Friday, January 19, 2007

Matthew 18:20

"Getting More of God"

For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.
Have you ever planned an event, hoping for a larger attendance, only to be joined by one or two other people? Inevitably, somone speaks up, in effort to encourage the others, and states, "Hey, where two or three are gathered, there He is in our midst, right?" While the comment may have reminded you of the significance of brotherly fellowship, is this really what the text is stating?

For one, the Holy Spirit resides within the believer (Ephesians 1:13-14, 1 Corinthians 3:16). It is not possible to have more of God's presence. Jesus is not sitting on His throne in heaven, longing to commune with you, but waiting until one or two other people join you, to make it worth His while. The Spirit lives within the believer, and though you may not be yielded to Him (filled), that does not alter His location. (This is why songs calling for the Spirit to "rain down" especially get up my nose.)

Perhaps a look at the context would help. The verse before states:
Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven.
What does Jesus mean here. Is He suggesting that I could work out a sweet deal with my neighbor? We'll pray together one week for him to get a new car. Then, after that happens, he'll join me in praying for a swimming pool. We'll work out a deal where we agree, and then the Father must respond, right?

Of course, that seems shallow. But what about praying for a spouse? The healing of a loved one? For a sinner to get saved? Obviously, if two people praying for a person to become saved obligated the event to happen (I'm not saying it doesn't impact, surely Scripture articulates it does. But I am saying it doesn't "force God's hand."), then our mission agencies and evangelistic endeavors have been barking up the wrong tree for 2,000 years. Perhaps the verse above helps.
Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.
To save time (and space), I will simply direct you here to read about this verse. Once you have, you will see that we start to understand the context is within church discipline. Now we're encouraged to pull back, examine Matthew 18:20 within its context, and see if there are greater clues.

Did you ever wonder why Jesus said two or three have gathered. He's the Son of God, it's not that He can't remember the precise number. God is also not whimsical, deciding somedays it takes two brothers, somedays it takes three. Why the flexibility in number? The answer is found in Matthew 18:16:
But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.
Add yourself to the one or two witnesses and what do you get? Two or three gathered. Matthew 18:20 is a clear statement that within the church discipline process, Jesus is present.

That is why the gathering is in His name. For these men are using Christ's authority in the process. But how can miserable, sinful men have the authority of Christ? It is only possible with two conditions:
    1. They must speak the words of Christ.
    2. They must use the means Christ ordains.
Only in this way can they truly have any authority (for no authority is ours, but is given by Christ) and only in this way can Christ be evident.

A church which decides to speak where the Bible is silent or enforce rules not found in Scripture is not exercising the authority of Christ. His name is being used in vain in this matter. They may speak as if they have His authority, but He has not granted it.

Likewise, a church that decides to discipline while ignoring the instructions of Matthew 18:15-20 lacks the authority of Christ as well. Whether a person becomes overly angered and takes a matter to others before interacting with the offender one-on-one, or a church decides to "error on the side of grace" and sweep things under the rug, the authority of Christ can not be claimed, for His mode has been abandoned.

We are His ambassadors. We are to reflect Him. We may know Him, but we cannot make Him known if we neglect this important area. For if we abandon His words and His mode for the church, we cannot speak and act with His authority. We cannot claim to be about the Bible, the whole Bible and nothing but the Bible if we have cut these verses out. We cannont expect His presence to be evident, nor can we speak to the world with any conviction and power if we do not have His authority.

And simply gathering one or two others around us does not fix it.

Saturday, January 6, 2007

Matthew 18:18

"Losing It on Binding"

I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

As Jesus speaks to the disciples, the concept of "binding and loosening" is introduced. This is a difficult passage and two solutions immediately arise:

1. The Church determines who gets into heaven or not.
The ability to bind and loosen is also presented in Matthew 16:17-19, just after Jesus says He will build His church. Peter had just confessed Christ, and Jesus responded that He will give them the keys to heaven. Of course, the Catholic Church has understood this passage to be the introduction of Peter's papacy. They believe Jesus was introducing the church's role in determining (and possibly controlling) the salvation of individuals. Even without a papacy, some other groups claim they are necessary for salvation.

Problem: It's contra-gospel. Two weeks ago, a couple of cult members stood on my porch. I presented the gospel to them and asked where I fell short. Their answer: I needed to come under the authority of their church. Apparently, unless my baptism was administered by their elders and unless I worship in their facility and read their "extra book" Christ's work is insufficient. Salvation is no longer about Christ alone, but about the authority of sinful men to determine who gets in and who gets out?

This perspective is not only in the Roman Church, but several other groups adhere to a form. They may not believe they can stop a person from becoming saved, but they believe church discipline can remove one's salvation. Since Matthew 18:18 is placed in the middle of a discussion on church discipline, some believe that when a person is disciplined they are removed from salvation in Christ. Of course, the problem here is that salvation cannot be lost. Even if it could be lost, would God really allow humans, who cannot see the heart, to determine a person's eternal destiny? Clearly, this cannot be the case.

2. It's a hard passage so we should just ignore it.
This is classically the approach to difficult passages. If the reader recognizes the difficult reading, and an immediate solution is not readily available, then it may be best to ignore what is being said. We can release ourselves from any potential application by stating there is no possible way to understand what Jesus was talking about. Of course, the fact that it is placed in the middle of a passage on church discipline helps with this perspective. Since much of the western church has decided that church discipline is antiquated, it naturally flows to ignore other portions.

Problem: For starters, there is no excuse for the fact that many churches do not practice church discipline. It is plainly spelled out and very application driven, so we can not argue that the entire passage is difficult to understand. Second, it is clear that Jesus believes He is making a clear statement by beginning with "I tell you the truth." He is not trying to veil anything or speak in parables at this moment. The difficulty with church discipline is not in understanding it, but in acting upon it.

But recently, I have heard another option. This option does not merely dismiss the text, but takes it rather seriously. However, while still accepting church discipline, it attempts to keep too much authority from the church.

3. We misunderstand binding and loosening.
Since many take binding and loosening to be the permission the church has to control a person's eternal destiny, clearly those people misunderstand the passage. The King James Version says:
Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Jesus seems to be saying we can bind and loosen things on earth as well as in heaven. Certainly the idea of loosening seems understandable. The gospel message can set people free. But what possibly could binding refer to? I've recently heard it suggested that binding is a positive thing. For instance, take a look at Isaiah 61:1:
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;
Through the gospel, we have the opportunity to loosen people from their captivity and bind their broken hearts. Jesus is telling us that He is passing this ability, through the gospel message, to us.

Problem: The language transition is difficult to follow, since it has to go from Hebrew to Greek. However, the Septuagint provides some perspective. In Isaiah 61:1, it uses ιασασθαι, meaning to bind up a wound. According to Kittel, this term is ideally used to state God's gracious turning with favor toward sinners. However, in Matthew 18:18, the author uses δέω. In fact, when δέω is used with loosening, it always conveyed the concept of holding one captive. For Jesus to use δέω to convey setting a wound would not only be an improper word to use, but would also be quite deceptive to his entire listening audience. Furthermore, the illustration of "keys" makes no sense in Matthew 16. One can not set a wound with keys. Clearly, Jesus was speaking to the disciples about captivity and freedom.

So what was Jesus saying? Perhaps a different translation could help:
Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. (NASB)
As written in the NIV and KJV, one may assume that heaven responds to our decisions. However, as the Greek text (and the NASB) reflect, we are actually responding to that which has already happened in heaven. It is not that God waits for the decision of the disciples, and then responds accordingly in heaven. In its context, Jesus is stating that if the church properly follows the discipline process (by responding where Scripture speaks as Scripture directs) it will come to the conclusions of heaven. The authority to bind and loosen is Christ's alone, but the church has the opportunity to reflect that authority if it responds as He has instructed.

The church should discipline for Jesus has called us to do it. However, we discipline to reflect the perspective of Christ, not to create our own perspective. He is not changing according to our decisions, but we should all be willing to change according to His.

Revelation 2-3

[Retitled:] 8 Disrespectful Elements in the Church

1. Churches that diminish the gospel for "weightier" issues.
In our effort to preserve doctrinal purity, we can actually deny the most beautiful doctrines of all. We begin to see the gospel as an introduction to Christianity, or basic/simplistic and start to move "beyond it." A church may even hate those things which are heretical, but if she does not center her truth where her love first started, she is disrespecting God's sacrifice.

2. Churches that must experience "prosperity" to survive.
God's pleasure is found when He is glorified. God is not necessarily glorified by our abundance of stuff and comfort, but by the believer's response in the midst of trial and tribulation. A church that builds a system that can only thrive in prosperity disrespects His ability to comfort the believer.

3. Churches that conform to the culture.
God does not claim it is easy to live in "Satan's throne," yet He calls the church to be His people. It is not enough to merely say we are not as bad as the world around us, God desires we have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness. A church that wants to look as much like the world as possible disrespects His calling.

4. Churches who depend on extra-Biblical revelation.
This is not simply those who claim to have extra books of the Bible, or even a seperate book from the Bible. This is also those who depend on prophecies, declarations, or even manuals to determine their spiritual vitality. His divine power has given us everything we need and often, where suppliments are found, false teaching is also found. A church that needs more than the Word disrespects His revealed teaching.

5. Churches that do not persevere.
A results oriented church will often start out obeying God's Word but grow tired when they do not see desired outcomes. But the church is not finished! A church that does not trust Him for the harvest disrespects His faithfulness.

6. Churches who rely on exteriors.
Since we cannot see the heart, it is tempting to set up external qualifications that we can see. "Those who claimed to be Jews" in the early church were calling for Gentiles to be circumcised and to adhere to laws for salvation. But Christ identifies that as the "synagogue of Satan." A church that imposes external issues upon a person disrespects His grace.

7. Churches who lack conviction.
An ecumenical-Rodney-King-can't-we-all-just-get-along approach to church is not glorifying to God. God calls us to be holy like Him. He calls us to follow Christ. A church with a "take it or leave it" approach to the faith disrespects that God is a Zealous God.

8. Churches who focus on the earthly.
The church does not bring the kingdom of God to earth (that is Christ's job), but can bring earthly people to the King. Yet it is easy to get distracted by events on this globe (political developments, accumulated wealth, prestige) and miss out on the great work yet to come. A churches that ignores that Christ's kingdom is not of this world disrespects God by ignoring His eternality.

[List derived from Revelation 2-3]

At anytime, a church can find itself prey to these elements. But praise be to God that He offers repentance in any of these situations!

Could a different style of dress, music or preaching be a sign of disrespect? Possibly, if it is borne out of a condition of the heart that disrespects God. However, a different style could also be a genuine expression of respect for God, especially if it borne out of repentance of a formerly disrespectful heart.

[But for the record, I do not believe dressing a dog in clothes can ever be the sign of a pure heart.]

1 Timothy 2:9-15

As I have stated previously (and here), there are certainly passages where we must defer some of the application to the cultural setting. This does not diminish God's Word, if done properly it reinforces the sufficiency of God's Word. But it also does not give us a license to claim cultural refuge from application in any passage. We seek to understand God's Word within the culture it was written, and when we do that, we often see the application actually transcends all cultures.

As before, there a couple of non-primary issues I'd like to lay out:

Paul's writing cannot be regarded as chauvinistic by a believer.--This does not mean you find it easy to swallow. (Much of Paul greatly convicts both genders.) But it does mean, if you hold to an orthodox perspective of inspiration, that the Holy Spirit would not allow a sinful attitude toward women to be inflicted upon Scripture. Therefore, if Paul's words must not be chauvinistic, they must be understood in a different light. (And if Paul's words are the only way we have to evaluate his character--and his words are not chauvinistic--we really have no ground to call Paul a chauvinist, as I've heard some do.)

Go elsewhere.--There are a lot of better and more comprehensive examinations of the egalitarian/complimentarian debate. I don't wish to exhaust the topic, but my goal is simply to show the nature of 1 Timothy 2 is quite different than the nature of 1 Corinthians 11. If you'd like to read more about complimentarianism, read Women's Ministry in the Local Church, reviewed by MercifulGrace.

Why I am Confident that 1 Timothy 2 Cannot Be Dismissed as Cultural



1. Well Taught!--There really is not mystery surrounding "didasko." Paul uses the word 5 times in the Pastoral Epistles alone, each time clearly speaking of doctrine (The one time in Titus he uses it as a negative, of those who teach bad doctrine). This is not an overarching statement that women are not able to teach anything ever in the prescence of men, but instead is speaking of doctrine. (And yes, I believe application is included in doctrine.)

2. Poorly Taught.--The biggest defense for egalitarianism is the presupposition that women were not educated, so that is why Paul didn't want them to teach. Quite honestly, this perspective is a fabrication. First of all, Paul gives a different reason altogether for his instruction (we'll get there in a couple of points). Second, Paul actually appeals for women to be educated! In verse 11, Paul wants women to receive instruction. Women may have been disadvantaged toward education, but Paul does not desire the church to be this way. He says he wants women to be alloted the same learning privileges as men. However, he does not appeal that once they receive some instruction they should teach. In fact, he does the opposite. Paul says educate the women, but they should not educate the men.

3. Trouble with Authority.--"Authenteo" is also a hapax legomenon, which I stated before, can make things tricky. What really does Paul mean by the word since he only uses it once. I think the text gives us a couple of clues. First, Paul calls women to submisiveness (hupotage) in the preceding verse. Secondly, I Timothy 5:17 seems to be a direct parallel. The elders who rule well are considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching (emphasis mine). What does Paul say a woman shouldn't do? Exercise authority or teach. What does Paul say elders do? Exercise authority and teach. We should be able to get a pretty good understanding of "authenteo."

4. Every Culture Shares Eve.--To a proper exegete, the "gar" (for) in verse 13 is a flashing light. Why does Paul not permit a woman to teach? This small word is an indicator that Paul is about to tell us. Adam was created first. Whether they deny it or not (evolutionists), every culture shares the same ancestory. Women are not to teach or exercise authority over men because Adam was created first. How does Adam being created first make men better teachers? you may ask. It doesn't. This is not an appeal to pragmatism (It works better with men, so we do it that way). It is an appeal to the created order. Man is to be the spiritual head and the authority because God orchestrated it that way. To suggest God establishing a system of authority must be based on ability or worth is to wreak havoc on the Trinity. (Is Christ really less of God when He submits to the Father?) God wants the picture of authority present in male/female relationships, that's why Adam was created first. It's simply not about culture.

5. Want an Example?--In verse 14, Paul gives us an example. Eve fell into deception. The question is, where was Adam? Adam was not taking his responsibility seriously to serve as the authority in the relationship, and Eve responded outside of that design. If you need a reminder of the outcome, read Genesis 3. It wasn't pretty.

6. You Think the Debate is Hot, Just Wait.--Verse 15 is certainly a difficult verse to understand. However, it is more troubling from the egalitarian perspective. If 1 Timothy 2 is simply cultural, was God saying He preserved first century Ephesian women by their having babies? What in the world would that mean? (And don't give me this, "Paul was speaking about Mary, the one who carried Jesus" argument. If he was, what do you do with the word "they" in the second half? Was there more than one Mary?) However, if verse 15 is not cultural, then Paul is instructing women everywhere that their greatest gift to the church is their nurturing and discipleship of the children in the home. Paul is stating a woman's most sacred task is not a job, a career, or even influence in the church...it is the influence she has on her home. (And with that sentence, I kissed any expanded readership goodbye!) It really is beautiful if we obey it. (I see the most marvelous example of it daily in my own home with my beautiful bride!)

7. But there's culture there!--First, McDuda is right. (I get the feeling he never expected to see that sentance on my blog.) Culture cannot be avoided. The Word of God was not written in a vacuum. So the argument that there is heavy doses of culture found in verse 9 does nothing against the text. Second, let's examine closely just how culture is used in the passage. Women in Ephesus in that day were using braided hair, gold (often woven into the hair), pearls and costly clothing to bring attention to themselves. Paul was not happy with this process. Is Paul condemning braided hair, gold, pearls and nice clothing for everyone? Not really. Paul's concern was that women dress modestly and discreetly. Braided hair, gold, pearls and expensive clothing are just examples he gave of this violation. If you say the whole thing is cultural, then you would have to say that God doesn't care if women dress modestly or not in our era (A thesis I think many actually believe, based on some things you see today!). Of course that's not what Paul was saying. The over arching principle is modesty and discretion.

(Incidentally--and this is just a rabbit trail rant--but most preachers I've encountered (either in person or over media) that wear flashy clothes and expensive jewelry while preaching and teaching are egalitarian. I've had many conversations with nonbelievers that even they realize the preacher should not be directing attention to himself/herself by their apparel. Maybe they really do throw the whole thing out as cultural. But if so, why do so many of them encourage men to raise their hands (verse 8)? Wouldn't that be cultural too?)

8. Hardly Alone--Whereas 1 Corinthians 11 is the only place regarding head coverings, 1 Timothy 2 has support throughout the Canon. In the Old Testament, only men were priests and Levites. (Yes, we see Deborah and prophetesses, but those are the exception, hardly the rule.) The 12 disciples were all men. (A decision Jesus easily could have thwarted had he wanted.) Only men were installed as elders in the New Testament. (This is not to say women did not have a significant role, the most certainly did, but not as elders.) Paul's instuctions about elders are targeted toward men (1 Timothy 3:2). Paul also tells the Corinthian church that women should remain silent (1 Corinthians 14:34).

9. A House Divided--Sometimes we get so focussed on the institution of the church, we forget to notice the original institution formed. God did not nullify the home when He established His church. To allow for women elders either Ephesians 5 must ignored, and the husband is not to lead his home, or our ecclesiology is distorted. We're either forced to believe Ephesians 5 is cultural (but Christ being the head of the church is universal), or we must define church as only a specific time period within a specific building on a specific day. How does a woman elder preach and exercise authority over her husband and yet honor what the Scriptures say about marriage? Certainly, God would not endorse a system that distorts the institution of marriage (especially His gospel presented in it).

I understand this passage is counter-cultural, but isn't the gospel as well? I understand the application can be difficult. Genesis 3 says that women are going to struggle with the authority structure God has established. Women are sinners, therefore obeying God's order is going to be difficult. Not helping them any is that men are sinners! Now the very people they are to submit to are sinfilled creatures. Add to that a society that has for millennia has tried to usurp this order, and it becomes difficult for us to apply.

However, we must be careful that we do not release ourselves from obedience simply because the call is difficult. I believe that much of our gospel light has been diminished because we have been unwilling to obey that which the Lord clearly called us to. Possibly, head coverings would fit into this category too (for it is also a picture of submission)?

1 Corinthians 11:2-16

I begin this post knowing this may be one of my trickiest ever. There are only about 146 different directions I could go, yet I do not wish to dedicate the entire future of my blog to the issue of head coverings. So before I get into my primary premise, allow me to lay down some thoughts I feel need to be said, but again, are not primary.

Legalism is not a valid argument.--I've heard some people resist the concept of a literal head covering because they fear legalism. If they have been in an environment where someone has said "only women with their heads covered are God's chosen," then they may believe the head covering caused the legalism. However, that's not a valid argument. For instance, there were those in Galatia who believed only the circumcised were God's chosen, and Paul confronted them that it is by faith, not by an outward work. However, the majority of American Christians still have their boys cimcumcised, not fearing it will lead to legalism.

Current culture is not a valid argument.--I've heard some claim that we still see elements of this principle in our culture, therefore it is still valid. Most men take their hat off when praying, in fact, usually we tell men to do so. (Interestingly enough, I've always been told the reason was for respect, not for the sake of the angels.) However, just because our culture seems to reflect men praying with uncovered heads, that does not then say this is the proper practice. There are plenty of practices we share with first century middle east that are not pleasing to God.

In a nutshell, I'm not sure about headcoverings. I'll post my thoughts and would love you to review them, but there is a bigger picture I hope to show. Yes we should strive to know what a passage is saying. No, every passage is not equally discernable. No, that does not mean we should quit trying. Yes, I do believe we can still be confident about clearer passages. (If I'm making no sense, possibly my next post will clear up my purpose.) Therefore, this post is not designed to give a definitive perspective on headcoverings, but to show that this passage is unique in approach to other passages (specifically 1 Timothy 2).

    Why I'm not confident 1 Corinthians 11 means a literal head covering.

1. Heads up!--Paul uses the word "kephale" (still have no idea how to insert greek text) for head. In verse 3, he clearly means this metaphorically (for how could a man be a literal head of a woman). So in verse 4, does he immediately switch to a man's literal head (his cranium)? Is there anything in the text to clue us into this? Try this exercise. Read the entire passage seeing "kaphale" as a literal mass of flesh on top of your neck. Does every verse make sense? Next, read the passage with "kaphale" always meaning authority. Does every verse make sense? There are times when it is very clear which Paul means, but there are more than one where it is not.

2. Uncovering Coverings--"Katakalupto" is used for "cover/covered" (and "akatakaluptos" for "uncovered"). These words are only found in this very passage. Now a hapax legomenom does not dismiss authority from a word, or make the text any less inspired, but it can make things a little trickier to discern.

3. Hairy verses--Paul was not stating a woman's hair is given as a veil in a vacuum. This is not a parenthetical statement and must fit into the discussion some how. Is Paul saying a woman's hair is the covering she needs? His brevity (which we have to believe was Spirit directed) does not give us much indication.

4. Appeal to angels--Paul, again, directed by the Spirit, makes an unusual appeal for angels. The issue of head covering, authority, and gender is under consideration for the sake of the angels. But what does this really mean? In the context, he then states that men and women are both necessary for procreation. The angelic order is already set and established, they were created. Is this a distinction that the angels marvel at? That man and woman become one flesh and actually produce another man/woman? If so, how does the head covering factor into that?

5. The long and short--Like most difficult passages, we've heard abuses of this. I've heard preachers declare certain male "hair styles" shameful based upon what they determined long. Does it hang over the ears? Its too long. Touch the collar of your shirt? Your father must be embarrassed. But the text gives us no such clues. We are not told at what point hair is long or hair is short.

6. Bueller, Bueller--We can search the rest of Scripture and not really find much more explanation for this. Sure, authority and submission are all through the Word of God when it comes to a marriage, but having that tied into hair and head coverings is not established anywhere else. We are completely dependant upon this passage for our understanding.

I do not look down on a woman who literally covers her head. I do not look down on a woman who does not cover her head. (Before you think I'm getting squishy, let me say I do believe somebody is right and somebody is wrong.) Whatever a person's perspective, I think they have to admit there are elements of the passage that are troubling.

However, because this passage is vague is no reason not to search the text. It does not validate that every passage is equally difficult. We certainly can't make the claim that culture taints the entire Bible so much that we can't know what it's saying.

It's funny, this passage is difficult to understand--but if we do understand it--it would be very easy to apply (either wear a covering or don't). However, I hope to show next that 1 Timothy 2 is not hard to understand, it is just hard to apply in our culture.

Friday, January 5, 2007

Acts 17:16-34

"Athenian Audience"

It seems that in the postmodern era, Acts 17 has been claimed as a model for many of the churches. Paul does a masterful job of reading the culture of the city and responding to it. The lesson is illustrated that we need to understand our culture, adapt to it, and present the message in a "language" that is understood.

However, I just wonder if we always see the full message in Acts 17:16-34.

(24) The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands... Most of the time we see that as a response to the "Unknown God" that Paul says he will reveal to them. However, reconsidering the context of Athens, this is a statement in contrast to every idol in the city. Paul is not merely saying that the Unknown God is different than all the others, he is stating that God Almighty is different from every form of religious practice in their city. This is not simply a statement of clarification to teach the Athenians. This is a statement of contradiction, explaining that all of their practices are wrong.

(30) all people everywhere should repent Some have attempted to claim that Paul was very non-confrontational in this passage, trying to affirm the Athenians more than transform them. However, Paul very quickly took the message to being about "Jesus and the resurrection" (18). It is not too much to assume that since Paul discusses the resurrection, he obviously covered the crucifixion as well. If you read the manuscripts of some of Paul's messages (found in Acts) as well as his summaries of his teachings (found in the Epistles) we see that Paul very clearly taught man's sin, the cross, Christ's payment and the resurrection (I Corinthians 15:3-4). Therefore, his message is to abandon self, repent, and trust Christ.

(31) because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed... Further strengthening the idea of Paul's preaching the resurrection is found in this area. Paul says God furnished proof that Christ will judge all mankind by raising Him from the dead. Judgment was part of this message. Not a horizontal human judgment, but instead, the righteous, holy juddgement.

(32) some began to sneer... It is the very issue of judgment that seemed to set some in opposition. For the passage says, "now when they heard of the resurrection of THE dead" they began to sneer. The text seems to indicate that it was not just the resurrection of Jesus that put people at opposition, but rather this concept of the resurrection for "the dead." More than likely, the people were either nihilists or gnostics, neither one seeing a use for the body after death. Paul teaches that they will be raised to life again, and then will be judged. This issue set some of them against him sneering.

It seems to me that this section of the passage is often ignored today. Such a high premium is often placed on the response of the audience, that the accuracy of the message is a subpoint. Paul's messages were not often received overwhelmingly well. He would appeal to culture (he even quotes a secular poet in this message) and their basic understanding of God, but he never leaves it there. His message is often resisted.

I am not suggesting that the pastor preach stale, boring, lifeless messages. I am not claiming that illustrations should not be used to clarify the issue (Paul did). The pastor should have passion, he is sharing the revelation from God!!!! However, his primary concern should not be reaction of the audience, but his accuracy to the Word.

It seems to me that Paul was not saying to the Athenians, "Hey, we're a lot alike. I just see things from a slightly different angle." But rather, he was saying, "You guys are religious, however, you misunderstand who God is. Allow me to explain Him to you because some day you are going to have to stand before Him and be judged."

It's not about trying to find redemption in the world, it's about trying to bring His redemption to the world.

Exodus 20:17

As a child, I thought the 10 Commandments were simply a set of rules to follow. Then, I discovered I couldn't keep the rules, leading me to Christ for my righteousness. Then, the 10 Commandments no longer condemn, but show us the character of God. As a believer, I can look to these laws to see how to please the Father. For if Christ never once violated these laws, and my desire is to look more like Him, then these laws help me know Him.

You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

Like with most laws, we seek an escape clause to justify ourselves. I've heard many people scoff this command, saying things like, I've never violated this command. It's been a long time since I've coveted my neighbor's donkey, man servant or ox. However, you cannot claim it as archaic when you notice it says: or anything that belongs to your neighbor. So, "plan b" forces us to claim, But who is my neighbor? Unfortunately, Jesus completely closed this loophole for us as well.

We're left with only one conclusion...to never covet anything that anyone else has. Or to put it another way:

I can do all things through Him who stengthens me.

That's right. Check out the context of that familiar verse. Paul speaks that he has learned to be content in whatever circumstances he is in.

At times, I can think I'm honoring god simply by not coveting my neighbor's car. However, I can watch a commercial with one of these, and my mind starts to race. It's not coveting if no one else owns it, right? I tell myself.

Entitlement is a fruit of the fall. Ironically, we sin against God, deserving eternal condemnation, yet our darkened hearts tell us we deserve even more favor than we have received. Every moment of God's gracious favor becomes just an opportunity for the sinner to crave more. Instead of delighting in Him, we shake our fists, wanting more. But joy is found in discovering what we do deserve, yet seeing the God who treats us otherwise. By fleeing coveteousness and pursuing contentment, we grow closer to our gracious God. For Paul said:

For who regards you as superior? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?

Exodus 20:16

As a child, I thought the 10 Commandments were simply a set of rules to follow. Then, I discovered I couldn't keep the rules, leading me to Christ for my righteousness. Then, the 10 Commandments no longer condemn, but show us the character of God. As a believer, I can look to these laws to see how to please the Father. For if Christ never once violated these laws, and my desire is to look more like Him, then these laws help me know Him.

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

We all strive to be that person who can say, My word is my bond. However, we also tend to approach issues of honesty from a relative perspective. If I am more honest than others, then I am a man of integrity. I've actually heard people back away from this commandment by claiming that it's formal language suggests only court proceedings. As long as I have not committed perjury, then I cannot be found guilty of false witness?

Often, we allow our tongue to back us into a corner, and then we are left with only a couple of options. We can claim our words were not binding, but were actually meant in jest (A practice the Proverbs condemn.) Or, we can claim that we meant our promise, but circumstances have changed, excusing us from our pledge (Which is a great plan, except Ecclesiastes shoots that one down.) In Matthew 5, Jesus states we should simply say, "yes, yes" and "no, no." While I do believe the person of integrity will be able to make statements without having to take it to the level of an oath, I do not believe that was Jesus' central point. (I'm flying over Matthew 5, not because it isn't pertinent, but because I plan to do another series soon on this beautiful chapter. Can't give too much away too early!) Consider the words of James:

Come now, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, and spend a year there and engage in business and make a profit." Yet you do not know what your life will be like tomorrow. You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away. Instead, you ought to say, "If the Lord wills, we will live and also do this or that." But as it is, you boast in your arrogance; all such boasting is evil.

Without a doubt, a statement intended to deceive another violates God's standards. But a committment I make, without consideration of circumstances or abilities (for instance, even my ability to remember making the committment) also reveals an improper heart condition. I've been guilty of this far too often; believing I have everything under control.

As believers, our concern should not be simply to keep our word as much as we can. Our desire should be to not give our word at all. In these moments of conversation, we have an opportunity to glorify God in just one way He trandscends us. I can not really give my word, for so little is actually in my control. He however, can fully give His word, and we can rest upon it, for He is in absolute control.

Paradoxically, a chapter some misunderstand to say God does not keep His promises, gives us some of the greatest words as to God's sovereignty:

In the same way God, desiring even more to show to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of His purpose, interposed with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us. This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil, where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.

People will either think God is in control or that I am. They will not think both. It's my responsibility to give the true testimony as to Who is in control.

Exodus 20:15

As a child, I thought the 10 Commandments were simply a set of rules to follow. Then, I discovered I couldn't keep the rules, leading me to Christ for my righteousness. Then, the 10 Commandments no longer condemn, but show us the character of God. As a believer, I can look to these laws to see how to please the Father. For if Christ never once violated these laws, and my desire is to look more like Him, then these laws help me know Him.

You shall not steal.

Most people typically deny that they have stolen anything. However, after a few questions, they confess that they either stole something when they were young, or have taken something of very small value. (With anyone under 30 who claims to never have stolen, I simply ask them if they have paid for all their music. Typically, the person will then confess to theft.) I've also find people get philosophical, asking questions like, But if you've stolen from a corporation and not a person, is that really stealing? or If you steal so that your family could eat, is that really wrong? However, as God instucts Moses He gives no escape clause based upon value of the object, personal wealth, or even time expired. Simply put, don't steal. Paul says:

He who steals must steal no longer; but rather he must labor, performing with his own hands what is good, so that he will have something to share with one who has need.

To glorify God, Paul does not simply call the Ephesians to stop stealing. There is a higher standard that must be understood. Paul explains that the person must also labor, and that his labor should be productive. It's important to remember that in a perfect world, God gave Adam work and called him to be productive. Even in a paradise without sin, God did not intend for anyone to freeload. (This is also why a Biblical view of eternity shows us we will not be sitting on clouds playing harps, but will actually have work to do. Work which will glorify God.)

We must not simply ask quesitons about our job, whether it is productive and beneficial to others. We also must ask other questions about our lives. Regarding finances: Am I using my income to meet the needs of others and not only my own? Regarding my church: Am I attending simply for my own benefit, or am I looking for ways to encourage others and build up the Body? Regarding relationships: Am I seeking to share my faith, or simply see relationships for what I can get and not give?

To glorify God, we should seek to act like Him. He works, acts, gives and sacrifices. As we delight in His work, we should be motivated to work as well.

Exodus 20:14

As a child, I thought the 10 Commandments were simply a set of rules to follow. Then, I discovered I couldn't keep the rules, leading me to Christ for my righteousness. Then, the 10 Commandments no longer condemn, but show us the character of God. As a believer, I can look to these laws to see how to please the Father. For if Christ never once violated these laws, and my desire is to look more like Him, then these laws help me know Him.

You shall not commit adultery.

Of the people I surveyed, most initially denied adultery, yet were quick to agree with Jesus' words that lust is adultery of the heart. Typically, they follow up with a comment that lust happens to all of us and that it is inescapable. Our flesh allows us to confess sin, see that it significantly violates the standards of God, and then immediately dismiss it as no big deal.

But is a faithful marriage defined as a marriage that avoids adultery and lust? Have we completely pleased the Lord as long as we flee from youthful lusts? Many in the church have redefined a successful marriage simply as a marriage that doesn't end in divorce. But a quick glance at Ephesians 5:22-33 reveals the standard for a God honoring marriage is higher than mere survival. In I Corinthians, Paul speaks that a person can handle sex with their spouse in an unfaithful way:

The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

These words of Paul sound repulsive to many. In a society that celebrates a woman's control of her body, even to the harm of another life within her, how can Paul have the nerve to claim we should consider our spouses even in regard to our bodies? Paul explains just a few verses later why this is true:

But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and his interests are divided. The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.

When God joins two together as one flesh, each member is then called to consider the needs of their spouse. Joining with another person then violates that union God has made. Jesus explained that entertaining thoughts about another violates the union God has made. Paul then challenges that considering self before your spouse also violates the union.

And unfaithfulness to one's spouse is an act of unfaithfulness toward God.

Exodus 20:13

As a child, I thought the 10 Commandments were simply a set of rules to follow. Then, I discovered I couldn't keep the rules, leading me to Christ for my righteousness. Then, the 10 Commandments no longer condemn, but show us the character of God. As a believer, I can look to these laws to see how to please the Father. For if Christ never once violated these laws, and my desire is to look more like Him, then these laws help me know Him.

You shall not murder.

While surveying, most people really did not have a hard time seeing that an angry heart toward another is truly a muderer's heart. To picture your hands around someone's neck really isn't that far from strangling them. Very early in Scripture we see the deep depravity caused by uncontrolled anger. This frightening glimpse motivates us to deal with our anger. However, is "venting" the way to control anger?

But no one can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil and full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God;
from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way. Does a fountain send out from the same opening both fresh and bitter water? Can a fig tree, my brethren, produce olives, or a vine produce figs? Nor can salt water produce fresh.


When we're told to punch a pillow and pretend it is someone's face, something within tells us that cannot be godly counsel. Yet, somehow we think that angry words spoken about/toward someone are not sinful. Yet, just like Saul's spear, our words can contain poison. Like the severity of attempted murder, we must see that our words, whether they reach the "victim" or not, can be a capital crime.

Exodus 20:12

As a child, I thought the 10 Commandments were simply a set of rules to follow. Then, I discovered I couldn't keep the rules, leading me to Christ for my righteousness. Then, the 10 Commandments no longer condemn, but show us the character of God. As a believer, I can look to these laws to see how to please the Father. For if Christ never once violated these laws, and my desire is to look more like Him, then these laws help me know Him.

Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the Lord your God gives you.

We typically do not hear people segregate the commandments for different people. In fact, I rarely even hear the objection from some that the commands were only intended for Jews. We read the commands as God's moral law, despite the person's condition. However, we can tend to look at the 5th commandment as if it only pertains to children. Was God speaking to the entire nation, only to pause for a second to speak to children, then turn His attention back to all the people? Jesus doesn't believe so:

"For God said, `HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER,' and, `HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH.' "But you say, `Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God," he is not to honor his father or his mother.' And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition. "You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you: `THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.' "

In other places, Jesus is very clear that our love for our parents must never get in the way of our love for the Lord. In fact, it is the son who follows the Lord who fills a father with real joy. But we do know that Jesus was speaking to grown men, yet He considered them still responsible to show honor to their parents. Perhaps Paul helps us see why:

Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER (which is the first commandment with a promise), SO THAT IT MAY BE WELL WITH YOU, AND THAT YOU MAY LIVE LONG ON THE EARTH.

The context is critical (when isn't it?). In this series of relationships, Paul explains that each relationship is to be handled in a way that models our relationship to Christ. Not surprisingly then, each of these relationships require elements of submission and obediance. Why respect your mother and father? Because you respect your Heavenly Father.

Regardless of your history, regardless of if you are married, regardless of the kind of parents you had, God calls for us to not only obey them, but to respect and honor them as well. It's a way we show Him honor.

Exodus 20:8-11

As a child, I thought the 10 Commandments were simply a set of rules to follow. Then, I discovered I couldn't keep the rules, leading me to Christ for my righteousness. Then, the 10 Commandments no longer condemn, but show us the character of God. As a believer, I can look to these laws to see how to please the Father. For if Christ never once violated these laws, and my desire is to look more like Him, then these laws help me know Him.

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; {in it} you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

When the sabbath is mentioned, most people immediately ask the question, "Saturday or Sunday?" While some are legitimately confused by this issue (nothing a little understanding of the apostles actions can't cure, but I digress), others ask this question to deflect attention from their conscience (similar to John 4:19-21). But just how Jesus points the woman to God the Father, this command points us directly to God as well. He rested on the seventh day, therefore we should honor the sabbath.

Jesus explained that the sabbath was created for man, not the other way around. This explains that God did not need to rest, but rather He chose to rest so that it would teach us. But what was the lesson God desired to teach us?

So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His. Therefore let us be diligent to enter that rest, so that no one will fall, through following the same example of disobedience.

In this passage (Actually, context is critical, and these are two really cool chapters.), the author explains that "the rest" not only speaks of God's rest from creation, nor the "land of rest" they enter. David himself, experiencing both the day of rest and living comfortably in the land of rest, begs the people not to harden their hearts and to enjoy the rest from God. So what is that rest?

The author says that entering His rest also means resting from our work. Sadly, most see the sabbath command as antiquated. Rarely do we mention it, nor treat it with any relevance. However, on the seventh day of earth's history, God gave a 24 hour lesson that our relationship with Him is not of works, but of rest. God gave Adam life, a wife, a perfect earth and work. Adam earned none of those, but they were given to him. Man's sin does not change the character of God. Therefore, after Adam's sin, God gave them garments, a type of the sacrifice of Christ. The sabbath flies right in the face of open theists, again proving God's plan was established before the foundation of the world.

Therefore, rest is worship. Even our sleep can be worship to God. It reminds us of two things:

    We are not like God. We must rest. He trandscends us.
    Rest is a mirror of the gospel. We can not strive our way to salvation. We must repent and trust Christ's work to enter His rest.
Therefore, a sabbath is not about taking one day off a week, but more about our heart. Why do we work? Do we see that we work because it has been given to us, or do we work believing we are earning something? Do we come to Christ with a heart of rest?

Most see the Law as work, rules we must keep to obtain favor. Yet, right in the heart of these "rules" God demands that we rest...and in sin, we continue to strive.

Exodus 20:7

As a child, I thought the 10 Commandments were simply a set of rules to follow. Then, I discovered I couldn't keep the rules, leading me to Christ for my righteousness. Then, the 10 Commandments no longer condemn, but show us the character of God. As a believer, I can look to these laws to see how to please the Father. For if Christ never once violated these laws, and my desire is to look more like Him, then these laws help me know Him.

You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.

Many people mock God's standard regarding blasphemy. They try to paint a picture of a weak, hyper-sensitive God who gets His feelings hurt by mean words. But within this command, God reminds us He will not leave a blasphemer unpunished. Perhaps no other commandment reveals the extreme depravity of man. God gives us life, breath, relationships, and the offer of His Son, and we respond using His name as an expletive. This sin that so many want to dismiss is one of the clearest exposures of our sinful hearts. Once this depravity is exposed, we should take great effort to only use divine names with a desire to glorify God. (We should also rid ourselves of names that come close.) Jesus says

Where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.

What does this have to do with blasphemy? Consider the phrase "in My name." To speak in a person's name means we speak with their authority. His name is not a postage stamp. I can not just paste it onto the end of my prayer to ensure that it arrives to God. To do anything (pray, witness, act, speak) in His name means that I am doing it in His authority. How can I, a sinful, ignorant man, do anything with the authority of Chirst? The context reveals how. If I speak the words of Christ, in a manner consistent with Christ, I am speaking with His authority. Any business person has seen this played out. If management informs us that "corporate" is issuing a new policy, it comes with the authority of the corporation, even though it wasn't delivered by the president. Why? Because we understand that it was corporates words, presented to us in a consistent fashion, and that our obedience is now required. For me to speak, I may not claim the authority of Christ unless I am speaking His words, in the way He desires. That's the only reason a church even has the authority to discipline. The church has no authority except that which has come from Christ.

In one way, this is why I get very nervous when I hear people claim a revelation from God outside of His Word. If they are wrong, they are attributing something to God that is not His (thus using His name in vain). That was the great sin of the false prophet. It wasn't that they made a bad prediction, it is that they credited God with their "vision" and are therefore using God's name where it doesn't belong. But even for us cessationists, blasphemy can be a real possibility. Do we enforce standards that the Scriptures do not? Do we endorse actions that the Scriptures forbid? Do we do either with an attitude contray to that which honors Christ? Perhaps, this is why James says:

Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment. For we all stumble in many ways. If anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body as well.

Every word that comes from our mouth is capable of blasphemy, not just our expletives.

Exodus 20:4-6

As a child, I thought the 10 Commandments were simply a set of rules to follow. Then, I discovered I couldn't keep the rules, leading me to Christ for my righteousness. Then, the 10 Commandments no longer condemn, but show us the character of God. As a believer, I can look to these laws to see how to please the Father. For if Christ never once violated these laws, and my desire is to look more like Him, then these laws help me know Him.

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. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

Isaiah 44:9-20 exposes the folly of created gods. Those who are created, fashion a god, and then begin to worship that which they made. They have no hands. They can not move. They must be nailed down to keep from falling over. You must carry it to another room if you want to move its prescence. Yet, we pay homage to it. With half the wood, we make a fire to burn our food over and keep warm. With the other half, we form an idol and begin to worship. Silly middle eastern ancients. We'd never do something that foolish.

Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.

Jesus said we must worship in spirit and truth. He reminds us where we can turn to find the truth about God; His Word. The truth is, we are lazy. The Israelites were tempted to craft their own gods, not because it took more effort, but because it was easier to craft a god in their minds and form a statue to represent it. Things have not changed in a few thousand years. God has gone to great lengths to reveal Himself in the Word, yet we would rather craft Him out of our imaginations. Have a difficult time understanding tragedy? Craft a god who doesn't see the into the future, one who is surprised by the events. Do you struggle with a God who would create hell as a place of punishment? Craft a god who loves everyone and will pardon all. Do you battle the concept of a God who desires His glory above all? Place yourself at the center of the universe!

God transcends us. There will be things we will not be able to comprehend. With our sin-filled hearts, we will naturally craft characteristics of God that are not accurate. There is only one way to keep from crafting our own image. We must dive into His Word. We must work. We must be His craftmanship, not vice versa. We will find ourselves not ashamed, provided we are accurately handling the Word of God. Anytime I begin to craft a perspective of God outside of His revealed Word, I might as well get out a chisel and form an image from the dead tree in my back yard.

And as we rightly present Him, the world rightly sees Him.

Exodus 20:3

As a child, I thought the 10 Commandments were simply a set of rules to follow. Then, I discovered I couldn't keep the rules, leading me to Christ for my righteousness. Then, the 10 Commandments no longer condemn, but show us the character of God. As a believer, I can look to these laws to see how to please the Father. For if Christ never once violated these laws, and my desire is to look more like Him, then these laws help me know Him.

You shall have no other gods before me.

I've had a few atheists suggest to me that this is the problem with the Bible. They claim that in the first commandment, God admits that there are other gods. They paint God as a attention craving being Who must get all the recognition. In effect, they want to claim there must be either no god or many different options. If the problem was God, then they'd be right. But, Isaiah 44 show us the problem is man. We take that which should not be considered a god, and elevate it as an item of worship. It is not actually a diety, but we treat it as if it is. That is why, God says, "You shall not have" instead of "You shall not recognize" or "accept." It truly is not divine, but we worship and obey it over God.

No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.

We naturally set ourselves up to worship and serve. In our fallen state, we quickly place ourselves under the wrong authority. We may not prostrate ourselves to a wallet or to dollar bills, but we can easily find ourselves serving the wrong master. Jesus makes it clear that a split allegience will not work. There is only room in each life for one master. Paul says,

Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?

Our American ideal of complete freedom and independence is flawed. We are not capable of living our lives freed from all authority and rule. Instead, real joy and freedom is found in being a servant to the right authority. After being freed from the bondage of sin, the believer should not seek to be completely autonomous. Instead, the believer should understand that their freedom comes by living under the authority of obedience to Christ. In reality, there is no sin that can be committed that is not a violation of the first commandment.

For to worship God is to worship God alone.

Psalm 119:18

Lost in the disturbing graphic (I got several emails of complaint) was the verse:

Open my eyes, that I may behold Wonderful things from Your law.--Psalm 119:18



Is it really possible to delight in the law? Can that which we've seen as a set of rules, restricting us from the "fun" we've craved really be delightful? It may be easy to consider this just an Old Testament type of thing. However, the Law should do the following in our lives:

Convict of Sin We know what sin is because of the Law. If I am honest, I no longer can consider myself good, for I see how many ways I have made myself guilty.

Expose Grace Next time you go swimming, I challenge you to grab a relaxed swimmer around the neck and drag them out of the water. If they ask what you were doing, simply tell them you were saving them. This is the same response you get from a person who has not confronted God's Law. Tell them they need salvation and they have no idea why. But study the Law until you feel like you are drowning in your guilt, then you praise God for His gracious gift of His Son!

See Righteousness While we all violate God's Law, we should all be aiming for it. The person who knows Christ as Savior should be careful with his words (as one example) knowing that his lips should speak truth and avoid blasphemy. We see the things that please God, and if they please Him, we should strive for them.

See God What is God's Law? Is it a set of rules arbitrarily made up by God just to keep order? Did lying become sin only after God decided it was bad and then made a rule against it? Or, is God's Law an expression of His character and nature? It is wrong to lie, because God is trustworthy. Therefore, anything counter to the character and nature of God, is sin. When we look at the Law, we understand Who God is. What could be more wonderful than that?

You may not find this picture delightful...(Sorry, couldn't resist grossing you out one more time!)...but we should find delight in His Law.

Isaiah 61:1-4

After listening to a message by Brian McLaren, I decided to review his understanding of the text quoted. I ask you to please read my purpose and intent in this exercise before reading any further.

The first text McLaren turns to is Isaiah 61:1-4

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, To grant those who mourn {in} Zion, Giving them a garland instead of ashes, The oil of gladness instead of mourning, The mantle of praise instead of a spirit of fainting. So they will be called oaks of righteousness, The planting of the LORD, that He may be glorified. Then they will rebuild the ancient ruins, They will raise up the former devastations; And they will repair the ruined cities, The desolations of many generations.
McLaren's Emphasis

1. McLaren says this poem was written to people "standing on the ledge of dispair" to tell these oppressed captives that a better day is coming.

2. [Referring to verse 4] "The structures of your civilization will be renewed. The environment of your civilization. Like if it were today, maybe he'd say, 'The toxic waste dumps will be cleaned up. The places that have been paved over by concrete. The places where species are going extinct. Those will be renewed. The cities that are filled with urban blight. The cities that are filled with poverty and unemployment. God cares about them, and you will have a part in rebuilding them.'"

3. McLaren points out that, contrary to our expectation, Isaiah does not point them to thought of eternity for comfort, but the hope is found in a point in history. He does not comfort them that they will leave this earth, but rather that the "poor, broken hearted, captive, prisoners, all who mourn and grieve, and those in dispair are going to be helped."

4. In the midst of discussing this issue, McLaren makes the statement, "Most of us would rather go to heaven later rather than sooner...but that's another story."

Some observations

1.
We are never told these oppressed, downtrodden people are Jews. Why does this matter? It matters because Israel was in captivity as an act of judgment by God. They were not innocent victims. They had rebelled against God and He disciplined them. Yet, we see His grace extended in that He pursues restoration. No mention of this theme at all.

2. Again, McLaren glosses over the importance of the promised land and of Jerusalem in particular. He makes no mention of covenants made to the people, nor that this is even God's chosen nation. Strangely, in a message that is intened to motivate compassion for people, McLaren seems to be more focused on the environment. There is a significance to the "Promised Land" (see Hebrews 3 & 4) that unfortunately seems ignored.

3. I'm not sure I even fully understand McLaren's point here. He is right that the text does not point them to heaven as their solace. But the text does point them to future events. In verse 4, it regularly says "they will" indicating these are future events. In fact, Jesus states that this passage was fulfilled by Him. (Which happens to be the next text we'll examine.) Any immediate fulfillment of this passage seems to be secondary to the fulfillment in Christ, thus pointing us to the future, not Isaiah's present conditions.

4. I do not want to be overly harsh on his sidebar statement, "Most of us would rather go to heaven later rather than sooner...but that's another story." Every pastor occasionaly makes a sideways statement he knows could become a full blown "rabbit trail" and therefore brings himself back to the point without further explanation. This very well could be such a case. However, I do wish he would have articulated that the Scriptures only exhort believers to look forward to the Lord's appearing. Perhaps his facial expression or gestures articulated that not wanting to be with Christ is not the God pleasing heart attitude.

Summary

McLaren encourages the people of Mar's Hill to be good stewards of creation. He also encourages them to not fall prey to "escapism," thinking so much about eternity that they do not look to impact the present. These are both good, Biblical concepts. However, it is questionable to say they are themes addressed here in Isaiah 61, and it can certainly be said they are not the main theme of the passage. To this point in the message, there has been no mention of sin, God's judgment, God's holiness, or even His grace in restoring a people who did not deserve it of themselves.

Luke 4:16-21

After listening to a message by Brian McLaren, I decided to review his understanding of the text quoted. I ask you to please read my purpose and intent in evaluating before reading further.

First, McLaren directs the congregation to Isaiah 61:1-4. (You can read my review here.) Next, he turns the group to Luke 4:16-21.

McLaren's Emphasis

1.
Technically, he does not "turn" the group there. He simply summarizes the passage, and actually tells them it is found in Luke 3 (We've all given the wrong reference before.) He concludes the Biblical narrative with, "Today, this day, those words are fulfilled in your hearing."

2. He explains that what Jesus was saying is that what happened in Isaiah's day is happening again today.

3. McLaren warns that we can tend to spiritualize the texts, assuming Jesus is talking about hearts rather than literally helping the poor and the oppressed. He contrasts the caricature of heaven (clouds and harps) with God's desire to rebuild cities in the here and now.

4. In illustrating this point. McLaren describes a boy who wishes to get out of cleaning his room by explaining entropy to his mother. The boy explains that entropy is a law of science and that God has established all of the laws of science. Therefore, attempting to reverse such a law would be rebelling against God. He suggests that some take this attitude when it comes to prophecy or even evaluating our current circumstances. Some look and claim that we shouldn't help the poor or clean up the environment because it's a helpless cause. However, McLaren says this passage shows us, "that God actually cares about this world. God has not abandoned creation. The law of entropy might be a law of physics, but there is a deeper law in the universe, it's the law of God's faithfulness. And that God does not abandon His creation, but that God cares about it being renewed, and restored, and rebuilt."

Some observations

1.
While McLaren is able to summarize the details of Luke 4, I couldn't help but get the impression he was not very familiar with specific details. For one, he stated it was Luke 3 a couple of times. This would not be a major concern (again, we've all missed a reference before) except that he misses something else critical within the text. He tells the audience that Jesus quotes the passage in Isaiah 61 (verses 1-4 is what McLaren read aloud) however Jesus only quoted Isaiah 61:1-2. Why does this matter? Because McLaren spends a majority of his time in Luke 4 telling the audience how concerned Jesus is with cities and ruins, yet Jesus did not find it necessary to read that portion. Instead, Jesus concluded with "to proclaim the favorable year of the LORD." Jesus did not even bother reading the portion about cities and ruins, therefore it seems a stretch to say that was His main point when speaking to those in Nazareth.

2. To say that what Isaiah prophesied (and saw happen) in his day is happening again in Jesus' day seems to put Isaiah's and Jesus' ministry on the same plain. He does not take opportunity to share that Jesus was a greater fulfillment of the prophecy, nor that He had a greater mission than Isaiah.

3. I don't just struggle to see how the text makes McLaren's point, I actually struggle to see how it doesn't contradict his main point. He states that Jesus tells them the prophecy is fulfilled in their hearing and then goes out and actually performs these acts. McLaren warns us not to spiritualize this fulfillment, for Jesus says He will restore sight to the blind and we certainly see that literally fulfilled (thus making his case). However, I am not aware of Him creating release of the captives (actually, He left John the Baptist in prison to be beheaded), or to set free those who had been oppressed (I do not remember Him freeing a single slave and when His political motives were challenged He stated His kingdom is not of this world.) Again, Jesus mentions nothing of restoring cities and buildings, yet McLaren claims that was part of His mission too (even though He spoke of the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem and did nothing to prevent it). John 9 seems to be an important place to turn. Yes, Jesus cared abou the physical nature of things (we are not gnostics) and healed a man born blind. However, He seems to care even more about the man's soul, pursuing the man to reveal Himself as Lord to him.

4. I actually really liked McLaren's "clean your room" example. (I could hear myself trying that kind of approach as a child.) And he is quite right that we should not throw our hands up in dispair, refusing to influence the world. However, I was greatly disappointed to not hear the gospel articulated at this point. Entropy gave him a great opportunity. The law of entropy was not in effect when God said, "It is good," but became a law imposed upon a fallen world. This was a great door for McLaren to introduce the problem of sin. Sin is the reason for entropy, and only if God reverses the problem of sin can He reverse the problem of entropy. Yet McLaren presented entropy as if God created a world full of sin, disease, decay and death. Second, I'm not sure what better suggests that God has not abandoned His creation than to state He was willing to die to reverse the curse. Yet McLaren gives no reference to the cross.

Summary

The passage in Luke does not seem to be about the environment or social reform. In fact, the passage does not even contain some of the statements that McLaren draws as his main points. Not only does the listener focus on a point the text does not make, but it also causes the listener to miss the main point of the passage. The first line Jesus quotes from Isaiah is about proclaiming the gospel. The last line He quotes is about it being the favorable year of the Lord. McLaren does not acknowledge either of these points, instead focussing on the environment. By this point in his message, he has mentioned personal sin (acknowledging it is bad), however it is placed right beside social and political injustice. It is not presented as a violation of God's righteousness.

Mark 10:17-27

After listening to a message by Brian McLaren, I decided to review his understanding of the text quoted. I ask you to please read my purpose and intent in evaluating before reading further.

First, McLaren directs the congregation to Isaiah 61:1-4. (You can read my review here.) Next, he turns the group to Luke 4:16-21 (review here.) Lastly, he goes to Mark 10:17-27

McLaren's Emphasis

1.
McLaren suggests that when the ruler asks what he must do to inherit eternal life, he does not mean heaven. He suggests the man is saying, "Jesus, there is a different kind of life that You are talking about. You call it the kingdom of God. It's life that is on the higer level, it's not just stuck in the mundane. It's life that has an eternal significance. Life in the kingdom of God."

2. Jesus questions why the man would call Him "Good Teacher" since only God is good. McLaren says what Jesus meant here was, "Look, if you're just interested in the opinion of a good teacher, that's one thing. But if you really are interested in what God says about this, let's go back to the commandments in the Bible."

3. The rich young ruler claims that he has kept the commandments. The text says that Jesus felt compassion for him. McLaren understands His compassion was borne out of thinking, "He's [the rich young ruler] is really sincere." McLaren states this man has everything we all want. He is young, he has money, he has influence. Jesus sees all this, but sees a man who wants something greater.

4. McLaren states that if this was about eternity, Jesus gives the wrong answer. But if he's asking a question about higher signficance, life on a higher level, then Jesus' answer makes sense. When Jesus tells the man to sell all he has and follow Him, McLaren understands Jesus to be saying, "You are a really commited guy. You're doing great. But if you really want to be a part of the kingdom of God...[at this point, McLaren references back to Jesus' main point in Luke 4 being social action, even though he acknowledges the ruler wouldn't have been there to hear Jesus read Isaiah 61]...back then I said the reason I am here is to bring good news to the poor. If you want to be a part of My thing, if you think I am more than just a teacher, and that God is really speaking through Me, then what I'm asking you to do is join me in my concern for the poor."

5. When Jesus says it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, He is not speaking of heaven. He's talking about being a part of His work, that He calls being a part of the kingdom of God now.

6. McLaren states that Jesus could not have been talking to the rich young ruler about eternity, or else He really messed up the Lord's prayer. He says that "thy kingdom come" and "thy will be done" speaks of Jesus' desire to bring God to us, not for us to look forward to escape in heaven.

Some observations

1.
If the rich young ruler did not mean life after death, there are several words that need explanation. First, the ruler asks about inheriting eternal life. He does not say greater life, he does not ask for abundant life, he asks about eternity. If the man sells all he has, Jesus says his treasure will be in heaven. He does not say here on earth, but speaks of life after death, and its reward. The rich young ruler does not correct Jesus for focussing on eternity. The disciples ask who can then be saved. This seems and odd question if Jesus was merely speaking of quality of life.

2. McLaren misses Jesus' emphasis on God's righteousness when He questions the ruler for saying "Good Teacher." Jesus is saying that only God is good. Yet, this is also a moment where Jesus is expressing His divinity. For if God alone is good, and "Good Teacher" is an applicable name for Jesus, then Jesus must be God.

3. See observation 1.

4. McLaren paints Jesus as in oppostion to the Apostle Paul in Romans 1-3. The suggestion seems to come across that man can be good enough to come before God.

5. See observation 1.

6. McLaren gives the listener two options: a) Either care about the present, and improving conditions of life now, or b) focus only on heaven. He does not seem to believe both can be accomplished. I know McLaren has stated his doubts about orthodox doctrines of hell, but he seems to dismiss the eternal so much, I'm wondering if he believes in heaven either. The believer should be able to strive to improve life around him and long for heaven.

Summary

McLaren redefines many words in this passage. If you took the literal dialogue in the passage and compared it to what he believes they were really saying, it would not appear to be the same conversation. The gospel continues to be neglected, and comments are even made that appear contrary to the gospel. He does not address God's righteousness, though "Good Teacher" is a great place to do so. He does not present man's depravity, though the commandments are a great opportunity to do so. It even appears to be a bit of a works salvation, that "joining Jesus' social program" is what it means to inherit eternal life. Not only do traditional interpretations of passages go out the window, but many orthodox doctrines seem to disappear as well.

Matthew 28:19-20

"On Your Mark, Get Set, Finished!"

"Go and make gospel-professors of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Then teach them about all that I've commanded [even though it has nothing to do with the gospel, by then they will be sucked in and will go along with it]. And lo, I am with you always [even if it doesn't turn out as Left Behind described]."--Matthew 28:19-20 [Amplified 21st Century American Edition]

Of course, the Great Commission calls us to make disciples. An over emphasis on the work of "pre-evangelism" can often cause us to think we've crossed the finish line the moment a person repents and trusts Christ.
But a person has not finished the race when they trust Christ. They have just begun the race. The finish line is not crossed until we are ushered into the presence of God.

A person before trusting Christ has not entered the race. They may be watching the race. They may be stretching. They may even be placing their feet in the starter blocks, but until they repent and trust Christ, they have not even entered the race, let alone finished it.

Of course, we celebrate whole-heartedly when a person enters the race with us. But the Great Commission has not yet been acheived. The call is to help make them a disciple...to grow, train and equip them for works of service God has appointed in advance for them (Ephesians 2:10). They have just started, not finished.

When discipleship and evangelism are severed (as if one is optional, the other is what we are called to do) the gospel inevitably suffers. When we think conversion is the finish, the gospel must become the starter's blocks. It is simply a tool to get us into the race. However, the gospel is so much more than that. The gospel is the very track we run upon. It is the foundation below our feet. It is the course that keeps our direction proper. It provides the resistance that makes our very movement possible. We do not move closer to the finish line having left the gospel behind, but rather, we move closer to the finish as we travel along this message. The man running ten seconds from the finish line is just as dependant upon the gospel is the man who has just entered the race. The gospel is never left behind in the dust.

Using theological terminology: The gospel message is whereby we receive our justification (made righteous before God). It is also where we receive our sanctification (grow into the image of Christ). It is where our glorification (eventually restored to a sinless nature, before Christ, with renewed bodies) resides. Each of these are necessary for the disciple, because only the person who has been justified, sanctified and glorified can enjoy the fruit of the gospel (being in the presence of Christ for eternity).

[Just for clarification. Sanctification does not save a person. Justification and sanctification are seperate issues. However, sanctification will follow in the life of the person who has been justified (Phil 1:6). Just as God does the work of justification, He also does the work of sanctification and glorification. But He will justify, sanctify and glorify those who are genuine disciples.]

We go and make disciples (calling them to run the race) of all nations. Baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (signifying they have put self to death and risen anew in Christ...a new life has begun!), teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you (not because it is a seperate issue, but because His commands are built upon the very truths of the gospel).

And lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age? That's the beautiful acknowledgment that:

Praise God we do not run the race alone!