"to draw near," and indicates the primary purpose of offerings: to draw us near to G-d.
And the remnant of the meat offering shall be Aaron's and his sons': Leviticus 2:3
Frequently the pattern of sacrifices and offerings made in the Temple at Jerusalem is used as a model for contemporary Christian giving. Recently a pastor used the passage from Leviticus 2:3 for exactly that purpose – to provide Biblical support for the practice of modern-day "giving." If we are going to use Jewish traditions as a foundation for our practices, it seems we should know something about them don’t you think? Going straight to the source, Judaism, we learn the following: 1) "We stopped offering sacrifices because we do not have a proper place to offer them. The Torah specifically commands us not to offer sacrifices wherever we feel like it; we are only permitted to offer sacrifices in the place that G-d has chosen for that purpose (Deuteronomy. 12:13-14). It would be a sin to offer sacrifices in any other place, akin to stealing candles and wine to observe Shabbat." 2) "The word "qorbanot" is usually translated as "sacrifices" or "offerings"; however, both of these terms suggest a loss of something or a giving up of something, and although that is certainly a part of the ritual, that is not at all the literal meaning of the Hebrew word. The word qorbanot comes from the root Qof-Resh-Bet, which means "to draw near," and indicates the primary purpose of offerings: to draw us near to G-d." (3) there were innumerable offerings. Chief among them were Olah: the Burnt Offering, Zebach Sh’ lamim the Peace Offering, Chatat the Sin Offering, Asham the Guilt Offering as well as Food and Drink Offerings.
Aside from the fact that in Judaism these offerings had to be made in the Temple, they were indeed used to support and sustain the Levitical priesthood (Kohein). The Tribe of Levi was not given an allotment of land, as were the other 11 tribes. This essentially left them destitute since land was the source of wealth in Israel. As compensation, they were given 48 towns and the "landed" tribes were expected to give "tithes" to the Levites for their support. Any attempt to provide a Scriptural foundation from the Old Testament practices for modern-day "giving" seems to falter. It cannot be propped up on the assertion that it stems from the people "supporting" the "clergy" in ancient Israel unless the modern-day clerics in question are Lievites. That wouldn’t do either because such "giving" was only "legal" within the Temple at Jerusalem.
Is there no basis, no reason for giving? Yes, it is found within the very word qroban or Minchah found in modern lexicons. Rather the secret of giving is at the heart of qorbanot, "to draw closer, nearer to God." Precluded from such an understanding of the gift we offer is a "reward" in any sense of the word. Certainly we do not expect a reward in stature or recognition from those around us who observe our generosity (or whom we tell.) Nor should there be any expectation of any heavenly rewards. Those who push giving from the pulpit with the cute little statement that, "you can’t take it with you, but you can send it on ahead" may be deceived by their own understanding. The suggestion is vulgar.
Someone is hurting or in need. That’s the time to give of that, which will lessen the pain and suffering. Isn’t that the lesson of the Good Samaritan? Isn’t that Jesus’ intent when He said, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. And, when we do as He directs, aren’t we drawing nearer to Him? On that day of His Crucifixion, as He was about to die, He said to his mother, Woman, behold thy son speaking of a disciple standing there. We are all "ministers." There are several translations of the word, one "Diakonos" translates as "one who executes the commands of another, esp. of a master, the servant of a king, a deacon, one who cares for the poor." Although most of these translations seem foreign to us, what better way to be "ministers of the Word" than in service to others?
Of course there is a need for us to provide for the "upkeep and maintenance" of the "facilities" we use for worship and praise. (Remember, however, for around 300 years such "facilities" were people’s homes, e.g. Acts 12:12, Romans 16:5, 1 Corinthians 16:19, Colossians 4:15 and Philemon 1:2. This is the Scriptural church.) But such provisions are a secondary consideration that should be taken care of because we have the desire and see the need for corporate worship. The Scriptural focus for our giving, however, is ministry to the needy (strangers, orphans and widows) rather than to the "temple" in which we worship.
WHAT?
saith he, shall be one flesh.
Return to the page directory
Pretty strong words Paul is using to refute what some of the Christians in Corinth seemed to believe that all things were lawful for them including prostitution – because they were saved. Commentators may rightly focus their comments on the evils of extra-marital relationships and other "lusts of the flesh" as driving a wedge between them and the Lord. However, there are just as many and as serious things which are not physical, but spiritual "harlots" that, when we believe in them we "become as one body with such harlots" clearly separating us from Him and His Word.
You’ve heard it said that money is the most mentioned topic in the New Testament. Well, in the King James Version of the Bible, it is mentioned 22 times. That’s a few times. Love is only mentioned 157 times. Is someone mistaken or intending to deceive? Pastor "R" told his congregation he knew Paul was married and that’s why his advice on marriage is so valuable. There is no Biblical foundation for such a statement. But, how would we know that unless we study the word? Incidentally, the word "tithe," or the phrases to pay tithes, receive tithes, give or take tithes, anything to do with tithes appear exactly four times in the Book of Hebrews, once in Matthew and twice in Luke. See for yourself, in none of these references are Christians told to tithe. All of these passages talk about Old Testament customs and the contemporary Jewish practices in Jesus’ day. None tell Christians to tithe. How often are we told from the pulpit about our Biblical requirement to tithe? Then the matter is further confused with the promise that, "we can’t outspend God" and by the use of Luke 6:38, Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over. We never quite finish that verse because it would reveal what Jesus is really saying. Its about "charity" not tithing.
In contrast to tithing which preachers gladly borrow from the OT, one preacher pronounced that Christians don’t have to keep the Sabbath, Saturday, because the requirement only applied to the Jews. "It was a covenant between the Jews and God" the preacher told his congregation. Since a preacher (a well know preacher at that) said this was so therefore it must be true – right? If it is, that just might cause Christians a wee bit of a problem since the "requirement" he was speaking of is one of the Ten Commandments. But, we’d have to know our Bible to know that all of the Ten Commandments were a covenant between G-d and Israel. Now, are there others of the Ten Commandments that don’t apply to Christians as well? Using Pastor "G’s" logic, none of them apply. How are we to know the truth of any pastor’s words if we haven’t studied the Bible? What/who, after all, is our source of spiritual truth and understanding if it is not the Bible and the Holy Spirit? Are we meant to take the word of the likes of Ted Haggard for example? 14,000 members of his New Life Church did until recent revelations.
Didn’t Jesus say He came to fulfill the Law of rather than destroy it? First, we’d have to know that Jesus made such a statement. Second we’d have to know what He meant by the "Law." Then we could know for ourselves whether those telling us about tithing, the Sabbath and the like are correct. Preachers cannot pick and choose from the Bible those passages with which they agree, that suit their purposes, and ignore those that do not. We can’t either simply because they interfere with our living the way we see fit.
Unfortunately, not only is the one who is mistaken separated from the Lord but the listener is separated as well. Paul had to contend with what has become known as "Judaizers," (Jewish converts to Christianity) who were insisting that Gentile converts had to conform to Jewish laws. They were well versed in the Law. Lamentably, they weren’t so well versed in the Gospel message Jesus proclaimed. Paul, in contrast, spent no time with Jesus during His earthly ministry, but received instruction directly from Him. (Please read Galatians 2). We aren’t like the disciples who sat at His feet and Paul who received direct revelation from Christ. However, we have the tools to learn of God’s Word – the Bible. We all have a tutor to assist us in our study – the Holy Spirit. We all are responsible as good stewards of God’s precious gifts. It is simply not enough to sit in a pew and carelessly take the word of another. Like the Judaizers Paul confronted, we will be mistaken and confuse those to whom we try to explain the Gospel.
So then every one of us shall give account of himself to
God.
Romans14:12
A FALSE FACE
Thou shalt not
bear false witness,
Having discovered one another on “E-Harmony,” a young
couple agrees on a first date. Their individual preparations for the great
event were close to hysterical. He took a bath when he usually did not;
brushed his teeth which he usually didn’t; combed his hair and put on clean
clothes. She layered on the make up, applied appropriate padding and
selected a seductively alluring dress. Needless to say each was enthralled
by the other. After their date, she raved to her friends about how neat and
polite he was while his friends knew him as a boorish slob. In turn, he
commented to his friends how “hot” and elegant she was while actually her
friends regarded her as unkempt and coarse. Date, followed date with each in
its turn preceded by the same preparations on the part of both.
If all of this false image each has so carefully created eventually leads to
marriage the illusions they created and maintained while dating will
collapse under the pressure of being in one another’s company day and night,
month after month, year after year. His true unkempt rude real character
will rapidly emerge as will the one she so carefully manicured. Divorced so
often ensues. First impressions may be the most important but only for short
term, superficial relationships. Because they are so artificial and the
emotional costs of maintaining them are so high, over a long-term and
serious relationship they simply crumble.
When do we take off the façade we have so carefully crafted and let the
other person really see who we are? Only when fatigue and circumstances
compel us to do so. We are anxious that he/she, once they see what we really
look like won’t like us. It is as if we were saying, “If they really knew
what I was like they wouldn’t be interested in me.” Why would we take
measures to improve our image, cover it up, if not because we think of our
real selves as woefully inadequate? Someone with confident assurance does
not need to pretend to be other than who they really are – they don’t need a
false-face. They don’t want someone falling in love with anything other than
their genuine selves.
Mustn’t we ask the same questions and expect the same results when we “water
down” the Gospel so as to make it less threatening to non-believers? If we
are not telling the Truth about Christianity and someone embraces what is
essentially flying under a false flag, when, if ever will they learn the
Truth? Isn’t it interesting that those churches who do so, to make
themselves “seeker-friendly,” are really second-guessing the Master Teacher
of all eternity. That is unmitigated arrogance. That is “devilish.” They are
second guessing the Apostle Paul when he wrote,
All scripture is
given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof,
for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
Those who “mess” with the Bible, with Scripture, are messing with not only
Paul, unless we choose to call him a liar and a false-prophet, we are really
messing with God. That is foolhardy. We are putting ourselves in the
position of claiming to know more than the God of the universe.
Jesus gave warning to such foolishness, He said,
Woe unto thee,
Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done
in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago
in sackcloth and ashes. The meaning of this passage
does not paint a pretty picture for
Chorazin or
Bethsaida. Maybe we should take care lest we be
counted likewise. The “Tyrians and Sidonians; [were a] Heathenish and
idolatrous people, who lived very profligate and dissolute lives, in all
intemperance, luxury, and impiety” because they had not been taught the True
Word of God.
Becoming a Christian is only the beginning of our real journey on this
earth, not its final destination. Coming up out of the waters of baptism, we
instantly become His
disciples
–
doers of the Word.
And, our “doing” entails infinitely more than being
regularly-attending-Sunday-morning-bench-warmers and bill-paying-“tithers.”
Notice, Scripture teaches us,
He gave some,
apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and
teachers; Notice the purpose of His gifting,
For the perfecting
of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of
Christ: That’s a long way from bench-warming tithe
payers. There is something dreadfully wrong with a pastor telling his small
group leaders that all they have to know/do is to turn on the TV and the VCR
just as much as those who keep their “flocks” dormant and docile or those
who preach “prosperity
Christianity.”
GIDEON’S ROBES
And Gideon said unto them, I would desire a request of you, that ye would give me every man the earrings of his prey. (For they had golden earrings, because they were Ishmaelites.) Judges 8:24
Most of us are familiar with Gideon if in no other way than those ubiquitous
hotel room Bibles the
Gideon’s International ministry
distributes. We didn’t know until we
checked
that Gideon was “one of the Greater Judges of Israel. He belonged to the
tribe of Manasses, and to the family of Abiezer and his father was Joas, and
lived in Ephra” – probably more information about him than we want or need
to know. He lived in “Israel” before the Kings and ruled over the Nation as
one of the “Judges.” He “governed” during the Midianites invasion and after
his victory over them, he refused to be anointed king.
Some of us may
remember from Sunday school class the circumstances of his calling to lead
Israel against its enemy, the difficulty he had accepting the assignment. He
did not trust the Angel of the Lord. Instead, he wanted objective evidence
that the calling was from God. But first, in typical fashion Gideon said to
God,
Oh my Lord, if the LORD be with us, why then is all
this befallen us? So he tested God, “show me a sign” he
said – unaware how his total lack of faith in the Angel could have rendered
him an instant cinder. He was finally convinced with the “sign
of the fleece” – also unaware that the devil is just as
capable of conjuring up answers for objective proofs. Finally, he went to
war, First with an army of over 32,000 soldiers and how God “whittled down
that number to 300 men so that no one in Israel, including Gideon could
claim the victory. After the victory, the people wanted to make him king.
Gideon, to his everlasting credit, refused the offer to rule over Israel.
Instead, he asked for all the golden earrings taken as plunder from the
defeated Ishmaelites. He collected around 42 pound of pure gold. With that
gold and
ornaments, and collars, and purple raiment that was on the kings of Midian,
and beside the chains that were about their camels' necks
he fashioned an
ephod,
a garment worn by the high priests and an important part of
Tabernacle/Temple worship. He set it up in the city of Ophrah thus
encouraging idolatry among the people. The Scriptures reports it this way,
And Gideon made an ephod thereof, and put it in his
city, even in Ophrah: and all Israel went thither a whoring after it: which
thing became a snare unto Gideon, and to his house.
It isn’t too much of a stretch of the imagination to see the corollary
between his day and modern times. Here, in the book of Judges is the story
of the contemporary “church.” Historically, things start out well for those
bent upon “following the Lord” only to wind up in one idolatrous form of
worship or another. Generally those entering the “ministry” like Gideon, are
well intentioned, sincerely bent upon saving the world (or some part
thereof) through their ministry even if it is one soul at a time – even if
it is one soul. They, like Gideon, probably tested their “call to ministry”
with their own versions of the fleece test. Convinced of the truth of the
calling, they assume the “collar,” today’s version of an ephod. The
vestments of the Roman
Catholic Church are an elaboration on this simple theme: A theme, not
forsaken by the churches of the Reformation involving considerably more than
the proverbial “clerical collar.”
As a “pastor” and as a “church,” the enemy is engaged,
victory is at hand and modern-day “Gideons” solicit their troops for “golden
earrings” – tithes and offerings. With these what else but a golden ephod is
created that assumes many, many forms from lavish clerical vestments and
cathedral-like structures to massive church programs and activities with
corresponding support staff so that the means become ends. Idolatry. We have
never been able to separate need from want in our personal lives or in our
collective worship. Nothing is more satisfying than the sound of a
professional choir accompanied by a massive organ/orchestra ensemble.
Nothing is more awe inspiring than the liturgical pageant. And, a massive
structure after the architecture of Europe’s cathedrals or America’s
stadiums. But how much of this is necessary? How much is distracting from
the true purpose of worship especially when we have to take extra care not
to find ourselves worshiping the “idol” our preacher way down there on the
stage or worship the beauteous structural complex and its “peaceful”
surroundings we so idolize. In all likelihood, Gideon made his golden ephod
as a worshipful thank-you for God saving Israel. But was that really needed?
Was that the kind of worship God really wants? The Scriptural answer is no.
Beware of Gideon’s ephod.
Return to the page directory
NOTHING TO DO
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Romans 3:23
Now evidently that has all but stopped. Not His desire nor His interest, but
our prayers. And it isn’t that we have stopped praying but, according to one
nationally known preacher, our prayers aren’t reaching God. In a recent
episode of his syndicated radio program, this pastor said (in effect),
“Anyone can pray, even non-Christians, but if there is still sin in your
life, your prayers aren’t getting any further than the top of your head.” If
that is the case, most of us will have to agree our prayers aren’t getting
anywhere because we all sin every hour of every day and we certainly have
fallen short of His Glory. That leaves God with nothing to do but answer the
prayers of another nationally known preacher who confessed to a world wide
television program that he was perfect, that he had never broken any of
God’s Commandments. Of course, by implication, this radio preacher is saying
he is without sin also. WoW, just when the world looked so grim a glimmer of
hope – two perfect people.
What a “downer!” God only hears the prayers of two pastors. Just when we are
beginning to absorb the words of an old hymn, “Just As I Am” and it begins
to melt away some of the shame and guilt of our sinful lives we are told God
won’t even hear the prayers of sinners. About the time we begin to feel some
ray of “heavenly sunshine,” it is taken away from us. Feeling horrible for
oneself is as bad as wondering what a neighbor must have thought who feels
so worthless that she believes she is not even worthy to go to church. Now
she finds out from this pastor that sin has shut down her “prayer line.”
She, we, at least had the hope that even in our sinful conditions God would
hear our prayers. Evidently not. There sits God twiddling His thumbs with
little or nothing to do.
Lives are to change when we acknowledge Jesus the Christ as our Lord and
Savior. Yes we are to “grow in our Christian walk.” But no where in
Scripture is perfection demanded of His followers Who among us (other than
these two preachers) is bold enough to stand up and proclaim we are free of
sin? The world has evidently changed for the better since Jesus’ day.
Remember when He came upon a bunch of Rabbis about to stone a woman to death
for prostitution and when He said,
He that is without
sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her, they
all faded away. Now, we have two rabbis (preachers) one professed perfect
and the other implying either he is or else his prayers are just as useless
as ours. He ended his radio talk with a closing prayer.
Scripture, does say,
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin;
and, at a first glance this would appear to support perfection as an
indication of our regeneration. At the same time, it would imply that the
smallest, most trivial sin would speak strongly against such a rebirth – if
this is the measure, we would have to be perfect indeed. Besides, who needs
prayer more than those of us who are still deeply steeped in sin? For those
of such a sinless nature as to rival that of Jesus, shouldn’t they be
raptured, caught up, immediately? When Jesus said to the adulteress He save
from a stoning,
go and sin no more,
did He really expect her never to sin again? It is one thing to have the
aspiration, the goal, of sinlessness, or at least reducing its significance
in our lives, it is quite another to assert we are without sin. To the
saved, prayerfully, sinfulness is increasingly something “out of character
for us – something we’d rather not do even though, we continue to do so in
spite of ourselves. God has plenty to do. He hears and answers the prayers
of His imperfect children.
Even so ye also outwardly appear
righteous unto men,
but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Matthew 23:28
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other
name
under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Acts 4:13
At long last the “church” has discovered the necessity of
being purpose driven again. If we are to believe the pundits, two of Rick
Warren’s books The Purpose Driven Church and The Purposed Driven Life have
had a phenomenal impact on the Christian community. Well, if one is “purpose
driven,” it necessarily follows there must be a plan for the purpose. All
well and good as long as we remember that Biblical principles must be the
purpose and Jesus the Christ author of the “plan.” Otherwise we might have a
purpose, a plan and be focused on secular matters rather than Spiritual.
Church recruiting (evangelism) tactics in recent years seem to have taken
such a misdirected course. The interest appears more aimed toward increasing
the size of the church rather than saving individual souls. One often
wonders what “seekers” will learn about The Christ Plan when all they hear
is a message intentionally designed to “tickle their ears.” That’s
essentially the concern the Apostle Paul had in one of his letters to
Timothy.
The
Message
makes that concern perfectly clear. It says there will come a time when
churches will, “have no stomach for solid teaching, but will fill up on
spiritual junk food - catchy opinions that tickle their fancy.” Our
“purpose/plan” should not dilute the Biblical purposes that are supposed “to
drive us” just to make His message appealing to the unbelieving. One of the
unanticipated side effects is that a message from the pulpit, and even the
curriculum for small groups composed of “junk food” and catchy phrases does
nothing to help the congregation graduate from “milk” to the “meat” of the
Gospel. They’ll likely remain “Gospel ignoramuses” all their lives.
We must remember that our “Rabbi” chose death rather than compromise His
Father’s principles. He could have so easily catered to their misconceptions
of the purpose of the Messiah. He could have denied His deity. He probably
could have become enormously popular, rich and famous. Had He catered to the
crowd, more directly the Sanhedrin, He could have attracted the attention of
someone like Saul who might have sponsored Him at a prestigious seminary and
He could have become a Rabbi of a synagogue in Judea or Israel. He could
have become a High Priest! Instead, He stayed with His plan and went to the
cross for us.
He did not attempt to enroll politicians in his campaign anymore than He
tried to influence the political process. This was the model of separation
of “church” and “state” regardless of what our “Forefathers” did or did not
do.
His statement
to give to Cesar those things that belong to him was not commanding the
disciples to make governance or political issues their focus. In fact, the
inference is very strong in this passage that any such “rendering” must be
done without taking away anything from worshiping, glorifying and honoring
God. We are to love our neighbor, but concern for his mortal well being at
the expense of his eternal soul is doing an eternal disservice to him. If
the price for putting food on his table and a roof over his head is at the
expense of sharing the good news of the Gospel with him, the price is too
great. To have extreme and relentless concern over abortion issues may be
our obsession, but it is not Christ’s plan. Here is a sample of what His
plan really involves,
But seek ye first
the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be
added unto you. First, not as an afterthought and then
everything else will be taken care of. In this regard, we should concern
ourselves with government and worldly affairs only when it interferes with
our sharing the Gospel that we should become involved with direct and
immediate confrontation. To acquiesce to any governments persecution of
Christians (including China) to say nothing about condoning such behavior is
totally unacceptable under any circumstances.
Money
is spoken of around 40 times and
government
about 5 times.
Salvation
is just over 43 times and
redemption
is around 13 times. Almost the same emphasis, but who would dispute that the
latter two are central to the Gospel message? Redemption is paying the price
– which Jesus paid COD (Christ On Delivery). Our salvation is the
consequence of His redemptive sacrifice. Christian Heritage is Redemption In
His Service Triumphant. This is the Gospel purpose that should be our
driving ambition, our champion.
Being justified
freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
This day is
salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham.
The original "Christ Plan"
Return to the page directory
Pick And
Choose (What are the rules?)
- And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues
This is a fairly well known passage used by pastors to justify the clerical hierarchy in today’s official church structure. Yet, if we look again there are a few things amiss in need of explanation. Few churches today claim to have prophets (outside of the Mormons) and fewer still practice the "gifts of healings," "helps" and "diversity of tongues." "Governments" may be an exception. If this passages justifies the clergy, where does it mention "pastors," "preachers" and "ministers?" Not that picking and choosing passages to fit our particular purposes of the moment is unusual. After all, the U.S. Episcopal Church recently elected one Right Reverend Katharine Jefferts Schori as its Presiding Bishop. To say nothing of a woman "pastor," elevating one to a position comparable to the Roman Catholic Pope (Bishop of Rome) is an extraordinary sidestepping Scripture. Unless we want to discount the writings of the man responsible for something like two-thirds of the New Testament, we must come to an understanding of how this is all possible. Paul plainly says women are to keep silent in church. He continues on in this verse saying it is not permitted. In the very next verse he states it is a shame for them to speak in church.
Isn’t that pretty emphatic? Doesn’t ignoring something this dramatically clearly open the door to excluding whatever it is we happen not to like or disagree with at any given time? All we need to do is to declare this is a new dispensation or (Heaven forbid) a "new age" and go on our merry way. The U.S. Episcopal Church does subscribe to the idea that the Bible contains "all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man," yet they are in the practice of regularly ignoring it. We must have to figure out for ourselves what is necessary and what is superfluous. It would be nice to know the rules that would tell us what to disregard and what to heed.
Clearly acting and preaching in opposition to Scripture is not restricted to the role of women in the church or sexual conduct in general as testified to by the acceptance of divorce even among the clerics. The absence of most of those things Paul said were given to the "church" for a reason is ample evidence we pick and choose. Most "churches" simply do not have "prophets" on their staff – everything else, but not prophets. Yet, such seem rather important to the scheme of things according to the Bible. We find "prophets" referred to 86 times in the Gospels. Jesus, for example, said I will send them prophets and apostles (see also Matthew 23:34). We know the Jews were in a state of apostasy and most of these references were from Malachi and before. However, there were prophets at the "church" in Antioch. Paul makes an interesting comparison between those who prophesy and those who speak in tongues saying, he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. It seems the "churches" at Antioch and Corinth were quite familiar with both the gift of tongues and prophecy. So where did they go? Are we so super sophisticated in our "spiritual maturity" over the "first century church" that we don’t need such gifts in our congregations? Maybe Jesus had the answer, when He said a prophet has no honor in His own home.
And should we be brazen enough to ask why not, there is a pat answer ready and waiting, "Well, those were in the times before Jesus went to heaven and we were blessed with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. We don’t need them in today’s church." As if Jesus didn’t know this was going to happen. The condition of the "church" today doesn’t support the notion prophets aren’t needed. But what we are looking at is not the absence of prophets anymore than that of apostles. We are looking at picking and choosing what we accept from the Bible. Christ said call no man "father," yet we do. No where in New Covenant Scripture is there a reference to a distinct and separate priesthood apart from the body of believers, not withstanding special gifts, yet we have such. No where is there entreaty to establish such. Every where the infusion of the Holy Spirit into all is spoken yet we have not. Christianity is not an "I-It" or a "we-they" but a "We" relationship – a brotherhood of believers each carrying his share of the load; each concerned and responsible for the burdens of his brothers and sisters in Christ a spiritual house that shares with one another
- But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.
TRUTH
Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the
power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to
stand against the wiles of the devil.
Ephesians 6:10-11
Most Christians are aware of Paul’s warnings against what is known today as "Spiritual Warfare." Just as many would prefer to shy away from the matter all together and a good number deny that such a thing exists at all. But looking about the world today who can deny that what he said then is just as true today, For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places? If nothing else, can’t we agree that so many of us wrestle with addictions – alcohol/drug, food, gambling and sexual addictions ranging from pornography to pedophilia? In our own Country, isn’t corruption in government and business is rampant? And, we haven’t even touched the "crimes of violence" that are constant companions. We haven’t even mentioned anything about lies from the pulpit yet. If it is bothersome, forget the label we have attached to all of this and ask what is to be done to better the situation – unless each of us believes life couldn’t be better.
When pastors preach on the "full armor of God" they usually list each and explain to us their significance. In such an exposition by Greg Lori, something he pointed out is striking. The first thing we are to use against the "rulers of darkness" and "spiritual wickedness" is truth. The plain and simple truth is a defense against evil. If Enron investors knew the truth about the condition of that company, how much less pain would they have had to suffer? If we understood the truth about addiction, wouldn’t we be in a better position to avoid those consequences? What if we fully understood that life is a "walking shadow," "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing," would we be more inclined to dismiss so much that seems important – less inclined to strut and fret in our "hour" on the stage? (Shakespeare) How close to Christian truth is this passage from Macbeth?
Instead of having your loins girt about with truth as the in the KJV, some other translations tell us to Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist. Whether our loins are girth about with truth" or we have the belt of truth buckled around our waist, the truth of the matter is that Paul was telling us to make the Gospel, the Scriptures, the focus of our lives – to rely upon them as a guide for living. Earlier, Jesus told us that the truth would set us free. All agree the "truth" is the Gospel, but free from what? Perhaps free from our stupidity, free from our prejudices and addictions, from our greed, free from the entangling clutches of this world, from what Paul describes as filthy lucre. The "Truth" Sure would have helped Ken Lay. As a "church member," he probably heard sermon upon sermon found in Mark 7:20 that clearly warns, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. But to be acquainted with something is not the same as understanding it. It is one thing to recite a Biblical passage, another to discern its truth, and another to apply its principles. Once can memorize the entire Bible, cover to cover, and know nothing of it. Satan quotes Scripture. But if he knew it – well, he probably wouldn’t be the devil.
The "truth" that is the "belt" of our "armor of God" is perceiving, discerning His Word and that can only come from prayerfully studying the Word. Discernment (Dokimazo) means, "to test, examine, prove, scrutinise, to recognise as genuine after examination, to approve, deem worthy." None of this, however, from the studying to the scrutinizing is sufficient without the intervention of the Holy Spirit. And it involves more that mechanically uttering a prayer as if we were hurriedly blessing the evening meal. It is difficult to find the right word; perhaps "receptivity" comes closer than prayer. Maybe we must be both receptive and prayerful in our study of His Word. Jesus calls this the Spirit of truth. And, in the same passage refers to that spirit the world cannot receive as him three times. However, if we don’t open the Book and study it He cannot/will not work with us. There is a word for the type of study required – devotions. Sound antiquated?
We know, first hand about the immorality, and addictions, the lust for power and money that surround us. Jesus warns us about false Christ’s and false prophets intent upon deceiving us. In His Word He plainly tells us how to combat them. Not with ballot or petition, demonstrations or boycotts as tempting as they are. Instead He tells us: (1) to know the truth and (2) preach the Gospel to the whole world. And, Paul added, And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
Saved!
- Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. Acts 2:41
How many times have we heard claims such as, 4,000 people a day have been saved by our Television ministry or by our Crusade program or even the internet? How often have we heard someone proclaim, "this church (etc) is being used by God to bring people to Christ?" The number of those so saved is usually astronomical to justify the equally expense of such programs. Not to discredit the winning of souls by whatever means, but whatever "miracle of modern technology" is touted, there are several things they will have in common. First, the technology will focus on the preacher of the "church" that’s supporting the activity. Second, the convert is frequently alone when "the decision" is made and, finally, there is rarely follow-up. In short, what happens to these people?
There’s nothing wrong with pastors taking the lead, being in the forefront of evangelical efforts. After all, they are "shepherds of their flock." They should be in the forefront, just not alone in such endeavors. Jesus said to His disciples, The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few. What He did not follow up saying was, "So, I’ve got to cut this meeting short. I’m due at the TV studio." He didn’t say, "I’ve got to go. I have a flight to catch to Singapore." Instead He said, Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest. Was He telling them to pray for more "pastors" or for more disciples? Please remember that in short order after Jesus’ crucifixion, the disciples determined they were too important to be spending their precious time to take care of the poor. This just shortly after they had "cast lots" to determine Matthias would replace Judas. They evidently saw their roles as something special that just ordinary Christians could not fulfill.
By best accounts, the number of those who were Christian at that time was 120. Not exactly a "mega-church" even by standards of the day – remember what happened at Pentecost when 3,000 were moved by the force of Peter’s first "sermon." Now, that's was a "mega-church." This number included the twelve, the seventy (or 72) and thirty-eight (or 36) unidentified others. Yet none appeared willing or "qualified" to assume some of the responsibilities of leadership. Then, as now, the "burden of leadership" fell upon the few. We do know that all of these people had been close to Jesus during His earthly ministry - one of the qualifications for the selection of a replacement for Judas. If we "buy into" the reasoning, that evangelism and other duties and responsibilities of the "church" is left to the elect, are we exonerated when we sit on our hand and do nothing?
Those who have experience as shepherds of real sheep agree they are really stupid and in serious need of a shepherd. Is the comparison with Christian congregations 100% accurate – even if some pastors are convinced it is so? Prayerfully, our conversion to the faith is followed by study and instruction allowing us to "stand on our own two feet." To be come, not one in a flock of sheep, but a disciple of our Lord Jesus the Christ. The model established by Jesus was for the students to become teachers in an ever-increasing number until, by such a process the Gospel will be "preached" in the entire world. Yet, even in this early "church" we find such a difference in how people responded to His call. Maybe we can excuse the 38 who are not named in Scriptures. But the seventy had been selected by Jesus Himself and sent out on "missionary" journeys. Why did they seem to disappear into the tapestry?
Speaking of disappearing, why do we ordinary Christians seem to do the same disappearing act when it comes to evangelism? By the way, only the Holman Christian Standard Bible uses the word "evangelize" in just two passages. For those two, the KJV uses the phrase, "preach the Gospel" instead. Maybe that accounts for our vanishing act. Having been taught we are unqualified to "preach" and probably with no interest in such, we are inclined to leave "evangelism" to the pros. Yet, if we look at an evangelist (euaggelistes) as a "bringer of good tidings" who better to evangelize family members, loved ones, friends and neighbors, colleagues at work? Not as a formal presentation, certainly not "Bible thumping," but as a normal part of our relationship with them. Not in contrived situations, but as part of our ordinary conversations. Unless the subject of religion never comes up (HA!) When it does, shouldn’t we take the opportunity handed to us to talk to them about the "glad tidings" that have brought such joy into our lives?
I Never Knew You!
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Matthew 7:23
There He goes, ole’ mild mannered Jesus ventilating again. Most will agree that the idea He was mild mannered is a fiction. They also agree that His anger was righteous – as in this case. But who was He coming down on this time? Please remember that the phrase Away from me, you evildoers is a sentence of eternal death. These must have been some pretty nasty critters. Who do you suppose Jesus was so disgusted with – murders, robbers, rapists, child-molesters? One would think so. They were probably "unchurched" unbelieving ragamuffins that never did a decent thing in their entire lives. Well, maybe not "unchurched" since there wouldn’t be anything like what we know as a "church" for over 300 more years. But if there had been "churches" then, they probably would have been unchurched. Scoundrels, the dregs of society, scum of the earth. That’s who they were – right?
Wrong. If we back up to verse 22 and we get a clue about who these scoundrels were. It says, Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works Oops, not exactly who we had in mind. They may have been scoundrels, but not the kind that first comes to mind. They certainly were sinners of the first order (if there is such a thing) but not of the type that comes to immediately to our remembrance. Earlier in chapter 7, He identifies some of whom He had in mind. He specifically talks about "false prophets," but with a broad brush He seems to say all who don’t do God’s fall into that camp. Evidently prophesying, casting out devils and other "wonderful works" is not exactly what He had in mind.
Notice the three things done in His name, prophesying (which some would like to translate as preaching), casting out devils and "wonderful works" are three things that so impress people. It is interesting that the word translated in this passage as "works" (dunamis) is translated in other passages as "power," "virtue," "miracles," and "strength." It should be noted when the disciples reported to Jesus they had seen someone casting out devils in who was not one of His followers, He said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. The seeming contradiction is resolved if we understand that Jesus, in this instance, was in effect saying, "Look, John, just because they don’t belong to our church doesn’t mean they aren’t Christians." We are probably correct in concluding that those He rejected had not accepted Him as their Messiah.
Perhaps the greatest lesson to learn from these passages is not to judge the book by its cover. It isn’t what a person does, but why he is doing it. It isn’t speaking in tongues or healing or any number of other "fruits" that matters but why. Several times Christ said we would know people by their fruits. In most of the instances in which He did so, He was warning about the false teachers and false prophets so typical of Judaism in His day. They were so adapt at making such a great show of their righteousness. But, like the Holy of Holies of the Temple, the show was empty of meaning and content.
Attend church, tithe, volunteer, what ever it is we feel makes us righteous, let us do so by all means. However, after the attendance is noted, the volunteerism recorded and the tithes accounted for should our lives remain filled with greed and worldliness, if we cannot be distinguished from the crowd, if we blend in as a cameleon, it is doubtful we are fooling anyone but ourselves. God has perfect and complete knowledge, and that certainly includes of ourselves, our deepest wishes and our most disparate motives. The insolent child has a better chance of fooling his parent than we have of fooling God. Yet, we continue to try and He continues to "read us like a book." The insolence of a child could cause a parent to become justifiably angry. How much more is God so justified. Thank you, God, for Your loving mercy. However, as the passage from Matthew indicates, He will deal with our deceitfulness.
In John, it is recorded that Jesus said, I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. A little later He said, My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: Do you suppose He is trying to tell us something? Please note "they follow me." In one of his letters to Timothy, Paul restates the case, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity 2 Tim 2:19. It isn’t what we do, it is why we do it. God will not be mocked.
BAPTISM: A Question
- I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: Matthew 3:11
Baptism could well be described as the door to Christian fellowship. Unfortunately for many it has become a stumbling block because of the controversy surrounding this divisive topic. John the Baptist had no what strife his simple acts would produce. Instead of a door, it has become a blind alley. One of the earliest and most colorful figures in this continuing dispute is found in the history of the Baptist Denomination. It was in the person of a gentleman with the unusual name of John Smyth who, in 1608 or 9 baptized himself by pouring water over his head. Imagine a Baptist baptizing himself in such a nondunking manner. John and his breakaway congregation didn’t believe their infant baptisms were valid, so they had to start all over again. Since there was no one they considered "legitimately" baptized (all being baptized as infants) he baptized himself and then the rest of the congregation.
Jesus baptized. In John 3:22 it is reported that after He had gone to Jerusalem during which visit He drove the money-changers from the temple, He baptized some of His believers while there. After His Resurrection, Jesus commanded the eleven to baptize. He said, Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: (Matthew 28:19). The verb used in the KJV for baptized in these instances is baptizo translated as "to immerse, submerge; to make overwhelmed (i.e. fully wet)" according to some interpretations. Yet others define exactly the same Greek (907) word with more latitude "to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe." So, accordingly, Jesus either repeatedly dipped His followers or submerged them. The distinction is of monumental importance.
Now, Paul’s trip to Ephesus recorded in Acts 19:1-6 comes onto the scene to (excuse the intended pun) muddy the waters even more. He asks the disciples he found there, Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed? Nope, they hadn’t. Then, he asks, with what baptism were you baptized? Turns out, as reading the passage will show, they were baptized with "John’s baptism." Oops, more than one baptism? Whereupon Paul proceeds to baptize them with "Jesus’ baptism." What was (is) the difference? Well, the passage says, John’s was of repentance and what Paul alluded to was a baptism of the Spirit as well as repentance. It is made clear in the commentaries that these disciples were not baptized twice. John’s was not a "Christian" baptism – perhaps one a more or less traditional Jewish practice; the other deeper and more meaningful consistent with Jesus’ treatment of the Law.
Jesus, repeatedly rebuked the scribes and Pharisees for adhering to the letter of the Law while ignoring its deeper meaning (e.g. Matt 5:20, 23:23, Luke 11:39, 11:44). It is almost as if they were doing things superficially, for show, either not caring about or ignorant of its substance. Perhaps, centuries later, all that remained of Judaism and the Law was the exterior, superficial manifestations of what was once meaningful. Judaism had mutated into a meaningless religion. Not that John the Baptist had, but those who saw and heard him were blind and deaf to the deeper significance of what he did. So many had the same reaction to Jesus the Christ. Remember that He lived and died in the center of Jewish traditions and culture.
If we separated sheep from the goats based on the divisive issue of baptism, who would enter the Kingdom of Heaven? Would it be those whose form of baptism was proper or those who truly repented and who strove to make Jesus the Lord and Master of their lives? John Smyth baptized himself by pouring water from a pitcher over his head because he felt infant baptism was wrong. Was he less in God’s eyes for not jumping into the nearest river than one properly immersed by a duly appointed clergyman of the right denomination? Is it the inside of the cup and platter or the outside? Heaven help the Bedouin in the middle of the Sinai upon hearing and believing the Word over his radio repents of his sins and asks Jesus into his life who thinks sprinkling sand over his body in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost constitutes baptism. Best he get a pitcher a preacher - both. Has Christianity disintegrated into a religion? What ever happened to Jesus companion at the cross (Luke 23:43)?
- Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Matthew 23:27
PERSECUTION IN AMERICA
Return to the page directory
Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles,
and some of them they shall slay and persecute: Luke 11:49
In the King James Version of the New Testament, the word "persecute" Ekdioko occurs just twice, once in the passage quoted from Luke and again in 1 Thessalonians 2:15. However the warnings about persecution and the incidences of persecution are many. We are told of persecution and we are advised that it is to be expected. Invariably Jesus and his disciples are the objects of such scorn by groups and individuals opposed to His teachings. It involves violence toward and frequently the death those persecuted.
When we speak of persecution today, we think of the horrible instances of Christians in other lands being massacred and driven from their countries because of their faith. We don’t usually associate persecution with life in these United States and it rarely takes the form of the death and destruction we saw in Biblical times and that we see in other countries today. However, if we look carefully, Christianity is under attack in America. As one commentator put it, we have been driven out of government, we have been driven out of schools and our most sacred beliefs are under constant assault. The family has been for all intents and purposes, destroyed. We are no longer a significant influence in the daily decisions people make or what they do – we have been rendered ineffective. Evidence of that statement is no further away than the streets and sidewalks in our towns and cities. For further proof, turn on the television or go to the movies.
Usually when we think of persecution we think of violence coming from outside groups and organizations but today, for the most part, the most effective and insidious persecution comes from within the Christian community itself. The so-called "blue laws" weren’t eliminated by outside malevolent forces of evil without the consent and active participation of the majority Christian community. The same can be said for divorce, abortion, moral, ethical and criminal misconduct in business dealings and sexual promiscuity rampant/characteristic of the social order in which we live. Yet each is an egregious, outrageous assault on the Word perpetrated by the self-proclaimed majority of Christian believers in this country. As one conservative radio commentator is fond of saying (as the occasion suits him) "let the market decide." The market does decide and rest assured none of what we observe going on in this society could survive without the solid, active participation of the reported 84-85% "self-identified Christians in the American population. Without Christians at the gaming tables, Vegas would be a ghost town – holy cow! Admittedly, many of those claiming to be Christian are actually only nominally so. That, however, does not make the problem go away, it gets to the core of the matter how of they became "nominal Christians."
After His ascension, when Jesus said to His 11 disciples, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature He didn’t tell them to take care not to scare off the "seekers" or offend the non-believers they might encounter. Indeed, at another time, Jesus told the 12 to leave those who treat the Gospel with contempt and shake the dust of the place off their feet. This was "to show that they did not come to them with worldly views, with any design to amass riches and wealth to themselves" contrary to so much of what is happening in today’s pulpit. It was to serve as a testimony against them. That doesn’t sound very compromising or conciliatory. Later, Paul tells Timothy to fight the good fight of faith and not to get embroiled in worldly concerns – to gain a corruptible crown. Quite a different gospel from those who preach that, "Through faith, we can obtain anything we want -- health, wealth, success, whatever." It must be a different gospel based on what appeals to us. All of which seems to be saying "I’m Ok, You’re Ok."
Today it isn’t Christians that are being persecuted, it is Christianity itself and that by its own adherents. It has become relativistic, materialistic and "me-centered." It has to such a degree that were the lord of today’s Christianity to be tempted his response to Satan’s first temptation would be, It is written, Man shall not only live by bread alone, but by every good thing the world offers. To the second, God will heal me now – as he healed Jesus 2,000 years ago. All I have to do today is receive my healing by faith. To the third he would say It is written again that I shalt saith it, doeth it, receiveth it, and telleth it. Yet the Jesus of the Bible, the very Son of God, on the eve of His crucifixion prayed, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. What more vile persecution could be imagined than to prostitute God’s very Word?
FAITH BASED
CHRISTIANITY
- For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known
Where is it written that Christians are supposed to know everything and understand everything? Is there any place in the Bible telling us we are to thoroughly under God’s nature, His every action and motive? In addition to the passage quoted from First Corinthians, there is another passage that speaks more directly to the matter. It also comes from Paul’s writings, For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8). This seems to suggest that all we have to do is believe in Him. But we act as if we not only had the responsibility but the right to fully comprehend everything about Him and His creation. Yet Britannica defines faith as, "inner attitude, conviction, or trust relating man to a supreme God or ultimate salvation. In religious traditions stressing divine grace, it is the inner certainty or attitude of love granted by God." There are several important words in this definition from Britannica. One is conviction defined as a strong persuasion or belief with synonyms such as assurance, assuredness, certitude, confidence, sureness and surety listed. If we have conviction, we are certain there is a God.
Faith implies trust in God; in all that He says, in all that He is, in all that He does. Trust is "assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something, one in which confidence is placed." If we have faith in God, we have trust – assurance, confidence and we accept the fact that we can rely upon His abilities and His strength instead of our own. We are familiar with the passage from Hebrews 11:1 that says, Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen although it seems too often we stress the "substance of things hoped for" over "the evidence of things not seen." The "evidence" lies in Him not in our intellectual understandings however "well studied" we think we are.
Faith is inner certainty from God that He is God. It is an inner certainty, not rational, reasonable or collective certainty. To the Jews, Christ and His teachings were perfectly absurd – blasphemous. Everything he said and did contradicted what they had been taught was and was to become. Salvation depended upon what they did – their sacrifices. He taught it depended solely upon accepting Him and that He was the only acceptable sacrifice. His Messiah-ship had nothing to do with their hope for a glorious future for the nation of Israel, which was their fervent dream. Remember the question of the eleven Apostles at the very moment of His ascension, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? (Acts 1:6b) His response was, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power (Acts 1:7) whereupon He was taken up into heaven. So deeply imbedded in their belief about the Messiah the after three years of His personal tutoring they still could not shake the idea that He would, right then, restore Israel. Truly they were seeing through a glass darkly.
If we understand Paul correctly in Ephesians 2:8, not even our faith belongs to us. Still we seek objectively verifiable answers to God’s universal mysteries. God became angry with sinful, slothful and decided to bring a flood upon the earth to destroy mankind. However, He decided to save Noah and his family along with two of every plant and animal He would use to replenish the earth. We know the story. Why would a loving God become so angry – an overreaction? He had Noah construct a ship 562 1/2 ft. long, 93 2/3 ft. wide, 56 1/4 ft. deep to carry the survivors. What evidence have we of (1) a flood, (2) the existence of such a vessel and (3) that such a small ship could carry such a huge cargo? The answer is faith.
One day as the Ark was being transported, the oxen stumbled and a man named Uzzah grabbed it to keep it from falling over and he was instantly struck dead by God Himself. Explain such action from a kind and loving God. Unbelievable. How could a "loving" God kill the firstborn babies of man and animals in the entire land of Egypt to persuade the Pharaoh to free his Jewish slaves (Exodus 12:12.) We are told the Jews chosen over others because they were loved by God, for no other reason (Deuteronomy 7:7-8). Recall that Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead because they did not give all of the proceeds from the sale of their belongings to the Apostles. Does any of this make sense? Remember, "sense" implies "reason," "logic" and "intelligent conclusions" and, no it does not. It is through faith, not reason we are Christians.
And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. But their eyes were holden that they should not know him. Luke 24:15-16
The Secularization of
Christianity
And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
Genesis 17:9-11
It is an established and well-documented historical "fact" that crucifixion was practiced in the Middle East long before Jesus was hung on the cross. Some sources claim that, "Crucifixion probably originated with ancient Persians. There is evidence, that captured pirates were crucified in the port of Athens in the 7th century BC" (ref). The Romans were known to have practiced it throughout the Empire until around the 4th Century when Emperor Constantine ended the custom. What if Persia and the Romans had not practiced crucifixion? Did God simply adopt this profane form of torture/execution simply because it was handy? Would Jesus have been put to death some other way perhaps by hanging – or lethal injection? Most Christians would disagree – for the time being. Rather, we choose to look upon the mode of His death as ordained by God and sealed in Scripture. Was the fiery serpent in Numbers 21:8 a precursor of Christ on the Cross? John thought so. A much more prominent concern for many contemporary Christians is whether on not God could have created the heavens and the earth in six days, resting on the seventh. A growing consensus seems to be that He could not have and that, actually, the so-called "seven days" mentioned in Genesis are at best figurative and most likely refer to a sequence of events lasting over millions of years.
Biblical experts point out that Abram, on his journey into Egypt (Genesis 12:10) learned about circumcision from that culture. The fact that the practice is first mentioned in Genesis 17:10, after Abram left Egypt, has prompted some scholars to presume he picked up the idea while there. According to these experts, he incorporated the practice into Jewish tradition. Indeed, the custom existed in many cultures. More insidious, is the idea that it was an idea borrowed by Abram from the Egyptians rather than God’s condition for His covenant with Abraham. Presumably, God was incapable of thinking up the ritual Himself.
Are we encouraged when we read that "science" has "proven" another Biblical statement – that a recent archaeological find substantiates the existence of a Biblical city or site? "More and more," we are told, "science is proving the Bible to be correct." It can’t, but if "science" could "prove" every single statement in the Bible and every single tenant of Christianity, would that make us stronger Christians? Would it make Christianity more believable – acceptable? Science is the ultimate secular "religion" intentionally developed to be in contention with religion in general and Christianity in particular. When we delight in science "proving" a point, aren’t we recognizing its superiority over Scripture?
Where or when did all of this begin? When did we start looking for human, secular explanations for God’s wonders? Surely Lee Strobel wasn’t the first former-atheist to rationalize his conversion through pseudo-science. And, should someone "find Jesus" through the pages of Strobel’s book, were they saved by the "expert testimony he "marshaled," the "persuasive historical evidence" he accumulated, the "scientific evidence or just what was responsible for that conversion? Perhaps more poignantly, what kind of a Christian will he become? If one were able to persuade converts that fame and fortune were the hallmarks of a righteous man, we wouldn’t expect such a congregation to eschew the same in favor of a humble, sacrificial servant view of Christian living. Nor can we expect those "converted" by reason and fact to become faithful followers of our Lord and Savior.
God is incomprehensible to the human mind. He says so in 1 Corinthians 1:27, Matthew 11:25, Mark 4:11 and in 1 Corinthians 1:18 just for starters. He has done so intentionally as witnessed by, John 12:40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them and again in 1 Corinthians 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: There is a certain pride, if not arrogance in presuming otherwise. Faith used to be synonymous with "blind faith," believing in the absence of any reason to do so. Faith, so constituted, has become passe, out of vogue. Now our "faith" must be fortified with "fact." Still there is suspicion a proven faith is neither. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. Today, Peter would be laughed at and scorned – but not by Christ.
To Tell the Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing But
the Truth So Help Me God
But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things,
which is the head, even Christ: Ephesians 4:15
Return to the page directory
The Message translates this passage from Ephesians as, "God wants us to grow up, to know the whole truth and tell it in love - like Christ in everything." We take our lead from Christ, who is the source of everything we do." Most of us know that the process of "growing up spiritually" is called sanctification. In John chapter 17, Jesus speaks of sanctification, And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth (v. 19). Note: He "sanctified" Himself – not that He wasn’t perfectly Holy to begin with. But, lets go back to the way The Message deals with this passage and, for that matter, what we still are allowed to swear to in a court of law.
Is it even possible for us to know the "whole truth" let alone give testimony to it? Methuselah of the Old Testament, lived to be 969 years old. Moses himself lived to be 120 years old and Abraham until he was 175 and his wife, Sarah 127. Just for the sake of argument, let us say all of these Old Testament patriarchs diligently studied their entire lives. Is it possible they could learn the "whole Truth?" More to the point, perhaps, if a person lived to be a thousand or five thousand years old, and they spent their years in study, prayer and meditation, could they learn all of the Truth? Prayerfully, we agree that the answer is a resounding no. We get carried away with the limitations of our comprehension and understanding of an infinite God. We have trouble comprehending infinity, notwithstanding God. The "genius" of Einstein speculated a universe of finite size forgetting to mention the "void" in which it was contained.
Realization our finite understanding is never more important than it is when we turn our attention to the Bible and its authenticity. It is perfectly correct to attest to Biblical inerrancy and infallibility without having to contend it is the "whole Truth." Even if it were, we wouldn’t know it. We can agree with the "Belgic Confession" that it is the "written word of God" and as such are holy and divine. We may also testify and "believe without doubt" that all things contained in them are from God. We may as
Guido de Bräs, chief author to the Belgic Confession states, "We believe that this Holy Scripture contains the will of God completely and that everything one must believe to be saved is sufficiently taught in it. Pastor de Bräs, human that he is continues, "Therefore we must not consider human writings-- no matter how holy their authors may have been-- equal to the divine writings." Still, even in the face of an apparent contradiction "the will of God completely," we are not forced to admit it contains the "whole Truth" just His will as related to our salvation. First, because we could neither recognize the truthfulness of such a statement or verify it if we could. Second because of the absurdity of confining God to the pages of a book.
We certainly can agree and testify to "that everything one must believe to be saved" is between its covers and perfectly comprehensible to the human intellect – with the aid of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me (John 14:6), He did not say, "The Bible is the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by reading the Bible." In this contemporary Christian world, it has become popular to employ the antithesis of Christianity, scientific "reason" to support our "faith" – if that isn’t a conundrum. We’ve gone far beyond Lee Stobel’s A Case For Christ, to accepting or rejecting tenants of what we believe on the how much "evidence" there is for them. Today, we have come to believe, and are being all too frequently taught from the pulpit, that science and Christianity are compatible. If that is true, it is by the sheerest coincidence and good fortune (perhaps). That would mean that by some serendipitous coincidence, science stumbled upon a Sacred Truth.
There simply is no "reason to believe," no "faith and reason." The two are forevermore fundamentally incompatible. Christianity is the most unreasonable faith conceivable – it is truly "blind faith." The Bible, like our faith, is not subject to the scrutiny of intellect. Had there never been an Egypt, there would have been an Egypt. Objective evidence not withstanding, there was a flood and an Ark that carried to safety two of every unclean and seven of every clean animal (Genesis 7:2). Every human on earth can trace his ancestry to Shem, Ham or Japheth sons of Noah. There is one God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. (Matthew 28:19) That’s the unreasonable Truth – the Bible tells me so.
O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?
Matthew 16:8bReturn to the page directory
The thought to be site of the Holy of Holies
Let no man deceive you with vain words:
for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of
disobedience Ephesians 5:6
Return to the page directory
Agreed that an empty room is not lived in? Did you know in Jesus’ day the "Holy of Holies," that inner sanctum supposedly containing the Ark of the Covenant was empty? It, the Holy of Holies was not lived in. Its honored guest, God, was among the missing. It, the Ark had been lost centuries before. Imagine that, losing the Ark of the Covenant. Rather careless wouldn’t you say? It wasn’t the Tabernacle or even the Temple(s) that was supposed to be solace to the Nation of Israel, but the Ark. That means in Herod’s "extensive reconstruction" of Zerubbabel’s Temple there was no balm, no "great physician," no healing of the wounds of the people just like in Gilead. Earlier, the Ark had been captured by the Philistine army who found it as a bad omen and had it promptly returned. After that, it was kept in the home of Abinadab where it stayed until David took it to Mount Zion – absolutely fascinating. It was in the Holy of Holies of Solomon’s Temple, but after the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC by Nebuchadnezzar it was never seen again. According to the Wikipedia Encyclopedia "the second temple, and therefore Herod’s Temple, was missing the Ark of the Covenant, the Urim and Thummim, the holy oil, the sacred fire, the Ten Commandments, the pot of manna, and Aaron's rod." There was, only an "unhewn" stone in place of the Ark of the Covenant and all the rest. No one knows where it went. Amazing.
At Jesus’ crucifixion when the veil was torn down someone looking in to the Holy of Holies would have seen nothing. You may have heard accounts that only the High Priest with great trepidation was able to enter the Holy of Holies and then only once a year on the Day of Atonement. So great was his fear that he might die, the High Priest, we are told, had a rope tied to him so that should he die within his body could be dragged out. This fearful practice continued even when there was nothing in the room but that bland unhewn stone sitting there instead of the Ark. Was this a sham, a hoax perpetuated upon the people of Israel or are we to believe this solitary stone carried the same awesome power the Ark once possessed? The answer is written in the pages of history. The total and complete destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans took place in AD 70 but a mere 37 or so years after His crucifixion. Judge for yourself.
Doesn’t it seem that the religion practiced in Israel in Jesus’ day was empty, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing?" The outward signs were there. The Temple was there, High Priest still "visited" the Holy of Holies and the Jewish people dutifully attended "services" and made their "sacrificial offerings," but nothing was there spiritually. They were as much of the subterfuge as those who perform Divine offices for love of gain by selling "sacrificial animals" and the "money changers" Jesus (as His first official duty) drove out of the Court of the Gentiles. It was all good for business, "convenient" for the worshipers and profitable to the priests. Some were playing at being religious while others were paying to be religious.
"Vain," used in the passage quoted above from Ephesians is the Greek kenos