In my Sunday School class last week I made an offhand comment that ignited a big discussion. I noted that one of our nation's politicians (always a resource for bad theology) had said that "we all have a divine spark" and therefore we should support her political ideology. (I promise to leave the politics out of it.) It seems that some in my class believed in this idea of some sort of "divine spark". Sometimes I forget that Christians pick up phrases from the world that sound real good but are contrary to biblical teaching. I mean, doesn't it sound real good and spiritual and uplifting to say that we all have a divine spark. It seems spiritual and egalitarian and uplifting all at the same time.
Before we can discuss any subject we must define what we are talking about. If we have different definitions of the same word or expression, then we will end up talking past one another. If we ask five people what is meant by the expression ‘divine spark’ we will likely end up with five definitions. However, it seems to me that most people who believe that we all have a ‘divine spark’ would be hard-pressed to give a definition of it at all. The concept is rather vague.
Part of the problem of defining it is that it could mean quite different things to different people depending on one’s own religious thinking and background. To a Christian it might sound something like being created in the image of God. To someone who does not believe in a Creator, it might mean that God is not out there somewhere with a distinct personality and existence but simply a part of each of us. That would mean that we all have the possibility of godhood. I am not worried about most of the church because Christians do not aspire to ‘godhood’ and would reject any such thing as idolatrous and blasphemous. Perhaps it is best that we examine how the term has been used and how it is used today.
The origins of the concept of a ‘divine spark’ in each of us goes back to an ancient Greek philosophy called “Gnosticism”. Here is a quotation: “The idea of a divine spark, most common in Gnostic and mystical religions, is that every human being possesses either a connection with God or a "part" of God. The goal of life, then, is to allow the divine spark to influence us toward love, peace, and harmony.”
Today, the concept is often divorced from any sort of religious rituals but is instead an undefined form of spirituality that anyone can achieve. And people ‘ignite the spark’ of divinity in various ways. It might be a Christian experience or not. Some of those who believe in this talk about “being spiritual, but not religious”. They will also criticize Christians who insist that one must receive Christ in order to be saved. They say that we are narrow and intolerant because we do not recognize that different people and cultures might follow a different path to God. If one has a ‘divine spark’, is it not possible to ignite that spark in different ways? Part of the problem with this is that it is man-centered. It is we that ignite the spark rather than God freely offering His grace through the redemption accomplished by Christ.
Let’s look at what scripture teaches:
“As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient … Like the rest, we were by nature children of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.” (Ephesians 2:1-5)
Notice how Paul says that by nature we were “children of wrath”. It was our spiritual nature that was wrong. When Adam sinned, he died spiritually. He was cut off from the presence of God. His nature changed. His relationship with God was broken. God did not reignite some spark. He would provide a sacrifice for his sin.
Jesus said to the Pharisees, “You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” (John 8:44) Jesus called these very religious people “children of the devil”. They did not have ‘part of God in them’, they had the devil in them. (I mean their spiritual natures were wrong. Their spiritual natures was like the devil’s – sinful. They were not demon-possessed.)
John later explains that not all are children of God. “We know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are.” (1 John 3:10) Jesus told Nicodemus, a good Pharisee who supported Jesus, “You must be born again.”
Ezekiel 36:26 explains the new birth this way: “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you.” If we each had a ‘divine spark’ why does God need to give us a new spirit? The old one would do just fine.
We are all created in the image of God, but that image has been corrupted through sin. That is why Peter said that when we become “partakers of the divine nature” that we “escape the corruption that is in the world.” (2 Peter 1:4)
Perhaps you would say that by the ‘divine spark’ you mean the ‘divine image’, but we have shown these to be very different concepts. Being made in the divine image means that you have the capacity to be either a child of God or a child of the Devil. Jesus did not die on the cross to ignite a spark. He came to seek and save those who were lost.
Conclusion: We are all created in the divine image. Jesus came to make those who receive Him partakers of the divine nature. There is no such thing as a divine spark. It is important to use biblical language to properly express biblical truths.
Thursday, July 3, 2014
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
"Heresy" is a good thing - the word, I mean.
There are certain words, I hope we can agree, that we should never use. Two of them are the "f" word and the "n" word.They are vulgar and inappropriate. Lately, it seems, that hardly a day goes by without someone saying that we cannot use this word or that. If we use a certain word, we are told, then others will be offended or hurt or, worse, will be evidence of racism, sexism or some sort of chauvinistic attitude.
But one must always beware when someone says that we cannot use certain words. They usually have an agenda. Understand this - whoever can control the language can control the debate. For example, we used to say "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" when discussing abortion. These expressions are clear and specific. The problem was that "pro-abortion" just did not sound very good so that side of the debate insisted on being called "pro-choice". Everyone went along with this. But since pro-choice sounds better than "anti-abortion", the other side then insisted on being called "pro-life". All this is clever rhetoric, but it's a bit too clever.
Those who are pro-choice must defend the expression no matter what it implies. It implies, and we are told this explicitly, over and over, that the decision to have an abortion lies with a (pregnant) woman and her doctor. The word "pro-abortion" does not have to mean that. A person could say that they favor abortions for those in the first trimester and not in the second or third trimester. (Many other countries have just such restrictions.) Or a person could be pro-abortion and insist on parental notification for minors as is done with any other medical condition. But if you are pro-choice, you must support third trimester abortion on a young teenage girl without her parents' consent because your argument is based on the argument represented by the term "pro-choice". The words used changes the argument.
Recently, I have heard of two words that some wish to ban from our vocabularies. The first is the word 'slut' and the second is 'heretic'. First, the term 'slut' is used, generally as a pejorative, indicating a woman who is promiscuous. First, I will say that it is certainly not something to be used as a verbal weapon or a slander. But should it never be used? Or, as others have argued, is there no such thing as a slut? Should promiscuous women be viewed positively? However wrongly a word may be used does not mean that it does not have a proper usage.
Imagine this scene: a mother is talking to her teenage daughter about sex and she tells her daughter that she should not act like a slut. Would that not be a good use of the term? Strong, negative language can have a deterrent effect on bad behavior. I am glad there are terms that might make us feel bad or uncomfortable because it is sometimes necessary to use them to get through certain truths to people who need to hear them.
What about the word 'heretic'? Should we use it? One blogger has suggested that we should never use the term because it is dehumanizing. To me such a statement is a little ridiculous. The word 'heretic' today barely has the power to dehumanize. At one time, to be called a 'heretic' was a dangerous thing. Many heretics and so-called heretics have been killed or exiled because of it.
My question is this: is it inaccurate? Just like the word 'slut' the word 'heretic' is often accurate even if it is often used wrongly. A person is a heretic if he departs from Christian orthodoxy. Those who wish to ban the word are not really concerned about "dehumanization". They want to control the argument. They want to do away with the concept of heresy and, therefore, of orthodoxy. They want to be able to believe whatever they want and do whatever suits them and still be called "Christian". I am not buying this. There is heresy and there is orthodoxy. You don't get to change the terms of the debate. If you don't want to be called a heretic, stop being one.
People today have the hubris to say that they have the right to redefine Christianity. It was defined a long time ago and it was done very carefully and very well. That does not mean that everything that was passed down to us was perfect. It was not. But the basic tenets of Christianity have remained the same throughout church history. When corrections were made (think about the Reformation), it was done by going back to the founding documents (the New Testament) and carefully considering the biblical evidence. They did not say that some parts of the Bible were true and other parts were not true or not for us today. They did not take current notions and impose them on the church. But especially, they did not redefine morality or Jesus or the resurrection or anything else that was essential.
If your views are not orthodox, then do not seek to change the church. Go start your own religion and leave Christianity alone.
[Full Disclosure: I have been called (inaccurately, I might add) a heretic and did not like it. I found it annoying rather than dehumanizing.]
But one must always beware when someone says that we cannot use certain words. They usually have an agenda. Understand this - whoever can control the language can control the debate. For example, we used to say "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" when discussing abortion. These expressions are clear and specific. The problem was that "pro-abortion" just did not sound very good so that side of the debate insisted on being called "pro-choice". Everyone went along with this. But since pro-choice sounds better than "anti-abortion", the other side then insisted on being called "pro-life". All this is clever rhetoric, but it's a bit too clever.
Those who are pro-choice must defend the expression no matter what it implies. It implies, and we are told this explicitly, over and over, that the decision to have an abortion lies with a (pregnant) woman and her doctor. The word "pro-abortion" does not have to mean that. A person could say that they favor abortions for those in the first trimester and not in the second or third trimester. (Many other countries have just such restrictions.) Or a person could be pro-abortion and insist on parental notification for minors as is done with any other medical condition. But if you are pro-choice, you must support third trimester abortion on a young teenage girl without her parents' consent because your argument is based on the argument represented by the term "pro-choice". The words used changes the argument.
Recently, I have heard of two words that some wish to ban from our vocabularies. The first is the word 'slut' and the second is 'heretic'. First, the term 'slut' is used, generally as a pejorative, indicating a woman who is promiscuous. First, I will say that it is certainly not something to be used as a verbal weapon or a slander. But should it never be used? Or, as others have argued, is there no such thing as a slut? Should promiscuous women be viewed positively? However wrongly a word may be used does not mean that it does not have a proper usage.
Imagine this scene: a mother is talking to her teenage daughter about sex and she tells her daughter that she should not act like a slut. Would that not be a good use of the term? Strong, negative language can have a deterrent effect on bad behavior. I am glad there are terms that might make us feel bad or uncomfortable because it is sometimes necessary to use them to get through certain truths to people who need to hear them.
What about the word 'heretic'? Should we use it? One blogger has suggested that we should never use the term because it is dehumanizing. To me such a statement is a little ridiculous. The word 'heretic' today barely has the power to dehumanize. At one time, to be called a 'heretic' was a dangerous thing. Many heretics and so-called heretics have been killed or exiled because of it.
My question is this: is it inaccurate? Just like the word 'slut' the word 'heretic' is often accurate even if it is often used wrongly. A person is a heretic if he departs from Christian orthodoxy. Those who wish to ban the word are not really concerned about "dehumanization". They want to control the argument. They want to do away with the concept of heresy and, therefore, of orthodoxy. They want to be able to believe whatever they want and do whatever suits them and still be called "Christian". I am not buying this. There is heresy and there is orthodoxy. You don't get to change the terms of the debate. If you don't want to be called a heretic, stop being one.
People today have the hubris to say that they have the right to redefine Christianity. It was defined a long time ago and it was done very carefully and very well. That does not mean that everything that was passed down to us was perfect. It was not. But the basic tenets of Christianity have remained the same throughout church history. When corrections were made (think about the Reformation), it was done by going back to the founding documents (the New Testament) and carefully considering the biblical evidence. They did not say that some parts of the Bible were true and other parts were not true or not for us today. They did not take current notions and impose them on the church. But especially, they did not redefine morality or Jesus or the resurrection or anything else that was essential.
If your views are not orthodox, then do not seek to change the church. Go start your own religion and leave Christianity alone.
[Full Disclosure: I have been called (inaccurately, I might add) a heretic and did not like it. I found it annoying rather than dehumanizing.]
Monday, March 3, 2014
Church use of biblical expressions, part 2
In my first post on the church's use of biblical expressions, I noted that the church often uses expressions differently than how they are used in the Bible. I said that this is fine except when we think we are using an expression the way that the Bible does when we are not. If I had my way, we would use them exactly as the Bible uses them to avoid confusion.
For this second post, I have chosen the term "filled with the Holy Spirit" or just "filled with the Spirit."
While I have not heard this term much in my present church, I used to hear it often among Pentecostals and even some others. They do not necessarily use the term to mean the same thing. Some, not all, Pentecostals will use it to talk about how they felt at a particular time when they sensed a strong presence of the Spirit in a meeting.
Others have used the expression, "Spirit-filled", to describe Christians who live a godly life and who have a close walk with the Lord. Now you might think that that is what the Bible, especially the New Testament, says about Christians who are filled with the Spirit, but this is not the case. And I will certainly not make the argument that we do not need to live a godly life or that the Spirit does not have a key role to play in that. He surely does.
But there is a difference in the Bible between "walking in the Spirit" and being "filled with the Spirit". The term "walking in (or by) the Spirit" means that we are being led by and influenced by the the Holy Spirit to live a godly and holy life. "I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh ... the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control" (Galatians 5:16,22-23). We certainly need to do this, but you will notice that this passage says nothing about being filled with the Spirit.
What does it mean then to be "filled with the Spirit"? Let's look at what the New Testament says about this:
"He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born." - Luke 1:15 - referring to the birth of John the Baptist.
"Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit." Ephesians 5:18 - notice a similar contrast here and in Luke between being drunk on wine and being filled with the Spirit.
"His father Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied" Luke 1:67
"All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them." Acts 2:4
"After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly." Acts 4:31 The church was praying after the apostles were threatened.
"But Elymas the sorcerer (for that is what his name means) opposed them and tried to turn the proconsul from the faith. Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said, “You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery. Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord?" Acts 13:8-10
This is just about every instance where the term "filled with the Spirit" was used. A similar expression is "full of the Holy Spirit."
"Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God." Acts 7:55 - Luke tells of the martyrdom of Stephen after he had given his great speech to those who subsequently stoned him.
The most common element among these passages regarding being filled with the Spirit is one of divinely-inspired speech. That might be prophecy, tongues or even bold witness, but speech seems to be involved. (One could nitpick by noting that John could not have spoken in his mother's womb, but he did, of course, have a great prophetic ministry.) Now one does not have to be very mature to speak in tongues (read Corinthians) or to prophecy (a donkey did it once) or even testify boldly in Jesus' name. However, we must realize that God wants us to be both grow in grace by walking in the Spirit and be filled with the Spirit as well. We are not to choose one at the expense of the other.
God wants us to mature and grow and lead a godly life, but He also wants us to be "filled with the Spirit", speaking by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit for the edification and blessing of the church.
For this second post, I have chosen the term "filled with the Holy Spirit" or just "filled with the Spirit."
While I have not heard this term much in my present church, I used to hear it often among Pentecostals and even some others. They do not necessarily use the term to mean the same thing. Some, not all, Pentecostals will use it to talk about how they felt at a particular time when they sensed a strong presence of the Spirit in a meeting.
Others have used the expression, "Spirit-filled", to describe Christians who live a godly life and who have a close walk with the Lord. Now you might think that that is what the Bible, especially the New Testament, says about Christians who are filled with the Spirit, but this is not the case. And I will certainly not make the argument that we do not need to live a godly life or that the Spirit does not have a key role to play in that. He surely does.
But there is a difference in the Bible between "walking in the Spirit" and being "filled with the Spirit". The term "walking in (or by) the Spirit" means that we are being led by and influenced by the the Holy Spirit to live a godly and holy life. "I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh ... the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control" (Galatians 5:16,22-23). We certainly need to do this, but you will notice that this passage says nothing about being filled with the Spirit.
What does it mean then to be "filled with the Spirit"? Let's look at what the New Testament says about this:
"He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born." - Luke 1:15 - referring to the birth of John the Baptist.
"Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit." Ephesians 5:18 - notice a similar contrast here and in Luke between being drunk on wine and being filled with the Spirit.
"His father Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied" Luke 1:67
"All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them." Acts 2:4
"After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly." Acts 4:31 The church was praying after the apostles were threatened.
"But Elymas the sorcerer (for that is what his name means) opposed them and tried to turn the proconsul from the faith. Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said, “You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery. Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord?" Acts 13:8-10
This is just about every instance where the term "filled with the Spirit" was used. A similar expression is "full of the Holy Spirit."
"Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God." Acts 7:55 - Luke tells of the martyrdom of Stephen after he had given his great speech to those who subsequently stoned him.
The most common element among these passages regarding being filled with the Spirit is one of divinely-inspired speech. That might be prophecy, tongues or even bold witness, but speech seems to be involved. (One could nitpick by noting that John could not have spoken in his mother's womb, but he did, of course, have a great prophetic ministry.) Now one does not have to be very mature to speak in tongues (read Corinthians) or to prophecy (a donkey did it once) or even testify boldly in Jesus' name. However, we must realize that God wants us to be both grow in grace by walking in the Spirit and be filled with the Spirit as well. We are not to choose one at the expense of the other.
God wants us to mature and grow and lead a godly life, but He also wants us to be "filled with the Spirit", speaking by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit for the edification and blessing of the church.
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Church uses of biblical expressions, part 1
I have noticed that in the church we have a habit of using biblical expressions in a way different than how they are used in the Bible itself. This is harmless for the most part, unless we think that the biblical expression itself carries the meaning we give to it. In the next few posts, I am going to examine some of these expressions and sort out what the Bible means when the expression is used and what we usually mean when we say it.
The first expression I will tackle is one which Christians use on a regular basis, but it is one where the biblical meaning has almost been entirely lost. The expression is "The Lord (God) is with us (them)(him)(her)".
Now what do most people mean when they use this expression. Generally, they mean that they hope or knew that God was by their side and helping them in some way. It is often used as a blessing as in "The Lord be with you." This is how it is used in the book of Ruth by Boaz. "Now behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem and said to the reapers, “May the Lord be with you.” And they said to him, “May the Lord bless you.” (Ruth 2:4) We use this expression as a blessing as well and it certainly is a biblical use of the expression.
But we need to see how else the Bible uses this expression to see how we might fully understand what it means. "The Lord was with Joseph, so he became a successful man. And he was in the house of his master, the Egyptian. Now his master saw that the Lord was with him and how the Lord caused all that he did to prosper in his hand." (Genesis 39:2-3) Notice how the Lord was with Joseph. He blessed the work of his hands.
In another passage: "So Joseph’s master took him and put him into the jail, the place where the king’s prisoners were confined; and he was there in the jail. But the Lord was with Joseph and extended kindness to him, and gave him favor in the sight of the chief jailer. The chief jailer committed to Joseph’s charge all the prisoners who were in the jail; so that whatever was done there, he was responsible for it. The chief jailer did not supervise anything under Joseph’s charge because the Lord was with him; and whatever he did, the Lord made to prosper." (Genesis 39:20-23) In this passage, Joseph, being wrongfully accused, is thrown into jail. However, God is "with Joseph" and gives him favor with his jailor.
Joshua 6:27 "So the Lord was with Joshua, and his fame was in all the land." This speaks of Joshua's conquests.
In Judges 1: "Now the Lord was with Judah, and they took possession of the hill country ... Likewise the house of Joseph went up against Bethel, and the Lord was with them."
God blessed the prophetic ministry of Samuel. "Thus Samuel grew and the Lord was with him and let none of his words fail." (1 Samuel 3:19)
1 Samuel 18:14 "David was prospering in all his ways for the Lord was with him." God gave David victory on the battlefield. I could go on and on with similar passages.
If God was ever with anyone, He was with His Son, Jesus. "You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him." (Acts 10:38) Jesus healed the sick because God was with Him.
Acts 11:20-21 "There were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who came to Antioch and began speaking to the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a large number who believed turned to the Lord." People are being saved because God was with them in their preaching.
There is a lot more, but you get the idea. When the Bible says that God was with someone it means that God gave them supernatural success, victory, favor or blessing on their task or ministry. Is that what you mean by "the Lord be with you"? I hope it is. I hope it means more than experiencing the presence of God while the Devil beats on us or oppresses us. In the Bible, it is an expression that implies deliverance, healing and victory.
The first expression I will tackle is one which Christians use on a regular basis, but it is one where the biblical meaning has almost been entirely lost. The expression is "The Lord (God) is with us (them)(him)(her)".
Now what do most people mean when they use this expression. Generally, they mean that they hope or knew that God was by their side and helping them in some way. It is often used as a blessing as in "The Lord be with you." This is how it is used in the book of Ruth by Boaz. "Now behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem and said to the reapers, “May the Lord be with you.” And they said to him, “May the Lord bless you.” (Ruth 2:4) We use this expression as a blessing as well and it certainly is a biblical use of the expression.
But we need to see how else the Bible uses this expression to see how we might fully understand what it means. "The Lord was with Joseph, so he became a successful man. And he was in the house of his master, the Egyptian. Now his master saw that the Lord was with him and how the Lord caused all that he did to prosper in his hand." (Genesis 39:2-3) Notice how the Lord was with Joseph. He blessed the work of his hands.
In another passage: "So Joseph’s master took him and put him into the jail, the place where the king’s prisoners were confined; and he was there in the jail. But the Lord was with Joseph and extended kindness to him, and gave him favor in the sight of the chief jailer. The chief jailer committed to Joseph’s charge all the prisoners who were in the jail; so that whatever was done there, he was responsible for it. The chief jailer did not supervise anything under Joseph’s charge because the Lord was with him; and whatever he did, the Lord made to prosper." (Genesis 39:20-23) In this passage, Joseph, being wrongfully accused, is thrown into jail. However, God is "with Joseph" and gives him favor with his jailor.
Joshua 6:27 "So the Lord was with Joshua, and his fame was in all the land." This speaks of Joshua's conquests.
In Judges 1: "Now the Lord was with Judah, and they took possession of the hill country ... Likewise the house of Joseph went up against Bethel, and the Lord was with them."
God blessed the prophetic ministry of Samuel. "Thus Samuel grew and the Lord was with him and let none of his words fail." (1 Samuel 3:19)
1 Samuel 18:14 "David was prospering in all his ways for the Lord was with him." God gave David victory on the battlefield. I could go on and on with similar passages.
If God was ever with anyone, He was with His Son, Jesus. "You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him." (Acts 10:38) Jesus healed the sick because God was with Him.
Acts 11:20-21 "There were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who came to Antioch and began speaking to the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a large number who believed turned to the Lord." People are being saved because God was with them in their preaching.
There is a lot more, but you get the idea. When the Bible says that God was with someone it means that God gave them supernatural success, victory, favor or blessing on their task or ministry. Is that what you mean by "the Lord be with you"? I hope it is. I hope it means more than experiencing the presence of God while the Devil beats on us or oppresses us. In the Bible, it is an expression that implies deliverance, healing and victory.
Tuesday, December 24, 2013
O Faithful Town of Bethlehem
I was just watching a newscast (it's Christmas Eve) and they were mentioning Jesus' birthplace, Bethlehem. They also showed a map of modern Israel with an arrow and dot showing the approximate location of Bethlehem. There was only one problem. They had the wrong location. They had Bethlehem in about the place where Nazareth is. Nazareth is in Galilee; Bethlehem is in Judea, south of Jerusalem a few miles. Mary and Joseph had to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem late in Mary's pregnancy.
But did you ever wonder why God wanted Jesus to be born in Bethlehem? Now it does not seem to be a historical accident. It is not by chance that Caesar Augustus ordered everyone back to the place of their families' origins. There is only one other time in Roman history when such a demand was made regarding a census. Besides, this was not even the regular census which occurred every 14 years. It was a special one. A special census was rarely done.
We might be tempted to simply say that Jesus had to be born in Bethlehem to fulfill Micah's prophecy that the messiah would be born there. But things do not happen just to fulfill prophecy; the event prophesied has significance. Until recent months, I had not thought too much about it. I just sort of figured that Jesus was the son of David and God wanted Him to be born where David was born.
I think that there is more to it than that. This is something that God seems to have gone to some lengths to have happen. Is there something special about Bethlehem that motivated this whole thing? I believe so.
I recently taught the book of Ruth in a bible study. You know the story of Ruth: Ruth the Moabitess was daughter-in-law to Naomi, an Israelite woman who lost her husband and two sons-in-law and had nobody to support her. Ruth, being widowed as well but younger than Naomi, could marry again, have children, etc., but chose to stay with Naomi and to make Naomi's God her own. Ruth and Naomi go back to the town where Naomi was from - Bethlehem.
Ruth ends up marrying a man from Bethlehem, Boaz, and saving herself and her mother-in-law from dire poverty. It is a beautiful story of love and faithfulness. I have digressed a bit, but we naturally focus on Ruth and Naomi and Boaz while not seeing something very important about Bethlehem.
Bethlehem seems to have been a place of faithfulness to the Lord. Remember that this all happens during the time of the Judges, before Israel had any king. This period was marked by a repeated falling into idolatry. Bethlehem was an exception to this. Bethlehem remained faithful to God. Notice how Boaz and the other Bethlehemites speak to one another. "And behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem. And he said to the reapers, “The Lord be with you!” And they answered, “The Lord bless you.” (Ruth 2:4) They spoke to one another like believers today talk to each other.
Another thing we need to see is that they practiced the Law of Moses, though not in some kind of pharisaic manner. They used the Law to bring blessing to those Israelites who had fallen on hard times or were poor. The Law stated that the Israelites were not to reap the edges of the fields but leave them to the poor and needy for their sustenance. This Boaz did and it seems to have been the practice in Bethlehem. Ruth gathered after the reapers and gains the special notice of Boaz.
More importantly, the Law also provided a way for those who had fallen on hard times to reclaim their inheritance and posterity. Naomi's husband had land around Bethlehem, but Naomi was not capable of farming it. So her husband was going to lose his heritage and land since his sons were dead. Boaz marries Ruth and becomes what the Bible calls the kinsman-redeemer (depending on your translation). A close kinsman could marry the widow (in this case, the daughter-in-law of the widow), take the land on behalf of the original owner's family and raise up sons who could reclaim the land and continue the family's line. (This is what the Law was really about, not about keeping all kinds of arcane rules for the purpose of ritual purity.)
Of course, we know that Ruth and Boaz have a great-grandson, David, who becomes the king of Israel and from whom Christ will come. But notice that David grows up in this place of faithfulness to God. I do not think that is an accident. God has always intended that succeeding generations be faithful to Him. God can do great things through faithful families. God chose Abraham for this very reason. "Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him. For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him." (Genesis 18:18-19)
I really believe that God wanted His Son associated with a place of faithfulness to Himself. He wanted Jesus to be born in a place that for generation after generation had followed the Lord. In fact, it seems that the mother and supposed father that God had for His Son were also these kind of faithful Israelites. At the time of Jesus' birth, there were many who thought they were God's favorites. The Pharisees, in particular, thought that by firm adherence to their traditions they would be righteous. Jesus told them that their hearts were far from God. Yet Joseph and Mary obeyed the Lord when He directed them by His angels. They seem to be what the OT calls the "faithful remnant".
God loves faithfulness. He rewards faithfulness. He promotes those who are faithful rather than those who are talented or have perfect doctrine or are scrupulous about religious rituals or who never miss the mark (sin). We know, for example, that David sinned, but he was quick to repent and get right with God. I don't know about you, but I can relate to those in the Bible that have sinned rather than those like Daniel who never seem to miss it. Daniel, of course, was faithful. But other saints of old were faithful despite the fact that they sinned sometimes. It is nice to know that one does not have to be perfect to be counted faithful.
But did you ever wonder why God wanted Jesus to be born in Bethlehem? Now it does not seem to be a historical accident. It is not by chance that Caesar Augustus ordered everyone back to the place of their families' origins. There is only one other time in Roman history when such a demand was made regarding a census. Besides, this was not even the regular census which occurred every 14 years. It was a special one. A special census was rarely done.
We might be tempted to simply say that Jesus had to be born in Bethlehem to fulfill Micah's prophecy that the messiah would be born there. But things do not happen just to fulfill prophecy; the event prophesied has significance. Until recent months, I had not thought too much about it. I just sort of figured that Jesus was the son of David and God wanted Him to be born where David was born.
I think that there is more to it than that. This is something that God seems to have gone to some lengths to have happen. Is there something special about Bethlehem that motivated this whole thing? I believe so.
I recently taught the book of Ruth in a bible study. You know the story of Ruth: Ruth the Moabitess was daughter-in-law to Naomi, an Israelite woman who lost her husband and two sons-in-law and had nobody to support her. Ruth, being widowed as well but younger than Naomi, could marry again, have children, etc., but chose to stay with Naomi and to make Naomi's God her own. Ruth and Naomi go back to the town where Naomi was from - Bethlehem.
Ruth ends up marrying a man from Bethlehem, Boaz, and saving herself and her mother-in-law from dire poverty. It is a beautiful story of love and faithfulness. I have digressed a bit, but we naturally focus on Ruth and Naomi and Boaz while not seeing something very important about Bethlehem.
Bethlehem seems to have been a place of faithfulness to the Lord. Remember that this all happens during the time of the Judges, before Israel had any king. This period was marked by a repeated falling into idolatry. Bethlehem was an exception to this. Bethlehem remained faithful to God. Notice how Boaz and the other Bethlehemites speak to one another. "And behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem. And he said to the reapers, “The Lord be with you!” And they answered, “The Lord bless you.” (Ruth 2:4) They spoke to one another like believers today talk to each other.
Another thing we need to see is that they practiced the Law of Moses, though not in some kind of pharisaic manner. They used the Law to bring blessing to those Israelites who had fallen on hard times or were poor. The Law stated that the Israelites were not to reap the edges of the fields but leave them to the poor and needy for their sustenance. This Boaz did and it seems to have been the practice in Bethlehem. Ruth gathered after the reapers and gains the special notice of Boaz.
More importantly, the Law also provided a way for those who had fallen on hard times to reclaim their inheritance and posterity. Naomi's husband had land around Bethlehem, but Naomi was not capable of farming it. So her husband was going to lose his heritage and land since his sons were dead. Boaz marries Ruth and becomes what the Bible calls the kinsman-redeemer (depending on your translation). A close kinsman could marry the widow (in this case, the daughter-in-law of the widow), take the land on behalf of the original owner's family and raise up sons who could reclaim the land and continue the family's line. (This is what the Law was really about, not about keeping all kinds of arcane rules for the purpose of ritual purity.)
Of course, we know that Ruth and Boaz have a great-grandson, David, who becomes the king of Israel and from whom Christ will come. But notice that David grows up in this place of faithfulness to God. I do not think that is an accident. God has always intended that succeeding generations be faithful to Him. God can do great things through faithful families. God chose Abraham for this very reason. "Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him. For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him." (Genesis 18:18-19)
I really believe that God wanted His Son associated with a place of faithfulness to Himself. He wanted Jesus to be born in a place that for generation after generation had followed the Lord. In fact, it seems that the mother and supposed father that God had for His Son were also these kind of faithful Israelites. At the time of Jesus' birth, there were many who thought they were God's favorites. The Pharisees, in particular, thought that by firm adherence to their traditions they would be righteous. Jesus told them that their hearts were far from God. Yet Joseph and Mary obeyed the Lord when He directed them by His angels. They seem to be what the OT calls the "faithful remnant".
God loves faithfulness. He rewards faithfulness. He promotes those who are faithful rather than those who are talented or have perfect doctrine or are scrupulous about religious rituals or who never miss the mark (sin). We know, for example, that David sinned, but he was quick to repent and get right with God. I don't know about you, but I can relate to those in the Bible that have sinned rather than those like Daniel who never seem to miss it. Daniel, of course, was faithful. But other saints of old were faithful despite the fact that they sinned sometimes. It is nice to know that one does not have to be perfect to be counted faithful.
Monday, June 3, 2013
Chicken or the Egg?, or return to Sola Scriptura
We have all heard the question: What came first, the chicken or the egg? We as Christians could also ask another question: What came first, the Bible or the church? The Roman Catholic view on the this question is in favor of the church. When the Protestant Reformers of the 16th century rejected some long-held Catholic beliefs for their view of things like justification by faith based on what the Bible said, Catholics said that there would be no Bible without the church because the church chose which books were allowed into the canon of scripture. Hence, the church preceded the Bible and gave it authority. Therefore, the church (meaning to them the RC Church) is the authoritative interpreter of scripture and is thereby infallible.
Protestants rightly argued that the church only affirmed the Bible which is the written Word of God. The apostles and their immediate followers wrote the books of the New Testament. The church circulated those documents and most of them were immediately and universally accepted by the churches. Now, "the churches" here does not mean any organization that developed out of the earliest churches (i.e., the RC and Orthodox churches), but the people, including, but not exclusively, the ministers of the church. The four gospels and Paul's writings were accepted as authoritative writings right away. Even when the NT was still being written, Paul's epistles were being called scripture. "Paul also, according to the wisdom given him wrote to you; as in all his letters, speaking in them of these things; in which some things are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist, as they do the other Scriptures." (2 Peter 3:16)*
Some still note that it took time to write the New Testament and that the early church had no New Testament to read. True, but they did have the same Word of God that we do, only it was preached and not written down yet. The revelation of God's Word was given to the early church because the apostles had revelation from God and most of them were direct followers of Jesus. That same Word that they preached became inscripturated as they wrote down what God had revealed to them. The church is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the chief cornerstone." (Ephesians 2:20) The church is built on the Word.The written Word and the preached Word are the same thing in different forms. The church simply recognized the New Testament as the written Word of God based on the apostolic witness.
A New Chicken or Egg question: Do we put Jesus or the Bible first?**
The RC view and the Protestant view of this is clearly at odds. But now we have Protestants who are as confused as the Catholics. A prominent pastor recently said this, "The foundation of our faith is not the Scripture. The foundation of our faith is not the infallibility of the Bible. The foundation of our faith is something that happened in history." He means, of course, the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. That might sound good, but it is wrong. It is true that we are saved by the crucifixion and resurrection, but our faith in that is based on the Word of God which we have in the Bible. "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God." (Romans 10:17) That is the Word preached by the apostles and made into scripture. That is the basis of our faith. We cannot be saved without this Word. If Jesus dies on the cross and nobody hears about it, it does us nobody any good.
Jesus, the living Word, is God's revelation to us, . That revelation was preached by the apostles and written in the New Testament. Some, like this pastor, think that they are exalting Jesus by lowering their view of scripture. That cannot happen. You cannot have a low view of the Bible and a high view of Jesus. Our attitude towards the Bible, the written Word, determines the place that Jesus, the living Word, holds in our life.
The Protestant Reformers held a high view of scripture. Part of that what was called 'Sola Scriptura', Latin for 'Scripture Alone'. This is "the teaching that Scripture is the Church's only infallible and sufficient rule for deciding issues of faith and practices that involve doctrines" (Theopedia). In other words, the Bible is not only perfect in what it affirms but it has everything we need for the Christian life.
Amen to that. No personal revelation or prophecy or education or enlightened conscience can or should be put above the Bible which is God's Word to us today.
*The church took a couple of centuries to bring together and approve the books that would be put into the New Testament. It was not done, as a famous novelist suggested, by a group of bishops wanted to insist on one of a variety of Christianities supposedly present in the fourth century. (I am referring to the Council of Nicea where the 27 books of the NT were accepted, but not newly accepted. The bishops only agreed that what had already been accepted was, in fact, correct.) The church used several criteria for what constituted the new (testament) scriptures. They had to be written by an apostle or the companion of an apostle. They had to be generally useful to the churches. In other words, they could not be a message to an individual or a church that had no application to other individuals and churches. And they must agree with the apostolic tradition passed down through the churches and originating with the apostles themselves.
** I am aware that the chicken and egg analogy does not work exactly in the second case where some Protestants tried to put Jesus 'above' the Bible. It's just a literary device, so I think it works anyway.
Protestants rightly argued that the church only affirmed the Bible which is the written Word of God. The apostles and their immediate followers wrote the books of the New Testament. The church circulated those documents and most of them were immediately and universally accepted by the churches. Now, "the churches" here does not mean any organization that developed out of the earliest churches (i.e., the RC and Orthodox churches), but the people, including, but not exclusively, the ministers of the church. The four gospels and Paul's writings were accepted as authoritative writings right away. Even when the NT was still being written, Paul's epistles were being called scripture. "Paul also, according to the wisdom given him wrote to you; as in all his letters, speaking in them of these things; in which some things are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist, as they do the other Scriptures." (2 Peter 3:16)*
Some still note that it took time to write the New Testament and that the early church had no New Testament to read. True, but they did have the same Word of God that we do, only it was preached and not written down yet. The revelation of God's Word was given to the early church because the apostles had revelation from God and most of them were direct followers of Jesus. That same Word that they preached became inscripturated as they wrote down what God had revealed to them. The church is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the chief cornerstone." (Ephesians 2:20) The church is built on the Word.The written Word and the preached Word are the same thing in different forms. The church simply recognized the New Testament as the written Word of God based on the apostolic witness.
A New Chicken or Egg question: Do we put Jesus or the Bible first?**
The RC view and the Protestant view of this is clearly at odds. But now we have Protestants who are as confused as the Catholics. A prominent pastor recently said this, "The foundation of our faith is not the Scripture. The foundation of our faith is not the infallibility of the Bible. The foundation of our faith is something that happened in history." He means, of course, the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. That might sound good, but it is wrong. It is true that we are saved by the crucifixion and resurrection, but our faith in that is based on the Word of God which we have in the Bible. "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God." (Romans 10:17) That is the Word preached by the apostles and made into scripture. That is the basis of our faith. We cannot be saved without this Word. If Jesus dies on the cross and nobody hears about it, it does us nobody any good.
Jesus, the living Word, is God's revelation to us, . That revelation was preached by the apostles and written in the New Testament. Some, like this pastor, think that they are exalting Jesus by lowering their view of scripture. That cannot happen. You cannot have a low view of the Bible and a high view of Jesus. Our attitude towards the Bible, the written Word, determines the place that Jesus, the living Word, holds in our life.
The Protestant Reformers held a high view of scripture. Part of that what was called 'Sola Scriptura', Latin for 'Scripture Alone'. This is "the teaching that Scripture is the Church's only infallible and sufficient rule for deciding issues of faith and practices that involve doctrines" (Theopedia). In other words, the Bible is not only perfect in what it affirms but it has everything we need for the Christian life.
Amen to that. No personal revelation or prophecy or education or enlightened conscience can or should be put above the Bible which is God's Word to us today.
*The church took a couple of centuries to bring together and approve the books that would be put into the New Testament. It was not done, as a famous novelist suggested, by a group of bishops wanted to insist on one of a variety of Christianities supposedly present in the fourth century. (I am referring to the Council of Nicea where the 27 books of the NT were accepted, but not newly accepted. The bishops only agreed that what had already been accepted was, in fact, correct.) The church used several criteria for what constituted the new (testament) scriptures. They had to be written by an apostle or the companion of an apostle. They had to be generally useful to the churches. In other words, they could not be a message to an individual or a church that had no application to other individuals and churches. And they must agree with the apostolic tradition passed down through the churches and originating with the apostles themselves.
** I am aware that the chicken and egg analogy does not work exactly in the second case where some Protestants tried to put Jesus 'above' the Bible. It's just a literary device, so I think it works anyway.
Friday, April 5, 2013
Judgment and Justice
One of the things that is hard for Christians to accept is divine judgment. I do not mean the simple fact of judgment, but that some of the judgments found in the Bible seem a bit extreme. We have God ordering the Israelites to conquer Canaan and to slaughter its inhabitants. Noah builds a boat to save a remnant of humanity, but saves only his own family. The rest are wiped out in a flood. We see God's own people, the Israelites, decimated and taken into captivity. Even when a remnant returns, most are still scattered all over the pagan world.
And those are just temporal judgments. Eternal judgment is far worse. Multitudes are cast into a Lake of Fire to burns forever after the Great White Throne Judgment. There are indications that the torment of unbelievers will last forever. It seems to go beyond what is just and necessary even for the worst of sinners.
The question we have to ask ourselves about this is twofold. First, are we willing to accept the Bible for what it says no matter how uncomfortable it makes us feel? Second, are we willing to set aside our own judgments on these matters and accept God's?
It used to be very simple. Those who believed in Christ and the scriptures accepted the judgments as being from God as the just punishment for sins committed. Those who did not believe the scriptures rejected the judgments, often calling them unjust.
Now we have a different situation. Some claiming to be orthodox Christians are now rejecting these judgments as relics of an ignorant and superstitious people or as errors added to the Bible by ancients who, unlike us, enjoy this sort of thing. Like many unbelievers today they say that God would never do those things. After all, did we not just pass through a period of history when the Nazis tried to commit genocide against the Jews. Was this not condemned by all?
But then we could respond that in order to stop the Nazis from committing such atrocities that we had to kill many thousands of them. We bombed their cities and decimated their armies. And we do not feel bad about it now. Why? Because we were preventing the evil from continuing and punishing those responsible. That is what God does when He brings judgment.
Those who deny that God brought the biblical judgments have set themselves above God and judged Him for His actions. I even read just today from the pen of an evangelical who said that God put the so-called Canaanite 'genocide' in the Bible so that we would despise genocide. Really? That's absurd. God did not order judgment on the Canaanites to teach us how bad genocide is. He did it to warn us of the consequences of our sins.
God judges sin. Those who reject Jesus, the sacrifice for our sins, will receive a greater judgment than we might think is due. This ought to cause us to fear and to live in the fear of the Lord. The book of Hebrews says that it is a "fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." We have forgetten about this side of God. We only want to acknowledge the pleasant things that God promises us. We have forgotten his just judgments. "Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness,[f] if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off." (Romans 11:22)
The greater His goodness is, the greater His severity is. None us wants to see people judged. (At least, I hope we don't.) We want people saved and set free by the power of God. That's why we have the Great Commission.
It's our job to preach the gospel to everyone. Yes, even to those of another religion. They are lost and they need a Savior. God loves them all. His love is unconditional, but His forgiveness and salvation are not. They require faith in the Risen Savior. Love drives us to seek and save those who are lost. Love does not pretend that divine judgment is not a reality; it makes us want to get this gospel to everyone as soon as we can.
And those are just temporal judgments. Eternal judgment is far worse. Multitudes are cast into a Lake of Fire to burns forever after the Great White Throne Judgment. There are indications that the torment of unbelievers will last forever. It seems to go beyond what is just and necessary even for the worst of sinners.
The question we have to ask ourselves about this is twofold. First, are we willing to accept the Bible for what it says no matter how uncomfortable it makes us feel? Second, are we willing to set aside our own judgments on these matters and accept God's?
It used to be very simple. Those who believed in Christ and the scriptures accepted the judgments as being from God as the just punishment for sins committed. Those who did not believe the scriptures rejected the judgments, often calling them unjust.
Now we have a different situation. Some claiming to be orthodox Christians are now rejecting these judgments as relics of an ignorant and superstitious people or as errors added to the Bible by ancients who, unlike us, enjoy this sort of thing. Like many unbelievers today they say that God would never do those things. After all, did we not just pass through a period of history when the Nazis tried to commit genocide against the Jews. Was this not condemned by all?
But then we could respond that in order to stop the Nazis from committing such atrocities that we had to kill many thousands of them. We bombed their cities and decimated their armies. And we do not feel bad about it now. Why? Because we were preventing the evil from continuing and punishing those responsible. That is what God does when He brings judgment.
Those who deny that God brought the biblical judgments have set themselves above God and judged Him for His actions. I even read just today from the pen of an evangelical who said that God put the so-called Canaanite 'genocide' in the Bible so that we would despise genocide. Really? That's absurd. God did not order judgment on the Canaanites to teach us how bad genocide is. He did it to warn us of the consequences of our sins.
God judges sin. Those who reject Jesus, the sacrifice for our sins, will receive a greater judgment than we might think is due. This ought to cause us to fear and to live in the fear of the Lord. The book of Hebrews says that it is a "fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." We have forgetten about this side of God. We only want to acknowledge the pleasant things that God promises us. We have forgotten his just judgments. "Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness,[f] if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off." (Romans 11:22)
The greater His goodness is, the greater His severity is. None us wants to see people judged. (At least, I hope we don't.) We want people saved and set free by the power of God. That's why we have the Great Commission.
It's our job to preach the gospel to everyone. Yes, even to those of another religion. They are lost and they need a Savior. God loves them all. His love is unconditional, but His forgiveness and salvation are not. They require faith in the Risen Savior. Love drives us to seek and save those who are lost. Love does not pretend that divine judgment is not a reality; it makes us want to get this gospel to everyone as soon as we can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)