Matthew 18:20

"Getting More of God"

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

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

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

Perhaps a look at the context would help. The verse before states:

Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven.

What does Jesus mean here. Is He suggesting that I could work out a sweet deal with my neighbor? We'll pray together one week for him to get a new car. Then, after that happens, he'll join me in praying for a swimming pool. We'll work out a deal where we agree, and then the Father must respond, right?

Of course, that seems shallow. But what about praying for a spouse? The healing of a loved one? For a sinner to get saved? Obviously, if two people praying for a person to become saved obligated the event to happen (I'm not saying it doesn't impact, surely Scripture articulates it does. But I am saying it doesn't "force God's hand."), then our mission agencies and evangelistic endeavors have been barking up the wrong tree for 2,000 years. Perhaps the verse above helps.

Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

To save time (and space), I will simply direct you here to read about this verse. Once you have, you will see that we start to understand the context is within church discipline. Now we're encouraged to pull back, examine Matthew 18:20 within its context, and see if there are greater clues.

Did you ever wonder why Jesus said two or three have gathered. He's the Son of God, it's not that He can't remember the precise number. God is also not whimsical, deciding somedays it takes two brothers, somedays it takes three. Why the flexibility in number? The answer is found in Matthew 18:16:

But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.

Add yourself to the one or two witnesses and what do you get? Two or three gathered. Matthew 18:20 is a clear statement that within the church discipline process, Jesus is present.

That is why the gathering is in His name. For these men are using Christ's authority in the process. But how can miserable, sinful men have the authority of Christ? It is only possible with two conditions:

1. They must speak the words of Christ.

2. They must use the means Christ ordains.

Only in this way can they truly have any authority (for no authority is ours, but is given by Christ) and only in this way can Christ be evident.

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

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

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

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

Matthew 18:18

"Losing It on Binding"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. We misunderstand binding and loosening.
Since many take binding and loosening to be the permission the church has to control a person's eternal destiny, clearly those people misunderstand the passage. The King James Version says:

Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Jesus seems to be saying we can bind and loosen things on earth as well as in heaven. Certainly the idea of loosening seems understandable. The gospel message can set people free. But what possibly could binding refer to? I've recently heard it suggested that binding is a positive thing. For instance, take a look at Isaiah 61:1:

The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, Because the LORD has anointed me To bring good news to the afflicted; He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to captives And freedom to prisoners;

Through the gospel, we have the opportunity to loosen people from their captivity and bind their broken hearts. Jesus is telling us that He is passing this ability, through the gospel message, to us.

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

So what was Jesus saying? Perhaps a different translation could help:

Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. (NASB)

As written in the NIV and KJV, one may assume that heaven responds to our decisions. However, as the Greek text (and the NASB) reflect, we are actually responding to that which has already happened in heaven. It is not that God waits for the decision of the disciples, and then responds accordingly in heaven. In its context, Jesus is stating that if the church properly follows the discipline process (by responding where Scripture speaks as Scripture directs) it will come to the conclusions of heaven. The authority to bind and loosen is Christ's alone, but the church has the opportunity to reflect that authority if it responds as He has instructed.

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

Revelation 2-3

[Retitled:] 8 Disrespectful Elements in the Church

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[List derived from Revelation 2-3]

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

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

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

1 Timothy 2:9-15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 Corinthians 11:2-16

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acts 17:16-34

"Athenian Audience"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exodus 20:17

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

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

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

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

I can do all things through Him who stengthens me.

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

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

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

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