Perspicuous Perspectives

Empty Stuff

2009-09-22T23:36:00.000-07:00

Ecclesiastes 2:1-26

Introduction

So I hated life, for the work which had been done under the sun was grievous to me; because everything is futility and striving after wind.

In this chapter, we see that even the pursuit of pleasure simply brought the Preacher pain. Though he had been blessed with many things, they did not bring him any joy.

Commentary

Three Frustrating Pursuits

Pleasure--The Preacher decides to set himself toward enjoying the things which he has. He allows wine in moderation to bring him some pleasure and relaxation. He then set out to consider what he could develop. He built houses, planted vineyards, established parks and gardens, surrounding himself with slaves, grew large flocks, accumulated great wealth, provided himself with great entertainment and singers and even sought sexual pleasure through many concubines.

The Preacher is unique in that there was no limit to his pursuit of pleasure. If he wanted something, he had the means available to attain it. Whereas you and I can find the pursuit of pleasure in things to be limited--for we are limited in what we can acquire--the Preacher does not have this problem. When we pursue pleasure in an object or material things and pleasure cannot be found, you and I can be tempted to believe it is simply evaded us because of the limit in quantity we can enjoy. But the Preacher tells us that if he wanted it, he got it.

But such a pursuit did not bring the Preacher joy. Ultimately, all that he had, and all the pleasures he enjoyed did not truly profit him. A full-fledged materialistic pursuit with no limit in acquisition still ended with futility.

Reputation--It's interesting to see how status begins to creep into the Preacher's thinking. It was not enough that he gained a large farm, but he needed to tell us it was larger than all before him (7). He reminds us that his pursuit ended with him being greater than all before him (9). Though his pursuit may not have started with him comparing himself to others, it eventually ends at this place. Yet, he must consider that nothing he can do is really that impressive, for it has been accomplished before. And not only that, but men will forget all about him, just like they would the fool. Sure, pursuing wisdom may mean you get to enjoy some more things here on earth--due to your wise stewardship--but ultimately the same fate befalls the fool and the wise man alike. The reputation may stand for a moment, but someone else will gain more things and bypass your reputation, or upon death, your reputation will be forgotten. The pursuit becomes empty.

Inheritance--Since possessions cannot bring personal satisfaction, perhaps the Preacher could find more joy in fulfillment for others. He could continue to accumulate possessions, but instead of the focus being personal, he could prepare for others. Could satisfaction be found in setting up the lives of your descendants?

Again, the Preacher only finds despair. Sure, he can work hard and be wise to be sure to provide a large inheritance, but he has no idea how his children would handle it. Will they squander it all? Will they not make the same wise choices he did and end up losing it in poor investments? Could the inheritance even lead to a poor work ethic?

Ultimately, the Preacher mourns that the inheritance may not last, and that his children may not truly benefit from it. It does not seem right to him that they get to enjoy what he has worked so hard for, though they did not have to work to receive it.

So, Now What?

In light of this despair, what is left to do with your possessions? The Preacher resigns that there is nothing better to do than to enjoy what you do have. It may not be perfect and it may not be totally fulfilling, but enjoying what you have at least makes the most of what you have. Eat, drink and enjoy what you have from you work. The Preacher even seems to acknowledge that grace and humility (rather than pride) are at the root of enjoying these things. God has given them to you. God has given you the ability to enjoy it. Therefore, do it!

At first glance, this could seem to be the proper approach to our possessions. [In fact, I have heard several pastors quote these verses as a commission that this is what God would have us do with your stuff.] However, notice that this view also ends in despair (v 26).

It is also scary to note that if you believe that your possessions are the result of grace and are gifts from God, yet do not seek a higher purpose than "under heaven" then you must formulate a purpose for the grace you have received. Without seeing that things exist and happen for the purpose of glorifying Christ, a person is left to see their life in total isolation. So, the Preacher ends up believing that what he has is a reflection of what he has done. God will give to him because he has done well, while the one who has not is deprived because he is wicked. Such a view will lead to a self-righteousness.

There has to be something better than just temporary fulfillment from your possessions, right?

Jesus Transforms It All

Throughout Ecclesiastes, the words of the Preacher are Christless. He only seeks out that which is "under the sun" or "under heaven." We should read his words, see his despair, and know that in Christ, things do not have to be as he describes. But was does considering Christ do to our view of possessions? In light of death, our possessions become futile and empty. We can't take any of it with us. (Growing up, my father would regularly remind me, "You don't see trailer hitches on hearses.") But what does a consideration of Christ accomplish? Does it simply say, "Well, you are going to die someday, but there is life after death through Christ. So enjoy what you've got now, because you don't need to fear death."

No, we should understand that Christ not only gives us hope for after death, but He also transforms how we should view our possessions here on earth.

"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."--Matthew 6:19-21

When we consider Christ, we learn that our present circumstances can be submitted for eternal glory of Christ. Therefore, what I have is not simply for this world. When I acknowledge that it is submitted to Christ--and that He sits as Lord over all--my possessions become object for His glory. If you simply view your possessions for you own joy, then yes, the day is coming that you die and have nothing to show for it. But if while "under the sun" you seek to use what you have to bring glory to Christ and spread His gospel, then after you die, those objects have generated eternal reward; reward which will also serve to glorify Christ.

A close look at 1 Corinthians 3 reminds the believer that he will stand before God in judgement. It is not a judgement to condemnation, for Christ has saved us from such condemnation. It is a judgement toward reward. And Paul reminds us that God will take all things from our life on earth and pass it through a fire. If those things on earth lead to eternal benefit, then they will be displayed for eternal reward. However, if the things from this earth were only used for temporal joy on earth, then the possession is consumed with the fire of judgement.

The glory of considering Christ is that we are not left to despair in our possessions' failure to provide real joy. We become aware that it is impossible for things to produce genuine joy, therefore we are not disappointed when objects let us down. We also do not find vanity in death, but in light of eternal life, we are aware that our current living can have eternal benefit.

Conclusion

We can seek meaning in our things, but we are incapable of keeping them secure. They will be destroyed, slowly decay or even be stolen. However, Christ has stored up for us a treasure that is eternally secure, and guarded by His eternal hand:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ; and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls.--1 Peter 1:3-9

Empty Wisdom

2009-09-20T11:28:00.000-07:00

Ecclesiastes 1:12-18

Introduction

Because in much wisdom there is much grief, and increasing knowledge results in increasing pain.

The preacher lays out some pretty negative thoughts in regard to wisdom. Twice in this short passage he acknowledges that pain and grief come with increased wisdom and knowledge. Should this be our attitude toward wisdom?

Commentary

The Preacher begins his "lesson" by letting us know that more wisdom has simply brought the knowledge of more pain. As he seeks out answers, he simply finds more devastation. Persecution, oppression, injustice, disease, heartache, pain and death. These are the things the Preacher finds when he looks more closely at life. This pursuit only brings grief.

In fact, the Preacher feels it is grievous--the Hebrew word suggest a tone of evil or bad--task given by God that weighs down and burdens man. It is our fate to seek out the answers to these things, but what a miserable fate it is. For as the Preacher explores these issues, he finds that he really has very little control over the events of his life, or the life of anyone else. That which is crooked cannot be straightened; he cannot really change the course of anything before him. He sought wisdom and found it, and at the end of that frontier he found pain and misery.

Is Wisdom Really Vanity?

The report of the Preacher seems so contrary to the perspective of wisdom from Proverbs 3:7-26:

Do not be wise in your own eyes; Fear the LORD and turn away from evil. It will be healing to your body And refreshment to your bones. Honor the LORD from your wealth And from the first of all your produce; So your barns will be filled with plenty And your vats will overflow with new wine. My son, do not reject the discipline of the LORD Or loathe His reproof, For whom the LORD loves He reproves, Even as a father {corrects} the son in whom he delights. How blessed is the man who finds wisdom And the man who gains understanding. For her profit is better than the profit of silver And her gain better than fine gold. She is more precious than jewels; And nothing you desire compares with her. Long life is in her right hand; In her left hand are riches and honor. Her ways are pleasant ways And all her paths are peace. She is a tree of life to those who take hold of her, And happy are all who hold her fast. The LORD by wisdom founded the earth, By understanding He established the heavens. By His knowledge the deeps were broken up And the skies drip with dew. My son, let them not vanish from your sight; Keep sound wisdom and discretion, So they will be life to your soul And adornment to your neck. Then you will walk in your way securely And your foot will not stumble. When you lie down, you will not be afraid; When you lie down, your sleep will be sweet. Do not be afraid of sudden fear Nor of the onslaught of the wicked when it comes; For the LORD will be your confidence And will keep your foot from being caught.

We do not see pain and grief as the result of wisdom, according to this Proverb. In stead, we see healing for the body, prosperity, and blessing. Wisdom is regarded as better than silver, fine gold and precious jewels. Happiness and long life are found in wisdom.

We know that wisdom and understanding cannot be bad things, for this Proverb reminds us that God created the heavens and the earth through His great wisdom, understanding and knowledge.

Therefore, the Proverb tells us to guard wisdom and keep it close. We should highly value it for it will serve to protect us.

What is the critical distinction between this Proverb and the Preacher? First, consider two of the most famous verses from Proverbs 3:

Trust in the LORD with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He will make your paths straight. (5-6)

In Proverbs 3, wisdom is set with God forever in view. God established the creation by wisdom. Wisdom is not housed within ourselves, but is granted by God. Real wisdom is to find our confidence ultimately in the Heavenly Father.

However, the words of the Preacher do not consider this. Yes, He acknowledges that God calls man to seek wisdom, but He does not seem to find a desirable God in this process. In stead, He sees God almost cruelly setting this out as our task.

I also believe the phrases under heaven (13) and under the sun (14) speak to the Preacher's perspective. While many commentators will diminish the value of these statements, believing them to simply be a common phrase used in the era to mean "everything," I believe they carry more significance. I believe the Preacher is telling us the scope of His search. He has looked from a horizontal perspective only. He is not considering eternity. He is not considering the heavenlies and that God may have a greater purpose or perspective. He is only considering the world from his own eyes, with that which he can see.

In fact, it appears that if the Preacher is going to consider God, it is only in that He may help him gain wisdom. God becomes a means to gaining the wisdom the Preacher seeks, instead of God being the end of wisdom. Consider Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 1:18-31

For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, "I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE." Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God. But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written, "LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD."

Twice in this passage, Paul makes it very clear that Christ is not a means to you gaining wisdom, but that Christ Himself is Wisdom. Therefore, we understand that the pursuit of wisdom is not futility for the pursuit of true wisdom is actually the pursuit of Christ. We do not Christ as a tool in our quest for wisdom, to help us gain a bit further understanding, for wisdom's sake. No, we seek wisdom because in it, we find and know Christ more deeply. Through the glory of the gospel, we find that true wisdom transcends beyond "under the sun" and "under heaven" and becomes the One who is seated at the right hand of the Father.

Conclusion

Wisdom is not intended to be a grievous task. However, if the pursuit of wisdom is restricted to simply seeking out things we see on this side of eternity and are removed from the pursuit of Christ, then such wisdom will only bring grief and pain. This sort of wisdom will only reveal to us the pain in the world and our helplessness to do anything about it. However, when we seek Christ, we see the One who came and lived within our pain, who became the Man of Sorrow, so that we may be set from from only considering the here and now. Instead, we find great hope, for the pursuit of true wisdom leads us to the foot of the cross, where we see our Savior becoming a curse for us, so we would not have to endure the grief of this world alone. Instead, we rest in the day that is coming when all such grief will be done away with!

Luke 11:5-13

2009-09-14T10:14:00.000-07:00

Introduction

There is a fine line between persistence and nagging. While everyone celebrates the quality of perseverance, no one wants to harry. But in most situations, you can read a person's body language to help you navigate that fine line. As the person begins to show signs of annoyance, it serves as gauge to tell you it is time to back down a bit.

But what do we do in prayer? We can't really see God's face to know if we are bugging Him. Are we left to assess our circumstances to determine if He is annoyed? Am I being stubborn or wrong to continue to pray for something which God has not yet granted? Furthermore, does God even find my praying annoying? Obviously, if we care about our relationship with God, we should care about these answers.

After teaching what is often called The Lord's Prayer, Jesus then gives a parable and explanation regarding prayer.

Commentary

Exhibit A (Luke 11:5-8)

Suppose one of you...This parable has a little extra emphasis, for Jesus places the listener into the lesson. He does not present this tale as "a man was visited by a friend," but keeps His listeners involved in the illustration. Jesus began to teach His disciples about prayer at their prompting and He's continuing now into the attitude behind prayer, and wants to make sure they understand He is still instructing them personally.

Hospitality--The problem for the host would be understandable to the audience. In our age, a person can travel across the country and you can predict their time of arrival within minutes. However, in the Biblical era, you are fortunate to predict a guest's arrival within a day or two. Transportation would be far less dependable as well as options for lodging along the way. And without constant forms of communication, the traveler would have no way to contact their host with an approximate arrival time. And without modern forms of food preservation, the host would not want to prepare for their guest too far in advance.

Therefore, even if the host was anticipating the arrival of a guest, it is understandable that he would not be prepared at midnight. However, his friend has been traveling and is now under his roof. There would be an expectation to take care of this weary traveler. However, to the host's dread, he finds his cupboard bare--a nightmare in a culture that highly value's hospitality. And since there are no 24 hour grocery stores at this moment, apart from the help of his neighboring friend, it is impossible for him to care for his guest.

Clearly, Jesus is associating the host with the person praying. The host heads over to the friend's house because he is in serious need and helpless to change the situation. The host holds in his hands the ability to change the circumstances for the host.

The Outcome--Imagine being the neighbor and getting a call (or the doorbell ringing) at midnight. A typical home at this time was simply a one room house. Since modern forms of heat were not available (and evenings could get cool), the family usually slept closer together to provide warmth. As your "friend" knocks on the door, he could wake all the children up, and if you rise to answer the door and then search around your house for food to share, you nearly insure that the children will wake up!

However, you also know, as it becomes clear that your friend is not going to give up easily, that if your friend continues to knock on the door and call out for you, he will most certainly wake up the entire house. Furthermore, you will not be able to get back to sleep until he is off of your front porch. The goal becomes peace and silence, therefore you respond to your friend's need because it is the quickest (and easiest) way to get him to leave you alone.

Bottom line: Badgering got results that simply asking could not.

Explanation (Luke 11:9-10)

Jesus turns his attention back to his disciples specifically. In light of this parable, Jesus then tells His disciples to ask so that they can receive. You hear an echo of these words later, when James says:

You do not have because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures.--James 4:2b-3

Jesus encourages his disciples, in the midst of teaching them on prayer, to ask. Should one expect to receive if they do not ask? However, if you ask, shouldn't you expect to receive?

Jesus gives a parable about badgering your neighbor for things, then draws that to direct application ("So I say to you...) in our prayer life. Is He teaching that just as badgering our neighbor can gain results, so can badgering God?

Exhibit B

Less of a hypothetical, Jesus turns the attention to parenting. Dads, which of you do not want what's best for your children? You would not replace a request for a fish with a snake, or an egg for a scorpion, would you? Of course not, because you love your children and want their best. However, every honest parent knows that at times, they do respond to their children according to their own selfish motive and not the child's best. (Discipline being a critical area. Often we are tempted to discipline our children more out of our frustration or embarrassment and less out of a desire for their growth and development.) Why, though we love our children, are we tempted at times to think selfishly rather than selflessly? Jesus says it is because we are evil. We are sinners.

So, if we still desire to lavish gifts and care upon our children, even though we struggle against sin, how much more will God's love be shown in His benevolence since He does not battle selfish sin? We are encouraged to ask of God just as we would ask of our earthly fathers, believing they desire what's best for us. However, we can ask of God with even more confidence, since He is our Perfect, Sinless Father.

Explanation

At first glance, this text can appear contradictory. Jesus offers one example which says we should badger God just like the neighbor did his friend, for eventually He will give in just to get us off His back. Then then follows it with the exhortation to ask.

The second example follows the exhortation to ask, and tells us our motivation should be a trust in God that He will treat us better than our earthly father.

Some will argue, "Who cares?" Either way, you're called to ask. Does it really matter what your motivation will be? I believe it does matter, for the reason you ask will effect the way which you ask. Your theology will greatly effect your actions.

However, I do not think the "exhibits" are contradictory. Let's consider the what Jesus says about the neighboring friend:

He is able to help, but unwilling. (12:7)
He claims that helping would be far to inconvenient. (12:7)
He claims he cannot get up, though he obviously can. (12:7)
Out of no regard for relationship--but rather do to nagging--he will eventually respond. (12:8)

To understand Jesus' parable is to understand He is not calling us to contrast the two "exhibits" but to contrast the first exhibit with the Biblical revelation of our Heavenly Father. Not only is our Heavenly Father capable of helping, but He is also willing. Our Heavenly Father made the Greatest Sacrifice ever in sending His Son, so He obviously is not one who values His convenience over others' well-being. If everything about the "friend" is inconsistent with the Biblical picture of our Heavenly Father, then shouldn't we contrast their motivation for acting as well?

In reality, Jesus is teaching that God will respond to our requests, not because we wear Him down with nagging and He eventually wants to be rid of us, but because of His great love for us. The point is that God is nothing like the neighboring "friend," but is exactly the opposite. His motivation is His great love for us and therefore we should ask of Him, just like we would our earthly father.

Conclusion

Believing that your nagging God will gain you results will end in damaging theology.

Suppose you get what you ask for: You will be tempted to see your sovereignty above God's. He responded to you because you "out-willed" Him. In this way, you can believe you can ensure results and get God to do what you want. Many people pray to God as if He is their marionette. You will believe you got results, not by His grace, but by your effort. Any time you have this type of perspective, you diminish the glory of God, and by doing so, it will have damaging effects upon you.

Suppose you do not get what you asked for: You will assume the blame upon yourself. You did not pray enough times, or long enough or hard enough. You'll be left wondering how close you got God to exasperation before you quit. You will wonder if a lack of response is your failure. Since the prayers of a righteous man are powerful and effective, you will wonder if a lack of your desired answer must be a reflection of a lack of character. While pride can become evident in self-righteousness when we get what we ask for, it can also show its presence when we think we are the reason for a different result.

Yes, the Bible says much on prayer, and this short section of Scripture does not cover it all. The Bible clearly shows that our prayers somehow have an effect on a Sovereign God who already knows the beginning from the end. They are not a futile exercise, but do have an effect. However, the Word also teaches that God may not give us what we ask for at times because His grace calls for Him to give us something else. This text, however, speaks to us specifically about our motivation.

We should ask God of that which we desire. We should ask, not demand. We should ask, trusting that He will respond to us according our relationship with Him, not according to our performance. Therefore, we must also trust that if we do not receive our desired outcome, it is because our gracious loving God wants something even better for us. We may not always see this, or understand how our current circumstances are an evidence of His grace, but we can rest that it is.

Ultimately we should ask of God, and ask away! Knowing that our Loving Heavenly Father will give us what we need, not simply what we want. We cannot nag Him or wear Him down, but instead we share our heart, rejoicing that above all else, He has given us His Son and the Holy Spirit! He is always our True and Perfect Friend, when we are in or out of need!

Finding Meaning in the Meaningless

2009-09-10T06:48:00.000-07:00

Ecclesiastes Overview

Introduction

Vanity of Vanities, says the Preacher, Vanity of vanities! All is vanity.

No other book of Scripture begins with such a tone. Of course, though vanity today can mean "excessive pride in one's appearance," this is not the author's intention. Some translations say, "meaningless" and the Hebrew even conveys "emptiness or worthlessness." Some assume such a despairing tone is the author's attempt to shock and gain attention. However, the author also concludes the book (12:8) with:

Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, all is vanity!

A close survey of the book will show this is the Preacher's theme throughout.

But why the despair?
Is there really no hope?
How does this theme find consistency with the rest of the Bible?

Commentary

The [not-so] Merry-Go-Round of Life (1:3-11)

The despair of the preacher is immediately attributed to cycles seen in life, the most tragic being the coming and going of generations. A generation is born, lives and then dies, yet the earth just continues on as it always has. There are three illustrations of this:

The sun--Everyday, the sun rises in its place, travels across the sky and sets in its place again. Only to rise the next day and go through the same pattern all over again. (Some suggest "scientific inaccuracy" in the language, for it suggests the sun is moving in the sky. However, this is just figurative language, the same as we continue to call it a "sunrise" and "sunset," though we know the earth is in orbit.)

The winds--Similarly, the wind seems to cycle around the globe. The wind blows south only to double back north again. The cycle simply continues.

The rivers--Even the water cycle serves as an example. The waters flow into a lake, yet the lake never overflows. The river finds its source in another lake, yet that lake never runs dry. The perfect illustration of this is the Jordan River, which flows from the Sea of Galilee into the Dead Sea. Though the Dead Sea has not outlet, it never fills up.

Like a merry-go-round, cycles in life can seem fun at first but later become nauseating. A cycle can seem to bring stability and predictability. However, the despair comes in not finding a way out of the cycle. Eventually, these things become wearisome. We never find satisfaction in what we see or hear.

There simply is nothing new. What has come to be already existed and we're looking at the future right now, for it will simply repeat our present. Not only is this wearisome, but the fact that some people think things are new is wearisome as well. When someone thinks something is new, this only shows how quickly they forget the past. In fact, the cycle is so sure, we can even confidently know that future events will be a copy of present circumstances, and will also be forgotten. There seems to be no way of escape.

While we may be able to affirm this pattern by observing life, we do find a tension in this passage. No other part of Scripture provides this hopelessness. Can you imagine Jesus or John the Baptist standing in front of a crowd and declaring, "This is all worthless. It's a cycle with no escape and there is no point."

Why would the message of Ecclesiastes be so unique to the rest of Scripture?

The Author v The Preacher

To properly understand the Book of Ecclesiastes, I believe we have to come to terms with the fact that some things in the Bible are not true. This is not an attack on divine, verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scripture. It is an affirmation that the Scriptures record true statements from men, as well as false statements. We first meet Satan in Scripture as he lies. Job is filled with chapters of really bad advice from ignorant friends.

I remember once seeing a church website that posted the verse Therefore, if You worship before me, it shall all be Yours (Luke 4:7). This is a horrible verse for a church, for you must consider the source and purpose of the verse. This verse is not assuring us that all things will be come ours by worshipping Christ. THis verse is actually from Satan, to Jesus, during the temptation. First of all, Satan is calling for Jesus to commit idolatry. Second, it is a false statement, for Satan does not have the authority to eternally hand all things over to Christ. When we consider the context of this verse (including the source), we realize this statement is recorded perfectly in the Scriptures, but the statement is a false statement.

In the same way, I believe we are to understand the majority of the Book of Ecclesiastes as false thinking. Consider the third person to first person switch in the Book.

From verse 1:1--The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.
From verse 1:12--I, the Preacher, have been king over Israel in Jerusalem.
From verse 10:7--I have seen slaves riding on horses and princes walking like slaves on the land.
From verse 12:8--"Vanity of vanities," says the Preacher, "all is vanity!"

Observing the shift in person (from third to first back to third), helps us understand their are two main characters of the book of Ecclesiastes: The Author and The Preacher. From verse 1:12 through verse 12:7, we are given the teaching's of the Preacher, though I do not believe the Preacher is actually the author of the book. Consider how awkward verse 9 & 10 are, if the Preacher actually recorded these things about himself and chose not to do so in the first person:

In addition to being a wise man, the Preacher also taught people knowledge; and he pondered, searched out and arranged many proverbs. The Preacher sought to find delightful words and to write words of truth correctly.

In verse 12:11, the Author reminds us that true wisdom comes from One Shepherd, and I believe it is his intention to contrast the Preacher's "wisdom" with the wisdom that comes from One Shepherd. THerefore, we need to understand that most of the book of Ecclesiastes is supposed to presented in contrast with Christ-centered thinking.

However, there are some obstacles we must be aware of to keep from tripping over details:

Who is the Preacher? Many (if not most) commentators suppose the Author to be Solomon. I do believe the Preacher may be Solomon (either directly quoting him, or basing the "sermon" of the preacher upon the experiences of Solomon.) While some things seem to affirm Solomon, many of these do not necessitate the Preacher to be Solomon (ie. Son of David can be simply mean descendant), while other statements seem awkward for Solomon to make (ie. "all who were over Jerusalem before me"). Again, the Preacher could be a direct (or indirect) reference to Solomon, however, there is another tragic reason it does not seem the Author would be Solomon.

Simply put, Solomon's life does not end well. Because Ecclesiastes ends with a call to fear God and appears to show the worthlessness of all his previous musings, many assume this to mean Solomon experienced a personal revival at the end of his life. However, 1 Kings 11 does not present a picture of Solomon repenting. I pray for his sake that he did, but the text seems to indicate that Solomon died in the despair and deceit of his sin.

Thus, if the sermon is Solomon's, it is likely a different author places the sermon in the middle of the book to illustrate to his son (12:12), how not to think. The Preacher's thinking does not consider the One True Shepherd, while the Author calls his son to consider all wisdom actually comes from the One Shepherd.

What about references to God within the Preacher's sermon? This seems to be the most common inconsistency of most commentators. Occasionally, the Preacher's sermon seems to find some hope and even speaks of true characteristics of God. Most commentators see these as signs that even when beat down by life's circumstances, one cannot remain in despair. These statements are seen as signs of hope and virtue.

However, nearly every on of these "positive" statements are followed another statement about vanity. None of these middle statements about God's character actually reveal joy, hope or delight in the Preacher. Instead, he rightly assesses an attribute of God (like Sovereignty), but does not delight in it (but rather finds God rather capricious). He may state something accurate about God, yet it is incomplete. Since the perspective of the Preacher is Christ-less, his thinking is naturally incomplete.

Derek Kidner, in his commentary on Ecclesiastes, reminds the reader that the secular mind is "not necessarily theoretical atheism, but a thoughtless attitude towards a God whose existence is unquestioned but unappreciated." Though the Preacher's view is Christ-less, it does not mean he denies the existence of God. It simply means he has not given God much thought, not does He appreciate and give thanks for Him.

Such a view of the Preacher helps us understand why he does not find joy, hope or worship when considering God.

Conclusion

So if most of the book of Ecclesiastes is inaccurate thinking, what benefit is there in studying the book?

Evangelism
Reading the words of the Preacher should break our hearts. We not only see the number of harmful ways he pursues pleasure, but also the empty results the pursuits produce. To know that real people are caught up in these vain pursuits should cause us to feel compassion for their despair.

I've heard people advocate that media is a great way to develop this compassion as well. Pastors will exhort their congregations to get to the movie theatre and watch the hottest television shows so that you can know what "unsaved Joe and Mary" are thinking. However, the entertainment may not be accurate to how a typical person things (there is still a vast difference between Rodeo Drive and Main Street), it may not accurately reveal the vanity of such thinking, and it also may present those pursuits in enticing ways that do nothing to promote your sanctification.

Instead, the book of Ecclesiastes serves us by taking us into the heart and mind of the Preacher. This also serves our evangelism for we can see the source of the despair that he feels. Many people will pursue these vain pleasures and think the reason they are coming up empty is due to a lack of resource. However, the Preacher shows us someone who was able to pursue these things fully, yet comes away unfulfilled. We should use his message to push others to see the vanity in their own pursuits. As the Preacher reveals, death can be a great apologetic. As one is forced to consider their own death, the things they live for now suddenly become powerless and worthless. We can sharpen our ability to lovingly point these vanities out to others by reading the words of the Preacher.

We're reminded that this is how most people think. And though they may believe in God, they may pursue morals and may even accept that Jesus was special, they do not see Him as Lord and Savior sitting above all things. To say this powerless form of Christ is genuine Christianity is like saying a tree and an elephant are similar because they both have a trunk. We see the contrast between a Sovereign Christ and a helpless religious teacher, but it also our responsibility to help them see the difference too!

Sanctification
But the words of the Preacher are not just for the lost. Though Christ is our Living Water, we can still be tempted to go to other wells. The words of the Preacher serve as a reminder to us that we should not be tempted to chase after these other pursuits. As we continue to war against the flesh, it serves us well to be aware of its strategies. The Preacher's words remind and rebuke me in my drift toward Christless thinking. They also serve as an encouragement to know that in Christ, such despair is completely removed. The despair created by these vanities are replaced by the hope of Him!

True Worship
Reading Ecclesiastes should cause you to exult in Christ!

The calling away from the Preacher's teaching is not to a different philosophy. Consider Colossians 2:8:

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

Paul does not simply call us to think more like Christians, Paul calls us to think on Christ. By looking at the completely Christless perspective of the Preacher, the believer is reminded that our hope is found in our Savior. He is out hope, not just the One who brings hope!

The book of Ecclesiastes should cause us to exult in Christ as we see the hope only He can provide and as we acknowledge His grace to us in allowing us to see His goodness. True wisdom does come from One True Shepherd, Our Chief Shepherd!

Leviticus 12:1-8

2009-03-31T11:15:00.000-07:00

Introduction

At this point, the LORD begins to instruct Moses about cleanliness laws. This section continues from chapter twelve to chapter fifteen and covers everything from the cleanliness of a woman haven given birth, issues of leprosy, mold within a home, skin diseases and other genera cleanliness laws.

However, there is a very real element in Leviticus 12 which contradicts what the largest "church" in the world teaches. And for that, it is probably good for us to take a moment to look at Leviticus twelve.

Commentary

12:1
Again, the LORD instructs Moses in regard to these laws. Moses is then called to respond to these words and teach the nation of Israel.

12:2-3
When a woman gives birth to a child, she will be unclean for the first seven days. On the eighth day, however, her son will be presented before the LORD for circumcision. The act of circumcision is an exterior response to the covenant God has made with Israel. Circumcision does not enter a person automatically into the covenant with God, but is an exterior sign of an inward reality. Consider:

For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

Obviously, an eight day old baby cannot choose to be circumcised, so this is really a response from the parents to the promises of God. Simply cutting the foreskin of a son does not grant eternal life. But this is a response to the promise made by God, and the passionate desire to walk in obedience, not to establish the covenant, but to celebrate it. (see Genesis 17).

12:4
If the woman gives birth to a son, she remains unclean in her blood for a period of thirty-three days. Though she does not remain "unclean," there is some restriction which looks similar to that of uncleanness.

12:5
The time is doubled for a girl baby. There is no circumcision process for the girl, however the mother remains unclean for two weeks. Her total time of purification is sixty-six days.

12:6-7
Once her days of purification are completed (thirty-three days if she had a son, sixty-six if a daughter), she is to come to the doorway of the tent of meeting and offer a one year old lamb as a burnt offering and a young pigeon or turtledove for a sin offering. The priest will offer the sacrifice for the woman and atonement will be made and she will be cleansed from the flow of her blood.

12:8
God offers another opportunity for those without financial means. Any parent knows that the birth of a child immediately makes you assess your finances differently. The LORD offers that the person who may not have financial means, but has been blessed witha son or daughter is able to respond to the LORD in obedience without the sacrifice being too burdensome. Instead of the lamb and a pigeon/turtledove (again, notice the LORD does not give parameters as to what constitutes poverty), the LORD provides two pigeons or two turtledoves. One bird would be for the burnt offering and one is to be for sin offering. Again, we are assured that the sacrifice is pleasing to the LORD for we are told the priest will make atonement for her.

Exposition

Why would the female child cause the mother to be unclean and in her blood of purification for twice as long? There are a lot of theories, but none proves ultimately satisfactory. The text does not give us any indication as to the purpose but simply states that this is God's standard and we should comply.

But why would child birth make a person unclean?

First, the union of a husband and a wife is not sinful. God was pleased that a husband and wife would become one flesh, and such a union is intended to point us to the beauty of Christ and the church. (Genesis 2:24/Ephesians 5:31-32).

Second, reproduction is not sinful. God is not displeased when a family grows and multiplies. (Genesis 1:28)

Instead, this is a testimony to the imputation and pervasive effects of the sin nature. David stated, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me" (Psalm 51:5). Some assume this means than David was conceived in illegitimacy. However, nowhere is Scripture is this indicated and people should be cautious about making such charges. Instead, it should be understood that David is acknowledging that the sin nature was present in him from the moment of conception.

The sin nature is often misunderstood. We do not become a sinner the moment we sin, for David acknowledges the sin anture at conception. No, we sin because we are a sinner. The emphasis of the blood flow in this passage should remind us that the process of childbirth has become cursed, due to sin. Sin effects childbirth. Sin effects the child, for he/she will be conceived as a sinner.

However, the emphasis of Leviticus 12 is upon the woman. She bears the child and is unclean or in the process of purification. She offers the sacrifice. The priest presents it for her. The priest will make atonement for her. The emphasis is not upon the father or the child, but upon the mother. It should remind us of the pervasive effects of our sin nature and its universal application to all men and women.

However, many actually deny this principle!

And when eight days had passed, before His circumcision, His name was then called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb. And when the days for their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, "EVERY firstborn MALE THAT OPENS THE WOMB SHALL BE CALLED HOLY TO THE LORD"), and to offer a sacrifice according to what was said in the Law of the Lord, "A PAIR OF TURTLEDOVES OR TWO YOUNG PIGEONS."--Luke 2:21-24

From this text, we see two things:

a) Mary and Joseph were not wealthy.Jesus was not born into a family of prestige or privilege. Mary does not offer up a year old lamb, but instead offers two birds. This tells us that she and Joseph could not afford to offer anything else.

b) Mary was a sinner.First, we see that Leviticus says the offering is for the woman. Second, we know that Joseph is not actually involved in the process of Jesus' conception and is therefore removed from the birth process (other than general emotional support to Mary). Thirdly, we know that Jesus is unblemished and therefore without sin. However, Mary does not just offer a burnt offering, but presents to the priest a pair of birds.

Ironically, in an offering that is intended to teach the pervasive universal truth of sin nature, Mary's actions refute the Roman heresy of Mary's sinlessness. The "Immaculate Conception" is not about the sinlessness of Jesus Christ. The Immaculate Conception, as a Roman doctrine, is the heresy that Mary was actually born without a sin nature, so that she could then bear the Messiah. Therefore, Roman Catholicism teaches the perpetual virginity of Mary and that since she did not have a sin nature, she also lived a sinless life. When we carefully study Leviticus 12, we see that Luke 2 exposes and destroys the heretical concept of a sinless Mary! If Mary was without sin, why would she offer a sin sacrifice?

At this point, you may wonder, why would this matter? This is not a Christian apologetic blog, nor is it devoted to exposing and debunking the views of false religions. This is intended to be an online commentary of Scripture. However, I would suggest that the Roman Heresy of the perpetual virginity of Mary is deeply personal.

The Roman church has declared me damned to hell.
Consider the following "anathemas" from the Council of Trent:

“If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.” Sixth Session CANON IX

“If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.” Sixth Session CANON XII

“If any one saith, that, in the Catholic Church there is not a hierarchy by divine ordination instituted, consisting of bishops, priests, and ministers; let him be anathema.” Twenty-Third Session CANON VI.

“If any one saith, that in the Catholic Church Penance is not truly and properly a sacrament, instituted by Christ our Lord for reconciling the faithful unto God, as often as they fall into sin after baptism; let him be anathema. “ Fourteenth Session CANON II

“If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.” Seventh Session CANON V

“If any one saith, that all Christians have power to administer the word, and all the sacraments; let him be anathema.” Seventh Session CANON X

(This list is not a complete list of the anathemas from the Council of Trent, nor is it the only ones which are in direct conflict with the Scriptures and therefore consider me condemned to hell. It is also noteworthy that the Roman Catholics are not the only ones who proclaim these rules. A very strong case can be made that the Old German Baptist Brethren place all of these listed restrictions [and many more] upon people as well--except for that of confession to a priest.)

Therefore, the Roman system has officially declared that the biblical message of salvation is a message that condemns a person to hell. They have officially convened and "gone on the books" to state that I am condemned forever for believing the Bible.

I have experienced the agony of this deception upon others.

Just last week, my mother buried her father. He was honored during a mass. I had shared the gospel several times with my grandfather. My father had shared the gospel several times with my grandfather. Neither of us ever saw him respond with an affirmation of the Biblical gospel. Instead, he would ponder what was said, meet with a priest and allow the priest to explain away the Scriptures. I never had the joy of seeing my grandfather respond to the Biblical gospel with understanding.

Is my grandfather in heaven? I hope so. But my only hope is that the coma he was in for the last week of his life was actually the gracious work of My Heavenly Father to shut his ears of from the lies of the "priesthood" and allow him to be alone with the Scriptures he had heard. I prayed madly during that week that God might save him since the lies were silenced. Perhaps in His grace He did.

My ministry has been marked by too many heartbreaks due to the enemy's use of false religion. A person is counseled to read the Scriptures for a week. They return and see things which are not in the text, or ignore the obvious things that are, because a religious system has lied to them and Satan uses it as a veil over their eyes to keep them from seeing the gospel.

My Savior, the Only One Who is truly holy, Who died for my sins, is robbed of His glory.

This is actually that which is most personal. In the throne room of God, as we declare, "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty" (Revelation 4:8), should I also sing a song to Mary's holiness? Is she able to ascribe to the Lord the praise He is due when she also stands in the throne room holy in her own right? Is God's holiness really a factor that sets the Trinity apart if there is another in the room who is holy? (See how their system quickly finds Mary elevated to divine status?)

I have no idea if we will sing songs written in our present age, but how could Mary join us in singing "Jesus Paid It All?" For what has Jesus paid for Mary if she has no sin? How could she cry out "Worthy is the Lamb," a direct attestation to His atoning work, when it was not necessary for her? Furthermore, when we add just one person to the Throne room of heaven who does not actually need Christ's righteousness imputed to her, how have we not diminished His glory and made Him a liar when He said "no man gets to the Father but through Him?"

So what?

This does not become a simple exercise in doctrinal fidelity for doctrine's sake. Anyone who passionately loves Christ should greatly desire that He receive the glory He is due and hate any false doctrine which robs Him of this glory. However, in our pluralistic society, we are exhorted to believe it really doesn't matter as long as a person is sincere. Right worship matters, and right worship requires right doctrine.

The point is not simply to avoid Catholicism, for most people can easily apply this principle, and quite frankly, few probably find themselves tempted by it. The point is to passionately pursue and proclaim the glory of Christ in all His fullness and reject anything which diminishes that glory.

The Roman Catholic Church does not preach a gospel that leads to salvation and presents Christ in His deserved glory. The German Baptist Brethren Church does not preach a gospel that leads to salvation and presents Christ in His deserved glory. Neither does a liberal protestant church. Neither do silly Grace Brethren Churches which do not think it necessary to preach the gospel (because their people already know it), or who claim to be centered in Christ but do not find it necessary to talk about Him every week. There are multiple avenues and every religious organization is prone to deny or even neglect the truth of the gospel in Jesus Christ.

At this point, it is necessary to clarify. There are Roman Catholics who are saved. There are German Baptists who are saved. There are people in liberal protestant churches who are saved. There are people in gospel neglecting, Christ diminishing Grace Brethren churches who are saved. I am not saying that a specific church membership can separate a genuine believer from the love of God which in Christ Jesus our Lord.

However, our hearts should be broken to realize that Mother Teressa (a woman typically lauded for her piety) is facing eternal condemnation if she actually believed the "gospel" her church taught. If she believed in the denial of imputed righteousness (as the Catholic church proclaims), then none of her works were considered righteous by God and she did not have the wrath for her sin transferred to Christ.

This should be used as a litmus to search your own soul for salvation. If you believe that you are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, but that others may be saved through a different way, I would challenge that you do not have saving faith. If you believe Mother Teressa could accomplish salvation through her good works, you do not believe Jesus is the only way. If you believe Mary could actually be sinless and stand before God in His glory in her own merit, you believe there is another way to God than through Christ alone. The truth of the sinfulness of all of humanity should not be used as a self-righteous study to take pride in our own accurate doctrine. This truth should instead drive us to humility as we understand the severity of our own sin problem and then fill us with compassion as we genuinely try to win others to salvation in Christ.

And if you know a person who knows genuine salvation in Jesus Christ but is in the fellowship of a gospel denying fellowship, you should be compassionately pleading with them to get out! God's glory matters and we should fear the contamination of poor teaching and genuine dislike those doctrines which rob Him of His glory.

Conclusion

Such understanding of doctrine is offensive to many. It is considered judgmental and "heresy hunting." False doctrine matters and has grave consequences. How then should we respond to false doctrine?

But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life. And have mercy on some, who are doubting; save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh.--Jude 20-23

If you know Christ as your Savior, yet the noise of our pluralistic society has influenced you, and you find yourself doubting the firm conviction of the exclusivity of Christ, find a merciful believer who will help instruct you with the Word of God. Repent of the ways you have conformed to the image of the world and seek the transformation into the image of Christ by the renewing of your mind. And if you know someone who professes Christ but is struggling with doubt, seek to be that person who mercifully ministers the Word of God to him/her.

If you have not seen the severe and total depravity caused by your sin nature, nor have you understood the exclusive nature of the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ for sin, then understand your soul is at stake. This is the universally, eternally, undeniably most important issue in your life to resolve. Your soul hangs in the balance. Find someone who understands this urgency and seeks to share the message of salvation with you. If you know someone who does not understand the consequence of their sin and the exclusivity of Christ, understand their soul hangs in the balance and seek to share Christ with them. It is not your love for them that keeps you silent (for how can you claim you love them if you allow them to continue to hell without you pleading them to repent and turn). It is your love for self (and desire to avoid awkward confrontation) that keeps you silent.

And if you attend a church because it is socially acceptable, makes it easier to find customers for your multi-level-marketing home business or simply gets your mother-in-law off your back, yet you resist the message of salvation preached regularly by your church, quit coming to the church. Other souls are at risk and if you do not care enough about your own soul to submit to Christ, at least do not prevent others through your influence. And if you know someone who weekly (or regularly) attends and participates in the life of a congregation but has no interest in submitting to the gospel, have the courage to speak to them about how you do not want to see the garment polluted by the flesh.

The issue is not doctrinal fidelity for doctrine's sake. If you have tasted and seen that the Lord is good, we should desire that people understand that message. Like a person who is enjoying their best meal they have ever tasted at a restaurant raves about the meal and even offers others a bite. We should be people, who once we have seen the severity of our sin are drawn to see the glory of the grace offered in Christ and should be calling others to taste and see as well!

Leviticus 11:1-47

2009-03-24T10:36:00.000-07:00

Introduction

Many people have not given much thought to the "dietary laws" found in Leviticus. Often, the response can be quite troubling. Some have a crisis of faith, assuming this is a portion of Scripture we simply ignore, thus leading them to question what other portions of Scripture "no longer apply." Others, read the dietary laws and attempt to apply them. They seek to show their devotion to the Lord by eliminating pork or lobster. So which is it? Are we still bound by the dietary laws, or are there passages of Scripture that have no application today?

Commentary

11:1
The LORD begins to teach between the clean and unclean animals. Both Moses and Aaron receive this instruction from the LORD.

11:2-8
The nation of Israel may eat of any land animal that has a split hoof and chews cud. This is not a reference to the gestational process of the cow, but merely to the constant appearance of chewing (such as a rabbit). However, the LORD makes it clear that a rabbit is not clean, for it does not have split hoof. The requirements for cleanliness are not either/or, but the animal must have both a split hoof and must chew the cud.

Not only is the person to avoid eating these animals, but the LORD also instructs that they should not make contact with their carcasses. To touch the carcass of an unclean animal will make the person unclean as well.

11:9-12
Likewise, and Israelite may eat of any sea animal with fins and scales and remain clean. However, those sea creatures which do not have scales or do not have fins are to be regarded as unclean. This applies to all water animals, whether in the sea or in a river. They are to avoid consumption and are not to touch their carcasses.

The text makes it very clear that the LORD expects the Israelites to keep themselves distanced from these things. They are to abhor these creates and detest them. They are not to make any form of compromise.

11:13-19
The LORD next lists birds which are to be considered unclean. With birds, he does not list features that make the bird clean or unclean, but merely lists off different birds that are unclean. Though a bat is technically not considered to be a bird, it makes sense on this list since it has wings and flies, and is considered unclean.

11:20-23
Any winged insect that walks on all fours is unclean, unless they have jointed legs with which to hop. The grasshopper and the locust may be eaten, but other winged four-footed insects are forbidden.

11:24-28
The LORD reminds us that contact with an unclean animal carcass will make the person unclean. In fact, if he must move the animal (carry it), he becomes unclean until evening and must also wash his clothes. This is a deliberate "ritual" since they did not naturally wash clothing after one wearing (as we do today). These unclean carcasses could come from any of the afore mentioned unclean animals, as well as any animal with four paws.

11:29-31
The LORD also instructs Moses and Aaron that reptiles, rodents and other "swarming things" are considered unclean and detestable.

11:32-35
The LORD also instructs that the contact of an unclean animal with something will make that object unclean.

If an unclean animal dies on a fabric or clothing, the person is to wash the garment and it remains unclean until evening.

If an unclean animal dies in contact with an earthenware vessel, and oven or a stove, they are to be smashed. They remain unclean.

If an animal dies in contact with water or food or any other form of beverage, they are considered unclean. Since the LORD gives no parameters to them becoming clean again (He does not say "until evening"), it is assumed that they remain unclean and should be discarded.

11:36
However, if an unclean animals dies in contact with a cistern or well, the water remains clean, although the person who removes the animal becomes unclean.

11:37-38
If an unclean carcass falls upon a pile of seed, the seed is still considered clean. However, if the seed has had water applied to it, thus beginning the germination process, the seed is to be considered unclean.

11:39-40
The LORD also instructs that the carcass of a clean animal can also make a person unclean. If an animal used for food (a clean animal) dies, then a person who contacts the carcass or eats from it will be considered unclean until evening. Now surely, every clean animal that they ate was dead, but this speaks to the manner of the death. If they animal died without being killed for the purpose of butchering and eating, then it was unclean. However, if they killed the animal to eat it, this would not mean they are unclean. Otherwise, every form of meat would make one unclean, and even a peace offering would make one unclean.

11:41-43
The LORD "recaps" the unclean animals on the land that are not allowed. If it crawls on its belly, walks on four feet or has many legs, it is to be considered unclean and will make the person unclean. The Israelites response was that he was to detest such things.

11:44-47
The LORD explains that the motivation for pursuing cleanliness should be the holiness of God. Since God is holy and set apart, so the Israelites should seek to make a distinction between the clean and the unclean. God has called Israel out of the land of Egypt, therefore, they should act like a people who have been called out and are separate. This pursuit of holiness is motivated out of the work God has done on their behalf.

Exposition

While the LORD gets very specific in listing the clean and the unclean animals, He does not reveal to us the purpose in labeling some things clean and others unclean. This has led many to speculate. Why are some animals clean and others are not. There are a number of theories:

Safety

Symmetry

Proximity to Death

Pagan Practice

While we can become distracted chasing possible purposes (I encountered one scholar who suggests that chewing the cud is meant to symbolize meditating on God's Word?), we can miss God's great calling in this.

This is not simply an issue of time or detail, that God doesn't consider it important, so neither should we. In actuality, God considers this quite important, for He calls the people to detest and abhor that which is unclean. He fails to give us the specific detail as a grace. Knowing our fleshly tendencies, we would create greater law around the "dietary laws" if we knew the purpose of the separation. For instance, if the purpose was health, wouldn't we be tempted to create a new "super clean" category that was proper healthy preparation of clean animals? Wouldn't we now declare that free-range cattle are even cleaner than the previous standard. We would not be freed from the Law, but would find ourselves under a greater yoke to it.

But there is a reason why we can eat a double bacon cheeseburger and still be strong believer:

On the next day, as they were on their way and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. But he became hungry and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance; and he *saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground, and there were in it all {kinds of} four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air. A voice came to him, "Get up, Peter, kill and eat!" But Peter said, "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean." Again a voice {came} to him a second time, "What God has cleansed, no {longer} consider unholy." This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into the sky. Now while Peter was greatly perplexed in mind as to what the vision which he had seen might be, behold, the men who had been sent by Cornelius, having asked directions for Simon's house, appeared at the gate; and calling out, they were asking whether Simon, who was also called Peter, was staying there. While Peter was reflecting on the vision, the Spirit said to him, "Behold, three men are looking for you. But get up, go downstairs and accompany them without misgivings, for I have sent them Myself." Peter went down to the men and said, "Behold, I am the one you are looking for; what is the reason for which you have come?" They said, "Cornelius, a centurion, a righteous and God-fearing man well spoken of by the entire nation of the Jews, was {divinely} directed by a holy angel to send for you {to come} to his house and hear a message from you." So he invited them in and gave them lodging. And on the next day he got up and went away with them, and some of the brethren from Joppa accompanied him.--Acts 10:9-23

It is interesting to note that God does not say, "Don't call it unclean anymore!" or "Quit thinking of it as unclean." The LORD says, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy." It is more than a semantic change. God has actually made the animals clean. But what has been accomplished? Peter should have known that the animals were clean, for Jesus said it Himself:

After He called the crowd to Him again, He {began} saying to them, "Listen to Me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. ["If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear."] When he had left the crowd {and} entered the house, His disciples questioned Him about the parable. And He *said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" ({Thus He} declared all foods clean.) And He was saying, "That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting {and} wickedness, {as well} {as} deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride {and} foolishness. All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man."--Mark 7:14-23

The Pharisees are outraged that the disciples have not ceremonially cleansed their hands before eating. Without declaring their hands consecrated, aren't they taking uncleanness into themselves? Jesus addresses this issue by saying that what goes into a man's mouth is not what makes him unclean. But how can Jesus say this, and how can He declare all foods clean, when Scripture says He came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it? Isn't He destroying the Law?

Not if the proper purpose of the dietary laws were understood. No person, despite how closely they followed these laws, should have allowed himself to think he was achieving personal holiness. As designed, a person should go through the day, careful to avoid all that is unclean, and yet realize that his heart is still impure before the LORD. The laws were meant to point people to the need of a Savior, for a simply change in diet could do nothing to change the condition of the heart.

But to a heart not surrendered to the LORD, we do just the opposite. We would be tempted to declare to the LORD, "LORD, I didn't eat pork or lobster or even a rock badger today. I thank you that I am not like the pagan unclean people all around me." Such self-righteousness is an offense to the LORD. It does not reveal a heart set apart for God, but instead reveals a mind still conformed to the image of this world.

Jesus fulfilled the Law by obeying it at all times, but also by revealing it's real purpose. The dietary laws were never intended to create holiness in a person, for what enters the stomach and passes through the body cannot make a person holy. The dietary laws were intended to reveal to us that holiness can only be given by God, to us, through the righteous work of Jesus Christ.

Conclusion

Peter would understand the principles of the dietary laws better than anyone else. When presented with unclean animals to eat, Peter exclaimed, "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean." He had understood the dietary laws, studied them and ordered his life around them. However, God rebuked him by stating, "What God has cleansed, no {longer} consider unholy." Peter had also heard Jesus declare that all foods were clean. As Peter begins to process this from Acts 10, he also realizes the impact is evangelistic. Simply calling a people to look different from the exterior will not produce holiness, nor will it draw other to the gospel. The proper function of these dietary laws is to reveal their incompletion.

But this does not mean the pursuit of holiness is futile:

Therefore, prepare your minds for action, keep sober {in spirit,} fix your hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts {which were yours} in your ignorance, but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all {your} behavior; because it is written, "YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY."--1 Peter 1:13-16

Peter calls believers to pursue holiness. However, notice how he roots this. First, we keep our hope fixed on the grace of God through Jesus Christ. We then seek to avoid conforming to the world and pursue holy behavior...for He has called us. He makes us holy. He provides the holiness for us. We then seek to live it out.

This kind of holiness, produced from a heart transformation and working its way outward (not developed from exterior rules to try to change the nature of the person) is the true kind of holiness God desires and is that which really sets us apart from the world. It is not God's desire that we return to the dietary laws, but that we see the purpose of the dietary laws, and call upon the Lord to produce holiness. He offers to truly make us different and set us apart from the world.

It doesn't come from food. It doesn't come from rules. It comes from the LORD.

Leviticus 10:1-20

2009-03-13T11:54:00.000-07:00

Introduction

There is nothing wrong with informal worship, but casual worship is deadly. At the end of Chapter 9, we see the people fall to the ground and shout out to the LORD for His grace in providing mediation. The response of God was glorious, as fire came out from His presence and completely consumed the offering. But because we are sinful men, our temptation is to turn the glorious grace of God into an opportunity for sin and self exaltation.

Commentary

10:1
Many suggest that "now" indicates immediate action since the events in Chapter 9. Perhaps even as Moses and Aaron join the people in praising God, Nadab and Abihu decide to "make a show" themselves. Each one grabbed his own firepan and placed incense on it. They then offered "strange fire" unto the LORD. What exactly does that mean? Well, the text gives some possible clues:

1. The incense may have been unusual or unordinary.

2. They may have been drinking. (10:9)

3. They may have tried to enter the Holy of Holies. (16:1-2)

4. It was an offering which the LORD had not commanded. (10:1)"All of the above" may possibly be the most accurate answer. No matter what the specifics, Nadab and Abihu approached the LORD without proper reverence.

10:2
Ironically, if Nadab and Abihu were looking to repeat the previous display, they came quite close. Just as fire had come out from the LORD's presence and consumed the sacrifice in Chapter 9, now fire comes out from the LORD's presence and completely consumes the brothers, killing both of them.

10:3
Moses reminds Aaron that the LORD requires that He is treated as set apart. He reminds Aaron that the priests role should remind the people that God is set apart. This should result in Him being honored. The word honored here actually means weighty/heavy. Quite literally, He is reminding Aaron that He is not to be taken lightly.

There is no response, debate or defense, for Aaron knows his role is to keep silent and receive God's just judgement.

10:4-5
Aaron and his surviving sons would have become unclean had they touched Nadab or Abihu. Leviticus 21 gives us more specific instructions. The High Priest is not to official mourn or come in contact with the body. Though Eleazar and Ithamar would have been allowed to touch the body (since it was their brothers who died), due to the unique aspect of their ordination, Moses order for Aaron's cousins, Mishael and Elzaphan, to carry the bodies outside the camp.

We are told that they were still in their tunics. This probably speaks to the nature of the fire. Many suppose it was a like lightening, a very targeted jolt that killed the priests but did not consume their clothing. This at least tells us that the fire was not a raging inferno, devouring both the man and his clothing.

10:6-7
Moses immediately warns Aaron, Eleazar and Ithamar to refrain from official mourning. This is the specific instruction not to uncover their heads or tear their clothes, for these would be signs of a being in a mourning period. Moses warns that this is not only for the priests welfare, but they should refrain so the LORD does not become wrathful against the entire congregation. The rest of the nation of Israel will mourn for the loss that day. But for Moses and his surviving sons, they are not even to leave the doorway of the tent of meeting.

This command reinforces the mediatorial role of the priesthood, and in a way, we see it reversed. Aaron, because he has the anointing oil upon him, is not able to defile himself by mourning for his sons. However, the nation of Israel, for whom he is a representative to the LORD, will mourn on his behalf.

10:8-11
It should not be missed that God speaks directly to Aaron at this point. Previously, God has spoken to Moses, who then conveyed the message to Aaron and his sons. This does not only signify a stern warning coming directly from the LORD, but also reveals the compassion of the LORD, that He would speak to Aaron in the midst of his suffering.

It is reasonable to assume that Nadab and Abihu had been drinking, since the LORD immediately addresses this with Aaron. Perhaps the alcohol caused these two brothers to be more bold, experimenting with the fire. Whatever the reason, the LORD makes it clear to Aaron that this statue carries throughout all generations. The priests shall not drink any alcohol when coming to the Tent of Meeting to serve. This will further instruct all of Israel to see a difference between the holy and profane.

This also serves as a reminder to Moses, Aaron and all of Israel, that everything about the priesthood that has been shared through Moses carries the same authority to all of Israel as if it came to all of them directly through the LORD.

10:12-15
In essence, Moses' words tell Aaron and his sons to proceed with the offerings. Because they have obeyed Moses and did not defile themselves with mourning, they may now follow through with the grain offering and the peace offerings.

10:16-18
As Moses searches around, he discovers that Eleazar and Ithamar neglected to eat their portion of the sin offering, and allowed it to be consumed with fire instead. Moses was angry for it seems that Eleazar and Ithamar are not taking the sacrificial work seriously either. Moses responds that since this was not the atoning sacrifice, the sons of Aaron should have completed the offering by eating their portion. In fact, verse 17 allows us to see that they are to eat the sacrifice, not only as a form of provision, but also as part of the lesson of someone bearing guilt. This ultimately points to how Christ bears our sin for us.

10:19
Aaron intervenes for his sons, letting Moses know that it is not out of neglect that the sacrifice was not eaten, but rather out of reverent fear. With all that happened that day, it didn't seem proper to participate in the sin offering.

10:20
Once Moses hears their motive, he responds that their actions seem right. This statement would also be a confirmation that the LORD is not angry, for the LORD would have revealed otherwise to Moses.

Exposition

While there are many options for that which made the fire offensive, it is certainly clear that their attitude was irreverent. Moses immediately reminds Aaron of the LORD's words. He will be set apart and He will be honored. In the wake of seeing the LORD open up worship before Him, Nadab and Abihu are then tempted to take the LORD casually.

To be casual is not the same as being informal. We have people who gather for worship with us who dress informally. This is not a problem, provided the person does not become casual in their worship. What is the difference? Many times, people say a believer should dress up for church because, "You would dress up if you met the President of the United States." However, what if I was to meet the President on a basketball court? Would I still be expected to show up in shirt and tie? No, the informality would be understandable, however at no point should I become casual. He does not cease to be the President.

In the same way, God does not give us commands regarding a dress code or require formality of attire. Yet, at no point should a person think he is offering reverent worship, simply by what he is wearing. If a person is tempted toward a casual nature, perhaps more formal clothing would help, but it is not the solution. Many people are tempted to only consider exterior requirement but not search that attitude of the heart. For instance, consider another issue revealed in this passage: alcohol.

While some may think God simply requires a person to avoid alcohol while in worship, the person has missed the point of the text. (For one, it would be hard to take the bread and the cup when the cup traditionally was filled with wine!). However, Paul helps us see beyond just the outside:

And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord; always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father; and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.--Ephesians 5:18-21

It is not enough to simply abstain from alcohol. Reverent worship requires a person is filled with the Holy Spirit. Paul explains that this filling has three key elements. The Spirit filled worshipper will sing songs to the LORD in the presence of other believers. He will live a life of gratitude, not grumbling, but acknowledging the grace of God in all his life. And reverent worship requires that a believer has a good attitude toward authority. He must show submission to authority over him, for this shows a proper attitude toward the authority of God.

So often, we are tempted to sing songs, attend services or claim that we are engaged in worship, even as we neglect these elements. However, God has the right to dictate what worship looks like and how the person should worship him. Certainly, as we see the mediatorial system, we recognize that all worship must be through Jesus Christ, as our Great High Priest.

But is reverence still an issue in the midst of grace? Doesn't grace negate our need for reverence?

Interestingly, people often miss the grace of God which is revealed in this text. We easily spot two men's irreverence and the negative consequences that come upon them. However, Aaron, Eleazar and Ithamar are all subject to the wrath of God as well. They have neglected to properly handle the sin offering, and in reality, have placed the entire nation at great risk. However, in the midst of this, we see God graciously receive them and hold off any judgement.

Even as we read this text, our hearts are inclined toward irreverence. Our flesh convinces us that just a few minor adjustments will make it possible to show God the proper reverence that He deserves. However, none of us are capable of offering Him perfect reverence on our own. Only Christ, placed such perfect honor upon His Father:

Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You, even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life. This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do. Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. Now they have come to know that everything You have given Me is from You; for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received {them} and truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent Me. I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours; and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine; and I have been glorified in them. I am no longer in the world; and {yet} they themselves are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, {the name} which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We {are.} While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.--John 17:1-12

I only show proper reverence to God when I acknowledge that righteous reverence was only shown to the Father by His Son, Jesus Christ. And now, as I have been set free by Christ, I may now worship Him with the reverence He deserves...not to earn His grace, but because I have received His grace!

Conclusion

Many times we are tempted to allow the grace of God to tempt us to come to God lightly. However, knowledge of the grace of God should encourage reverence, not distract from it. David said:

Make me know Your ways, O LORD;
Teach me Your paths.
Lead me in Your truth and teach me,
For You are the God of my salvation;
For You I wait all the day.
Remember, O LORD, Your compassion and Your lovingkindnesses,
For they have been from of old.
Do not remember the sins of my youth or my transgressions;
According to Your lovingkindness remember me,
For Your goodness' sake, O LORD.
Good and upright is the LORD;
Therefore He instructs sinners in the way.
He leads the humble in justice,
And He teaches the humble His way.
All the paths of the LORD are lovingkindness and truth
To those who keep His covenant and His testimonies.
For Your name's sake, O LORD,
Pardon my iniquity, for it is great.
Who is the man who fears the LORD?
He will instruct him in the way he should choose.
His soul will abide in prosperity,
And his descendants will inherit the land.
The secret of the LORD is for those who fear Him,
And He will make them know His covenant.
--Psalm 25:4-14

Genesis 38:1-30

2009-03-05T09:07:00.000-08:00

Introduction

While it the account of Judah and Tamar can be a troubling account to read, we are often reminded that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). No Patriarch is presented in Scripture as blameless and without sin. We could shrug our shoulders and just assume that God is making the best of what he has available to Him. However, Jacob's blessing makes the account of Genesis 38 even more troubling:

"Reuben, you are my firstborn; My might and the beginning of my strength, Preeminent in dignity and preeminent in power. Uncontrolled as water, you shall not have preeminence, Because you went up to your father's bed; Then you defiled {it} --he went up to my couch.--Genesis 49:3-4

Though Reuben is the firstborn, he forfeits his right as the firstborn because he slept with his father's concubine (Genesis 35:22).

"Simeon and Levi are brothers; Their swords are implements of violence. Let my soul not enter into their council; Let not my glory be united with their assembly; Because in their anger they slew men, And in their self-will they lamed oxen. Cursed be their anger, for it is fierce; And their wrath, for it is cruel. I will disperse them in Jacob, And scatter them in Israel.--Genesis 49:5-7

Similarly, though Simeon and Levi would be next in the succession, the firstborn blessing is forfeited due to their angry vengeance against the Shechemites (Genesis 34).

"Judah, your brothers shall praise you; Your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies; Your father's sons shall bow down to you. Judah is a lion's whelp; From the prey, my son, you have gone up. He couches, he lies down as a lion, And as a lion, who dares rouse him up? The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes, And to him {shall be} the obedience of the peoples. He ties {his} foal to the vine, And his donkey's colt to the choice vine; He washes his garments in wine, And his robes in the blood of grapes. His eyes are dull from wine, And his teeth white from milk.--Genesis 49:8-12

Now, Judah has slept with his daughter-in-law, yet he is promised supremacy over his brothers, great prosperity--and most astoundingly--that the Messianic line will come through him. How is this possible?

Some will argue that Judah did not realize he was sleeping with his daughter-in-law. And though her identity was hidden from him at the moment, this seems to ignore that his intention was still to sleep with a harlot.

Others will argue that since Judah offers to be the substitute for Benjamin (Genesis 44:18-34), he proves himself to be of noble character. But this ignores that Reuben also tried to intercede for his brother (Genesis 37:20-22).

Why wouldn't the blessing pass to Zebulun, whom we have no sinful account? The answer must be found in chapter 38.

Commentary

38:1-5
As Judah is visiting his friend, Hirah the Adullamite, he meets his wife, the daughter of Shua the Caananite. Through Shua's daughter, Judah has three sons, Er, Onan and Shelah. By the time she has Shelah, she and Judah are living in Chezeib.

38:6-7
Presumably from the land of Chezib (though we do not know for certain), Judah takes Tamar as a wife for Er. However, Er was evil in the the sight of the LORD, so the LORD took his life.

38:8-10
Though "levirate marriage" has not been fully instituted yet (Deuteronomy 25:5-10), Judah understands his son's responsibility to provide offspring in Er's name. Onan, however, does not want to comply and commits coitus interruptus. The LORD is not pleased with this and takes Onan's life also.

[There is much debate as to why Onan's actions were offensive to the LORD. Many throughout ages have distorted these verses in an attempt to defend or condemn any number of activities. However, at a minimum we see two heart conditions of Onan which would be offensive to the LORD. First, Onan was willing to simply give the appearance of honoring his father and brother Er. Though he had no desire to produce offspring for his brother, and was going to take action to keep this from happening, he was willing to go through the motions to make his father, and others, think he was obeying. We also see a selfishness in Onan, as intercourse was clearly not the obstacle for him, but the condition of offspring. This is probably and indicator that Onan did not want Er to have any offspring, for that would effect the inheritance that his own children could receive. Lastly, we see that Onan had no problem with finding pleasure in Tamar, but refused to allow her the pleasure of children. Such selfishness shows he was willing to use this woman for his own purposes without allowing for the real intention of their intimacy. While there may be other reasons that some could find his actions offensive, the above reasons seem more than sufficient for the LORD to judge him.]

38:11
Judah delays in giving Tamar to his son, Shelah. While he claims Shelah is too young, his real purpose is fear. He is afraid that if Shelah has Tamar for his wife that he too may die. Tamar is left to go back to her father's home and wait.

38:12
Some time later, Judah's wife dies. After the time of mourning, Judah and Hirah head up to his sheepshearers in Timnah.

38:13-14
When Tamar finds out that Judah is heading to Timnah, she removes her widows clothes and covers herself with a veil. She heads to Enaim, which is a town on the way to Timnah. She plans to confront Judah because she has heard the Shelah is now old enough, yet she has not been given to him.

38:15
Judah mistakes Tamar for a harlot. Commentators disagree about Tamar's intent. Some argue that Tamar intentionally posed herself as a prostitute in an attempt to trap Judah. Others argue that Tamar removed her widow's clothes and wrapped herself in a veil as a means to present herself as a bride. This latetr perspective seems probable since the text says her actions were based upon hearing Shelah was now old enough to marry. Whatever her intent, Judah sees a woman alone on the side of the road with her face covered and assumes she is a prostitute.

38:16-18
Whatever Tamar's intent, she does not reveal herself when Judah approaches her. Even when Judah reveals his desires and asks to have relations with her, she does not reveal herself, but asks what he may be willing to pay. They agree to the price of a young goat from among Judah's flock. However, since Judah does not have the goat with him, he must give Tamar a form of collateral. Judah agrees to give her his seal, cord and staff...all objects which would be easily identified with him. Once they have agreed, Judah enters Tamar and she conceives.

38:19
Judah departs completely unaware. Tamar rises up, removes her veil and returns to wearing widows clothes.

38:20-23
True to his word, Judah sends Hirah back to Enaim with a goat to present to the harlot. By presenting the goat to the woman, Hirah would also be recovering Judah's staff, cord and seal. However, since Tamar has returned to her father's home, Hirah is not able to find the woman. He inquires about the temple prostitute, but is told by the men that their is no local temple prostitute. When Hirah returns to Judah and informs him, Judah decides to drop the issue rather than face embarrassment.

38:24
Tamar will not be able to keep her action quiet for long. After about three months, when Tamar's pregnancy would begin to be public, Judah receives word that she has played the harlot. Since his son is pledged to be married to Tamar (and two of his sons used to be), Judah has a right to demand her execution. Judah demands that she be burned for her harlotry.

38:25
As Tamar is being brought out to Judah, she sends his effects ahead of her, stating that they are owned by the father of her child. This is a very discrete way to reveal Judah's action to him.

38:26
Judah immediately recognizes his staff, cord and seal. Judah also immediately recognizes his own sin. Rather than executing Tamar, he takes her into his home and cares for her and his children. However, he does not enjoy relations with again.

38:27-30
When the twins are due to be born, the midwife ties a scarlet cord around a hand that appears first. However, the hand retracts and the other brother is born first. This brother is called Perez (meaning breach), while the other brother is named Zerah (meaning scarlet).

Exposition

Genesis 38 is a brilliant reminder to us that the Scriptures do not rest ultimately in human origin. If men had desired to present their forefathers as admirable men, this chapter certainly would have ended up on the floor of the editing room. Just in this chapter we see that Er is evil. Onan would prefer to take advantage of Tamar and prevent his brother's lineage from continuing. Judah responds in selfishness. Not only this, but Judah desires to sleep with a prostitute. His own friend assumes she was a temple prostitute, merging idol worship in with fornication. Tamar, whatever her motive may have been outside the city, decides to go along with Judah's offer, and though he did not recognize her, she willingly offers herself to her father-in-law. We even see Judah respond in self-righteousness, though he has slept with a harlot, he was willing to kill Tamar for harlotry.

Yet, no where in this passage do we see Judah or Tamar face judgement. In fact, by Genesis 49 we see Judah blessed beyond his brothers! How can this be? If Reuben, Simeon and Levi all sinned in ways which disqualified them from the supreme blessing, shouldn't we be able to say the same thing about a man who mistakes his daughter-in-law for a prostitute and fathers his own grandchildren through her?

Certainly Judah's sin is not something which we should model. "Don't mistake your daughter-in-law for a prostitute," doesn't really appear to be a necessary moral lesson either. However, there does appear to be something to understand about Judah's response to his sin.

When Judah first hears about Tamar's sin, he responds with self-righteous anger. At this point, he is so hardened to the situation, that a charge of harlotry does not even remind him of his own sin at Enaim. He hears of someone else's sin and is ready to act as judge, jury and executioner. (His attitude is quite similar to that of David in 2 Samuel 12.)

However, when Tamar reveals Judah's sin to him, we see immediate repentance.

She is more righteous than I (38:26)

Judah is immediately humbled and sees his own sin before the Lord. However, his is not merely humbled about his participation in harlotry, Judah sees the full course of his sin.

She is more righteous than I, inasmuch as I did not give her to my son Shelah.

Judah sees that he has sinned by keeping his son from Tamar. He realizes his sin was not just one "indiscretion" but is born out of a pursuit of his own desires. Judah's self-righteousness is immediately crushed and he then sees himself as the "chief of sinners" (1 Timothy 1:15).

We also see the extent of Judah's repentance when we consider how he treats Tamar. From this point forward, the man who threatened to kill her, now takes her into his own home to care for her and his children. However, he does not dishonor the Lord again by keeping himself from her from relationally. Judah shows her the kind care and provision he should have been offering her in the first place.

Though his response is the proper response to sin and the forgiveness of sin, his response is not enough to account for the forgiveness of sin.

Conclusion

The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham: Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers. Judah was the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, Perez was the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Ram.--Matthew 1:1-3

In Matthew 1 we see the great fulfillment of Genesis 49. God grants that the Messiah will come from the tribe of Judah. This great grace is not to be understood in spite of the story of Judah and Tamar--as if God's agenda is simply to show He can use icky situations. No, Judah's response in light of his sin, his repentance and brokenness become great vehicles for presenting the gospel.

Genesis 38 presents a disturbing picture of sin and its escalating effects. It can be difficult to look this account in the eyes. However, Judah, like all his brothers, stands before God as a sinner. Yet, we see God's grace poured upon Judah. First, Judah becomes the tribe through which Jesus would come. Also, in this account we see that the Lord grants Judah repentance.

Oh that we might turn from our sin and trust in the work of Christ also!

Leviticus 8:1-9:24

2009-03-05T06:34:00.000-08:00

Introduction

The priesthood is a concept that can be difficult for us to grasp. Many times, contemporary (erroneous) religions cloud our understanding of the priesthood and sometimes we are tempted to replace the role of a priest with the role of a pastor.

I remember taking a friend shopping at a mall when we were in college. He was from Florida and our college was in northern Indiana. When winter hit, he was not prepared for the weather! So, we headed to the nearest shopping mall and he began buying necessary winter clothes. The girl working the counter, seeing the amazing pile of commission coming near her, was understandably unusually chatty. She asked why he was buying so much clothes and what we were studying in college. When I explained to her that I wanted to go into the ministry, her reply was quick: "Wow, I could never do that. I want to get married some day."

Well, I had all hopes that I was going to marry and have kids some day as well! But this girl had mistaken a pastor with a priest and then applied contemporary cultic understandings of the priesthood to the Biblical description. (Clearly, Old Testament priests had to marry, for the priesthood was passed along through ancestry. If the priests ceased to marry and have children, there would cease to be a priesthood! She assumed celibacy from the Roman Catholic heresy.)

This girl was confused as to my calling because she misunderstood the concept of a pastor and the priesthood. In the direct sense to my life, her confusion was not that tragic. However, the real tragedy is that she probably misunderstood the general purpose of the priesthood as recorded in Scripture. And by misunderstanding the priesthood, she probably misunderstood the grace of God extended to her in the mediatorial work of Christ for sinful men.

Sadly, few are probably available to explain to her the role of the priesthood, for few Christians understand its purpose either.

Commentary

8:1-5
The work of the ordination/preparation for the priesthood is spoken by God to Moses, then from Moses to the people. God commands Moses to gather Aaron and his sons, the articles for sacrifice and all of the congregation to the door of the Tent of Meeting. Moses obeys the Lord and gathers everyone together for the process of ordination.

8:6-9
Moses then prepares Aaron and his sons for their priestly attire. Moses washes Aaron and his sons, as well as dressing Aaron in his priestly garments. Aaron's "uniform" would be a large white robe which would nearly go the the ground. Next, he would have a blue sleeveless robe placed over him. This would be nearly as long (if not as long) as the white robe. Finally, the ephod would be placed upon him. This would be a type of apron, two-sided, which would cover his torso. Upon the ephod, two stones would be mounted at the shoulders. Each stone would have six of the tribes of Israel etched upon it. From the ephod, the breastpiece would also be hung. The breastpiece would have 12 stones upon it, one for each tribe. It would be shaped similar to a pocket, which would allow the Urim and Thummim to be kept within.

Upon Aaron's head, Moses placed the turban. This would be a white cloth with a golden crown on the front. This plate would read, "Holy unto the Lord" in Hebrew.

The ESV Study Bible has best resources and illustrations I've seen in helping a person understand the priestly garments. Each of these garments should help us understand that the priest have been commissioned and set apart as a mediator for the people. His job is to represent the entire nation before God.

8:10-12
Moses then anoints the tabernacle, the instruments and Aaron for priestly service.

8:13
Moses then dresses Aaron's sons in priestly garments.

8:14-17
Moses then offers the bull of the sin offering before the Lord. As a bull, it is an offering both for the priesthood and on behalf of the entire nation. For this purpose, Aaron and his sons are expected to place their hands upon the head of the bull. However, Moses slaughters the bull. This symbolizes the transfer of sin and guilt as onto a substitute sacrifice. Moses uses blood from this sacrifice to consecrate the altar and even make atonement for the altar. As according to the commands of the Lord, the fat, kidneys and lobe of the liver are offered on the altar, while the remainder of the bull is taken outside the camp to be completely burned up.

8:18-18-21
Moses next offers the burnt offering. In the same way, Aaron and his sons must lay their hands upon the head of the ram. Moses slaughters the ram and sprinkles the blood upon the altar and the entire ram is consumed on the fire as an offering to the Lord.

8:22-28
Next, Moses offers the ram for the ordination offering. Instead of placing the blood upon the altar, however, Moses places blood upon Aaron and his sons. He places some blood from the animal on their right ear lobe, right thumb and right large toe. This appears to be an ancient way to signify the entire person was devoted unto the Lord. He next places the fat upon the altar and even presents some of the bread offering upon the altar with it. Aaron and his sons receive this sacrifice in their hands as a wave offering before Moses places them on the smoke of the altar.

8:29
As the Lord has commanded previously, Moses is to receive the breast as his portion for being the one to offer the sacrifice. This not only symbolizes the Lord's provision, but also shows the Lord's pleasure in Moses' obedient service.

8:30
Now Moses takes a mixture of the anointing oil and the blood from the sacrifices and sprinkles Aaron and his sons, as well as their clothing. The text says this was done as an act of consecration.

8:31-35
Moses then commands Aaron and his sons to obey the practice of the ordination offering. They are to boil the flesh at the doorway and eat the provisions, including the breads. Anything that is left over is to be burned up in the fire. Aaron and his sons were to remain in the doorway of the tent of meeting for seven days. This would mean that they are to remain in the tabernacle, but also visible to the entire congregation for the next seven days.

8:36
Aaron and his sons obediently observed these commands.

9:1-6
Once the seven days have been complete, and Aaron is completely consecrated as the High Priest, Moses calls for him to offer his first sacrifices, for himself and for the people. Moses instructs Aaron to offer a bull for personal sin offering and ram as a personal burnt offering. Next, he is to offer a sin offering for the people, a burnt offering for the people, a peace offering for the people, and a grain offering for the people. Moses explains that today the Lord will appear before Aaron. The glory of the Lord will appear, and the congregation is gathered at the doorway of the tent to observe it.

9:7
The only way that Aaron will be able to offer a sacrifice for the atonement of the people is if he first offers a sacrifice for atonement of sin for himself.

9:8-11
Aaron offers the sin offering for himself. While Aaron slaughters the calf and presents the blood before the Lord, his sons to assist him in the presentation of the offering. Aaron offers up the fat portions on the smoke of the altar and takes the flesh and the skin outside of the camp to be burned.

9:12-14
Aaron then, with his sons assisting, offers up the burnt offering to the Lord.

9:15-20
Upon making sacrifice for himself, Aaron, with his sons, now presents the offerings for the people. Aaron offers the goat as a sin offering, the burnt offerings, the grain offering and the peace offerings. Aaron did all these things according to the instruction of the Lord.

9:21
As according to the ordinance of the Lord, the breast and the right thigh were presented before the Lord as a wave offering, but were kept by Aaron (see 8:29 for purpose).

9:22-23
Aaron turns to the congregation who would be in the doorway of the tent and blesses them. Next Aaron and Moses entered into the tent together. When they came out, the blessed the people and the glory of the Lord appeared to all the people.

9:24
Fire consumes the the sacrifices that are upon the altar. That the fire came from the presence of the Lord suggests that it proceeded out of the Holy of Holies and immediately consumed all of the flesh. When the people see this divine act they immediately fall to the ground and shout to the Lord.

Exposition

The role of the priest was to be a mediatorial role. He was to go before the Lord on behalf of the people, representing them. His role was not simply to teach, or not simply be the one who understood how sacrifices were to be offered. He was commissioned by the Lord as one capable of making the sacrifice on behalf of the person. (Notice the judgement of the Lord when some try to deny his mediatorial purposes: Numbers 16 & 17).

The mediator is a gracious gift from God to allow Himself to be accessible to men. However, this role as mediator is not one which can whimsically or easily be accomplished. Before Aaron could ever offer sacrifices on behalf of the people, he first had to offer sacrifices for himself. However, before he could even offer sacrifices for himself, the following must happen:

--Aaron must be washed with water. (8:6)
--Aaron must be clothed in priestly garments. (8:7-9)
--Aaron must be anointed with oil. (8:12)
--A bull for a sin offering must be made to consecrate the altar. (8:15)
--A ram must be offered for a burnt offering. (8:19)
--A ram of ordination must be offered and Aaron must be consecrated with the blood upon his right ear lobe, right thumb and right big toe. (8:23)
--Aaron must be anointed with oil and blood. (8:30)
--Aaron and his sons must enjoy the provisions of the ordination offering and remain in the tent of meeting for seven days. (8:35)

At this point, Aaron is now able to assume his role as a mediator for the people. But notice carefully, Aaron had to have a mediator on his behalf. He was not qualified to ordain himself:

--Moses receives the commands from God. (8:1)
--Moses gathers the people, the priests and the materials. (8:4)
--Moses washes Aaron and his sons. (8:6)
--Moses clothes Aaron and his sons. (8:7-13)
--Moses anoints the tabernacle, the instruments, the altar and Aaron (8:10-12)
--Moses offers the bull for the sin offering. (8:14)
--Moses offers the ram for the burnt offering. (8:18)
--Moses presents the ram for ordination and applies the blood to Aaron's ear, thumb and toe. (8:23)
--Moses anoints Aaron, his sons and their clothing with the blood and oil. (8:30).
--Moses is the one who initiates and calls Aaron to begin offering the sacrifices. (9:1)

Moses is central and absolutely necessary to ordain Aaron into the role of a mediator. In fact, Moses was necessary to serve as a mediator for Aaron, so that Aaron could serve as a mediator for the people. Though these two chapters clearly spell this out for us, we can see this was the will of God from three particular verses:

Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying--Leviticus 8:1

God did not turn to Aaron for the instructions of the priesthood. Though these commands have come to Moses, which he is to share with the people, God does not alter this pattern. He gives these commands to Moses who is responsible to share them with Aaron and the people.

Moses also took the breast and presented it for a wave offering before the LORD; it was Moses' portion of the ram of ordination, just as the LORD had commanded Moses.--Leviticus 8:29

An approved mediator (priest) would receive the breast as his provision for making the offering. When Moses receives this portion for himself, this reminds us it is the ordinance of the LORD and He is pleased with Moses' role.

Thus Aaron and his sons did all the things which the LORD had commanded through Moses--Leviticus 8:36 [emphasis added]

This is a perfect display of the meditorial work. Though Aaron receives the commands from Moses, he (and his sons) are to understand the commands originate from the Lord. Moses becomes the vessel by which the Lord delivers His commands.

The people were not capable to offer sacrifices for themselves. They must have a mediator. Aaron and his sons serve in this role of mediator. However, Aaron was not capable of establishing himself as the mediator. One (Moses) had to go before the LORD on Aaron's behalf. The mediator needed a mediator! This should lead us to a great question:

But who is Moses' mediator?

For a mere man to serve in a mediatorial capacity between God and man, he had to be established into that position by someone other than himself. Aaron may appear properly ordained because he was ordained by another, but Moses was also a sinful man. How was he able to serve as a mediator? Who was the mediator for him?

For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.--1 Timothy 2:5-6

Aaron never truly was the mediator for Israel. Moses never served as the mediator for Aaron and Israel. These men (and the entire priesthood) merely served as a representation of the True Mediator. Paul tells Timothy there is only One Mediator. He does not state that Jesus is one among many, nor does he state that Jesus is the permanent mediator and the others simply served in a temporary capacity. Moses is not qualified to go before God as the mediator between God and man, but is merely a picture for us of the work of Christ on our behalf. Though Moses, Aaron and other priests would offer animal sacrifices on behalf of the people, Paul reminds Timothy that Jesus Christ is both our Priest and our Sacrifice. He offers Himself on our behalf! This was always God's intent, that the priesthood would point to our Ultimate High Priest!

For every high priest taken from among men is appointed on behalf of men in things pertaining to God, in order to offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins; he can deal gently with the ignorant and misguided, since he himself also is beset with weakness; and because of it he is obligated to offer {sacrifices} for sins, as for the people, so also for himself. And no one takes the honor to himself, but {receives it} when he is called by God, even as Aaron was. So also Christ did not glorify Himself so as to become a high priest, but He who said to Him, "YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU"; just as He says also in another {passage,} "YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK." In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety. Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered. And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation, being designated by God as a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.--Hebrews 5:1-10

Conclusion

As a product of the fall, we are all tempted to make a god in our own image and liking. Therefore, it is easy for us to become casual and complacent when it comes to being in God's presence. We can be tempted to think that He will accept us just the way we are, or that God is so loving any man can quickly come into His presence. However, Scripture is very clear to us that it was not possible to approach God without a Mediator on our behalf. The Scriptures lay out that the Mediator is Christ.

This becomes the proper understanding of John 14:6, He is not a way but is the Way. We should not be casual and flippant before the Lord for it took the shed blood of Jesus Christ to even permit us to be in His presence.

But this also means we should enter the presence of God with confidence, for our satisfaction before God is not our own, but is based upon the work of Christ on our behalf.

Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as {we are, yet} without sin. Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.--Hebrews 4:14-16

Confidence? Does this not seem contrary to the attitude of the people before the LORD? After all, did they not fall to the their faces and shout when fire came out of the Holy of Holies? These people were virtually scared to death, right?

Look closely at the word shouted. This is not typically a word associated with fear or dread, but instead is usually accompanied with joy. (In the Psalms, this word is almost always translated "sing joyfully!"). The congregation was not on the ground screaming out in terror and dread. They are on their face in reverence to the LORD, but singing out joyfully to Him, for He has made mediation possible!

For the believer, we should come before the LORD with the same attitude. We should worship Him with reverence, for we are not even capable of being in His presence without a Mediator. But we should also sing joyfully, for He has provided the mediation in the person and work of His Son, Jesus Christ! He has become both the Sacrifice for our sins and Mediator on our behalf before God!

Leviticus 6:8-7:38

2009-02-16T18:34:00.000-08:00

Introduction

The LORD now points Moses to the priestly role during six different sacrifices. Though most of these sacrificial details have been covered previously, the perspective is now shifted. Instead of the focus upon the offerer we now see the intricate detail of the sacrifices.

Surely, there is a lot of symbolism in the sacrifices. While some if obvious to us, there is undoubtedly a great deal of symbolism that goes unnoticed or is misunderstood. But why would God require such elaborate detail? Is it possible there could be another point.

Commentary

c6 v8
We are reminded that the LORD is speaking directly to Moses. The next verse reminds us that it was Moses' responsibility to convey the message to Aaron and his sons. Though the entire congregation would receive these words, they directly apply to the priestly function.

c6 v9-13

Burnt Offering

Aaron is told that the burnt offering is to remain on the hearth all night until the morning, with the priest keeping the fire going. It is essential that the fire does not go out, for the LORD reminds Moses three times within five verses.

To remove the ashes, the priest must put on his linen robe, with undergarments. Next, he will remove the ashes from the altar and place them beside it. At this point, he will again change his garments and carry the ashes out to a clean place outside the camp.

Every morning the priest shall lay wood upon the fire of the altar. Upon this wood, the priest will then lay out the burnt offering and the fat portions for the peace offerings.

c6 v14-18

Grain Offering

One of the priests will take up a handful of grain. He will include oil with it and all of the incense. He will then offer it up on smoke on the altar.

The remaining portion may be eaten by Aaron and any male of the sons of Aaron. They may not add leaven to it and they are to eat it in the court of the tabernacle.

The LORD reminds Moses that this statute is not just for Aaron and his sons directly, but will be passed down to other generations.

c6 v19-23

Anointed Priest's Grain Offering

Aaron is to offer a specific grain offering for the day he is anointed. He is to offer 3/5th a bushel of grain upon the altar, half offered in the morning , half offered in the evening. As opposed to other grain offerings, Aaron is not giving options for preparation. He is to prepare this with a griddle, mixed with oil. It is broken into pieces and the entire sacrifice is offered onto the fire. The priests do not eat any portion of this offering.

c6 v24-29

Sin Offering

Here we learn that the priest who offers the sin offering is also to prepare it to be eaten. It is to be eaten in the court of the tent of meeting, by the priest and any of the other sons of Aaron. Whereas much of Leviticus has dealt with touching things which can defile a person, the flesh of the sin offer actually consecrates a person. If blood is spilt on any garment, it must be washed in a holy place.

We also see that any materials used to cook the sin offering must be treated. If it is boiled in a clay vessel, then it is to be shattered and destroyed. However, if the vessel is made out of bronze, it can be scoured clean.

c6 v30

Atoning Sacrifice

However, the priests are reminded that they are not to eat from the Atoning Sacrifice. If the blood has been brought into the Holy of Holies, this sacrifice is not to be eaten. It is supposed to be completely consumed with fire.

c7 v1-7

Guilt Offering

The location of the offering is the same as the burnt offering. Also, the priest will sprinkle the blood around the altar.

The priest will offer all the fat (from the tail, the portion that covers the entrails, the kidneys with their fat, and the lobe of the liver) upon the altar in smoke.

The rest of the offering is available to the priest who offered it and to any other son of Aaron, provided they eat it in a holy place.

c7 v8

Burnt Offering

The priest who offers the burnt offering is allowed to keep the skin from it.

c7 v9-10

Grain Offering

If a grain offering has been cooked, then it belongs to the priest who offered it. However, if the offering has only been mixed with oil, or if the offering is dry, then it belongs to all of Aaron's sons alike.

c7 v11-21

Thanksgiving Peace Offering (11-15)

When a thanksgiving peace offering is made, there shall also be unleavened cakes with oil, unleavened wafers with oil, and fine flour cakes mixed with oil. He shall also offer cakes of leavened bread. One of each loaf will belong to the priest who makes the peace offering.

The offerer must eat his portion of the peace offering on the day it is offered.

Thanksgiving Votive or Freewill Offering (16-18)

Though we do not know the exact purposes of a freewill offering, the details are the same as a peace offering that accompanies a vow. In each of these sacrifices, the offering may be eaten the day after the sacrifice as well.

However, no meat may ever be eaten from the sacrifice on the third day. If a person eats of the sacrifice on the third day, the sacrifice will not be reckoned for him and he will bear iniquity for his offense.

Cleanliness for Peace Offerings (19-21)

No flesh that touches something unclean may be eaten.

Anyone who is clean may eat of the flesh, provided it hasn't been defiled. However, no person is to eat of the peace offering if they are unclean, either by touching an unclean animal or any other unclean thing.

God takes this severely, for any person who violates these standards will be cut off from his people.

c7 v22-27

Fat and Blood Prohibitions

No person is ever to eat of the fat portions or take in the blood of an animal.

Any fat from an animal that dies naturally or is torn by a beast (and thus has not been offered to the the LORD) may be used for other purposes, but not for food.

Any person who violates this law will be cut off from his people.

c7 v28-36

Peace Offerings--Priest's Portion

The offerer is to bring the portions for the peace offering himself. He is to wave the fat and the breast before the LORD. The priest will then offer all the fat on the altar, but he will keep the breast for himself. The offerer shall also give the right thigh to the priest as a contribution for making the offering for him.

This contribution is to be given to Aaron and his sons throughout the generations.

c7 v37-38

The LORD commanded all of these offerings to Moses on Mount Sinai.

Exposition

As this section concludes, we are reminded of the sacrifices for the priest's perspective. From 6:8 through 7:36, the burnt offering, grain offering, sin offering, guilt offering, ordination offering and peace offering have been reiterated. With each sacrifice we see a great deal of detail, both in this chapter and the preceding chapters.

In just looking at the fellowship offering (7:11-36) we can see some specific purposes. As with every page of Scripture, the primary purpose of the sacrifices is to point us to Jesus. A couple examples from the fellowship offerings:

Eating the sacrifice--Throughout Scripture, eating a meal is a synonymous with fellowship. In fact, one way you can show a person they are out of fellowship is to abstain from eating with him (1 Corinthians 5:11). Eating part of the sacrifice speaks to the fact that a person can have fellowship with God.

But how is such fellowship enjoyed?

Consider how Jesus juxtaposed faith and eating in John 6:26-58.

"Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal."

Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent."

"For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world."

Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst."

"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life."

"I am the bread of life."

"I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh."

"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

Jesus equates eating of bread with faith with believing in Him. This is genuine faith. Not to simply know information or details. It is to truly take it in...make it part of you. The ability to fellowship with God is only possible when a person takes in the message of Christ, accepts His work on the cross on their behalf.

Three day prohibition--A thanksgiving fellowship offering must be eating before the next morning. A votive/freewill fellowship offering may be eaten on the second day, but must be finished before the third. Why the prohibition of eating the sacrifice on the third day?

Some will suggest this is simply for health reasons. God is trying to protect the Israelites from eating rotten meat. However, this does not make sense. The motive of the offering should not have an impact upon the shelf life of the meat. Clearly, the LORD wanted special significance attributed to the third day:

But if the sacrifice of his offering is a votive or a freewill offering, it shall be eaten on the day that he offers his sacrifice, and on the next day what is left of it may be eaten; but what is left over from the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day shall be burned with fire.--Leviticus 7:16-17

The LORD requires that any left over flesh be consumed by fire. In fact, we clearly see how seriously God considers this offense:

So if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings should {ever} be eaten on the third day, he who offers it will not be accepted, {and} it will not be reckoned to his {benefit.} It shall be an offensive thing, and the person who eats of it will bear his {own} iniquity.--Leviticus 7:18

If the person eats of the fellowship offering on the third day, his sacrifice will not be accepted, it will not benefit him, and he will actually bear iniquity for it. Why would this be?

Perhaps, Paul gives us some perspective in 1 Corinthians 15. Without the resurrection, our faith if void, our ministry is worthless and we are still found to be in our sins. In the same way that the fellowship offering is to be complete by the third day, God displays His complete pleasure with Christ's sacrifice by raising Him to life on the third day.

Broader Purpose

For the Law, since it has {only} a shadow of the good things to come {and} not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? But in those {sacrifices} there is a reminder of sins year by year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, "SACRIFICE AND OFFERING YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, BUT A BODY YOU HAVE PREPARED FOR ME; IN WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND {sacrifices} FOR SIN YOU HAVE TAKEN NO PLEASURE. "THEN I SAID, 'BEHOLD, I HAVE COME (IN THE SCROLL OF THE BOOK IT IS WRITTEN OF ME) TO DO YOUR WILL, O GOD.' " After saying above, "SACRIFICES AND OFFERINGS AND WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND {sacrifices} FOR SIN YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, NOR HAVE YOU TAKEN PLEASURE {in them}" (which are offered according to the Law), then He said, "BEHOLD, I HAVE COME TO DO YOUR WILL." He takes away the first in order to establish the second. By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.--Hebrews 10:1-10

Since the Law was intended as a tutor, we can see that not the details of the sacrifices, but the system as a whole are intended to point us to Christ. No sacrifice given, regardless of how perfectly it was performed, could ever accomplish salvation. The author of Hebrews reminds us that blood from a bull or goat can never take away the sin of a person. A true Israelite would see this. First, how could they possibly offer a sacrifice without blemish. God does not ask for an above average sacrifice, or even nearly perfect. He required a perfect sacrifice. Could such a lamb actually exist? Further, could they really offer the animal exactly to standard? Isn't it probable that something could be cut or severed accidently in the process? This is bloody, messy flesh, not an easily cut piece of wood.

Sometimes people ask where grace can be found in the Old Testament. The truth is, we see God's grace in the midst of the this ceremony. All sacrifices point toward Jesus Christ and even if "perfectly" fulfilled, they are still flawed. However, God graciously offers forgiveness through the work of Jesus Christ.

--Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying, "THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART, AND ON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM," {He then says,} "AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE." Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer {any} offering for sin.Hebrews 10:11-18

Conclusion

God beautifully displays the glory of Christ even through the sacrificial systems prescribed on Mount Sinai. We can see many of the details which point to Christ, but we assuredly miss many of the details. (Perhaps in glory, we will delight in worship as we see how all the details beautifully display the glory of Christ!) However, we should not miss the grace which is so obviously displayed. These offerers were not saved by their performance or by the sacrifices they made. These people received forgiveness the same way which we have, through grace by the sacrifice of Christ...a sacrifice once for all time.

Leviticus 5:1-6:7

2009-02-06T18:45:00.000-08:00

Introduction

Though the terms repentance, confession and forgiveness seem simple enough, we have a way of making them complicated. Some have reduced these terms to mere lip service, a glib comment to make everything go away. Others believe it requires penance or priestly absolution; something extra to prove genuine repentance.

Leviticus lays out the procedures for the offerings, but does it give us any indication about repentance? What should it really look like?

Commentary

v 1
As the Lord introduces Moses to the guilt offerings, He begins by laying out four possible sins which would require such a sacrifice. The first could be considered a sin of omission. If a person hears a public call to testify, and they have the testimony of a witness, yet they choose to remain silent, that person becomes guilty.

v 2
Similar to the unintentional sins, a person may touch some sort of unclean carcass, whether beast or livestock or some other swarming thing, and not even realize they made contact with it. Once he realizes he made contact, he then becomes responsible to do something about his guilt.

v 3
It is also possible for a man to touch uncleanness from a man or woman. Again, if he becomes aware of this, he then becomes aware of his guilt as well.

v 4
The words that come from a a person's mouth can also acquit or condemn (Matthew 12:37). We typically only think of our words in regard to our motive. As long as we meant to be truthful, then it doesn't matter if it really comes to pass. After all, the circumstances are out of control, can God really hold us responsible? Actually, the Lord does hold us to our word (Ecclesiastes 5:1-6), so we should show humility in our speech (James 4:13-16). However, if a man does not guard his tongue (James 3:1-3) and he carelessly makes an oath which does not come to be, then he becomes guilty.

v 5
As mentioned in previous chapters, these are not merely indiscretions, but are sins which must be confessed.

v 6
The sinner is then to bring a female lamb or goat to the priest for a sin offering (see: Leviticus 4:1-35 commentary). The priest will make atonement for his sin.

v 7-10
God offers an alternative for those who cannot afford a lamb or goat. The offerer may present two turtledoves or two pigeons. One will be presented as sin offering while the other serves as a burnt offering. We see that the sacrifice is efficient, for verse ten concludes with the assurance that the sin has been forgiven.

v 11-13
Yet, if the person still cannot afford two birds (this may either speak to the frequency of this offering or to the absolute poverty of some Israelites), he is able to give a grain offering. Again, verse 13 reminds us that this offering, can be a faithful expression that results in his forgiveness.

v 14-16
Next, Moses addresses sins which violate the holy things which may be dedicated to the tabernacle. If an item has been consecrated to the tabernacle, and a man makes it unclean (by contact or use), he is then required to make restitution to the Lord. He will replace the value of the object, plus add one fifth to the value. This must be done in connection with offering a guilt offering through the priest.

v 17-18
Moses reiterates the necessity for the guilt offering. From these three verses, consider the following statements:

a person sins...

...he is still guilty and shall bear his punishment.

...for a guilt offering...

...the priest shall make atonement...

...he sinned unintentionally...

...it will be forgiven him.

It is a guilt offering; he was certainly guilty before the LORD.

Chapter 6 v 1
We are again reminded that these instructions are from the LORD, handed down through Moses.

c 6 v 2-4
We know see some specific sins, which are still against the LORD, but also take advantage of someone else. A person may cheat money from another in a variety of ways...

using someone else's deposit or security for your own gain

robbery

extortion

finding money and claiming it is your own
In any of these situations, restoration must be made.

c 6 v 5
To make restitution, the offender must offer 120% back to the victim. He must not only return that which he has taken, but he must also add 1/5 to it. He is also instructed that this must be done on the day of his sacrifice to the LORD. Jesus reminded us of this:

Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering.--Matthew 5:23-24

c 6 v 6-7
As stated in verse two, the sin and unfaithfulness was against the LORD. Therefore, the offerer is responsible to bring a guilt offering to the LORD. He will give the ram to the priest, who will make atonement for him.

Exposition

The text is clearly about sin and guilt. The words appear many different times within the text. However, the text does not simply lay out violations, in the midst of the offerings, this text is giving us hope, that sins can be forgiven and atoned for. Looking at the sins against the LORD's devoted things and the sins against a brother, we see another element too.

Again, it is so easy for us to think a person would sin and would then have to bring a sacrifice, as if the actions itself were all that was looked for. Like a person simply going in to pay a traffic ticket, we see there was a penalty and as long as it is paid, all sides are happy. However, sins against the LORD are not simply restored with fines. It is a violation of the LORD and it reveals a heart that is inclined against Him. Therefore, more than a simple "sorry" is needed. The person was not able to simply bring the sacrifice to the opening of the tent, drop it off and then let the priest do the rest. No the text shows us much more.

He must confess his sin. (5:5)

He must seek to restore that which he has violated. (5:15-16; 6:4-5)

He must seek the LORD's atonement. (throughout the text)

Put simply, this is repentance. A person must not simply feel bad, for the reason for the remorse could be many things. The person must see their guilt, confess their guilt and turn from their sin and to Christ. In our era, many preach about faith, but they seem to neglect repentance. However, saving faith that the Bible describes is faith which is accompanied by repentance. When a person truly turns to the LORD it must require that they turn away from their sin. The practice of the guilt offering, along with the restitution sought with others, is evidence of a person who has repented of his sin.

Conclusion

As I mentioned, repentance is not in vogue now. Many people worry that preaching repentance will scare some people off. Others foolishly do not understand how this is not a work. However, we are not speaking of some new effort on your part, we are speaking of a change created in your heart. Many people at baptism services have made a statement similar to the following:

Before I knew Christ, I used to sin, and knew I was sinning, but it didn't really bother me. Now that I have come to Christ, I hate it when I sin.

They do not say they have ceased from sinning, but their attitude is completely different. An attitude which should evidence itself in less frequent sin, as well. But the sinner loves his sin, therefore, the message of repentance is offensive to his ears.

However, to one whom repentance has been granted from the LORD, it is not offensive, but a beautiful thing. Consider Zaccheus:

He entered Jericho and was passing through. And there was a man called by the name of Zaccheus; he was a chief tax collector and he was rich. Zaccheus was trying to see who Jesus was, and was unable because of the crowd, for he was small in stature. So he ran on ahead and climbed up into a sycamore tree in order to see Him, for He was about to pass through that way. When Jesus came to the place, He looked up and said to him, "Zaccheus, hurry and come down, for today I must stay at your house." And he hurried and came down and received Him gladly. When they saw it, they all {began} to grumble, saying, "He has gone to be the guest of a man who is a sinner." Zaccheus stopped and said to the Lord, "Behold, Lord, half of my possessions I will give to the poor, and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will give back four times as much." And Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham.--Luke 19:1-9

So often we miss the beauty of this story because we only focus on the fact that Zaccheus was a short man. However, we see from his profession that his life was made up of the violations found in Leviticus 6:1-5. He cheated, he lied, he extorted, all so he could line his pockets. He encounters Jesus. It is a joyous encounter and during his time with Jesus, he promises to give back to those he robbed. Not simply offering the 120% payment, but a 400% payment! This shows he did not have a heart of drudgery, but instead was filled with joy.

You see, the guilt offering was not simply a fine the person was to pay to earn forgiveness. Forgiveness cannot be earned, it must be granted. The man was not even capable of performing the sacrifice himself, but had to depend on the priest to make atonement for him (a direct projection to the fact that Jesus Christ alone is our only means of atonement). The offerer did not provide his ram to earn himself salvation but offered it in response to the fact that salvation was possible! Then, having seen that the LORD is more desirable than his sin, he quickly turns from it and also seeks to restore any relationship with a person that may have been severed.

The beauty of repentance is not what we turn from, it's Who we turn to. Martin Luther understood that the Christian life is life of continual repentance, this was the message of the first of his 95 thesis. Their is great joy found in this. For God grants the repentance to us. God makes restoration possible. And God always forgives the one who forsakes his sin for the sake of Christ.

We must live lives of repentance. We should not do so as drudgery, but as a witness, we should show repentance to be a great joy of ours. What a praise that God would allow us to see our sin, see His beauty and grant us that we would turn from the sin to Him!!! Then, when a dying world notices this hope within us, we should not shrink away from repentance or try a less offensive way to speak of their sin. We should cry out to them to repent of their sin and cry out to God that He might grant it to them.

For our guilt can be forgiven and restoration can be found.

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.--2 Corinthians 5:21

Leviticus 4:1-35

2009-01-27T05:16:00.000-08:00

Introduction

When the Lord introduces the "sin offering" to Moses, there are a couple noticeable variances. First, we are introduced to the difference between intentional and unintentional sin. Also, we see that the payment must be different, depending on the person committing the sin. But as we investigate the chapter closely, we also see that all sin has great similarity.

Commentary

v 1
The text makes the transition clear here, by reminding us that the Lord is speaking directly to Moses.

v 2
Moses is reminded that the information is not just for him, but is to be taught to all the sons of Israel. He next introduces the sin offering for "unintentional sins" (literally, mistaken). This verse serves as an introduction to the entire portion, as He first states "if any person" and will proceed to discuss specific people.

v 3
There is some debate as to the "anointed priest." Some suggest this is a reference to the High Priest, while others would say it is just a priest who has been anointed for service. However, the fact that guilt is brought onto all the people, it seems most likely that the anointed priest would be the High Priest. This also seems likely, since a bull would be the most expensive of all possible sacrifices.

v 4-10
The procedure of the offering is pretty similar to the peace offering (v 10). He will separate out all the fat from the bull and offer it up before the Lord on the altar. He will also lay his hands upon the bull, to symbolize the transfer of sin and guilt. He is also responsible to slay the bull. There are also some distinctions for the offerings. The priest is to dip his hand in the blood and sprinkle blood seven times before the veil of the sanctuary. (Again, that his sin effects the veil to the Holy of Holies seems to point toward the anointed priest being the High Priest.) He will also put some blood on the horns of that altar of fragrant incense. Again, all of the fat would be placed before the Lord.

v 11-12
In earlier sacrifices, the offerer was responsible to wash the entrails and legs clean. However, in this sacrifice, the priest is to separate out these elements (clearly they are not cleansed, for this element includes the refuse). He is to take the rest of the bull outside of the camp, to a clean place where the ashes are poured out. The reference to the clean place is not a statement about the land, but about it being set apart for pure purposes. At this location, the rest of the bull is burned.

v 13-21
Next, the Lord instructs Moses regarding a sin of the entire assembly. This is not just a sin which fellow Israelites commit, but is actually a sin committed in representation to the entire nation. Though it can be hard to exactly quantify, Joshua 9 seems to provide a good example. The elders of the nation of Israel make the decision to enter into a treaty, a treaty representing the entire nation, and binding to the entire nation.

Since the elders play a representative role (and possibly were central in the commission of the sin of the congregation), they must then place their hands upon the sacrifice. This symbolizes the transfer of the sin and guilt to the offering. When the priest sprinkles the blood on the veil, he is also symbolizing that the sin effects the entire communities ability to be in the presence of God. Strain has been created between the True Mediator and the nation of Israel. The priest then removes the fat portions, offers them on the altar, and then takes the remains of the bull and burns them outside of the camp, just as he did for a sin committed by the High Priest.

v 22-26
Although "leader" is not specifically defined, it is used in other places to refer to a prince or ruler. From the passage in Joshua 9, the Hebrew word is identical to describe the "leaders" who chose to make a treaty with the Gibeonites. It does not appear that the leaders sin has called others to also commit sin, for the sacrifice is not treated like the sin of a priest or the congregation. The priest does not approach the veil nor does he burn the remains outside of the camp. The sin payment is also less expensive, as the leader is able to offer a male goat, instead of a bull.

v 27-31
The offering for anyone of the "common people" (lit: people of the earth) is very similar to the offering of a leader, except that it is a female goat, instead of male.

v 32-35
Unlike the other offerings, a common person is given the option to sacrifice a goat or a lamb. If he offers a lamb, the ritual looks very similar to that of a peace offering.

Exposition

Grace is often under-appreciated because sin is typically misunderstood. Leviticus four provides us some interesting perspectives on sin, which should direct us to understand grace better.

Unintentional Sin--We often associate sin with motives and heart. James 4:17 reminds us, Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin. In Romans 14:23 we are told that violating our conscience is a sin. However, it is tempting for some to believe the moral standard for what is sin is simply within their own determination. They will say that their own feelings and philosophy determine whether something is a sin or not. Then, when they do believe they have sinned, they consider the offense personal...they were the only one violated. Sin becomes completely therapeutic and self-centered. I determine what sin is. I determine if I have sinned. I am the one who has been sinned against.

When one examines "unintentional sin" the categories must be expanded. For many, if it was unintentional, they would not consider it to be sin. It could be classified as a mistake or misjudgment, possibly as an error, but rarely identified as sin. We see an example of an unintentional sin in the life of Abraham:

Now Abraham journeyed from there toward the land of the Negev, and settled between Kadesh and Shur; then he sojourned in Gerar. Abraham said of Sarah his wife, "She is my sister." So Abimelech king of Gerar sent and took Sarah. But God came to Abimelech in a dream of the night, and said to him, "Behold, you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she is married." Now Abimelech had not come near her; and he said, "Lord, will You slay a nation, even {though} blameless? "Did he not himself say to me, 'She is my sister'? And she herself said, 'He is my brother.' In the integrity of my heart and the innocence of my hands I have done this." Then God said to him in the dream, "Yes, I know that in the integrity of your heart you have done this, and I also kept you from sinning against Me; therefore I did not let you touch her.--Genesis 20:1-6

It's interesting to know that Abimelech had a pure motive, he was completely unaware. Yet, God was willing to punish the king for a sin he could have committed in ignorance. He had no clue that Sarah was married, yet God prevented Abimelech from following through with his sin.

Such a view of sin reminds us that God is the one who is ultimately violated (Psalm 51:4). He is right to execute judgement because it is His standards which have been compromised. He is right to require sacrifice to atone for sins committed, even when it is isn't intentional.

Unbiased Sin--A person is not less prone to these unintentional sins depending on his status. Priests are capable of unintentional sin. Common people are capable of unintentional sin. Leaders are capable of unintentional sin. The nation can even collectively be brought into such a sin. Sin is not a consequence of our upbringing or the circumstances of our rearing. It doesn't matter if the person has a common upbringing or if he's a son of Aaron. Sin has a deeper root:

as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE." "THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE, WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING," "THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS"; "WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS"; "THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD, DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS, AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN." "THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES."--Romans 3:10-18

We sin because we are sinners (not the other way around). When we contrast ourself with the standard of perfect holiness seen in God, we suddenly realize that all that we do is tainted with sin. This runs counter to our "self-esteem-I'm-OK-if-you're-OK" culture. It does us no good to ignore our sin issue or to think we are somehow exempt.

Uneven Payments--There is a noticeable scale in regard to the offerings. For a priest or the entire congregation, a bull was to be the sacrifice. For a leader, he was required to offer a male goat, while a common person could give a female got or female sheep. The bull seems understandable for sins of an entire congregation, since it would be the entire quantity of the camp. But why such a difference between the offering of a leader and a priest? And why such a little difference between a leader and a common man?

Clearly, those who lead are held to a higher standard. One can easy an elevated standard in the qualifications of an elder (1 Timothy 3:1-7). James reminded us that teachers will be judged more strictly (3:1). Certainly, much of this is due to the fact that they bear responsibility for the growth of the congregation (Hebrews 13:17). However, the difference in sacrifice is not that much different than the sacrifice for a common man.

It must be remembered that the sin of the High Priest is not just the sin of a "super leader." The role of the High Priest serves as a mediatorial role for the entire nation. He was not simply the highest of teachers or highest of servants in the tabernacle, he was to be a type of Christ. His role was to represent the work of Christ on our behalf...a sinless work from Christ. Therefore, when the High Priest sins, even unintentionally, he violates the very pattern he should be setting. Therefore, the sacrifice must be the most costly.

Same Result--In each situation, we see the offerer depends on substitution. In each situation, the High Priest, the elders, a leader or a common man places his hands upon the bull or goat/sheep. This is representative of the sin and penalty being transferred from the sinner to another source. Of course, the sacrifices are a picture pointing to Christ and are not efficient for this purpose on their own:

For the Law, since it has {only} a shadow of the good things to come {and} not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? But in those {sacrifices} there is a reminder of sins year by year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, "SACRIFICE AND OFFERING YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, BUT A BODY YOU HAVE PREPARED FOR ME; IN WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND {sacrifices} FOR SIN YOU HAVE TAKEN NO PLEASURE.--Hebrews 10:1-6

In each case, forgiveness is granted through the atonement God offers through His Son.

Conclusion

Leviticus four can be a difficult passage for us to read. Verse after verse describes the process of sacrifice and blood being poured out. The passage can seem bloody and gruesome. However, the most difficult part may be the discussion of sin. Sin permeates and effects all people. Sin must be dealt with from a blood sacrifice. Sin, when properly understood, is not just acts we willfully commit but also can be unintentional actions. Sin is a violation of God's perfect, holy, complete standards. We are all guilty of this. We all fall short of the glory of God.

However, when we look at the pervasive, infectious nature of our sin. When we see that we are sinners at the root of our being, we also begin to discover grace. We discover a gracious God who does not save us because we deserve it or are pretty good on our own. We see a Savior who saves us because of His own good pleasure to do so. An Old Testament saint did not believe his sacrifice was bringing him genuine forgiveness, but instead, he brought his sacrifice in response to a God who does forgive sin and make that possible. The sin offering in Leviticus four reminded the Old Testament saint of the grace of God, for He forgives sins we know we have committed but also those which were unintentional. (An offerer only knew he had committed an "unintentional sin" when it was brought to his attention. How many more unintentional sins did he commit which he was not aware of? Yet, he trusted in a gracious, forgiving God who would atone for his sins.)

In a world which trains people to only see the good in ourselves, Leviticus four is a reminder that there is nothing good in ourselves. We see the depths of our sin, which allows us to see the heights of His grace! See how Paul described His grace in the midst of our sin:

And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly {places} in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, {it is} the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.--Ephesians 2:1-10

Leviticus 2:1-3:17

2009-01-18T17:15:00.000-08:00

Introduction

The grain and the fellowship offerings are presented within this section.While it is certainly possible to take a look at each separately, I do not want to miss some detail by looking at both of them together. In fact, the detail is in the details. In each of these offerings God lays out very specific elements which present us with a deeper understanding of truth.

If we trust that these sacrifices are to point us toward Christ, then we will trust that the details of these sacrifices are also intended to draw us closer to our Savior.

Commentary

v 1
God presents the requirements for the grain offering between the burnt and fellowship offerings. It's a logical place to discuss the grain offering for it often accompanies a burnt or peace offering. Like the burnt offering, we really are not given a lot of occasion in this text. It is assumed by many that the grain offering reinforces whatever type of sacrifice it accompanies.

v 2
The man will bring his offering to the priest who will take from it a handful to be offered before the Lord. The priest approaches the altar and presents it in the fire to the Lord. As with the burnt offering, the reference to it being a soothing aroma is not a statement about its smell, but a statement to the Lord's satisfaction with it. However, unlike the burnt offering, the entire offering is not placed upon the fire, but the handful is simply called a "memorial portion." The rest is kept for the priests to enjoy. While the priest may offer the sacrifice to the Lord, it is up to the offerer to prepare the sacrifice:

Oil--The oil would be from olives. This oil was used for the anointing of kings and priests. This oil is also used to heal wounds and placed upon a head in times of celebration. In James 5, it is part of the anointing process for the sick.

While some simply want to see oil as assisting the burning process of the grain, there seems to be a greater meaning. It can be suggested that such usage of oil is symbolic of the anointing from the Holy Spirit. As David was anointed by Samuel, the Spirit came to descend upon him. The oil points toward the joy of the Holy Spirit.

Frankincense--This incense would be costly and was used in much of the worship process. The perfume for the priests was to include frankincense and the show bread was to be baked with it as well. This spice becomes synonymous with being in the presence of the Lord. Of course, frankincense is most famous for being one of the gifts given to Jesus by the Magi (Matthew 2:11). This gift was really a recognition of Christ's priestly function and the fulfillment that God is in our presence.

v 3
Aaron and his sons would keep the remainder of the offering. However, this was not to be passed around to just anybody. It was considered a thing most holy, therefore it was only to be eaten by Aaron and his sons.

v 4-10
The grain offering could be presented in various ways. It could be baked in an oven, cooked on a griddle or fried in a pan. No matter how it is presented, oil is still to accompany it and it is given to the priests to offer it before the Lord. Only a memorial portion would be offered in any format, while the rest was for Aaron and his sons.

v 11
Unleavened--While God has already told Moses to use unleavened bread (4, 5), He takes special caution to remind Moses of this again. Many people assume that God's prohibition of leaven (along with honey) is simply because it can ferment and cause the grain to spoil. In light of the New Testament, however, this view appears simplistic. Jesus warned the disciples about the leaven of the pharisees, by which He meant their false teaching (Matthew 16:12). In Luke 12:1, Jesus refers to the pharisees hypocrisy as leaven. Also, Paul speaks of sin in the Corinthians church as leaven which needs to be removed (1 Corinthians 5:6-8). God requires that offerings which approach His fire would be leaven free for this is symbolic of the sin free nature the Lord desires.

v 12
The issue is clearly not the potential rotting of the bread, for Moses is instructed that the first fruits offering may have leaven within it. However, this sacrifice may not be offered into the fire.

v 13
Salt--God commands Moses that every grain offering--whether first fruits or not--must be accompanied with salt. Again, some speculate that this is simply for the preserving nature of salt, but Moses is given another reason why. It is the salt of the covenant. The salt of the covenant is used other times, such as referring to the kingly covenant made between God to David (2 Chronicles 13:5). While the benefits of a covenant are always enjoyed by men, the glory is seen in the Divine half. Man always fails to keep his covenant. God never fails to uphold His half.

v 14-16
To reinforce that the elements are not simply for cooking purposes, Moses is instructed that he should still offer incense and salt with first fruit grain.

c3 v1
At this point, we are introduced to the peace offering. Since Hebrew words are only consonants, it is difficult to know the full meaning of this offering. It appears that "peace" or "fellowship" is the desired term. Unlike the burnt offering, the offerer could either offer a male or female offering from the herd. However, in offering it must be without defect.

v 2-6
Like the burnt offering, the offerer must lay his hands upon the sacrifice and slay the animal. The priests will take the blood and sprinkle it around the altar. Yet these verses introduce us to another element.

Fat--We read the word "fat" and often think of gristle or the inedible portion of meat. However, this is not at all what the authors meant by "fat." "The fat" is used in other passages to speak of that which is best (see: Psalm 63, Psalm 81:16). Therefore, we must understand that God is not calling for them to give the most disgusting potion, but the best of the offering instead.

v 7-11
The offerer could also present a lamb before the Lord for a fellowship offering. If he did so, the offering was prepared in much the same way, however, he was also to remove the entire fat tail.

v 12-16
This sacrifice is almost identical to that of a lamb, except that there is no fat tail to offer.

v 17
God presents to Moses a permanent statute for all their generations, no matter what location...they are not to eat fat nor drink blood.

Exposition

There a couple of ways we can approach the grain and fellowship offerings. Some, look at these offerings simply as devices designed to appease an angry God. Some look only to the elements of the offerings for "practical" reasons:

--oil: added to increase the value and facilitate the burning
--frankincense: to increase the value and create a good aroma
--no leaven: keeps the offering from rotting
--no honey: keeps offering from rotting (and burning honey smells bad)
--salt: preserves the offering
--fat: keeps Israelites from eating unhealthy meat

But such "practicality" keeps us from seeing the real purpose of these sacrifices. God does not need to be fed nor does He have any needs that we must take care of. He can call down fire from heaven to consume a sacrifice and does not need oil to facilitate the burning. He fed the nation with quail and manna; He does not need a sacrificial system as a way to feed His priests.

The real "practical" perspective is to seek the the glory of God in this midst of this revelation. When we do this, we understand far more:

The oil is seen throughout Scripture within the process of anointing. The frankincense was a costly spice used within the tabernacle. The showbread in the tabernacle as well as the perfume of the priests contained frankincense. This means that any time a person smelled frankincense, they would be draw in their mind to the tabernacle/temple...representing the presence of God. The sacrifice is to be without leaven, which often symbolizes sin (see: 1 Corinthians 5). The text tells us the salt does not exist for the sake of preserving the offering, but is a representation of the covenant God has made with us.

Now, as we think through the elements, ask yourself: Who is it who anoints us? Who's presence is within us? Who works within our lives to transform us into the image of Christ...the sinless image of Christ? Who is our seal of the covenant from God made to us?

In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for {us} with groanings too deep for words; and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to {the will of} God.--Romans 8:26-27

The grain offering usually accompanies other offerings. It is usually thought to be a form of petition or used to add to the intensity of the offering.

The fellowship offering always follows the burnt offering and never precedes it. It is not merely that the priest eats part of the sacrifice, but the offer does as well. This symbolic gesture has God the Father and the offerer eating a meal together. Of course, their is a priest involved as well, to symbolize the mediatorial work of Christ. Since this offering is a symbol of our communion with God, a male or female may be sacrificed to show that fellowship with the Lord is not helped (nor hindered) by our gender. Either male or female is given equal access to Christ (Galatians 3:28).

Conclusion

The grain offering should remind the believer that he is not capable of praying to God except for the work of Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Just like God had to produce the grain for the offerer, so God must also do all the work to make praying to Him even possible. Likewise, the fellowship offering should remind us that once the atonement is made by Christ, we now have fellowship with the Son and with the Father. Thus, a man sits down with his family to have a meal between him and God. We see Christ's desire to fellowship and eat with us in the following text:

While they were eating, Jesus took {some} bread, and after a blessing, He broke {it} and gave {it} to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is My body." And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave {it} to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom."--Matthew 26:26-29

Jesus earnestly desired to eat the meal with His disciples (Luke 22:15). During the meal, He reminds them that fellowship is only possible because of the work He is about to do on their behalf. Lastly, He points not just to forgiveness available, but reminds us that God desires to enjoy fellowship with us as well. Jesus points the disciples ahead to the day they will enjoy a meal together with Christ in God's presence.

The only "practical" way to read the Scriptures is to understand that God desires Jesus Christ to be exalted on every page. The sacrifices are not bloody attempts to appease a vicious God, they are worship ceremonies intended to direct the reader to the work of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, on our behalf. While we enjoy sweet fellowship with Jesus, we should also call out to others:

O taste and see that the LORD is good; How blessed is the man who takes refuge in Him!--Psalm 34:8

Leviticus 1:1-17

2009-01-12T05:00:00.000-08:00

Introduction

The first sacrifice that the Lord describes to Moses is the burnt offering. Moses and the Israelites have just completed the tabernacle preparations, diligently watching to follow every detail. The glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle and then the Lord called to Moses. The Lord then instructs Moses as to the objects offered in the burnt offering and the procedure for each offering. Though the text does not specifically mention the motive (nor frequency) of the burnt offering, we do see the same result...a soothing aroma to the Lord.

However, Moses isn't here. The glory of the Lord has not filled our church like a cloud. We don't have a tabernacle and certainly are not offering bulls, goats, lambs or turtledoves on an altar. We live in a different era, a different location and have a different expression of worship.

Is there really anything we can learn?

Commentary

v 1
As Moses stands at the entry way of the Tent of Meeting--unable to enter due to the cloud of the Lord's presence--the word of the Lord is spoken. God begins His instruction. (For more detail, see this post.)

v 2
This instruction was not meant for Moses alone. Immediately, God reminds Moses that He is revealing His will so that Moses can now instruct the people. Though verse 2 does not introduce the term "burnt offering," clearly God is speaking to Moses already about it. This cannot be a overall statement that every offering must be from the flock or herd, for we will soon be introduced to the grain offering. However, we are reminded that the man it to bring His offering. Contrary to the disobedient practice we see throughout Israel's history, God was not interested in His people offering sacrifices wherever they chose. He desired that their offering be brought to His tabernacle, constructed to His design.

v 3
At this point, the "burnt offering" is officially introduced. A man will bring his offering forward, which will be a male without defect. The man offering the sacrifice certainly speaks to the patriarchal system, that a father would take headship of his home. The father is responsible to direct people to the Heavenly Father. As the offering is also male without defect, there is certainly nowhere else someone should look than the Man, the Lord Jesus Christ. He must follow these instructions to be accepted before the Lord.

v 4
The man lays his hands on the head of the offering. The text explains that this is necessary to make atonement for the man (and his family). Placing his hands on the animal's head show the symbolic transfer of the sin and guilt to the animal. The weight pressed upon the animal is similar to the yoke our own sin forces us to carry unless transfered to another on our behalf.

v 5
Next the man must slaughter his sacrifice. It is important to see his involvement in the death and bloodiness of the sacrifice. Many imagine the sacrificial system without seeing the gravity. The man would not simply bring an animal to the tabernacle, lay his hands on it, hand it over to the priests and walk away. Upon pressing down upon the animal, the man is then expected to slaughter the animal himself. The priests then immediately collect the blood and sprinkle it around the altar and the doorway of the Tent of Meeting.

v 6
Next, the man must skin the bull and cut it into pieces. Again, he is involved in all of the mess and death of the process. Blood would be seen, felt and smelt by the man.

v 7
But the man would not approach the altar. The priests would be in charge of arranging the wood and tending to the fire on the altar.

v 8
Then Aaron's sons, the priests, would arrange the pieces, placing the head and the fat from the kidneys/loins upon the altar.

v 9
However, all pieces of the bull were not offered on the altar at once. The man would then wash the legs and intestines with water. If the sacrifice was to be a male without defect, then certainly it would need to be clean as well. God would not want waste and dirt to be placed upon His altar. Therefore, the man must wash each of these things off, being sure to provide a clean offering.

Once clean, the sacrifice would be handed to the priests who would offer it on the altar. Perhaps suggesting the amount of water that may have been used, the sacrifice would be offered up in the smoke.

This would then provide a soothing aroma to the Lord. This is not simply a response to the odor of the offering, but more importantly, to the satisfaction of the offering to God.

v 10-13
If a man chooses not to offer a bull, he is allowed to offer a goat or sheep. The offering looks almost identical in function, except that the goat/sheep is slaughtered on the northward side of the altar instead of the toward the doorway. However, it is an acceptable offering for it results in a soothing aroma to the Lord.

v 14-17
Yet, a man can offer a turtledove or a young pigeon as well. There are visible parallels to the other sacrifices, but since it's a bird, it must have some adjustments. Rather than slaying the animal, the priest must wring the birds head off and drain the blood. Similar to removing the entrails and it and the legs, the man must then remove the crop and feathers. And instead of cutting the animal into pieces, the bird is torn by the wings, but not severed.

Exposition

The Reason for the Burnt Offering

As the book of Leviticus opens up, God gives Moses specific instructions for an offering, but does not express the specific purpose. However, we can see other burnt offerings in the Scriptures that give us an idea. After Noah and his family depart from the ark, Noah then builds an altar to the LORD (Genesis 8:1-22). He then offers burnt offerings from the clean animals and clean birds unto the LORD. Certainly, Noah is offering his gift in thanksgiving for protection and survival. Since the flood was an outpouring of God's wrath upon the earth, it is also reasonable to assume Noah is offering the sacrifice for atonement; to acknowledge that the punishment of God had been poured out. This would also be an acknowledgement by Noah that he had averted that punishment only by the gracious working of God.

In similar fashion, Psalm 66 presents the context for a burnt offering. The attitude is clearly that of thanksgiving. The offerer is not coming because he has to but because he wants to. As the psalmist progresses through the song, he shows that his thanksgiving is specifically found in the deliverance of God. Just like with Noah, the psalmist acknowledges the parting of the Red Sea. He then uses that imagery to express God's sovereign deliverance to His people in the midst of their trials.

The Elements of the Burnt Offering

When we understand the motive for the burnt offering, then we better understand the distinctions between the animals sacrificed. The burnt offering was a costly offering, since every portion but the skin was devoured in the fire. In other sacrifices, the offer kept a portion of the sacrifice or gave a portion to the priests. However, in the burnt offering, it would be completely consumed.

It appears that God offers three particular types of sacrifices, each in descending order of value. The bull would be the most costly of sacrifices an Israelite could offer. Not only would it be the largest animal, but it would also be the least plentiful. Next in value would come the sheep/goat, as much of Israel's economy was built around shepherding. This sacrifice would be costly, but not as costly as a bull. Finally, for those who could not make an offering from the herd or flock, they were able to offer a turtledove or young pigeon. While the burnt offering would be costly, God gives a graduated scale for the offering, to keep it from being a crippling sacrifice. If one can afford to offer a bull, it is available for a burnt offering. However, a sheep/goat is available to the one who can afford it. And if neither is affordable, a person also can offer a turtledove or pigeon.

But what would motivate a person to give a bull instead of a pigeon or turtledove? To examine the true attitude of a burnt offering, we must see all the elements together. God does not demand when or under what circumstances a burnt offering must be given. God does not lay out financial perimeters for which gift must be given. The burnt offering was to be an expression of thanksgiving to God, particularly in light of His deliverance provided. The proper attitude of the sacrifice is not to ask, "How little can I get away with?" but to ask, "How can I best express my gratitude to God for His deliverance?"

Conclusion

We do not need to let culture, history or tradition get in the way from seeing the relevance of Leviticus. Christ is exalted in multiple ways. The sacrifice must be a male without blemish...clearly an illustration of Christ, Our Spotless Lamb who takes away our sins. The man offering his sacrifice would place his hand upon the head of the offering, to point to the atonement that would come through Christ Jesus. Even the result, as the sacrifice was a pleasing aroma to the Lord should direct the reader to remember God's satisfaction of the sacrifice of Christ. But even the attitude of the offerer can reflect the attitude of Christ.

For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, so that you through His poverty might become rich.--2 Corinthians 8:9

When we consider the work of Christ, we see the perfect attitude toward selfless giving. Paul instructs that Jesus gave up all of His riches for our sakes and became poor. This is not merely a reference to the majestic glory and privileges in heaven. This is also a reference to His perfect, unified relationship with the Godhead. Jesus enjoyed the splendor of perfect relationship between God the Father, the Holy Spirit and Himself. However, when Jesus hung on the cross, He cried out, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" His cry expresses the reality of ultimate poverty. He was separated from God has He bore our sin upont Himself.

And why would He do this? So that we might become rich. This is no reference to our financial standing, for the gospel is not intended as a way to grow one's "portfolio." The relationship between His poverty and riches is the same as ours. His poverty was experienced in a relationship severed between He and His Father, our riches are found in the establishment of that relationship, based only on the work of Christ. Though we have nothing offer before God and found ourselves in ultimate poverty, Jesus abandoned His great riches to give us that which we could never earn or deserve. He redeemed us through His blood and allows us to have the riches of a restored relationship with God. There is no greater deliverance than this.

In light of this deliverance, we now understand the motivation for the sacrifice. When aware of just how much we've been forgiven--and the great price by which it came--then we would not approach our opportunity to sacrifice with a cheapened, minimal attitude. This also is the heart compulsion of the offerer of sacrifice in Leviticus. He would not try to bargain down to a turtledove or pigeon. If a man offered a turtledove or pigeon, it would be a costly sacrifice to him, truly what he could afford. But since he had been delivered from much, he would then desire to give much to God.

This order must not be reversed. The burnt offering was not an attempt by the offerer to find forgiveness. The burnt offering was a sacrifice made to express joy for the forgiveness of sins received.

So how does the believer today express his joy for the gospel and express gratitude toward God. It is not profitable for us to create a new altar and offer animal sacrifices, for the greater joy is pointing to Jesus Christ on the cross. But if we do not offer an animal sacrifice, the answer it not to offer less:

Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, {which is} your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.--Romans 12:1-2

The calling for the believer is to offer all of himself to the Lord, not just an animal sacrifice. This is not to be done out of obligation or compulsion, but out of gratitude for God's deliverance to us. We offer ourselves as a fragrant aroma to the Lord, acknowledging His delivering work on our behalf.

Leviticus 1:1

2008-11-29T18:51:00.001-08:00

Introduction

Just recently, I was having lunch with another pastor. As we were discussing different elements of ministry I told him that I was planning to preach through Leviticus. As soon as the words came out of my mouth, the pastor simply looked up from his meal and only had one question...Why? This seems to be the biggest question attached to Leviticus. Why would a believer study this book? Is there actual benefit to reading Moses' third book?

Hopefully, the average believer would find it wrong to rip the pages of Leviticus from their Bible. But in a practicality, the believer may neglect it. We may know that it is part of the Word of God, but we certainly don't treat it that way. However, the book should not be read out of simple guilt or a feeling of obligation. It should be read with anticipation. It is the Word of God. In fact, it even tells us so.

Commentary

v 1

Then the LORD called to Moses...

Context
Though Leviticus is a separate book, it should be understood in the immediate context of Exodus 40. Consider:

Now in the first month of the second year, on the first {day} of the month, the tabernacle was erected. Moses erected the tabernacle and laid its sockets, and set up its boards, and inserted its bars and erected its pillars. He spread the tent over the tabernacle and put the covering of the tent on top of it, just as the LORD had commanded Moses. Then he took the testimony and put {it} into the ark, and attached the poles to the ark, and put the mercy seat on top of the ark. He brought the ark into the tabernacle, and set up a veil for the screen, and screened off the ark of the testimony, just as the LORD had commanded Moses. Then he put the table in the tent of meeting on the north side of the tabernacle, outside the veil. He set the arrangement of bread in order on it before the LORD, just as the LORD had commanded Moses. Then he placed the lampstand in the tent of meeting, opposite the table, on the south side of the tabernacle. He lighted the lamps before the LORD, just as the LORD had commanded Moses. Then he placed the gold altar in the tent of meeting in front of the veil; and he burned fragrant incense on it, just as the LORD had commanded Moses. Then he set up the veil for the doorway of the tabernacle. He set the altar of burnt offering {before} the doorway of the tabernacle of the tent of meeting, and offered on it the burnt offering and the meal offering, just as the LORD had commanded Moses. He placed the laver between the tent of meeting and the altar and put water in it for washing. From it Moses and Aaron and his sons washed their hands and their feet. When they entered the tent of meeting, and when they approached the altar, they washed, just as the LORD had commanded Moses. He erected the court all around the tabernacle and the altar, and hung up the veil for the gateway of the court. Thus Moses finished the work.

Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle. Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting because the cloud had settled on it, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle. Throughout all their journeys whenever the cloud was taken up from over the tabernacle, the sons of Israel would set out; but if the cloud was not taken up, then they did not set out until the day when it was taken up. For throughout all their journeys, the cloud of the LORD was on the tabernacle by day, and there was fire in it by night, in the sight of all the house of Israel.--Exodus 40:17-38 (emphasis added)

After meticulously following all the Lord had commanded, the tabernacle is ready for worship. The cloud descends upon the tabernacle and fills the tabernacle. Verses 36-38 are really summary verses about the function of the cloud. Really the narrative of this account could transition straight from verse 35 to Leviticus 1. Historically, it could almost be read as: Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting because the cloud had settled on it, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle...Then the LORD called to Moses.

While all Scripture is breathed out from God (2 Timothy 3:16-17), this does not mean the text is dictated. However, much of Leviticus is filled with quotations from God to Moses. In fact, the Hebrew name for the book of Leviticus is the word that conveys "the Lord called."

We should read Leviticus for it is like the rest of Scripture: God-breathed and usual for equipping the believer.

We know the book by the name Leviticus, a name derived from the tribe of Levi. Many read the book of Leviticus as a manual or guide for the priesthood. The book is considered relevant only to the priests and those serving in the tabernacle. However, as believers, the function of priests should interest us:

This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve, "THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE VERY CORNER {stone,}" and, "A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this {doom} they were also appointed. But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR {God's} OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; for you once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD; you had NOT RECEIVED MERCY, but now you have RECEIVED MERCY.--1 Peter 2:7-10

Peter reminds us that God has transfered us from an unidentifiable collection of nothing particular into a people chosen by God. We've become a nation unto God and each believer is a priest within that nation. This was done with the purpose of proclaiming the excellencies of Him who called us out of darkness into His marvelous light. Understanding the priesthood should help the believer understand the work of our High Priest, Jesus Christ.

It's also critical to remember that the work of a Christian is to offer sacrifice to the Lord:

Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, {which is} your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.--Romans 12:1-2

It is critical to note the particular order in which Paul places things. First, we are to be aware of the gospel message. Paul begins his letter of Romans discussing the gospel and then unpacks details (depravity, justification by faith, imputation of righteousness, believers battle against indwelling sin, eternal security in Christ, power to save both Jew and Gentile, etc.). As he approaches chapter twelve, he states we are to offer our bodies as a sacrifice. This language would not be lost on the reader of that day. Paul is providing the visual of climbing up on the altar ourselves, not to offer a sacrifice, but to be the sacrifice. This cannot be done, however, preceding the gospel.

First, a person must understand Christ's payment on his/her behalf. We must understand that no sacrifice on our part will clean us up enough to be approved by God. We can give up things we love. We can spend more time in a church. We can donate money to other causes. We can make sacrifices and adaptation to our life, but apart from trusting only in the work of Christ on our behalf, we still stand guilty of our sins. The order is clear in Romans...in view of God's mercy. Once the person has trusted the perfect work of Christ, then he offers his life back to Christ in gratitude.

This is not a change in process. The Old Testament saints were not saved by their sacrifices, but instead, their sacrifices were a response to the salvation God had offered them. We can learn a lot by studying the sacrifices offered by the people in accordance to the writings of Leviticus. Likewise, the believer today can offer themselves back to God as a response to His ultimate sacrifice for us.

The Main Character

However, Leviticus should not be read simple as a culture or history lesson.

Now the main point in what has been said {is this:} we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a minister in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man. For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices; so it is necessary that this {high priest} also have something to offer. Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law; who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned {by God} when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, "SEE," He says, "THAT YOU MAKE all things ACCORDING TO THE PATTERN WHICH WAS SHOWN YOU ON THE MOUNTAIN." But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.--Hebrews 8:1-6

We study Leviticus to better understand Christ. The office of the priesthood points to Christ. Utensils used in the tabernacle point to Christ. The sacrifices themselves point to Christ. Even the very tabernacle points to Jesus Christ! It was important that Moses obey all that the Lord commanded him and to the detail, for it was important that the Levitical system would all point to the Messiah.

Conclusion

While many may doubt the relevancy of Leviticus, both inside and outside of the church, we must remember it does not cease to be relevant. In fact, in December of 2008, Leviticus was mentioned in Newsweek Magazine. From the article "Our Mutual Joy", Lisa Miller (religion editor for Newsweek) states:

Twice Leviticus refers to sex between men as "an abomination" (King James version), but these are throwaway lines in a peculiar text given over to codes for living in the ancient Jewish world, a text that devotes verse after verse to treatments for leprosy, cleanliness rituals for menstruating women and the correct way to sacrifice a goat—or a lamb or a turtle dove. Most of us no longer heed Leviticus on haircuts or blood sacrifices; our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions. Why would we regard its condemnation of homosexuality with more seriousness than we regard its advice, which is far lengthier, on the best price to pay for a slave?

While Ms. Miller's results are certainly unbiblical, it is understandable how she came to this conclusion. She describes the book as a peculiar text filled with advise on archaic issues. Certainly no text that speaks of treating leprosy, sacrificing animals or selling a slave could have any value for us today. Perhaps Leviticus was valuable in their day, but most of us no longer heed Leviticus on haircuts or blood sacrifices; our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions.

While many of us may not trumpet the virtues of homosexual marriage, we may sometimes handle the text in a similar way. Are you able to explain why we eat cheese on burgers today, or trim our beards, or wear multiple fabrics in our clothing? Many would simply answer that those rules are old and to a different society and they don't apply to us. But this is not a Biblically reasoned answer. And if one were to read the article from Lisa Miller, we would understand that this sort of approach to Scripture has a giant ripple effect. Suddenly, other passages and parts of Scripture become irrelevant and obscure too. It no longer matters if the Lord is calling, for we will simply redefine His words.

How does one keep from making the same critical mistakes with the text? A person must be mindful that they come to the text, not to study history and not to learn some simple rules or techniques. They come to text to see Jesus.

We must study Leviticus because God called to Moses and through this book, God also calls to us.

Will we listen?

Exodus 32:1-6

2008-07-18T23:58:00.000-07:00

Introduction

It can be hard for us to imagine idolatry. Why in the world would people ever be tempted to worship an object they created? While the average evangelical will acknowledge that we can be tempted to worship something/someone before God, the idea of "crafting an image" is much harder to imagine. Why in the world would an object of gold, metal or wood compete with worshipping God? Sadly, most scoff this temptation, considering they are much to sophisticated to be tempted, thus ignoring John's exhortation, Little children, guard yourselves from idols.

But perhaps a look at one of the most famous "idol exchanges" can show us the tendency of the human heart to craft an image.

Commentary

v1
Moses delayed. Since the Lord answered Moses with thunder (19:19) it is possible that the mountain thundered the entire time the Lord spoke to Moses. Perhaps, when the Lord was finished speaking (31:18) it quit thundering? Perhaps the thunder quit, or perhaps they were simply in awe of the whole encounter, but when Moses did not at first reappear, the people panic and look for alternative means. As they speak to Aaron, they share their concern is that they have no idea what happened to Moses.

Make us a god. Since Moses has disappeared, the people call for Aaron to make them a god. Just the idea of "making" a god sounds foolish to us, for wouldn't he who crafted the object have dominion over that which he crafted? The people have credited Moses with leading them out of Egypt and now they appear stranded alone in the desert. Could Aaron make a god to go before them?

v2
Tear off the gold rings... Aaron agrees, but it is going to cost the Israelites something. The material for the idol will come from those who want it.

(Yes, wives, sons and daughters all had earrings. This was probably a sign of their former slave status in Egypt, though it may have simply been a fashion decision.--Exodus 21:6)

v3
Then all the people tore off the gold rings... This sounded like a reasonable proposal from Aaron and the people obliged.

v4
Fashioned it with a graving tool. Aaron melts down the gold and begins to fashion it into an idol. Though he claims, I threw it into the fire, and out came this calf," clearly he was more involved in the process.

Molten calf. Why a cow? Though the Israelites were traditionally shepherds, the Egyptians highly esteemed tending to livestock. In fact, Egyptians considered shepherds loathsome (see: Genesis 46:34). Perhaps the calf represented status? Perhaps it represented Egypt (either negatively or positively)? Perhaps it was just an adaptation of the sacrifical system?

This is your god, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt. At this point, it becomes very difficult to connect with the people of Israel. Not only does Aaron call this idol, whom he has crafted with material the Israelites provided, but now he is crediting it with delivering them from Egypt. It seems difficult for us to understand. How could the Israelites, who were removed from Egypt "B.C." ("Before Calf") now credit the calf for delivering them? Not only are they foolishly calling an object made by a man with their earrings a god, but now they credit it with bringing them to the wilderness even though it was crafted in the wilderness. This is very difficult for us to grasp.

v5
Tomorrow shall be a feast to the LORD. This phrase helps us peer into their motive. Aaron builds the altar before the calf. Clearly their worship is directed toward it. He has called a god (twice) and now he attributes the name "LORD." LORD (in all caps) is the way most English translations depict "Yahweh" or "Jehovah," the personal name for God. This is the name God revealed to Moses and the Israelites (Exodus 6:3). Why would they attribute the name of their God to a calf? They really couldn't think of an original name?

v6
Offered burnt offerings and brought peace offerings. Not only have the Israelites given the idol Jehovah's name, but they also begin to worship the idol in ways appointed only for God. This is probably not a display of the lack of their creativity, but rather, evidence of their motive. All of these features presented together suggests that the Israelites were not looking to replace God with a calf, but looking at replacing their means of worship (as prescribed through Moses).

Exposition

The author of Hebrews offers some interesting insight into the life and role of Moses:

Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law; who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, "SEE," He says, "THAT YOU MAKE all things ACCORDING TO THE PATTERN WHICH WAS SHOWN YOU ON THE MOUNTAIN." But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.Hebrews 8:4-6

First, and most important, God intended for Moses to play a mediatorial role that "typed" Christ. Moses was not merely a good leader or a quality man that God used to get His people out of an oppressive land. Moses, and his function was to be an imperfect preview of the Ultimate Mediator who would initiate the Greater Covenant.

Therefore, secondarily, God cares very much about the detail. The Hebrews were to pay close attention to the pattern they were shown, for this pattern should lead them to seeing Christ. God was not simply interested in Who they worship, but also how they worship. In fact, how they worship directly tied to Who they worshipped.

Israel's first sin was that they neglected the role of Moses. They actually thought they could worship Yahweh without Moses...and they could have, had God desired to point to Christ in another way. However, the LORD chose to work through Moses to point people to Jesus. In fact, at they time they are carving up a calf, God was giving Moses the Law that would point people to Christ (Galatians 3:24)! Israel naively thought that details didn't matter. They would still give credit to God (naming the calf after Him) and would still practice forms of sacrificial worship. (Though Moses is concurrently receiving the written details for sacrificial worship, Genesis 4 reminds us that sacrificial worship already existed, and was acceptable to God.) They still wanted the same end (worship of God) but determined a different means. A new mediator would serve them just fine.

God, however, did not share their perspective. To ignore His mediator was to ignore His means. It is incredibly hard to worship Him as LORD when you will not obey how He says to do it.

Conclusion

Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.--1 John 2:22-23

Ultimately, it is impossible to worship God the Father without acknowledging the divinity of His Son. For all religious systems who redefine Christ's divinity or humanity are of the Antichrist. They may claim to worship God (and even use the name Jehovah), but their is not middle ground. You are either worshipping God through His Mediator, or you are not.

But we can also be tempted to worship a god in our own making. As Calvin said, "Our hearts are an idol factory." This means we are not capable of discovering God on our own, or knowing Christ simply by our own musings. We must be firmly committed to the Word, to see how God has defined Himself and worship Him accordingly. Details do matter, for details point us toward His Beloved Son.

It is rare today that a Christian will intentionally replace Jesus Christ with something else. However, when we choose to serve ourself, or when we choose to define Jesus according to our own terms, and not the Word, this is exactly what we are doing. Just like the Hebrews believed they were worshipping Yahweh by using His name and performing the sacrifices, when the messed with the Mediator, they ceased to truly worship God. In the same way, when we worship a Messiah who does not match the Biblical picture, we do not simply find ourselves mistaken, we find ourselves worshipping an idol.

Genesis 19:1-11

2008-06-10T12:31:00.000-07:00

This one came in as an alien, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them.--Genesis 19:9

Many advisors suggest that pastors emulate the qualities of other careers. Successful pastoring is found by becoming more of a CEO...motivational speaker...counselor...coach...cheerleader...manager...the list could go on and on.

However, there is one he is to avoid at all costs.

Judge

I was told once by a man, "I don't mind if you say the church disagrees with another religion. I don't even mind you saying that you believe the church is right. I just don't think you should say the church believes others are wrong." This kind of statement reveals the tone of today. It's ok if a preacher proclaims truth, but he should do it in a say that doesn't violate another person's opinion. Stacks of books today claim the non-christian is avoiding the church because it is far too judgmental. After all, the central verse in Scripture is Matthew 7:1, right?

How dare you, Lot!

Lot draws the ire of the men from Sodom. This man, an outsider, had the audacity to treat them like they were doing wrong. The men of Sodom were offended, and were prepared to treat Lot worse than his visitors. Who did Lot think he was?

Lot, the outsider.--When Abraham and Lot split up, Lot settled in the cities of the valley, and moved his tents as far as Sodom (13:12). The immediate context (13:13) tells us that Sodom was already "exceedingly wicked and sinning against the Lord." Despite the climate of the city, we are told that Lot eventually moved into Sodom (14:12). But how long had Lot lived in Sodom before the city was destroyed?

We can work backwards a little to see for sure. Just before Sodom is destroyed, Abraham is informed that his wife will have Isaac in a year (18:10). This would place Abraham at 99 years old (21:5). Abram had Ismael at age 86 (16:16). Abram lived in Canaan for 10 years before Hagar conceived Ishmael (16:3). By the battle against Chedorlaomer (more below), Lot is living in Sodom and it appears Abram is still childless. Therefore, depending on when you place the reference to living in Canaan (12:5 or 13:12), Lot has at least lived in Sodom for 13 years and could possibly have lived there up to 23 years. Had he just arrived and immediately started preaching?

Not only were the people of Sodom wicked and sinning against the Lord, their rebellion also spread to government. When the people rebelled against Chedorlaomer and his allies, Sodom started a fight they could not finish. As the kings routed Sodom, they took all their goods and food supply (14:11). Lot was helpless to stop the fight, as he and his possessions were carried away as well. At this point, Sodom could have simply been left devastated except that Abram came to the defense of his nephew. As Abram and his 318 men defeated the kings, he returned Lot, the goods, the supplies and captives. Then, when the king of Sodom offered for Abram to keep the supplies for returning the people, Abram refused. He did not want the king of Sodom to believe he contributed to Abram's wealth (14:23). Therefore, through Lot's relation to Abram, Sodom received their people and supplies back freely. Had he been a total freeloader, not benefiting their society?

Lot the influence. When Abraham pleads for the righteous citizens of Sodom, he "works" God down to the number of ten. For merely ten righteous persons, the Lord was willing to spare the entire community (18:32). Certainly, Lot qualifies as one of the righteous (2 Peter 2:7). Therefore, the city only needed nine other righteous persons to be spared. Lot had a wife, two daughters and two son-in-laws-to-be. Therefore, if he had persuaded his own family to righteousness, only four other righteous people would have been needed. Of course, his son-in-laws were certainly not righteous (19:14), nor was his wife (19:26) and his daughters actions suggest question (19:32). While Lot may have been oppressed and tormented by the sin in Sodom (2 Peter 2:7-8), relief certainly did not come through bringing others to righteousness.

Of course, results are not up to Lot. Perhaps he did preach and seek to influence others. Perhaps he regularly called people to consider the Lord's righteousness. We do not find evidence that he did, however a lack of converts does not mean a lack of his preaching. However, we can at least see that the antagonism Paul faced for changing Ephesus (Acts 19:26-27), would not be due Lot. Had he "ruined" their city, creating lots of changes?

All of these things factor into Lot's "history" with the people of Sodom. Gaining that context, let's consider his actions that created the great offense:

His hospitality--Approaching these men, he urged them strongly to stay the night in his place. He took them in, washed their feet, prepared a feast and provided them lodging. While Lot may have just been showing hospitality, he certainly was aware of the evil that could befall these angels. However, in his plea we do not see him describe the wickedness of Sodom or speak ill of the people. If anything, it appears Lot is quick moving, attempting to keep the guests from even seeing the depravity of the city. He did not present the people in a bad light.

His refusal--Perhaps this was for discretion (to keep from pleading with the citizens before his guests) or perhaps it was to protect his guests, but Lot slips out the door and shuts it behind him. As he speaks to the citizens, he certainly does not consider himself a superior. "Please" can be rendered, "I beg you," placing himself in a subordinate position. He even seeks commonality, calling them "brothers." He begs them to reconsider their evil intentions. Certainly, the term "wicked" may have been the offense. Lot did the unthinkable by suggesting that the rape of male guests by the male citizens of Sodom would be a wicked thing.

His proposal--It really is unfathomable. Perhaps Lot panicked. Perhaps the word "wicked" just hung out there for a second and he could see the disapproval from the men of Sodom. Whatever the reason, Lot next suggests a "compromise." To prevent the men from acting wickedly against his guests, he was willing to offer up his daughters. The statement, "do whatever you like" makes one sick to the stomach. (By the way, where is the protest from the son-in-laws-to-be at this point?) Understanding that some may consider his plea too judgmental, Lot offers a repulsive compromise to the men. He does not call for them to repent of their sexual urges, he simply asks them to redirect them. In fact, by offering his daughters, he seems to tolerate fornication, and by reasoning that he wants to be a good host, he even avoids condemning their homosexuality.

In the end, it certainly appears that Lot has not treated the citizens in a judgmental way.

Their response

(Warning: Understatement Ahead) The people were not pleased. They claim offense at Lot's stance. Has this outsider (resident for over a decade, whose uncle rescued the town) positioned himself as judge? Though vague in his warning, the men still take it as Lot thinking he is better than them. Though offered a compromise, they are not interested in directing their lusts elsewhere, but instead decide to abuse the guests and Lot. Even when the angels rescue Lot and blind the men, they do not turn away, but continue to grope around blindly for the door. In fact, they wear themselves out trying to get in!

So how do we escape being seen as judgmental?

Bottom line: We don't. It's amazing how people have developed techniques over the years which they believe will keep people from being offended...

Don't preach right away. Take your time and get to know a person first. You must first develop a relationship before people will care to listen. (Didn't seem to help Lot.)

Before you preach, you must first meet a person's needs. Whether food, water, shelter, or even cheaper gas, you must first create advantage for them so that they will listen. (Didn't seem to help Lot's case.)

Don't speak with imperatives, simply suggest. (Image their rage if Lot hadn't said please!)

Speak as one of the people. (With "brothers" like Sodom's citizens, who needs enemies?)

Don't speak directly to a sin, but keep it vague. (Again, didn't seem to help.)

Offer incremental, attainable goals. (Imagine Lot's first conversation with his daughters after they found out they were the "alternative.")

Perception is not reality

Certainly, a pastor should not be judgmental. A proper understanding of Scripture attributes all righteousness to Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21). That righteousness is only credited to us through faith (Romans 4:5). And even that faith is actually a gift from God (Ephesians 2:8-9). We are not superior. We have nothing to boast in but Christ!

But this does not mean a preacher will be immune to the accusation. If one is faithful with the gospel, the message will offend. And if the message offends, people will take it out on the messenger. Certainly, we do not want to act in a way that makes us the offense, but if a person find the message judgmental, there is very little we can do about it.

Lot didn't try a tactic or two to avoid offense, he tried all of them. The message wasn't more palatable. The results weren't greater. It made a mess of his family. And he was still accused of being judgmental.

Genesis 11:10-32*

2008-06-05T13:21:00.000-07:00

(Click on image to see larger or print)

So often, we can read genealogy as a deck of cards in our hand. We look at one, study it, and then pass on to the next. Though we know it is not true, we almost imagine the 950 full years of Noah's life, before we move on to consider Shem's. However, examining genealogy is more like placing all the cards on the table, looking at them together and considering how they interact. The above chart is my attempt to "put all the cards on the table."

Some interesting notes to point:

Abraham was 58 years old when Noah died.

The earth was divided in Peleg's day (Genesis 10:25), resulting in a sudden decline in life span.

Since Noah outlived Peleg (by 10 years), Noah not only witnessed the flood, but also when the earth was divided.

Since Abraham lived during part of Peleg's life, he may have been alive when the earth was divided.

Jacob was 15 years old when Abraham died.

______________________________________
*Technically, the chart goes beyond Genesis 11:32, identifying through Jacob's life.

Genesis 5:1-32

2008-06-03T13:46:00.000-07:00

(Click on image to see larger or print.)

So often, we can read genealogy as a deck of cards in our hand. We look at one, study it, and then pass on to the next. Though we know it is not true, we almost imagine the 930 full years of Adam's life, before we move on to consider Seth's. However, examining genealogy is more like placing all the cards on the table, looking at them together and considering how they interact. The above chart is my attempt to "put all the cards on the table."

Some interesting points to note:

Adam, Seth and Enoch all saw the life of everyone listed in Genesis 5 except Noah. (Adam missed by 126 years. Enoch missed by 69 years. Seth missed by 14 years.)

Clearly all deaths are not recorded here (consider Adam outliving Abel), but of the men listed in chapter 5, Methuselah is the first case of a father seeing his son's death.

Methuselah died the year of the flood.

1 John 5:16-18

2008-05-29T12:31:00.000-07:00

Introduction

As this is arguably the most difficult chapter to interpret in 1 John, these verses are possibly the most difficult in the chapter. Much attention is given to "the sin to death" and its ambiguity, while other words/phrases can cause equal confusion.

Again, it is critical for us to remember the problem is not in the Scriptures, nor was John's text less inspired than other texts. The problem is our sin nature, which taints our submission to what the text says.

Keeping in mind that the previous passage (13-15) directly speaks to the believers' ministry in prayer (We can know we are His. By being His child, we know He hears our prayers. Because He hears our prayers, He will fulfill His will...conforming us to the image of His Son.), John now speaks to the specific prayer ministry from believer to believer.

Commentary

v 16
Sees--John is not saying you have to directly witness your brother's sin. While the word here can (and often does) mean to "see with the eyes," the word can also mean "to know or perceive." Therefore, just as witnesses in the church discipline process (Matthew 18:15-20) are not necessarily observers of the particular sin offense, but there to oversee the interaction and the brother's attitude, John is not requiring that only eyewitness observations of sin may be prayed for.

However, it should be equally stated that John did not choose to use the word "hear." John is not encouraging the believer to participate in rumor or gossip, assuming their brother has sinned simply because of an alleged tale. John is encouraging the person who has perceived that a brother has sinned to make a request.

his brother--While John regularly uses the term "brother" to refer to fellow believers, this does not have to be the case. In fact, as John has been trying to help the church see the distinction between genuine brothers and those who merely profess to be their brother, he often simply uses the term "brother" for each. Evidence of this can be seen in 2:11, 3:10, 3:15, 3:17, and 4:20. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to deal with the "sin to death" as something a believer must be capable of committing.

a sin not to death--This is the literal rendering, though "a sin leading to death" can accurately convey John's intent, I believe the word "leading" can cause people to think this is speaking of physical death. I do not believe that is John's intent, but a discussion on what "a sin not to death" means will be explained when we look at "a sin to death" below.

he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not to death.--Even in the Greek, this is a bit awkward and clunky. Literally, it should read: "he shall ask and he will for him give life, those who commit sin not to death." For sake of interpretation, many translations change the underlined pronoun to "God" for they believe this is what John intended. However, this is not an syntactical (based upon language) decision, but a doctrinal one. It seems inconsistent to with Scripture to credit a believer with giving life, instead of directing that gift to God. However, the Scriptures have before made such a suggestion:

My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.--James 5:19-20

But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they were saying to you, "In the last time there will be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts." These are the ones who cause divisions, worldly-minded, devoid of the Spirit. But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life. And have mercy on some, who are doubting; save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh.--Jude 17-23

Therefore, I do not believe it is necessary to change the pronoun to a reference to God (which is grammatically difficult to justify). John can speak here as a brother's prayer being a secondary agent without neglecting that it is clearly God's work to give life. Simply the action of asking/requesting shows the brother does not consider himself personally capable of effecting this change. He is calling upon God to give life to his brother, understanding God is the primary agent.

a sin to death--What is the "sin to death." There are differing opinions:

1. Physical death. Clearly, there are sins that can lead to physical death. Not only can some ravage our bodies and cause us to physically break down, Paul even tells us that some believers are killed by God due to their sinful attitude (1 Corinthians 11:30). However, John's emphasis does not appear to be on the physical. He states that "he will to him give life" and every time 1 John uses life the author is speaking toward eternal life. (The same argument could be made toward 1 John's usage of death.)

2. Loss of salvation. Not only is this problematic with other passages in Scripture (Ephesians 1:13-14, Romans 8:31-39, and John 10...just to name three texts), it is also problematic for this passage. In verse 18, John clearly says that the one who is born of God cannot be touched by the evil one. Therefore, John affirms the eternal security of the beleiver in this very passage.

3. Apostasy. Understanding that "brother" does not have to mean a believer (see above), John appears to be speaking of the person who turns from God, though at one time professed to be a part of the community. This would be consistent with the unpardonable sin as blasphemy of the Spirit. This would be the person which 1 John 2:18-19 calls the antichrist. This person has professed to be a believer (for they professed to be of us), but showed they were not by leaving. Hebrews 6:1-8 also seems to shed light upon this.

Since we cannot see the heart (1 Samuel 16:7), members of a church are left to assess confessions and fruit. A person may claim to be a believer, may participate in ordinances, may show and obedience that appears to be fruit and may even instruct others accurately in the faith, but this does not mean for sure that they are a believer. John has already explained to us (2:19) that if the person were to depart either in faith or in practice, that would be the sign that they were not truly of us.

So why wouldn't John simply say this? Well, apostasy, by definition, is difficult to classify. A bold non-believer (either antagonistic or simply apathetic toward the message) is not an apostate, they are simply just an unbeliever. Even one who claims to be a Christian but clearly rejects (either in ignorance or rebellion) the gospel is not an apostate, they too are simply a non-believer. To "qualify" as an apostate...the person once looked like a believer (including professing Christ) but later abandons. It can often look confusing in Scripture, because it almost looks like a person lost their salvation, for similar to John calling them "brother" (see above) it could cause some to read the text and think the person really was saved.

It appears that A rebellion against Christ and His gospel, from a person who once professed Him, is the sin to death.

So is it wrong to pray for an apostate? Some people wonder if it wrong to pray for an apostate person. Without committing too much time to that issue right now, I do think it is important to notice that is not the direct point of John's statement. He is not writing to dissuade a person from praying for an apostate person, he is writing to encourage the person to pray for their brother committing the sin not leading to death.

v 17
All unrighteousness is sin. This may seem like "well duh" redundancy until we look at it closer. What we translate as "unrighteousness" is actually the word for righteousness with an "a" preceding it. Just like atheism means one who is not a theist and atypical means not typical. Similarly, John is saying "all that is not righteous is sin." John is reminding us that all sin causes us to fall short of the glory of God. We may be tempted to think that since all sin does not lead to death, sin is not a problem. However, any act, thought or word which is not righteous is sin.

v 18
Is Born of God. In the 6 verses using "born" from 1 John, John clearly refers to believers. This language clearly points a person back to John 3:1-21...that the Spirit does the work of causing a person to be born again, trust in Jesus Christ for salvation. The person here is clearly one who is in a right relationship with God through the work of Jesus Christ.

No one who is born of God sins. John has already clearly spoken against "sinless perfection" (1 John 1:5-10). Similar to the language in 3:7-10, John is speaking against perpetual, unrepentant sin. A genuine believer will not spiral into the sin leading to death, for he is protected by...

He who was born of God. In 5:1, John has already spoken of the believer and of Jesus being born of God. The contrast between "is" and "was" helps us see the shift in his focus. A believer does not need to fear the evil one because he is protected by Jesus Christ Himself. He (a believer) will not commit the sin to death because He (the Savior) will not allow it!

the evil one does not touch him. Satan may rule this world right now, but it is not a sovereign rule. He is not free to act and will however he pleases. Even his rebellion is submitted to the permission of the Father. Therefore, with Christ guarding the life of the believer, He does not need to worry about the attack of Satan, for Christ is protecting him. (Conversely, this also means the Christian practice of blaming our sin upon Satan is not good theology. If he cannot touch us, then we cannot blame our actions on him. See James 1:12-18 for a better explanation regarding sin.)

Exposition

As said earlier, the Scriptures teach that a believer cannot lose their salvation. The classic fear generated which resists this view claims that all motivation to serve God is gone. If a person is saved, and they cannot lose their salvation, what is the purpose of pursuing Christ...does it really matter? However, this passage encourages us to pray for our brother (or sister) who is sinning. While John concludes the message reminding us that Satan cannot touch us, he begins the passage by sharing one way God protects the believer.

The church is a necessary component of the process. God will use the prayers of fellow believers to help call a child from their sin. Your prayers can be instrumental in calling a brother away from their sin. Of course, to do so, you must be involved closely in one another's lives.

God saves His children and causes them to be born again. He also keeps them and prevents them from falling away. He guards them so that the evil one cannot even touch them. However, He does not do this in completely inexplicable ways. In His great grace, He has given us one another, to hold each other accountable, to know each other, to pray for one another and even confront one another. He is the One who makes His bride spotless and will present her to Himself, but He even uses members of the bride to help one other become more radiant.

Conclusion

This kind of love for one another, and these kind of prayers for one another's lives surely cannot come from isolated contact. The church cannot be the kind of place where a person sneaks in the back, sits and slips out the door when it is over. A person causes the body to suffer (and their own walk) when they neglect the public assembly (Hebrews 10:19-25. It is foolish for a person to say that they do not need the church for they know they are a believer and God will keep them from swaying. They are turning from one of the very means God has provided to keep them from perpetual sin.

If people do not know you well enough to know how to pray for you when you sin, then you need to get involved with others so that they can. If you are not getting involved in others lives, so that you can pray for them when they sin, you are neglecting your responsibility to others. If your walk is aloof and detached from others, you are not living God's righteous desire.

And as John has just reminded us, if it isn't righteous, it is sin.

___________________________________________
Small groups questions and sermon audio for this passage can be found in the Greenville Grace resources section.

1 John 2:1-2

2008-03-07T17:40:00.000-08:00

Introduction

In the previous passage, John presents that our fellowship with God can only come through the blood of Jesus. He has worked through the details that fellowship with God is not possible while we walk in darkness. But to truly walk in the Light means we have to confess our sins, receiving the purification from Jesus Christ.

But is it really that easy? Can confession of sin provide freedom from sin and fellowship with God? And if so, is there any incentive to not sin? Won't the gospel message simply encourage continual sin?

Commentary

v 1
It's important to realize John is not scolding. Even when he says his strongest statements, the disciple whom Jesus loved articulates his love. This is his first of seven times that he calls his readers "little children." It is not a condescending term, but one of endearment. At the time of his writing, John is probably older than all of his readers. He also can refer to them as children since he is assuming a role of spiritual guidance. When he calls them his children, he is expressing his love, concern and responsibility for them.

What are "these things?" I believe the letter shows a pattern to help us understand. Throughout the letter, John uses the term "I write" to speak of the words he just penned, while "I have written" speaks to the whole work of the letter. Therefore, as John says "I am writing" these things, John is referring to the words he just penned. How interesting that John has just laid out the gospel message and now says he wrote it so we would not sin.

John is not worried that knowledge of the gospel will lead to further sin. He does not fear that the message of grace will result in its abuse. No, John has just instructed that fellowship with God can only come from a sinlessness which Jesus alone can provide. And when we see the fellowship that He offers, it should motivate us to not sin.

But John is a realist. He then offers what should be considered if on sins. It is important to note that John does not say when you sin. He is not releasing his audience to simply accept that they will sin again. For, though we are aware of our sin nature, the Scriptures clearly state we are not left helpless to it:

No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.--1 Corinthians 10:13

John speaks of a very present reality for us, but not as a defeatist.

But even as we are aware of our sin, confess it to God, and then fall short once again, we are reminded of the beauty of the gospel. We, as believers, we do sin again, we are reminded that we have an Advocate. This term is used four other times (in the gospel of John), each time referring to the Holy Spirit. It is a legal term, to speak of one who intercedes. Revelation 12:5-12 presents Christ in this office:

And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to God and to His throne. Then the woman fled into the wilderness where she had a place prepared by God, so that there she would be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days. And there was war in heaven, Michael and his angels waging war with the dragon. The dragon and his angels waged war, and they were not strong enough, and there was no longer a place found for them in heaven. And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. Then I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, "Now the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down, he who accuses them before our God day and night. And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life even when faced with death. For this reason, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them. Woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has come down to you, having great wrath, knowing that he has only a short time."

Jesus Christ serves us as an Advocate to the Father, turning away all accusations against us.

But John wants our attention to be on the Advocate. He does not say, consider that One is advocating for you. He does not speak of the advocation that happens on our behalf. He speaks of the Advocate. Jesus Christ the Righteous. We should fix our eyes on Jesus Christ. When we sin, we should fix our eyes on Him. To keep from sinning, we also keep our eyes fixed on Him. Our answer is not a "what." Our answer is a "He."

v 2
To again keep the focus on Jesus, he mentions that He Himself is our propitiation. We are not directed to the act of propitiation but to the person of propitiation.

At this point, some may ask the wisdom of a word like "propitiation." What exactly is propitiation? Consider the following passages:

Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.--Hebrews 2:17

"But the tax-gatherer, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, the sinner!'--Luke 18:13

Whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;Romans 3:25

At times, a Biblical term can seem obscure. Yet, when a term finds the majority of its use in biblical scholarship, it is typical that the term can keep its purity. When speaking of propitiation, the author of Hebrews gives this glimpse:

And above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat; but of these things we cannot now speak in detail.--Hebrews 9:5

Rather than avoid Biblical language, we should instruct people so they can see the beauty in it. While we search for a more relevant word, we may find ourselves falling short of the full definition. When we understand John to say Jesus is our propitiation, he is saying Jesus is our atoning sacrifice, our mercy, our intermediary between God and man. He is the only reason God can show any mercy for our sins.

But John says he is not only our propitiation, he is also the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. By this, John could mean:

1. Every person

Benefit:

Detriment:

2. Sufficiency

Benefit:

can

does

Detriment:

All Nations

Benefit:

Detriment:

All Mercy

Benefit:

Detriment:

When examining the options, it appears that a combination of point three and point four would make the most consistent argument. John is stating that Christ's propitiation is universally available and that it is even felt to a certain degree.

Exposition

It's amazing how many people claim the message of Biblical grace will lead to antinomianism. Though Paul has dismissed this argument (Romans 6:1-2), many continue to claim that forgiveness through confession will simply lead to more sin, not to a life of holiness. However, a close watch of the text shows this is exactly the opposite point that John wishes to make.

John states that he writes these things so that we will not sin. When we understand the linguistics of 1 John, it appears he is saying the words just written are the words of reference. Therefore, John is saying that the message that sinners can fellowship with God through the blood of Jesus Christ by confessing their sins is a message John sees as discouraging sin. When one is driven to a close and honest examination of the gospel, he does not see it as his license to indulge the flesh. Instead, the gospel message has a purifying effect.

However, if a person takes his eyes off of Christ and sins, what remedy remains? Here John shows the exact same solution. He does not quickly point to Jesus and then mention he advocates and propitiates. The emphasis is not on the verbs or the function. John states that Jesus is the Advocate, and He is the Propitiation. John is intentionally pointing the reader back to Jesus. If you fail and sin, the answer is to turn your eyes right back to Jesus.

Conclusion

John began his letter by addressing Jesus Christ. He was manifested before the apostles and they have recorded what they saw and heard. He then works through the forgiveness that is offered through Jesus Christ. And in this passage, he shows how Jesus is also the answer for sanctification. The believer is called to keep his eye on Jesus Christ to keep from sinning. And even in the times we do sin, we should refocus on Christ, who is our Advocate and Propitiation.

1 John 4:1-3

2008-03-05T18:52:00.000-08:00

Introduction

It has been said that the most quoted verse in Scripture today is "Do not judge so that you will not be judged (Matthew 7:1). Our society is willing to tolerate all things, except a person it deems intolerant. Therefore, the person who attempts to be discerning can be labeled narrow-minded, judgmental and mean. Yet, John tells us to test the spirits.

So we know that John commands we test the spirits, but if our society does not encourage it, how do we do it? Fortunately, John not only tells us to test the spirits, he also tells us how.

Commentary

v 1
It is not commendable for the beloved to be naive. We should not simply accept every spirit that comes along. This is not cynicism, assuming yourself to be superior or above others. This is discernment; testing the spirit to see if it is from God.

John says the location of the spirit is critical. Did it find its source in God? For if it did not, then the spirit either proceeded directly from Satan or through the agency of sin-cursed man. Either way, the truth will be distorted (if even present) and will not be beneficial. No, when we consider a message, we should only trust it if it originates from God.

The location of the messenger cannot be the issue of consideration. Neither can the past messages from the messenger. For John reminds us that many false prophets have gone out into the world. When he says the have gone out, this should immediately remind us of his earlier statement:

They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.--1 John 2:19

These men used to appear orthodox. In the past, we would have been deceived into believing they are one of us, for their message would have seemed consistent with the Biblical message. However, now there teaching reveals they never really of us. Therefore, I cannot simply receive the message of a person based upon the past reliability of their message. No, we must test each message, daily assessing if it is consistent with the Scriptures.

We likewise cannot trust them based upon their location. Just because a person is teaching/preaching from a respectable church does not ensure their message is proper. Paul reminded the Ephesian elders that savage wolves will come in among you (Acts 20:29). He says it will happen. Therefore, the elders are commissioned to be on the alert--and the church body should join them. It is critical that we test these spirits to discern if they truly originate from God.

v 2
If location of the preacher, nor his reputation, give us assurance as to the origin of the message, how does one discern if the message is from God? John gives us the parameters. It must confess the following:

Jesus
The earthly name given by Joseph in obedience to the angelic vision. His name literally declares "Jehovah Saves!" First criteria is to understand a message to originates from God is going to proclaim Jesus. The other elements of the confession simply describe Who this Jesus is.

Christ
Christ is the greek rendering of Messiah. It is a statement that Jesus is the Anointed One. The Chosen One Whom all the Scriptures speak. Though second temple period understanding of the Messiah may be clouded, the Scriptures clearly enforce that a proper understanding of the Christ, is to understand His Sonship. (Cruise through these 488 mentions of Christ in the New Testament and notice how many are directly related to Jesus being the Son of God.)

Has Come
But in case a person continues to deny the emphasis on on Jesus' eternality, John provides this glimpse. We simply do not speak this way of others. When we assess the life of all great leaders in history, we speak of two factors, their date of death and their date of birth. We speak of the day they were born, but we do not state it as the day they "have come in the flesh." John is making it clear to his readers that our understanding is that Jesus always existed eternally, yet at a determined point He clothed Himself with flesh. To say He has come is to say He was somewhere else before arriving on earth.

In the flesh
Though uncommon today, there still remain some who deny that Jesus literally came as man. This became pervasive in the gnostic teachings, which were just beginning to develop at the time of John's writing. In the early church period, some would actually claim that Jesus appeared to have come, but had not literally done so. Or, they claimed that His divine nature hovered over an earthly body, but was never truly united.

While this sort of teaching is not very popular today (It appears often today that the opposite is the attack. Acknowledging that Jesus came in the flesh but denying His divinity. Again, however, John addresses this matter earlier in Jesus' description.), some of its outworking remains. The reason people were tempted to deny the literal flesh of Jesus was that they believed all that was material was evil. Therefore, our calling to escape from the material issues of this world is seen as a form of sanctification. People are told that the physical world around them is either illusion or evil. Therefore our liberation from sin is found in escape from the material world. This, however, is a false hope. For the Word of God says will will one day receive literal, physical (though incorruptible) bodies. Jesus Christ came not to eliminate the physical world, but to restore it to its proper order.

But John also reminds us how this message must be transferred. It must be confessed. John has used this word before, and we are reminded that it literally means "one word." We are coming to agreement with the already stated fact. When we confess our sin, we are stated what God has already said about our sin. When we confess Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, we are not the originator of this message, but are simply joining in the declaration which has already been made. We need to look for the confession of this message. This should remind us of a few things.

Confession is not denial.

Confession is not silence.

Confessing is not the same as admitting.

know

In the same way, when a teacher confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, you have a greater confidence in his belief of that message than if he simply answers in the affirmative to a few follow up questions. God has not called us to assume the message in others nor are we to veil it. God has called us to confess it.

v 3
Yet, we could diminish the error from neglect of confession. We could simply chalk it up to human error, time constraints, or again, the assumption of the messenger that all listeners already accept this message. However, John reminds where a message void of this confession finds its origin.

First, he states it is not from God. This is simply the inverse of his statement before. A message from God confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. Therefore, a spirit that does not confess this message is not from God.

And if not from God, John tells us it is the spirit of the Antichrist. John has already spoken of the Antichrist (1 John 2:22). In both places, he affirms that their is a specific man, The Antichrist, who is coming, but also affirms the spirit, or message of the Antichrist is already present. In fact, many operate as antichrists, to foreshadow the Antichrist who is to come. Though he will possess powers and authority unseen by present false teachers, their message will be the same--a calling to turn away from the glory of Jesus Christ.

It is important to note, John does not call the false prophets who are present The Antichrist, though one may be. He simply says they are of the same spirit as the Antichrist. His agenda will be to turn people away from Jesus Christ and to Himself. Likewise, these false prophets desire to turn people away from the message of Jesus Christ, otherwise, they would confess Him.

Exposition

Especially in America, the Christian message has become quite faded and blurred. Your average retail store will sell Bibles and supposedly Christian books. Most music stores have entire sections devoted to christian albums. Politicians, athletes and celebrities will all thank Jesus Christ and speak of their faith. Television, radio, books, cd's and advice columns are all filled with people claiming to speak a christian message. How do we discern if they are accurate?

We should not consider any message to be truly Christian unless it is truly of Christ. Therefore, any message, regardless of Scripture quotations or moralistic advice is not truly a message commissioned by God unless it also proclaims that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. The gospel message (for declaring Jesus has come will invariably lead to announcing why He has come) is that message which gives life to the nonbeliever (in conversion) and the believer (in sanctification) alike. Therefore, we should sharpen our ears and test each spirit. I should not merely listen for denials, nor should I ignore silence. I should not be comforted by an attached admission that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. I should look for the confession! This means the gospel will not simply be attached to a statement, like an appendix in a book. This means the gospel will be the point of the message, working through the implications of this message in the application.

Certainly, the Scriptures give us the keys to a better marriage, parenting advice, how to handle our finances and learning to forgive (among countless others). However, if this "advice" is simply given, apart from the confession that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, the message may be borrowed from God (in a limited fashion) but is not of God.

Conclusion

So how do we test the spirits?

1. Filter all that you take in. Assess whether it confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. Be careful of the books you read, the music you listen to, and the sermons you watch. Know that not all media from Christian organizations are naturally christian messages. Guard your heart, and your family, carefully. Checking to see if the message is truly of Christ. Know that this standard means the majority of the information you receive in a day will not be from a God-centered origin, and receive the information with this understanding. Test the spirits according to God's filter.

leave the church

3. Consider yourself. Do you find yourself to be of the spirit of the antichrist? Can your conversations about God usually remain vague and universalistic? Do you take the conversation to the point of confessing that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh? Understand that anything short of this is not genuine evangelism. God's desire is for Jesus Christ to be exalted. Does that happen in your everyday speech? If not, confess this to God and ask Him to grant to you opportunities to confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. (He won't let you down!)In short, hunger for the confession that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh from those you listen to. And when people are listening to you, make sure this is the confession that they hear.

You do want to speak from the spirit of God, don't you?

1 John 1:5-10

2008-02-21T19:17:00.001-08:00

Introduction:

Fellowship can be difficult to describe. John has written his letter so that we can know fellowship with God the Father and Christ the Son--as well as with other believers--but our fellowship often feels severed. Sin greatly effects the quality of this fellowship. So how are we to evaluate our current condition? Is fellowship with God such a reality that we must conclude we have no sin? If sin gets in the way of our fellowship, can we claim to have fellowship with God while sinning? And if sin severs our fellowship, can I have fellowship with God once I've sinned? John immediately addresses these questions for the reader.

Commentary

v 5
John's testimony is clear. He saw, heard, felt and witnessed the works of Christ. He can give us an eyewitness account of this. However, John has also said their is a message he wishes to proclaim. As mentioned earlier, a proclamation is a message from someone else. John is now going to present this message.

The message can be trusted.
John is not presenting rumor or inference. He is presenting a message that can be relied upon. This "message" (ἀγγελία) is an announcement or promise, as if from an angel himself. His message can be trusted for it comes from an eyewitness, who heard the message directly from Christ. He is going to directly convey the message he heard. Like a herald making an announcement for the king, John is prepared to relay (without distortion) the message to his readers.

The message is about God.
John's message begins theo-centric. He does not begin with man or his condition, but with God and His condition. John begins his message by stating that God is Light. This should remind us of John 1:4-8:

In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light.

Just as John affirmed that Jesus is divine, in John 1, he makes the same claim here in his letter. In John 1, he showed that the Word was God, affirming that Jesus is God and then called Jesus the Light. Now, in his letter, he calls God the Light, a description he has attributed to Christ.

But what does John mean when he says God is Light? Previously, John has intended a moral purpose. Consider John 3:19-21:

This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.

John uses the Light to describe Christ and contrasts Him with the world. The world loves darkness rather than the Light because the world loves evil. Therefore, when John states here that God is Light, we can understand that he is speaking to the moral perfection of God and Jesus Christ. John's first message is that God is perfectly righteous.

Certainly, any illustration falls somewhat short in describing God. John is not speaking of muted light, filled with shadows and distortions. John is speaking of perfect light, not tainted by a single shadow. To make sure John is understood, he further describes the Light. Literally, he states, "And in Him there is no darkness...none at all!"

The Light which is God is a perfect light without any darkness or flaw. There is not corner shadow in God's character. There is no area which can be unmasked that shows moral decay. He is perfectly enlightened as well, having no area outside of His knowledge.

John begins his message to us with the declaration that God is perfectly holy and all knowing.

v 6
After presenting objective truth about God, John then moves this message to our own application. John now turns the attention to our fellowship with God, for that is his goal in writing. God is holy and perfect and we desire to have fellowship with him. He is Light without any darkness, but are we?

John presents the obstacle to our fellowship with God. God does not love us more than His own character, therefore He cannot violate Himself for our sake. If God is perfect light with no darkness, how can we claim to fellowship with Him if we walk in the darkness?

Yet, there are some who make this claim. They say they already have fellowship with God, though they walk in the darkness. While being active in evil and seeking fellowship with God, there are only two options. 1) Either God fellowships with us in the midst of our darkness and violates His character, or 2) We are not accurate when we say we have fellowship.

Certainly, God character is not compromised, so we must be the ones mistaken. In fact, John says we speak falsely when we claim to have fellowship while walking in sin. We are not proclaiming the message we have heard and are certainly not proclaiming truth, but instead are making a false statement. When we such fellowship, yet retain our evil deeds, we present a message that God tolerates sin, and thus contains shadowy areas. Such a statement is false to make. But the error is not only in statement, but our life is a lie as well. We not only send a false statement about God, but we ourselves practice that which is false. We are not living in truth.

v 7
Left with verse six, we could conclude that fellowship with God is not possible. However, John lets us know it is conditionally possible. However, we must read the verse carefully to catch the condition...

No, not here... If we walk in the Light is not the conditional statement to fellowship with God. John is not telling us that our works are necessary to obtain salvation, though our works will be an evidence of salvation. Therefore, his is exposing to us that we need to pursue righteousness and to be morally pure. This standard should be none other than that of Christ. Walking in the Light must not simply mean "walking with less darkness" but our standard is to be blameless.

Still not here... We have fellowship with one another. Again, this is not the condition for our fellowship with God, but is the result of walking in the Light. John conclusion should not surprise us. If we walk in the Light, we will not be sinning against one another, therefore there will be no offense between relationships. If one man sins against another their fellowship is strained. If two men sin against one another, fellowship is about impossible. If both men pursue righteousness, there is not point of stumbling between them. Again, John is not stating that fellowship with other men will earn you favor with God, but that walking in the Light, which will come after finding favor with God, will enhance our fellowship with other brothers.

Here... and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all unrighteousness. If we must walk in the Light to the standard of Jesus, we will never see fellowship with God, for we cannot attain Jesus' perfection. Walking in the Light is only possible if we have entered into fellowship with Christ through His blood. And as John has already established, fellowship with one another starts in fellowship with God the Father and Jesus His Son. Sin must be dealt with for fellowship to occur and sin must be dealt with through the cleansing blood of Jesus His Son.

v 8
If sin severs fellowship with Christ, then there are four options: 1) Ignore the need for fellowship with God. 2) Claim that our fellowship remains despite our sin. 3) Have our sin cleansed by Jesus' blood, thus making fellowship possible. 4) Deny the need for the blood of Jesus by claiming to be sin free.

John has already dealt with the other arguments and now turns to our current condition. For the person who claims to have fellowship with God because they are sin free, John comes out with pretty strong words. It is interesting to note that John does not first turn to the past, but instead looks at the present. If, right now, you look at your life and believe you are sin free, you are deceiving yourself and the truth is not in you. In essence, you are deceived because you have bought a lie.

But how can this be? Isn't it possible to be without sin for at least a moment? What if I'm in a church service, encouraged to confess my sin, which I do and am cleansed, and spend the next 15 minutes in whole-hearted praise and worship? Could I at that point say I am sin free? Only if John's words could be considered false. So, how does this work? Consider words from John Piper:

The reason people are not stunned by the grace of God and their own salvation is because they have never felt how inveterately sinful they are everyday because they have not been taught well what sin is. They've grown up in Christian homes, they've never committed adultery. They've never stolen anything, they've never killed anybody. They're scratching their head, saying, "When have I sinned last? I can't remember when I sinned last."

We've all been there. We've all been there. Everybody says, "Let's have a five or ten minute time here of confession." And you're thinking, "Uh, let's see..."

Listen, if you catch on to what I've said...3 seconds ago you were sinning. Did you love Him, did you prefer Him in proportion to His worth? His infinite worth?--The Nature of Our Depravity

If we think that sin is only an action of commission (or even a moment of omission) then we neglect much of the offense of sin. Our sin is not just and action, but the action is a display of our condition. If you think you've reached a point of sinless perfection, you are deceiving yourself as to the definition of sin, and the condition of your heart.

v 9
Our sin separates us from God. If we have sin, we cannot have fellowship. Yet, John wrote this letter so that we could have fellowship with God. So how can these truths be reconciled?

Confession (ὁμολογῶμεν) literally means "same word." To confess our sin means to come to the same word as God about sin. It means to admit we have sin. It means we admit that our sin separates us from God. It means that we admit that our sin is deserving of eternal torment. It means that we realize our condition of sin is completely irreversible apart from the work of Christ. No more denying. No more justifying. No more minimizing. We, by faith come to complete agreement with the Word of God regarding our sin.

He is faithful and just. Since the truth about sin is not exclusively the bad news, but also includes the news that Jesus can pay the penalty for our sin, when we confess these truths God will be faithful to His word. John has already reminded us that the message he received is that God is Light. The beauty and glory of the gospel must reside within the truth of God's character, not ours. Therefore, if God has promised salvation, he cannot change the conditions or deny a repentant person. He must remain true to His Word and to His Son. His righteousness demands that He cannot punish both me and His Son for my sin. He cannot require double payment. Therefore, the security of our forgiveness does not rest in our works, or even our confession. The security of our forgiveness rests in the faithfulness and justice of God.

Forgiveness and cleansing. Since Christ is our payment once for all (Hebrews 10:10), our forgiveness if promised for past, present and future sins. Therefore, God not only forgives our sins we have committed, He cleanses us from the sin we bear. The righteousness of Christ becomes imputed to us and we are clean before God.

v 10
The person may protest, "Well sure, if you've sinned before, there is no way to remove the stain. But I've never sinned before." John has a word for that claim.

John explains that the stakes are even greater if we claim to never have sinned. Not only do we deceive ourselves, we deny what the Word of God clearly says. We say that Christ has lied and has not told the truth. He has said that every man stands condemned before God by default and must obtain forgiveness through Him (John 3:18). If we claim we have not sinned, we are saying we are not condemned and therefore assert that He is a liar.

Obviously, if our claim makes Christ a liar, then we cannot say we are saying the same word (confessing). Therefore, the word is not within us.

Exposition

This passage could be summarized by six statements, three true and three false:

God is Light. (He is perfect and pure.)

We cannot walk in darkness and claim fellowship with the Light.

If we walk in the Light we can have fellowship with Him.

If we claim we are sinless, we deceive ourselves.

It is possible to be cleansed of our sin through the blood of Christ.

If we claim we have never sinned, we say that He has lied.

Verse Nine is often used in evangelism...and rightly so. It clearly communicates that Christ blood can cover our sins when we confess our need for His payment. However, we make a mistake when we think it is only an evangelism verse.

John is writing this passage for all of us. Certainly, the nonbeliever needs to confess his/her sins immediately and call upon the grace of God for salvation. He/She needs to see their sins, and the need for Christ's atonement. Equally, the believer must keep these things in mind. We must continually confess our sins to God. We must be mindful that we have sinned and also that we have sin within us. We must be careful not to claim we have fellowship with God when we are not walking in the Light.

Conclusion

Every personal relationship has experienced the pain of sin. When two people interact, sin will inevitably show up. When it does, it always creates disharmony. The more you are around the person, the more obvious the tension becomes. Since we don't see God physically, we may be tempted to ignore the condition of the relationship. Like Adam and Eve, when we consider the relationship, our best option seems to be hiding our sin and denying there is a problem. However, this simply causes more tension, deception and blame-shifting. The quickest way (and only way) to restoration is not found in coving up our sin, but confessing our sin and asking Christ to cover it with His blood.

1 John 3:23-24

2008-02-17T18:03:00.000-08:00

Introduction:

No one likes to be told what to do. We prefer to be told facts or asked questions over receiving imperatives. We'd rather take a suggestion than receive a command. But when we hear the word "commandment," we often consider the moral dimension, being reminded of the 10 Commandments. Therefore, when John speaks of "His commandment" we may be led to think such things as not blaspheming, not coveting or not stealing. Perhaps, having been reminded of The Great Commandment, we may expect something a little different.

John says that His Commandment is faith. And after defining what faith looks like, he helps us assess whether we have that kind of faith. After all, if He has commanded it, we should seek to obey.

Commentary

v 23
John lays out that His commandment is to believe. Belief may appear an odd commandment to us, but John has heard Jesus say similar things before.

In John 6, the apostle recorded the feeding of the 5,000. The crowd is so excited, they would like to install Jesus as King by force. Jesus withdraws alone for the evening, but then travels across the sea by foot. The crowd eventually makes their way across the sea as well, and seeks out Jesus. Then Jesus confronts them about their desire to simply fill the stomachs, rather than do the works of God.

Therefore they said to Him, "What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?" Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent."--John 6:28-29

Our belief is actually the first phase of obedience. "Without faith it is impossible to please God" (Hebrews 11:6). Also, Paul said: "Whatever is not from faith is sin" (Romans 14:23). Due to our sinful condition, it is impossible for us to please God on our own. We must depend on a righteousness outside of our own, therefore we must seek out that "alien" righteousness through faith alone. Therefore, Jesus instructs the crowd that if they choose to do the works of God, they must enter through faith. Likewise, John instructs us that His command is belief.

But we live in an age of pluralism. Belief is equated to sincerity, therefore most people do not worry about what you believe, as long as your belief is strong. But belief is not graded on the quantity of belief, but upon the object of our belief. And John makes this clear to us. He does not say that His commandment if for us to believe, but he states the commandment is to believe in...

His Son Jesus Christ
Let's consider the specifics of the object of our faith (in reverse order):

Christ. It is His title, meaning "Messiah" or "Anointed One." When John tells us we must believe in Christ, he is reminding us that we must acknowledge that Jesus is the long anticipated One, sent by God. He has come to atone for our sins.

Matthew 1:21

There is no God but Allah alone. Praise be to Allah who hath not taken to himself offspring.

John 8

It is important to realize we cannot unite with others simply under the umbrella of monotheism. There are those who claim to worship God, but deny Jesus' divinity and/or humanity. But a person misidentifies Jesus, they have misidentified God. I heard a pastor recently speak of this difference, offering that two men in a 30-year class reunion begin discussing a classmate. As they continue to share, there are enough discrepancies that they can't tell if they are speaking of the same person. Finally, one grabs a year book and finds a photo of the student. At this point, the student is identified and they can figure out if they were both talking about the same person. In the same way, Jesus Christ becomes our identity marker. If a person declares Jesus without His divinity, or a Jesus who was commissioned as the Messiah only after His baptism, then we are speaking about a different Jesus...and thus a different God.

What's in the name?
It's interesting to note that John does not simply say, believe in His Son Jesus Christ but inserts "believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ." To our ear, this can sound a little foolish. Is John simply telling us that we must believe that the Messiah's name is Jesus? What is the difference between saying we should believe in Jesus and we should believe in the name of Jesus?

To speak of the name is to speak of the authority. When we speak of the name of Jesus, we are actually speaking of the authority and Lordship of Jesus Christ. In the same way that a king's signet ring carried the authority of the king, so speaking in one's name carries like authority. We see this play out practically even in our homes today. When I send my daughter to gather the other children for dinner, she has not authority over her brothers or sisters on her own. However, if I send her in my name (ie: "You tell them daddy said come to dinner."), she now has the authority to call for action. Therefore, John is calling us to believe more than in Jesus' existence, he's calling us to place our faith in His Lordship, His Sovereignty as well.

1 + 1 = 1?
John's commandment seems to include two imperatives. Knowing that John did not miscount, nor did he add another commandment as he remembered it (both of these concepts would create problems for our understanding of inspiration), John must have something else in mind. It appears the command to love one another actually falls within the understanding of believing in the name of His Son Jesus Christ.

Therefore, John is not giving another command, but is instructing as to the quality of his first command. What does it look like to believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ? Well, for one, you will love one another, since Jesus commanded us to do so.

Love is not to be defined as an emotional or social response. John is not calling us, nor did Jesus command us, to simply feel better about others. No, John 15 reminds us what this love looks like:

"This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends. You are My friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you. You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you. This I command you, that you love one another."--John 15:12-17

John has already told us not to love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth (3:18). He illustrated this in meeting another's physical needs to express love. We see that when Jesus commands love, He commands the same kind of love He offered. Therefore our love for one another is to be sacrificial, serving one another. John reminds us here that we are to love one another, because Christ commanded it.

Working through the verse, we see that John is saying that we should believe that Jesus Christ is truly Lord. Therefore, if we believe He is in authority, it will play out in our obedience to Him. One area of obedience will be our response to one another. We will love one another, because He has commanded we do so.

v 24
In this letter, John has already stated: "If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth" (1:6). John has narrowed it down to a more specific area, but he is essentially making the same claim here. If we are not obeying His commands then we cannot claim we are abiding in Him. We either do not obey His commands because we do not see Him as Lord, or because we know He is Lord but choose to rebel against Him. Either perspective placing you in a fractured position with Christ, thus making it inaccurate to claim you are abiding.

It is important at this point to be reminded that all sin is an act of a lack of faith. Not only is all that is done without faith a sin (as we noted above) but all sin is an evidence of a lack of faith. We do not believe Jesus Christ to be supreme (therefore, viewing His commands as optional). Or, we believe Him to have faulty information (when we believe our situation is a genuine exception to what the Word says). Possibly, we see Him as unable to act (evidenced when we choose to sin to "get out" of a situation). Many times, it is the doubt that Christ can truly be our satisfaction (as when we choose the easy way out, rather than the right way). Each of these evidence a lack of faith working out in our disobedience.

Therefore, each time we disobey Christ, we must realize we are actually doubting His who He is, or what He can do. We cannot claim to be abiding in Him while we view Him with a skeptical eye.

However, we do not have to fear that He will cease abiding in us. John reminds us that Christ abides in us is not conditional upon our actions. God has granted His Spirit as an earnest payment to us, guarding us to the day of redemption (Ephesians 1:13-14). We do not obey in fear, worrying that too many sins will cause God to cast us out. Instead, we obey in confidence, knowing He has given us His Spirit and will never leave us nor forsake us. Therefore, I seek to abide in Christ, knowing that He abides in me. The Spirit has been given to assure me of this.

Conclusion

God commands belief:

From the unbeliever

To the "lip-service believer"

To the believe in sin

To the believer who sins

_________________________________________________________________
An mp3 file of the sermon preached on this passage, as well as small group questions and children's material can be found at Grace: Resources.

1 John 1:1-4

2008-02-08T14:10:00.000-08:00

Introduction:

When John completes his gospel, he states:

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.--John 21:25

He seems to express a sense of futility to his work. There is no way possible that he can record all Who Jesus is, nor all He has done. John has written his gospel so that we might believe Jesus is the Christ (John 20:31), and through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he did a sufficient job toward that goal. However, his gospel did not record all there is to know about Jesus, nor is that even possible.

However, this does not compel John to remain silent. Instead, with great joy, he finds himself again writing to the church. In his first epistle he states that his goal for writing is joy expressed through fellowship with God the Father, Jesus Christ and with one another.

Commentary

v 1
In the beginning...

By turning our attention to the beginning (ἀρχῆς), the reader is to reminded of Genesis 1:1, John 1:1. In Genesis, "the beginning" is an unmarked time when God the Father, Christ the Son and the Holy Spirit determined to begin creation. In John, "the beginning" goes even before that creation exercise, establishing that the Word has always existed with God. In the same way, John is establishing that this beginning transcends time. This beginning cannot be recorded, for if you were able to trace back into the past, before time was recorded, you would never find a time when "that which was from the beginning" did not exist.

John goes on to explain what "that" is. "It" was heard (ἀκηκόαμεν). The word John uses (from which we get acoustic), means there is a literal sound that was perceived by the ear. "It" was seen (ἑωράκαμεν), again meaning something literally perceived with the eye. However, this was not a momentary flash of lightening, a quick vision that just as quickly disappeared. No, John also states that they "looked" (ὀφθαλμοῖς) at it. This is not a repetition of saying he saw it, for this time John uses a word that means he studied and investigated "it." He closely examined "it." In fact, he also says he touched (ἐψηλάφησαν) "it" with his hands. Again, this is not simply brushing up against something, nor is it a quick strike, like on a hot stove. The word here actually means to feel or grope, to study with your hands as if you were blind. This is the same word Paul uses in Acts 17:27. It is also what Jesus commands disciples to do in Luke 24:39 when they can't believe He has truly resurrected.

The "It" is not an "it" but a "He." John goes on to say that which he has seen, heard, studied and felt is concerning (or about/around) the Word of Life. This is a unique title given to Jesus Christ. (see: Philippians 2:16). John lays out for us that his letter is in reference to Jesus Christ and He is the message he desires to communicate.

v 2
John then unpacks the Word of Life (further validating Word of Life references the person of Christ) with a parenthetical statement. (Though there are not parenthesis in the Greek text, the context makes sense that this verse further explains the Word of Life before he continues his original statement in verse 3.) John is careful to state that the life was "manifested." The life was not created, or formed, it was manifested. John uses this word both to speak of Christ's first appearing (1 John 3:5; 1 John 3:8) and His anticipated second coming (1 John 2:28; 1 John 3:2). Clearly, John intends for us to understand he is writing about the appearing of Jesus Christ.

John attaches to this manifestation, that they have seen (observed with their eyes) and testify and proclaim to you the Eternal Life. Testify and proclaim are not quite the same thing. He is not simply saying they saw Jesus and then talked a lot about Him. He is saying that they have seen Jesus and they share their own personal account (testify) about Him, as well as sharing the message Christ had given them (proclaim). By seeing Jesus, they are compelled to share not only what they saw and personally observed, but also what they heard from Jesus as He reported truth to them.

Again, since there are no capitalizations in the Greek (most manuscripts were written in all caps), the ancient manuscripts do not instruct us when it is a proper noun that should be capitalized and when it is simply a noun. However, it appears that "Eternal Life" should be viewed as a title for Jesus (or at least a reference to Him, therefore also capitalized) by the fact that John states this Eternal Life was with the Father. This should harken us back to John 1:1, and the Word was with God, naturally leading us to see this as a reference to Christ. Obviously, the fact that this life became manifested (and by being manifested could be seen, heard, examined, studied) it leads us to conclude this Life appearing is also a reference to Jesus. (see John 1:4; John 14:6)

v 3
After making sure the reader understands who the Word of Life is, John then refocuses on what the Word of Life has done. He now begins to explain his purpose in writing. Those who are reading have not had the privilege of seeing and hearing directly from Jesus, however, John is going to allow them to share in his privilege through his proclamation. He explains that what he has seen and heard he is now going to proclaim. Again, this encompasses both his testimony (what He saw Jesus do) and his proclamation (the message he heard from Jesus).

The fact that John was an eyewitness and had the privilege to behold the manifestation firsthand does not put him in a separate fellowship with God. Instead, he explains that his proclamation (and obviously the listeners submission to the message) will allow all who believe to have fellowship with one another. Though John is an Apostle, he does not entertain an exclusive fellowship that keeps others in the Body of Christ out. Instead, he sees his responsibility to proclaim what he saw and heard so that others can enjoy fellowship with him.

Though Gnosticism is not directly named in this epistle, John will later deal with heresies developed by the gnostics. However, even in the first paragraph of his epistle, he significantly damages the gnostic position. If anyone were privileged to "secret information" it would certainly be an Apostle. Yet, John does not hold that secret message to himself, or challenge his readers that they must search for the mysterious information on their own. He does not lay an unattainable knowledge before his readers or claim special privilege through his unique Apostolic role. Instead, John makes his aim to declare all that he has seen and heard from Christ. He is going to make this knowledge known and accessible to his readers.

[While the first person plural pronouns in this section are up for some debate, I do believe in these first three verses they are clearly a reference to the apostles, and not to all believers. Though John sees other believers in the household of faith (as evidence by his numerous references to the readers as children), he does see a distinction between his apostolic office and there position. Obviously, I cannot say that I saw or heard Jesus Christ upon His first manifestation. Jesus Himself affirms that many will believe in Him without seeing Him (John 20:29). Peter also confirms this (1 Peter 1:8). I am not, however, making the case that every time John uses the first person plural pronoun he is referencing the Apostles, for just as in any letter, the referent of a pronoun may change, I do believe later in the letter, John uses "we" and "us" to refer to all brethren. Yet in these three verses, due to the unique nature of observing the manifestation of Christ, I do believe "we" and "us" refers to the Apostolic office.]

John presents that genuine fellowship with others begins in fellowship with God and with Jesus Christ. When John invites others to participate in the fellowship the Apostles enjoy, he states that this fellowship is "housed" in fellowship with God and Jesus Christ. Men cannot be reconciled to one another until they are first reconciled to God through Jesus Christ.

v 4
John has already expressed the benefit for the submissive listener, they will receive fellowship with the Apostles, fellowship with other believers and fellowship with God the Father and Jesus Christ. Now, John presents his own personal benefit...joy! John reveals that when the Apostles would proclaim the message of Christ, this would make their joy full (πεπληρωμένη). Just as any believer's joy is made more complete by sharing the glory of the gospel, so the Apostles find great joy in proclaiming the message of Christ.

Exposition--"The Joyful Fellowship in Christ"

Fellowship (κοινωνία) is often misrepresented. I've often heard the joke that fellowship is Christian code language for food. Socials are often called "fellowships." But fellowship is not an activity or an event. Genuine fellowship can only be known between brothers and sisters in Christ, for their fellowship must start in Him. Fellowship begins, stays and ends in Jesus Christ.

In the same way, John begins his letter with Christ. He is the One from the beginning. He was manifested from Bethlehem (Luke 2:7) to Bethany (Luke 24:50). John writes to declare what He saw, observed and studied from Christ. Also, he proclaims that message which he heard directly from Christ. Therefore, John is not just sharing what he observed about Jesus, but also propositional truths revealed from Christ...such as His eternality.

The message John proclaims is centered in Christ. The fellowship he enjoys is founded in Christ. Genuine fellowship cannot be experienced between people if not grounded in Christ. Therefore, fellowship cannot be had unless a person is a believer in Jesus Christ. And once a believer, true fellowship is most richly experienced when Jesus is the center of the focus.

"I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth" (3 John 4). Therefore, John testifies and proclaims the message of Christ so that others could join in fellowship with each other, by first entering into fellowship with Jesus Christ.

Conclusion

John has established that his joy can be made complete by writing this letter. He has written a gospel recording the events and teachings of Jesus Christ. He has acknowledged that his gospel did not record all that Jesus said or did. However, he is writing this letter to establish his readers in fellowship with Christ.

Though we do not serve as Apostles, it is important to realize the standards remain the same. We have the opportunity to proclaim to others the message of Christ. We should find that our message is completely centered upon Christ. Our churches should enjoy genuine fellowship as believers are reconciled to one another by being reconciled to Christ and experience that fellowship as they focus on their Savior.

But we do not do this as an obligation. Just like John, it is our way to experience complete joy.

________________________________________________________________________
An mp3 file of the sermon preached on this passage, as well as small group questions and children's material can be found at Grace: Resources.

2 Chronicles 18:1-19:4

2007-05-21T15:50:00.001-07:00

Passage paralleled in 1 Kings 22:1-40

Introduction

God has graciously revealed Himself to us. He approached Adam and Eve before the fall. It was also He who came looking for them after the fall. Since He breathed the breath of life into Adam's nostrils, it has been interesting to see how we respond to His Word.

The account of Micaiah is no different. There are people revealing, receiving, responding, rejecting and refuting the Word of God...all in this section.

Commentary

v 1
Though Jehoshaphat and Judah are generally presented in more favorable terms than Israel and their counterparts, this narrative starts out in a negative tone. For one, Jehoshaphat has disobeyed the Word of the Lord. A king was not to multiply wives for himself (Deuteronomy 17:17), even if for political gain. Secondly, Ahab is not the kind of man the Lord is pleased to see a king align with. He was the most evil king Israel had seen to that point (1 Kings 16:30). One is left to consider, "With an introduction like this, things are not going to end well."

v 2-3
Despite Ahab's wickedness, he is able to convince Jehoshaphat to align with him. Certainly, their relation through marriage played a factor. Clearly, they are fellow decendants of Abraham and are brothers, despite their political separation. However, verse 2 places Ahab inducing Jehoshaphat to join him in very close proximity to his lavishing him with sheep and and oxen and surrounding him with people. He is not bribing Jehoshaphat, yet he is clearly winning him over with things. Once Ahab requests military assistance, Jehoshaphat is quick to comply.

v 4-5
For some reason, Jehoshaphat wants to hear from the Lord. He has already declared his allegiance to Ahab, yet, he asks the the king to seek the voice of the Lord. Ahab's response is to bring 400 prophets before Jehoshaphat. The prophets declare that it is the Lord's will to fight, for He will give the enemy into the king's hand.

v 6
We do not know what distinguished these prophets, but Jehoshaphat could tell they were not of the Lord. Perhaps their reputation preceded them, and Jehoshaphat knew of their idolatry. It's conceivable that their "divine revelation" required ritual or statements foreign to the typical practice. It is even possible that these prophets were calling out to foreign gods, for Ahab certainly had no problem with false dieties (1 Kings 21:25-26). By whatever means, Jehoshaphat could tell these were not genuine prophets of the Lord. His question, "Is there not yet a prophet of the Lord here that we may inquire of Him?" speaks volumes. It is not only telling that the 400-man throng did not include a prophet of the Lord, Jehoshaphat's question even wonders if one can be found. Ahab has driven the prophets of the Lord out of his presence. Not only would Jehoshaphat like to hear from a prophet, we wonders if one can even be found.

v 7-8
Ahab tells Jehoshaphat that one such prophet does remain. However, this prophet is not within the 400, for Ahab does not like him. In fact, Ahab states that he hates this prophet for he never says anything good about Ahab. One of the most evil kings in the history of Israel is offended when a prophet of the Lord does not speak well of him. Rather than hear truth, Ahab preferred to have his ears tickled. We have no reason be believe Micaiah had been rude or malicious. He simply spoke the Word of the Lord.

It is not that Ahab has merely heard of this prophet, but he knows directly who he is. For one, this prophet had spoken in his preference multiple times, thus Ahab declares he "never prophesies good concerning me." He also knows the prophets name is Micaiah, son of Imla. Jehoshaphat gently rebukes Ahab's attitude, telling him that he should not say such things.

Yet, to appease Jehoshaphat, Ahab dispatches an officer to retrieve Micaiah.

v 9-11
As the officer pages Micaiah, we are given a description of the scene. Micaiah already had a "strained" relationship with Ahab, but these three verses point out other issues that could cause some intimidation.

1. Royal Pageantry--Ahab and Jehoshaphat were each seated on their thrones. As kings over separate dominions, they would find it necessary to display their splendor before one another, as well as any on lookers. Therefore, these kings sit upon their thrones in full royal garments.

2. Room for Prophets--How could 400 prophets gather before these kings? The author explains that Ahab has constructed a makeshift throne room in the threshing floor at the entrance of the gate of Samaria. The gate would be considered a place of prominence, while the threshing floor would provide a large expanse. Therefore, all 400 prophets could stand before these kings, leaving room for "entertaining displays."

3. Blasphemous Display--Zedekiah creates an impromptu visual aid for the kings. When the text says that he fashioned for himself iron horns, we should assume this means the horns were positioned on his head. Therefore, Zedekiah is using a prop to transform himself into a bull, goring the Arameans. Surely, Zedekiah would look foolish as he swerves around on the threshing floor, pretending to gore the enemy. But his display goes beyond stupid and is actually blasphemous. He claims the inspiration for this illustration is from the Lord, for God has told him that Ahab will gore the Arameans. Sadly, the other prophets join in as well, declaring that the Lord will give Ramoth-gilead into the hands of the king.

v 12-15
As the messanger approaches Micaiah, he informs him of their uniform testimony to the king. He encourages Micaiah to "get onboard," sharing a favorable message like the others.

Micaiah's faithfulness to the Lord is seen in his simple reply, "As the Lord lives, what my God says, that I will speak."

Once Micaiah approaches the king on his throne, Ahab cuts right to the chase, "Should we battle or refrain?" It is surprising to find Micaiah's words in unison with other prophets. Has Micaiah given into the pressure of the majority? Hardly.

It is clear from the Ahab's response, that Micaiah's tone must have been inconsistent with his words. Though his words may appear complimentary, the king senses his insincerity. Perhaps Micaiah has responded this way before, since Ahab appears familiar with this practice. Either way, it is rather ironic that the evil king thinks it is his place to instruct a prophet of God to speak the truth.

v 16-17
Micaiah shares that he has received a vision. All of Israel is scattered, like sheep without a shepherd. Yet, he is not left to interpret the vision alone, for he states that the Lord spoke to him. The Lord gives meaning to the vision when He tells Micaiah, "These have no master." Not only that, but once the king is dead the people return home in peace.

Ahab gets the point, for he looks over to Jehoshaphat and says, "Did I not tell you that he would not prophesy good concerning me, but evil?"

v 18-22
But Micaiah's vision is not only of Israel, he was given a peek into heaven as well.

The scene--As Micaiah stands before these two thrones, he tells Ahab and Jehoshaphat that he has seen another throne. It is the throne in heaven, with God seated upon it, surrounded by the host of heaven.

The scenario--The Lord wants Ahab dead. Micaiah makes it known that the conflict with Ramoth-gilead has originated with the sole intention of enticing Ahab to fight, and fall.

The solution--It is interesting here that the Lord entertains advice from spirits. It is not that He needs to hear from others, nor that He is out of ideas. It is important to remember that this is the predetermined plan of the Lord, He is not responding to the conditions around Him, rather He is initiating these actions.

A spirit comes forward and declares his plan. He will entice Ahab by becoming a deceiving spirit in the mouth of Ahab's prophets. (This was the Lord's plan all along, to entice Ahab to fight and die in the hands of the Arameans.) The Lord responds to the spirit that he should go and do it.

In front of these 400 false prophets, and standing before the very king who could take his life, Micaiah summarizes the vision. He says that the words of the prophets come from a deceiving spirit and that disaster awaits Ahab. Surely, Micaiah has been faithful to speak only that which the Lord has told him (v 13)!

v 23-27
Micaiah knew his message would not be well received. Now he gets to deal with two interactions:

1. Zedekiah--Since Zedekiah was the ring leader of this circus, it is no surprise that he took the greatest offense. After hearing that God desires Ahab's defeat, and that he used false prophets to accomplish his task, Zedekiah certainly felt chided for his "iron horns." But rather than humble himself, Zedekiah responds in anger and mockery. Zedekiah's response is meant to discredit Micaiah. If Micaiah is really a prophet, he should have seen Zedekiah's violence coming. But since Zedekiah was able to slap him, he assumes that Micaiah did not anticipate his actions. He futher points this out by asking Micaiah to give the "spiritual dynamics" of Zedekiah's actions. In essence, he is saying, "If you know so much about what is happening spiritually, describe for me what the spirits wanted when I slapped you."

Zedekiah's slap would have been intended more for insult than for physical injury. Therefore, Micaiah response would be right in accord with the instructions of the Lord. He does not strike back, but he does state that Zedekiah will know who is right, some day. The day is coming when Zedekiah will have to hide, for the king will be gone and the enemy will be pressing upon him. In that day, Zedekiah will know that Micaiah's prophecy was true.

2. Ahab--Ahab did not like Micaiah (v 7), and was not pleased with his message (v 17). Now we see Ahab's negative reaction to Micaiah's message. Micaiah is to be "returned" to Amon the governor. This suggests that Micaiah may have already been under a form of probation/punishment for other "unfriendly" words about Ahab. Undoubtedly, Joash, Ahab's son, would treat Micaiah unfavorably as well. However, Ahab does not simply trust him to his sons discretion. He also gives direct commands. Micaiah is to be punished in prison, with just a minimum of his necessities provided.

This should be the expected response, not only for Micaiah but for us as well (2 Timothy 3:12). Micaiah does not plead his case, nor does he insult the king. (He has already stated that God wants Ahab dead, what more must he really say?) Therefore, he merely appeals to the authority of the Word of God.

Micaiah is so confident of the Lord's word that he tells Ahab, "If you are still alive, then it must not have been from the Lord." Micaiah is willing to entrust himself to Him who judges righteously. If Micaiah's vision is truly of the Lord, then Ahab will not be returning with the people.

Micaiah is also aware of the other prophets. He calls out to the 400 prophets to listen. They are all to take heed, for in short time, the Lord will reveal who His true servants are.

v 28-32
While Ahab did not appreciate Micaiah's counsel, and chose to enter into battle, he did take some precaution. Ahab eschewed his royal robes, disguising himself as a charioteer. Though he many not have believed this disguise would hide him from God, he may have thought he could atleast thwart God's desired process. If the enemy did not know he was king, perhaps he would survive unscathed.

Yet, it is also intersting to note Jehoshaphat's response. While Ahab largely disregarded Micaiah's prophecy, Jehoshaphat appears to completely ignore it. Clearly, Jehoshaphat is merely a participant in a battle instigated by the Israeli king. What would be the benefit of wearing his robes and presenting himself in royal splendor? Surely Jehoshaphat saw his folly when the Aramean army began to pursue him.

We are told a two part procedure that led to Jehoshaphat's escape. First, he cried out. It is possible that his cry was overheard by the pursuing army and the realized he was not Ahab. However, the text seems to indicate that he may have cried out to the Lord, Who then responded by diverting the army away from him. God graciously spared Jehoshaphat's life. At this point, it becomes clear to the Arameans that Jehoshaphat is not Ahab, and they quit their pursuit.

v 33-19:1
These verses encapsulate God's sovereign work. Each step which Ahab took, in an attemp to thwart God's plan, was actually a meticulous fulfillment of every minute detail. Consider the following:

God predetermines that Ahab should die in battle. (2 Chron 18:19).
The Lord predetermines that false prophets will encourage this battle (2 Chron 18:21).
Ahab enters into the battle inconito, yet God uses a "random arrow" to strike Ahab (2 Chron 18:29; 18:33).

But there's more...

When one compares this to the parallel passage, we see a few other details:

Ahab's disguise caused him to be riding a chariot (1 Kings 22:30).
Ahab's wound was immediately fatal, thus causing him to bleed upon his chariot (1 Kings 22:35).
When rinsing the chariot off, dogs licked the blood of Ahab...as had been prophesied (1 Kings 22:38; 1 Kings 21:19).

The Lord prearranged for Ahab to meet his death at the hands of the Arameans. He would be encouraged to fight by the predetermined plan to use his false prophets. Ahab would die in such a way as to be slow and messy, thus fulfilling God's Word regarding the death of Naboth. One must conclude that no human agent is responsible for any of these actions.

Similarly, though Jehoshaphat was dressed as a king, he was not attacked or injured during the battle. Chapter 19, verse 1 tells us that he returned home safely.

v 19:2-3
Jehoshaphat is visited by another prophet. This time, Jehu comes out to meet him. Jehu challenges Jehoshaphat that he should not be loving those who hate the Lord. These words sound quite familiar to John's. Despite the fact that Jehoshaphat removed Asheroth poles and had set his heart to seek God, the Lord was displeased with his participation. Jehu warns that participation with Ahab could evoke God's wrath upon Jehoshaphat.

It is beautiful to see the gospel light shine forth in this passage. Though Jehoshaphat could bring wrath upon himself, he escapes that wrath because he has set his heart to seek God. The wrath that was placed upon him has been absorbed by another, and there is some good visible within Jehoshaphat! (2 Corinthians 5:21).

Exposition--"Hear the Word of the Lord"

We live in a world of "information overload." It is possible to hear from a host of sources, regarding an infinite number of topics, all within a few clicks of a mouse. Of course, with multiplied sources comes multiplied, and often conflicting, messages. How do we know who to trust or who speaks rightly?

Of course, the church is not immune to this problem. A quick glance across the denominational landscape will show churches with varying opinions on baptism, eschatology and ecclesiology. But once you enter the doors of a particular church, the multiple perspectives do not end. As each member of the Body comes together, they appear to bring their own unique perspective and points of emphasis. Though the church has the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints, there is a variety of opinion regarding the practice of that faith.

Most concerning, we are told savage wolves will come in, they will be evil imposters. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies. We are no longer talking disagreement between "secondary doctrines" nor are we simply speaking of methodology. Instead, the Scriptures tell us that within Christ's Body, there will be some who advocate heresies which can condemn their listener to hell.

Clearly, the church must be discerning and know which voice to hear. We must acknowledge that our own hearts are deceitful and wicked. Left to ourselves, we are incapable of discerning the truth from a lie.

Micaiah stood before Ahab and declared his impending death. How should Ahab have recognized that Micaiah was speaking the truth?

Micaiah was outnumbered 400 to 1. In our modern era, politicians rarely lead by conviction, but instead lead according to popularity polls. If the voters are satisfied, then the elected official procedes with his course. However, if the constituents shift, so should the politician. Similarly, many in the church stick their finger in the air, to test where the winds may be blowing. They determine truth by the size of the seminar or book tour. However, Micaiah, the solitary prophet, was the only true voice.

Micaiah was not viewed a nice. Micaiah shows a steadfast devotion to the Lord (v 18:13), yet Ahab perceives that as meanness (v 7). In fact, the deceit in Ahab's heart causes him to despise Micaiah. This is understandable, for Micaiah was speaking of the Light and Ahab's deeds were of darkness (John 3:19). Ahab preferred the darkness, for then his evil deeds could remain hidden. He perceived Micaiah's loving work of revealing truth to be repulsive and rude. Left to our flesh, we are just as susceptible to deception.

Therefore, we must gauge the integrity of the message according to a different standard. If the number, nor the perceived attitude of the speaker may be our litmus, God certainly offers us another standard.

What it can't be.--Ahab should have known that his false prophets were of no value. Though they claimed to speak the word of the Lord (18:10-11), there words were empty and destructive. This should not be of a surprise. For why would we consider men who do not commune with God to be the voice of God? They cannot accept nor understand the things of the Spirit of God, for they are left in their natural state. How foolish of us to seek the truth from those who do not know the Truth.

What it is.--Contrary to the natural man, the Sprit can direct us toward truth. Micaiah is identified as "a prophet of the Lord" (18:6-7). But how can we know that his words are accurate in this regard?

The centrality of Micaiah's message is the revelation of God to him. We see that his message will only be motivated by what God says (18:13). HIs understanding of the vision is only rooted in the Lord's explanation (18:16). His focus is not on Ahab, nor is it on himself...instead he calls for all to "hear the word of the Lord" (18:18).

Micaiah's message was trustworthy because of its close proximity to the word of the Lord. Micaiah was not sharing his own thoughts or opinions, nor was he seeking the wisdom of other men. Micaiah had spoken with God and was simply sharing God's message. This caused Micaiah to have an unshaken conviction to the word, despite the negative reaction (18:24, 27).

But God does not speak through prophets today, but through the His Son (Hebrews 1:1). Paul instructs Timothy that the way to spot false teachers and imposters is through the Word of God (2 Timothy 3:13-17). The Bereans were not dazzled by Paul's resume, but checked his message against the Scriptures (Acts 17:10-12). This commitment to the word of the Lord is what allowed Micaiah to declare, "If you indeed return safely, the Lord has not spoken by me" (18:27).

Micaiah believed his words could be tested. If Ahab returned, clearly Micaiah was mistaken. He was not relying on opinion or a hunch, he was sure that the word of the Lord cannot fail. Ahab did not share this same conviction to the word of the Lord...

...and he was proven wrong.

Conclusion

There are many voices that compete for our ears today. We cannot assume the majority opinion is always right, nor is the minority opinion a guarantee of accuracy. Age is no promise either. Any of us can be prone to wanting our ears tickled (2 Timothy 4:3-4).

Like Jehoshaphat, there is good in the believer (2 Corinthians 5:21), yet he is still prone to deception. The sacred writings are what leads a person to salvation in Christ (2 Timothy 3:15-17), how could they ever lead us astray?

When we stray from the Word, we stray from the message of the Cross. When we stray from the message of the cross, we stray from Christ. When we stray from Christ, we stray from the Truth. This is how we search our hearts.

This is how we test the validity of the message.

Acts 1:1-8

2007-03-27T03:11:00.000-07:00

[The following post is a continuation of some ECM observations. Click on the label "emerging church" to catch some of the other posts.]

ECM and Specifics--Thy Kingdom Come

If you've spent any time talking to someone from "emerging" circles, you've heard the word "kingdom." The phrase "kingdom of God" or "kingdom of heaven" (this post will not attempt to explore any difference in these phrases) are certainly Biblical terms. Using this term is certainly not a bad thing, for Jesus used it often. Many who speak of the "kingdom" merely claim to be adopting Jesus' language.

However, like a Sicilian squealing "inconceivable," I'm just not sure they know what the term means. The more they use the word, the less it denotes. One has to wonder if this is intentional, for in my experience, those who use it most seem less capable of giving a definition. Is the word attractive because Jesus used it, or because it can be a bit hazy?

[Side note: The above paragraph used a cultural reference (gasp), suggesting maybe some have painted me with too large a brush. I do not hate culture, nor can culture even be avoided. Everyone lives within a culture, just everyone isn't obsessed with American "pop culture." I would also point out that it was merely an illustration and that now we will be turning to the New Testament, not the works of Rob Reiner.]

Perhaps Acts 1:1-8 can provide some definition. Consider the following:

1. "The first account I composed..."Luke makes reference to the Book of Luke, Chapter 1. Acts, therefore, is a continuation of the first book he wrote to Theophilus. In the introduction of Luke, Luke explained his intention. Luke desires to compile a history for Theophilus (v 1). Luke worked hard to gather all the eyewitness information and record it in a sensible order so Theophilus could follow along (v 2-3). He did this so that Theophilis could know the exact truth of what he had been taught (v 4). Truth was available, and Luke's written account should make that clear to Theophilus.

2. "until the day He was taken up to heaven..."Luke makes it known he is picking up right where he left off. He ended the book of Luke with the ascension and begins the book of Acts just before the ascension. We're not missing any major portion of the story.

3. "by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles..."Christ spent His last moments with them instructing. These instructions were not advice or helpful aids, Jesus was giving them commands (orders [entellomai] means a strong command each of the four times Luke uses it). He was telling the apostles what they were to do. However, we must not see that this time of clear instruction has ended, for Jesus Himself said, "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away..." (John 16:7). Are we really to believe that Jesus gave the apostles clear teaching for them to obey and then left us with less? The Spirit Who led Christ in instructing the apostles has now given us His completed revelation and resides within us. Jesus said we are better off now with our instruction than the intense training these apostles received for 40 days.

4. "speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God..."During these forty days, Jesus presented Himself to the apostles, gave them many proofs of His resurrection (undoubtedly, much of the proofs involved teaching from the Old Testament), and spoke to them about the kingdom of God. We're not given much description for what that looked like, but the disciples response later will help us understand.

5. "He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem..."The kingdom of God is sandwiched between clear instructions. Luke lays out that He has commanded them, spoke about the kingdom of God and then commanded them regarding the Holy Spirit. He told them to stay in Jerusalem. He told them the baptism of the Spirit was coming. He told them it would be a matter of days. His instruction is very clear. Why would we assume He got foggy during the kingdom of God sections?

6. "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?"The disciples are all gathered together and ask Jesus, "Are you at this time restoring the kingdom to Israel?" Clearly, the disciples were fired up about the kingdom. Jesus had been speaking to them about it for forty days and now they have one big question: "Now?" There are also a couple of other things to note from their question: a.) It could be immediate. The disciples do not ask Jesus if the long, slow development of the world into a multi-millennia program is about to start. From what Jesus had taught them, we must assume the kingdom was described in a way that meant it could imminently arrive. b). It would be by Jesus. The disciples did not believe they would be restoring the kingdom. They asked Jesus if He was going to do it. However Jesus chose to speak of the kingdom, we have to assume that over these forty days it was presented in such a way that the disciples believed it was the Lord's work. They do not even ask if "we" are going to restore the kingdom, having some role within the restoration. All responsibility is placed on Jesus' shoulders. c). He would restore Israel. These apostles, trained on a crash course in the kingdom, came away believing He would restore Israel. This is key for two reasons. The word "restore" means to return to its former state. (This is the same word Luke used to describe Jesus healing a man's hand.) Apparently, when Jesus spoke of the kingdom, it sounded a lot like the kingdom of the Old Testament. Thus, they also believed the kingdom was coming to Israel.

7. "It is not for you to know times or epochs..."One could easily say the disciples got it all wrong and their question exposes their dense nature. Certainly, they had a track record of misunderstanding Jesus' teaching. Yet in this situation, Jesus only addresses one point of error: timing. He does not say, "Enough with the Israel talk, fellas, I'm done with her." He does not say, "No guys, this kingdom is a spiritual-inside-the-heart thing. It doesn't look anything like the kingdom used to." He doesn't even say, "Me? No guys, you are the ones who will usher in the kingdom!" To the idea of Jesus ushering in a kingdom much like what Israel had experienced before, Jesus simply says, "It's not for you to know when." If they were wrong about their expectations of the kingdom, Jesus did not set them straight.

8. "And you shall be my witnesses..." Witness is not really a kingdom related term. It's connotations are that they could testify to Christ's life (especially to His resurrection) and to His teaching. It also is the same word (martus) which can be translated "martyr" (Acts 22:20, Revelation 2:13). Christ commissions them for the role of being His witness.

While there are certain elements of the kingdom that are hard to understand, it is amazing how this confusion can turn "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36) into "this world is My kingdom." However, many today consider the kingdom already here, or that it is our responsibility to usher in the kingdom. Rarely is this conflict noticed.

But of all groups, shouldn't our fellowship notice this the most. Within our Statement of Faith (which is silent on issues like creation, complimentarianism and is surprisingly brief about God the Father), we articulate:

11. SECOND COMING. The personal, visible, and imminent return of Christ to remove His church from the earth (1 Thess. 4:16-17) before the tribulation (1 Thess. 1:10; Rev. 3:10), and afterward to descend with the Church to establish His millennial kingdom upon the earth (Rev. 19:11-20:6).

Our fellowship takes a decidedly premillennial perspective. We determine that Israel and the Church are separate. We determine that Christ is returning before the Tribulation (let alone before the Millennium). We also determine that Christ will establish His kingdom rule. (On a side note, I also find it strange that those who know our fellowship and are attracted to this language have not read Greatness of the Kingdom, possibly the gold-standard book of our fellowship's history.)

Today, many employ kingdom language to describe good works that are happening on the earth. Helping the poor, dealing with political injustice and cleaning up the environment are considered kingdom work. Most startling, these works can often be severed from gospel proclaiming ministry and even implimented by unbelievers and yet still considered of the kingdom. Surely, in the kingdom the poor will be cared for, the environment will be clean and justice will defintely be on hand. Therefore, it is wise fo the believer to pursue these God pleasing issues today.

However, to believe we can usher the kingdom in through these efforts, or to belive this is all there is to the kingdom is to miss much of God's future plan. Christ alone will usher the kingdom into existence at God's appointed time. Yet, these details are ignored or misrepresented, despite the fact that it provides the clearer language in Scripture.

If people really wanted to adopt Jesus' language, they'd spend much more time speaking of these future elements. We could probably speak of the kingdom less, but speak more clearly about how the Word describes it, and people would understand it better. After all, the kingdom isn't totally "inconceivable."

James 3:1

2007-03-26T04:26:00.000-07:00

[My caveats had caveats, and it was making me naseous. So if you want to read that I'm not mean, actually like people and just want to honor God, you can read those caveats here.]

ECM and Language--Does it REALLY Matter?

Some will claim we just can't know what the Bible is saying. Others will claim the Bible may speak with authority, but we should not. Still others may just find criticizing offensive.

But occasionally you'll run into a people who doesn't mind critique. They welcome a dialogue about Scripture, for they do believe you can find truth within it. But as you begin to discuss specific words, they think you've crossed a line. It's one thing to evaluate the entirety of the message, it's quite another to start breaking down exact words. We should be concerned with the message, not the words used to convey the message. But can the two actually be separated?

You may be thinking, "Who claims the words don't matter? That's ridiculous." But if you examine the amount of coarse language, overstatement and redefinition of words, it is clear that some communicators are not concerned with the integrity of words. But teaching should not be done loosely:

Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.--James 3:1

A couple of points:

Prevent it!Become (ginesthe) is in the present middle imperitive plural. James is discouraging the church as a whole from having many teachers. It should not be an easy thing to teach in the church. A man should consider it carefully, but should also have a church there to protect him from the office if they see he is unqualified. James is so serious he does not merely tell the church to watch teachers carefully, he tells them to guard the position carefully.

Strict JudgmentJames says that the teacher will face a stricter judgment. James does not say the teaching will face scrutiny, but that the teacher will be judged. This must be understood as life and doctrine.

Specifically, there are three areas that concern me:

1. Coarse LanguageThis is not an attack of Mark Driscoll, and I wouldn't even mention his name except I know some would immediately assume him. Though I have been offended by words Mark has said, I have found he is typically repentant about these words and has a church body that calls him to accountability. What is scary though, is that at times, I have heard people viligantly defend that Mark said nothing inappropriate even when he admits that he did. (Of course, there have been times he has been accused of being inappropriate when he has simply said what the Bible says. Thankfully, I have not heard him apologize for these situations.) However, some seem to think that unless a pastor uses a word you can't say on TV, then his speech has been fine. This just isn't our standard. The words that come out of our mouth matter, for they reveal the condition of the heart. If define relevant as not being any different than the world, then I guess this could be one way.

2. OverstatementOur soundbyte culture appears obsessed with shock value. It generates the maximum amount of effect for the minimal amount of time and effort. People (preacher included) are just too impatient to allow accurate statements to have their effect. Certainly, God's Word is so counter cultural that at times it will shock us to our senses. An example in more "fundamental" circles of the past would be to condemn all drinking instead of just drunkeness. However, today it typically swings the other way. A preacher is likely to proclaim as liberty those things which actually are not (like language: see above). Doctrines may even be amplified (or diminished) beyond their scope, just to "make a point." The teacher responds that he is simply trying to see the people come to action, but couldn't the same argument be made for Ananias' slight exaggeration?

Fuzzy TeachingTrue to our postmodern era, words are easily redefined. A preacher may use the same words, but they don't necessarily mean the same thing by them. Many of these words are terms to dictate doctrine. A preacher may claim to adhere to a doctrine, but he is choosing to redefine it. Also, a teacher may present a "new concept." He does not either confirm or deny the concept, he simply presents it. When questioned, he has the ability to release himself, telling the critic he didn't really support the position. He's just doing his part to keep the listener fully informed. But our call is not simply to let them know what doctrines are out there. Our call is to teach them how to obey Christ's commands. This must be done through direct, passionate, clear teaching.

We should be careful with teachers and they should be careful with their teaching. In the next three posts we'll carefully at some specific topics.

Matthew 13:13

2007-03-23T12:57:00.000-07:00

[The caveats were gettting out of control. Therefore, I encourage you to check a former post to see that I desire to not be mean, rude or condescending.

I don't think all of the ECM is guilty of these issues. But the ECM has brought some of these issues to light. These issues, however, are prevelent in other areas of our fellowship as well.

If nothing else, I'm thankful that these issues caused me to look deeper into some passages.]

ECM and Teaching--Can We Use Authority?

In the last post, I suggested that Scripture teaches that it is perspicuous. Many today espouse a "hermeneutic of humility" that contradicts this point. Others, claim the Bible is clear and understandable (again, do not assume this means some texts are not difficult), yet they find that clear teaching is not as effective. Either people are turned off by past preachers who hammered every topic with iron clad confidence (even in areas where the Bible is silent), or our learning style has changed. Therefore, many preachers today choose to be vague. Ambiguity is in, clear directives are out. Many advocates of this teaching style claim a pretty prestigious line of teachers. In fact, aren't they simply teaching like Jesus did?

Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.--Matthew 13:13

Therefore, if we present a captivating story, it will draw our audience in. They may not comprehend all of the details and perhaps they may even misunderstand elements, but at least they will be listening. Is it concerning that people may not understand? Certainly. But Jesus acknowledges this tendency and yet prefers to use parable as a teaching method. Isn't it a good idea to follow in His footsteps?

Let's consider a few details about the text:

to keep them from understanding Him

Romans 9:14-18

Acts 2:23

Isaiah 6:9-10

2. Non-Missional--Therefore, the parables were actually to prevent people from understanding the mysteries of the Kingdom. One must acknowledge that Jesus chose non-propositional story telling as a Kingdom stagnating teaching method. The Kingdom was not expanded (though it was further initiated) through this literary device.

a. Mystery--Many people perk up when they read the phrase "mysteries of the kingdom of heaven." However, they seem to ignore that His disciples were granted to know these mysteries. Jesus did not desire for them to remain mysterious.

b. Knowledge Granted--Jesus tells the disciples that it has been granted to them to know the mysteries of the kingdom. They are not smarter or more clever than the others, they have simply been chosen.

v 10

understands

Matthew 13:23

Yes, Jesus often spoke in parables. But he had a unique mission and even desired that some would misunderstand. Those who choose to model their teaching after this typically ignore these issues. Furthermore, they tend to neglect that Jesus explained many of His parables to His disciples. They often consider His parables ambiguous and claim to be following His pattern. However, they also tend to ignore that His teaching had amazing authority! In fact, the crowd observes His authority in teaching just after He has told them that the wise man hears His words and obeys them.

But the proponents of this "new humility" will counter, Christ maay have taught with authority, but certainly we cannot. We have no authority! This would be humble if only it did not place the person in direct conflict with Christ. For His instructions were:

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."--Matthew 28:18-20

He does not call us to teach them all I have commanded, but teach them to obey all that I have commanded. This cannot be done in vague terms. A person must be introduced to Christ's commands and introduced to practical application. But how can we do this? Don't forget...

He has all authority.

And He is with us to the end.

It's time for us to teach like it.

Joshua 10:1-15

2007-03-22T18:44:00.000-07:00

Introduction

In Joshua 9, Israel is tricked into signing a covenant with the Gibeonites. Israel is culpable for this, since they did not seek the counsel of God. The people are rightfully upset with Joshua and the elders for making a hasty decision. But the leadership is careful to keep the Israelites from breaking their covenant. They instruct the people that even though they were tricked, they are still bound to their word and must protect the Gibeonites. The Israelites make the Gibeonites work for them, but they spare their lives.

In some ways, the covenant was still theory. They could send the Gibeonites back to their land and continue on their conquest mission. It's not like they would be living in the Israelites way just yet. Of course, God desired to use the covenant to ordain His purposes and calls the Israelites to honor it almost immediately.

Commentary

verses 1-2
Report gets back to Adoni-zedek and he is not pleased. This king of Jerusalem has received word that Jericho has fallen and that Ai was also destroyed. Of course, Israel has already wiped out Sihon and Og on the east side of the Jordan and now their success continues to the west.

News about the Gibeonites only adds to the problem. We are told that Gibeon was a great city, a royal city even. It was a greater city than Ai and all its men were mighty warriors. Not only does Adoni-zedek lose the Gibeonite army as a potential ally, he may now have to fight against them.

It is important to see that his response to the information is fear. It is not hard to picture the inhabitants of Jericho shutting themselves within the walls from fear. However, this text also tells us that some respond to fear by fighting. Adoni-zedek is not gathering an army to fight against the Israelites because he is confident of victory. To the contrary, he is terrified, but his fear motivates him to fight.

verses 3-5
Adoni-zedek sends word to the four other larger cities. He calls for their leadership to form an alliance with him to fight against the Gibeonites. Though their alliance with Israel is certainly his reason for wanting to fight, we are not told if he knew the fight would then extend to the Israelites. It appears that his action is aimed soley at the Gibeonites, for he is willing to gather, camp out and fight against them before the Israelites arrive. It is also noteworthy that none of the kings refused his request. They all aligned themselves in opposition to Israel.

verse 6
The Gibeonites immediately get word to Joshua. Their tone is desperate yet they do not ask for Israel's protection. "Do not abandon (literally, do not let your hands drop)," "come up quickly," "save us," and "help us" are all in the imperative form. The Gibeonites understand that they do not need to request Israel's aid, for their treaty obligates that Israel come to their defense.

verses 7-9
We are not sure of the exact timing of Adoni-zedek's attack, but once Joshua receives word, he is able to gather troops, march 15-20 miles with those troops and be ready to fight the next morning. During this time, the Lord again tells Joshua not to fear and encourages him that He will give the enemy into his hands. Joshua may have wondered if this battle was a judgement for entering a treaty with the Gibeonites, but God reassures him that this battle is an opportunity for God to show his provision to the Israelites. Because of Joshua's quick action and the encouragement of God's words, the Israelites are able to advance to Gibeon overnight. Even if Adoni-zedek had considered Israel's participation, certainly he did not expect it to happen so soon.

verses 10-11
God immediately begins to fulfill His promise to Joshua. Verse 10 lists four verbs that are all in the singular tense. God confounded the army. God slew them with a great slaughter. God pursued them as they fled. God struck them down. None of these verbs are attributed to Joshua or the Israelites. God alone gets the credit.

But God is not interested in simply protecting the Israelites in the battle. He is executing judgment upon these rebellious nations. Therefore, as the attacking army scatters, God pursues and strikes them with hailstones. Some of the deserters have fled up to 20 miles away, and yet the Lord finds them and eliminates them. In fact, so great is the Lord's work that more enemy men died as a result of hailstones than died at the edge of an Israeli sword.

verses 12-13
While these verses encapsulate one of the more famous works in the book of Joshua, there are some difficult details. There are textual questions as well as the overall question, "What happened that day?" Starting with the textual issues:

a. Again, the construction is odd for the "he" to be referring to Joshua. It is just as possible that "he" is referring to God, to Whom Joshua was speaking. Of course, this is not enough evidence on its own, but coupled with...

b. Joshua speaks to the Lord, yet the quote is directed to the sun and moon. No portion of the quote is actually directed at God. Furthermore, Joshua would have no authority to command the sun and the moon.

2. Just what is Jashar quoting?--"Is it not written in the book of Jashar?" could either refer to the portion of the verse preceding this statement or following it, but it is unlikely that it would be both. Either Jashar gives the detailed account or the summation of the events. However, the statements compliment one another, therefore it is not a critical issue to discern.The other question that is asked, "What happened with the sun and moon?" There are a few options:

2. God made it look like the sun and moon stood still--God may have allowed the earth to continue rotating but could have allowed the sun and moons light to appear coming from a constant source. Whether refracted light or an additional light source fixed in the apparent location of the sun and moon (I'm not a scientist, so I'm done speculating), God causes it to look like the sun and moon hung in the sky.

3. God produces light--Perhaps the language allows for some poetic license. Joshua and Jashar may simply be stating that light continued even though it should have been dark. Certainly, the critical element for Joshua was the continuation of light to allow the armies to fight. God can certainly produce light with His word or even just by His own radiance.

4. It was just a long day--While others speculate the entire account is poetic. They claim that the moon stood still represents the hike to Gibeon and the sun standing still represents the long day of fighting. They do not require anything to have literally happen, other than that Israel saw a tremendous victory that day. The sun still set and the moon still faded, but Israel was very efficient during that day.Personally, I find number 4 to be the least compelling. The burdern of proof is on saying the text does not mean what it says, and I find the evidence for complete poetry to be slim. This also leads to my assumption that option 3 is a bit weak. The reference to the sun and moon, rather than to just light, seems to suggest something was happening (or appearing to happen) with these celestial bodies. As for choosing between option 1 and 2, I find myself completely overwhelmed to try to discern which is the most probable solution.

verse 14
The author states that this day was a unique day. Immediately following the account about the sun and moon, one might expect this response. However, the author says that is not what truly made the day amazing. The amazing feature is that "the Lord listened to the voice of a man." This is the only time "listened" (shama) is attributed to the Lord. Throughout Joshua, "listened" is attibuted to individuals (or Israel corporately) with an obedient inflection. It is not just that they audibly heard something, they heeded it and obeyed. In essense, the author is saying the day was unique because the Lord obeyed Joshua. (More within "Exposition.")

verse 15
Though the text says the Israelites returned to Gilgal, it is unlikely that they did this before the following (10:16-42) verses take place. To literally fall in this way chronologically, Joshua and Israel would have pursued their enemy, then returned to Gilgal (about 20 miles away) to again depart to deal with the kings and their neighboring cities. There are two possible explanations:

Scribal Error--Since verse 14 ends "for the Lord fought for Israel" and verse 42 ends "the Lord, the God of Israel, fought for Israel" some assume a scribal error took place. Somewhere along the line, a scribe's eye traveled down the page and inserted verse 43 and the position of verse 15. This does not devestate the inerrancy of Scripture, for that doctrine holds that the original autographs were without error. Furthermore, if verse 15 should not be in the text, this does not change anything about the perspective of the text and no doctrine is questionable from this.

Joshua 11:18

Either way, it is doubtful that the army marched 20 miles to Gilgal, then marched back to attack the cities and deal with the kings.

Exposition

Many people are familiar with the sun standing still for Joshua. This is truly a startling concept as we try to wrap our minds around what happened. The believer should not be troubled if he cannot offer the perfect scientific explanation. If he is challenged that the language is in error (for the sun does not travel in the sky, rather the earth rotates around a fixed sun), he should simply remind the challenger that we still use this language today (sunset, sunrise). We do not need to run to science for the explanation. God created light with His command, therefore, He could have done any number of things to give the appearance of a sun and moon fixed in the sky.

But so often, as we try to wrap our minds around the sun standing still, we miss the truly mind-boggling event...

The Lord obeyed Joshua.

Unfortunately, this is not a mind-boggling concept today. Many people on television or radio claim to know promises of God that obligate Him to respond. The see God as a marionette and they are pulling the strings. Pray this prayer. Give this amount of money. Claim this verse for yourself. Then God must respond to you as you desire. We live in a world that is very slow to obey God, but very quick to tell Him what He must do.

No way has this perspective grown more than in prayer. Prayer has become the believers opportunity to tell God what we think He ought to do. Men stand up and preach that we must command God to act. We have to stand up to Him and call upon our rights. If He does not answer, you are to contend with Him, wearing Him down until you get what you want. But this is not the way Jesus tells us to pray:

Now He was telling them a parable to show that at all times they ought to pray and not to lose heart, saying, "In a certain city there was a judge who did not fear God and did not respect man. "There was a widow in that city, and she kept coming to him, saying, `Give me legal protection from my opponent.' "For a while he was unwilling; but afterward he said to himself, `Even though I do not fear God nor respect man, yet because this widow bothers me, I will give her legal protection, otherwise by continually coming she will wear me out.' "And the Lord said, "Hear what the unrighteous judge said; now, will not God bring about justice for His elect who cry to Him day and night, and will He delay long over them? "I tell you that He will bring about justice for them quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?"--Luke 18:1-8

A few things to note:

encourage

The widow had rights. She came to the judge demanding that he do his job. Should we assume Jesus is telling us we have rights and we should demand them?

Judge did not fear God.

Judge did not respect man.

Judge is unwilling to act.

Judge speaks to self.

The widow's annoyance finally got results.

Judge can be worn out.

Jesus is telling us to come to the father and lay our requests continually before Him, not because we can wear Him down, but because he loves righteousness and His elect. Therefore, the believer comes before Him with a God pleasing confidence that God will work to His best for us (Hebrews 11:6).

We cannot call God into a place of obedience to us, but we can pray with assurance that He cares about justice and His children. He listens and is delighted to respond, not because He is at the end of our string, but because He delights in His own nature. Even in salvation, He responds because He is delighted to see righteousness and loves His elect. His character is revealed and He is glorified. After all, a God who is at the whim of man could never have commanded the sun and moon and delievered His people!

Neither could He deliver us from our sin.

2 Peter 3:14-16

2007-03-22T10:57:00.000-07:00

[Pre-caveat caveat: This post is the result of a series I did regarding Scriptural interaction with some emerging church trends. However, the truths of the text certainly expand beyond the emerging scope.]

[Understand that as I work through these posts, I am not saying these issues relate only to the emerging church movement. I also am not saying that every emerging church has these issues, some will not. All I am saying is that the emerging church movement (or ECM for my lazy fingers to type) has been a recent and/or prevalent catalyst for certain topics. I also understand that the ECM discussion may stir up topics for me that others do not see as germane. I am not claiming to be an expert and will confess that in many ways I feel like an outcast in my own generation.

If it appears I am painting the ECM with too broad a brush, I would encourage you to consider it should be even broader. Any atempt to address specific churches, pastors or teachers has typically resulted in me being considered mean, rude or non-brotherly. Instead, if an element of a movement causes us see an area of a concern, we should see if that broad brushstroke doesn't also cover some of our own ministry. Quite frankly, much concern I have about elements within the ECM are problems we have long had within our own fellowship of churches.

Furthermore, it is not my desire to be mean, pugnacious or divisive. I believe we are called to refute error when we see it. However, I do not believe this has to be personal, rude or demeaning. Justin Taylor has an excellent series of quotes from John Newton (1, 2, 3) regarding refutation. I hope I exercise the positive dimensions expressed in those quotes when addressing controversy. If you spot words or ideas in conflict to the standards addressed by Newton, please bring them to my attention.

Understand also, that I do not believe that modernism is glorious. Modernism has major problems too. I have no explanation for God's sovereign choosing of me, so I am baffled, yet grateful for His divine continuous working in this world. I do not believe science has all the answers and I do not deny that there is mystery in this world. These posts are in no way an attempt to call people back into modernity. I believe Christ's message trandscends all era and times, therefore I would not call myself a modernist either. Understand that this is not a nostalgia quest for me.

Understand also, that it makes me nauseous that I find it necessary to introduce a post with such a caveat.]

--sigh.

ECM and Clarity--Is it humble?

Have you ever had a person come to you with a "word" from God? "God told me you should buy this house! God told me you should apply for that new job!" even "God told me you should serve in this ministry!" Don't you just chafe at that? How do they know God told them that? Furthermore, if it is about me, why wouldn't God come and say that to me? Why did He need to go through that person?

But could the person speak with conviction regarding other issues? "God says it is wrong to lie. God says you should wait until marriage to become intimate. God says you should do that which is honoring to your parents." Can each of these things, grounded in Scripture, be said with clarity and conviction? Certainly, a person can say these things with confidence, for God has not only told them, but He has told all of us in His Word. These words come with authority, because they are not based on a person's feelings, emotions or thoughts, they are based on God's revealed Word.

Though Israel, the apostles and the early church all saw the Scriptures as authoritative, we eventually had to fight the battle over whether Scripture really has ultimate authority in the life of a believer. Once that battle was behind the chuch (as far as formally articulated positions) the next battle came over inspiration. Some were wiling to accept that the Word has authority, they just weren't sure what portions of the Book counted as Scripture. The church was again called to articulate a clear statement affirming that all Scripture is God-breathed. But with authority and inspiration being settled, the question has moved to perspicuity. Can we really know what the Scriptures are saying? Aren't some passages really hard to understand? Can those passages have any authority?

It may be of comfort that even an apostle acknowledged that portions of the Bible can be hard to understand. Peter said:

Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.--2 Peter 3:14-16

Some observations:

rest

2. Some things are hard to understand--Peter acknowledges that Paul makes some difficult statements. He does not say it is easy to read or discern. He does not say that it takes no effort. Peter says that Paul has written the letters to the churches and some of the content is quite difficult.

Galatians 2:11

4. Paul is smart--In fact, Peter says that Paul's letters are a by product of the wisdom given him. Some portions are difficult, not because Paul was a poor writer or lacked knowledge. The text is difficult because he had been given profound wisdom.

5. Paul's letters are useful--Peter only brings up Paul's letters because they help make Peter's point. Peter is expressing why the end times have not played out to completion. In this statement, with subsequent application for the church, Peter appeals to Paul's letters. He does not say, "This is what Paul was trying to say when he said..." Instead, he says "regard the patience of our Lord as salvation" just like Paul told you to do! He's not making a statement of clarification, he's making a statement of compliment. He is aligning himself, and his reader with a perspective they have already heard, understood and applied to their lives.

Unstable

Untaught

7. Missing the point can be destructive--Peter says that those who distort Paul do so to their own destruction. In fact, they do not just distort Paul, but they do this to the rest of the Scriptures. Since the problem is with the person and not with the author, their distortion extends beyond Paul to all of Scripture. They miss the point with Paul because they cannot handle the Scriptures at all.
In a nutshell, Peter acknowledges that Paul's writings are Scripture even though they are difficult. However, even though he considers them difficult, he expects the reader to understand them, for we have the Spirit to illumine the text. In fact, those who misuderstand difficult passages of Paul also misunderstand the rest of Scripture too. The complexity of the text does not diminish its authority.

While this is the traditional approach to Scripture, there is a new hermeneutic on the rise. It's called a "hermeneutic of humility." It's adherants claim that they, unlike so many arrogant Bible teachers of the past, are humble, admitting they don't know what the text means. They condemn a former perspective that believed the text has a particular meaning (authorial intent) that can be known and discerned by the reader. We should be more ambiguous, for direct statements are purely arrogant. But one cannot hold this perspective without being in bold defiance:

Of Peter the Apostle

Of the Apostle Paul

all Scripture

Of Jesus Christ

untrained and uneducated men

1 Corinthians 2:6-16

Hermeneutic of Humility advocates often cite Deuteronomy 29:29:

The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.

They simply tell you they are celebrating the secret things of God. But is something which is difficult to understand the same as a secret? If I tell you something, even if it is difficult to comprehend, you could no longer say I was keeping it secret from you. Therefore, Moses is telling us that there are aspects to God which have not been revealed to us. There are things about God which He has not revealed, but has kept secret. However, it is inconsistent to then claim that God kept those things secret by revealing them in His Word. In fact, Moses says that the things revealed should now be proclaimed! Moses actually has confidence in the Israelites ability to understand the Scriptures, for he states that they should observe it! How could they obey what they do not understand?

And that appears to be the crux; obedience. Today, the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture is called into doubt, not over texts which are difficult to understand, but by texts difficult for our society to obey. Male headship is considered too vauge to know for certain, despite very clear text. Again, homosexuality is a topic too hazy, despite concrete statements. We can't know about the length of hell even thought Jesus said it is eternal. But this same humility is not exercised to ask Did Jesus really go to Capernaum? (as John MacArthur points out). This hermeneutic is not employed for all Scripture, but rather, only those Scriptures which our society finds hard to accept.

Because unregenerate society finds a text difficult to comprehend, we are encouraged to reconsider our approach. This is encouraged even though Scripture tells us they will be incapable of understanding.

A person dismisses the text because they claim they are exercising personal humility. However, they are really bringing God into a place of humiliation; stating that He is not capable of making His Word discernable to fallible men. We're not told it will be easy, but we are told God is capable. Peter says it will be difficult, but he also expected the people to understand.

We can speak with authority because we can speak the Word of God. And when God spoke, He did not mumble.