Hermeneian

Metaphors, Hyperbole and Paradoxes, Part 5

2011-11-22T13:18:00.000-05:00

“And in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.” Colossians 2:11-12

How odd I should be able to sit in a chair and type on a computer keyboard with my fingers. I still have a flesh and blood body, even though my body, “by the circumcision of Christ,” has been removed. I remember as well my baptism in Black Jack pond in 1956. I do not remember dying, yet I did; I do not remember being resurrected, yet I was. So, are circumcision and baptism only symbolical? I was baptized, but did not die (except when under water, I breathed throughout the whole experience). I have a flesh and blood body, yet that body has been removed.

Here, then, is the paradox and the truth: I did die, and my body was “cut” away. Not in this “real world,” but in the ultimately real world of the heavenly places. Interestingly, by the way, while Ephesians and Colossians share several key terms and concepts, the word translated “heavenly places” does not occur in Colossians. Yet, the concept is present in that letter. Circumcision and baptism are two “heavenly places” realities.

Circumcision was for Israel a literal act with great symbolical value. Circumcision was a physical mark communicating a greater truth: Israel had been set apart and reserved for God alone. Circumcision was a mark of God’s ownership. Just so for believers as well. In the heavenly places, the “powers and authorities” see our circumcision as the mark of God’s ownership. We are his, and we have been set apart for the Lord and for him alone. The “powers and authorities” know they can neither touch or possess a believer. They know believers have been “rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son.”

Baptism is a ritual of Judaism as well as being a symbolical act of obedience for believers. Basically, baptism was and remains a ritual washing for Jews. If a Gentile converts to Judaism, as a final act in the process, he will undergo baptism as both a cleansing act and as an act of transformation. He enters the water a Gentile, and exits the baptismal pool as a Jew. For followers of Jesus, baptism speaks to our being washed clean from our sins, and also tells of our transformation. In the drama of baptism, we symbolize our death in Christ to self, and our resurrection to new life in Him.

In the realm of the heavenly places, the powers and authorities see the reality of both circumcision and baptism. They see, by the manifestation of the manifold wisdom of God, the removal of the body of flesh, and the death, burial and resurrection of the believer to new life in Christ. The power and authorities have no choice but to honor what God has done.

What the powers and authorities try to do in this world is convince believers they can come under their control. This is a scheme of the devil: he wishes to convince believers he has more authority and power than he actually does. He wants the followers of Jesus to believe he is not defeated. If we grant him more power than he in fact has, he can temporally defeat us. Yet, he knows the defeat will not last. He is aware of the ultimate reality of our salvation, protection and preservation. He also knows he himself is defeated and all his works have been destroyed. The devil knows the true, ultimate reality of the victory of the Cross. He, as the demons, knows the truth about God. And he, just as the demons, “shudder” at the truth.

Peter made an interesting statement about our salvation. He said, “knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.” (1 Peter 1:18-19) What was the point Peter was making? He was declaring how final and absolute redemption in Christ is. If God had only purchased our salvation with gold and silver, someone could amass a greater fortune and buy us back from God. Our salvation, if based on temporal things, would then be temporary. God instead bought us out of slavery to sin with the “precious blood” of Christ. That purchase price was eternal and of the greatest value. No price of greater value could be or can be paid. Our salvation is absolute.

With that absolute and irreversible salvation comes total and absolute protection and preservation. No power in the universe can overcome the work of God. What is your ultimate reality?

Metaphors, Hyperbole and Paradoxes, Part 4

2011-11-22T13:17:00.000-05:00

“He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church.”
Ephesians 1:20-22

“[God has] made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,”
Ephesians 2:5-6

“For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.”
Ephesians 6:12

What is your ultimate reality? What you perceive as reality determines the decisions you make. For many, this world is the ultimate reality. We live and then we die; that’s all there is. For others, this world is a transitory place, where we live for a while, die and come back in some other form (reincarnation). For believers, this world and the lives we live in it are real, but they are not the ultimate reality. What we do here is preparation for our life in eternity. We prepare for eternity with God by being saved by grace. We prepare for eternity apart from God by rejecting the Gospel. Our decisions in this life have eternal consequence. What we decide is real and binding. Our real decisions in this real world have implications for a real eternity.

Yet, this world is not the ultimate reality. We do not base our daily decisions on the realities of this life, but on the realities of the spiritual realm. In Ephesians, Paul used the word “heavenly places” five times (1.3, 20; 2.6; 3.10; 6.12). In each case, Paul was emphasizing significant spiritual truths. He was also pointing the Ephesian believers to the ultimate reality. He told them God had “blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places.” He declared Jesus was “seated at [God’s] right hand in the heavenly places.” Paul further said God had raised up believers “with Him (Jesus), and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” He said the “manifold wisdom of God,” revealed in the mystery of the Gospel, would “be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.” Lastly, he declared our struggle as believers is “against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.”

What does all this mean? Simply stated, the ultimate reality for believers is the “heavenly places.” We are to have a “world view,” or a perspective on life rooted in eternal truths, not temporal ones. When Israel was told to go into the Promised Land, they rebelled (see Numbers 13); they refused to enter the land because what they “saw” made them afraid. The Lord had told them he had already given them the land, they only had to fight to take it; God would give them the victory. Yet, based on the report of the faithless, ten spies, they refused to obey God. Their reality was based in what they saw, not the truth.

We live too much of our lives based on what we see and not on the truth. We pray for God to bless us. Yet, Paul said we had already been “blessed with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places.” If we have already been blessed, why ask God to do again what he has already done? Why do we cower in fear before a defeated enemy who is already “in subjection under the feet” of Jesus? Why do we treat the church disrespectfully when God is showing his “manifold wisdom” through the church to the “rulers and authorities in the heavenly places”? Why do we have such poor self-concepts as believers when we are “seated with Him in the heavenly places”?

In some earlier posts on this blog, I have argued against the possibility of believers being possessed or oppressed by demons. If I, as a believer, am seated with Jesus in the heavenly places, then, to be possessed or oppressed would mean the devil has the power to ascend to the Throne of Jesus and overpower him. My safety and security in this life and in eternity is rooted in Jesus and the reality of his completed work on the Cross. As Paul told the Colossians, we believers “are complete in Him.” We are not safe because of our faith or our fight, but because of Jesus and what he has done for us. He is the ultimate reality.

Metaphors, Hyperbole and Paradoxes, Part 3

2011-11-22T13:16:00.000-05:00

“He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church.”
Ephesians 1:20-22

“For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.”
Ephesians 6:12

An elderly woman told me once when asked how she was doing, “I’m as weak as dirty dish water.” Now what was she saying? What comparison was she making? Did she view herself as having no more value than dirty dishwater? No. She was telling me she had no strength left. Just as dishwater loses its strength after all the dirty dishes have been washed, so this woman, at the end of her days, felt she had little strength left for living.

In the same way, when a writer uses a metaphor or employs hyperbole, he is emphasizing some greater truth or reality. Authors employ these literary techniques as a part of a larger, literal narrative. A true story is told, but at points, the author emphasizes some fact or truth by using a metaphor or hyperbole. In John 15, Jesus used the metaphor of the vineyard, the husbandman, the vine and the branches to emphasize the importance of being productive disciples. Just as branches on a grapevine produce fruit, so we, as followers of Jesus, produce “fruit” only as we are in a dynamic relationship with Jesus.

Paul used the metaphor of armor (based on the armor of a Roman soldier) to communicate several larger truths. Earlier, we pointed out the paradoxes involved in this metaphor (can you put on and take off your salvation?). I think another paradox is found in the identity of the enemy and the struggle we face daily. The verses above illustrate this seeming contradiction. We fight a defeated enemy, plain and simple.

We might better understand this paradox by looking at the story of Achan (Joshua 7). God had placed all the material wealth of Nineveh (except for what he excluded) under a ban. When God destroyed Nineveh, the Israelites were to destroy and burn everything in the city. Achan disobeyed God and took the beautiful mantel of Shinar and some silver and gold. God knew what Achan had done and “his anger . . . burned against the sons of Israel.” When Israel went up against the city of Ai, the army of Israel was defeated.

God had given the Promised Land to Israel. Yet, in order to possess the land, they had to fight for it. Victory was assured, as long as God’s people were obedient to him. At Ai, they were defeated because Israel had sinned (notice how one man’s sin affected the whole nation) and transgressed. The sin and transgression was Achan’s taking things under the ban and keeping them in the midst of the camp. When God made that fact clear to Joshua, he said, “I will not be with you anymore unless you destroy the things under the ban from your midst.” Victory came when Achan admitted what he had done and he and all his house along with what he had taken from Nineveh were destroyed.

Here is the paradox: we already have victory over the devil. Yet, at times, we are overcome. We suffer defeat, not due to the power of Satan and his demons, but because we have sin in our lives. Just as God demanded obedience in all things from Israel, so he does of you and me as modern day followers of Jesus. Our enemy is in subjection under the feet of Jesus. Our victory today results from the same source as Israel’s victories as she fought to take possession of the Promised Land. We have victory in Christ and in him alone. As was true with Israel, so the truth is for us: if we tolerate sin, we suffer defeat. An obedient believer, though, cannot be overcome.

Metaphors, Hyperbole and Paradoxes, Part 2

2011-11-22T13:14:00.000-05:00

“Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm.”
Ephesians 6.13

“Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature.” (NIV)
Colossians 3.5

Jesus made two interesting statements in the Sermon on the Mount: “If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; . . . If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you.” Was the Lord advocating self-mutilation? Or, was he using hyperbole to make a point? We know our problems go deeper than a physical eye or a hand. Indeed, one cannot rid himself of a vision problem simply by gouging out only one eye. Jesus was saying we must do whatever is necessary to rid ourselves of sinful behavior. Remember, Jesus told the Pharisees, “for the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart.” We must go to the root of the problem, not just where the problem is manifested.

For believers, dealing with the issues of life is a matter of great consequence. We contend with our problems and circumstances on the basis of truth. We recognize the truth about ourselves and our situations, and we come to terms with the truth about the resources available to us as followers of Jesus. We cannot be effective by either ignoring reality or creating a false reality.

The very heart of our problem is sin. James declared, “But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death. Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren.” (Jam. 1.14-16) The problem is not outside of us, but deep within. Our desires are our greatest enemy.

Now we must be clear on one issue: the devil. He is real and he is the enemy of God and the enemy of God’s people. Paul made plain the issue: we must stand against the “schemes of the devil.” The schemes of the devil are the strategies he has put in place to frustrate believers and make them ineffective in their service to God. Basically, Satan has put in place a variety of seemingly believable and attractive options for achieving one’s goals.

Consider Jesus’ encounter with Satan in the wilderness. Three times, the devil offered to Jesus alternatives the Lord might use to accomplish his goals: turn stones into bread; test God by leaping from the pinnacle of the Temple; and, acknowledging the devil’s power. Jesus answered each temptation by quoting Scripture. He resisted the devil, and the devil “left” him. Jesus won. The devil lost.

These same kinds of solutions exist today. We can chose to do things outside the biblical model, or we can be true to Scripture in all our decisions. We can resist and stand against the devil. We fail to win when we do not resist and stand against Satan in the strength of the Lord. The Lord exposed the devil’s lie of being powerful. As Jesus said, Satan “was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” The devil is incapable of saying anything truthful. None of his threats of being powerful or false, but alluring schemes are to be believed.

Neither the devil nor any of his demons have any power at all over believers. Jesus came to “destroy the works of the devil.” (1 John 3.8) Not only that, Jesus “disarmed the rulers and authorities.” (Col. 2.15) These “rulers and authorities” are “in subjection under his feet.” (Eph. 1.22) Those “rulers and authorities,” by the way, are what we struggle against. (Eph. 6.12) Not only can we stand against these rulers and authorities, whatever and whoever they might be, but we can do so in the knowledge “in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us.” (Rom. 8.37) The only power the devil or a demon might have in a believer’s life is the authority a follower of Jesus grants to them.

Let us all remember, “God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline.” We are not to be intimidated by anything; neither the devil nor our sinful desires. In the power of God, in the knowledge of his love for us, and by exercising self-discipline in all things, we will be more than conquerors.

Metaphors, Hyperbole and Paradoxes, Part 1

2011-11-22T13:13:00.000-05:00

“Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm.”
Ephesians 6.13

“Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature.” (NIV)
Colossians 3.5

In responding to some comments on a blog-post about demon-possession, I was struck by some paradoxes in the Spiritual Armor text in Ephesians 6. In thinking about this passage, some literary techniques employed by most of the inspired writers of the biblical texts came to mind: metaphor, hyperbole, euphemism, simile and symbol, among others. I began to wonder to what degree did Paul use metaphor in talking about Spiritual Armor.

Clearly, Paul based his comments on Isaiah 59.17: “He put on righteousness like a breastplate, and a helmet of salvation on His head; and He put on garments of vengeance for clothing and wrapped Himself with zeal as a mantle.” The question is, does God actually wear armor, or was Isaiah using a simile (comparing two dissimilar things in a phrase introduced with like or as) to say something important about the Lord? Earlier, Isaiah described his vision of the Lord in the Temple in part by saying, “I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple.” Was the train of God’s robe (Does God “wear” a robe?) literally filling the Temple? Just as Isaiah was saying something about the power of the Lord in 59.17, he was declaring in 6.1 the reality of God’s presence in the Temple in Jerusalem. The Lord’s presence completely filled the Temple.

Now, Paul was a skillful writer. He used rabbinic methods of argument; he employed aspects of Greek rhetoric; and, he used metaphors, hyperbole and analogy. For instance, Colossians 3.5 is hyperbole: kill, or put to death. Can one actually put to death an emotion? How do we slay a sensual desire? If, though, Paul was simply over-stating his case, he in fact was saying do whatever is necessary to do away with destructive desires in one’s life. As for analogy, in Colossians 3.7, Paul said, “you used to walk in these ways.” Many times in Scripture, “to walk” is analogous to “living one’s life” (see Gen. 5.24; Eph. 2.2)

In deciding to what point, if any, Paul was using analogy in Ephesians 6.14-17, we must look first at some obvious paradoxes in that text. The first is, how do you put on the armor? A similar paradox is found in Colossians 3.8-10, Paul spoke twice of “taking off” (as a garment) the practices of the old self and “putting on” (as a garment) the new self. What are the dynamics of taking off and putting on? Nonetheless, we are to “wrap ourselves” with the armor of God and “clothe” ourselves with the new self.

The second paradox is in the actual parts of the armor. Of those, righteousness, faith and salvation are the most important concepts to consider. Here’s the paradox: if we can put something on, can we take it off? If you can “put on” the helmet of salvation, can you take that helmet off? The implication is stunning. If you can both put it on and take it off, then, one can both claim and disavow his salvation. Faith and righteousness are tied together. Paul told the Romans, “therefore, since we have been justified through faith.” (Rom. 5.1) To be justified is to be declared righteous. Paul made that point when he quoted Genesis 15.6, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” (Rom. 43). So, by faith, one is declared righteous. We must then ask, can one lay down the very faith through which righteousness was credited? Further, if one lays down his righteousness, he then takes back his sin, thus, nullifying the Cross. Considering what Paul said to the Colossians, if one does not put on the new man, does he remain “clothed” in the old self? If, though, as Paul told the Corinthians in 2 Cor. 5.17, “therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come,” can we undo what Christ has done?

We must not run the risk of over-literalizing the armor and new self metaphors. If we do, we are faced with the dilemma of “putting on” and “taking off.” Rather, we should look to the deeper truth Paul was declaring. Salvation, faith and righteousness are ours through what Christ did on the Cross. Since they are ours, granted to us by God, then we should take maximum advantage of these realities. To the Greeks, the head was the source of life. Christ, through his saving act, protects and preserves our lives. Righteousness is as a breastplate, protecting our hearts, the center of our being. In the depth of our being, we are sinless, having had all our sin forgiven. Faith extinguishes the fiery darts of the evil one, his lies. Is faith in our faith how the lies are extinguished. No. Our fundamental trust in God and the truth of his Word is now the lies are exposed for what they are.

No one has to “put on” their salvation every morning. Neither can we take it off. So, once the armor is on, we can never take it off. If you could take it off, say at the end of the day, what would happen to you when you were sleeping?

Demon Possession, Pt. 3

2011-11-16T09:51:00.000-05:00

“But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or how can anyone enter the strong man's house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house.” (Matt. 12.28-29) Profound implications accompany this remarkable declaration by Jesus. With this statement, Jesus announced his authority and power to take anyone he wished from the “house,” or kingdom (see Col. 1.13) of Satan. Was the Lord saying he could only cast out demons, or was he saying he could save anyone he chose to save? Obviously, the later was the essence of his announcement.

We read this declaration and see in it a kind of hypothetical statement: “if I cast out demons.” Jesus was not speaking hypothetically; he was not suggesting he might be able to cast out demons. The argument with the Pharisees stemmed from the fact Jesus had just freed a blind and mute man from demon possession, and healed him of his blindness and muteness. Jesus was referring to the actual, not the possible. In the Greek text, verse 28 is a conditional statement, an if, . . . then proposition. If one thing was true, casting out demons by the Spirit of God, then another was true, the kingdom of God had come.

We can better understand the force of Jesus’ comment by reading the verse in an appropriate way: “But since I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.” Jesus was declaring what was. He was casting out demons by the Spirit of God and the kingdom of God had come. Jesus had no “ifs” in his mind. He knew the truth and declared it to the Pharisees. They knew, as did Jesus, only the Messiah would come in the power of the Spirit (see Isa. 11.1-10; 42.1-4; 61.1-3). Here, then, was a crisis point for the Pharisees and Israel. Would they accept Jesus as the Messiah or reject him? Their response is a fact of history.

The second part of the declaration of Jesus had to do with the victory of God over the Devil. Jesus said, “or how else can anyone enter the strong man’s (Satan) house (kingdom) and carry off his property (the lost), unless he first binds (overcomes) the strong man? And then he will plunder his house.” Compare that statement with the declaration of Paul to the Colossians: “For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” (Co. 1.13-14) In other words, when a person confesses Jesus and trusts in him and his work on the Cross, his sins are forgiven and he is rescued or delivered out of the kingdom of darkness, the kingdom of Satan, and transferred to the Kingdom of Jesus, the beloved Son.

An important fact has to be understood at this point. A connection between sin and sickness existed in the minds of the Jews. Sickness was the result of sin. For instance, when Jesus encountered a blind man as he was leaving the Temple (John 9.1ff), his disciples asked him a question. They asked, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?” On the one hand, the question is odd. How could a man sin so he himself would be born blind; a somewhat contradictory observation. Could a man sin before he was born?

More importantly, though, the question went to the heart of the Jewish understanding of sickness and sin. Sickness always resulted from sin. In this story, the issue of sin came to the fore in the final statement Jesus made to the Pharisees. They asked him, “We are not blind too, are we?” Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains,” He completely turned around the issue of sin and sickness. The sin of the Pharisees was their knowing the truth, but not acknowledging it. If they had not understood, they would have had not sin. Their claim to be able to “see” the truth compounded their sin.

In Mark 2.1-12, the sin and sickness debate is illustrated more clearly. A paralytic was brought to Jesus by his friends, who opened the roof of a house and lowered the man down to Jesus. Jesus’ first comment to him was, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” Jesus, knowing the response of the religious authorities who were present, asked a pointed question in response to their unbelief. “‘Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, “Your sins are forgiven”; or to say, “Get up, and pick up your pallet and walk”? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins’ he said to the paralytic, ‘I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home.’”

Jesus painted the scribes into a corner. If they said Jesus’ healing the man was easier, they would be saying Jesus could also forgive sins. If they said forgiving the man’s sins was easier, they would be saying Jesus could also heal. If you do one, you can do the other. They had no answer. Jesus answered the question for them: he healed the man. Thus, he was declaring he had the authority to make the first statement he had made, “your sins are forgiven.”

A connection must now be made between the forgiveness of sin and demon possession. We begin with the Cross. When Jesus died on the Cross as the perfect sacrifice, he did so to effect the final, total forgiveness of the sins of all persons. When John the Baptist saw Jesus, as accounted in John 1.29-36, He twice declared, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” All the sins of all people of all time were forgiven on the Cross. Paul wrote, “for the death that He died, He died to sin once for all.” Jesus’ death on the Cross was a one-time death for all the sins of all people.

When a person confesses his sin and trusts Christ for salvation, he is accepting the already completed forgiveness of sin. What God offers to anyone who would believe is redemption, the forgiveness of sin. He can offer forgiveness because forgiveness was made available through the death of Jesus. All one is required to do to obtain forgiveness is confess his sin, which is take responsibility for what he has done.

Paul made an important statement to the Romans. “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes (trusts), to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” (Rom. 1.16) How powerful is the gospel? Anyone who believes can be saved, regardless of their condition. Nothing is required of a person beyond his trust in the Gospel. And, by the way, Jesus is the Gospel. We do not believe in something about Jesus, we believe in who Jesus is. We trust in him. Surely, in believing in him we believe in what he did on the Cross. Yet, at the deepest level, we believe Jesus; we trust him. If we trust him, we have no difficulty believing in the efficaciousness of what he accomplished on the Cross.

To illustrate the importance of trusting Jesus, we look to the story in Acts 19.11-20 and the account there of the Seven sons of Sceva. These men were Jewish exorcists and wanted to appropriate the power they saw being expressed through the ministry of Paul. When they tried to cast evil spirits out of the possessed, they would say, “I adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preaches.” One evil spirit answered them and said, “I recognize Jesus, and I know about Paul, but who are you?” The possessed man then attacked all seven of the men, overpowered them and chased them out of town, “naked and wounded.” The sons of Sceva (a Jewish chief priest) were not believers. They falsely believed the name of Jesus was some kind of magical incantation. They were mistaken.

This story, along with many others in Acts, served to show how God was insuring the integrity and credibility of the Gospel. The Lord did not want anyone preaching anything but the pure Gospel. Apollos and the Ephesian disciples (18.14 - 19.7) did not understand the whole Gospel. They had been baptized with the baptism of John, not with Jesus’ baptism. Even baptism was important to the integrity of the Gospel. One had to be baptized with understanding. Likewise, the “name of Jesus” could not be appropriated by anyone as a tool to further one’s own power and prestige.

By the way, look again at what the evil spirit said to the sons of Sceva: “I recognize Jesus.” The evil spirit knew who Jesus was. James made a similar statement in his letter. “You believe that God is one, You do well; the demons also believe and shudder.” No clouds of doubt obscured any demon’s view or understanding of who Jesus actually was. In Mark 1.21-28, the story is told of Jesus casting an evil spirit out of a man. As Jesus taught, the evil spirit in the man cried out, “What business do we have with each other, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are–the Holy One of God.” While we are casual in our understanding of Jesus, demons “tremble” at the knowledge. So, as with the sons of Sceva, demons recognize not only Jesus, they also “know about Paul” as well as any who has trusted Jesus for salvation.

At this point, let’s ask a hypothetical question. Suppose a person is in fact demon possessed. Can this person be saved? Must the person first be freed from demon possession before he can be saved, or is the Gospel enough? Paul said the Gospel, the good news of Jesus, was the power of God to save any who trusted. What do we do with one who might be demon possessed?

We must understand the completeness of the victory of Jesus over the Devil to answer this question. In Ephesians 4.8, and in Colossians 2.15, similar statements are made one can understand only by knowing a little history of the Roman Empire. Victorious Roman generals were granted a triumph in honor of their great victories. Pompey the Great was given three triumphs, the third the greatest of all.

Pompey’s eastern victories earned him his third triumph. On his 45th birthday, in 61 BC, he rode the triumphal chariot as a magnificent god-king. He was accompanied by a gigantic portrait head of himself, studded with pearls. His third triumph exceeded all others; an unprecedented two days were scheduled for its procession and games. Spoils, prisoners, army and banners depicting battle scenes were found all along the triumphal route between the Campus Martius and the Capitoline temple of Jupiter. To conclude, he gave an immense triumphal banquet and money to the people of Rome, and promised them a new theater.”

What does a Roman triumph have to do with the passages in Ephesians and Colossians? In both, the Triumph of Jesus was being described. Note some of the things described. In Ephesians, Jesus “led captive a host of captives.” In a triumph, kings and great generals who had been defeated in battle were led in chains behind the chariot of the triumphant general as his procession made its way through the streets of Rome. Also, Ephesians says Jesus “gave gifts to men.” Pompey gave the city of Rome a new theater. In Colossians, Paul wrote when “[God] had disarmed the rulers and authorities, he made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him [Jesus].” Not only did Jesus win the final victory, but in doing so, he took away all the weapons the enemies of God had at their disposal. The only thing the Devil has left to use against people is the lie.

Since Jesus won an absolute and final victory through the Cross, who or what can stand against him? No one and no thing. Satan has no power or authority to use against Jesus. The Gospel of Jesus, then, is the most powerful truth in the universe. Through the Gospel, people are set free. Even if, and if is a big word, someone is demon possessed, only the Gospel can set him free. But, if the victory of the Cross was final, complete and absolute, then with what power can Satan hold anyone when that person is confronted with Jesus. If one is demon possessed, the name of Jesus on the lips of a believer and the presence of the Resurrected Lord in the heart of a believer is all the power required to free one from demon possession. Demons tremble, shudder and flee at the presence of Jesus.

Yet, since the Cross was the final blow with which Satan was eternally defeated and disarmed, how can he possess anyone. He cannot possess or oppress anyone, believer or unbeliever alike. The problem of mankind is not demon possession; the problem we all face is our sin. One is not set free by having a demon cast from him, he is set free when his sin is forgiven. Once freed by the Gospel, no believer can ever be under the oppression of Satan or a demon. Paul declared, “Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” (2 Cor. 4.17) Whether we know or understand our freedom is beside the point; freedom is guaranteed by the Spirit of the Lord, not the degree of our spiritual, theological or intellectual abilities.

Human beings are not demon possessed, they are sin possessed. James said, “but each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death. Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren.” The Cross solved the sin problem of man. Trust in Christ makes forgiveness for the person who trusts a reality. The Gospel is the power of God to save anyone who trusts.

Demon Possession, Pt. 2

2011-11-16T09:50:00.002-05:00

When we look at all the accounts in the Gospels and Acts in which demon possession (having a demon, unclean/evil spirit, etc.) is described, we find the following facts. Thirteen passages include references to demon possession of some sort. Of these, six are clearly about demon possession, one is probable (Acts 19.11-20), five are general (Mk. 1.32-34, for example) and one is questionable (Acts 16.16-18).

A question about what the Gospels tell us about demon possession is immediately raised. Why was demon possession seemingly so prevalent during the time of Jesus’ walk upon the earth? Based upon the record of the OT, demon possession did not occur in the time before the life of Christ. At the least, if people were demon possessed, no mention is made in the Hebrew Scriptures. Further, except for the three references in Acts (8.7; 16.16-18; 19.11-20), the matter of demonic activity is not addressed in any other book of the NT. The reality of Satan is discussed at times, but not demons (James 2.19, 1 Corinthians 10.20-21 and Revelation 9.20, 16.14 and 18.2 have no bearing on demon possession at all.).

One other fact bears consideration: after Matt. 17.14-18, Mk. 9.38, Lk. 9.49 and Acts 19.13-16, demon possession is not mentioned again in the Synoptic Gospels or Acts. Why did such an important issue cease to be an issue in the Gospels and Acts? In over half the book of Matthew, most of Mark and almost two-thirds of Luke, demon activity is not mentioned at all. We might find our answer by looking at what the Evangelists were saying about Jesus.

A good starting point is Matthew 4.1-17, Mark 1.12-15 and Luke 4.1-21. Each of these passages is an account of the beginning of the ministry of Jesus. In these texts, two things occur. First, Jesus is led into the wilderness by the Holy Spirit and is tempted by Satan. Second, he then publicly announces his ministry. In Matthew and Mark, Jesus announced, “The kingdom of heaven/God is at hand.” In Luke, Jesus read from the Scroll of Isaiah (61.1-2). After reading, he declared, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” In effect, he was proclaiming the advent of the Kingdom of God. The announcement of the kingdom had temporal and eternal consequences and meanings.

Look back at the temptation of Jesus by Satan in the wilderness. The testing of Jesus was an earthly battle, and a battle in which he defeated Satan. All throughout his ministry, Jesus would suffer attacks by Satan. He never lost a single battle; he always won. Jesus’ conflicts with Satan were fought in time. These battles were played out in his encounters with demon possessed persons. Jesus was able to free the demon possessed because he had defeated the Devil.

Matthew 12.22-29 and Luke 11.14-23 show us the greater truth involved in Jesus’ encounters with the demon possessed. These two stories of Jesus’ casting out a demon and the response of the crowd and the Pharisees go to the heart of the battle between Jesus and Satan. When Jesus cast the demon out of the blind and mute man, the crowd asked, “this man cannot be the Son of David, can he?” The Pharisees, on the other hand, accused Jesus of casting out demons with the power of Beelzebul (Satan), the ruler of the demons.

Obviously, everyone, Pharisees and the crowd as well, knew what the power to cast out demons implied. Only the Messiah would be able to do so. Isaiah wrote, “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to bring good news to the afflicted; He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to captives and freedom to prisoners; to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord and the day of vengeance of our God’ to comfort all who mourn in Zion.” (Isa. 61.1-2). These are the verses Jesus read in the synagogue in Nazareth. After reading, he declared the words of this passage to have been fulfilled. He was the fulfillment. The Kingdom was at hand because he, the Messiah, the anointed one, had come.

The Pharisees understood what Jesus’ casting out demons meant. To recognize his power to do so by the Spirit of God would have meant they believed him to be the Messiah. They could not do so for a variety of reasons. Just as the people in the synagogue of Nazareth were enraged by Jesus’ declaration, the Pharisees as well were angered. How could the son of a simple carpenter be the Anointed One? Quite frankly, the Pharisees probably expected the Messiah to be one of their own.

The important part of this story is found in how Jesus defended himself and what he was doing. He first pointed out the ridiculousness of the charge he was casting out demons by the power of the Demon Lord. Such a scenario would mean a kingdom would be “divided against itself.” If Satan fought against himself, if “Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself.” Jesus then said, “how then will his kingdom stand?” Jesus next statement went to the heart of the issue.

“But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or how can anyone enter the strong man's house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house.” (Matt. 12.28-29) Two conclusions can be drawn from Jesus’ declaration. First, he was declaring himself to be the Messiah who was ushering in the Kingdom of God. Second, he was publicly declaring his power over the Devil.

Jesus said, “how can anyone enter the strong man’s house (Satan’s kingdom) an carry off his property unless he first binds (defeats) the strong man?” By casting out demons, Jesus was “entering the strong man’s house” and was carrying off his property (the demon possessed). Because he had defeated the Devil (manifested and proven in the Wilderness Temptations), Jesus had both the authority and the power to take Satan’s “property.” (See 1 John 3.8) Such a truth was too great and traumatic for the Pharisees to believe. All they hoped for, if they accepted Jesus, would have been denied them. They, as both the religious and cultural elite, could not bring themselves to acknowledge Jesus, and, thus, be required to bow before him.

The victory of Jesus over Satan was both a spiritual and physical reality. For about half his ministry, Jesus was engaged in conflicts with the minions of Satan. He won every battle and encounter. At some point, these kinds of battles ceased to be an issue. Thus, in the Synoptics, encounters with demon possessed persons was no longer a kind of battle in which Jesus would be engaged. He of course still battled with Satan, but on an entirely different kind of field. The conflicts became more subtle. Conflict with the Pharisees, Sadducees and the High Priest and his supporters were the rule. In these encounters, Jesus had to do battle with the religious lies and untruths by which Israel was bound.

Understand, the people of Israel and their religious leaders were not demon possessed. They were deceived. One does not have to know the source of deception in order to be mislead. People simply accept, without thinking, popular ideas and concepts. One of the ways the Devil tempted Jesus was the offer of a wholly religious world. The Devil said to Jesus, “all these things (the kingdoms of the world) I will give You, if You fall down and worship me.” (Matt. 4.9) Jesus was being told he could achieve his goal by acknowledging the superior power and position of Satan. Jesus, though, did not want a religious world. Israel already had religion, but still was powerless to rescue those trapped in darkness.

Jesus replied to Satan, “Go, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.’” Satan was shown his place in God’s scheme. He was defeated and commanded to leave. Only the more powerful of the two combatants could command: Jesus commanded Satan and Satan had to obey; he had no other choice. Jesus then declared the source of his power: the Lord your God. Jesus recognized the ultimate power of God in his own life, and he declared the Lord was Satan’s God as well. Satan had no power over Jesus at all. His defeat was a reality and would be declared further when Jesus went to the Cross and was resurrected from the Tomb.

Jesus refused to believe the lies of the Devil. He rejected legalistic religion and opted instead for faith. If the good news was ever to become a reality, Jesus had to go to the Cross. He could not settle for anything less. He had to die. His death and resurrection was the final declaration of the totality of the victory of God over sin, death and the Devil.

Demon Possession, Pt. 1

2011-11-16T09:50:00.001-05:00

Is demon possession a spiritual reality in our time? On the one hand, we hear all kinds of stories of demonic activity, including “eye-witness” accounts of demon possessed people, read books on the subject, and hear sermons in which the “reality” of demon possession is declared. On the other hand, when we look into Scripture, we find something entirely different from what we hear. Does the Bible contain stories of demon-possession? Most certainly. Does Scripture give us clear guidance on how to deal with demon possessed people. Actually, no. All we have are narratives in which, for the most part, Jesus confronted and freed demon possessed individuals.

A most obvious and important fact is where the Bible talks about demon-possession: only in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke). Two texts in Acts, in which demon-possession is a possibility, will be discussed later. No accounts are given in the OT of demon-possession nor in any other text in the NT. The Greek word for “demon possessed” is daimonidzomai. Other than one occurrence in John (10.21, in which context Jesus has been accused of “having a demon”), all occurrences of the term “demon possessed” are found in the Synoptics.

The word for demon/devil is daimonion. This particular word can be translated as demon, devil or god. In the Greek translation of the OT, known as the Septuagint (LXX), the word is translated as demons (Deut. 32.17), gods (Psa. 95.1), shaggy goats (Isa. 13.21; 34.14), altar, Fortune (Isa. 65.11), and devastation (Psa. 90.6). In the NT, typically, this word is translated demon or devil. Outside the Synoptics, the word daimonion is found in John, 1 Corinthians and Revelation. In John, in every occurrence, the Jews are accusing Jesus of “having” a demon (in John 8.49, Jesus said, “I do not have a demon.”). In 1 Corinthians 10.20-21, Paul is referring to “things sacrificed to demons,” or idols. The word is used descriptively in Revelation in three places. Once, a form of the word daimonion occurs in James 2.19.

We then can conclude the NT theology of demon possession is rooted solely in the Synoptic Gospels. Now, some will suggest cases of demon possession are found in Acts. In Acts, an unusual situation exists. The Greek verb daimonidzomai does not occur in Acts. In Acts, the word used is pneumatos, spirit. Two cases of note are found in Acts. First, in 16.16-18, the account of the slave-girl with the spirit of divination occurs. Second, the case of the Seven sons of Sceva in 19.11-20 is accounted. These two narratives teach some important truths about demon possession.

Acts is the second part of what many believe was to have been a three-part work by Luke. Part One is, of course, the Book of Luke. No one knows if Luke ever wrote Part Three. We do have Parts One and Two, and, so, can make some observations and conclusions about the words Luke used in these two treatises. First of all, Luke was consistent in his use of the terms daimonion and daimonidzomai. Clearly, in both Luke and Acts, when the writer used either term, the intended meaning was always demon, except in Acts, where the term is rightly understood as “foreign gods” (xenōn daimoniōn). In Luke, the term is always demon(s).

One verse in Luke is of particular importance in understanding how Luke used the terms daimonion and pneumatos. In Luke 8.2, the writer said some who were with Jesus included “some women who had been healed of evil spirits and sicknesses: Mary who was called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out.” My position is Luke meant one thing by “evil spirits,” and another with “demons.” What had afflicted the women, evil spirits, was not the same as the “seven demons” who had gone out of Mary Magdalene. In Luke, as in other places, spirit referred, in places, to one’s inner being (“Blessed are the poor in spirit,” [Matt. 5.3]; “the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak,” [Matt. 26.41]; “Jesus . . . yielded up his spirit,” [Matt. 27.50]; “and her spirit returned, and she got up immediately,” [Lk. 8.55]; et alia).

In some cases, Luke did use the term pneumatos in such a way as to suggest a kind of demon possession or oppression. In Luke 4.33, a man is described who had a “spirit of an unclean demon.” Jesus rebuked the demon and he came out of the man. Here, the word “spirit” is controlled, or defined, by the term demon. The essence, or spirit, of the demon was uncleanness. In 8.26-33, a man is described as being “possessed with demons,” their name being Legion, “for many demons had entered him.” In v. 29, Jesus “commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man.” Luke switched between demons (plural) and spirit (singular). Again, demons define spirit. The essence of the “many demons” was uncleanness. The many demons were all unclean, and, thus, the man was possessed with a spirit, or essence, of evil.

In 9.37-42, a distinct and clear connection is made between spirit and demon. In this context, the words appear to be synonymous. Yet, we can argue with some justification spirit means something different from demon. When the boy, who was demon possessed, was overcome by “a spirit,” he would scream, go into a convulsion and foam at the mouth. The “spirit” was not overcome easily. Here, the “spirit” could be an essential condition brought on by the demon. For, the demon “slammed” the boy into the ground and “threw him into a convulsion.” Jesus rebuked the “unclean spirit, and healed the boy.” Jesus cured the boy of his condition by casting out the demon.

On the other hand, in this narrative, the evil spirit and the demon could be synonymous terms. Even if they are synonymous, spirit still refers to the boys deep, inner condition. We even could conclude the boy was afflicted with a kind of schizophrenia brought on by the demon. Should we infer all schizophrenia is demonically induced. Absolutely not. Schizophrenia is a mental disorder or disease and is a condition resulting ultimately from the fallen state of man and nature. We would be foolish to conclude mental and physical diseases are the result of demonic activity or the work of the Devil. Disease is a fact of life.

No doubt, in 11.24-26, Jesus was referring to demons when he used the term spirit. Of importance, though, in understanding Luke’s use of the term spirit is how he always modified the term with unclean and evil. Demons, in essence, are spirit beings. As with their master Satan, they are locked in time just as human beings are. They are confined to this world and are bound by time and space. Neither the Devil nor demons can be at all places at all times. The Devil is not omnipresent, omniscient or omnipotent. He does not know everything, cannot do anything he wants to do, nor is he everywhere all at once.

In 13.10-17, Luke described a woman who, because of a spirit, had been sick for eighteen years. When Jesus healed her, he did not cast out the spirit or a demon. What he did say was she had been bound by Satan. He did not say Satan caused her illness, he said only she had been bound by him. We can conclude she was sick because of an inner condition or attitude as justifiably as we could conclude here disease was a result of demonic activity. We can say with certainty she had somehow been deceived by Satan into believing her disease was incurable. Indeed, with no mention of a demon, we stand on better ground arguing for a disease resulting from believing a lie, which is the one strategy the Devil always employs. He is a Liar and the Father of Lies.

In one final text in Luke, spirit is used. After the resurrection, Jesus appeared to his Disciples. When they first saw him, the Apostles believed they were seeing a spirit, or a ghost. Jesus put that misbegotten idea to rest when he declared, “See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”

So, then, what about the instances in Acts in which someone had a spirit? First, in 16.16-18, we look at the case of the slave-girl who had a “spirit of divination.” This young woman was a fortune teller. Was her ability to tell someone’s future the result of demonic possession? Luke did not say so. He simply described her as having a spirit of divination. After she had troubled Paul and Barnabas for several days, Paul said to the spirit, “I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And it came out at that very moment.” We do not know the nature of the spirit; we do know the spirit, or inner condition, gave the girl the ability to tell fortunes.

Since Luke wrote Acts, we would expect him to say a person was demon possessed if they were, as he did in his Gospel. When he had described demon possessed persons in the Gospel of Luke, and used the term spirit in that context, he always described the spirit as unclean or evil. He did not do that in describing the slave-girl. Further, when using spirit in a context in which demon possession was evident, he used the word demon, not just spirit by itself. (cf. Lk. 13.10-16 - demon is not used in this passage; in 4.3, 8.26-31, 9.37-42 and 11.17-26, demon and spirit are used together).

In Acts 19.11-20, the use of evil spirit seems to be a synonym for demon. In this text, Luke modified the term spirit with evil. The essence of the spirit being described was evil. The point of this narrative, though, is not to establish a demon possession theology. What is at stake, as in so many places in Acts, is the credibility of the Gospel. In the situation being described, the Seven sons of Sceva were attempting to case out evil spirits in “the name of the Lord Jesus.” Obviously, these men were not believers. Only a believer, and in this case, only Paul, could cast out evil spirits. Luke wrote, “God was performing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul.” Paul was not doing miracles, God was through him. He did the extraordinary miracles so the word of the Lord might grow mightily and prevail. If God had allowed the Sons of Sceva to cast out evil spirits while not being believers, the integrity of the Gospel would have been compromised in a critical way.

Following the account of Sceva’s sons, two statements were made. First, “This became known to all, both Jews and Greeks, who lived in Ephesus; and fear fell upon them all and the name of the Lord Jesus was being magnified.” (19.17) Second, “So the word of the Lord was growing mightily and prevailing.” The stories of Apollos, the Disciples of John the Baptist at Ephesus and the Seven Sons of Sceva show the essential truth of the Gospel had been established and its credibility and integrity had been upheld.

Being and Becoming Holy, Part 2

2011-11-15T09:34:00.001-05:00

“If the root is holy, the branches are too.”
Romans 11.16

“But like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; because it is written, ‘YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY.’”
1 Peter 1:15-16

Why is having the right understanding of our true reality important? How does knowing we are in fact holy before God aid us in being holy in this life. The realization of who we actually are should spur us on towards attaining that reality. We have two choices in this life? We can choose to fight or we can choose to give in. If we look at ourselves as “only human,” we will give in to what we think we cannot defeat. On the other hand, if we know the truth about ourselves, we can fight to become more of who we actually are.

All of us have character flaws, or weaknesses. Most, if not all of them are sensual. Paul termed these faults “the desires of the flesh.” In Galatians, Paul outlined a long list of the “deeds” of the flesh. (Gal. 5.19-21). Everything in that list and the ones in Colossians (Col. 3.5, 8) are sensual issues. Indeed, as the Apostle declared, “the flesh sets its desires against the Spirit.”

We react to these desires, flaws and weaknesses in a variety of ways. We say we are “only human.” When we give in to one of these desires, we declare, “you don’t know what its like,” meaning, if others knew what we were dealing with, they’d excuse us for what we do. We even say some things are simply a part of being human and as a result, we must act in certain ways. Well, we are only human, no one truly understands our situation, and some things are a part of being human. None of these statements, though, excuse failure.

James made an interesting statement. “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am being tempted by God’; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.” A couple of verses later, James wrote, “Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.” Let’s focus on the “He Himself does not tempt anyone,” and the “with whom there is not variation or shifting shadow.”

God made us the way we are. He made us to be physical and sensual, as well as intellectual, social and spiritual beings. All of our desires, whether for food, sex, creature comforts, power, money, etc., are the result of how God designed us. Yet, the Lord did not make us sensual beings in order to have us be trapped by our desires. Just because God gave us a sexual urge does not mean we should indulge that desire indiscriminately. Along with the desires, the Lord gave us commands through which we are able to understand how to express our sexual desire. By giving believers the Holy Spirit, God has made available to power to overcome natural desires. By making us sexual beings, God was not “tempting” us with sexual immorality. Since the Lord is without “variation or shifting shadow, we can know he has no hidden agenda. He does not call us to holiness, on the one hand, yet set us up to fail on the other.

Peter said we are to be “holy in all our behavior” in the same way the One Who called us is holy. Peter made that statement because he knew, from his own actions, how believers can be unholy in their behavior. We are to strive to overcome our physical desires. God does not want us to fail. He did not instill in us a variety of physical desires to insure we would fail. He gave us these things as “good things and perfect gifts.” We, then, are to use them in that manner. Hunger is not an excuse for gluttony. Food serves to keep us healthy so we might better serve the Lord. To abuse food leads to poor health and an inability to serve the Lord as well as we should.

Fleshly desires are a part of being human. My circumstances, sometimes unique to me, are not an excuse to indulge my weaknesses. Just because I am “only human,” is no justification for continuing in a self-destructive behavior. What destroys me will in turn destroy the relationships I treasure most, and will keep me from being the faithful servant the Lord wants me to be.

Over the years, people have said to me, “Preacher, you just don’t know what its like.” Okay, maybe I don’t. Yet, whether or not I understand anything is no excuse for anyone to act in ways keeping that person from becoming holy. We might be “only human” right now, but in the ultimate reality, we are holy and blameless before God. We, then, should live in such a way to see that holiness manifested in our daily conduct.

Being and Becoming Holy, Part 1

2011-11-15T09:31:00.000-05:00

“If the root is holy, the branches are too.”
Romans 11.16

“But like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; because it is written, ‘YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY.’”
1 Peter 1:15-16

What is the ultimate reality for Christians? How we perceive reality is determines how we respond to life and practice our beliefs. For instance, if we see our present circumstances, our existence here on earth, as our true reality, then our experiences, most likely, will determine our actions. If we are ill, we will despair. If we are under intense stress, we might cave. But, if our true reality is the realm of the Spirit, then we will be able to overcome any of our life situation’s because we are not rooted in time, but in eternity.

Paul made the following statements to the congregation in Corinth in his second letter to them. “Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer man is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day. For momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison, while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.” (2 Corinthians 4:16-18)

We look not the things which are seen (our present situation), but to the things which are not seen (the spiritual realities of the Kingdom). “Seen” things are temporary; “unseen” things are eternal. Paul used the human body as a metaphor for human existence. Our “outer man,” the seeable human body, is decaying because all physical things are temporary; they are locked in time. Paul further stated, our “inner man,” our unseeable self, is being “made new” day by day. The spirit does not decay. Additionally, what we experience in this life, the “momentary lightness of our troubles” serves to produce in us a “surpassing, eternal fullness of glory without comparison.” Our present “reality” is temporary, and is intended to prepare us for a permanent reality. As difficult as our circumstance might be, relative to eternity, it is light and momentary; our difficulties all pass away.

Now, we face a paradox in our walk with the Lord. That contradiction is our “not yet, already” state of being. We are not yet living in eternity, but, we have eternal life. We are not yet without sin, but, all our sins are forgiven and taken away. We struggle with life, yet, we are “completely victorious through him who loved us.” We face a daily tension between the seen and the unseen. We are locked in time while at the same time living eternally by God’s grace.

This tension is played out in a number of contradictions. For instance, one spiritual realities by which we are characterized is holiness. As Paul said to the Romans, “if the root is holy, the branches are too.” We believers are the branches; Jesus is the root, who supports us and sustains both our lives in time and our lives in eternity. In the spiritual realm, the locus of our ultimate reality, we stand before God as sinless beings, “having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing.” This state of being is the result of the work of Christ, who gave himself up for the church “so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.” (Ephesians 5:26-27) As Paul affirmed in a number of places in his letters, both the church and its members are holy. That is the truth about us; that is our ultimate reality.

In practice, though, churches often do not behave in holy ways church members do unholy things. So, are we holy or are we not? Do our unholy actions mean we are in fact not yet holy? Indeed, in our present circumstances, we are not yet fully holy; yet, in the realm of the Spirit, we are completely holy.

Our challenge as believers is to act in time as we are in eternity. If we are holy before God, which we are, we should live in this life in a holy manner. Ironically, even though in reality we are holy, in the present moment we are not yet holy. Why? We struggle daily with the temptation to sin. Sometimes we win the battle, other times we lose. If we realize our ultimate reality, we are holy before God, then we can confess, be forgiven and stand to fight again. If our ultimate reality is this life, we will sink into guilt, condemn ourselves as failures, and give in to what we in fact have the victory over.

What is your ultimate reality? Are you holy, or are you “just human,” and not capable of being holy in this life?

Adam and Eve, Part 5

2011-08-26T10:21:00.000-04:00

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. . . . God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
Genesis 1.1, 27

“Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. . . . So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.
The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.”
Genesis 2:7, 21-22

“So also it is written, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living soul.’The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.”
1 Corinthians 15:45-47

A final difficulty resulting from the belief Adam and Eve were the first two human beings is the identities of Cain’s wife and those who, upon finding Cain, would kill him. Where did Cain’s wife come from, and who were the people who would kill Cain? Obviously, by the time Cain had killed Abel, more people were living than Adam and Eve and their two sons. So, who were these people? Did Cain marry, as some have said, his sister? (Did God allow with Cain what he disallowed for all Israel? See. Lev. 18.1-18 Also, Gen. 4.25 stands against such an idea.) Further, who were the people who would kill Cain if they found him? Where did they come from?

If, as geneticists argue, modern humans arose from a “bottleneck” population of a minimum of several thousand hominids 150,000 years ago, then the Adam and Eve as the historical parents of all humans is unreliable, at best. Further, if Adam and Eve were not real, a host of biblical propositions fall on their faces. In fact, the integrity of Scripture could be seriously challenged, and the foundations of both Judaism and Christianity would begin to crumble.

As has been argued already, Adam and Eve do not have to be viewed as the literal first human beings, and thus, the parents of all human beings. What is known from Scripture about Adam and Eve is their place in the lineage of the Israelites. From them descended Abraham through the line of Shem, son of Noah and direct descendant of Adam. Through Ham and Japheth and their descendants, who are/were Gentiles (see Gen. 10.1-20), we find a link between all non-Jews and Adam. In that way, one could argue Adam was the father of all humans. A problem, though, might exist with that line of reasoning. If Noah’s wife was not directly descended from Adam as Noah was, she would have represented a genetic line outside the Adamic gene pool.

We turn back to the identities of Cain’s wife and the people Cain feared, who upon finding him would kill him. Again, we ask, who were those people? Where did they come from? The obvious answer to that question is found in the first two chapters of Genesis. If, as we have argued, Genesis 1.1-2.4 is the account of the original creation of the universe, and Genesis 2.5-2.25 is the “story of Israelite origins,” the identity of Cain’s wife and the other people living in the world of Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel can be discovered.

Genesis 1.26-28 tells a unique story of the creation of human life. First of all, human life has a connection with all other animal life. In Gen. 1.24, animal life was described as being brought forth from the earth. The words “living creatures” is the translation of the Hebrew word nephesh chayah, meaning, living being. Further, Adam himself was called a living being. Yet, human beings hold a distinct place in the realm of “living beings,” since, when God created human life, he created human beings “in His own image.” Believing God created an original population of human beings does not conflict at all with Gen. 1.26-28. For, in creating human life, God told “them” to “be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule.” Not only do humans have in their essential being a special relationship with God, we also have a special relationship with our world and all life within that world. So, not only did Cain marry into a existing human community, Ham, Shem and Japheth must have done so as well.

Based on the view God could have created, and I believe did create, an original human population of at least several thousands, no conflict can exist between the conclusions of “population genomics” researchers and what the Bible teaches. Thus, we can argue Cain found his wife in an existing population of human beings. Further, this population had existed in communities, villages, towns and, perhaps, cities. Adam and Eve were not alone in their world.

Ostling, in his Christianity Today article, “The Search for Historical Adam,” indicates one important issue: whatever position we take, problems exist. In attempting to understand the biblical story of human beginnings, we all “see through a glass, darkly.” Our knowledge is limited. Yet, if we take Scripture seriously, we must, in some consistent manner, come to terms with its affirmations, including its declaration, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Likewise, we must decide how we will stand with regard to the equally important declaration, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”

Adam and Eve, Part 4

2011-08-26T10:20:00.000-04:00

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. . . . God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
Genesis 1.1, 27

“Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. . . . So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.
The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.”
Genesis 2:7, 21-22

“So also it is written, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living soul.’The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.”
1 Corinthians 15:45-47

Not everything Genesis 1 tells us was called into existence was created out of nothing. For instance, dry land appeared when God called into being the expanse separating the waters above from the waters below. After the dry land appeared, God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation. . . . The earth brought forth vegetation.” (Gen. 1.11-12) Further, God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: . . . God made the beasts of the earth after their kind.” (Gen. 1.24-25). Plants and trees, along with the beasts of the earth, seem to fit. Fish, sea monsters and birds are a sort of anomaly: they do not fit (how can something live in water and fly in the air?).

Now, making appears to be, and probably is, synonymous in some contexts in Gen. 1 with create. For instance, Gen. 1.31 says “God saw all that the had made.” So, what he created, he made. Yet, as with vegetation and animals, the making was different from when God created. The earth sprouted vegetation and brought forth animals. A direct connection is made in both those contexts between the earth and what came into being. Vegetation and animal life did not come from nothing, but from the earth (both seem to “fit” the earth). Here, though, we face another paradox.

Genesis 2.7 says, “Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” If the word create implies something is brought into being out of nothing, the “seeable” from the “unseeable,” then a fundamental conflict exists between Genesis 1.27 and 2.7 (God created, on the one hand, and formed from the dust of the earth on the other). A further conflict is found between 1.27 and 2.21-22 (Eve came from a rib, not nothing). Did God create human beings according to 1.27, or make them “from what is seeable,” according to 2.7 and 21-22? Genesis 1.27 declares God created human life, and when he did, he created both males and females simultaneously. Genesis 2.7 says God formed Adam from the dry dust of the earth, and later made Eve from one of Adam’s ribs.

In Genesis 1, a clear distinction is made between the appearance of animal life and the creation of human life. Further, Gen. 1.20-21 declares God created fish, sea monsters and birds. Genesis 2.19 says birds, like animals, were formed “out of the ground.” Is the Bible’s account of creation in conflict, if we indeed have two creation stories? If Genesis 1.1-2.4 is one story and 2.4-22 is another, irreconcilable differences do exist. Human beings were either created from what was not (Rom. 4.17; Heb. 11.3), or they were made from things already in existence (Gen. 2.7, 21-22). We must choose one or the other. Both cannot be true.

A more appropriate and defensible position is to see the creation account of Genesis 1 as the story of the coming into being of all things. In Genesis 2.4f, we have another story altogether. In the case of Adam and Eve, we have the account of the origin of the people of God, the “story of Israelite origins.” Even more compelling is the idea, based on the statements of Paul to the Corinthians, Adam was the first man in the story of sin and death and redemption and life, and Jesus was the last and second man in that progression. In Adam, sin and death entered into the human experience and cursed everyone. In Jesus, who “crushed” the serpent’s head (Gen. 2.15), forgiveness and life were made available to all.

One is not required to see in Adam and Eve the “historical parents of the entire human race,” but to see in their fall the beginning of the universal curse of sin and death.

Adam and Eve, Part 3

2011-08-26T10:19:00.000-04:00

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. . . . God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
Genesis 1.1, 27

“Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. . . . So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.
The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.”
Genesis 2:7, 21-22

“So also it is written, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living soul.’The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.”
1 Corinthians 15:45-47

An interesting statement is found in Hebrews 11.3: “By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.” (See also Romans 4.17) This concept of creatio ex nihilo (literally, creation out of nothing) is thought to have originated with Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (d. ca. 202). He and other early church thinkers were reacting to the Greek philosophical idea “that the cosmos had always existed, that there has always been matter out of which the world has come into its present form.”

God’s creative activity holds a special place in Jewish and Christian thinking and theology. In Scripture, creation is always the work of God and never the work of man. Further, when, in Genesis 1, God created, he did bring something from nothing. What did God create? He created the heavens and the earth; the great sea monsters, all living things in the waters of the earth (oceans, seas, lakes, rivers, etc.) and all the birds of the air. Further, God created human beings. Obviously, the creation of humans was so significant, the Spirit saw fit to inspire the writer of Genesis to use the word create three times in describing God’s work of bringing man into being. After the five uses of the verb create in Gen. 12.1, 21 and 27 (3X), all other uses of the word in Scripture refer back to God’s creative work “in the beginning.”

In other places in Genesis 1, we find evidence of something coming from nothing. Such is the case with light (1.3), the expanse of the heavens (1.6), and the sun, moon and stars (1.14-16). In each of these cases, God said, “Let there be . . . and it was so.” One way of thinking about those things Scripture says God created is when something did not fit its context, or could not be explained, the writer concluded God created those entities; God called something into being out of nothing. If the creation story of Genesis 1 is the result of the musings of a Hebrew writer, such an explanation might work. For those who rely on the concept of the divine inspiration of Scripture, such reasoning is inadequate.

Yet, the idea of things “not fitting” or being beyond explanation can help us understand the mystery and miracle of creation. Much of what we see in our world is beyond comprehension. Take, for instance, life itself. Some in the secular world of science are uncomfortable with the current, evolutionary model used to describe how life was generated on this planet. As evidence of this, we see increasing interest in and hope of finding life, or the evidence of life, on other planets. The paradox, though, is the question of the origin of life will remain unanswered even if life were to be found on another planet. Where did that life come from. A similar paradox exists with the Big Bang theory; what existed before the Big Bang? Life and the universe itself seem to not fit, to defy explanation.
.
The biblical declaration, “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” affirms the belief some things only God can do. Only the Lord himself can be responsible for what is beyond human reason and comprehension. Such is the case with human life: who and what we are does not fit, and cannot be explained. So, the Spirit, in his work of inspiring the Bible writer, declared, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” (author’s italics) Obviously, God wanted no questions to linger about human beings, neither about their origin nor their nature.

In a paradoxical kind of way, human beings, while brought into being out of nothing, did indeed come from something. Humans came from God himself, from his own image, in his likeness. “For in Him we live and move and exist”

Adam and Eve, Part 2

2011-08-26T10:18:00.002-04:00

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. . . . God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
Genesis 1.1, 27

“Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. . . . So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.
The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.”
Genesis 2:7, 21-22

“So also it is written, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living soul.’The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.”
1 Corinthians 15:45-47

What do we do, then, about Adam and Eve in light of the fundamental conflicts between Genesis 1.26-28 and 2.7, 21-25? In fact, the seemingly natural process of creation described in 1.1-2.4 is thrown on its head by the entirely different sequence of events in 2.5f. Can we safely argue Adam and Eve were the “historical parents of the entire human race”? Is an alternative understanding of Adam and Eve possible? In his article, Ostling quoted Peter Enns, BioLogos staff biblical expert as “seeing passages on Adam as ‘a story of Israelite origins,’ not the origin of all humanity.” This idea must be developed. We look to Paul for help.

In the passage from 1 Corinthians cited above, we find some insight into the identity of Adam. Now, we must proceed on the basis of the doctrine of the divine inspiration of Scripture. 1Pet. 1.10-12 and 2 Pet. 1.16-21 provide two interesting facets of the inspiration of Scripture. First, the inspired writers did not fully understand all they were moved by the Spirit to write (1 Pet. 1.10-12). Second, the truth of Scripture is not limited by man’s understanding (either the writers or the interpreters), but by “the Holy Spirit [who] spoke from God.” (2 Pet. 1.21) So, we can conclude, what Paul understood is not the full extent of the truth in any of his writings, including 1 Corinthians 15.45-47.

In the Corinthian passage, Paul set up a first and last progression: Adam was the first in a series, Jesus was the last. Further, Jesus was not only the last in the progression, he was also the second, according to Paul. Was the Apostle speaking literally when he twice described Adam as the “first,” and described Jesus as both the “last Adam” and the “second man”? Obviously, from a literal historical point of view, Jesus was neither the last man nor the second man. He was the last and the second in a unique way. Jesus was the last Adam and the second man in the redemptive process of God.

When Paul wrote the statement, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul,” he was quoting Genesis 2.7. Yet, he added some words for emphasis. He added both the words “first” and “Adam.” While Paul might have understood Adam as the literal “first” man, he was not speaking in those terms. He was describing, instead, the origin of sin and death due to Adam’s rebellion, and the provision of forgiveness and life through Jesus. When sin and death entered into the human experience, the process of redemption was simultaneously begun. That process came to a conclusion in Jesus, the last and the second in that progression. When seeking to understand 1 Corinthians 15.45-47, we are no more required to view Adam as the literal first man than we are to understand Jesus as the last or second man. Paul was speaking symbolically in order to establish a theological truth.

Further, Paul may not have understood the full implications of what he wrote. Perhaps, the Holy Spirit was telling us something about Adam about which Paul was wholly unaware: Adam is not to be understood as the literal first man in a historical sense, but was the first man in a theological sense. What he started, Jesus finished.

We can further understand Adam and Eve by comparing what is declared in Genesis 1.25-27 and 2.7 and 21-25. In studying these two texts comparatively, we must focus on the words create, make and form, in particular. Each term is used in a distinctive way in Genesis 1 and 2.

Adam and Eve, Part 1

2011-08-26T10:18:00.001-04:00

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. . . . God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
Genesis 1.1, 27

“Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. . . . So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.
The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.”
Genesis 2:7, 21-22

“So also it is written, ‘The first man, Adam, became a living soul.’The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.”
1 Corinthians 15:45-47

In the Christianity Today Readers Choice digital issue (August 18, 2011), the lead article was “The Search for the Historical Adam.” I would like to respond to this article. The author, Richard N. Ostling, surveyed the state of the argument among Evangelical scientists and theologians and those in the secular scientific community about Adam and Eve. The debate swirls around the historical belief among Christians Adam and Eve were real human beings. That belief was summed up by Ostling as “the traditional tenet (summarized in the Wheaton College’s mandatory credo) that “God directly created Adam and Eve, the historical parents of the entire human race.”

In the article, Ostling highlighted the views of Dennis R. Venema, the BioLogos senior fellow for science and the biology chairman at Trinity Western University. Venema, and others associated with BioLogos, advocate theistic evolution and a rethinking of Adam. Venema contends modern humans come from a population “bottleneck” (probably thousands, see p.7) of hominids around 150,000 years ago. For him, the idea modern humans are derived from an original couple cannot be supported scientifically.

So, if Venema and others correct, what are modern believers to do? If Adam and Eve were not real, how can the integrity of the biblical account stand? What do we do with Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 15.45-47 if we cannot rely on the evidence of Scripture?

Two questions arise. First, were Adam and Eve real? Second, were they the “historical parents of the entire human race”? I must describe my own position on Scripture in order to answer both questions. My own view is Scripture was inspired by God and, thus, is inerrant, infallible and sufficient. I am an “old-earth” creationist; I believe God created all things (see Gen. 1.1), being directly responsible for life upon this earth, including human beings. I reject theistic evolution as fundamentally in conflict with the First Chapter of Genesis. Having made those statements means, for me, Adam and Eve were real human beings.

My divergence with traditional creationists comes at the belief Adam and Eve as the first two human beings. Believing Adam and Eve were the first two human beings requires one to accept Genesis Chapter One and Chapter Two as two independent accounts of creation. The documentary hypothesis views Genesis 1.1-2.4b as the work of one redactor (the Priestly editor) and 2.2b-3.24 as the work of another (Yahwist). According to this view, these two sections of Genesis 1-3 give two distinct views of creation.

Do we have two creation stories in Genesis? If so, how are the disparities between the two reconciled, for reconciled they must be? Added to this mix is the statement by Paul to the Corinthians Adam was the “first” man. We are faced with a demanding problem. We must reconcile the entirely different Genesis accounts of creation if the Bible’s affirmation, “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” is to have any authority at all.

Women and Leadership in SBC Churches, Part 4

2011-08-09T16:46:00.000-04:00

“But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.”
1 Timothy 2:12-3.1

Baptist churches, associations, and general bodies have adopted confessions of faith as a witness to the world, and as instruments of doctrinal accountability. (Author’s Italics) We are not embarrassed to state before the world that these are doctrines we hold precious and as essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice. (From the motion at the 1999 Southern Baptist Convention motion to appoint a blue ribbon committee to review the Baptist Faith and Message.)

Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture. (From the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, Article VI, The Church)

How do we reconcile our biblical rights and our freedoms as human beings under the sovereignty of God? Do we have the right to act in any way we choose? Or, do we have the freedom to choose to act as we wish. Being free to do something does not mean a particular way of acting is a right.

In Galatians 5, Paul spoke at length about the freedom of believers. Paul began his comments with this statement: “It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.” With that declaration and those following, Paul established clearly the tension between being free to decide and act, and acting on the basis of one’s right to act.

Paul also said, “For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.” At that point, Paul moved from his discussion of the inefficacy of law-observance to other, more potentially dangerous ways of acting, based on the desires of the flesh. In 5.19-21, Paul listed an array of fleshly ways of acting, which were opposed to the way of the Spirit. What he wanted to make clear was how these sinful deeds were unlawful. No believer has the right to act in disobedience, yet, a believer is free to act according to the desires of the flesh (5.1, 13). Following that list of behaviors, Paul outlined the Fruit of the Spirit, the character qualities and attendant behaviors the Spirit produces in the life of an obedient believer.

Following the listing of the Fruit of the Spirit, Paul made a curious statement. “Against such things there is no law.” Thus, we can conclude, the Fruit of the Spirit are the biblical rights of believers. When God made laws against some things, he was saying, in effect, his people have no right to act in unlawful ways. Yet, Scripture is clear; on many occasions in the biblical record, and into the current era, believers have exercised their freedom to do what God has outlawed. To be free to disobey does not mean one has the right to be disobedient.

Some free acts we take are of less consequence than others. For instance, Baptist, in their freedom, have chosen to observe the Lord’s Supper in a manner inconsistent with the biblical model. We do not use one cup of wine and one loaf of bread. We have chosen to use grape juice (for social, not biblical reasons) and have platters of little crackers. We maintain the meaning of the “meal,” but we do not observe the biblical form. Jesus and the Disciples used one cup of wine and one loaf of bread in the original supper. Do we have the right to ignore the biblical model? Or, are we acting in freedom? We have chosen freedom.

The same principle applies to a church in its calling of a woman as pastor. Does a church have the “right” to ask a woman to serve as its pastor? The overwhelming evidence of Scripture says no. Does a church have the freedom to make such a decisions? Obviously, yes. When a Baptist church elects, in freedom, to call a woman as pastor, is that congregation acting in a way consistent with long-held Baptist beliefs and doctrine? Obviously, no. Should a church, having made that decision, accept the consequences of its decision? Yes, even when the cost is the loss of fellowship with other Baptist churches and bodies.

To act in freedom does not mean one is being sinful or disobedient. While the Bible seems to be clear about women serving as pastors, some have found what they believe is the authority to act in a particular manner. Flat Creek Baptist Church exercised its freedom to call a woman as pastor; one cannot say with certainty or with biblical authority that congregation had the freedom to act as it did. Was Surry Association correct in the actions it took against Flat Creek church? Yes it was. Surry Association upheld the traditional role and responsibility of a general body of Baptists: it called for doctrinal accountability and acted to propagate Baptist teachings, and sought to monitor and maintain correct Baptist doctrine among the churches in its association.

Women and Leadership in SBC Churches, Part 3

2011-08-09T16:44:00.000-04:00

“But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.”
1 Timothy 2:12-3.1

Baptist churches, associations, and general bodies have adopted confessions of faith as a witness to the world, and as instruments of doctrinal accountability. (Author’s Italics) We are not embarrassed to state before the world that these are doctrines we hold precious and as essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice. (From the motion at the 1999 Southern Baptist Convention motion to appoint a blue ribbon committee to review the Baptist Faith and Message.)

Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture. (From the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, Article VI, The Church)

What does the Bible say about women in roles of leadership in the church. We look to three examples from Scripture: two positive and one negative. First, we have Phoebe, the deaconess. Paul recommended her to the church in Rome with the following statement. “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea; that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well.” (Romans 16:1-2) Most likely, Phoebe was more than a simple servant in the congregation of Cenchrea. She was probably a wealthy merchant, who had come to Rome on a business trip. She also might have served as the patroness of the Cenchrean church. Although we do not know how she functioned in the church, she was, at least, an influential member of the congregation.

Next, we look at Priscilla (Prisca in Paul’s writings). She and her husband Aquila had been expelled from Rome along with other Jews by the Edict of Claudius (ca. 49 AD). In every case but one (1 Cor. 16.19), when this couple is mentioned, Priscilla is named first. Many have concluded she had come from a well-to-do Jewish family in Rome and may have been the source of hers and Aquila’s wealth. On two occasions, (1 Cor. 16.19; Rom. 16.3), a church is said to have been meeting in their house. Only the wealthy had houses large enough to accommodate a meeting of a group of any size. Priscilla and Aquila had come to Paul’s aid and journeyed with him. Further, after hearing Apollos preach in Ephesus, “Priscilla and Aquila . . . took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.” Priscilla was also a teacher.

Last, we consider Jezebel. In Revelation 2.20, we read of the Lord’s condemnation of Jezebel, “who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.” Jezebel (we do not know her real name) was also a powerful, wealthy woman. She had risen to a position of prominence and power in the Thyatiran church, becoming a teacher and an advocate of social accommodation. She is condemned for the same thing Satan is said to do: she led astray those whom she taught. She taught those who followed her to engage in sexual immorality and to take a lenient view of idolatry. Probably, she told her followers participation in ritual acts in local pagan temples was not a bad thing (what her namesake had done in ancient Israel).

Added to these might be Junias (Rom. 16.7), who some believe was actually the wife of Andronicus (Junia), and was an early believer in Jesus and counted among the Apostles. Certainly, though, with Priscilla, Phoebe and Jezebel, we find three examples of women who held influential leadership positions in their own congregations. At no time does Paul or Luke appear to think these women were acting sinfully or unlawfully; indeed, both endorsed these women in the highest of terms. The failure of Jezebel was her leading members of the Thyatiran church to do unbiblical things. While her claim to be prophetess was rejected by the Lord, her acting as a teacher was not. What she taught was the problem.

Unfortunately, neither Priscilla or Phoebe are described as pastors. We are left to wonder about the true extent of their leadership roles in their respective congregations. No doubt, Priscilla taught on one occasion at least. What can we conclude? With the best evidence before us, no clear and unarguable evidence exists in Scripture to support the idea of a woman serving as the pastor of a church. Given the high regard in which Paul held both Priscilla and Phoebe, if they had functioned in pastoral roles, surely, he would have clearly stated that fact. He did not.

Women and Leadership in SBC Churches, Part 2

2011-08-09T16:42:00.000-04:00

“But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.”
1 Timothy 2:12-3.1

Baptist churches, associations, and general bodies have adopted confessions of faith as a witness to the world, and as instruments of doctrinal accountability. (Author’s Italics) We are not embarrassed to state before the world that these are doctrines we hold precious and as essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice. (From the motion at the 1999 Southern Baptist Convention motion to appoint a blue ribbon committee to review the Baptist Faith and Message.)

Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture. (From the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, Article VI, The Church)

Does a church have the “right” to call a woman as pastor? Many Christian denominations have answered the question in the affirmative. Historically, Baptists, and Southern Baptists in particular, have answered in the negative. The decision by the Surry Association in North Carolina to expel Flat Rock Baptist Church from its fellowship, based on the church’s decision to call a woman as pastor, shows this issue remains, to some degree, unresolved. For the larger Southern Baptist family, most believe such a decision is neither biblically nor theologically sound. Obviously, not all Southern Baptists agree.

In the modern era, much of what Scripture has to say about male and female roles is controversial for many contemporary thinkers. Many women chafe at the role of the wife as found in Ephesians 5. The verse from 1 Timothy cited above is equally troubling. Many view these statements as culturally bound: they were based on first-century understandings of men, women, marriage and the family. On the other hand, those who hold a more conservative view of the inspiration of Scripture reject out of hand such an argument. We do not believe the Spirit of God was affirming a first-century view of men, women, marriage and the family when he directed Paul to write the letter to Timothy.

Further, one must ask the question, what is a Baptist? Are we, as a confessional community, defined by theological distinctives, or, are we not? Is our claim to fame merely our emphasis on baptism by immersion, or, do we have other beliefs marking us a believing body? We rightly expect those who profess to be Baptist to operate within the scope of Baptist doctrine. In our understanding of our doctrinal distinctives, we look to both our history as Baptists and the positions outlined by general bodies. Our historical beliefs and the doctrinal positions our general bodies have clarified, to be legitimate, must be biblically-based.

Historically, Baptists have had to rethink and redefine some of our doctrinal positions. Most notable among these is how we have thought and acted with regard to race. We have been wrong in the past, but have sought to correct our errors and be more biblical in our approach to race. Currently, we face the issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Would a church be excluded from membership in an association if it chose to bless same-sex unions? One would hope so. Scripture leaves no “wiggle-room” on the issue of homosexuality or marriage and the family.

Some churches might claim the “right” to bless homosexual unions. One would be justified in arguing a church does not have such a right. Not all decisions we make are within the bounds of what we have a “right” to do as bodies of believers. We might exercise the freedom to act in some ways, but acting in freedom does not mean we have a right to act. As Baptists, like it or not, we have chosen to reject some things as biblically legitimate. When a person elects to become a part of a Baptist church, he has chosen to place himself under the authority of that church and the doctrinal positions held by that congregation. When a church elects to become a part of an association or general body of Baptists, that church has chosen to accept and abide by the doctrinal positions affirmed by those bodies.

One cannot be a Baptist and believe anything. One is not a Baptist just because he has been immersed in a baptismal pool, lake or river. Being a Baptist is much more comprehensive. Being a Baptist means the acceptance of traditional (yes, traditional) Baptist doctrines. We Baptists have refused, for the most part, to resist the revisionist views of some contemporary Christian groups. We have held tenaciously to our historic Baptist faith. We have been correct.

Women and Leadership in SBC Churches, Part 1

2011-08-09T16:40:00.000-04:00

“But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.”
1 Timothy 2:12-3.1

Baptist churches, associations, and general bodies have adopted confessions of faith as a witness to the world, and as instruments of doctrinal accountability. (Author’s Italics) We are not embarrassed to state before the world that these are doctrines we hold precious and as essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice. (From the motion at the 1999 Southern Baptist Convention motion to appoint a blue ribbon committee to review the Baptist Faith and Message.)

Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture. (From the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, Article VI, The Church)

(The quotations above are provided as a context for the following observations.)

Flat Rock Baptist Church in Mount Airy North Carolina was expelled recently from the Surry Baptist Association because the church had called a female pastor (see the related story at http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/6626/53/). Two important questions are at stake in this event. First, does a church have the “right” to call a woman as a pastor? Second, does a larger Baptist body (an association, state or national convention) have the “right” to expel a church for calling a woman as pastor?

Let’s look first at the issue of the larger body and its right and responsibility to respond to member churches on the basis of biblical and theological questions. As noted above, the motion at the 1999 meeting of the SBC took into consideration both the right and responsibility of churches, associations and general bodies to expect member bodies to adhere to Baptist doctrine. From the beginning of the church in Jerusalem, doctrinal issues have been defined and enforced. Acts 15 gives an account of an early discussion about proper doctrine.

Early in the life of Baptists, associations played a large role in defining who Baptist were and what they believed. “The oldest form of organization, beyond the local church, was the association, and it remains a vital part of Baptist denominational structure today. From the first, Baptists entered into fellowship and common cause with other believers who shared their faith. As early as 1624 and again in 1630, several General Baptist churches in London acted together in discussing doctrine and in corresponding with other believers. Though they had no formal association, they showed a sense of cooperation and common identity.

“By 1650, the Baptist association was well established. The name and geographical concept probably were adaptations of a civil unit in England, much like a county. During the English Civil War (1642-45), much of the country was divided into "associations" for political purposes. After the war Baptists continued to use this concept and name for their regional fellowship of churches.

“The associations were extremely important to early Baptists. They provided Christian fellowship, a forum for discussion of Baptist concerns, a means to propagate Baptist teachings, and an effective way to monitor and maintain correct Baptist doctrine among the churches. Associations also participated together in common causes, such as issuing confessions of faith and working for religious liberty.” (http://www.baptisthistory.org/baptistbeginnings.htm, Baptist Beginnings, by Leon McBeth)

As McBeth noted, “The associations were extremely important to early Baptists. . . . They provided . . . an effective way to monitor and maintain correct Baptist doctrine among the churches.” No doubt, the Surry Association understood itself to be functioning in such a manner. Flat Rock church had been invited to the meeting at which the Surry Association discussed the church’s decision. The pastor, Bailey Nelson, “said Flat Rock's leadership knew no ‘solution’ short of withdrawing her call as pastor would satisfy the membership committee, so they declined the meeting.” (see APB News story).

Was the Surry Association’s decision the right one? From their perspective, and the perspective of many Baptists, their decision was correct. The association was fulfilling one of its most important functions: monitoring and maintaining correct Baptist doctrine, and calling a member church into accountability for a biblical and theological decision the association believed was inconsistent with Baptist doctrine. Given the fact the SBC has repeatedly affirmed the pastoral role as “limited to men as qualified by Scripture,” the decision to expel Flat Rock church from the association was correct.

A Theory of Everything, or the Truth about Everything

2011-08-03T09:06:00.002-04:00

“Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.”

Genesis 1.26

In two episodes of the Science Channel’s “Through the Wormhole” a few nights ago, two intriguing issues were raised. In “How Does the Universe Work?”, the question of a theory of everything was addressed. This “final theory,” a single mathematical formula that governs and explains the workings of the entire universe, is a kind of Holy Grail for the scientific community. Thus far, the theory has eluded the best scientific minds of human history. In “Faster than Light,” the discussion was about how scientists are grappling with the limitations of speed. Supposedly, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. The program highlighted the theories of those who have developed ideas about how the limitations of the speed of light can be circumvented. What does all this have to do with the image and likeness of God in man?

First of all, the problems of space travel associated with the limitations imposed by the law of the speed of light highlight an interesting feature of the creation story in Genesis 1. God imposed limiting categories when he created the physical universe. The physical laws God instituted in creation are universal: they apply at all times and all places. To work well and efficiently, we all must honor and conform to these laws (the same is true of ethical and spiritual laws). For instance, in flying, mankind uses the laws of aerodynamics to help him overcome, in a sense, the law of gravity. These laws of aerodynamics must be honored and obeyed if we are to fly. Further, the law of gravity cannot be ignored when “flying machines” are constructed.

The laws of gravity and aerodynamics are, in essence, mathematical formulas. These formulas are immutable and sovereign; we ignore them at our peril. Additionally, some see in these formulas the hope of identifying a theory of everything. If such a theory could be advanced, some argue, then we would be able to understand how our universe and all its constituent parts work. Interestingly, Scripture gives us a “theory of everything,” or, we would argue, the truth about everything. The biblical truth of everything is rooted in the person of God himself.

At this point, we encounter the “image and likeness of God” in man and the paradox of man and the theory of everything. First, if the theory of everything, the final theory, can be stated as a mathematical formula, then all things in the universe can be expressed in terms of mathematics. The paradox for theoretical scientists and their final theory, as I see it, is the wholly irrational behavior of human beings. How can our illogical and irrational behavior, based on decisions in themselves irrational and illogical, be reduced to a mathematical formula?

“Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.” Interestingly, both image and likeness are words referring to physical expressions. The term “likeness” is found in Exodus 20.4: “You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.” Further, Paul used the equivalent Greek term for likeness in Romans 1.23 where he stated mankind had “exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.”

We believe, though, the image and likeness of God is more than a simple physical manifestation. We look for something deeper, something internal, something by which we humans are defined and distinguished from all other life forms. Perhaps, the paradox of man’s irrational and illogical behavior is a clue to understanding the image of God. We are free to choose to obey or disobey God’s laws. We have a will; we are capable of making decisions. We can choose to do one thing or the other. All other life forms are without the ability to make these kinds of decisions.

We are sentient beings, so, we are conscious of ourselves and others. We choose to interact with others or not to interact with them. The great apes, for instance, operate within the laws of nature, their every behavior being predetermined and scripted. Apes do not choose to interact with humans; we choose to interact with them. Gorillas and chimpanzees do not gather for the purpose of deciding which group will live where, or how they will share food resources. The life and behavior of apes might be expressed in a mathematical formula. We humans, on the other hand, cannot be described with a formula. Too much of our behavior is unscripted and surprising. Some kill animals, some do not. Some give their lives to preserve life, while others take life to preserve their own. We humans are, as Mr. Spock often observed, illogical beings.

We are the way we are because of how God made us. When we recognize and accept the image of God in ourselves, we then live productive and healthy lives. When we ignore that image and likeness, we sin, and pay the price for our freedom to choose. As a result of our freedom to act, we have incurred a terrible consequence: death. This consequence of our sin resulted in another mathematically irrational act: the vicarious death of Jesus on the Cross. If law was supreme, we would all be without hope and would die the ultimate death: eternal separation from our Creator.

Fortunately for us, God is sovereign, not the laws he instituted. Thus, he was able to solve the problem of our irrational and illogical behavior, our sin, and offer to us the opportunity to accept that solution and avoid the consequence of our sin.

The sad truth about any final theory scientists might articulate is the utter hopelessness of such a theory. If all we are can be reduced to a mathematical formula, then, all we can do is live and die. That is what physical law alone demands. Thankfully, God, not physical law, is sovereign. “For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” The law of Grace, not a theory of everything, is our hope.

Moms, Dads and Children

2011-07-28T10:39:00.000-04:00

“God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, . . . and God saw that it was good. Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it.’”
Genesis 1.25-28

Last week, on The Chattanooga Times editorial page, Frank Bruni raised an interesting issue in his column “2 dads, 2 daughters, 1 big day.” (written in reference to the state of New York legalizing same-sex marriage) He said the 8 and 6 year-old daughters of a same-sex couple wondered why their “2 dads” were not married “like our friends’ parents.”

One wonders if 6 and 8 year-old children, all on their own, are interested in why two men are not married to one another. Perhaps, with some help from their “2 dads,” these two young girls entertained such a notion. Quite frankly, one can imagine more easily Maeve and Georgia (the two girls mentioned in the article) wondering why one of their “2 dads” was not married to their mom. In most states in America, Maeve and Georgia would have no friends who had same-sex parents who were married. Ironically, their question, if they in fact asked it, might have had more to do with the absence of a mother. One does wonder where their mom is.

According to Scripture, God’s design for the human race, like other species, is male-female relationships. In fact, among all living things, distinct categories are the rule. The boundaries of these categories cannot be breached. One species cannot go outside of its own “kind” to produce offspring. For an apple seed to be produced, the male gamete from one apple blossom is transferred to another blossom where the female gamete is fertilized. Thus, an apple seed is produced, capable of developing into an apple tree. Apple and orange trees cannot produce offspring. Each must function within its own species.

Further, two male gametes in an apple blossom cannot produce a seed; a male and female gamete are required. These biological facts are unbreakable laws in nature. Only males and females can produce offspring, and can do so only within their own species. According to Genesis, God was pleased with this set up; he saw that it, distinct biological categories, was good. Nature always has and always will function only within the boundaries established by these laws. One “kind” is not produced from another “kind.”

As the height of the creative process, mankind must function within these divinely established boundaries. That fact is underscored by the account of the creation of the human race. “‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;’ . . . God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.’” In these verses, the noun man and the pronouns him and them all refer to the human race as a collective: males and females.

When God created human beings, he created them “in His own image.” Further, he created them “male and female.” While we might argue the image of God is found in each of us as individuals. We have a stronger argument in favor of God’s image being expressed in “them,” in male and female together. Thus, we can say the highest expression of the image of God in “man” is within the bounds of the procreative relationship of males and females; in other words, within marriage. As God willfully chose to create, we humans have the capacity to reproduce volitionally. Apple trees, cattle, chimpanzees and birds reproduce simply as a matter of biology. Humans procreate based on a choice. Plants and animals do not choose to reproduce; only humans do.

The sad situation of Maeve and Georgia illustrates the problems associated with ignoring the boundaries established by God for all living things. We function best only as we honor all the laws of God; biological, physical, social and spiritual. We ignore these laws at our own peril. When we do, young children are forced to deal with the poor choices of adults, who willfully choose to reject the designs of God.

The irony of same-sex marriage is the inability of same-sex couples to fulfill the intent of the Creator: “be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.” All of us are born genetically predisposed and biologically designed as heterosexuals. No such thing exists as a biological design for homosexuality. Homosexuality is a way of acting, not an orientation or genetic predisposition. Homosexuality is not something God has chosen as an option for human beings. “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply.’”

Indeed, Has God Said?

2011-07-27T09:55:00.000-04:00

“Then Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses, . . . and they said, ‘Has the Lord indeed spoken only through Moses? Has He not spoken through us as well?’ And the Lord heard it.”

Numbers 12:1-2

A troubling trend has developed in our contemporary Christian culture. More and more people, including both laity and clergy, are asserting God has spoken to them. Given the incident of Miriam and Aaron’s jealousy of Moses and their assertion God had spoken to them as well, others in times past have done the same thing. The question is, had God spoken to Miriam?

The problem of jealousy seemed to be more of an issue with Miriam than with Aaron. As far as Aaron was concerned, God indeed had spoken to him. Most of the time, when God spoke, he spoke to Moses and Aaron together. What about Miriam? Did God speak to her? Scripture gives no evidence of God ever having spoken to her in the way he did to Moses and Aaron.

Miriam and Aaron got into a lot of trouble because of their rebellion against Moses. Miriam was cursed with leprosy and had to be isolated outside the camp of the Israelites for seven days? Why wasn’t Aaron stricken with leprosy or some other disease? Was God a sexist? First of all, Aaron seemed to be unable at times to act on the basis of principle. When the Israelites wanted a god while Moses was speaking with the Lord on Mt. Sinai, Aaron went along with them. In the same way, he went along with Miriam. The greater sin seemed to have been Miriam’s.

When this sister and brother made their claim, “the Lord heard it.” He called them and Moses to the tent of meeting. There, he declared in no uncertain terms how and to whom he would speak. God declared, “Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, shall make Myself known to him in a vision. I shall speak with him in a dream. Not so, with My servant Moses, he is faithful in all My household; with him I speak mouth to mouth, even openly, and not in dark sayings, and he beholds the form of the Lord. Why then were you not afraid to speak against My servant, against Moses?”

Can we say, given the biblical evidence, things have changed? Is the Lord now speaking openly, “mouth to mouth,” with believers? Few individuals, according to Scripture, ever heard the Lord speak to them apart from dreams and visions. Oddly, only once does the Bible record a conversation between Jesus and the Lord. When he was in Jerusalem, some Greeks asked to see Jesus. He saw this as a the sign of his “hour.” He then prayed, “Now My soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, 'Father, save Me from this hour '? But for this purpose I came to this hour. Father, glorify your name.” Then, the Lord answered him “I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.” Interestingly, in Gethsemane, Jesus made a similar plea: “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will.” The Father was silent.

Too many casually declare “God said to me,” without really thinking about the implications of what they are saying. God does not speak casually, and when he has spoken, what he has said is not open to interpretation or debate. For that reason, and because we believe the Bible is inspired by God, we assume the infallibility, inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture. If God speaks, he speaks in that manner: infallibly and inerrantly. Further, if Scripture is sufficient, why would God need to say more?

We must remember what was said about Moses. The Lord chose to speak to him “mouth to mouth, even openly,” and only to Moses in that manner. Further, we must remember as well the closing words of Deuteronomy: “Since that time no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face.” We have no Moses in our midst today.

We must remember also the little comment following the jealousy-inspired assertion of Miriam and Aaron. “And the Lord heard it.” Not only did the Lord hear, he also held Miriam and Aaron accountable for what they had said. Simply declaring God had spoken to them did not make the assertion true. The standard by which their declaration was judged is the same for us today. To whom God has spoken, and the how, has been established by the Word of the Lord. He has not changed his mind or his methods.

What About Doubt?

2011-07-27T09:50:00.000-04:00

SBCVoices recently posted the article “What do we do about doubt?” The author, Mike Bergman, made the following comments. “Let’s face it—most if not all Christians, whether we want to admit it or not, experience moments where we identify very much with Thomas and you might as well dub us as ‘Doubting’ Mike or Suzanne or Ichabod! But what do we do with our doubt?” Doubt is common to all believers. None of us ever get beyond this purely human response to our situations and circumstances in life. So, we must ask with Mike Bergman, what do we do about doubt?

Doubt is not a sin. Like many of our other emotional and intellectual responses to life’s challenges, doubt arises all by itself. We do not summon fear, or doubt, or revulsion; these things simply are responses to our circumstances and situations. What we do about these reactions to life is a different matter altogether. We might not choose to have doubts enter our minds, but we surely can choose what to do about the uncertainties.

Thomas, infamously called the “Doubter,” does not stand alone in Christian tradition. Peter doubted, and so did John. Just because their doubts stemmed from situations different than Thomas’s does not get them off the hook. Was not Peter the man who walked on water, but, after surveying his situation, started to sink? Further, the very appearance of the word doubt in the NT suggests doubting was a common phenomenon among early followers of Jesus.

James encouraged those to whom he wrote to view their difficult circumstances, their trials, in a particular way: their faith was being tested. For those who were undergoing a variety of trials, doubt was a component of their experiences. For one thing, they probably doubted whether or not the challenging situations they were encountering had any purpose at all. So, James told them if they lacked wisdom, the ability to perceive God’s purposes, they were to ask the Lord and he would give them the insight they needed.

But, he warned them, when one seeks God’s wisdom, “he must ask in faith without any doubting.” Obviously, doubt was a factor in those believers’ lives, or James would not have raised the issue. But, what did he mean about asking in faith without doubting? James was addressing a topic Jesus himself had spoken to. “Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ it will happen.” (Matt. 21.21)”

So, what about doubt? Both the Lord and James were not saying believers do not doubt, both were declaring how believers should deal with doubt. Simply put, we should not allow our doubts to determine our response to the Lord or to our situations. Doubt, even when it lurks in our unconscious mind, is always present. We have the freedom, though, to choose how we will deal with our doubt.

Eve doubted, and from the moment of her fateful choice in the Garden of Eden till today, the big question for human beings is does God have credibility? Is he believable? How we respond to our doubts is based on our relationship and response to the Lord himself. If God is believable, if he is a credible witness to himself, we will trust him. If we allow our doubts to determine our response to God, if we doubt him and his witness to himself, we will then be, as James said, waves of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind. We will live a life without substance or stability. Further, because we allow our doubts to determine our response to the Lord, we should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. (Jam. 1.7)

Ultimately, God wants us to trust him and him alone. What he would have us do is rely wholly upon him without any evidence to do so apart from who he is. We of course look to the biblical record and our own experiences of God’s faithfulness to his people. Yet, in the final analysis, God wants to be trusted for who he is. Eve had no record of God’s faithful acts of deliverance. All she had was God’s command. All the Lord wanted from Adam and Eve was for them to trust him. Eve was consumed by her doubt, and, so, she was deceived. She, nor any of us, if we put our doubts aside, cannot and will not be deceived.

We all doubt; at some point in our walk with the Lord, questions arise in our minds about whether the Lord will deliver us or not. We can, though, choose to trust him. We can choose to lay our doubts aside and not let them be the determining factor in our response to the Lord. We can trust God. At some point, we must ignore all the competing voices, all the questions arising in our minds and the fear doubt engenders. We must, in spite of all these things, trust God. That is what we do about doubt.

What Is the Meaning of Faith?

2011-07-27T09:48:00.000-04:00

“Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.”

James 5.14

In March of this year (2011), two children, one almost two years old and one 14, died of what is believed to have been pneumonia. Their parents refused medical treatment for their children and relied solely upon prayer and the laying on of hands. Probably, the verse from James inspired their behavior. Were their actions wrong? Does the Bible exclude medical intervention in the case of illness?

The word “anointing” in James 5.14 is an interesting word. The Greek word, aleiphō, means to anoint or to pour. Most of the occurrences of the word in the NT have to do with the anointing of Jesus feet by Mary. Twice, the word is used in conjunction with the sick (Matt. 6.13; Jam. 5.14). One time, in Matt.16.1, women had come to the grave of Jesus to anoint his body. The word is not used in any of these situations to suggest the pouring of oil had a spiritual significance. The word is descriptive only of the act of pouring.

What about its use in regard to anointing the sick? Are we to infer from the two instances where the sick were anointed the pouring of oil involves some kind of ritual power? Perhaps, but, perhaps not. When Isaiah described the sinfulness of Israel, he said, “Where will you be stricken again, as you continue in your rebellion? The whole head is sick and the whole heart is faint. From the sole of the foot even to the head there is nothing sound in it, only bruises, welts and raw wounds, not pressed out or bandaged, nor softened with oil.” Pressed out means no medicinal plaster had been applied; no bandages were on the wounds; no oil had been used to soften and help cure the sores. The body was scabby and putrefying. Israel was sick and needed medication.

Now, the question is not whether the Bible allows for medical care or not. Without question, Scripture authorizes medical treatment. In 2 Kings 20, we can read the story of the fatal disease of Hezekiah and his plea for help. In response, Isaiah received a word from the Lord and gave the following order. “‘Take a cake of figs.’ And they took and laid it on the boil, and he recovered.” No praying or laying on of hands, just the application of a “home remedy” was all Hezekiah needed. In similar fashion, Paul recommended to Timothy to “use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.” (1 Tim. 5.23) We must remember as well what the Good Samaritan did for the unfortunate traveler who had been beaten and robbed by thieves. He “came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them.” In Scripture, both wine and oil were considered to be medicines.

Anyone who relies solely on prayer, laying on of hands and anointing with oil for healing has missed the true intent of Scripture. The Bible nowhere requires a believer to forgo medical care. Such teaching is a perversion at worst, and a misunderstanding at best of what the Bible teaches about faith and healing. John 5.1-9 shows clearly faith was not always a factor when Jesus healed someone. Jesus healed the lame man at the Pool of Bethesda even as the man protested.

Why must healing be the focus of our understanding of biblical faith? Does not faith involve more than being delivered from disease? James was clear about the meaning of true faith. True, biblical faith is transformational. When a person trusts the Lord, he is transformed in the depth of his being. He is changed from a disobedient doubter to an obedient follower of Jesus. Faith changes our values and our behavior. James argued throughout his letter true faith requires a different kind of behavior than false or superficial faith.

He declared one cannot trust God and ignore the plight of the less fortunate. He argued if one sees a brother or sister in need of clothing or daily food, yet does nothing for them, the faith that kind of person claims to have is dead. True faith demands the believer act, or work, on behalf of the needy. False faith results only in religious ritualism; true faith manifests itself in ethical behavior. As the old hymn declares, we must “trust and obey, for there's no other way. To be happy in Jesus, but to trust and obey.”

Does healing require faith? No necessarily. Does faith require good works? Absolutely!

Faith and Faithfulness

2011-07-27T09:45:00.000-04:00

Matthew 8:5 “And when Jesus entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him, imploring Him, and saying, ‘Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, fearfully tormented.’ Jesus said to him, ‘I will come and heal him.’ But the centurion said, ‘Lord, I am not worthy for You to come under my roof, but just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one, “Go!” and he goes, and to another, “Come!” and he comes, and to my slave, “Do this!” and he does it.’ Now when Jesus heard this, He marveled and said to those who were following, ‘Truly I say to you, I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel. I say to you that many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ And Jesus said to the centurion, ‘Go; it shall be done for you as you have believed.’ And the servant was healed that very moment.

“When Jesus came into Peter's home, He saw his mother-in-law lying sick in bed with a fever. He touched her hand, and the fever left her; and she got up and waited on Him. When evening came, they brought to Him many who were demon-possessed; and He cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were ill. This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: ‘He himself took our infirmities and carried away our diseases.’”

Matthew 8.5-17

The two narratives above present a dilemma. Why was such emphasis placed on the faith of the centurion and no mention was made of faith at all in the story of Peter’s mother-in-law and the sick who came to Jesus? Given Jesus’ statement about the “sons of the kingdom” being cast into outer darkness, presumably because they would not trust, some kind of disconnect seems to be present in these stories. Why would such a condemnation be made of the Israelites in one verse, and healing of sick Jews be found immediately following?

The centurion came to Jesus seeking the healing of one of his servants. He was not looking for anything for himself. His concern was for a simple slave who was paralyzed. His desperation had driven him to Jesus. We can safely assume this man was at the end of his rope; if Jesus could not or would not help, what hope did he or his servant have?

The “great faith” of the centurion was put into contrast with the response to God of the people of Israel. Jesus said he had not found “anyone in Israel” with the kind of faith the centurion expressed. Look closely, though, at the exchange between Jesus and the centurion. The Roman had asked Jesus to heal his servant. Jesus replied, “I will come and heal him.” Oddly, the centurion said, “Lord, I am not worthy for You to come under my roof, but just say the word, and my servant will be healed.” This man knew, because of his behavior, he did not deserve the honor of Jesus coming into his home.

Even if that Roman did not realize the fact, he was asking for grace. That is what set him apart from “anyone in Israel.” In his dealings with the Pharisees, Jesus typically was tolerated and condescended to. The Pharisees had a sense of entitlement; they deserved God’s favor because of their behavior. They obviously deserved God’s favor because they so scrupulously observed the Law. They were unable to see they were no more deserving of God’s grace than an unclean Roman. Grace was granted to the centurion, and by extension, to his slave (who might have been a Jew). Grace was available to the Jews, yet, they were not interested in grace.

Jesus was faithful to his on offer of grace when he healed the Roman’s servant. He responded to the man’s faith, not his behavior. So, what about those sick Jews who were healed by Jesus? We might justly infer faith was a part of that event as well. The sick were brought to Jesus by others who, at the least, hoped and believed Jesus would heal their family members and friends.

In the healing of the sick Jews, Jesus was being faithful to himself. As those who had been healed proclaimed, “He himself took our infirmities and carried away our diseases.” The Lord understood why he had come to this earth. He came to give himself for those who did not know their own need. Jesus did not die for those who realized their sin; he died for those who were trapped and enslaved by their sin and could see no way out. He died for those who did not recognize at all their own sinfulness.

So, in healing the centurion’s servant and those sick who had been brought to him, Jesus was being faithful to himself. He was responding to human need, both in healing sicknesses and sins. The power of grace is without limit. The faith of the Roman centurion was the interface between the need of his servant and God’s grace. The needs of the sick were also a connecting point. Grace responds to need, whether asked for or not. The Cross proved that truth. Jesus died for those who did not love him nor accept him. He died because of humanity’s great need. He was and is faithful.

“For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.” (Rom. 5.6)

Sin and Brokenness

2011-07-27T09:42:00.000-04:00

In the SBCVoices post “Yes, We're Worse Than Broken; But I Still Use the Term. Response to Randy Newman,” (July 13, 2011) Mike Leake defended the use of the term brokenness as appropriate in describing the human condition. Randy Newman, in his book Bringing the Gospel Home, said “the word doesn't go deep enough to move us forward in sanctification.” Leake responded, “I do continue to use the word. I continue to use the word for two primary reasons. First, I use it precisely because it actually does help me to explain a robust biblical theology and the multifaceted concept of sin.” He further stated, “Secondly, I use that word because people feel broken.”

I must agree with Mike Leake. Brokenness does help in our understanding of the consequences of sin. In a way, I agree as well with Randy Newman; brokenness does not go deep enough. If all we had was the term brokenness, we could not understand just how flawed and failed our condition is. We have, though, more than just the term brokenness. Interestingly, the word brokenness is not well-attested in Scripture. Only Jeremiah used the term in a manner close to how we employ the concept today (see Jer. 6.14; 8.11, 21). Jeremiah spoke of the “brokenness of My people,” and “the brokenness of the daughter of My people.” His charge was the wise men, prophets and priests were superficially healing the brokenness of Israel, but that healing would provide no peace. The word peace also means soundness or wholeness. The healing had no lasting effect.

Jeremiah got to the heart of the problem. Our sin is a deep and incurable illness. We cannot cure our condition. Anyone who offers a superficial solution for sin , or who makes sin itself a superficial problem, has been false and untruthful. God alone knows the depth of our sinful condition, and he alone has offered the only true healing for sin. Through the Cross, the Lord solved the problem of sin and made available the only real and lasting solution. In fact, the Cross underscores the depth of the sinful condition of human beings. Only a radical solution can heal a radical condition.

We can understand the nature of sin only by relying on the full range of biblical words used to describe the full nature of sin. The Bible uses the words iniquity, trespass, transgression, lawlessness, unrighteousness, wickedness, disobedience and evil to explain the depth of our failure. We are guilty of iniquity because we sin; we have trespassed the laws of God and transgressed them because we sin; we are guilty of unrighteous, wicked and evil behavior because we have sinned. We indeed are in a pitiable state if we have not received the forgiveness of our sin. We sin because we are broken, just as Jeremiah said Israel was broken. We are broken because something deep inside of us is not what it should be. We are broken because of the fall of Adam. We are broken because we are born into a broken world. We are broken because, when given the choice, we have failed to live up to God’s demand. All sin. None is righteous; none of us conforms to God’s expectations of us. We are both the victims of sin, and the guilty perpetrators of sin. We did not ask to be born into a sinful world. Yet, when given the choice, we all have chosen to disobey God.

We are indeed broken. We each need to be healed of that brokenness. “But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed.” Jesus was pierced, crushed, chastened and scourged because of what we have done. Ultimately, he died in our place. So, through the horrible agony, mistreatment and death of Jesus, the Lord made possible the forgiveness, yes, the healing, of our brokenness. The seal of that transaction was his resurrection, because of which, we might walk in newness of life, broken no more.

Global Climate Change and the Sovereignty of God

2011-06-07T11:39:00.000-04:00

“The first [angel] sounded, and there came hail and fire, mixed with blood, and they were thrown to the earth; and a third of the earth was burned up, and a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up. The second angel sounded, and something like a great mountain burning with fire was thrown into the sea; and a third of the sea became blood, and a third of the creatures which were in the sea and had life, died.” (Rev. 8.7-9a)

Whatever might be one’s personal beliefs about the passages in Scripture seeming to address the end of time, we all recognize God has a plan for the ages. We then can reason, if God has a plan, just as that plan had a starting point, so it has an ending. We can further infer the plan has both temporal and eternal implications. In terms of the temporal, God’s plan is a process. From the beginning, the Lord has been working towards a conclusion.

The great problem of the ages has been and is man’s propensity for evil. The Bible gives us the history of man’s sin. Whatever else happened along the way, Scripture tells us man sinned in the beginning, and continues to sin to this day. Further, man’s sin collectively and individually has prevented him from being able to participate fully, or at all, in God’s economy. Our sin excludes us from the full benefits of God’s favor.

Man’s sin has had tragic consequences. As James pointed out, when sin has run its course, death results. Sin and death are inextricably woven together. So, how was the problem of sin to be resolved? The Lord gave Israel instructions for sacrifice through which the penalty of sin could be forestalled, but those sacrifices did not finally solve the problem of sin. The solution was beyond man. Only God could effect a cure for the eternally fatal disease of sin.

In the fullness of time, or at the right time, God provided the solution to the problem of man’s sin. “For while we were still helpless,” Paul wrote to the Romans, “at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.” God did what he did so he might demonstrate “His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” The death of Jesus on the Cross is the climax of history. The great conflict, man’s sinfulness, was resolved in the death and resurrection of Christ. After the Cross, sin was no longer the turning point for God’s relationship with humanity; grace became the new filter through which God looked at men.

Now, the Lord was able to do what he did, solve the unsolvable, because he is, among other things, sovereign. Whether we are reformed or Arminian in our theological stance, we all must admit to God’s sovereignty. He is indeed all powerful; he is Lord. We do not make him Lord; the best we can do is admit to and acknowledge his lordship.

Now, if man’s sin is greater than grace, the Cross could not have happened. The Cross was a consequence, or the cost of sin. The Cross also was the cure for sin. Grace is greater than our sin. Man’s sin, collectively and individually, does have great consequence, though. Just how far those consequences extend is a matter of debate. One of the burning issues for our time is global climate change, or as some put it, human-induced global warming. Some say global climate change is a result of man’s sin against the natural environment.

Just how great is the cost of our environmental sinfulness? We, as a race, in both the developed and undeveloped world, have polluted, trashed and corrupted the natural world. We have wasted resources, defiled the atmosphere, oceans and the ground with harmful chemicals and other pollutants.

Yet, how dangerous to our future and our fate has our sinfulness been? Has what we have done hastened the end of life as we know it? Is the future of our planet somehow less sure because we have been poor stewards? Have we frustrated the plan of God by our selfishness and immaturity? Must God adapt his plan to the consequences of our sin?

If God is, as Scripture presents him, the sovereign Lord of the universe, then he need not change anything. His plan stands as it always has been, and does not need to be adapted at any point. God’s plan, a process developing over and through time, retains its integrity. God declared though Isaiah, “thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, ‘I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself and spreading out the earth all alone, causing the omens of boasters to fail, making fools out of diviners, causing wise men to draw back and turning their knowledge into foolishness, confirming the word of His servant and performing the purpose of His messengers.” (Isa. 44.24-26a)

Understanding the predictions of fatal, global climate change are unproven, we still must admit our environmental and ecological sinfulness does have consequences. Yet, God is still in control. In the day in which Isaiah addressed his message, many saw the future as in doubt as many do today. Yet, the Lord said man could not imagine all consequences. The best and the worst of the predictions of doom by the great minds of Isaiah’s day did not then, as they do not today, take into account the Sovereign Lord of the Universe and his plan for his people. Even when Israel thought she was beyond hope and redemption, God declared to her, “do not fear, for I am with you; do not anxiously look about you, for I am your God.” (Isa. 41.10)

God’s plan will come to its intended conclusion, whenever the Lord chooses and according to his timing. We, at our worst or our best, cannot alter God’s timetable. He will consummate his plan. He neither will be hurried or delayed in the playing out of the plan he has established. The Lord truly is in control.

The Tribulation of Tornados

2011-05-16T08:51:00.001-04:00

“Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions.” Col. 1.24

Just over a week ago, my wife and I, along with three local churches, hosted a disaster recovery group from Enon Baptist Church, Franklinton, LA. They came to our area, Ringgold/Catoosa County GA, to help with the tornado recovery effort. While sorting through the remains of a house, we saw an interesting sight: the cover for the DVD “The Passion of the Christ.” We were stunned.

What a witness to the presence of Christ among the people who had suffered so horribly through and after the storm. No doubt, we all needed to be reminded not only is God with us in every circumstance of life, but when we suffer, he suffers with us. We are His Body. What happened in Ringgold was not an abstraction for God. He knew the reality of the event more than any of us ever will be able to understand. He was present when the destruction came and is present in the aftermath.

The team from Louisiana had experienced a tragedy of their own: Hurricane Katrina. The first community to respond to the Enon Community was Ringgold. Ringgold is and has been our home for a long time. For a while, though, I served as the pastor of Enon BC. A deep connection exists now between these two communities. We each have suffered with the other through two of the more destructive natural events human beings can experience.

Both during Katrina and now after the tornado in Ringgold, I have a keener insight into what Paul meant when he said, “now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions.” Two important theological terms are found in this verse: suffering (pathēma) and affliction (thlipsis). Suffering is related to the word pathos (see Heb. 2.9), and is used to describe the events in Jesus’ life just prior to and including the Cross. The word thlipsis is translated at times tribulation and is understood by some to signify the Great Tribulation.

Colossians 1.24 has perplexed many because of the seeming suggestion Jesus’ suffering in the Atonement somehow was incomplete. I don’t think Paul was saying that at all. The Cross was enough; Jesus said, as he hung on the Cross, “It is finished.” So, what did Paul mean? Understanding the passion of Jesus was far more extensive than the last week of his life helps us begin to see inside Paul’s declaration.

Anyone intimately associated with the church knows the cost required to insure the integrity and vitality of the Body of Christ. The Church itself has always undergone suffering, and in many places (such as China and Muslim Africa) continues to suffer to this day. The “afflictions” of Christ and the sufferings of his people will not be completed until the consummation of the ages. Just as the Lord was present with those who suffered in Ringgold and other places in the South during the April 2011 tornados, he also suffers with his people throughout the world as they themselves are going through “tribulation” (see Rev. 1.9-10) for their love and loyalty to Christ. In some sense, as we are afflicted, Jesus is afflicted. He is not removed or unattached from the sufferings of his people.

Our task, as followers of Jesus, is both to “rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep.” We truly cannot weep with someone until we are involved intimately with their suffering. Weeping should not be an abstraction for us. For us, the pain of others must be a shared experience. We must, then, be involved with them in their affliction. Jesus is personally involved, and his people must be as well. The Lord must not suffer for us alone; we must join him in the agony of his people.

In his encouraging the Corinthians to fulfill their promise to make an offering to the saints, Paul said, “at this present time your abundance being a supply for their need, so that their abundance also may become a supply for your need, that there may be equality.” Ringgold once gave to Enon; now Enon has given to Ringgold, fulfilling the words of Paul. We have wept and suffered with one another.

We cannot and must not remain comfortable in our own luxury. We must get out of our “comfort zone” and know and experience the sufferings of others. Jesus must not be left alone to suffer for his people. We must, as Paul did, rejoice in the honor and privilege of suffering the afflictions of the Body of Christ. We must “make up what is needed;” we must give ourselves, as inconvenient as the gift may be, to those whose need is greater than our own.

All over Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and Tennessee, God’s people are fulfilling the needs of others in their moment of affliction. Selflessly and tirelessly, small churches and large are engaged in the process of weeping with those who weep. The richness of the gift is abundant both for those who are afflicted and those who share in their affliction.

I'm a Pastor

2011-03-17T10:10:00.000-04:00

Rob Bell is not a person I know a lot about. Most of what I have heard suggests his theology has engendered lots of controversy. His latest book, Love Wins: Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, has stoked the fires to new intensity. In an interview on MSNBC, anchor Martin Bashir challenged Bell on key points made in Love Wins. Bell’s inability to answer Bahir’s questions (Some were, quite frankly, loaded: Bashir, with reference to the earthquake in Japan, asked whether Bell thought God was all-powerful but did not care about people, or God cares but is not all-powerful.). When the subject of Bell’s own stated beliefs came to the fore, Bashir’s questions really made Bell squirm. He could not defend at all his view God’s love would prevail ultimately and all people would be saved.

Now, I have not read his book, so in fairness to Bell, I’ll not make any comments one way or the other about what he has written. In the interview, though, Bell made a telling comment in the context of his defense of his book. When asked why he might choose the theology of Origen over Arius’s, Rob Bell made a curious statement. He said, “Because first and foremost, I’m a pastor, so I deal with real people in a real world asking and wrestling with these issues of faith. And what I have discovered over and over is there are people who have questions and hunches, sort of, ‘I’m struggling with this,’ and you can simply give them the gift of ‘by the way, in the Christian tradition there are scholars and theologians, and there are other people who have had the same questions.”

Bashir interrupted Bell at that point to say he, Bell, was creating a Christian message that was warm, kind and popular. Bashir went on to say Bell was amending the Gospel to make it palatable to contemporary people who find the concepts of heaven and hell hard to stomach. While Bashir may have been unfair to Bell in some of his questions, he was right on in his criticism of Bell’s own stated beliefs. His comment was somewhat like Paul’s: “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.”

The part of the comment Bell made most disturbing to me was the “I’m a pastor” statement. If he failed to defend himself at any point, he did so most remarkably with this statement. Instead of indicating he gave sound theological and biblical guidance to his parishioners, Bell seemed to indicate he just gave them choices, “the gift of, by the way,” knowing others have these questions and here’s how they answered them.

Bell’s implication was he did not have the time to formulate answers based on Scripture, since he is so busy trying to help people find answers. I believe oxymoron, or at least paradox, is the operative term at this point. Throughout 37 years of pastoral ministry, my understanding of my role has been to be a shepherd who feeds and guides his sheep with the truth of God’s Word. And, in those cases where I myself could not speak definitely, I had the freedom and responsibility to say, “I don’t know.” My expectation has been to grow more and more knowledgeable through continuing study in order to be a better spiritual leader. Saying, “Here’s ten statements, choose the one you think suits you best,” has never been an option for me.

Rob Bell is not the only pastor who has offered the “I’m just a pastor” excuse. Being a pastor does not relieve one of his responsibility of coming to an understanding of the biblical revelation. Indeed, being a pastor heightens that responsibility. Admittedly, we all have intellectual limitations, but each of us can understand the Bible to the fullest of our abilities. If we commit ourselves to the study of Scripture, each of us will be able to “present [himself] approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.” My task is not, in the end, to give my opinion or rehash the theological arguments of the past. To the best of my abilities, I am to assist others in understanding the truth of Scripture, regardless of how “offensive” that truth first may appear to a human mind.

Obviously, Bell himself has a personal struggle with the nature of heaven and hell. If we are honest, many of us will admit to a similar dilemma. Yet, while I might question what the Bible says about the nature of heaven and hell, I do not have any doubts at all about the fact of heaven and hell. Further, when each of us dies, God is bound by his own character to honor and respect the decisions we have made in life and carry with us into death. What we decide on this temporal side of death matters essentially for our existence on the eternal side of death. As a just God, who is also merciful and gracious, the Lord will accept our choices. Grace no more disregards our decisions than justice does.

Otherwise, why would our choices in this life matter at all? Why would accepting or rejecting the Gospel be meaningful if, after we die, God through his love will convince us and save us from ourselves and our choices? If ultimately I will be convinced, why worry about the question now? As a pastor, as chief theologian and biblicist for my congregation, I must have a biblically definitive answer to these questions. I am a pastor. I deal with real people in a real world, and, oh yeah, I am required to give them scriptural answers and guidance as they struggle on their own journey. I can and must say with conviction, “thus says the Lord.”

Random Thoughts and Musings

2011-03-11T10:20:00.001-05:00

• Read an article today (linked by SBCVoices) in which the writer seemed to be bemoaning the use of video screens as worship aids. He called them “little JumboTron type of contraption[s].” The gist of his article was we are becoming entertainment and personality driven in or churches. The use of modern technology is evidence of that trend. Well, the Corinthians seemed to have been entertainment and personality driven, and they didn’t even have electricity. If I could figure out a way to use IPods and IPads as a part of my preaching and teaching, I’d do it in a heart beat. We minister daily to people who live in the world of Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and a host of other sophisticated, technological tools I am only now beginning to understand and use. Our task is to use all appropriate resources to introduce people to the Gospel and disciple them in their walk with the Lord. Being a Ludite about these modern technological tools accomplishes nothing.

• I wonder about homosexuals and their urge to have children. Children are the product of heterosexuality, not homosexuality. Conception requires an egg, carried by the woman, to be fertilized by sperm, produced by the man. Regardless of the delivery system, conception is a function of heterosexuality. Artificial insemination, the preferred method among homosexuals, is nothing less than vicarious sexual intercourse. Further, does not the desire for children render void the notion of homosexuality as an orientation? Why would a homosexual desire children, a function wholly within the realm of heterosexuality? Does not the desire for children affirm the normalcy and naturalness of heterosexuality?

• The rape of CBS reporter Lara Logan during the revolt in Cairo underscores the misogynistic tendencies of Islam (she could have been raped at a riot in America, by the way). The treatment of Islamic women speaks to more than misogyny. Inherent in Islam is the belief women are the root cause of men’s sexual desire. So, if women are covered in a burka, or at least modest clothes and a head scarf or veil, men will not be tempted. So, women, not men’s sensual desires, are the problem. What would Jesus have said? In fact, he did say something about this. If a man looks on a woman and desires her in his heart, he has committed adultery. In that light, James declared we are all enticed and lured by our own desires. So, men, we are the problem, not women, regardless of how they are dressed.

• I have been wondering about the teachers in Wisconsin who, a few weeks ago, called in sick so they could attend the protest at the capital in Madison. Were they still paid a full salary for the days they missed because they were “sick”? How about those who took one of the excuse slips a doctor was handing out? Did they compound their lie by taking one of those phony “excuses” (and abet the doctor who compromised his/her own professional ethics)? Did they not compromise their integrity, at the least, by lying about being sick and not fulfilling the terms of their contracts? How many of them would call in sick and protest for more technology in their classrooms to enhance the education of their pupils? My wife, by the way, is a teacher. Were any of those teachers professing Christians?

• Back to the church: are we fulfilling Paul’s prediction? “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires.” Tickling is a sensual thing. Most, if not all, physical and emotional appetites are insatiable. So, if we need “feeling” in our experiences at church, we will never be able to get enough. Is not the truth, on the other hand, ultimately fulfilling. While we will never be able to attain to all wisdom, we can find satisfaction and contentment in the Word. David said, “Content is the man . . . whose delight is in the law of the Lord.” We will never get our ears sufficiently tickled, but the Word is sufficient for our every need. Its truth is everlasting. Physical things are only temporary. Too, if you get tickled too much, you might just throw up.

• In a forum at Saddleback Church in August of 2008, Barack Obama was asked when he thought life began. He replied “that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.” He later admitted his answer was flippant. Maybe, but his answer told us a lot about him. Now, some 2 ½ years later, the President has weighed in on another hot button issue: the Defense of Marriage Act. He and Attorney-General Holder have decided no longer to defend the constitutionality of DOMA in the courts. Apparently, having risen to a higher pay grade, Mr. Obama must feel qualified to speak on the issue. The President himself claims still to be grappling with the concept of same-sex marriage, but still considers DOMA to be unconstitutional. Pardon me for asking, but why, for the first time in human history, should we moderns grant to homosexuals a “right” they have never enjoyed. Upon what basis can homosexuals claim the right to marry? Seemingly, rising to a higher pay grade does not endow one with greater wisdom.

• No doubt, you’ve all read about home-schooled sophomore Joel Northrup, the fifth-ranked wrestler in the state of Iowa. Jason defaulted on his first match in the state finals. He had drawn Cassy Herkelman, a female freshman, as his opponent, and he could not, in good conscience, wrestle a girl. His refusal to wrestle Cassy was based on his biblical convictions. A post by Caryn Rivadeneira on “her-meneutics,” the Christianity Today blog for women, included the following comment. “My guess is that his decision to default has more to do with his view of who is against him on the mat than it does with actual violence. And I think his refusal has more to do with his cultural view of girls than his Christian faith.” In Ms. Rivadeneira’s view, Joel Northrup is both a liar and a sexist. She is in favor of boys wrestling girls. I would think Mr. Northrup’s convictions should be honored, not sanctimoniously questioned. For a better and more balanced view, read Mona Charen’s article at http://bit.ly/f5OG1Z. By the way, what a good time to ask, “What would Jesus do?”

Timeless Worship

2011-03-11T10:01:00.001-05:00

“Be glad in the Lord and rejoice, you righteous ones; and shout for joy, all you who are upright in heart. Sing for joy in the Lord, O you righteous ones; praise is becoming to the upright. Give thanks to the Lord with the lyre; sing praises to Him with a harp of ten strings. Sing to Him a new song; play skillfully with a shout of joy.” (Psalms 32.11-33.3)

“We look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.” (2 Cor. 4.18)

Having served for 37 years as a Southern Baptist pastor, I am well-versed in the contemporary-traditional worship debate. During my years of service, my churches have included small, rural congregations, urban churches, new church starts and a county-seat First Baptist church. When my time of service began, worship was, for the most part, traditional. Of course, your church setting determined what was “traditional.” In 1980, I went to a new church (as their second pastor), and found a worship style I thought was more Pentecostal than Baptist. We were contemporary and didn’t know it. The war had not yet begun.

The First Baptist church I served was deeply traditional when I became their pastor. We had a pipe organ, violinist and piano. The music tended to be high church, with few if any gospel songs or choruses sung. That situation changed. A new music minister arrived shortly after I became pastor; he had fresh ideas and lots of creative energy. In hardly any time at all, we were singing scripture songs and praise choruses. Our worship was “blended,” even though the term was not yet being used widely to describe a worship style.

As the years passed, with each church served, worship issues continued to be a top priority. Some congregations were open to a wider variety of music styles, while others dug in their heels and resisted change. As the controversy over music continued to swirl both in my own ministry and our denomination, I was forced to look more deliberately at the biblical definition and models for worship. Some of what was discovered was shocking.

What I found was our perspective on worship was misplaced. In designing worship events, one of the obvious and overriding issues was the question of what kind of music the congregation would “like.” We have all struggled at that point. Yet, in Scripture, the perspective on worship was from another angle altogether. In the Bible, the big question is what does God expect from us in our worship, not what do we like.

Now, I don’t want to sound self-righteous as some in Corinth were: a kind of “you all might be of Peter or Paul or Apollos, but I am of Christ.” My approach is more about my own journey of discovery and has little or nothing to do with who is right or wrong. For the most part, we all have been diligent in our responsibility as worship leaders. Yet, for me at least, for a long time, I really failed to understand what worship is all about.

Psalm 32.11 twice makes an interesting declaration, “Be glad in the Lord and rejoice, . . . Sing for joy in the Lord” What is so thought-provoking is the “in the Lord” part of these verses. We think first of singing to the Lord; David said “be glad . . . sing for joy in the Lord.” God is to be not only the object of our worship, but the context as well. He, not us, is the focus of our worship. Further, his character should determine the nature of our worship. Who he is should be the sole determining factor in the design and conduct of our praise.

Our use of the terms traditional and contemporary gives proof of our dilemma: we praise an eternal God in temporal terms. What a paradox. Yet, Scripture does give us direction for our worship. Paul’s declaration of what our focus is to be should be a basic guide for our worship. We are not limited, and should not be, by time-bound music styles. Instead, we should be driven by content.

What do our songs say about God? Are we addressing the Lord or one another when we sing? Testimony songs are wonderful things. I remember sitting as a young boy on the piano bench with my Dad. He played out of Stamps-Baxter hymnals; that was the only music style he knew or appreciated. We both would sing to the top of our voices. Mostly we sang about heaven and its wonder and the sometimes dreariness of our earthly walk. I loved singing with my Dad. But, as I look back, I have to ask where God was in all our singing. We sang about him and what he had done, but seldom sang directly to him.

If we sing to the Lord and in him, we will be moved out of time into eternity. We will have, for the most part, the Lord as the subject of our singing: “Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power.” Worship is God’s party and we have been invited to attend. We should find more joy in celebrating him than singing the songs we like.

Our task as worship leaders is to lead our congregations before the Throne of God. We are to show the followers of Jesus how to be set free in our worship from the constraints and limitations of time. If all we do is give them the music they enjoy, we have failed in our task.

“Be glad in the Lord and rejoice, you righteous ones; and shout for joy, all you who are upright in heart. Sing for joy in the Lord, O you righteous ones; praise is becoming to the upright. Give thanks to the Lord with the lyre; sing praises to Him with a harp of ten strings. Sing to Him a new song; play skillfully with a shout of joy.”

In the Lord's Shadow

2011-02-27T15:53:00.003-05:00

“He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High will abide in the shadow of the Almighty. I will say to the Lord, ‘My refuge and my fortress, My God, in whom I trust!’ . . . Because he has loved Me, therefore I will deliver him; I will set him securely on high, because he has known My name. He will call upon Me, and I will answer him; I will be with him in trouble; I will rescue him and honor him. With a long life I will satisfy him And let him see My salvation.”

Psalm 91.1-2, 14-16

Sometimes, we try to make Scripture say something not intended by the text, and at other times, we miss what the text is saying altogether. Seemingly, this passage out of Psalm 91 indicates God’s care is so complete, nothing bad will ever happen to the believer. Is that, in fact, what the psalmist declared?

The psalm begins with the psalmist’s affirmation of trust, and closes with the Lord’s promise to deliver. First, let’s look at what the psalmist said. He spoke of dwelling “in the shelter of the Most High,” and abiding “in the shadow of the Almighty. Now, both of these words, dwell and abide, mean to take up residence. As long as we consciously live with the protective care of the Lord, we will be living within his shadow.

Living in God’s shadow can mean two things, both equally true. First, to live within the Lord’s shadow means we are protected from the heat of the heat of the sun. The psalmist meant that in a symbolical way. Heat quite clearly is the oppressive things of life capable of draining away all our energy and strength. To live within God’s shadow, then, is to have one’s strength renewed daily.

The second implication of dwelling within God’s shadow is closeness or intimacy. How can one be distant from God and be in his shadow. So, if we are within the Lord’s shadow, we are close to him and sharing an intimate relationship with him. To be intimate with God requires us to be faithful and holy. We cannot go our own reckless way or trust in ourselves or some other source of comfort while at the same time being close to God.

Now, for followers of Jesus, we understand we are never outside of God’s protective care. A problem develops when we consciously choose to ignore God. We doubt the Lord, or ignore his leadership and, as a result, suffer the consequences of our foolish choices. Even then, he does not desert us; he is always faithful.

The psalmist also declared he would say to the Lord, “my refuge and my fortress, My god, in whom I trust.” Here again, the writer of the psalm underscores the choice each of us can make: we can choose to trust in the Lord. God does not force us to trust him, but, by His Gentle Spirit, he woos us and draws us to himself. He allows us to fail so we might see how limited our own knowledge is. Failure is sometimes the best classroom for learning trust.

Dwelling in the shelter and shadow of the Lord is the context for understanding the Lord’s care. All of the triumphs and victories and the strength and confidence one gains through the Lord is predicated upon dwelling and abiding. Apart from dwelling and abiding in the shelter and shadow of the Lord, no triumphs and victories are experienced, and strength and confidence are replace with fear and weakness.

Now, what happens when we fail? How are we to understand our experience of unexpected events so filled with pain and hurt we think we will never recover? Let’s put things into perspective. First, our failures. We fail because we choose to go our own way. When we disobey God, we will suffer the consequences. Even then, the Lord does not desert us. Remember the words of Paul: “And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.” All things include our mistakes as well as our successes. So, even when we fail to trust in the Lord, he still delivers us.

Second, what about all those things in life we would rather not have to go through. These things are known as tests and trials. Paul helps us again: “No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.” Whatever we experience is what others have gone through as well.

How do we go through these commonly shared situations? We remember the faithfulness of God. First of all, as difficult and as distasteful as an experience might be, God never allows us to face something too great for us to bear or beyond our strength. Since our strength comes from the Lord through his Holy Spirit, nothing is too much for us to bear. We must also remember God provides the way through the test. Escape is not a good translation of the word Paul used; “way through” is much closer to the meaning of the Greek word. How can we endure something if we escape? Endure means to steadfastly endure. We have the strength we need by the Spirit so we will be able to endure anything life throws at us.

Let’s go back to Psalm 91. In verse 14, the psalmist declared, “"Because he has loved Me, therefore I will deliver him; I will set him securely on high, because he has known My name.” Because of our love for the Lord, and because we know his name, the will deliver us and set us securely on high. When does the Lord deliver us? When we need to be delivered. The psalmist was saying God delivers us in our time of distress and need; Paul said the Lord rescues us by giving us the strength to go through our trial and endure.

What we fail to remember sometimes is God is never taken by surprise by what happens to us. He is never so busy elsewhere he is unable to be with us in our time of greatest need. He is with us in our present, with us throughout our journey, and already at the end of any difficult circumstance we might face. He will, as the psalmist declared, always ready to rescue and honor us. He is able to do so because he is always with us.

Will bad things happen in our lives? Yes they will. Can these terrible events overcome us? No they cannot. God has a plan for each of us and will see the plan through to its conclusion. He will sustain us in or battles and give us the victory; he will rescue us in times of danger and honor us with his love; he will give us life, and give it abundantly. He will never fail us.

Happiness Is

2011-02-16T22:40:00.000-05:00

I was watching Fox News one morning and listened to the reporter tell of Aarhus, Denmark, the happiest city in the world. Denmark is considered the happiest country in the world. When I googled happiest city in the world, other places showed up as #1, including Rio de Janerio (rated #1 by Forbes magazine).

From what I can find, Aarhus’ rating of #1 was made by National Geographic. NG based its rating on the studies of Dan Buettner, a contributor to National Geographic and author of Thrive: Finding Happiness the Blue Zones Way. In his book, Buettner presents the findings of his examination into one of the crucial factors in human longevity, happiness, and what makes people happy.

Here are some quotes from the NG online article “Secrets of the Happiest Places on Earth,” by Ford Cochran, an interview with Buettner. “Worldwide, happiness equates very strongly with equality–mostly status equality, but the countries that have a very short ladder between the richest and the poorest people are a lot happier than those where a few people make a lot of money and a few people don't make much money. . . We know that trust is hugely correlated with happiness, places where people are trustworthy and you can trust the government, low corruption. Also tolerance. . . We know worldwide that religious people are happier than non-religious people.”

Blogger Nicholas Kontis noted the following on the website Tripatini. “The Danes indeed have richness in life. You don't have to lock your doors. Free health care, good schools, diverse places of worship, bars, cafes, social clubs, forests, and never far from the sea. Transportation mostly by bike. And very few lawyers. as business is settled with a handshake. And your word holds valid in this city of 300,000 people.”

Several things come to mind in considering the “happiest place on earth.” First of all, places are not happy and cannot make a person truly happy. No one, by moving to Aarhus or Rio, will be transformed magically from a sad, frustrated person to a happy, fulfilled individual. Happiness doesn’t work that way.

I read once about a pastor who asked all prospective brides and grooms if they could be happy if they were unable to marry their prospective mate. Those who said they could not be were advised to think seriously about getting married. You see, we cannot expect someone else (or somewhere else, for that matter) to be responsible for our personal happiness. We first must find happiness within ourselves. Only then will we be able to add to someone else’s well-being.

In Hebrew and Greek, two of the words typically translated blessed in the OT and the NT actually mean “to be happy or content.” Almost always, these words are found in contexts in which the contentment one experiences is a result of obeying God in some manner. I will paraphrase Psalm 1.1: “Content is the man who refuses to make his decisions and live his life according to the beliefs of cynical, unbelieving secularists. He instead finds his greatest pleasure in meditating on the Law of the Lord.” People are happy only by being in a proper relationship with God.

Further, I wonder how many people in places like Aarhus, Denmark, would be as happy if they suddenly lost all their creature comforts. Things can no more make one happy than a place can. We might find physical and emotional comfort in things, but we cannot find true contentment. Why? Consider what Paul told the Corinthians. “Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our physical body is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day. For momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison, while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the tings which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not see are eternal.”

Even physical health and well-being are not the source of true contentment. Our physical body and our physical creature comforts are all temporary. They will wear out, sooner or later. What God gives, though, cannot be taken away. The salvation we enjoy is ours through grace and is rooted in the timelessness of God himself. We cannot and should not ask God for anything more. Being his child is enough. Whatever he chooses for us is sufficient.

Actually, the happiest place on earth should be the church. The congregation of believers should be overflowing with gladness and joy. We should described today as the disciples were described in Acts 15.32: “And the disciples were continually filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit.”

How happy are you?

The Believer and His View of Time

2011-01-24T10:55:00.000-05:00

A light year is 6 trillion miles; this is the distance light travels in a vacuum in one Julian year. Our galaxy, the Milky Way, has a diameter of 100,000 light years, a thickness of 1,000 light years, and contains between 100-400 billion stars. The oldest known star in the Milky Way is said to be 13 billion years old. The universe is immensely large and, some say, possibly infinite in volume (I would argue only God is infinite). The region visible from Earth (the observable universe) is a sphere with a radius of about 46 billion light years (thus, a diameter of 92 billion light years). The most precise estimate scientists give for the age of universe is 13 billion years.

For the average person, understanding time and distance in terms of billions of miles and years essentially is impossible. Yet, we can observe two things from the above information. One, we understand, or try to understand, our universe in terms of distance. Two, we also attempt to comprehend the universe in terms of time. Now, distance is absolute. A mile is a mile and a kilometer is a kilometer (a km is .6 of a mile - a 10k race is 6 miles). If one was able to travel anywhere in the universe, distance would always be computed in terms of miles or kilometers (the universally preferred standard of measurement).

Time is another matter altogether. An earth day, 24 hours, is not the same as a day on Jupiter. A day is the amount of time it takes for a planet to spin around once. A day on Jupiter is much shorter than a day on Earth. The giant planet's day is only about ten hours long, less, than half as long as an Earth day. So, depending on where one might be in the Universe, time, in terms of days and years, would be on a different order than time on earth. While seconds, minutes and hours are constants, days and years are not unless we have a frame of reference for computing them. Hence, an earth year.

So, to speak of a light year as the distance light travels in one year is a highly relative concept. Ironically, we have no other way of computing the speed of light than to speak in terms of the distance light travels in one of our years. Regardless of the time, though, light does travel over distances and does so at an incredibly swift pace. Yet, days and years are relative to where you are; distance is not.

Time is an important concept for human beings. We order our lives on the basis of 24 hour days, 7-day weeks and 365-day years. We compute our ages in terms of earth years. We have no other frame of reference with which to do so. We are limited by time. We live at a certain pace, second by second, minute by minute, day by day and year by year. We are not able to leap ahead or go back. We are stuck in the moment. Our time limitation has many consequences. One is our inability to change the past; another is being unable to either see or determine the future.

For believers, though, time should be a little less consequential than for non-believers. Based on the teachings of Scripture, when one believes on the Lord Jesus, he is saved and will never perish. Time for followers of Jesus, then, should be viewed from an entirely different perspective. Salvation in Jesus means our essential being goes on living in eternity, even though our physical body dies. Indeed, as Christians, we believe we have already begun to experience eternal life, even while locked in time.

Paul spoke often of the meaningless of time for the followers of Jesus. He told the Corinthians, “Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer man is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day. For momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison, while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.” Look at his treatment of time. The body is decaying: the erosive result of time. Any and all affliction is momentary: over time, our situations, conditions and circumstances change or come to an end. Day by day, though, we, in our inner being, are being made new. Thus, we are being set free from the restrictions of time.

That such a truth exists should determine our view of time. We should not orient ourselves to time (the things which are seen and passing away), but have an eternal perspective, perceiving what is unseen, and, thus, timeless and eternal. In one sense, we must deal with the consequences of time on a daily basis; we are wearing away. In another sense, though, we can respond to those time-induced “facts” by seeing them from God’s perspective: they are temporary. We are new everyday; we are, in our essential being, not bound any longer by time.

While we are still locked in time, God is not. He sees the beginning of all things, their progress and their conclusion as one reality. Since he is not bound by and locked in time, time has no meaning for God. If we can grasp this truth, we ourselves will be freed from the prison of time. Even though we must live in time, we are no longer bound by time. Even though we are growing older, weaker and more limited with each passing day, yet, deep within, we are being made new with each passing day.

God is both outside our Universe and inside of it. He is present among us, yet, unaffected by time. He is “I Am,” the Ever-Present-One. Through the Son, God came and lived among us. Through his Spirit, he has always been present in creation. He is free to move in and out of time. For God, the distance from outside our Universe, with its diameter of 92 billion light years, is not even a second. He is in heaven and among us all at once. He indeed is Lord of the Universe and all that exists within it and beyond it.

So, we can sing with David, “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, And by the breath of His mouth all their host. . . . The counsel of the Lord stands forever, the plans of His heart from generation to generation. Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, the people whom He has chosen for His own inheritance. The Lord looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men; from His dwelling place He looks out on all the inhabitants of the earth.” (Psalm 33.6, 11-14) He is in control and we are never outside his care.

The Shroud of Turin, Fact or Fiction? Part 1

2010-04-19T09:45:00.004-04:00

The Shroud of Turin, the supposed burial wrapping of Jesus. Fact or fiction? For a number of years, the claims made about the shroud have troubled me. I am not a mystical person and am not drawn to nor interested in either Catholic or Evangelical mysticism or claims for the miraculous. Neither has much to offer the average believer in his daily walk.

Back to the shroud. As I considered the claims about the shroud, and studied photographs of it, my doubts grew. Over time, my questions about this relic coalesced into two groups: the biblical descriptions of Jesus’ burial and the image on the shroud itself.

First, an investigation of the biblical accounts of the burial of Jesus must be undertaken. We must consider the descriptions of Jesus’ burial garments, the manner of Jesus’ burial and the visit to the tomb by Peter and the other disciple.

What do we learn from the statements about the material in which Jesus was buried? Two words are used by the writers of the Gospel accounts to describe Jesus burial garments. In describing the burial clothes, Matthew, Mark and Luke used the Greek word sindôn, meaning “linen cloth” (used for clothing or for burial; cf. Mk. 14.51-52). John used the word othonion, meaning “linen cloth or wrapping.”

Now, one significant modification in this pattern is found in Luke’s account of Peter’s post-resurrection visit to the tomb. Luke said Peter, upon arriving at the tomb, stooped, looked into the tomb and saw the linen wrappings only. Interestingly, the word Luke used here for linen wrappings is the word othonion, not sindôn, which he had used in describing the linen material with which Joseph had wrapped the body of Jesus prior to the burial. Obviously, Luke understood othonion and sindôn to be synonyms. Thus, John’s us of othonion appears to be neither odd nor in conflict with the Synoptics.

As to how the linen material (othonion or sindôn) was used to prepare Jesus’ body for burial, in each of the Gospels, the Lord’s body is said to have been wrapped or bound in linen cloth. Three Greek words, translated bind or wrap, are used by the Gospel writers. Mark used the word eneileô meaning “to wrap in.” Matthew and Luke used the word entulissô, meaning “wrap in, fold or roll up.” John’s choice was deô, meaning “to bind or tie” (the word also can mean imprison). The linen material was not draped over Jesus’ body; his body was wrapped in this material. As we will see later in this article, the material was wrapped around his body in the same manner as a robe or cloak would be wrapped. In other words, Jesus was dressed for burial.

Equally significant are the descriptions of the disciples visit to the tomb and the statements about how the burial garments were found. The othonion, according to John, was “lying there.” The face-cloth was lying apart from the othonion, being folded up (entulissô). The face-cloth, translation of the word soudarion, was also one of the burial garments Peter saw. Lazarus was wearing a soudarion when Jesus called him from the tomb. The account of Jesus’ and Lazarus’s burial and resurrections show a face-cloth was a normal item used in Jewish burials, remaining on the body after burial.

The Shroud of Turin has no evidence of a face-cloth. The explanation given is the soudarion was removed before burial, so, it was found folded and lying to one side. One source stated the fact the face-cloth was lying to one side “point[s] to a short temporal use of the cloth and eliminate[s] the possibility of its contact with the body after burial. Jewish tradition demands that if the face of a dead person was in any way disfigured, it should be covered with a cloth to avoid people seeing this unpleasant sight. This would certainly have been the case with Jesus, whose face was covered in blood (my italics) from the injuries produced by the crown of thorns and swollen from falling and being struck. It seems that the sudarium was first used before the dead body was taken down from the cross and discarded when it was buried.”

If such is the case, why was the soudarion in the tomb at all? Why was it not discarded, being covered with blood, and thus unclean? Lazarus had his soudarion on when he emerged from his tomb, and he had been buried for approximately the same number of days as Jesus would be in the tomb. Why had Lazarus’s face-cloth not been taken off at burial? Jesus’ face-cloth’s being found in the tomb along with the linen burial garments, the description of Lazarus emerging from his tomb with his face covered by a soudarion and the absence of any trace of a face-cloth on the shroud raise serious questions about the shroud as Jesus’ burial garment and even the historicity of the shroud.

The Shroud of Turin, Fact or Fiction? Part 2

2010-04-19T09:43:00.003-04:00

One further issue needs to be considered. In John 19.28-42, the writer described the burial preparations of Jesus body as according to the burial custom of the Jews (This ritual practice is called tahara, from a Hebrew word meaning to be clean or pure). The burial ritual of the Jews is very precise. In the online edition of the Jewish Encyclopedia, the following is found. “R. Benjamin, in his ‘Binyamin Ze'eb’ (responsum No. 204, ed. Venice, 1539), records the testament of R. Eliezer ha-Levi ordering that his body should be cleansed carefully, including the ears and the fingers, and that his nails should be pared and his hair combed, that he may go to his rest as he was wont to go to the synagogue on Sabbath (my italics) eve. In ancient times the hair was cut, but now it is only washed and combed. The nails are not cut, but are cleansed with a special kind of pin.”

Further, “in Biblical times persons, especially of high rank, were arrayed at burial in the garments, ornaments, and weapons which they had worn in life (I Sam. xxviii. 14; Isa. xiv. 11; Ezek. xxxii. 27). To be buried without garments was considered a disgrace. (Italics not in original) . . . since funeral expenses became common extravagances and an object of alarm to the relatives, R. Gamaliel II (lived late 1st cent. to mid-2d cent.) set the example by the order he gave for his own funeral, and thus introduced the custom of burying the dead in simple linen garments.”

On the Shroud, one sees the hair of Jesus had not been cut, blood was still upon his body, and analysis has shown dirt was on his feet and his nose had run and left dried residue on his face. The washing of the body before burial had to do with the deep concern by the Jews for ritual purity. The reason Jesus’ body was not left on the Cross on Passover was so the land itself would not be polluted (cf. Mk. 15.42; Lk. 23.54; Jo. 19.42), thus compromising the integrity of Passover. If Jesus had been buried unwashed, not only would the tomb and land have been polluted, but the very words of John would be proven to be false. We must either accept the witness of John, or the traditions surrounding the shroud. Only one can be true. Either Jesus was buried according to Jewish burial customs (Jo. 19.40) or he was not.

What can we infer from the accounts of the inspired writers of Scripture (as well as Jewish burial traditions)? Without question, the body of Jesus was wrapped tightly in a linen burial garment. His body was not loosely covered or placed inside of a kind of burial bag. The words used in the biblical texts describing the burial of Jesus leave no doubt as to the wrapping, or binding, of the body of Jesus in a linen garment. The loose wrapping implied by the Shroud of Turin is not consistent with the biblical descriptions. His body would have been washed clean of all dirt, blood and other bodily fluids. Finally, the words used by the Bible writers and the facts of Jewish tradition point out a person was buried clothed. The image on the Shroud of Turin, naked under the shroud, covered with dirt, blood and bodily fluids, does not fit the biblical description.

Having seen the conflicts between shroud claims and the biblical account of the burial of Jesus, we need to turn to the image on the shroud itself. What must be pointed out is the actual historicity of the shroud is not being questioned in this article. Whether the shroud is 2,000 years old, or 500, is not the issue. The question being raised is whether or not the shroud is the actual burial garment of Jesus.

What does the shroud show us? First of all, the image on the shroud is of a tall man supposedly exhibiting wounds similar to those suffered by Jesus. Ironically, these bloody wounds are the most damning evidence against the claim for the shroud as Jesus’ burial clothes. As pointed out above, no blood would have been on Jesus body when he was buried since his burial was according to Jewish custom.

If the blood had not been washed off, though, would it have had the appearance of the blood stains on the shroud? According to experts, residue of human sweat can be found on the shroud. No doubt, in the heat of the day, Jesus would have sweated profusely. With the crown of thorns on his head, Jesus would have had blood running down his face. That blood, mixed with sweat, would have appeared in streamlets all over his face, not in a few, thick globs on his forehead, as on the shroud.

Further, Jesus died somewhere close to three o’clock in the afternoon. Most likely, the wounds on his head would have stopped flowing due to coagulation. After such an extended period on the Cross, Jesus would have been close to if not dehydrated by the time he died (John 19.28-29). He would have ceased perspiring and so the sweat and blood on his body would have dried and cracked, leaving only a scabby residue. If his body had not been washed prior to his burial, the blood on his body would have been flaking off and what remained would not have had the appearance of running blood.

Such is not the case on the Shroud of Turin. The blood stains on the image of the body appear to be from fresh, wet blood, not dry, cracked, scabby blood. We also would expect the blood on Jesus’ face to be in streams, running down his face, onto his chin and down his neck. Additionally, the blood stains on the wrist show the blood flowing almost horizontally, not in a downward pattern. How could the blood on his wrist have flowed in the manner shown on the shroud with Jesus’ arms extended outwardly with his wrists nailed to the crossbeam of the Cross? And, with the back of his wrist against the crossbeam, why is the blood stain so distinct and not smeared?

We could go on. For instance, why does the face look so much like the Medieval paintings of Jesus and less like a Palestinian man? We need not go further, though. The Shroud of Turin, whatever it is, is not the burial garment of Jesus. What significance would the shroud have even if it could be proven to be the linen material in which Jesus was buried? Could the shroud save? Forgive sins? Heal the sick? Fix broken lives? Mend fractured marriages? The answer is, none of the above. We need no historical relic to experience God’s grace. God’s love, mercy, forgiveness and grace are all dispensed in response to personal trust in the Savior, not in his burial clothes.

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, (my italics) to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” (Romans 1.16). What else is necessary?

My Brother versus My Beliefs

2010-02-10T12:13:00.000-05:00

LifeLineLive, the online entertainment news service of USAToday, reported the following. “Anne Hathaway, . . . says in the new British GQ that her family left the Catholic Church over its intolerant views on homosexuality. Anne grew up wanting to become a nun but shunned Catholicism when she learned her older brother, Michael, was gay. ‘The whole family converted to Episcopalianism after my elder brother came out,’ she tells the magazine. ‘Why should I support an organization that has a limited view of my beloved brother?’ But the Episcopal church plan didn't really work out for her either. ‘So I'm ... nothing,’ she said. ‘I'm a work in progress.’”

While Ms. Hathaway’s decision may appear on the surface to be principled, when one looks more deeply at her comments, several questions are raised. Let’s look first at the matter of principle itself. Which decision would have shown the deepest commitment to principle: to leave the church or to stay? Being a Christian, whether Catholic or Protestant, implies a commitment to a biblically-based belief system, i.e. a catholic or protestant theology. Traditional Christianity, from both the catholic and protestant point of view, assumes biblical truth, the basis for its theology, to be immutable and eternal.

In Ms. Hathaway’s world, commitment to a human being and his sexual behavior trumps commitment to universal truth. At some point in life, though, for any of a variety of reasons, we all become sexually inactive. What happens to our fundamental identity if we can no longer perform in either a heterosexual or homosexual manner? Do we cease being who we are? If we are defined by sexual behavior, then to not engage in that behavior must have some impact on our basic identity. Ms. Hathaway replaced eternal truth with changeable behavior as the center of her moral universe.

On the other hand, the biblical view of a person’s identity has nothing to do with performance. First, we are human beings, made in the image of God. Second, we are either male or female, the only two categories of human identity having any real significance. Race, ethnicity, sexual preference, nationality, etc. are all human constructs. We have given meaning and value to these categories. But, we must ask, in what sense does race matter, or ethnicity, or national origin, or sexual preference or social category. The only way these groupings matter is related to how we perceive them.

No category, other than sexual identification, can be shown to have any universally demonstrable, unchangeable impact. One’s race or skin color determines nothing about a person. Those Asians who perform well in mathematics do not do so because they are Asian any more than the success in athletics by some African-Americans is because they are African-American. Human effort, regardless of race, determines success.

What is known, though, is a range of differences does exist between males and females. From the most basic biological and physical design to the way brains process information, male and female human beings differ in perceivable, quantifiable ways. Attempts to prove environmental factors are the basis of these differences has failed and failed miserably. For reasons having nothing to do with child-rearing practices, on the whole, little girls prefer dolls and little boys prefer trucks.

So, Ms. Hathaway has chosen to jettison conviction about eternal truth in favor of beliefs about temporary behavior (historically, humans have understood and reacted to homosexual behavior in a variety of ways). Of course, other statements by Ms. Hathaway tell us the real story. She turned her back on an organization, not a belief-system. Proof of the this are her comments about her choosing to affiliate with the Episcopal Church. That choice did not work out, the article stated, so Ms. Hathaway declared, “So I'm ... nothing, . . . I'm a work in progress.’” Obviously, Ms. Hathaway and those like her have trouble committing to anything requiring real conviction. To maintain one’s convictions as a believer in Jesus just may require a break with family. Jesus himself said as much.

One final thing many fail to see: commitment to another person does not require approval of their decisions or behavior. Many times, we must be honest with those we love and tell them their actions are both wrong and destructive. Further, our disagreement or disapproval of the actions of a loved-one does not mean we must end our relationship with them. Regardless of how the world of Anne Hathaways perceives the ethical stands taken by the Catholic Church and other Christian groups, these convictional positions are not a rejection of people, but of behavior.

Love for a person demands unyielding loyalty. We must be loyal in all things to Christ; only them will we truly be able to be loyal to those we love. Likewise, to be loyal to Christ demands we be loyal to his people, the church. We do not turn our back on Christ over temporary issues.

Pangaea and its Climate

2009-07-31T13:56:00.001-04:00

In order to understand the significance for biblical creationism of the theory of Pangea, we must look ahead to the story of the flood. The Flood narrative is found in Genesis 7. In that story, the word for mountain or hill (har) is used for the first time in the Bible. When we consider the nature of Pangea, the super-continent, what is most apparent is the lack of any plate tectonic action. Only when the massive continent of Pangea began separating into what we know now as the continents and islands of earth did plate tectonics play a role.

Plate tectonics is the movement of the various plates of the earth’s crust. The San Andreas Fault in California is one example of the results of the movement of the earth’s plates. Volcanoes and earthquakes result when the plates move against one another. Also, all the mountains of the earth are the result of the movement of the earth’s plates. On Pangea, before the appearance of the vast continents of the earth, mountains, as we know them now, did not exist. Probably, high hills existed, but surely not mountains.

The climate of Pangea, using the biblical model as an explanation, would have been exceedingly humid. A look at fossil’s found in Antarctica illustrates well that fact. Alfred Wegener, who introduced the idea of Pangea, found the same rock formations and fossils in Africa, South America, and Antarctica. Some of the fossils were of species that grew in only one type of climate, yet the fossils were found on continents now having differing climates. Included in these fossil finds were flowering trees, much like those found in tropical environments today, and dinosaurs. How could there be fossils of tropical climate species in Antarctica, a continent now permanently covered with ice and snow?

The original makeup of earth then was, without doubt, a single, large, tropical super-continent. Such an environment would have been ideal for the great dinosaurs. Genesis 1 suggests the original plants were grasses, reeds and small bushes and trees of the kinds now existing in tropical forests. During the era of Pangea, the earth was enveloped by a dense cloud cover (Gen. 17). Genesis 2.5 states, “and all bushes of the pasture lands were not yet in the earth, and all grasses of the pasture lands were not yet in the earth, because the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth; but a mist rose up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the land.” (Gen. 2.5-6)

Let’s compare Genesis 1.11-12 and 2.5-6 because of the seeming conflict between these two texts regarding the description of the earth. In 1.11-12, the text tells us of the earth’s sprouting three kinds of plants: green grass, seed producing plants and fruit trees. The plants described in 2.5 are of a different sort. In that verse, pasture grasses and pasture bushes are described. Now, the plants described in 1.11-12 could easily be understood as plants native to a tropical environment. If Pangaea was primarily tropical, pasture lands, commonly referred to as savannahs, would not yet have developed. Further, the description of the climate in 2.6 is consistent with a heavily tropical environment. So, we can say Gen. 1.11-12 describes one kind of environment and 2.5-6 another.

Interestingly, recent discoveries in South China show animal life (as evolutionists understand the development of animal life) sprang from lakes and not the ocean, virtually setting evolutionary theory on its head (http://www.livescience.com/animals/090727-first-life.html). The biblical description of the beginnings of life on earth, consistent with the finds in China, tell of life sprouting and being created in a marshy, watery tropical environment. In that rainforest world, with its lush, abundant vegetation, a variety of animal life forms existed. Among those were dinosaurs. Unfortunately, the Bible gives no description of the kinds of animals God created first (Gen. 1.20-25). All we can learn from the biblical account is “God made the living creatures of the earth according to their species, beasts and animals creeping on the earth according to their species.”

From the beginning, life on earth has been diverse. Yet, when plants sprouted from the earth, they did so according to their species; when birds, fish and sea monsters (whales, dolphins, etc.) were created, they, too, were according to their species; when animal life was created, they as well were brought forth according to their species. No species of plant or animal life developed from another species. Each life form was made by God according to his plan. Each life form is a part of a specific family or species; each has a particular context in which it lives best.

In our next post, we will look further at life forms as described in Genesis.

Earth Coming Together

2009-07-17T11:01:00.004-04:00

The scientific discipline of astro-physics teaches a star is formed through a process by which dense parts of molecular clouds collapse into a ball of plasma. Plasma, simply stated, is a gas-like entity. Like gas, plasma does not have a definite shape or a definite volume. The Genesis creation account perhaps teaches a similar concept.

Genesis 1.1-2 states, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.” Notice what verses 1b-2a, “God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep.” At the outset, God brought into being a formless, unseeable void; this formlessness was originally inert or inactive. Thus, since the formless void was not producing energy, no light existed.

Then, God declared, “Let there be light.” The light God called into being did not just magically appear, but resulted from God’s causing the inert plasma cloud, the formless void, to begin acting within and upon itself. So, energy was produced and light appeared. The light God caused was “separated” from the darkness. When we see pictures of our universe, the separation of light from darkness is evident. On earth, the radiated energy of the sun does not become light until interaction with our atmosphere takes place.

The next step in the creative process involved the separation of the waters. What were the waters and in what context did they exist? Let’s consider Uranus, one of the ice planets of our solar system. Uranus is composed primarily of rock and various ices, with only about 15% hydrogen and a little helium (in contrast to Jupiter and Saturn which are mostly hydrogen). Uranus (and Neptune) are in many ways similar to the cores of Jupiter and Saturn minus the massive liquid metallic hydrogen envelope. It appears that Uranus does not have a rocky core like Jupiter and Saturn but rather that its material is more or less uniformly distributed.

When earth was in the early stages of creation, the planets composition could have consisted in a manner similar to Uranus. Earth could have been an ice planet with its material distributed throughout the ice-ball. Earth’s earliest form could have been as an ice planet. At that point, the statement of Genesis 1.6, “Let there be an expanse (open sky) in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters,” easily could be understood. Thus, God could have, as a step in the creative process, brought together the material parts of the earth into a ball and “separated” the water, or melted the ice, to create the oceans and an atmosphere filled with water vapor.

This separating of the waters was followed by what is described in verse 9: “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so.” As the waters were differentiated, the matter distributed throughout the water would have coalesced due to gravity to form a solid mass. The matter would have been great enough to create great energy in its coming together. Further, the mass would have been great enough to rise above the water, forming a continent. A theory does exist describing this first land mass: the continent of pangaea.

Pangaea , from Ancient Greek pan "all, entire", and gēs "Earth" (Latinized as Gæa), was the supercontinent that is theorized to have existed during the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras about 250 million years ago, before the component continents were separated into their current configuration. (Note the accompanying figure on sidebar.) The name was first used by the German originator of the continental drift theory, Alfred Wegener, in the 1920 edition of his book The Origin of Continents and Oceans (Die Entstehung der Kontinente und Ozeane), in which a postulated supercontinent Pangaea played a key role. The single enormous ocean which surrounded Pangaea is known as Panthalassa.

Science and the Bible do find common ground. In the beginning of earth’s existence, one large land mass existed surrounded by a vast ocean. What the Bible adds is the existence of an atmosphere so filled with water vapor as to constitute a cloud cover enveloping the whole of the planet. Such an idea is not preposterous at all. Venus, considered to be Earth’s sister planet, is a solid mass covered by a thick cloud cover. Earth still has clouds, but they are less dense now than they would have been in the early stages of planetary development.

From here, we will look at the implications of earth originally consisting of a single continent surrounded by a vast ocean and covered wholly with water vapor clouds.

Creation: To Begin

2009-07-14T09:05:00.000-04:00

In Genesis 1, the account of the creation of the universe is recounted. A superficial reading of the account can lead to seemingly insurmountable difficulties. Also, if we compare modern ideas of the makeup of the universe with the Genesis creation story, we find deep inconsistencies between what modern science tells us and what the Bible declares. Modern astronomy teaches us, rightly, how the earth orbits around the sun. By contrast, the Bible tells us the earth was created before the sun or the moon. Seemingly, Scripture teaches a literal six-day creative period and an earth age of no more than 4-6 thousand years. Modern geologists tell us the earth and universe are billions of years old. The Bible gives us a starting point, a point of origin, or, if you will, a genesis for all things in existence. Modern science, at best, gives us a big-bang as the starting point, but cannot offer a theory of beginning.

So, what are we to do, what are we to believe? How did things begin? How old is the earth? What about dinosaurs? When did human-kind arrive? Did we evolve? Were we created? Does Genesis 1 give us one account of creation and Genesis 2 give us another? Can we believe in theistic evolution, or does Scripture require us to accept the concept of biblical creation? Do we have proof for creation? Can proof for evolution be demonstrated? The list of questions can go on and on.

We cannot answer all of the questions concerning the origins of the universe, or the dilemmas associated with the beginnings of life, especially human life. Yet, many answers do exist. In order to find them, we must read Scripture thoughtfully and intently. In biblical studies, scholars often speak of doing a close reading of the text. Others talk of “unpacking” the text in order to discover all of the layers of truth and meaning. Answering questions about creation requires us to do both a close reading of the text and to unpack the creation narrative of Genesis 1.

Let’s start with a close reading of the first few verses of Genesis 1. The beginning phrase of Genesis 1, is, “in the beginning.” Most often, we understand that phrase to mean “when things got started.” Another option exists. If you remember your “Mother Goose” stories, you will recall most of them began with the statement, “once upon a time.” Well, we probably should read Genesis 1.1 in that manner. The writer, though, was not saying simply “once upon a time,” he was saying “to begin,” as in “to begin this account.”

What is the first declaration of Genesis? “To begin, God created the heavens and the earth.” God is the operative term. All the words of Scripture follow this initial affirmation; all of the Bible is to be understood on that basis. God started everything; God superintends everything; God controls everything; God defines everything. Every story and account in the Bible, every psalm, song, poem and proverb is a God-oriented thing. The biblical declaration of God’s existence is the center-piece of Scripture. Without the Lord, Yahweh, Elohim, El-Shaddai, etc., none of what is said in the Bible makes any sense at all. Indeed, without God, the Bible is just another book of human philosophical musings.

Further, the declaration “God created the heavens and the earth” is central to all statements of truth in the Bible. Because God created all things, he owns all things, you and me included. Thus, the Ten Commandments are valid because the One in charge has the right to demand of all humans the highest ethical behavior. Nor can the Cross be disregarded because the God who created in concert as God the Father (Gen. 1.1), God the Son (John 1.1-3) and God the Spirit (Gen. 1.2) is the same God who sent his Son into the world to die for lost humanity.

God cannot be sidelined in our discussions of origins, as modern science would have us do. We must have a concept of beginning; we must be able to look to some thing or to someone as the responsible party for our existence. If we evolved, then we are answerable to an impersonal, time-chance process as the authority for our being. We would be required to find in nature some justification for our existence and our behavior. Unfortunately, the natural world is a place where the strong visit violence upon the weak. We call this process the food-chain: some eat, some are eaten. The strong live, the weak die. Nature is very selfish, impersonal and harsh.

We do have another alternative. If God created, then we are obligated to consider him in all our decisions. We must understand we are all accountable to God for our behavior, if he in fact did create. His commands and instructions are binding upon us all. Yet, we have no cause for fear, because God is a God of love, mercy and grace. Nature knows only brute force; no justice exists in the natural world. If God started time and the universe, he will guide all things to his intended end. No hope for a final resolution of evil and injustice can be found in nature, only a continuing process filled with danger, threat and a hopeless and pointless existence. In God, though, we find hope and purpose. We can find such because he is the God of hope and he does have a purpose.

Rethinking Church, Pt. 2 of 2

2008-10-31T09:00:00.000-04:00

If Obama is elected President, churches should be prepared for an assault on their freedoms unseen since Colonial times. Early settlers came to North America seeking religious freedom. Ironically, some duplicated the very religious oppression they had escaped in Europe. Some colonies had state-sponsored churches. Religious liberty in colonial America existed for the most part in Rhode Island and Pennsylvania.

Roger Williams was forced to flee Boston for fear of being jailed for his religious views. He founded what became Rhode Island, based on full religious liberty. In the mid- to late-1770s, Baptists were being jailed in Massachusetts for refusing to pay a tax used to support Congregationalist ministers. In Virginia, Baptist preachers were jailed for preaching the gospel. Such practices continued until 1778. They were accused of child abuse and their marriages were not recognized. The penalties they incurred included being beaten with whips, shot, beaten by the sheriff, and having their hands slashed while preaching.

Baptists led in the fight for religious liberty first in Virginia and then in the nation. Baptists were vocal champions of this cause, which was brought to pass in the Bill of Rights. With the support of Baptists, James Madison was elected to Congress. In Congress, he fulfilled his pledge to gain passage of the Bill of Rights, which included the Religious Liberty clause. Without Thomas Jefferson, whose Bill of Religious Freedom was the precursor to the Bill of Rights, Madison, who worked tirelessly in support of religious freedom, and Baptists, whose persecution in the absence of religious freedom led them to support such an idea, we might not know religious liberty today.

Ironically, we are poised to see history repeat itself in America. The time may be upon us when believers will no longer have the religious freedom we have enjoyed since the closing years of the 18th century. If Obama is elected, almost two and a quarter centuries of freedom could be wiped out, all in the name of social justice.

What the government grants, the government can take away. Churches currently enjoy tax-exempt status. The government has “granted” this benefit. Can tax-exemption be revoked? Under what circumstances? If the Obama/Democrat Party agenda prevails, abortion rights will be expanded and same-sex marriages and other items on the homosexual agenda will be enacted. Many of these will be legislated, requiring compliance by individuals and institutions of the nation.

If a pastor preaches against homosexuality, or leads in a pro-life protest, law suits would ensue. The offending preacher and his congregation could find themselves in court. If the court found the church and or the minister to have broken federal statutes, loss of tax-exempt status most likely would be the consequence for the church. Sexual harassment and hate crimes legislation would guide the court in its decisions. When same-sex marriage is legalized, the government will be granting homosexuality moral equivalence to heterosexuality.

So, how do we respond to such a possibility? We vote. We encourage every member of our congregations to vote. We vote conscience, not politics. We vote, realizing what we do in the voting booth has to be an expression of our basic biblical beliefs. We remind our membership of the critical ethical issues involved in this election. Most importantly, we do not give up, regardless of the outcome.

We also, regardless of the outcome of the election, need to take some additional steps. First we should enact formal guidelines for membership in our churches. Included in these statements should be a clear statement outlining our view of what is required to be a Christian. Further, far more strict rules for membership should be enacted. For too long, walking down an aisle and shaking the preacher’s hand and being dunked in a baptismal pool has been enough. Times have changed.

Churches must begin requiring doctrinal affirmations by those seeking membership. These affirmations have to include fundamental requirements for church membership. These must include affirmation of God’s Word as the only standard and guide for the faith and practice of believers. Making that affirmation would include acceptance of the Bible’s prohibition against homosexuality and the Bible’s affirmation of the sanctity of human life beginning at conception.

Also, churches should formally state their requirements for marriage within the church. For a minister of a church to marry someone, that person must be a member of the church. If not a member, they must agree to the biblical guidelines the church uses in defining itself. Preferably, non-members should not be married by a minister of the church as an official representative of that church. Second, members-in-good-standing, and members-in-good-standing only should be allowed use of the church’s facilities for weddings and other functions.

When drawing up these guidelines, the church should seek the counsel of an attorney. The attorney should be a believer and have a firm knowledge of constitutional law. If such a resource person is not available, churches should consider consulting the American Center for Law and Justice, or the Liberty University School of Law. These actions should be enacted before Obama is inaugurated, if he in fact is elected. Indeed, these steps should be taken even if John McCain is elected President.

We are late in the game and most churches have no clear strategy for their future. So, we must act so we will not have to react. We must plan, not panic. We can no longer be lulled into a false sense of security by politicians of any party in America. Most of all, we must be steeled for action knowing the Supreme and Sovereign God of the Universe will be on his throne November 5th just as he was at the beginning of the day on November 4th. His power cannot be nullified in the voting booth.

Rethinking Church, Pt. 1 of 2

2008-10-31T08:56:00.000-04:00

Let’s consider a “what if” scenario: President Barak Hussein Obama. If he is elected president, how should churches (those congregations of all denominations identifying themselves as fundamental or conservative evangelical) respond? If we expect a “business-as-usual” world in an Obama administration, sadly we are mistaken. If Obama takes the White House, and Congress becomes overwhelmingly Democrat, the world will change for all believers who remain faithful to biblical Christianity. If Obama becomes President, we also can expect a federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court, to become characterized by the most liberal judicial philosophy in its history.

The positions taken by Obama and the Democrat Party on two issues stand as road signs indicating where this county will be headed with all branches of government under the control of a party noted most for its social, economic, and political liberalism. These two watershed issues are abortion and homosexuality, not the economy, foreign policy, or the environment.

By the way, the move among younger evangelicals away from pro-life, pro-family, and pro-traditional sexuality to social justice issues is a troubling trend. Stung by criticisms from the secular world about “what we are against, not what we are for,” these young believers are trying to improve our image. World hunger, compassion for those with HIV/AIDS, and concern for so-called global climate change are worthy issues. Yet, we can feed people, minister to those with a variety of STDs, and reduce our carbon footprint (whatever that means), but if we live in a world where human life, from its very beginning, and traditional marriage are held in contempt, what have we gained in our pursuit for social justice?

Now, what do we know about Obama and the Democrat party? Obama, feigning lack of knowledge about an issue relegated by him to a "higher pay-grade," was afraid to say when human life begins (lest he alienate his core following of pro-abortionists). He has stated he would not want to see either of his daughters “punished” with a child if they made a “mistake.” One wonders if he would require his daughters to abort their unborn child and his unborn grandchild, even if the daughter wanted to carry the child to term.

Regarding homosexuality, Obama has declared his support for the traditional view of marriage, between a man and a woman only. Yet, in letters to the Alice B. Toklas Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Democratic Club and the pro-homosexual Family Equality Council, Obama stated his plans to have the Federal Defense of Marriage Act repealed and his opposition to California’s Proposition 8, which would ban same-sex marriage in that state. He also opposes the military’s “don’t ask don’t tell” policy; he instead wants all branches of the military fully open to homosexuals.

Barack Obama is not a friend to those who support pro-life policies, traditional marriage, and a military free from social experimentation. So, we must conclude Obama is not a friend of conservative Christians and their churches. For, in Obama’s world, those who do not line up with him and support his radical social agenda will run the risk of serious legal battles. Will believers be granted a fair hearing in courts dominated by the Obama view of legality? No. He has already stated his conviction that our courts should be sensitive to a person’s sex, race, social class, and sexual choices. Thus, those who might be called into court in a battle against a poor, female, black homosexual are bound to lose. We will not be a society governed by law, but by the social values of the judges, and ultimately, the social values of the President who appointed them.

If a theologically conservative or fundamental church or synagogue refuses to marry homosexuals or to allow them to use the church or synagogue facilities for such marriages, these groups will find themselves in court. If the Obama/Democrat agenda prevails, the federal government will one day be issuing licenses to ministers, priests, and rabbis, granting or denying them the legal authority to marry. If a minster refuses to marry homosexuals, he will not be licensed to perform marriages.

If a rabbi, priest, or minister speaks out against homosexuality, he will incur the wrath of the homosexual community and the federal government. At that point, we will have a situation in which the federal government, not the sovereign God of the universe, dictates doctrine.

So, what do we do?

Study 41 “So, What Is the Truth?” Part 1

2007-10-26T11:19:00.000-04:00

I am reading the book No Perfect People Allowed, by John Burke. Chapter 7, "How Do You Feel about Gays? The Tolerance Litmus Test–Q2," left me somewhat dissatisfied. Now, let me hasten to say, I am not critiquing the book, nor am I arguing with the author. What I want to do is try to answer some questions the chapter raised in my mind.

I know many people within the church "hate gays." At least, their response to homosexuality is perceived as hate by many. We believers have a difficult task set before us as we deal with the issue of same-sex relationships. We have been boxed into a corner by our culture, which is moving closer and closer to an unprecedented acceptance of homosexuality as a normal and acceptable sexual expression.

By the way, I purposely have chosen to not use the terms gay or lesbian. While employing male/female homosexuality and related terms might be a little unwieldy, I prefer them to the alternatives. Within this article and others to follow, my reasoning for this decision will become evident.

In order to fully state my positions on homosexuality, I need to make some definitive statements on the issue. Number one, homosexuals are not necessarily bad people. Number two, homosexuals are not beyond the scope of God’s grace. Number three, homosexuals should be welcome in any church. Number four, I personally do not "hate" gays.

Having made the preceding statements, I must also add that I do not accept homosexual behavior as normal or natural. Homosexual behavior fails to conform to the biblical ideal for sexual relationships. While some might want to make the Bible’s prohibitions against homosexual sex "cultural prohibitions," we must come to terms with the consistent rejection of homosexuality in Scripture, a rejection that covers a number of historical cultures. No evidence of any kind exists showing biblical support for homosexuality.

Further, I do not believe anyone is "homosexual." Sexual behavior does not define a person. Sexual behavior, simply, is a kind of conduct. If sexual behavior defines a person, then we would have a definition distinguishing homosexuals from heterosexuals in a clear and substantive kind of way. Yet, no such definition exists; nor can one.

We are, first, human beings; second, we are either male or female. Thus, from a biological perspective, we are all born predisposed to heterosexual behavior. That one fact is irrefutable.
So, what do we do, as pastors in particular, when we try to be welcoming to homosexuals, but, are compelled to address those texts which sound awfully judgmental of homosexuality? What do we say? Do we avoid the issue altogether? Will we fear offending someone who is homosexual and worships with us on a regular basis, and so, avoid an unpopular position? An even more pressing question for many is how do we wisely address homosexuality, knowing families in our congregations have children or siblings they love who are involved in homosexual relationships?

Do we avoid adultery, on-line pornography, drug-abuse, or bigotry because we, most likely, will have someone in our audience who is guilty of one of these behaviors? In fact, what are we telling people when we try to make them comfortable in God’s presence? Jesus was in the behavior changing business. He was brutally honest with those he met, telling many to "go and sin no more." Seems to me, if we are not frank and honest about unacceptable behavior, we have failed to follow in the footsteps of Jesus. If we affirm what the Bible rejects, are we not guilty then of adding to or taking away from the Truth?

Modern ideas about homosexuality are not rooted in the truth, but, instead, in feelings. The unnaturalness of homosexuality is clear. No one is born with physical suited for homosexual sex. When babies are born, they are either male or female. They are born predisposed to heterosexuality.

Study 40 “Jumping from the Pinnacle”

2007-10-08T13:16:00.000-04:00

Several weeks ago, I read a report on the web site mondaymorninginsight about a pastor in Florida who was planning to allow cameras in his home for broadcast on the Internet. His goal was to show non-believers that he is just like them. He wants non-Christians to see his life as it is in order to prove he is authentic.

At the cost of appearing to be critical of someone who obviously is serious about reaching the unchurched, I will make some observations.

In defending the pastor’s decision, some have argued that if the lost are reached, surely the method is good and justified. Really? Paul observed to the Philippians that some "preached Christ even of envy and strife" (Ph. 1.15). Those who did so, Paul noted, were preaching the Gospel. He rejoiced in that fact. Yet, he did not recommend their actions as either an appropriate or acceptable evangelistic methodology, even though the approach "worked."

If cameras in one’s home is a defensible evangelistic method, are we all, then, expected to open our homes in such a manner and sacrifice our privacy? Are we called to give up the integrity of our marriages and families for the sake of the Gospel? Further, does the biblical call to authentic Christianity require such actions?

No doubt, as believers, we are all under the demand of authenticity in the expression of our faith. Yet, how can we know what we must do to prove we are "real"?

Quite frankly, beyond the guidelines of Scripture, no other counsel can be found through which we can determine how to express the Gospel. In one on-line discussion I had about this issue, one person stated that this pastor’s actions did not go against the Bible, meaning, I suppose, that he had not compromised any stated biblical evangelistic directive. Such an argument, though, does not prove that cameras in one’s home is consistent with Scriptural principles.

The purest evangelistic method is rooted in person-to-person relationships. If a believer is to establish his authenticity, he will do so only insofar as his actions are consistent with his stated beliefs. My life, as viewed through a TV screen or computer monitor, might or might not be a real expression of who I am. In fact, even if I put a camera in my home, some things would be off-limits. No cameras would be allowed in bedrooms, bathrooms; none would show heated "discussions" between me and my wife. In other words, a scripted image would be broadcast.

Yet, in a real-life relationship, I cannot fake it. I might pretend to be a friend, but, ultimately, events will require me to be authentic. Jesus taught this truth in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Only in the real world of human relationships can I prove the truthfulness of my profession of Jesus as Lord of my life.

Consider the demands of Jesus. He declared that we prove the validity of our commitment to him in selfless acts of kindness to the hungry, the thirst, the stranger, the naked, the sick, and the prisoner (Matt. 25.31-46).

In his wilderness temptation experience, Jesus rejected the dramatic as an appropriate way to accomplish his call. Satan reasoned (based on Scripture) that if Jesus would leap from the pinnacle of the Temple, angels would rescue him. His point seemed to be that the crowds, being sufficiently impressed by this dramatic display, would accept Jesus as the Messiah. Thus, they would flock to his cause (If it works, what’s wrong with it, Satan argued?).

Jesus flatly refused to employ such a method. If he did so, should we not do the same? Jesus proved his authenticity in the real world. People who met him were impressed by his authenticity. Even his enemies knew he was real; that is what so frightened them that they took his life.

TV reality is not real, just entertaining. Authentic Christianity stays true even when life ceases to be fun and entertaining.

Study 38 “Who Is Wise?” Part 9

2007-10-08T13:13:00.000-04:00

The spiritual and theological legacy of Rudolf Bultmann is European Christianity in its present, anemic form. Actually, Bultmann was not solely responsible for what happened in the church on the Continent. He himself was part of a process that pre-dated him, yet, he was a highly visible and vocal spokesman of that movement away from traditional, biblical Christianity in Europe.

Yet, Christianity in Europe is not dead. In a recent "Breakpoint" commentary, Chuck Colson noted signs of renewed interest in Christianity among the Dutch. He pointed out "the remarkable critical and commercial success of a number of openly Christian writers." Colson further remarked that one "of those books, Kneeling on a Bed of Roses, by Calvinist author Jan Siebelink, was the second-best selling Dutch book of the past decade."

What was the no. 1 best seller? A new Dutch translation of the Bible. This edition "sold 500,000 copies in a nation of 16 million people: the equivalent of 10 million copies in the United States. Can those sales figures be a sign the Dutch are looking for "new" answers to their present-day dilemmas?

The secularization of Europe after WWII was made easy as the church, especially Evangelical, allowed itself to be marginalized, trivialized, and, thus, make unimportant to the debates of late 20th century Europe. No longer would social issues be decided on the basis of historic Christian principles that had undergirded European culture for over a thousand years. The socialization of European states and the liberalization of social policies progressed unimpeded by biblical values. The goal of those processes was to supply Europeans with whatever material needs they had and to rid them of guilt by allowing virtually any behavior.

Holland has led the march to liberalized social policies. Same-sex marriage, prostitution, drugs, euthanasia, and abortion were legalized. What did that freedom from ethical restraint bring to Europe? The family is in deep trouble in Europe, with birth rates in decades old declines. Did Europeans find happiness and fulfillment in their new, anything-goes societies? Not hardly. Colson pointed out that in Europe, "suicide rates between four and sixteen times higher than that of ‘less developed’ European countries and the United States" is the reality. So much for the socialist paradise.

Has America seen similar things? As a nation, we are in the midst of an epidemic of births to unwed mothers and a STD rate that is appalling. This new "sexual freedom" (read: sexual slavery) has produced a tragic result for teens. In one study, 47% percent of high school students surveyed reported having had intercourse in the last month; 45% reported drinking alcohol and 22% marijuana in that same period. One-third of those polled said reported having had feelings of sadness and hopelessness. College counselors report that depression on college campuses has doubled over the past decade and instances of suicide have tripled. An University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill study showed that among teen girls, sex and drug use led to depression, not vice versa.

No one needs convincing that our public high schools, colleges and universities are committed to the safe-sex philosophy. As an approach to human sexuality, safe-sex is not working, and the emotional baggage young women must carry as a result of sexual promiscuity. Further, the negative physical consequences for young women with respect to child-bearing must be considered as well. Far from being a panacea, indiscriminate sexual activity is an emotional hell.

So, what does all this have to do with the sufficiency of Scripture. The Dutch provide the answer. In a society that had become almost totally secularized, human beings lost hope and direction. The rationalization of man’s spiritual side as somehow a holdover from his ancient, less civilized past was shown to be empty and void. Now, those who live in a culture with no boundaries are looking for boundaries, limits, and authoritative answers.

The writer of Proverbs wrote, "Where there is no vision, the people are unrestrained, But happy is he who keeps the law" (Proverbs 29:18). The vision, in Hebrew, is a word or an oracle from God. Those who have no word from God are unrestrained (from a word meaning to break out). Without godly guidance, people break all the rules, cross all the boundaries. Yet, those who keep, observe the law are happy. So, observing the principles of the Bible brings one happiness and fulfillment. Many who once were disabused of that notion are now changing their minds.

Study 37 “Who Is Wise?” Part 8

2007-10-08T13:08:00.000-04:00

A liner note on the back cover of Rudolf Bultmann’s book "Jesus Christ and Mythology" declared, "Few men have exerted more influence over the course of modern theology than Rudolf Bultmann." Disagreement with that statement among scholars is hard to find. Yet, the influence of Bultmann has not always been positive. Some of his thoughts have been quite detrimental.

Criticism aimed at Bultmann has been in some points deserved, at other points undeserved. Most upsetting for many has been his view of Scripture.

For instance, Bultmann wrote, "The fact that the word of the Scriptures is God’s Word cannot be demonstrated objectively; it is an event which happens here and now. God’s Word is hidden in the Scriptures as each action of God is hidden everywhere." Later, he stated, "The idea of the omnipresent and almighty God becomes real in my personal existence only by His Word spoken here and now. Accordingly it must be said that the Word of God is what it is only in the moment in which it is spoken. The Word of God is not a timeless statement but a concrete word addressed to men here and now. . . . It is His Word as an event, in an encounter, not as a set of ideas, . . ."*

I would agree that demonstrating objectively that Scripture is God’s Word is impossible; as with God himself, we accept both the Word and the Author of the Word on the basis of faith. Were objective proof to be found, evidence both incontrovertible and undeniable, belief in God would be universal. Remember, though, Jesus commended faith in the absence of seeing. In other words, you do not need proof to trust God.

But what of Bultmann’s contention that the Word of God is a here and now event, an encounter? For Bultmann, God’s Word was God’s Word "only in the moment in which it is spoken." Further, this Word is hidden in Scripture, thus, Scripture is not God’s Word, only the house in which the Word dwells, sometimes in a backroom into which only a few have or are granted access.

I do not intend to critique Bultmann’s works or his theology. Better minds than mine have wrestled successfully and unsuccessfully with Bultmann’s positions. I wish instead to suggest something about his spiritual struggle. He made a telling statement early in "Mythology." "For modern man, the mythological conception of the world, the conceptions of eschatology, of redeemer and of redemption, are over and done with."* Bultmann saw his task in part as finding those statements in Scripture which would not be "stumbling-blocks to modern man." Here is found the original "seeker sensitive" mentality. Cut out of Scripture what offends.

Actually, Bultmann was trying to come to terms with faith in the face of his modern man’s doubting mind. He saw modern science as having put to rest all the simple myths of earlier civilizations. If some of those pesky miracle stories and tales of eschatological redeemers could be put forgotten, all would be okay. Obviously, heaven and hell are mythological, being nothing more than childish explanations for simple minds concerning one’s state after death. Did Bultmann believe in heaven or hell? I don’t know.

Once Bultmann, though, had started weeding out the myths that were "stumbling-blocks" to his "modern" mind, he found he did not have much left to play with. Yet, even as he set aside the notion that Scripture is somehow uniquely God’s Word in written form, "myths" and all, he was forced to find a replacement. Since no one can prove God exists, Jesus died and was resurrected, and that Scripture is truly God’s Word, what is man left with? Obviously, Bultmann could not see beyond this life. So, we are left only with the moment; we are alive only now. Thus, if we are to encounter God, we must encounter him in the moment.

I wonder where God goes when he is not meeting us in the moment of time in which we exist? Is he dependent upon man’s experience of him to be real? Where is the Word, the one Isaiah declared would not pass away, nor return to God void?

Bultmann’s problem was with faith. He had become man-centered. Since he could not devise an argument for a pre-existent God, he then had to devise a God he could contain within his own mind. Based on his experience, he defined his own theology. Modern day "God is still speaking" proponents find themselves in the same bed as Bultmann. While they came to where they are from different directions, they ended up in the same place. Scripture is not enough; Scripture explains nothing. Only in our experience can we truly know God and his Word.

Believing God is eternal, and thus, that His Word is as well, requires not existential or experiential proof. All that is required is faith. The writer of Hebrews stated the case as follows. "By faith we believe that the worlds were made by the spoken word of God, resulting in seen things not being made from what is visible" (Heb. 11.3). In other words, God called into existence something from nothing, as it were. We do not try to prove creation, we believe; we trust God’s witness in His Word that such is the case. So much for the modern scientific mind.

*Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus Christ and Mythology, Prentice Hall, 1958, pp. 71 & 79.
*p. 17

Study 39 "Who Is Wise?" Part 10

2007-02-21T16:32:00.000-05:00

What value does Scripture have? What should the believer expect to find in the Bible that will have practical utility for him in his daily life? Should believers fear not finding answers in Scripture for any of life’s dilemmas? Should Christians, for any reason, expect to hear God speak to them apart from Scripture?

These questions have to do with the issue of the sufficiency of Scripture. If Scripture is sufficient, we then can conclude it does have value. If Scripture is sufficient, the value of the Word also is practical. If Scripture is sufficient, then, we can conclude, it does address all of life’s issues in some manner, either directly or indirectly. If Scripture is sufficient, why would God need to speak to anyone apart from His Word?

In addressing problems of fellowship in the churches of Rome and Corinth, Paul made similar statements. To the Roman house churches, the Apostle declared, "For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, so that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope" (Rom. 15.4 NASB) To the Corinthian congregation, he wrote, "Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction , upon whom the ends of the ages have come" (1 Cor. 10.11 NASB).

An interesting detail in each of the above quoted verses is that Paul referred believers in both settings to the written Word. In Rom. 15.4, Paul noted the written Word three times. He spoke of what was written beforehand (proegraphē); what was written (egraphē) for instruction; and the Scriptures (graphōn). Each of these words, by the way, comes from the Greek verb graphein, to write. In 1 Corinthians 10, "written" is the same as the second occurrence in Romans 15.

In Romans and 1 Corinthians, Paul stated that the purpose of the written account was for the instruction of believers. The word he used was didaskalian, teaching, instruction, doctrine. Interestingly, in Paul’s second letter to Timothy, he made a similar statement as is found in Romans and 1 Corinthians. "All Scripture . . . is profitable for instruction . . . so that the man of God might be thoroughly, fully, or completely qualified for every good work" (my translation). Can we, or should we, ask for more?

Now, what Paul said further to the Romans and Corinthians should be considered as well. He wrote that "whatever was previously written was written for our instruction, so that through steadfast endurance and encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope" (my translation).

Thus, we can justifiably conclude that the virtues Paul named, steadfast endurance, encouragement, and hope are rooted in the Word. Earlier, in Rom. 5.1-5, Paul addressed steadfast endurance and hope, relating both to the trials believers face and the work of the Holy Spirit. So, we, in the tests we face in life, can find the steadfast endurance, encouragement and hope necessary for negotiating life’s difficulties in the words of Scripture and the work of the Spirit.

Likewise, to the Corinthians, Paul emphasized the role of the written word as the source of instruction for believers. He observed that a record of the experiences of the Israelites in their wilderness wanderings had been written. The account provides an example for believers of what to do and not to do. In other words, as Paul stated, Israel’s experiences, serving as an example for Christians, were written for the instruction of believers.

What is the point of that instruction? To inform believers of the tests of faith which they most assuredly will encounter. "Therefore, let the one who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall" (1 Cor. 10.12 NASB). Paul declared that the Christian life is not a free ride, and one must be careful to not make assumptions. Believers will find their trust in God challenged at every turn.

Christians will not discover guidance, the key to endurance, a source of encouragement, or hope apart form the Word. The one who ignores Scripture, foolishly waiting for a word from God, will be disappointed. If that believer, though, will seek guidance in the Word and under the leadership of the Holy Spirit, he will be rewarded at every step with every resource he needs to overcome in life’s struggles.

By the way, have you ever wondered why Paul never made the statement one hears so many modern believers casually let fall from their lips, "God told me . . ."? The question deserves an answer.

Study 36 “Who Is Wise?” Part 7

2006-12-12T17:49:00.000-05:00

Scripture is a rule unto itself, a standard within a standard. Neither personal experience nor church tradition are formative for our understanding or belief system. Scripture stands as the final arbiter in the determination of the validity of individual or corporate experience.

Apart from this essential truth of the independence of Scripture, we would face doctrinal chaos. In fact, our modern Christian doctrinal landscape is littered with the trash of doctrinal confusion. When Scripture as normative ceases to be the sole factor in the determination of doctrine, a theological mess ensues.

The Truth of Scripture is not truth because we recognize it as such. The Truth of Scripture does not come into being only in the existential moment. The Truth of Scripture is not rooted in human existence or awareness. The Truth of Scripture is rooted and exists in the Person of God, and in him alone.

Thus, we must understand the complete independence of Scripture from human existence. Scripture defines us, we do not define the Word. Consensus did not deliver the Canon. The controlling Spirit did. God has never been content to rely on man as his hope for making himself and his plan known. So, human experience is not the ground of revealed Truth. Revealed Truth broke through human experience under the guiding hand of God’s Spirit.

Yet, God chose to reveal himself through the human race. He did so by using men who were free moral agents as his spokesmen. In that fact we can see the miraculous nature of inspiration. Without overriding man’s free will, God revealed himself through the inspired writers in a unique way. He led those biblical authors to an understanding and insight they could not have achieved apart from God’s intervention in their lives (cf. Matt. 16.17).

Further, without those men ever realizing the full scope of what they were doing, each of the documents that comprise Scripture was written, preserved, and finally compiled in the Canon. What we have now we call the "Holy Bible." Paul’s words were "sacred writings" (2 Tim. 3.15). Fundamental to this concept of Holy Bible or Sacred Writings is divine inspiration. Scripture is not sacred because any assembly or council declared them to be so; Scripture is sacred and holy because it is "God-breathed."

Again, the sacredness of Scripture, the uniqueness of its Truth, is such as a result of God’s direct intervention through inspiration. Remember, God put "his words" into Isaiah’s mouth (Isa. 59.21). Because what Isaiah received was the "word of the Lord," the "words" out of his mouth were reliable and authoritative for Israel’s experience; they would accomplish their purpose; they would not pass away.

The Word came to Isaiah, not from or out of Isaiah. He delivered what he was given; he was doing far more than simply sharing his thoughts. A central message in Isaiah is that the words of God given to Isaiah were credible, because God himself, who had spoken the words to Isaiah, was himself believable.

Upon that foundation, God’s believability, his reliability, the Book of Isaiah and the whole of Scripture stands. Could Israel believe, while in exile, that God would deliver them as he had promised beforehand? For believers today, the question looms no less significantly in our lives. How much credibility does God have? Can we, yea, will we rely totally upon the Word of God?

The issue we all face is what must be done about Scripture. Do we believe it? Are we willing to stake our very existences upon its Truth? Do we find understanding in the Word for who we are and what we should do? Or, do we seek to define Truth by what we experience and see? Such is the test of our time.

Study 35 “Who Is Wise?” Part 6

2006-12-12T17:46:00.000-05:00

Years ago, a young man I had known in high school telephoned one day. He told me he had sensed a call from God to vocational Christian ministry and wondered if I would let him preach in my church. To put me at ease, supposedly, he assured me "I don’t preach doctrine. I just preach Jesus."

I was aware then of what is etched now even more keenly on my heart: to preach Jesus is to preach doctrine. I have learned that not every "Christian" "believes in Jesus" as I do, which I hope is in a manner consistent with Scripture.

Early Christianity had to fight for its very life against what has come to be termed as Gnosticism. The heart of Gnosticism was a radical redefinition of Jesus. Men like Cerinthus and Valentinus took the Church’s teaching about Jesus and sought to make him into something far different from and far less than the Incarnate Word really was. Ultimately, the church rejected the views of this heretical movement.

Doctrine is not, as we can see, a bad thing. We Baptists have certain doctrinal distinctives that characterize our life and practice. Our self-understanding as a denomination and as individual believers is formed upon a biblical foundation articulated from a Baptist perspective.

Paul commended Scripture to Timothy as being "profitable for doctrine" (2 Tim. 3.16). Now, let us understand what doctrine is. The Greek word translated doctrine is didaskalia, a noun based on the Greek verb didaskō, meaning "to teach." So, didaskalia means "teaching," and also, "what is taught." Therefore, didaskalia encompasses both the idea of the teaching event and the content of teaching.

Paul told Timothy inspired Scripture is "profitable" as a source and foundation for Christian instruction. One teaches upon the authority of the Word and one teaches the Word. The "all Scripture is inspired" statement delineates clearly the boundaries for profitable doctrine. We need look no further than the Bible for our source of truth or wisdom.

What we must reaffirm at this point is the scope of "all Scripture." Are we to restrict ourselves to the Hebrew Scriptures for our doctrine as Paul did? Surely not. The early church realized that not only was the Hebrew Bible inspired, but certain writings from the first century, which had the mark of Apostolic authority, were binding for believers as well. Upon that basis, the NT Canon was developed.

Consequently, believers have at their disposal both Old and New Testaments, each co-equal with the other; each equally inspired; each equally authoritative; each equally beneficial for doctrine. The OT and the NT together constitute the revealed Truth of God. The OT was not replaced by the NT. They complement and augment one another. They are together the sufficient Word of God.

One must be warned, though, that no believer is free to randomly and indiscriminately "interpret" Scripture. While we Baptists have our doctrinal distinctives, we do not depart from the traditional core beliefs of historic Christianity. At the same time, we understand those central doctrines from the Baptist perspective.

We, as do all Christians, accept the admonition to be baptized. We, though, approve only of immersion as the biblically acceptable mode. Our form of church government is congregational, not episcopal (bishops) or presbyterian (elders), although all have biblical support as forms of ecclesiastical governance. We have a de-centralized view of denomination life: authority flows from the local congregation to the denomination, not the opposite.

We also see something unique and singular in Scripture. In God’s Word, we find our justification for belief and practice.

Study 34 “Who Is Wise?” Part 5

2006-11-29T13:51:00.000-05:00

Paul’s reliance upon the written Word is undeniable. "For whatsoever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction" is as clear a statement of Paul’s view of the value of Scripture. For the Apostle, instruction in the Word was the basis for his approach to church planting and development.

Probably the strongest declaration Paul made about the sufficiency of Scripture is found in 2 Timothy 3. Paul’s instructions to Timothy regarding "the sacred writings" are found in verses 14-17. Timothy’s mother and grandmother had instructed him in the Hebrew Scriptures from the time he was a child. He had been taught and had "learned and become convinced" of the truth and reliability of the principles of the Word.

Timothy, Paul said, was to "go on abiding" in what he had learned. Similarly, in John 15, Jesus speaks of abiding. In verse 4, the Lord commanded his followers to "abide in me." In verse 7, he declared, "if you continue in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish and it will be to you." So, we can conclude, among others things, that apart from the truth of Scripture, we are unable to pray effectively.

Now, what must be pointed out here is that the only way we can learn what Jesus told his followers in the first century is by reading the Gospels, the written accounts of the life of Jesus. No one knows what access if Paul or Timothy had to any early written stories of Jesus’ life and teachings. One thing that is certain is that they read the Hebrew Scriptures.

In the Hebrew Bible, Paul found the authority for his ministry and the context for his life. In those sacred writings, Paul declared, Timothy was to abide, or dwell. And, Timothy was reminded by Paul that he had learned the truth of the Scripture and "firmly believed" what he had learned. Paul was not concerned with opinion or feelings, but with conviction and certainty (To ask, "What do you feel the Scriptures are saying to you?" is entirely unbiblical).

These sacred writings to which Paul pointed Timothy were what that young believer had "known" from childhood. The word Paul used for "know" indicates at least two things. First, Timothy’s knowing meant he had insight into or a perception of the truths of Scripture. Timothy knew more than the facts; he understood the significance the principles he had learned.

By understanding the principles, Timothy knew to some extent the practical applicability of scriptural truth. If one only has an academic or intellectual grasp of the truth, he is able to state the truth only in formal terms. If he understands and has insight into a truth, that person is able then to apply what he knows to his life. Paul had instructed the Philippians, "whatever you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do these things" (Phpp. 4.9). The Apostle taught and modeled the truth of Scripture; he showed how one applies scriptural principles in his daily living. "Whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction."

Paul made several affirmations to Timothy about Scripture. Each of the affirmations was rooted in Paul’s concept of the sufficiency of Scripture. Indeed, for Paul, his ministry found validation in the written Word. All he taught and did was rooted in the revealed Word of God.

As we will come to see, Paul accepted the Hebrew Scriptures, what he termed in his letter to the Romans "the oracles of God," as the special revelation of God to his people, The Lord had spoken clearly and undeniably, and for Paul, the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings were the special revelation of God to his people about himself and his plan . "To the law, to the testimony."

Study 33 “Who Is Wise?” Part 4

2006-11-29T13:47:00.000-05:00

The importance of the written Word in the life of Judaism cannot be overstated. In his ongoing debates with the Jews, Jesus asserted that his message was from God. "Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me? He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God" (John 8.46-47). A most telling response to Jesus is found in John 9.29. "We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where He is from." In other words, the law of Moses, written on scrolls was a sure word from God. That the Jews were skeptical of Jesus is an understatement.

How did God speak to Moses? According to Exodus 33.11, "the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face." Numbers 12.8 states, "with [Moses] I speak mouth to mouth, even openly, and not in dark sayings, and he beholds the form of the Lord." Based on Numbers 12.6-8, we must conclude that God spoke to Moses in a unique manner, differently from how he spoke to any other person.

For that reason, the Law of Moses took on incredible significance to Israel. After their return from Babylonian captivity, the people of God made an astounding request. "They asked Ezra the Scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses which the Lord had given to Israel" (Neh. 8.1). So, from early morning till midday, Ezra read from the law, and "the people were attentive to the book of the law" (Neh. 8.3).

Now, Ezra was a superb scholar and teacher. He had "set his heart to study the law of the Lord and to practice it, and to teach His statutes and ordinances in Israel" (Ezra 7.10). While Ezra read, others assisted him by reading "from the book, from the law of God, translating to give the sense so that they understood the reading" (Neh. 8.8). What was the response of the people? They wept.

Ezra and the Levites read and taught from Torah, the Law, and the people were convicted of their sinfulness. Few believers today ever hear a sermon out of the law, much less read from it themselves. We tire of "thou shalt not," and the endless genealogies that tell us that so and so begot so and so who begot so and so, and so on. For many believers, most of the OT, and in particular the Pentateuch, remains a mystery, and is of secondary usefulness to them.

In the same manner, God had told Joshua to "be careful to do according to all the law which Moses my servant commanded you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, so that you may have success (meaning to be prudent, or to act wisely) wherever you go." Further, the law was not to depart from Joshua’s mouth. He was to memorize it, meditate on it, and mind it in all matters personal and public. Thereby, he would insure prosperity (from a word meaning to advance; the word does not mean to become rich) and success for himself and God’s people.

How can any of us do any less than Ezra or Joshua? Should we not also give ourselves diligently to the study and practice of the Word? Paul told Timothy to "continue in the thins he had learned" from childhood. What had he learned? His mother and grandmother had taught him the law of the Lord, the sacred writings. And, those writings were "able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus."

The writings to which Paul referred were the Hebrew Scriptures. He declared them to be inspired by God and profitable, or advantageous, or sufficient within themselves for all doctrine, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness leading to the thorough equipping of every saint for every work. Christians extend that sufficiency to include the New Testament.

Clearly, what Paul was declaring to Timothy was a kind of hierarchy for the work of God in a person’s life. That same structure is found in Romans 12.1-2. God’s first priority for believers is who they are, the nature of their character. Reproof and correction are more about showing character weaknesses and changing them than anything else. God’s second priority is our behavior, or the nature of our conduct. The Lord knows that only as we first become who he wants us to be will we then do what he wants us to do. We can know who God wants us to be only through the diligent study of Scripture. "To the law, and to the testimony."

Study 32 “Who Is Wise?” Part 3

2006-11-29T13:45:00.001-05:00

How do we believers determine God’s personal plan for our lives? Should we expect to hear a clear and audible voice declaring the Lord’s directions for us? Do we interpret our dreams? Should we hope for a messenger to come along who will deliver a "word from the Lord" to us? Or, as too many do, will we stumble along hoping circumstances will work-out in such a way as to lead us to the open door of God’s will? Does any chance exist of our coming to understand what God expects from us? If yes, how?

Our best hope for understanding God’s will for our lives comes by relying solely upon His Word. The psalmist posed the question, "How can a young man keep his way pure?" In other words, how can a person know how to live his life in a such a manner as to honor God? How can we find direction so that we might conform to God’s plan? His answer? "By keeping [one’s life] according to Your word." Walk according to the Word, and you will fulfill God’s plan for your life.

We are enjoined by the Bible to understand God’s will. Paul wrote in Romans, "Do not be fashioned by this age, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may determine the good, acceptable, and perfect will of God." To the Ephesians, he declared, "know what the will of the Lord is." So, how do we come to know God’s will for our lives?

Paul recognized that all kinds of pressures come to bear on believers. Some are overt and hostile, some subtle and deceptive, but all of the world’s influences are directed towards making all people on earth conform to some way of living. Thus, the Apostle declared, "Do not let yourself be fashioned by the world." Living in a manner consistent with any lifestyle other than a biblical one means to be out of conformity with God’s wishes.

What Paul commanded ("be transformed" was stated by Paul as a command, not a suggestion) the Romans to do was to fight against the outside pressures of the world and instead be changed from the inside out. The difference in the two verbs conform and transform is distinct and definite. To be conformed means to be changed by external forces. To be transformed, though, is another reality altogether.

To be transformed means one is changed by internal forces. The change a believer should experience every day of his life begins at the point of conversion. "If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old is passed away, behold the new has already come into existence" (2 Cor. 5.17). Earlier, Paul had written to the Corinthians, "the outer person (the flesh) is decaying, but the inner person is being made new day by day . . . so we do not pay attention to what can be seen, but to what is unseeable; for seen things are temporary, but unseeable things are eternal" (2 Cor. 4.16, 18).

So, what is eternal? The things of God (Psa. 107.43; 111.7, 10). More specifically, what are the eternal matters about which we should be concerned most? Foremost in our minds are to be the principles and truths of Scripture. God described his Word when he said to Isaiah, "My words which I have put in your mouth shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your offspring, nor from the mouth of your offspring’s offspring, . . . from now and forever" (Isa. 59.21).

The words put into Isaiah’s mouth were from God. How did they end up in the mouths of the prophet’s descendants? The words were written down and preserved, even to this day. And Paul the Rabbi, the master interpreter of Scripture, wrote, "For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction" (Rom 15.4). So, heeding the command of Isaiah, we must go "to the Law, to the testimony" (Isa. 8.20).

Study 31 “Who Is Wise?” Part 2

2006-11-24T20:18:00.001-05:00

What is biblical wisdom? Further, as the psalmist stated the issue, "Who is wise?" How does the psalmist answer this question? The wise person is the one who "gives heed" to the things of the Lord.

Paul clearly understood the meaning of wisdom. In his counsel to the Ephesian believers (5.15-18), Paul addressed specifically this issue. "Therefore, watch carefully how you walk, not as unwise, but as wise, . . . do not be ignorant, but understand what the will of the Lord is."

Paul established two categories: the wise and the unwise. How is the wise person distinguished from the unwise? The Apostle described each in terms of four pairs: wise and unwise, aware and unaware, perceptive and imperceptive, and disciplined and undisciplined.

Before going further, let’s understand the Greek word for wisdom: sophos. This term is concerned with propositional truth, as opposed to experiential truth (the Greek gnosis). Sophos would be used in statements of scientific, philosophical, and mathematical truths and theorems. Sophos, then, should be understood as principle, statute, law, et alia.

Thus, Paul was enjoining the Ephesian believers to walk in light of certain truths and principles. No doubt, Paul meant the truth of Scripture. Those who did not grasp these truths, those who did not employ them were the unwise. The wise built their lives on a foundation of biblical truth.

The second pair of descriptors is aware and unaware. A wise person seizes the time, makes the most of the moment. "Making the most" (NASB) and "redeeming" (KJV) are both translations of a Greek word meaning literally "to buy out of." The word means "to set free; make the most of, make good use of." The idea of setting free provides the basis for the translation "redeeming." Yet, "making the most of, or making good use of" communicate better Paul’s meaning. Wise people make the most of the moment, or make the best use of their opportunities.

Since the days are evil, a wise person, being aware of himself, his situation, and God’s purposes, sees the opportunity and seizes it. The wise person walks in a state of readiness (Rom. 13.11-14; 1 Thess. 5.1-8; 1 Pet. 5.8). Thus, being prepared for and alert to any chance for witness or ministry, or any test, trial, or temptation, the wise man can make the most out of any unanticipated opportunity. The unaware miss the moment, and thus, are caught in the web of sin and failure.

The wise are also perceptive: they know what the will of the Lord is. Clearly, without knowing God’s plan, no child of God can have a workable design for his life. Without a knowledge of God’s purposes, we are left to our own ideas, which are imperfect and doomed to fail. As a believer interacts intimately with God through His Word, he gains an increasing perception of and insight into God’s mind and revealed will. The unwise do not perceive, understand, or have insight into God’s plan at all. The unwise fail.

The last pair is disciplined and undisciplined. The unwise are not in control of their lives. In fact, the unwise are under the control of their feelings and passions. The unwise seek understanding and solutions through sensually based experiences. Alcohol, drugs, meditation, sex, being "in touch" with one’s feelings, and such are the tools of enlightenment for the unwise. Sadly, all these "solutions" are simply short-cuts. All are doomed to fail in their promise and become, in the end, sensual prisons.

The wise person is in charge of his life. He realizes that one must discipline himself and control his urges if he is to have intimacy with God and victory in living (Gal. 5.24; Col. 3.5-10). We are not excused from taking charge of our selves. God will not magically take sin out of our lives. The wise person knows this and commits himself to being aligned with the purposes and demands of God. If we are engaged in sin, then the work of God in our lives by his Spirit will be discipline. But, if we have brought our lives under control and into conformity with God’s will (1 Cor. 9.27), the work of the Spirit will be to enlighten and edify us.

What is wisdom? Who is the wise person? The wise person is the one who knows God’s will and obeys God in all things.

Study 30 “Who Is Wise?” Part 1

2006-11-24T20:16:00.001-05:00

What does being “wise” mean? While wisdom as a topic is not addressed frequently in the Psalms, wisdom as a fundamental and assumed truth is foundational to the Book of the Psalms. In Psalm 107 the question raised is, "Who is wise?" The poet did not answer his question directly, but did advise the wise on how to act. "Let him pay attention to these things." What are "these things"?

Psalm 111 offers insight into what "these things" are. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; a good understanding have all those who do His commandments." "His commandments" are words not found in the Hebrew text of Psalm 111. Instead, the literal translation is "those who do all these things." So, we are back to "these things." The antecedent for "these things" in Psalm 111 appears to be verse 7. "The works of his hands are truth and justice; all His precepts are sure." To me, the clear intention of the psalmist as stated in 111.10 is that the people of God are to do truth, justice, and the precepts of the Lord.

In other words, God’s people are to be obedient to all God has commanded. If we are to obtain wisdom, and obedience is the prerequisite for that transaction, then we can see the utter necessity of doing “these things." Now, in understanding obedience, we must put 111.10 in perspective. "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom" What is "the fear of the Lord."? Are we to believe that we must cower in dread before God, obeying in some mechanical way for fear that God will crush us in his anger if we do not do what we are told?

Somehow, such a thought does not lend itself to a healthy pursuit of wisdom. One should seek wisdom because of the beauty and benefit wisdom brings. If we seek wisdom out of fear, we will do so only as an antidote to God’s anger, not for the benefit we derive. But, if we seek wisdom because of its worth, we will willingly and joyfully obey God.

So then, what is the fear of the Lord? The concept has to do more with acknowledging God’s significance than with being afraid of him. If I am afraid of God, I will avoid him at all costs. I will do whatever is necessary to keep him at a distance. But, if "the fear of the Lord" speaks to something else, my response to God will be somewhat different. "The fear of the Lord," then, is about taking God seriously. If I believe God is of ultimate significance, and if I believe he has a plan for me, then I will make no decision and take no action without taking into account God and his will.

To take God seriously means that I believe that he is more than a figure of speech, a character in a holy book, or, some genetic urge. If God is, and if he is the God of Scripture, then I must have as my first priority in life knowing Him. If my life is consumed by the desire to be in his presence and to be in fellowship with him, then I will do whatever is necessary on my part to foster that relationship. Consequently, all the issues in my life, all my priorities will be determined by the fact of God’s being. Then and only then will I begin the process of obtaining wisdom.

So, the wise person makes God the overriding reality in his life. Everything in the wise person’s life, his attitudes and actions, his principles and practices, his values and vocation, his relationships and realities, is determined and defined by who God is. No decision, no determination in life will be taken apart from the reality of God.

Indeed, according to Paul, God is at work in believers leading each one to determine and to do "his good pleasure." The Lord’s plan is that each of his children be an obedient child. "God is at work in you." He does not leave up to us the accomplishment of his plan; he is bringing us into complete conformity with his "good pleasure."

The wise person will recognize these truths. In admitting to them, he will obey willingly "these things." He will be engaged willfully in the transformation of his life by the power of God’s grace. The wise person will not resist God, he will work with God.

Who, then, is the wise person? Over a period of time, I will seek to answer that question in light of Scripture.

Study 29 “Who Is Wise?” Prologue

2006-11-24T20:14:00.000-05:00

Over the years, I have developed several sermon series I try to preach periodically. Each time I do so, I attempt to update the series as my own understanding develops and grows. One of those series is entitled, "Who Is the Wise Man?" The sermons are based upon five psalms: 1, 15, 24, 32, and 112. I intend to do a lengthy study under the above title, slightly altered. I will lay a foundation consisting of studies of a variety of texts prior to interpreting these particular psalms.

Understanding the biblical concept of wisdom is critical if we are to attain insight. Obviously, biblical wisdom is found in Scripture and Scripture alone. Therefore, if we are both to know about and know God (knowing about Him and knowing Him are two entirely different things), and understand his plan, we must look to His Word. The course of this study of wisdom will be, then, a search of Scripture. Using the Psalms I have listed above as our base of operations, we will venture out into every part of the Word in order to find the answer to the question, "Who Is Wise?"

Study 28 “The Mystery of God” Part 3

2006-11-08T08:26:00.000-05:00

Psalm 11.7-11

A noted TV Evangelist explained his decision not to host an event in a major city in the following way. "Given more time, we can plan more effectively for what we always believe are opportunities for God to move mightily."

What are "opportunities for God to move mightily"? If we do not create the opportunity, is God unable to "move mightily"? Further, what does one mean by the phrase "move mightily"? Does God ever move in a manner that would not be described as mighty?

The attitude suggested by the evangelist’s statement concerns me. Regardless of the author’s intent, the implication of his statement is that God cannot, or will not move mightily without the cooperation of human beings. A sort of "if we do not build it, he will not come" mentality. Seemingly, those who had hoped the evangelist would visit their city will be left without a movement of God. Poor people, poor God.

Does the Bible’s portrayal of God and his activities indicate he is limited in any way by humanity? When the Lord instructed the disciples to gather in Jerusalem for Pentecost, he did so in order that they might be where he would act in a special way. The Lord did not indicate that the disciples’ being in Jerusalem was the key to God’s acting. God intended to pour out the Spirit in spite of what people might be doing. Peter declared that on that Pentecost day, the prophecy of Joel was being fulfilled. Hundreds of years earlier, God had stated what he would be doing at a point in the future. He did not condition his actions on the response of the Twelve. He asked no one’s permission to send the Spirit, nor did he wait for them to create the right circumstance.

Modern man has reduced God to explainable and understandable categories. As shown in an earlier post, some secular scientists view God as a function of human genetics. For one TV evangelist, God will not act till some human has provided him with the right venue. Some theologians are convinced that God is dependent on man, not the other way around. In fact, open theology (see previous post) grew out of one man’s inability to understand God’s sovereignty and foreknowledge. So, he created a new way to understand God.

"The Lord is in his Holy Temple. The Lord’s Throne is in Heaven." Neither his temple nor his Throne are upon the earth. Otherwise, the phrase from the Model Prayer, "Your kingdom come, Your will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven," would make no sense at all. We should seek the heavenly reality, not the earthly one.

If God can act only insofar as we have prepared the setting, he must not be much of a God. If spiritually hungry people in any city must wait for a TV personality to come to town before they can be changed by God, they are, of all people, to be pitied. What, by the way, happened to the Holy Spirit?

Pride goes before a fall, the writer of Proverbs declared. The problem with pride is that as an attitude, it masquerades. Most proud people do not realize they are prideful. Some see themselves as confident, others as humble. When any person believes God is dependent on him, he is guilty of pride. Thus, the need for the fall. Falling gives us an entirely different perspective on our selves.

David was not proud when he wrote Psalm 11. He was suffering one of life’s humiliations. He had found himself in need of help. He looked to the transcendent God, the One who knows all things, sees all things, and acts in such a way as to bring benefits to his children. David was at his wit’s end; he did not know what to do to change his circumstances; he did not have a plan that would enable God to act. He simply turned to the God of Heaven and Earth in his time of need, believing God to be able to meet any and every need in his life.

Study 27 “The Mystery of God” Part 2

2006-11-08T08:21:00.000-05:00

Psalm 11.3-7

The mapping of the human genome is one of the most significant scientific achievements of the modern era. Completed in 2003, the Human Genome Project sought to identify all the approximately 20,000-25,000 genes in human DNA and to determine the sequences of the 3 billion chemical base pairs that make up human DNA. This year’s Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine went to Andrew Fire and Craig Mello for their discovery of "RNA interference—gene silencing by double-stranded RNA. Basically, what they discovered was a way to control the flow of genetic information. RNA interference can be used to participate in defense against viral infections and may lead to novel therapies in the future.

With these advancements, especially the mapping of the human genome, many thought disease was a thing of the past. Unfortunately, such has not been the case. For instance, fetal stem cell research has run into a wall. One study of the use of fetal stem cells to combat muscular dystrophy in lab rats arrived at a frightening conclusion. The implanted cells, though being effective in controlling MD, turned into rapidly growing tumors.

The problem we have as human beings is our limited knowledge. We believe we can solve any problem by applying creative solutions. Yet, we are unable to envision or anticipate all the consequences of the corrective actions we take. For instance, in the early sixties, a well-intentioned public welfare system was devised by the US government. That system, intended as a tool to eradicate poverty, almost single-handedly destroyed the black family in America. Today, nearly two-thirds of all black births are to unmarried mothers.

In the Bible, God is portrayed as having unlimited knowledge. Isaiah 46.9-11 states, "For I am God, and there is no one like me, . . . Declaring the end from the beginning, . . . I have planned it, surely I will do it." From the perspective of Scripture, God’s knowledge has no bounds.

God, in his sovereignty and omniscience, is able to know intimately and completely the hearts of men. That knowledge, by the way, does not determine our decisions. God simply knows, from his vantage point, what we will do. Thus, the Lord has never been ambushed; he has never been taken by surprise. God is at the beginning and the ending. Otherwise, how could he know "what you need before you ask him"? (Matt. 6.8)

A new theology of our time is called "open theism." Simply described, this approach to God states that he does not know all things, only the grand scheme. God is unable to anticipate the decisions we humans might make. Therefore, he must wait upon us. God is limited in his knowledge, restrained by time, and powerless to act unilaterally.

The whole thrust of Scripture, though, is that God is indeed sovereign. The point of our faith is that we trust more completely in the God who is not limited. We face dilemmas for which we have no solution. What do we do? We pray because we believe God has the right answer. But, if the assertion of Matthew 6.8 is false, then God can have no answer for us when we pray. If he must wait until we act, either wisely or unwisely, before he can respond, then why pray? If we, by our own design, do the right thing, what, then, is the point of praying at all?

Psalm 25.1-3 sums things up in the following way. "To you O Lord, I lift up my soul. O my God, in You I trust. Do not let me be ashamed; do not let my enemies exult over me. Indeed, none of those who wait for You will be ashamed." If God, though, is waiting on me to act, and if he cannot anticipate my decisions, we are at a stalemate. I am afraid to act without guidance, he can do nothing until I proceed. Thus, the psalmist’s assertion, "none of those who wait for You will be ashamed," is patently false. To be ashamed means to be let down; to have one’s hope be insufficient. If I wait on God, and he cannot act till I do, I will be let down and shamed.

Yet, if David got it right, then the Lord’s eye indeed is upon the righteous. When he tries me (11.4), he does so to bring me to greater trust in him and his concern for me. The Lord is in his Holy Temple; the Lord’s Throne is in heaven. He is not limited by time and space. He transcends all the limitations we know. He sees me in the midst of my problems, and knows the solution long before I do. Thus, I will wait upon the Lord; in the Lord put I my trust.

Study 26 “The Mystery of God” Part 1

2006-09-14T16:09:00.000-04:00

Psalm 11.1-7

I came of age at the end of the age of mystery. As a child, I heard the stories my Dad and his generation told about mysterious events they had experienced in their youth. In the days before space travel, computers, the Internet, and the Information Age, some things dwelt in the realm of mystery. No longer!

Science has destroyed all the mystery of life. Everything has been reduced to the sum of biological or physical processes. Now, we have a factual explanation for all of the seemingly unexplainable, anomalous happenings we witness. Only the uncivilized and uneducated look at nature as the realm of mystery. Even God has been explained as a function of human genes. The Lord and all we think we know of him are nothing but a biological urge.

When the original "King Kong" and "Tarzan" movies were made, many believed in the possibility of a South Seas island where gigantic behemoths dwelt. An ape-man who was Lord of the Jungle was for many not myth, but a matter of reality. The radio broadcast of H. G. Wells "War of the Worlds" caused widespread panic in America. My Dad told the story of some country cousins who, when they first saw the contrails of high-flying B-17 bombers, thought the Second Return of Jesus was happening. In a state of panic, they raced into town as fast as their mule and wagon would carry them. Today, we do not even pause any longer to watch the Space Shuttle lift off.

So, has life been swept clean of myth and mystery by the broom of science? Are we all so scientifically astute that we are embarrassed to speak of a God who dwells in the heavens? Indeed, has the mystery of God become so absurdly simplistic to our cosmopolitan minds that we no longer are comfortable with such concepts? Are we so comfortable with our down-to-earth, guy-next-door kind God, that we demand to worship in a kind of "homey family-room" and not the majestic Temple of God?

The Psalms have the capacity to restore a sense of divine wonder. "The Lord is in his holy Temple! The Lord’s Throne is in Heaven!" One form of the Hebrew word for throne is used to describe the full-moon. I remember as a child seeing the rising of the full moon in the summer. With the right atmospheric conditions (which I did not know about then and do not understand now), the moon would appear on the horizon almost as large as the earth itself. Such is the beauty and majesty of the Lord’s throne.

Isaiah, in his vision in the Temple (Isa. 6), saw "the Lord sitting upon his throne, high and lifted up." The scene in the heavenly Temple, as the prophet described it, was detailed in terms of otherworldly mystery. Fiery beings (seraphim means being of fire) floated eerily around the throne of God. As they soared through heaven’s atomosphere, they sang out to one another, "Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord of hosts! The earth is filled with his glory!"

Heaven and earth are full of God’s presence. Modern astronomers can give clear, concise, scientific explanations for the atomic storms that produce the sun’s heat, light, and energy. Yet, we as believers know that the sun burns and glows only because God exists. The solar firestorms will one day cease and the glory of the Lord will light the universe (Rev. 21.23). What a great mystery!

The whole of Psalm 11 revolves around verse 4: "The Lord is in his holy Temple, the Lord’s throne is in heaven. For David, the ultimate reality was not the earth upon which he lived, but the eternal reality of heaven itself. So, when David was threatened, he flew not as a bird to the hills, but in confidence to the throne room of heaven. Explain that with scientific data.

Study 25 “Of Justice and Mercy” Part 3

2006-09-05T21:56:00.000-04:00

Psalm 9. 3-10

David’s view of judgment as an event that happens within time must be fully understood. The issue of eternal judgment is not a idea that should weigh as heavily upon us as God’s judgment of us in time. Peter declared, "For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God." If the time for judgment in Peter’s day was the present moment, how much more is "now" the time of judgment for believers in our day.

What is judgment? Let’s dispense with the views of harsh, cold, cruel rulings and find a more realistic definition in Scripture. We begin with the Parable of the Stewards in Matthew 25.14-30. Briefly, the story is about three slaves who were given control of differing degrees of their master’s property. Two of the slaves showed themselves to be trustworthy; they invested their master’s wealth, made a profit for him, and were rewarded for their good stewardship. One slave proved to be untrustworthy. Out of fear, he hoarded what his master had entrusted to him. He made no profit, was declared to be undependable, and lost everything, including his privileged position. What can be learned about judgment from this story?

First of all, with the Master’s return came a time of accounting. Each person had to give a detailed report of how he had managed his master’s resources. Each had to relate what he had accomplished, not what the other slaves had done. Each had to be truthful because the master was demanding that his goods be returned. So, each slave, in giving back to the master what was rightfully his, had to account for his own stewardship. As the slaves gave an account, both motives and actions were related.

Second, with the accounting came accountability. Each slave had to tell what he had done and why. Each had to take responsibility for what he had done or not done. Two slaves knew what their master was like, what his motives and practices were. The master was the model for their actions. Since the master was a good business man, he expected those to whom he had entrusted his goods to act as he had acted. So, the first two slaves proudly declared, "See, we have made money for you!" The third slave, knowing as the other two the business practices of his master, was afraid to act. So, he made excuses. He tried to shift the blame for his failure onto his master. "Since you are a hard man, I was afraid to try, I was afraid to fail. If you were a little more lenient, I would have tried harder," he might as well have said. Nonetheless, in the end, he was held accountable.

Third, judgment is a time of re-ordering. Each of the two faithful slaves came away from the time of accounting with greater wealth and greater responsibility. To the one who had been given the most and who had made a 100% profit, the master gave what the third slave was afraid to invest. To the one who feared failure, all was lost. He was sent into the darkness outside, the place of regret and remorse.

Remember that the three characters in this story were all slaves, servants of the master. Because of their continued responsible behavior, they had earned higher and higher positions. With success, came success. With failure came loss. Yet the loss was not permanent.

Judgment is also a time of redemption. The slave who was cast outside was still a slave. This parable is not about eternal judgment and damnation. This parable is about stewardship and accountability. Good and faithful stewards are rewarded and promoted. Unfaithful stewards lose. Yet, God is concerned that his servants learn. So, the unfaithful steward, facing up to his own poor behavior, could learn to do better. He would be given a chance to try again.

Sometimes, judgment is not final. At other times, judgment is a "trial by fire." But, the fire is intended to purify and purge, not to destroy and demoralize.

Study 24 “Of Justice and Mercy” Part 2

2006-09-05T21:53:00.000-04:00

Psalm 9. 3-10

The concept of God’s judgment is often viewed in terms of the end of time. God will judge everyone at the end of days, we say. Yet, when we consider the statements of Scripture, a different picture emerges. God has judged, is judging, and will judge all within the limits of time. What do I mean?

David declared that God had sat judging: past tense. God had rebuked the nations, destroyed the wicked, blotted out their name, brought their end to pass, uprooted their cities, and cause their names to disappear from memory. David spoke of what God had already done.

Not only had the Lord judged the nations and persons, he had judged in favor of the righteous. David’s "just cause" had been maintained by God. Literally, the statement in verse 4 is that God had "done justice" for David. The Lord had ruled according to the facts and had upheld David as the innocent party.

The Lord "has established His throne for judgment." The throne is the point from which God’s sovereign rule and righteous judgment emanate. He firmly founded his throne for those purposes. Thus, David concluded, God "will judge the world in righteousness; He will execute judgment for the peoples with equity." Before God’s throne, any and all can expect a decision that is righteous and just.

For David, the righteous rule of God meant that at God’s throne, the guiltless would find "a stronghold in times of trouble." David knew not a God who was cold and dispassionate: he knew the God of mercy and comfort. Did David see himself as a perfect man? Far from it! David knew his own sinfulness and all his ethical imperfections. What he also understood was that when he was falsely accused, he would find justice in God’s courtroom.

When David’s enemies charged him with scurrilous crimes, they thought the final determination of justice would be found in the court of public opinion. Yet, the truth David knew and his enemies ignored was that any charge against God’s elect would be adjudicated in the heavenly courtroom. In the final accounting, God would rule against those who made false charges. The innocent man would find mercy and justice before God.

What David found in God, and what any believer can discover, is that in times of oppression and trouble, God is a stronghold, a place of safety. Anytime a person is falsely accused and is attacked by any enemy, he has a sense of being crushed. Oppression means to be crushed; trouble means to be in distress. We cannot understand why anyone would wish to charge us with things we and they know are untrue. How do we defend ourselves in such times?

We retreat to God; we go to the one whose judgments are merciful as well as just. God does not listen to the baseless charges of the enemy; he knows the truth about us. So, when we are under assault, we must rely upon the God who knows the truth. In the end, he will "maintain our just cause," he will do justice for us.

David made an incredible claim in verse 10: "And those who know Your name will put their trust in You, For You, O LORD, have not forsaken those who seek You." What do those who trust God know? They know the Lord’s name, his true character. Those who rely upon the Lord know he is trustworthy; they know he is merciful; they know he is the righteous judge who always judges righteously.

Study 23 "Of Justice and Mercy" Part 1

2006-09-05T21:48:00.000-04:00

Psalm 9. 3-10

Many times, the presentation of God in the OT is misunderstood. Typically, the Lord is viewed as the God of Judgment, meaning he is cold, cruel, and uncaring. Only a partial reading of the OT presentation of God could result in such a distorted understanding of God.

Psalm 9 presents God as sitting upon his throne judging the nations. Now, we cannot ignore God as judge. The world and all that is in it is his. He created the universe for his own purposes, so, he has both the right and the authority to judge. God is unwilling to allow individuals and nations to act in ways that are inconsistent with his plan. He has established laws for the governance of this world and he expects those laws to be honored.

What kind of judge is God? Is he cold and cruel? Is he unfair or unjust? Does he care more for the legal standard he has established than for those who are required to live under that standard. How does God judge?

We must not forget that every judgment has a precedent. God judges because of an infraction, because his law is broken. God does not call the ignorant or the innocent into account. Only those who have willfully committed a crime must appear before the Judge of the Universe.

How did David describe God as judge? "You have sat upon the throne judging righteously." Actually, the text can be read to say that God sits "as a righteous judge." God is not unfair, unjust, or unrighteous.

What is the significance of the word "righteous"? To be righteous is to be innocent of either wrong motives or wrong actions. The Hebrew word tsedeq, translated righteous, means to conform to an ethical or moral standard. In order to qualify as judge, God, then, must conform to his own ethical demands. He cannot compromise even the most minor point of his law. Otherwise, he would be an unjust judge.

As a judge, God sits on his throne as a ruler, the head of government. He rules the universe, the heavens and the earth. The kingdom is his. Thus, he adjudicates all matters of controversy involving those who live in his kingdom. Even Satan, whom Paul described as the ruler of this age, is accountable to God. When God makes a decision, he enforces that decision. Plea bargains and commuted sentences are not a part of his justice system.

Further, in his kingdom, God is aware of all that transpires. Nothing escapes his sight. He does not execute judgment based upon hearsay or circumstantial evidence. All the facts are known to him: who acted, why they acted as they did, and what they did are all know to him. To rule in a controversy upon any basis other than the absolute truth would make God’s judgments unjust. Thus, his rulings would be illegitimate and null.

So, God as judge means he is the divine, omnipotent, just, and righteous ruler. When God tries a case, whether involving a nation or an individual, his justice is both just and righteous. Any charge of cruel, cold, uncaring actions on God’s part is baseless. To call God unfair or unjust is a claim without foundation. We might not know all the facts, but God does. Our inability to know all things does not mean we are correct in viewing God as unjust and merciless. God is the righteous judge; he always judges righteously, with justice, and with equity.

Study 21 "Praise to Yahweh" Part 2

2006-08-25T12:39:00.000-04:00

Psalm 9.1-2

Worship is like love: if we are concerned mainly with our own sensual experience of either, we have made them both self-seeking. Why do we worship? How do we love? How do we know we have done either? Must we have an emotional response in worship or love in order to know our experience in either arena is legitimate?

Many pastors and counselors have sat with a husband or wife who have, with grief and guilt, confessed to not loving their spouse any longer. When questioned about the meaning of such an admission, most answer that they do not "feel" for the other person what they once did. Therein lies the confusion. Feeling has been equated with love. Feeling is not love; feeling results from love. Indeed, the great mistake many make is to root their love for another solely on the basis of emotion.

A question that should be asked of those who declare they no longer feel for another what they once did. If we require a feeling in order to love, then who is love all about? If a feeling is absent, then I have declared that I am the focus of my love, not the person whom I am supposed to love. If I do not feel, then I am mourning the loss of my feeling; thus, love of that sort is self-centered.

If I am able to love solely because I feel something, then I have no concern for the person I am supposed to love. Their needs are meaningless to me; only my emotional need matters. Such a view totally distorts the biblical definition of love. First Corinthians 13 includes no sensual terms at all. Every defining word is cast in terms of commitment and loyalty. When I marry a couple, I challenge them in the following way. I ask each if they will take the other to "to have and to hold from this day forward, in sickness and in health, in poverty or in wealth; to love and to cherish so long as we both shall live. To this I pledge to you my faith." I have never, nor will I ever, ask anyone to base their marriage commitment on something as foolish as "as long as I love," or "as long as I feel love." Paul declared that "love never fails."

We have done the same injustice to worship. If I have been told once, I have been told hundreds of times by so many that worship was boring and they had not been fed. If people stopped long enough to consider the logic of such statements, they would slink away in shame. No one can make worship boring for a believer other than the individual himself. Now, a congregation’s worship may not be inspiring and may be bland, but I control my own enthusiasm. If I have been experiencing the works of God in my life, no one will be able to hinder my joy and gladness as I worship.

Seemingly, those who find worship boring are those who have idea what being a Christian means. Paul told the Philippians, "He who began a good work in you will perfect it . . . ," and "it is God who is at work in you . . ." If these verses be true, as we affirm them to be so, then each of us who has been saved is being perfected every passing day as God is at work in our lives. Now, the person who misses that may not be under construction by the Divine Architect. Further, if he is a person bored in his worship, he is bored in his life. Such a person’s life is static and unchanging, giving proof of no activity by God in him. God is bringing us to Christ-likeness through every moment and circumstance of life. How can one not be excited by that fact.

If one comes away from worship without the feeling he believes should have resulted from worship, he did not carry with him into the worship event the requisite emotions. We worship God because we are glad, joyful, excited, and enthusiastic about who He is, not in order to find joy. We have had his character affirmed to us daily as God has dealt with us through grace and mercy.

Love "rejoices in the truth." Worship must be "in spirit and in truth." Love and worship share a deep bond. We worship God because we love him. We are to be committed and loyal to him in all things. Our love for God is our purpose for existence. Even on days when we "feel bad," we can still worship. If we just consider for a moment what God has done for us, we can get over the bad feelings and find great joy.

Study 20 "Praise to Yahweh" Part 1

2006-08-25T12:34:00.000-04:00

Psalm 9.1-2

David addressed this psalm to the worship leader "on Muth Laben." The meaning of "Muth Laben" is not known, although one scholar has suggested the term means "female voices." So, this hymn could have bee written for a women’s choir. Such a conclusion is entirely speculative, and should not be wholeheartedly adopted.

Nevertheless, this hymn was written for worship, not as a poem for contemplation. The nature of the worship as described by the psalm can be discerned in the five verbs used in the first two lines: to praise, to call out, to be joyful, to exult, and to sing.

Fundamentally, the character of worship as portrayed in Scripture almost always is joyful and enthusiastic. Contemplative, quiet worship is not a style presented often, if at all, in the Bible. Meditation on and intimacy with God are generally reserved for prayer; praise is typically lively and active.

The reason for worship having such an extroverted nature is tied to the object: the Most High God. David declared, "I will praise Yahweh with all my heart." The word praise is a term with the basic meaning of "to throw." What did the twenty-four elders do, as pictured in Revelation 4.10? They "threw" their crowns before the One Seated on the Throne. They praised him. That kind of activity is not what I would call passive worship.

Secondly, David spoke of "enumerating your extraordinary deeds." Again, we find a New Testament parallel in Revelation. In both chapters 4 and 5, the twenty-four elders declare the great works of both God and the Lamb. God had created and sustains all things (Rev. 4.11). The Lamb had "been slain . . . and made them to be a kingdom and priest to our God" (Rev. 5.9-10). Thus, both God on the Throne and the Lamb before the Throne are worthy to receive "blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever" (Rev. 5.13). One can sense in the text of Revelation, in all the descriptions of worship found in that book, the vibrancy and enthusiasm as God’s great deeds are proclaimed and he is worshiped.

Third, David wrote that he would be joyful and glad "in You." The Westminster Shorter Catechism poses the question "What is the chief end of man." The answer given is, "Man's chief end is to glorify God, and enjoy Him forever." To glorify God is to direct attention to him. To talk about him is to glorify him. Now,if one focuses only upon the Lord’s deeds, he will fail to see the true person of God. In other words, if we are interested only in what God can do for us, he is nothing more than an idol. But, if God’s deeds are understood as the lense through which to see his real character, then we can see the Most High God. We must do more than talk about what God has done; we must praise him for who he is, which is the basis for his great acts. To rejoice and be glad in only what God has done is selfish; we are interested in ourselves. To rejoice and be glad in him is to worship in spirit and in truth.

Lastly, David stated, "I will sing to Your Name, O Most High One." Here again, we can see, as in Psalm 8, that "name" is much more than a mere tag used for identification. Thus, to sing to the Lord’s name is to sing to God as he is known. In fact, the content of the songs we sing in our worship should consist of the praiseworthy character traits of God Scripture reveals. "Worthy of worship, worthy of praise, worthy of honor and glory." "Holy, holy, holy, merciful and mighty." "Immortal, invisible, God only wise, . . . Great Father of glory, pure Father of light." "Joyful, joyful, we adore Thee, God of glory, Lord of love."

Worship surely can and should contain songs about what God has done. Yet, to not sing to "His Name" is to miss the greatest joy of all: praising him for who he is, and, thus, to enjoy him forever.

Study 19 "Who Is Man?" Part 2

2006-08-16T16:25:00.000-04:00

Psalm 8.3-9

Those who view life from the perspective of evolutionary thought have an essentially negative perspective on life and mankind. Humans are the product of an impersonal process directed by spurious, unplanned circumstances. Ironically, from the view of evolution, man is a victim. We have evolved this strange sense of self-awareness, yet, are no better than a bug. We can try to clean up the world and reverse global warming, yet, as we try to fix the earth’s environment, some unexpected, unforeseen event still could wipe us all out. Talk about sad!

Since we can claim no right to supremacy, then no particular product of man’s thoughts should be viewed as superior in its concepts. Democracy is not better than dictatorship, capitalism is not more worthy than communism. Further, no religion can claim ascendency. Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, animism, Confucianism, et al are all the same: man’s misbegotten ideas about a god who is not there. Thus, let us all eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die. As John Lennon sang, "nothing to live or die for." How sad and pointless.

The biblical view of life is diametrically opposed to the concept of life intrinsic to evolution. Christianity and Judaism are essentially positive in their outlooks. For the Jews, one could live well in the land by obeying the commands of God. For Christians, Jesus has promised an abundant life (not to be confused with material prosperity). For all who believe the truths of the Old and New Testaments, God is in control of all things and will, in the end, bring his purposes to pass. As bad and inept as mankind might be, God insures the viability of all life.

God has shown incredible interest in the welfare of his creation. He has put man in control of it, while at the same time insuring that creation itself cannot be wholly destroyed by the human race. What man must understand, and generally does not, is that he is steward, not owner. Since man is the steward of creation, he is accountable to God for his management of his resources. How we use what we have determines how we live. Tithing, by the way, is the believer’s admission of God’s ownership and man’s stewardship.

History is replete with examples of man’s poor stewardship. Take the Mayans, for instance. Located in Central America and the Yucatan, their kingdoms once flourished and dominated that region. The ruins of their great cities still engender amazement in tourists as they flock to places such as Chichen Itza. When the Mayans built those great edifices, they coated them with a kind of lime plaster. Unfortunately, massive numbers of trees had to be cut down to fuel the fires needed to make the lime. Ultimately, their commitment to the decoration of their buildings depleted the trees. Mayan civilization imploded and the cities died.

Ironically, archeologists face an unusual hurdle in their attempts to study the Mayan ruins: trees. The tropical forests returned with a vengeance. They literally ate up the cities, covering them in a sea of green leaves. The Mayans failed as stewards; they mismanaged their resources for foolish reasons. God did not fail; the trees returned. The natural world will survive with man, without man, or in spite of man.

Evolutionists have a fundamental lack of confidence in humanity (their only hope is their own elitist schemes). Man has made a mess, and as a collective, cannot be trusted to fix it. Scripture also teaches that man is, at times, untrustworthy: all sin. Yet, even in our evident failure, we have hope in God. Since the evolutionists reject the very idea of god, they are without hope and desperate. As human beings themselves, how can they believe their idea of survival is any better than anyone else’s?

Did David conclude than man, with respect to his position in the world, was worthy of adulation and adoration? No, his answer was, "O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is Your name in all the earth" (Psa. 8.1,9). God and God alone is to be worshiped. In God, man finds meaning for himself.

NOTE: Please go to Edmond's Study Helps and view the post of the lyrics of the song "Imagine" by John Lennon along with comments. The song illustrates well the evolutionary mindset.

Study 18 "Who Is Man" Part 1

2006-08-16T16:19:00.000-04:00

Psalm 8.3-9

Are the heavens the work of God’s "fingers?" If God did create the heavens and the earth, as Genesis 1.1 affirms, what can be concluded about man’s place in the created order?

In the modern age, the twentieth and twenty-first centuries in particular, man has been living under the delusion of evolutionary theory. As a result, the place of humanity in the natural world has been significantly redefined from what Scriptural declares.

For the psalmist, man’s ascendent position in creation was a paradox. Relative to the heavenly realm, man is entirely insignificant. David wondered why God had given mankind even a second thought. The enigma for David was the exalted role of human beings in the natural world, and their seeming insignificance relative to the star-filled heavens.

David realized man’s role in the world did not correspond in any way to his essential nature and physical being. David was keenly aware of man’s weaknesses and limitations. Yet, he saw that humanity ruled in the natural and physical realm. Humans can manipulate material resources to their advantage in a manner wholly inconsistent with his being. Why? How did man gain such an advantage. Why had God put man in the position he holds?

To those who accept the unproven, counterfeit claims of evolutionary theory (What great or not-so-great scientific discovery can evolution claim?), man is a mere accident of circumstance. Human beings possess no greater significance than any other living creature.

"A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy," a statement made by Ingrid Newkirk, President, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), is a logical extension of evolutionary philosophy. How does a boy differ from any other animal? To the honest evolutionist, man, in his essential being, is not better than a beetle, a beaver, or a brook trout. Consequently, we have no inherent claim over the natural world. Of course, one wonders what the evolutionists at PETA claim as the basis for their authority to speak for animals other than man?

Ironically, the biblical definition of mankind’s essential nature is not so different from the definition offered by evolution. Genesis declares that God brought forth "living creatures" in the sea and on the land. Later, when Adam was made, God defined him as a "living being." Interestingly, "living creature" and "living being" are the translation of the same Hebrew word, nephesh. So, even the Bible recognizes the bond we share with the beasts of the fields and seas.

At that point, thought, the biblical and evolutionary models part ways. Since the fundamental precept of evolution is that God does not exist (we all know God and science cannot interfere with one another), man cannot assert his superior position in the natural order. Since humans, as with all other living things, are products of an impersonal process, we are locked into and limited by that process.

The biblical view is vastly different. God exists and has created all things. Scripture declares that truth as certain. The Bible does not argue for God’s existence, the Word affirms God’s existence. If the two truths of Genesis 1.1 are in fact not true, then the rest of Scripture becomes meaningless speculation with no more authority than the works of Dr. Seuss.

Yet, man’s role in the world is clear; we are superior. But, why and in what way are we superior? Upon what basis does mankind rule over the earth and all that is in it?

Study 17 "How Majestic Is Your Name" Part 4

2006-08-11T12:11:00.000-04:00

Psalm 8.2

In Psalm 8, the poet made some significant affirmations regarding the acts of God. First, the Lord has displayed his name throughout the earth and above the heavens. Thus, God has declared his omnipresence. God is not "in" the natural world; the Psalmist was not an animist. God is understood in what he has done, but is not limited by his creation. He dwells not in rocks and trees, birds or butterflies; he lives in and through his people.

Second, the Psalmist affirmed the omnipotence, or sovereignty, or God. "You have established strength." Two possibilities exist for understanding God’s establishment of his strength. First, one might see this phrase as describing how God accomplished, or brought into being, his strength in the world: through the mouths of children and nursing infants.

A second possibility presents itself. God established the fact of his strength, in that, he proved or displayed convincingly his power. The key to choosing either proposal rests in how one understands the role of children and adversaries.

Who is the enemy of God? We immediately respond, "Those who hate God." That is correct as far as it goes. Yet, we must realize that all of God’s enemies do not "hate" him, if we mean hate as a deep, visceral anger.

Many of God’s worst enemies are good, moral, religious people. To hate is to reject. Religious people have in fact disregarded God. What they focus on is their ability to properly carry out certain prescribed rituals. So, anyone who has attempted to manipulate God by their "programs" has, in fact, hated him. If we believe we can make churches grow and work by our own efforts, we have disregarded God; we have ignored, or hated him.

In the NewsMax article I cited in an earlier blog, the observation was made that "Once a congregation reaches a critical mass of around 2,000, its numeric strength alone becomes a powerful attraction. It becomes self-generating. Size begets growth."* So, the overriding concern for any church, then, is to become big in order to become bigger. "It becomes self-generating" is a truth rooted in mass-marketing principles, not Scripture. Has bigness become a god?

Ironically, the goal of any congregation should be the development of its membership into greater Christ-likeness. Being a big church can become an end in itself, and the spiritual growth of believers an adjunct of size. We may have lost sight of what kind of growth is more important.

Seemingly, we are attempting, by our proven effectiveness at "growing" churches, to "establish" God’s power. Our programs, location, worship style, and ministerial personalities have replaced biblical principles as the foundation for the church. As a result, pastors and ministerial staffs experience incredible anxiety due to the pressure to "grow" the church.

Yet, the Psalmist stated that God proves his power through children and nursing babies, not sophisticated media personalities and marketing specialists. Why children? When the issue of greatness in the kingdom was raised, Jesus observed that "unless you . . . become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."

Paul was perplexed by being unable to rid himself of his "thorn in the flesh." He had prayed diligently, but to no avail. Odd, Paul prayed for the "thorn" to be removed, but God did not take it away. Instead, he let Paul’s disability remain. Why? "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness." God is not so much concerned with our ability to make churches big as he is with our willingness to trust him as a child. Then and only then will the real strength of God be revealed.

The italics are mine.