definitive claims seems rather immodest.

What this should not do, however, is hinder us from considering the role and work of the Holy Spirit as revealed in the Bible. I recognize that this is a difficult subject for many and one fraught with problems. I also recognize that there are many in the church who are rather dogmatic about what the Holy Spirit does or does not do, and many approach the subject fearfully (if at all), fearing retribution of some kind.

I do not want this to be the case here. The series of posts I intend to write represent me "working out," to the best of my ability, what I have found revealed from the Scriptures in regard to the Holy Spirit. I welcome and encourage any and all discussion that helps me and others to be more aligned with what the Scriptures teach on the Holy Spirit: that's what this is entirely about.

And because of this, I would like for everyone to approach what is presented with open minds. We live in a post-Enlightenment, antisupernatural world, and even though we believe in God, it's quite easy for all of us to dispense with or minimize whatever seems too esoteric. Just because something is subjective does not make it wrong-- it may not make it very modernist, but God is not of the Enlightenment strain, nor is He modernist.

As it is written:

Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ: for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily (Colossians 2:8-9).

Please remember this not only in terms of modern philosophical presuppositions but also in terms of denominational doctrines. By necessity, we will be bringing up some things taught in denominations, but please do not automatically draw parallels where none may exist. All denominations take some right ideas of Scripture and twist them in various ways, the Holy Spirit certainly notwithstanding; abuse of a truth does not negate a truth.

And that gets me to the last concern. A lot of people do not want to think about the role of the Holy Spirit, perhaps may seek to discount the value of understanding the Spirit, or in other ways show great discomfort with the subject because of how denominations have abused the role of the Holy Spirit. This also fosters extremism: people will go to the opposite side of the spectrum in their opposition to denominational teachings.

If we are going to be workmen without need to be ashamed, we cannot shrink from any Biblical subject (2 Timothy 2:15). We should also not cling to an extreme merely because it justifies our opposition to another doctrine; instead, we must seek out the truth, and then understand how the truth demonstrates the error of other positions. That is what I am trying to do here: to best understand, on the basis of the Scriptures, the role and work of the Holy Spirit.

The Role and Work of the Holy Spirit, I: The Gift of the Holy Spirit

As we begin our discussion, we recognize that the Holy Spirit is part of the Godhead; He is identified as part of YHWH in many Scriptures, not least in 2 Peter 1:20 and 2 Corinthians 6:16.

One of the primary issues we must tackle involves the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer. When Peter stands before the Jews on Pentecost, and they seek to know what they must do to be saved (Acts 2:37), Peter responds:

And Peter said unto them, "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him" (Acts 2:38-39).

What is this "gift of the Holy Spirit"?

It has been argued historically (even by myself) that the "gift of the Holy Spirit" here represents an objective genitive, that is, the gift is the gift that the Holy Spirit gives. That gift has generally been identified as "salvation."

Yet where, in the New Testament, is the gift of salvation something granted by the Holy Spirit? Granted, the Holy Spirit is part of God, but the Bible tends to make clear which Person does what, and nowhere else do we see the Holy Spirit Himself having such a place. Salvation is granted by God the Father through Jesus the Son (John 3:16, etc.). It is not the Holy Spirit's work, per se, to give salvation.

Therefore, that argument really does not work. The "gift of the Holy Spirit" seems to be a subjective genitive: the Holy Spirit is the gift itself.

But what does that mean? Does this mean that the believer is given the gift of the Holy Spirit when they are baptized and brought into the Church?

I believe, based on all the evidence in the Scriptures, that the answer is unhesitatingly yes. In fact, the Scriptures seem to indicate that it is mandatory for the believer to have and reflect this gift.

There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and of death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For the mind of the flesh is death; but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace: because the mind of the flesh is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be: and they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. But if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwelleth in you, he that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall give life also to your mortal bodies through his Spirit that dwelleth in you (Romans 8:1-11).

But I say, walk by the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary the one to the other; that ye may not do the things that ye would. But if ye are led by the Spirit, ye are not under the law...But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, self-control; against such there is no law. And they that are of Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with the passions and the lusts thereof. If we live by the Spirit, by the Spirit let us also walk (Galatians 5:16-18, 22-25).

Romans 8 and Galatians 5 tie into one another nicely. Both passages indicate that believers are set apart because they "walk after" the Spirit. But this cannot be construed as merely doing what the Bible says, for Paul indicates that to no longer be in the flesh but to be in the Spirit requires "the Spirit of God" to be in you (Romans 8:9; it should be added that the Holy Spirit is identified as the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ in that He is part of the Godhead; verse 11 shows that we cannot just identify the Spirit here as the Father or the Son, but is the Holy Spirit proper). In verse 11, the future quickening of the body in the resurrection is entirely dependent on having the same Holy Spirit as was with the Lord in His ministry (cf. Luke 4:1, 14).

When one has the Spirit and is led by it, one will manifest the Spirit's works, that is, the fruit of the Spirit enumerated in Galatians 2:22-24. Such are the manifestations of the Spirit in one's life. Does this mean that the believer has no role to play? Absolutely not. The Spirit does not overwhelm or conquer the free will of the believer, no more or less than the Father or the Son. As the believer must "open the door" to let Jesus in, according to Revelation 3:20, the believer must work toward manifesting the fruit of the Spirit. The believer must be willing to be led by the Spirit, striving to obey God's will. But this does not mean that the Spirit has no role to play in assisting the believer in manifesting that fruit.

We also have the metaphor of the Temple in the New Testament. Ephesians 2:20 and 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 present the metaphor "church as temple," indicating that the Spirit is "in" the church just as God's presence was within the First and Second Temples of Israel. Yet 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 indicates that the metaphor of believer as temple is just as appropriate:

Or know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have from God? and ye are not your own; for ye were bought with a price: glorify God therefore in your body (1 Corinthians 6:19-20).

While the Greek does use second person plurals in this discussion, it is because Paul is addressing a plurality of persons: "body" is singular, indicating that each body is a temple, and the Holy Spirit therefore "is" in each body.

When we consider the witness of these three Scriptures, it is hard to see how we can interpret Acts 2:38-39 in any other way than that the Christian receives the gift of the Holy Spirit at baptism.

Yet many questions abound. Does this mean that the "gift of the Holy Spirit" is in the same measure as the Apostles? No. In Acts 11:16-17, when recounting the conversion of Cornelius, Peter describes the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon them "as at the first, when He came upon us." This clearly shows that what happened to the Apostles on Pentecost was not a normal event, and was not continuously repeated.

God always recognized that He was going to give the gift of the Spirit in a greater measure in the first century than He would later on; the gift given at baptism is not the same as what the Apostles had, or even the same that enabled the believer to speak in tongues. Acts 2:39 talks about how the gift would be given to all future generations. Acts 8:14-16 shows that the Apostles needed to lay hands on people for them to demonstrate many of the gifts of the Spirit.

This brings us to the passage that most often is provided, 1 Corinthians 13:8-10:

Love never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall be done away; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall be done away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; but when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away (1 Corinthians 13:8-10).

While many in the denominational world attempt to lessen the force of Paul's words, I fear that too many try to overemphasize them. Paul provides this passage in the context of a discussion of love within an even greater context of the use of spiritual gifts. These three are just three of many other gifts mentioned, as is evident from 1 Corinthians 12:4-11:

Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are diversities of ministrations, and the same Lord. And there are diversities of workings, but the same God, who worketh all things in all. But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit to profit withal. For to one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom; and to another the word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit: to another faith, in the same Spirit; and to another gifts of healings, in the one Spirit; and to another workings of miracles; and to another prophecy; and to another discernings of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; and to another the interpretation of tongues: but all these worketh the one and the same Spirit, dividing to each one severally even as he will (1 Corinthians 12:4-11).

In 1 Corinthians 12:4-11, we have the "gifts" of words of wisdom, words of knowledge, faith, healings, workings of miracles, prophecy, discerning of spirits, speaking in tongues, interpretation of tongues.

Even if we say that speaking in tongues and its interpretation have ceased, along with prophecy and new knowledge, and even if we grant that miracles only come by God's operation without direct human knowledge, we still have "words of wisdom," "faith," and "discerning of spirits" (cf. 1 John 4:1).

Beyond this, we have Romans 12:4-8 and 1 Peter 4:10-11:

For even as we have many members in one body, and all the members have not the same office: so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and severally members one of another. And having gifts differing according to the grace that was given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of our faith; or ministry, let us give ourselves to our ministry; or he that teacheth, to his teaching; or he that exhorteth, to his exhorting: he that giveth, let him do it with liberality; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that showeth mercy, with cheerfulness.

According as each hath received a gift, ministering it among yourselves, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God; if any man speaketh, speaking as it were oracles of God; is any man ministereth, ministering as of the strength which God supplieth: that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, whose is the glory and the dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Here we have other "gifts" enumerated, and many of them are still in use today: ministry, exhortation, teaching, mercy, speaking, and the like.

We recognize that it is the ultimate in impiety to assert that we, by our own strength and ability, have been able to provide of all of our means. If someone came among the brethren and started to say that he, all by himself, was able to have a great marriage, to have great kids, plenty of resources, and the like, we would lament for that soul, considering how self-deceived he is. We all recognize that we are who we are by God's grace: our sufficiency is not within ourselves. Left to our own devices, we humans fail and go the wrong way (Proverbs 14:26, Jeremiah 10:23). We recognize that, as Christians, we are to give all glory to God.

But how can we say that the man spoken of above is self-deceived and yet go on and assert that we can show compassion, teach, preach, exhort, minister, etc., by our own power and ability? Is that not just as much, if not more, self-deception? Does not Peter say that we should do such things to God's glory?

However comfortable or uncomfortable it may be for us, both Peter and Paul testify that our abilities are God-given gifts. Just as the master provided talents to the three servants in Matthew 25:14-31, so our Master has provided gifts to us to use in His service.

And what is the agency of these gifts? How do we obtain these gifts? Many of the same gifts that belong to the Spirit are enumerated in these lists of gifts. The conclusion seems inescapable: ministering, exhortation, teaching, preaching, showing compassion, etc., are gifts of the Holy Spirit that is in us.

Let none be deceived: we must still show compassion, preach, teach, exhort, minister, and the like. But we must recognize that if we are in the Body of Christ, and if we seek to give God all the glory, we must humbly confess that we have those abilities thanks to the gifts of God given through the Spirit to each of us so that we can work in Him.

Therefore, while we may not have the same measure of the Spirit as was given in the first century, and the Spirit is not empowering Christians with the use of certain gifts as before, the Spirit is still "in" us and providing us with the gifts of God according to His mercy and direction.

And so now we have the million dollar question. How is the Spirit "in" us? I have heard the phrase "literal indwelling" used many times, and I am still not quite sure what this means. How can the Spirit "literally indwell" in anyone? He is Spirit! He certainly is not physically in us in any way that we would understand the idea. But, as He is Spirit, He is "in" us as the Spirit would be in us.

What does that mean? I have no idea. Far be it from me to try to provide some ontological understanding of the inner operation and presence of that which is spiritual. The means by which it takes place is indeed one of the "secret things" of God (Deuteronomy 29:29).

But the Scriptures testify that the Holy Spirit is indeed "in" us in some spiritual sense, that is, if we indeed belong to God, according to Romans 8, 1 Corinthians 3; 12, Romans 12, and 1 Corinthians 12 as quoted above.

But how can a singular Holy Spirit be "in" every believer? Again, I do not know, but I trust the revelation of God in His Word. In Acts 2:1-4, the Holy Spirit is poured out on the twelve Apostles, and they all manifest the Spirit individually simultaneously. If the Spirit can do that, then the Spirit, through some spiritual means beyond our understanding, can "be" with each individual believer.

From the Scriptures, it would seem that the believer, upon being baptized and added to the Body of Christ, receives the gift of the Holy Spirit, who is then "in" him. This would not be a "literal indwelling," but some spiritual presence that is not easily understood, if at all. The Spirit is the agent of the gifts that God bestows upon Christians, and seems to have a role in leading the Christian in his walk with God.

In future discussions we will consider the relation between the Spirit and God's revelation, and also to elaborate further on how the Spirit works with the Christian.

ELDV

LXXII: American Spirituality

2008-10-29T11:25:00.001-04:00

The Barna Group came out with the findings of their recent survey on American perspectives on their own spirituality. Not that they really reveal anything new. They just confirm what Jesus already said.

For instance:

And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples,
"Why eateth your Teacher with the publicans and sinners?"
But when he heard it, he said, "They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what this meaneth, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,' for I came not to call the righteous, but sinners" (Matthew 9:11-13).

Is anyone really righteous? No, of course not. But plenty of people think they're righteous, and therefore have no need of reformation.

And lo and behold:

...71% of Americans think spirituality is "very important"
...64% are "deeply spiritual"
...82% of those who are spiritual are "spiritually mature".

Really. I'm waiting to see one local congregation that can truthfully and soberly say that 82% of its members are "spiritually mature." Let alone the whole country!

What is telling is that only 55% of the people surveyed rejected the statement that they would not change anything significant about their life. That means that a good chunk of the 45% of the people in this country are in that "righteous" category. They're completely "fine." They are "good, moral people" who have "pulled themselves up by their bootstraps" and have "made it."

Then we have the "good moral people" statistics:

Americans who believe that they are making a positive difference in the world: 78%
Americans caring "deeply" about social injustice: 86%
Americans "concerned about the moral conditions of our country": 86%

Really? Then where are all of these people and why aren't they helping to foster or adopt children who have had injustice committed against them? Where are all the people working to end injustice in Darfur, Burma (Myanmar), and in countless other places around the world? Where's the national outrage over the sex trafficking/slavery black market in America and around the world? If so many people are so concerned about morality, what gives?

Jesus made answer and said, "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho; and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance a certain priest was going down that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And in like manner a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he was moved with compassion, and came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on them oil and wine; and he set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow he took out two shillings, and gave them to the host, and said, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, I, when I come back again, will repay thee. Which of these three, thinkest thou, proved neighbor unto him that fell among the robbers?"
And he said, "He that showed mercy on him."
And Jesus said unto him, Go, and do thou likewise" (Luke 10:30-37).

If you stopped the above priest and Levite and asked them the questions in this poll above, what do you think would be their answer? Do you think that they would be concerned about the moral conditions of first century Judea? Do you think that they would believe themselves to be working to make a positive difference in the world, and that they would be against injustice?

Of course they were "good, moral people." Of course they would be against injustice and working to make a positive difference in the world.

But when it was convenient, not defiling, and within their comfort zone. And not for that guy on the side of the road.

It's always interesting to see what people profess versus what they actually do. We're not that far departed from the priest and the Levite.

And finally, here's the kicker:

Americans who believe they live a simple life: 84%.

I guess it's all in how you define the "simple life."

This survey and the answers provided show exactly what's wrong with America: it's full of a bunch of people who think a lot more highly of themselves than they should, a nation that ought to humble itself, and people who talk a far better game than they actually accomplish. Americans are concerned about the morality of their country but are unwilling to exemplify the characteristics of the Spirit that lead to better morality. Americans are against injustice in name but when it comes down to their pocketbooks and their convenience are willing to support all kinds of injustices, whether consciously or not.

A nation of hollow righteousness. Self-deceived and happy about it (84% were "at peace" with their lives).

Do we really wonder why it's so hard to find receptive ears to the preaching of the Gospel in this land?

Do we really wonder why sometimes even we get caught up in this and fail to practice what we preach?

ELDV

Churches of the New Testament Available for Pre-Ordering!

2008-10-12T22:43:00.002-04:00

I am pleased to announce that my new book, Churches of the New Testament, is now available for pre-ordering.

The book costs $13.00. You get free shipping by pre-ordering.

Please visit the book's website for more information and/or to order!

Thanks!

ELDV

LXXI: Worship and the Assembly

2008-08-28T00:25:00.001-04:00

There is legitimate concern regarding the way that the assembly is viewed among many members of churches of Christ. As Christians seeking to serve God according to the New Testament, we say that we strive to "speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent," and so therefore the New Testament should be our primary guide.

When we examine the New Testament regarding the nature and purpose of the assemblies, we find the following as the some of the revelation concerning them:

And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers (Acts 2:42).

What is it then, brethren? When ye come together, each one hath a psalm, hath a teaching, hath a revelation, hath a tongue, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying (1 Corinthians 14:26).

And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and good works; not forsaking our own assembling together, as the custom of some is, but exhorting one another; and so much the more, as ye see the day drawing nigh (Hebrews 10:24-25).

For if there come into your synagogue a man with a gold ring, in fine clothing, and there come in also a poor man in vile clothing; and ye have regard to him that weareth the fine clothing, and say,
"Sit thou here in a good place;"
and ye say to the poor man, "Stand thou there," or "sit under my footstool;"
Do ye not make distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts? (James 2:2-4)

Granted, there are other passages, and we will refer to many of them later, but these help to show the general contours of what was going on and what the purpose was.

The primary purpose of the assembling of the saints as seen above is the edification and exhortation of the brethren. Yes, Christians came together to remember the Lord's death (Acts 20:7) and took up collections then also (1 Corinthians 16:1-3), but such were not the overarching purposes of the assembly. Furthermore, they didn't just have chaos or do whatever they felt was right, but followed after the pattern of the early church in Jerusalem: they devoted themselves to the Apostles' teaching, the breaking of bread, association, and prayers (Acts 2:42). While the Christians spent other times associating with one another in more social ways (Acts 2:46), that was not why they assembled on the first day of the week or in other spiritual assemblies.

From the Scriptures, therefore, it seems certain that Christians assembled to encourage one another spiritually, and they did so through remembering the Lord's death in the Lord's Supper (Acts 20:7), singing to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16), corporate prayers of thanksgiving (1 Corinthians 14:16-17), lessons of exhortation (Acts 14:22; 20:7), and taking up a collection for the work of the church (1 Corinthians 16:1-3). The Christians called such gatherings the "assembly," and the members were expected but unbelieving visitors could also be present (Hebrews 10:25, 1 Corinthians 14:23-25).

That's what the Scriptures teach. Yet what is often heard among churches of Christ? That Christians are to come together for a "worship service," that the primary purpose of the assembly is "worshiping God," and expect this "worship service" to be an extremely formal and mostly vertical event.

Where did this perspective come from? You won't find it in the New Testament, no matter how hard or often people try to lay it upon God's Word. In reality, it is a denominational tradition, and it is high time that we recognized it, confessed it, and repented.

The progression to this point is actually quite clear. Within a couple centuries of the end of the Apostolic age, many in "catholicism" began to integrate old covenant concepts onto the new. Don't take it from me; take it from a Lutheran:

The Christian church is to imitate the pattern in ancient Israel before Christ, where priests and levites were ministers in worship, taught the people, offered prayers and made sacrifices...In this way a Christian clergy came into being, alongside which the universal priesthood of believers was no more than a theoretical entity. Accordingly, the eucharist (Lord's Supper, eldv) was now understood as a sacrifice. And since the Old Testament law requires daily sacrifice, the Christian priest now offered the sacrifice of the mass every day. Sacrifice in turn needs an altar; church buildings were arranged liturgically and built accordingly. And just as at one time the tent of meeting was the place where Yahweh made himself present, so now Christ dwelt in the tabernacle which housed the transformed hosts. Since Israel had kept the sabbath, and the strict observance of feast days had been a confessional act, it was now important to hallow Christian festivals. The privileged and exclusive status of priests and levites in the Old Testament was transferred to priests and deacons, and the bishop now took the place of the high priest. Just as the eucharist was interpreted in terms of the Old Testament sacrifices, so baptism was interpreted as a rite of initiation after the model of circumcision. Nor were the financial aspects of these analogies ignored: tithes were given to Christian priests as they had once been given to the house of Aaron" (A.H.J. Gunneweg,Understanding the Old Testament:, 107f, as quoted in Gerstenberger, The Old Testament Library: Leviticus, 15-16).

Preachers became priests; the Lord's Supper a sacrifice; supposed Christian observances became feast days; infants were baptized as parallel to Jewish circumcision. Tithes started to be practiced again, and church buildings were viewed in terms of the Temple.

We can add to this list another term: worship. "Worship" is a loaded word, full of confusing matters, much like "church" and ekklesia. Like "church," the word "worship" has meaning in English that is independent of the Hebrew/Greek words it translates. In English, "worship" refers to the act of honoring, deriving from older words that indicated that the one receiving worship was "worthy" of the honor.

But that's not really what the Hebrew and Greek words mean. They tend to be much more specific. On one side, we have the Hebrew shahach and the Greek proskuneo, both meaning "prostration." Falling down to the floor with the nose on the ground, so to speak. Hebrew 'abad and Greek latreuo are also sometimes rendered "worship," yet strictly they mean "to serve."

Let us first focus on shahach/proskuneo, the tandem that are normally translated "worship" and the focus of discussion.

1. From the establishment of the First Temple onward, shahach/proskuneo, when used in religious senses, was entirely focused on the Temple and its location. One would either prostrate oneself in it or prostrate oneself toward it.

2. It is true that shahach/proskuneo would end up taking on a metonymical representation for all the things that one would do while in the Temple (cleanse oneself, enter in, prostrate oneself, offer prayer, possibly offer sacrifice or gifts, etc.), as seen in Acts 8:27 and 24:11. But this does not change the primary meaning of shahach/proskuneo: to prostrate oneself.

3. In the New Testament, proskuneo is found mostly at the "bookends": the Gospels and Revelation, in the presence of Christ the Lord. Other references involve actions according to the old covenant, as seen above.

4. proskuneo is never used to describe an event in which Christians participate in any assembly. It is also never used to describe the assembly. The only time it is used in the context of an assembly is 1 Corinthians 14:25, and it describes the reaction of the unbeliever to the prophecies being uttered by Christians.

The New Testament, therefore, does not describe the assembly as a "worship service." It never speaks of Christians "worshiping" in an assembly context. Such ideas come from denominational traditions who themselves got it from importing Old Testament concepts on the New. This is why, whenever this view of the "worship service" is defended, it is replete with either (a) Old Testament examples or (b) examples in the New Testament of persons acting according to the old covenant.

Well, what's so wrong about importing these concepts? After all, was not the old leading to the new? God hasn't changed, has He?

The problem with importing these concepts is the same problem that we have with importing the priesthood concept, the church building as Temple concept, etc.: it undermines new covenant truth and reality, and this is why we need to seriously reconsider how we perceive the assembly.

Consider:

"Howbeit the Most High dwelleth not in houses made with hands; as saith the prophet,
'The heaven is my throne, And the earth the footstool of my feet: What manner of house will ye build me? saith the Lord: Or what is the place of my rest?'" (Acts 7:48-49)

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service (Romans 12:1).

Know ye not that ye are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man destroyeth the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, and such are ye (1 Corinthians 3:16-17).

Or know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have from God? and ye are not your own; for ye were bought with a price: glorify God therefore in your body (1 Corinthians 6:19-20).

So then ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but ye are fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God, being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone; in whom each several building, fitly framed together, groweth into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God in the Spirit (Ephesians 2:19-22).

Through him then let us offer up a sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of lips which make confession to his name (Hebrews 13:15).

If ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious: unto whom coming, a living stone, rejected indeed of men, but with God elect, precious, ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:3-5).

We have an impressive litany of New Testament witnesses here: Stephen, Peter, Paul, and the Hebrew author. And notice that all three appropriate the imagery of the Temple and its service and apply it to the Christian and the church.

The Temple is no longer a building but each individual Christian and the collective church, for it is within each Christian that God now dwells, according to 1 Corinthians 6:19-20.

The sacrifices are no longer bulls and goats but ourselves and our praise to God.

The priests are no longer the Levites or any subgroup; all Christians minister as priests in the new covenant, offering up themselves and their service as spiritual sacrifices to God.

Remember what we said above about shahach/proskuneo? It was focused on the Temple. Well, guess what? That particular edifice is gone, as Jesus said it would be (John 4:21). What takes its place? People. Individual Christians.

Jesus did speak about this.

Jesus saith unto her, "Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father. Ye worship that which ye know not: we worship that which we know; for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth: for such doth the Father seek to be his worshippers. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth" (John 4:21-24).

Here we have the only passage that speaks of proskuneo in the current Christian context. And notice that it speaks in a contrasting way with what was currently in existence.

True worshipers will worship "in spirit and truth". Jesus is not saying that people are going to go through the "acts of worship" with the right heart and the proscribed way; no, He is speaking in much greater depth than that. Remember, "worship" here does not mean "going to church." It means "prostration."

Jesus is saying that true prostrators will now prostrate themselves in spirit and truth. To take such a statement in concrete terms would be ludicrous: a spirit bowing? But what Jesus is saying is that the soul of the true prostrators will humble itself before God and render homage and obeisance to Him. And it will be done according to God's will.

How is this reckoned practically? Well, Romans 12:1, Colossians 3:17, and 1 Peter 2:3-5 seem to get us closest to it. We worship spiritually when we go about and do the will of God the Father in His Son Jesus Christ. When we present ourselves as living and holy sacrifices, doing all things in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we worship in spirit and truth.

And we get back to the assembly. Looking at the above, we see that we do actually worship in the assembly, for we subject our own will to Christ's and seek to minister to each other, and to remember Him in the Supper.

So I'm sure you're wondering: if we end up worshiping in the assembly anyway, why is this a big deal?

Perspective and worldview.

1. The assembly is not the sum of Christian "worship." As we indicated earlier, it should be the "least" of what we do-- it's for our benefit, and we should not want to lose the encouragement that we can from our fellow brethren. Therefore, the assembly is part of a life of worshiping God, but is not the sum or even the larger part thereof.

2. Christianity is a whole lot more than the assembly. Assembly as worship blurs that distinction, and when the assembly is elevated as the Christian experience, "Sunday only Christians" are the result. When you reduce the religion to acts you do on Sunday morning, don't be surprised when people consider their religion as things they do on Sunday morning.

We also obsess about the assembly. How many articles and books are written about the proper way of acting during the assembly? This is not to say that chaos ought to reign, or that what we do is not important, or that we should throw everything to the wind. But there's something to be said for Biblical balance, and we've lost it. We spend more time bickering about the assembly and less time encouraging each other to live a godly life in an ungodly world, and we wonder why we're not getting anywhere.

3. Much is made of what should or should not be worn in the assemblies. Much logic involves Old Testament concepts, and as seen above, we should be wary of that. Modesty is the only standard in the New Testament for Christian dress (1 Timothy 2:9), and when we consider James 2, we see that there were likely very poor people with very poor dress in the assembly, along with rich people in finery.

Early Christians would probably align more on the "casual" or "normal" side of the equation than the "formal" one; Tertullian in fact condemns people who wear their best clothing to the assembly as persons who are acting immodestly.

Making a big deal about clothing is hindering our real purpose, which is not a stuffy formal service, but the encouragement of one another. Furthermore, it hinders our opportunity to welcome those without, because they are made to feel out of place.

4. It hinders our Biblical purpose. The assembly is critically important because it of all things represents the coming together of God's family to build itself up. When you look at passages like Romans 12:3-8, 1 Corinthians 12:12-27, and Ephesians 4:11-16, what do you see? How do we practically exercise these concepts? Yes, we can manifest the unity of the body in one-to-one exchanges, small groups, and the like, but there's something about the gathering of the saints for spiritual edification that should be different from all these.

The assembly should be an enjoyable family gathering designed to spiritually encourage the members to greater faithfulness and devotion to Christ. But this is often missed in the overlaying of Old Testament formalities on the NT assembly.

I know many people want to take 1 Corinthians 14:40 and turn the assembly into the equivalent of the Mass or other completely scripted liturgical event, but such is an extreme. One can be orderly without being cold and unfeeling. Guess what? When brethren have warm and loving relationships among each other, there's likely to be a little less formality in the assembly. It is not the end of the world. It, in fact, may be the beginning of a new one.

I'm sure that many people believe this to be heretical, and that I have apostasized and gone the same way as these "radical restorationists." And that is too bad, because I have done no such thing. I've re-examined what the Bible actually says versus what is imposed upon it, and found another denominational tradition that we would do better to excise. I have no desire to change the way anything is done in the assembly; the New Testament has already established what Christians did within them. Instead, I encourage everyone to reconsider their perspective and understanding of purpose of the assembly.

Sometimes that makes all the difference.

ELDV

LXX: Families

2008-08-28T00:22:00.002-04:00

The family is often under duress and assault in our society. There are many reasons for it, but there are also many larger themes that are often ignored.

Consider the "nuclear family." While in a sense it is the base unit that God established (Genesis 2:24), its isolation and intense focus is a more recent phenomenon.

We hear all the talk about how the family has degenerated since the 1950s. In reality, it began degenerating in the 1830s, thanks to the Industrial Revolution.

First, divorce. Statistics show that whenever industrialization and urbanization increase around the globe, so does divorce in those places, no matter the previous cultural norms (Sell, Family Ministry, 52).

What happens seems relatively clear. The ancient, medieval, and even early modern societies placed the individual family as the primary economic unit. A shopkeeper, blacksmith, farmer, laborer, etc., would work with his family at his residence. The wife would be a business partner, and children were put to work to assist them and later to take on the trade or occupation (54).

It was the shift in the Industrial Revolution that, well, "revolutionized" things. Men would go and work at the factories and be more separated from their families than before. The increase in income led to women exclusively devoting themselves to housekeeping-- the modern concept of the "housewife" is therefore less than 200 hundred years old (55).

This explains a lot: in olden times, to leave the family, either as a wife or a child, would be economically costly and hazardous. Today, not so much.

Likewise, it explains the Proverbs 31 woman in context. I feel for you Christian ladies out there; so much interpretation of the Proverbs 31 woman wants to make her someone modern, a woman who can work 8 to 5 at the office and yet have all the household chores completed with a happy husband and children...and you're not even given the benefit of the servants! Yet the Proverbs 31 woman (and man) were quite different from us moderns. He did not go work in a factory or office, and neither did she. Whatever his occupation, he would work quite near the family ore even within the living space. Her work would complement his, either helping in the bookkeeping end or, more likely, making fabrics or other clothing goods for sale. It was a whole lot more holistic than what we see today...and not nearly as stressful. Especially since she had servants to do all the dirty work. :D

Other interesting truths abound. The world around us was only considered a "jungle" from which "home life" was a "repose" since the....Industrial Revolution. Family is now to be a haven of rest from the world around us, and we have greater expectations out of our family lives now than ever before (56). Since we are imperfect people, and imperfect people make imperfect families, oftentimes the family cannot possibly live up to the ideal that we create and perpetuate in our lives.

The role of intimacy (non-sexual) in families is also illuminating. One of the often recognized effects of the industrial revolution has been the loss of community and the greater isolation of the family unit. The greater mobility that modern technology has allowed has led to "nuclear" families being separated by hundreds or thousands of miles from their "extended" families. For these and many other reasons, we now look more to the nuclear family for the complete satisfaction of our emotional needs (38-39).

Again, we humans are weak. Greater expectations rarely lead to better outcomes, but instead more disappointment. Because of the greater need of emotional fulfillment, families often become explosively emotional, and thus no longer the haven of rest in a hectic world. Children often bear the brunt of this: their emotional attachments to many adults are often now limited to just mom and dad, and that can lead to difficulties down the line.

And, of course, there is the husband-wife relationship. Americans now expect that relationship to be the most important source of emotional satisfaction and support. In many instances, people expect it to do so almost exclusively. But is that the way it was designed?

This desire for intimacy also forces couples to concentrate on their relationship to such a degree that a tremendous pressure to succeed sometimes makes that success elusive. High expectations for marriage may make couples less satisfied with their marriage. Studies show that lower expectations have played a part in the degree of marital satisfaction that working class couples achieve. Housewives who do not have, nor greatly expect to have, a close relationship with their husbands, but do have close friendships with other housewives are, on the whole, more satisfied with their marriages than the wives of white-collar workers. This means that when couples are isolated from kin and community and thus more in need of intimacy in their own marriage, their marriage is at greater risk (39).

This is not to say that wives should look everywhere but their husbands for emotional support, but it does show that just as man is not an island, neither is a marriage. We can (and often do) elevate what we expect out of marriage or our family so high that our spouses and children can just never reach our expectations.

We need to be realistic about ourselves, our spouses, and our children. And this entirely underscores the reason why we must become quite emotionally intimate with the body of Christ, the church. Why is it that we should bear each other's burdens (Galatians 6:2)? Because we need more people close to us in our lives than just one or two!

If we are married with children, we need to have emotional intimacy as appropriate with our family members. But we also need close friends, especially within the body of Christ, who can bear part of our emotional load as we bear part of theirs, and what we expect out of our spouse and family can be more realistic.

Single people should not be punished for not having a spouse with whom they can be emotionally intimate; they have emotional needs too, and the body of Christ can meet theirs. The same is true with divorced persons and widows and widowers.

Yes, the Industrial Revolution has led to all kinds of problems and havoc with the family, and more modern trends have exacerbated them. But we're not going to do well if we just put our heads in the sand and cling to some mythical family of yore that probably never existed anyway. We need to do what we can with whom we have and with the resources available to us. Of great importance, however, is the community of believers. If the local church is family-like in their care and concern for all members, as God intended it to be (1 Corinthians 12:12-27), then its members can bear each others' burdens and make modern life livable, and be a beacon of light to the world because of it. If the church decides to be a cold social club, don't be surprised to see more marriages ending in divorce, more teenagers run screaming in rebellion, dwindling numbers, and no significant evangelistic success.

Not only can we achieve God's intentions for families in the 21st century, we can do so while still living in the 21st century and being a great and powerful testimony to God in the community while doing so. But we can only do it when we provide the support network within the body to make it work.

What shall we do?

ELDV

LXIX: The Power of Influence

2008-08-20T21:59:00.002-04:00

Perhaps one of the less emphasized matters of concern in the life of a Christian is the power of influence of other people. In many ways, we would like to think of ourselves as above the fray-- able to be around all kinds of negative influences while remaining pure. Power of influence is more of a problem for teenagers, perhaps, but not for adults.

Yet God knows better. God recognizes the power of influence, and how it can work either for evil or for good.

This is especially clear when it comes to His expectations for Israel. When God chose Israel and brought them near to the land that He was going to give them, He set forth how they should live. In His ideal, Israel would be a nation that served God. Its cities would be full of the people of the LORD, and serving Him and doing His will would be a given among the people.

Such was God's ideal, but God knew better. He recognized the power of influence. Hence, He made the following commandment:

"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, that is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying,
'Let us go and serve other gods,'
which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; of the gods of the peoples that are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: but thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him to death with stones, because he hath sought to draw thee away from the LORD thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do not more any such wickedness as this is in the midst of thee" (Deuteronomy 13:6-11).

We moderns read such a commandment and our mouths begin to gape. How could God ever utter such words? Granted, we know that Israel should not serve other gods, but to execute even one's wife or children by your own hand because they would even suggest such a thing? How barbaric, we think!

If such is our mindset, what about the next command?

"If thou shalt hear tell concerning one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God giveth thee to dwell there, saying,
'Certain base fellows are gone out from the midst of thee, and have drawn away the inhabitants of their city, saying, "Let us go and serve other gods,"'
which ye have not known; then shalt thou inquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in the midst of thee, thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, unto the LORD thy God: and it shall be a heap for ever; it shall not be built again. And there shall cleave nought of the devoted thing to thy hand; that Jehovah may turn from the fierceness of his anger, and show thee mercy, and have compassion upon thee, and multiply thee, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers; when thou shalt hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep all his commandments which I command thee this day, to do that which is right in the eyes of the LORD thy God" (Deuteronomy 13:12-18).

To destroy a whole city, even the poor cattle, when some worthless fellows try to stir up trouble? Has God entirely gone off the deep end here?

It might seem that way until we consider the power of influence. Israel was a chosen people, one who would be distinct on their belief not just in the One True God but to serve Him without any graven images (cf. Exodus 20). They were surrounded by (and even lived in the midst of) people who served many different gods, and did so with graven images that they believed represented those gods. The power of their influence would be very great.

Temptations to sin are strong, and they are even stronger when those whom we love are involved. If one's own wife, or children, want to go and serve other gods, there's a strong pull for us to do so also. Likewise, when a few people start talking about doing some different things, others may go along with them.

God wants His people Israel to be holy, to be His people, no matter the cost. The temptation to turn away from Him must be obliterated, even if that temptation involves one's dearest family members. No city of Israel can tolerate even the hint of service to other gods, lest the idea become popular. As God establishes in Deuteronomy 13:6, His point is for Israel to fear Him, and not allow such wickedness to continue in the land.

The sad reality is not that Israel carried out these commands, but that they did no such thing. Within only a few generations of Moses saying these words, Israelites will be indignant with Gideon for destroying an altar for Baal and an Asherah, and desire to kill him for it (Judges 6:28-31)-- when God commanded the exact opposite! They all should be executed for serving other gods! Such indicates the power of influence. They entered a land full of idols and ended up serving them.

We are under a new covenant enacted under better promises with a better witness (Hebrews 8:6). We are not to overcome evil with evil (Romans 12:21), and strive to do good to all men, even those who are our enemies (Galatians 6:10, Luke 6:32-35). If there are Christians in our midst who go after the world and no longer serve God, we are to disassociate from them, but by no means kill them (cf. 1 Corinthians 5).

Nevertheless, God is still concerned about the power of influence.

Be not deceived: Evil companionships corrupt good morals (1 Corinthians 15:33).

We need to recognize that was written in the Old Testament was provided for our learning (Romans 15:4), and there is much to learn from Deuteronomy 13. Temptations to sin will not just come from those outside, but could even come from within our own family. We can never equivocate God's will, even if our wives or our children would try to get us to do so.

We must be on guard for the temptation to worship "other gods" whom we have not known. We must recognize that we, like Israel before us, are a chosen people, and peculiar (1 Peter 2:9). While we are no longer in the midst of people who go about and serve gods represented by graven images, we live in no less of an idolatrous society. People all around us worship money, celebrity, America, individualism, naturalism, sports, sex, comfort, happiness, and all sorts of similar idols. People-- even within our own family, even those who might be supposed children of God-- may not understand our devotion to the LORD of Hosts and why we strive to serve Him in all matters (Matthew 6:33, Colossians 3:17). Just like Israel of old, when God's people who believed in YHWH also served other gods because others around them were doing so, so many Christians today try to serve both God and these other idols, and they fail miserably (Matthew 6:24). But it's easier to justify their divided loyalties when others are doing the same.

We should not ascribe evil motives to such people, but it is part of the conscious and unconscious aspects of the power of influence. Focusing on the will of God as the greatest priority in life is not the easiest choice, and those who would do so must be continually on guard against the powers of influence of the "nations among us" and even unfortunately our own brethren at times.

Yet there can be a positive value in the power of influence-- the power of positive influence of godly people upon each other. God presupposed that Israel would be a holy nation, and that they would mutually build each other up in their particular faith, and any aberration from that faith would be duly punished so that all would fear. Christians as spiritual Israel ought to mutually build each other up (Hebrews 10:24-25), and encourage each other for good. A little leaven still leavens the whole lump (Galatians 5:9, 1 Corinthians 5:6), and God will have a holy and spotless church on the last day (Ephesians 5:23-28).

The power of influence is vast-- so vast that God was willing to have His people Israel kill even the most beloved people in their lives if they acted as tempters away from God's will. Whole cities could be leveled because of a few bad apples promoting false religion. We are not bound to follow their example, but the gravity of the concern should give us pause. Are we being tempted to serve "other gods whom we do not know" because of the influence of others around us, both of the world and perhaps even in our own family? Is the church brought down because some "worthless fellows" have brought in "other gods"? What can we do to withstand negative spheres of influence and to promote positive spheres of influence?

The power of influence is too strong for us to ignore, the teenager and the adult alike. Let us wholeheartedly serve God, and not serve any other!

ELDV

LXVIII: Defining Ourselves

2008-08-13T01:09:00.001-04:00

Many times in life we see a crisis of definition. How are we being defined? Who are we? What do we stand for?

You can see this clearly in political disputes. I have no desire here or now to get into a significant political disputation, but it is beyond doubt that both presidential campaigns are currently working to define their candidate (or their opponent) in various ways. The media has constantly been defining them (among other things) according to the story which they would like to tell. We will see how it all plays out, and how the various people involved will either capitulate to their definitions or rise to oppose them.

This is also true in spiritual terms. We need to be just as concerned with how we are defined-- and how we define ourselves-- as politicians are. Ultimately, part of our success or failure in promoting the Kingdom is based on people's perspectives of God, the faith, and us. Sometimes this perspective is accurate; many times it is not.

I fear that we (and by "we" I speak of members of churches of Christ generally) are suffering a crisis of definition. The difficulty is that we are defined more by what we are not than what we are.

This is in many ways self-inflicted. We spend copious amount of time indicating the contrast between what we teach and what "all those denominations" believe. Much of it is negatively presented. "We don't believe in denominationalism." "We don't use instruments." "We don't believe the church should give to institutions/have a fellowship hall/have a gym."

I am not saying that we should spend all of our time indicating areas of agreement, or to deny the distinctions between ourselves and others. On the other hand, when all we ever do is talk about what we don't do, why are we surprised when others define us only by what we are not?

"Those people are church of Christ. They don't use instruments."

When was the last time you wanted to be part of something that you defined in terms of what it was not? We tend to want to be part of things for what they are for, not for what they're not.

The sad thing about all of this is that it is entirely based on definition.

As opposed to defining ourselves as "not being part of a denomination," we could define ourselves as "a group of people seeking to reflect the image of God and part of His Body (Ephesians 5:22-33)."

As opposed to defining ourselves as "not using instruments," we could define ourselves as "those who believe strongly in the value of singing praise to God, speaking to one another in spiritual songs (Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16)."

As opposed to defining ourselves by how we don't use the treasury, we could define ourselves by what we do with one another, and how we strive to help all men in need (Galatians 6:10, Acts 2:42, etc.).

People like being part of something that has value for what it is for; it's not as easy to just be "against" something, or to attract merely on the virtue of not being something else.

And, interestingly enough, Jesus provides a hint of this.

"Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself,
'God, I thank thee, that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week; I give tithes of all that I get.'
But the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote his breast, saying, 'God, be thou merciful to me a sinner.'
I say unto you, This man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled; but he that humbleth himself shall be exalted" (Luke 18:10-14).

Notice here the nature of the Pharisee: he defines himself primarily by what he is not. He is not a "terrible" person. The basis of his righteousness, or his supposed righteousness, is in what he isn't. The tax collector, however, is more than willing to define himself by what he is-- a sinner-- and notice who, in the end, is justified.

We have no basis to glory in what we're not. God is concerned more with who we are (or, more accurately, who we're supposed to be-- obedient servants of Him) than who we're not. Yes, we are supposed to avoid sin, and we should not suffer being accurately called sinners in various ways (1 Peter 4:15).

But look in the Scriptures. Peter doesn't define himself by not being a Gentile, or not in error. Neither does Paul, nor James, nor anyone else. They define themselves by who they are-- servants of Jesus Christ, chosen to be His Apostles, etc. (Philippians 1:1, 1 Thessalonians 1:1, James 1:1, 1 Peter 1:1).

Again, we do need to be against error. But we stand against error best by being for the truth, living the truth, manifesting the light of Christ to men (Matthew 5:13-16). Ephesus was condemned for being against error but not living for Christ (Revelation 2:1-6). That should be a sober warning for us.

As long as churches of Christ are known more for what they aren't than what they are, don't be surprised when it's a challenge to grow. It's when Christians and the church are better known for what they are for and what they do than what they aren't and what they're not doing that people will be more interested.

So the church throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria had peace, being edified; and, walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, was multiplied (Acts 9:31).

ELDV

LXVII: Sin and Disassociation

2008-08-13T01:08:00.002-04:00

Put to death therefore your members which are upon the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry; for which things' sake cometh the wrath of God upon the sons of disobedience: wherein ye also once walked, when ye lived in these things; but now do ye also put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, railing, shameful speaking out of your mouth: lie not one to another; seeing that ye have put off the old man with his doings, and have put on the new man, that is being renewed unto knowledge after the image of him that created him: where there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondman, freeman; but Christ is all, and in all (Colossians 3:5-11).

Do we really despise sin anymore?

Notice what Paul says about it here in Colossians: we are to put sin and its tendencies to death. Because of it God's wrath is coming. We are to make it clear that we have indeed "put off" the old man, and show that we now wear the "new man."

Most of us realize this, no doubt. I would hope that we are doing what we can to remove sin from our lives. Even though there are many disagreements among brethren on Pleonast on many matters, most of you recognize the problem of sin and the need we have to put it to death, to put on the new man and reflect Christ's image.

But what about the sins of others with whom we associate? Yes, I know, it's not easy to talk about it. After all, we have our sins too. We don't want to come across as hypocritical or judgmental. We surely don't want to be guilty like those of whom Jesus speaks in Matthew 7:1-5. We don't want to be the guy with the beam in our eye.

Yet consider the following:

Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, even as ye are unleavened. For our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ: wherefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. I wrote unto you in my epistle to have no company with fornicators; not at all meaning with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous and extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world: but as it is, I wrote unto you not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no, not to eat. For what have I to do with judging them that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Put away the wicked man from among yourselves (1 Corinthians 5:6-13).

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it; that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish (Ephesians 5:25-27).

While we should remember the principles of Matthew 7:1-5, we need to keep 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 in mind also. We do have the responsibility of judging those who are within, and to put away the wicked man from among ourselves.

But haven't we all sinned? Of course we all have. But when we repent, we can obtain forgiveness (1 John 1:9, the likely sin not leading to death in 1 John 5:16). But when we see people in the church sinning, their sin is brought up to them, and they keep sinning, their sin is leading to death (1 John 5:16). They're spurning the Son of God, and crucifying Him afresh, leaving themselves nothing but terror and fear at the upcoming day of God (Hebrews 10:26-31).

Jesus Himself makes it clear that there comes a time when lines must be drawn, as difficult as that may be:

"And if thy brother sin against thee, go, show him his fault between thee and him alone: if he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he hear thee not, take with thee one or two more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established. And if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto the church: and if he refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican" (Matthew 18:15-17).

Is God being harsh? After all, we humans have a bad record when it comes to making judgments. Wouldn't it be better to just leave it in the hands of God?

The problem-- one that should make us more uncomfortable than it often does-- is the nature of sin as leaven (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:6, Galatians 5:9). It spreads. When it is allowed among brethren, and it is tolerated, it spreads like gangrene or cancer.

God has indicated that His Church will be holy and spotless. While we can never be the ultimate arbiters of such, we do have a twofold obligation to maintain that holiness and spotlessness: by keeping ourselves pure (James 1:27), and by rebuking, and if need be disciplining, those who persist in sin (1 Timothy 5:20, 1 Corinthians 5). If someone is guilty of sin without repentance, even within the church, be sure that they have already been cut out (Romans 11:21-25, Hebrews 10:26-31). Just as dead appendages to the human body provide no value and can lead to the destruction of the whole body, so it is with sinful Christians, and the expected results are the same: removal.

Can discipline/disassociation/rebuke be abused? Certainly. Can it be misapplied to the weak when it ought to be directed toward the errant? Absolutely. Must we always remember that we too have sinned and that by the grace of God so go we? Of course. But that doesn't change our responsibility to edify the Body of Christ (Ephesians 4:11-16), and unfortunately, some times we have to decrease to increase-- dead growth must be cut out to facilitate new growth. Just letting the dead stuff stay there, choking out life, is not edifying the Body!

ELDV

LXVI: The Jubilee

2008-06-10T22:33:00.001-04:00

Perhaps one of the more startling and profound charges that God gave to Israel involved the idea of the Jubilee. The Jubilee year represents an idea that seems rather foreign to us in our materialistic society, and yet indicates God's great concern for the welfare of all of His people.

The Jubilee concept is described in Leviticus 25. God first lays down the legislation regarding the regular Sabbath years-- the Israelites will let the land lay fallow every seven years so that the land may receive a rest (Leviticus 25:1-7).

The Israelites are charged to number "seven sevens" of the Sabbath years, which makes up 49 years. On the Day of Atonement (the tenth day of the seventh month) of the 50th year, the Israelites were to sound the ram's horn (shofar)), and thus proclaim the Jubilee (the word "jubilee" comes from the Hebrew yobel, the proclamation of the ram's horn; Leviticus 25:8-11).

The Jubilee year was to be reckoned like a Sabbath year, and the land was to again lie fallow (v. 12). The significance of the Jubilee is not found in this-- it is found in the "release" that is to be proclaimed (v. 10).

It is in the Jubilee year that any ancestral land sold to pay a debt was to be returned to its original tenants (v. 13). This is quite a remarkable concept with very radical purposes.

God, quite rightly, is concerned that some among His people will accrue prestige and resources and then use them in ways that oppress their fellow men. God does not intend for the land of Israel to only be controlled by the wealthy; all of His children are to receive their proper share. If times are difficult, and land needs to be sold, that land must be returned, for God delivered all the Israelites from bondage, not just some of them (v. 38).

Nevertheless, God does not want people to be cheated, either (v. 14). Israelites were not to sell their land at full price just before a Jubilee year and then receive it back again; if they must sell the land, the value of the harvests between that point and the next Jubilee must be ascertained, and thus a priced will be fixed for it (vv. 15-17).

What is quite profound about this entire discussion is the perspective that Israel is to have regarding their land. As it is written:

And the land shall not be sold in perpetuity; for the land is mine: for ye are strangers and sojourners with me. And in all the land of your possession ye shall grant a redemption for the land (Leviticus 25:23-24).

Israel is not to see the land as something they own; they are sojourners on the land. Others lived on the land before them and others would live on it after them. We, in our Western customs, think highly of land possession and generally accept the premise that we can own property. Yet, in truth, we as Christians should see ourselves as sojourners in this world (Philippians 3:20-21). This principle of sojourning is used to demonstrate the need of the Jubilee: redemption should exist for the land because no one really has any better a claim on it than anyone else.

God required Israel to trust in Him during the Jubilee year. He imagines how the people will ask how they will survive since their fields would be unworked for two years (Leviticus 25:20). God promises that He will provide for them in the sixth year for three years, and that through faith they would succeed and be secure (vv. 21-22). This is comparable to the faith that the Christian should have toward God in terms of all necessities-- if we seek Him first, He will provide our needs (Matthew 6:21-34).

God also has much to say about redemption of land and people in Leviticus 25. As long as proper payment can be made by the person or his family, the land ought to be redeemed from the one who bought it, or it will be redeemed in the Jubilee year (vv. 25-28). The only exception is for houses in walled cities-- if it is not redeemed within a year, it becomes a permanent possession of the buyer, and does not go out in the Jubilee (except for the Levitical cities and the Levites; vv. 29-34).

The Jubilee was not only about property-- it was also about people. In ancient times many succumbed to debt slavery: a man would sell his children, his wife, or even himself to another to serve as a slave to pay off a debt. This is allowed in Israel, but only until the time of the Jubilee or until redemption is paid by the debt slave or his family, and the debt slave is to be treated like a hired servant, since all of the Israelites are really slaves of YHWH. Under no circumstances will an Israelite be sold to a foreigner by a fellow Israelite. Slaves can be bought and/or taken from the nations around them, and an Israelite can even become a debt slave of a foreigner. Nevertheless, in Israel, even the foreigners must respect the Jubilee, and release the debt slave in that year (vv. 35-55). It is also within Leviticus 25 that we find the legislation indicating that Israelites were not to charge their fellow man with interest; they could only exact interest from foreigners (vv. 36-37).

This legislation is quite startling; we have no indications as to whether it was ever carried out during Biblical times in Israel. Jeremiah records in Jeremiah 34:8-11 that Zedekiah proclaimed a year of Jubilee only to immediately re-enslave all the debt slaves, incurring the anger of the LORD.

Nevertheless, we can learn much regarding how God expected Israelites to treat one another from the idea of the Jubilee. God indicates that He has no desire for anyone to be wronged: debts need to be paid, yes, and buyers should not lose money on account of the Jubilee years. On the other hand, God's people should not be consigned to life as debt slaves without any land holdings on account of dire circumstances. God indicates how there should be a balance between the interests of the poor and those with greater means.

The Jubilee concept shows just how separate the interests of God and the interests of worlds happen to be. Can any imagine a proclamation by the US government establishing the release of all citizens from their debts after a given amount of time? What would happen if the government declared that no one ever really owns land, and if anyone sells his land to pay off debt, that the land must be returned to that person after a given amount of time? What would happen if the government forbade Americans from charging fellow Americans interest on loans?

The Jubilee concept is one from the Old Testament, and is not explicitly bound upon anyone today. The principles behind the Jubilee year-- care for all members of society, ending of oppression, opportunities for redemption from difficult circumstances, equality of all persons under God, and the lack of true claims of ownership over land-- resonate with ideas of a just society and proper conduct toward one's fellow man (Romans 13:8-10, Galatians 2:10; 3:28; 6:10, Philippians 3:20-21, Romans 14:9-12, James 5:1-8). After all, why was it that Jesus came?

And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Isaiah. And he opened the book, and found the place where it was written,
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, Because he anointed me to preach good tidings to the poor: He hath sent me to proclaim release to the captives, And recovering of sight to the blind, To set at liberty them that are bruised, To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord."
And he closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant, and sat down: and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fastened on him.
And he began to say unto them, "To-day hath this scripture been fulfilled in your ears" (Luke 4:17-21).

We now have the Jubilee- the acceptable year of the Lord, the proclamation of liberty to those captive under sin (Romans 6, 2 Corinthians 6:1-2). Let us consider the idea of the Jubilee year, and do what we can to love our neighbors as ourselves!

LXV: Our Fellow Man

2008-06-10T00:06:00.001-04:00

Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumblingblock before the blind; but thou shalt fear thy God: I am the LORD (Leviticus 19:14).

There are some times when you would think that certain legislation would not even be necessary, and perhaps this is one of them. How terrible is it for anyone to take advantage of people who have disabilities? How base and shallow is a person if they must say nasty things to people who cannot hear, or put hindrances in the way of people who cannot see?

But is God really only interested here in those who are physically blind and deaf? What about those who live in ignorance, either because of disability or simply a lack of understanding?

It is quite interesting that it is only a few verses later that God declares that Israelites should "love [their] neighbor[s] as [themselves]" (v. 18), a concept also established in the new covenant (Romans 13:8-10).

God has no desire for anyone to take advantage of the deficiencies of their fellow men. Yet how many are so shallow and base as to do such things? Perhaps it is only a few revelers or punk kids who would curse the deaf or put hindrances before the blind. But there are many in society who profit off people in their ignorance and take advantage of people because of their circumstances.

Payday loan centers stay in business because of such practices. Banks have little difficulties loaning money to people who they know are unable to repay. Senior citizens and those who are disabled are especially prone to con men and con corporations. As opposed to trying to instill proper spending habits in people (especially the young), plenty of people, agencies, and corporations are more keen to profit on their ignorance or lack of self-control. The government looks away.

God is the God of the dispossessed (Exodus 22:21-23, James 5:1-6), and does not take kindly to people taking advantage of their fellow men. Our society would be much better off if these principles were more diligently considered. Love your neighbor as yourself-- how much different would America be if people actually heeded this charge?

ELDV

LXIV: Caricatures and Mischaracterizations

2008-05-21T01:11:00.002-04:00

It's the political season again (if there is ever a time without it), and we see, in full force, caricatures and mischaracterizations. I have no desire to get into the merits or lack thereof in the current political candidates, but I do believe that we need to think just for a moment about how we perceive others.

It is quite easy to go along with the crowd and just accept labels, half-truths, and caricatures of reality. It makes everything nice and neat and compartmentalized. "Liberals like to tax and spend." "Conservatives don't care about poor people." "Liberals are godless." "Religious conservatives just want to turn America into a theocracy."

This is not just about politics. "Liberals do not care about Biblical authority." "Traditionalists are sticks in the mud." How many other such statements could we make?

We live in a society that has been goaded into polarization and extremism, and it comes as no surprise to see plenty of people operating on false beliefs and assumptions regarding others.

Does anyone really think that Democrats want terrorists to win?
Does anyone really think that George W. Bush is the antichrist?

Why is it that so often we must resort to caricature, or false polarities, and not try to work on the substantive issues of the day?

Extremism is by no means restricted to politics; there's plenty of it in religious circles. Rarely is there an attempt to understand and intelligently discuss-- we just want to see what the person says, put them into the box into which we think they should go in our mental compartmentalizations, and provide our stock answers to their disagreement.

How is this productive? How is this an intelligent defense of the faith? What does the Bible say about such things?

The heart of him who has understanding seeks knowledge, but the mouths of fools feed on folly (Proverbs 15:14).

A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion (Proverbs 18:2).

Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, for he will despise the good sense of your words (Proverbs 23:9).

What we see all too often in the political realm is sheer folly, according to wise Solomon. Political pundits are the definition of fools.

Too often, in religious discussions, we play the same foolish role. We think we understand when we do not really understand (and I have done the same on many occasions). We are quicker with answers than with questions; we think we have it figured out when we need to first understand.

Now, I am not saying that we must automatically agree; there is room for disagreement when there is understanding. What I am saying is that we're not going to get anywhere if we just relate to others on the basis of caricatures and mischaracterizations and just spew out pat answers.

We may feel threatened by "godless liberals," "denominationalists," "theocrats," "environmentalists," or whatever other subgroup you can think of, but in the end they're human beings, many of whom need to learn of God or understand Him better, and who just might be, on the whole, rather honest and hard-working Americans like many others. Demonizing those whom we oppose only helps out Satan and his demons, and does not accomplish the purposes of God.

ELDV

LXIII: Jesus on the Cross and Holiness

2008-05-21T01:09:00.002-04:00

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, "Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, saying,
'This is the law of the sin-offering: in the place where the burnt-offering is killed shall the sin-offering be killed before the LORD: it is most holy. The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it: in a holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tent of meeting. Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall be holy; and when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any garment, thou shalt wash that whereon it was sprinkled in a holy place. But the earthen vessel wherein it is boiled shall be broken; and if it be boiled in a brazen vessel, it shall be scoured, and rinsed in water. Every male among the priests shall eat thereof: it is most holy. And no sin-offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tent of meeting to make atonement in the holy place, shall be eaten: it shall be burnt with fire'" (Leviticus 6:24-30).

These regulations are being provided specifically to the priesthood and regard the offering for sin. What I found quite interesting from this presentation is the emphasis on holiness: the sin offering is described as "most holy" in verse 25, it is to be eaten in a holy place (v. 26), and anything touching it is made holy (v. 27). If it gets on your clothing, you must wash it in a holy place (v. 28). If the blood gets in a clay vessel, it must be broken; if in a metal vessel, it must be thoroughly cleaned (v. 29).

There is much that we can gain here. First and foremost we see an illustration of holiness in the most concrete way. Holiness is intertwined with sanctification-- being set apart, special to God. There is nothing intrinsically "holy" about said bull, or the location, or its blood. If the bull were used for another purpose, it would not matter where its blood went. If the tabernacle were somewhere else, that plot of dirt would be no different from the plot of dirt next to it. We see that God is teaching Israel about holiness, and we can also learn from this tutor (cf. Galatians 3:24). That which is set apart for God is to be considered special. Elaborate arrangements are made for the handling of the object. Great care is expected to be used. Everything is supposed to be deliberate and according to the specifications of God.

That's what holiness really is. It requires deliberation and calculation. We must strive to act deliberately, differently, and according to God's specifications (1 John 2:1-6, Galatians 5:17-24, 1 Peter 1:13-16). There is nothing intrinsically holy about any of us-- the holiness comes from God's designation, and we are consigned to manifest that designation.

I wonder if this passage also has something to say about Christology. We recognize that the sacrifices, especially the sacrifice for sin, was the earthly copy of the heavenly reality undertaken by Jesus (cf. Hebrews 9:1-15, 10:1-12). There is a theme in the Scriptures that speaks about how Christ was "made sin" for us on the cross (2 Corinthians 5:21), and since sin is what separates us from God (Isaiah 59:1-2), it is reasoned that our sin separated Jesus from God while He was on the cross, and hence His quotation of Psalm 22:1 in Matthew 27:46.

This all presupposes, however, that Christ taking on our sins would separate Him from God. Yet look here in Leviticus-- the sin offering is reckoned as being holy. By being the representative sacrifice, the animal is set apart, or made holy, to God.

What if, as opposed to separating Jesus from God, Jesus being the sin offering for all mankind in fact makes Him set apart, or holy, to God? Are we not to be holy, as He is holy (1 Peter 1:16)? Is not sacrificial death represented as an act of love (1 John 3:16), and held up as an example for all of us? Is it possible that Jesus' death is in itself an act of holiness, setting Himself apart for God so that He could set us apart for God (to make us holy/consecrate us/sanctify us) in His blood (cf. Hebrews 10:14)?

Leviticus helps us to understand much about God and the problem of sin and sets before us the physical shadow of the heavenly substance regarding much of our service to God. Let us receive the encouragement and hope that comes from that which was written to Israel (Romans 15:4)!

ELDV

LXII: Division

2008-05-21T01:06:00.000-04:00

While preaching recently, I noticed something about 1 Corinthians 12 that I hadn't noticed before:

But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another (1 Corinthians 12:24b-25).

When we speak of "divisions" in the church, we normally gravitate toward divisions on account of false doctrines, or the imposing of a liberty (or the lack thereof), or some other substantive issue, no matter how ridiculous that issue might be.

Yet this does not seem to fit the context here at all. No-- when Paul speaks about division in this passage, division has less to do with doctrine or things as much as a lack of openness, love, and mutual honesty/accountability.

It's a difficult idea to swallow: when we are unloving or discouraging toward the brethren, we create divisions within the body. When we withhold ourselves from the brethren-- do not confess our sins to one another (James 5:16), do not allow others to bear our burdens (Galatians 6:2), and in various ways compose ourselves in ways aloof from our brethren-- we are the authors of division within the body.

The type of division concerning which Paul speaks can only be addressed by members having "mutual care" for one another.

The Body of Christ is not one only by its very nature: it's something to which we must diligently apply ourselves. We can only be one in the body of Christ when we work toward that end, being open with one another, accountable to one another, seeking to both be a source of encouragement and to gain encouragement within the body.

Therefore, when we consider the potential for division within the body of Christ, let us not neglect the divisions caused by a lack of love, a lack of interconnectedness, and a lack of true association/joint participation. These forms of division are just as insipid, if not more so, than the threat of false doctrines et al. After all, remember Ephesus (Revelation 2:1-7)!

ELDV

LXI: What Preaching Means to Me

2008-04-14T22:02:00.000-04:00

Before I begin, I would like to remind everyone that this comes from one who has been a Christian for nine years now, who preached part-time for six years and is in his third year of full-time work. There's your caveat emptor. :)

I did not intend on being an evangelist. From sixth grade onwards I wanted to be an Egyptologist. I amassed (thanks to my parents) an impressive collection of Egyptological books, studied French, Latin, and Greek in high school toward that endeavor, and was accepted to and matriculated at the University of Chicago, home of the famous Oriental Institute, having one of the greatest Egyptology departments in the country.

As I reflect, however, it is apparent that God had other plans for me.

I became a Christian in 1999, just before I graduated from high school. I spent much time discussing matters of the faith with people of all kinds of religious backgrounds, and read continually in the Bible and other resources. By the time I entered college I was spending more time on religious matters than educational ones.

While assembling with the brethren of the Hessville church in Hammond, Indiana, I was encouraged to try my hand at preaching. At that point, it was the furthest thing from my mind-- I wasn't ready for it yet. They encouraged me, and I got up and did so. "Foundations of the Faith" was my first lesson, actually written over a couple of hours before I was to present it, and it lasted 35 minutes.

Soon after the preacher there left, and I ended up preaching on denominational errors on Sunday evenings for weeks on end. It was apparent to everyone else where I was heading, but not me. Even though I could have been doing better in school, I still intended to complete my course of study.

By May of 2000 I recognized that I needed to change course, and that's when I determined to become an evangelist.

I did part-time preaching when possible for a few years, returned to school at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and by the end of 2005 I was getting ready to wrap up my degree and to begin full-time work.

I began to do much praying regarding the matter, and I consciously left it up to God. After all, if I was going to be His servant in preaching His Gospel, I'd better go where He wills, and not necessarily where I would go. Northern Ohio was not on my radar screen at that particular juncture. But I believe that I am where God would have me to be.

I begin by giving my personal story so far because I believe that preaching the Gospel-- the work of the evangelist-- is one of the most important works that can be done, and one with great responsibility. It is the subject of much confusion and misunderstandings, and while it can be done by some in a halfway manner, it is only worth doing when it is done right.

I, personally, cannot imagine doing anything else. After over two years and plenty of hours invested it still does not really feel like work. I feel as if I'm doing what I want to do and would do anyway and I have the blessing of getting support for doing so.

That attitude supports me in the difficult and testing times that come with evangelism.

What does all this matter? It gets down to an essential point: a a calling. I recognize that we are hesitant to talk about a "calling," since the denominational world often takes the concept and abuses it. It would seem that in the eyes of many, people sit around and God gives them some kind of call to be a preacher. I believe that we serve a God who is much more creative than that, and we should not deny a Biblical truth because of denominational distortions.

Evangelists need to have a calling to the work. God is the one who should be appointing us for His service, as Paul says in 1 Timothy 1:12, and not the other way around. The imperative of promoting the Kingdom of God must be deeply felt within the preacher, so that he is like Paul, and can declare, "woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel" (1 Corinthians 9:16), or be like Jeremiah, as he declares in Jeremiah 20:9:

And if I say, "I will not make mention of him, nor speak any more in his name," then there is in my heart as it were a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I am weary with forbearing, and I cannot contain.

There must be passion for the work of God and devotion to His purposes and His purposes alone. There must be love, care, and compassion for God's people, and the preacher needs to have the "concern for the churches" like Paul did (2 Corinthians 11:28)

I cannot understand how anyone would be a preacher for the money. I do recognize that one can live decently as a preacher, but the effort (that should be) expended is never worth the money made. The work requires humility and the willingness to serve in ways that may go unrecognized or that one feels is "beneath them." Money alone cannot sustain a preacher in the work!

Neither can fame or notoriety. I fear that too many aspiring preachers become enamored with the pulpit and the accolades that come from preaching. Some may not really understand the encouragement that brethren are offering, and believe themselves to be better preachers than they are in reality. Some may not see how the work is that difficult-- after all, you "only work four hours a week," and people compliment you for it!

While I have no problem owning up to the description of "preacher" or "gospel preacher," I prefer the term "evangelist," and for this very reason. What should be understood by the preacher-- and sometimes less so by members-- is that preaching is really one of the least of the tasks of the evangelist.

What is an evangelist, anyway? The term involves one who promotes the "evangel", that is, the "good news," or the Gospel. The evangelist promotes the Gospel of Christ and His Kingdom.

As I see it, the evangelist has two main areas in which to do this.

1. Promotion of the Gospel of Christ and His Kingdom in the midst of the Kingdom.

Part of the work of the evangelist is to promote the Gospel of Christ and the Kingdom in the midst of its citizens-- the church (cf. Philippians 3:20). The evangelist does so by preaching the Word of God from the pulpit, encouraging, rebuking, instructing, and exhorting as appropriate (cf. 2 Timothy 4:2). This also occurs in instruction in Bible classes, personal studies, group studies, or other such forums (cf. Acts 2:42). The evangelist is also there to encourage the members themselves, perhaps in group settings, or perhaps in individual settings.

There is often confusion between the work of the evangelist and the work of the eldership, and in congregations where there is no eldership, the evangelist, rightly or wrongly, picks up responsibility. Elders are there to shepherd and oversee the flock (1 Peter 5:1-4); that is not the evangelist's role. The evangelist is there to promote and encourage the Gospel (2 Timothy 4:2, etc.). I have used the imagery of the shepherd, the sheep, and the border collie. The shepherds are the elders, and the sheep are the members. The evangelist is the border collie: he barks (encourages/exhorts) at the sheep (members) at the direction of the shepherds (elders), and he barks (encourages/exhorts) at the shepherds (elders) when he sees things going on with the sheep (members).

The evangelist also promotes the Gospel by his own example of life and conduct (1 Timothy 4:12). He must recognize that he himself can change no one but himself-- but if he puts himself forward as an example of the servant of God, he will do better at persuading others to greater faithfulness.

2. Promotion of the Gospel of Christ and His Kingdom to those without.

Sometimes there is a disconnect between what the New Testament reveals and our current practices: we see great promoters of the Gospel of the New Testament focusing mostly on outsiders, and too often preachers focus exclusively on those within. It was recognized from the earliest days that all the burdens could not be borne by one man or a few men, that the word of God would be forsaken if tables were also served (Acts 6:2). Likewise, the evangelist cannot devote his energies to promoting the Word of God in a community if he is constantly expected to deal with internal issues. There is wisdom in God's plan: elders shepherding the flock give evangelists the opportunity to devote a good part of their time to promoting the Gospel, the very task they are charged to do.

This does not mean that the evangelist should not spend time with the members-- but he must recognize that his responsibility goes beyond the local church.

On the other hand, however, we cannot say that evangelism to the outside world is only the preacher's job. This is especially a danger in our modern specialized world: we have few jacks-of-all-trades anymore, and we have specific people whom we pay money to for specific purposes. We take our car in to the brake shop or the oil changing station; we go to the doctor who specializes in our particular ailment; many have people to take care of their gardens, their children, their recreation, and other such tasks. In such a climate it is tempting to "outsource" evangelism to its "specialist," the evangelist.

Yet promoting the Gospel is the responsibility of every Christian (Matthew 28:18-20), and there are many examples of "regular Christians" who were able to convert others to the faith (cf. Acts 18:25-28). In fact, in many ways today, the evangelist is the least able to do good promotion of the Gospel: he is often brought in from another location to evangelize, and therefore has not built up relationships in the community, and when it is discovered that he is a preacher, many will automatically be suspicious of his intentions (he's just telling me about Jesus so he can make more money!, etc.). "Regular members" are in better positions to promote the Gospel: they have relationships with members of the community, and their witness is perceived as more authentic, because they have nothing to gain financially from others being part of the church.

So where does the evangelist fit into evangelism? It would seem to me that the evangelist should be an example and guide of evangelism. Not dictator or ruler or any such thing, but a guide-- leading others in evangelism by laying a foundation or path, encouragement, and example. The evangelist stands in the pulpit and exhorts his fellow Christians to be active in the work, promoting God's Kingdom in their own lives. The evangelist considers ways to promote the Gospel-- door knocking, Bible correspondence courses, tracts, bulletin mailings, websites, gospel meetings, lectures in public forums, radio and/or television lessons, newspaper articles, and so on-- and works with the members to get such programs going. When such is done, and contacts and interested people begin to come around, he then can be trusted with "sealing the deal" and teaching them via Bible studies what they must do to be saved. Just as critically, if not more so, the evangelist should work with young converts to strengthen them in the faith and quickly move them from spiritual infancy to spiritual childhood, lest spiritual infant death syndrome strikes more souls.

In all matters, the evangelist must remember who his Boss is, and constantly speak with his Boss about the work and how it can be more effective (i.e. prayer). The evangelist must represent the humble servant of God, seeking not his own will or fame but in all things the advancement of God's Kingdom.

It is not easy. It is often challenging. One cannot help but get emotionally invested. There are high points and low points. We succeed sometimes and fail in others. In the end, however, if our work was not in vain in the Lord (1 Corinthians 15:58), and it is found that we were able to advance God's purposes for His Kingdom in this world, then it is more than worthwhile.

ELDV