Skip to main content

The Gospel and Narrative

Written by Matt Shrader

The Gospel and Narrative

by Matt Shrader

Long John Silver is a prominent name in the minds of those young (and older) boys who have read Robert Louis Stevenson’s Treasure Island. Throughout the entire story young Jim Hawkins struggles with who the real Long John Silver is and how to understand his actions. Is he the affable, generous sea cook, and friend to Jim? Or, is he the merciless thief and murderer who covets Captain Flint’s treasure and will use Jim for his own means? Jim learns that it is dangerous to assume that he understands the person of this one-legged marauder. He also learns, in the end, that the content of Silver’s actions reveal the pirate.

Aletheia has reviewed two recent books by  prominent Emergent Church figures. The first book presented was Rob Bell’s Love Wins (May 2011 issue). The second was Brian McLaren’s A New Kind of Christianity (July 2011 issue). These two books do more than hint at a particular assumption they make concerning the nature of doctrine. McLaren gives ample space to the “narrative question.”1 Bell likewise gives much space to this discussion in another book (Velvet Elvis). Bell, though, uses the word “story” in conjunction with his discussion of the Bible and the idea appears throughout Love Wins.2 As in Treasure Island, knowing a key assumption (such as: “He’s a pirate!!!”) lends to a better understanding of actions or “writings.”

The assumption that doctrine needs to be understood according to its “narrative” quality needs closer inspection. “Narrative” is perhaps different than what you may think. Narrative is normally understood as a kind (genre) of literature, the gospels being prime examples. Narrative is also understood, however, by some to be the best ‘descriptor’ of the nature of theology. This is a serious issue because it distorts the very basis and essence of Christianity.

I would like to take a closer look at what is meant by narrative according to “narrative theology.” Narrative theology assumes a different understanding of the nature of doctrine. This discussion will show that this assumption is wrong. The narrative or story description of the gospel and its basis for the Christian life is also wrong at the most fundamental level. Indeed, there are produced different kinds of theological methods which in turn produce different kinds of Christianity.3

 

Narrative:

Appearance and Discussion. Using narrative as a basic understanding of the nature of doctrine has roots in 20th century theological debates about the place of experience in determining truth and doctrine.4 Narrative theologians see themselves as peacemakers between the opposing views of (what they consider to be) the incorrect literalism of orthodoxy and the also incorrect experiential theology of liberal theology.5 The leaders of this type of theology are called neo-liberal or postliberal.6

There are different kinds of narrative theologies, but they all have a similar core approach. Narrative theology attempts to understand theology under the concept of story and storytelling, i.e., the biblical writer is telling the story of his own spiritual interaction with God. This assumes that God is interacting with the world. God’s interaction is itself a story. It is the story, or grand narrative (meta-narrative). Narrative theology may also believe that a religious community also has a story they tell as a part of the grand story. The individual, then, exercises faith by aligning his personal story with God’s story (or his community’s). Basically, when one reads the biblical narrative one must understand that the Bible wants to communicate as “interaction,” and then know God by grasping that inexpressible message of the narrative. Biblical interpretation becomes focused on these larger issues.

The Danger of Narrative. One of the most significant dangers with narrative theology is what it denies. It does not allow for truth or doctrine to be communicated adequately in propositions. Narrative theology applies postmodern thinking (where absolute truth cannot be adequately expressed because of the failings of language) to the language, history, and nature of the Bible.7

The narrative approach to theology stresses that the biblical writers did not necessarily intend to give a reliable historical account. Instead, their intent was to give a record of their own narrative as it fit within the larger narrative of history. The historical events and details (real or not) of Scripture are to be taken only as a part of the framework of the writer. The important aspect of the story/narrative is to show the interaction of the main subject of the story with God. This interaction is most adequately expressed in a story because of the limits of language to produce propositional talk about the divine. What happens is that propositions are downplayed because they feel it is not proper to focus on the details of the story. They may or may not be outright denied, but they are not the primary focus of the storyteller. They are secondary issues. As one critique argues: “Narrative theologians distinguish truth from an historic revelation objectively given in historical acts and also from a propositional revelation objectively given in Scripture.”8

Narrative theology usually stresses the presence of a divine plan, protagonists who represent evil, and ultimately a divine reconciliation. The Christian “symbols” such as creation, fall, redemption, and heaven are employed as referring to corresponding points on the plotline of God’s plan.  To say that we know the specifics of these events oversteps the boundaries of the narrative approach. Sadly, they often deny that the Bible makes black and white assertions about issues such as heaven and eternity.

Narrative theology limits what we can positively know about God from the Bible simply by saying that these issues were not central to the storyteller. The point of the Bible story is to communicate something other than propositions. Truth about God cannot be stated so simply as propositional theology has said. So, what does this mean for the gospel?

 

Biblical Propositions/Assertions and the Gospel Erosion:

The danger with narrative theology has been given in summary form. To answer the question: “So what?” we must understand a little about what propositions are and why they are so important to historic Christianity. Propositions are those times when someone makes a general (or specific) statement about reality. They refer to a knowable truth. I would argue that there are biblical propositions that cannot be reduced to story form.

A prime example is that the Gospel is founded on certain propositional statements about historical events. 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 gives us a few of those historical events: “For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.” It is vital for the gospel and for the Christian faith that these are real facts. As Paul goes on to say in verse 17: “And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!”

While I believe that there are significant methodological and philosophical deficiencies in the thinking of narrative type theology,9 one can evaluate the narrative system by simply recognizing that it “readily obscures historical fact and clouds the foundations of a stable faith.”10 By arguing that the historical facts are not necessarily reliable and are matters of secondary importance, narrative theology risks losing the foundation of the Christian faith.

The Christian faith relies upon the revelation of God within space and time in a humanly understandable manner (i.e., language). The gospel is absolutely dependent upon the historical reality of the events of Christ’s incarnation, death, resurrection, ascension, and promised return communicated in a knowable manner. Christianity believes there is a God who has a relationship with humanity, that humanity has the ability to know God, and that God has revealed Himself.11 Narrative theology is ambiguous at best with regard to the historical truth of these events and their knowability.

How does this transfer to McLaren and Bell? Many puzzle at some of the statements they make when they elaborate on their theology. How can Bell claim that hell is not forever despite some seemingly clear statements from Scripture to the contrary?If we see that he has such a reliance on narrative theology, then his reasoning becomes clear. If he reasons that the overall story/narrative of Scripture affirms that God is loving and gets what he wants, then it follows that the passages on hell are to be understood within this framework.12 They then reason that an eternal hell runs counter to the overriding narrative of the Bible. Therefore, one must assume one either has read/interpreted it incorrectly or realizes that it is not meant to be taken as a propositional statement.

The assumptions within a narrative approach are vitally important in order to understand their Christianity. Not only do the historical events of the gospel become fuzzy, but the demands of the gospel are denied outright many times. Belief about the ultimate is downplayed because knowledge of it is limited. Christianity becomes “big enough, wide enough, and generous enough”13 to include the perspective of just about anybody.

 

Conclusion: 

Narrative as a descriptor of the nature of theology produces a theology that strips away the substance of historic Christian orthodoxy.14 While the product of narrative theology is to be ultimately rejected, there is something to be learned from the interaction. Understanding the identity of someone (human or divine) can be greatly enhanced through narrative because we can see what the person has done. Also, we ought to recognize that the Bible does produce a comprehensive, united narrative of all of history (meta-narrative).15 Christianity, however, affirms that this narrative corresponds to the propositions of the Bible concerning at least God, humanity’s place in the world, and the need for sinners to know Jesus Christ. There is a false and a true meta-narrative. One is not free to choose one’s own meta-narrative because the Bible presents the true meta-narrative through propositional content. The propositions of the gospel demand a decision. While narrative is a legitimate genre of Scripture, this does not mean propositions are not present nor that all of Scripture is narrative.

While the references to narrative by Bell and McLaren may not mean they accept all the points of narrative theology as put forth by men such as Hans Frei, Stanley Hauerwas, or George Lindbeck, it does help to explain why they can ignore so many clear statements of Scripture concerning the gospel and the eternal ramifications of accepting and rejecting it. It does begin to explain how their versions of Christianity are so dissonant from orthodoxy. The assumption to remove or downplay the propositional character of truth and Scripture is significant. And, it is wrong.

 

1.Brian McLaren, A New Kind of Christianity (New York: HarperOne, 2010), 33-66.  Also telling is McLaren’s  specific acceptance of Hans Frei’s work on page 13 and also page 262, endnote 10.

2.Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 40-69.

3.Notice the title of McLaren’s book: A New Kind of Christianity, Rob Bell’s admission of “new understandings of Christian faith” (Velvet Elvis, 14), and Rick Shrader’s title to his Aletheia article  concerning McLaren’s book: “A New Kind of Christianity Liberalism.” 

4.For an introduction to the history and main ideas of narrative theology, see: Stanley J. Grenz & Roger E. Olson, 20th Century Theology (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1992), 271-285. 

5.Cf. George Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009), 1-3; Hans Frei, “Response to ‘Narrative Theology: An Evangelical Appraisal,’” Trinity Journal 8.1 (Spring 1987), 21. 

6.George Hunsinger, “Postliberal Theology,” The Cambridge Companion to Postmodern Theology, ed. by Kevin J. Vanhoozer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 42-57. 

7.There are a variety of approaches to narrative theology. I am simply trying to focus on some of the main ideas common among them. For an overview of the various approaches, see: Gabriel Fackre, “Narrative Theology: An Overview,” Interpretation 37 no 4 (Oct. 1983), 340-352.

8.Carl F. H. Henry, “Narrative Theology: An Evangelical Appraisal,” Trinity Journal 8. (spring 1987), 12.

9.A few treatments of the possible deficiencies are given in: George Steiner, Real Presences (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989); Nicholas Wolterstorff, Divine Discourse (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995); Kevin J. Vanhoozer, First Theology: God, Scripture & Hermeneutics (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2002), 207-235; and Douglas Groothuis, Truth Decay (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000).

10.Henry, “Narrative Theology,” 13.

11.See the “Possibility of Theology,” in Rolland McCune, A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity: Volume 1 (Allen Park: Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, 2009), 9-12. 

12.Bell argues for understanding God’s love in precisely this manner, Love Wins, 95-119.

13.Ibid, 110.

14.Bell’s claim that you can always find somebody in church history who has a certain view (Ibid, 109-110) does not mean that all views are equally legitimate. It is a logical non sequitur. The existence of doctrinal orthodoxy and heresy is another serious debate that Bell  (and McLaren) get dead wrong.

15.Kevin J. Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005), 93-95.

 

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

Flee Fornication

Written by Rick Shrader

Flee Fornication

by Rick Shrader

For too long pastors and other ministers have avoided speaking frankly about sexual sins.  Perhaps we’re afraid when psychologists tell us that those who do speak out, have some kind of hidden problem themselves, a subliminal obsession that rises to the surface every time one speaks on the subject.  Therefore many have remained quiet for fear of being accused of “having a problem.”  Well, first, I think such psychology has become a ploy of Satan, and second, being now in my sixties, I can speak out regardless of what naysayers may say.  And besides, there are no greater sins of our generation than sexual sins and the Bible is clear about what God thinks of them.

“No sin that a person commits has more built-in pitfalls, problems, and destructiveness than sexual sins.  It has broken more marriages, shattered more homes, caused more heartache and disease, and destroyed more lives than alcohol and drugs combined.  It causes lying, stealing, cheating, and killing, as well as bitterness, hatred, slander, gossip, and unforgivingness.”1 In our day it is not only destroying societies and cultures but is destroying individuals and families within the very church of Jesus Christ.

When the apostle Paul told the Corinthians to “flee fornication” (1 Cor. 6:18), he meant it!  When I pastored in Ft. Collins, CO, just down the street from Colorado State University, a single Christian student, living in the dorms (something a believer should not do at a state university), told me that he now felt premarital sex was OK because, after all, God had made him that way.  I asked him if he was a believer and he said he was.  I asked him why.  After a brief explanation he replied “because that’s what God told me I must do.”  I then asked him why he stopped believing God.  He was taken back by that question, so I took him to 1 Cor. 6:18 and asked him why he could believe God when He spoke about salvation but not when He spoke about fornication.

It has not been many years ago now that promise programs such as True Love Waits for teens were popular.  Eventually even supporters like Christianity Today had to admit that all the pledge did was postpone teen promiscuity a few months.2 Why  do Christians need to make human promises when they have commands in God’s Word?  I could never participate in Promise Keepers for men for this same reason.  If a Christian will not obey God when the command is clear in His Word, no amount of pep-rally atmosphere is going to overcome the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life.

“Fornication” is a general term in Scripture.  It is translated from the word porneia from which, obviously, we get our English prefix porn as in pornography and pornographic.  Whereas adultery refers to unfaithfulness among married couples, fornication refers to any and all sexual activity that is against the Word of God and the holiness of God.  Its various forms give us the words fornication, harlot, whore and whoremonger, and the action of committing fornication.

“Adultery,” moicheia, in its various forms gives us the words adultery, adulterous, “adulterers and adulteresses” (Jas. 4:4), and the action, to “commit adultery.”  These two words describing sexual sins are often combined in the same condemnation from God.  “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders” (Mk. 7:21).  “Now the works of the flesh are these, adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness” (Gal. 5:19).  “But whoremongers and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4).

It is tempting to fill this article with statistics showing that sexual promiscuity is rampant in our society but I’m sure the reader will agree that this is not necessary.  One does not need to go looking for such evidence; it invades our lives at every turn.  Pornography is so available today on television, in theaters, on the internet, that the conscientious believer must constantly guard his/her eyes from what is obvious, rather than sinfully seek out what is hidden.  God’s Word says, “Let thine eyes look right on, and let thine eyelids look straight before thee” (Prov. 4:25).  “I have made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid?” (Job 31:1).

In addition to the visual pornography, the language of promiscuity is wallpapered all around our lives.  The music industry, the commercial world, the language of the street, the internet, even the tedious noise of most restaurants, keep the believer on constant guard to protect his/her ears.  “Apply thine heart unto instruction, and thine ears to the words of knowledge” (Prov. 23:12).  Who will dwell with God?  “he that walketh righteously . . . That stoppeth his ears from hearing of blood, and shutteth his eyes from seeing evil” (Isa. 33:15).

Added to this sad cultural environment is the whole world of fashion which advertises its pornography even on the bodies of immature believers.  Again, because psychologists warn us not to, we seldom say anything to the girl showing cleavage or the boy with his pants on the ground.  Such a person has committed two out of the three sins here.  Yes, it is wrong for any believer to look with lust at such things, but the believer who dresses like that both promotes nakedness and causes his/her brother or sister to sin.

There are two biblical truths that, when combined, are a most powerful force in this world:  the lust of the flesh and the love of money.  This demonical  partnership feeds on itself.  Until we all stand before God there will always be the lust of the flesh within human beings.  And since this market is always available and thriving, there will always be those who will give it what it wants and peddle their wares for a price.  It doesn’t matter that lives are shattered and homes are broken, or that a whole country is sold down the drain; the market is ready and the profit is there.  Can you go anywhere in the world where this is not the case?  This doesn’t mean the Bible and Christianity are not true, it rather proves the Bible true!  “For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows” (1 Tim. 6:10).  “He that loveth silver shall not be satisfied with silver; nor he that loveth abundance with increase: this is also vanity” (Ecc. 5:10).

A growing problem is the promotion of homosexual behavior and a laissez-faire attitude toward premarital sex by some so-called Christian leaders.  Brian McLaren, the leading voice within the postmodern, emergent church now tells his thousands of young followers, “Premarital sex is the norm, not the exception, for Christians as well as non-Christians and for Evangelicals as well as other brands.  And it is the norm not by a few percentage points, either.”3 This statement was not given as a warning but as a fact of life for the postmodern Christian.

 

So what is a Christian to do?

How about this:  pull up your pants, button up your blouse, turn off the movies, don’t visit those web sites, throw away the trash music, keep your hands off your boyfriend or girlfriend, and occupy your time with spiritual things!  “What! Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?  For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s” (1 Cor. 6:19-20).

Of the 35 forms of moicheia and the 56 forms of porneia, more occur in 1 Corinthians chapters five and six than in any other Biblical context.  Chapter five is the well-known reproof of the church by Paul for allowing known fornication to continue to take place among church members.  They must quit feeling proud of their non-judgmental attitude and actions and make the judgment they should have made long ago—put the unrepentant one out of the church (1 Cor. 5:12-13).

But chapter six is the strongest admonition to sexual purity, perhaps, in the New Testament epistles.  Within this chapter Paul says, “Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ?  Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of a harlot?  God forbid.  What!  Know ye not that he which is joined to a harlot is one body?  For two, saith he, shall be one flesh.  But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit” (vss. 15-17).  Before we come back to those verses, let me take a short sidetrack.

God made two distinct persons when he created human beings (the multitude of ways and reasons can’t be discussed here).  In this account in Genesis the Scripture also emphasizes the Tri-unity of the Creator God, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Gen. 1:26).  Wayne Grudem writes,

There is some similarity here: just as there was fellowship and communication and sharing of glory among the members of the Trinity before the world was made, so God made Adam and Eve in such a way that they would share love and communication and mutual giving of honor to one another in their interpersonal relationship.  Of course such reflection of the Trinity would come to expression in various ways within human society, but it would certainly exist from the beginning in the close interpersonal unity of marriage.4

Now we also have a great mystery in the New Testament, that believers are united to Christ in such a supernatural way that we are called the Bride of Christ.  “This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.  Nevertheless, let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband” (Eph. 5:32-33).  So when Paul tells the Corinthians that “your bodies are the members of Christ,” and that they must not “make them the members of a harlot,” there is much at stake both in the divine-human relationship as well as the husband-wife relationship!

A husband and wife are both one body and one spirit.  They experience, on a human level, fellowship not unlike the very Tri-une God Who created them.  But two fornicators are only one body and that but for a brief time.  They are not one spirit.  However, the Christian man or woman is one body and also one spirit with Christ (vss. 15-17) and this oneness never wanes.  The introduction of a foreign body into this divine-human fellowship is spiritual adultery (see Jas. 4:4).  “Therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s” (vs. 20).

 

And So . . .

The believer in this world is in for a fight.  As long as he/she lives there will be war between the flesh and the spirit (Gal. 5:16-26).  But there is victory for the believer who will yield himself/herself to God and not to the lusts of the flesh.  “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof” (Rom. 6:12).  “Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness” (Rom. 6:16)?

The Bible also gives much practical advice.  Joseph of old, when confronted by the advances of Potiphar’s wife, “left his garment in her hand, and fled, and got him out,” saying, “How then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God” (Gen. 39:7-12).  We are to “flee youthful lusts” (2 Tim. 2:22) as Joseph did.  We can “resist the devil” (Jas. 4:7) and at the same time “Draw nigh to God and he will draw nigh to you” (Jas. 4:8).  We can, with David, “set no wicked thing before mine eyes” (Psa. 101:3).  It may be a struggle, but you can turn off the things that tempt you and not go to places that offend the Spirit which is in you.

David knew, as Joseph, that his sin with Bathsheba was against God. “Against thee and thee only have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight” (Psa. 51:4).  In addition, the prophet Nathan reminded David, “thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme” (2 Sam. 12:14).  That is why Paul exhorts Titus to remind the young women to be chaste, “that the word of God be not blasphemed” (Tit. 2:4-5).  Our perspective must be kept at all times.  We are saved and kept on this earth for God’s glory and purposes, not our own.  Let that be our glory and joy.

“Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life.   Put away from thee a forward mouth, and perverse lips put far from thee.   Let thine eyes look right on, and let thine eyelids look straight before thee.  Ponder the path of thy feet, and let all thy ways be established.  Turn not to the right hand nor to the left: remove thy foot from evil.”

(Proverbs 4:23-27)

 

Notes:

 

1. John MacArthur, First Corinthians (Chicago:  Moody Press, 1984) 147.

2. “Virginity Pledge-Breakers,” Christianity Today, May 2004.

3. Brian McLaren, A New Kind of Christianity (New York:  Haprer One, 2010) 186-187.

4. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids:  Zondervan, 1994) 455.

 

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

Bible Wine

Written by Rick Shrader

Bible Wine

by Rick Shrader

The subject of whether or not a Christian should drink alcoholic beverages may be today’s most controversial Christian subject, especially among younger believers.  John MacArthur just posted an article on his website titled, “Beer, Bohemianism, and True Christian Liberty,” which begins, “If everything you know about Christian living came from blogs and websites in the young-and-restless district of the Reformed community, you might have the impression that beer is the principal symbol of Christian liberty.  For some who self-identify as ‘Young, Restless, and Reformed,’ it seems beer is a more popular topic for study and discussion than the doctrine of predestination.”  Then, after listing a number of other once-tabooed subjects, he adds, “Cast a disapproving eye at any of those activities, and you are likely to be swarmed by restless reformers denouncing legalism and wanting to debate whether it’s a ‘sin’ to drink wine or smoke a cigar.”1

Although I’m not in the Reformed camp, I’m afraid the same could be said of many fundamental Baptists.  Subjects that, not many years ago, were almost universally agreed to be sinful, are now defended with all the vigor of a Clarence Darrow during the Scopes trial.  My youth group from the 1960s (in one of the fastest growing churches in the country) would seem terribly prudish by today’s standards.  No wonder many such churches have either had to change or shrink.

It would be an uphill battle merely to advocate moderation in drinking as many conservatives do, but to come to a conclusion that total abstinence is a Biblical mandate, would place one immediately in the backwater of Christian social fellowships.  But that is just the conclusion I’ve come to, not just because I find it the overwhelming norm of Christian history, or because the statistics on drinking grow increasingly alarming, but because I’ve become convinced that this is the only consistent biblical teaching.

Subjects like Bible wine are always approached with a certain bias.  We think we know what we believe and can give quick answers when asked.  But we seldom take the time to refresh our understanding of such subjects and make sure our answers square with the biblical facts.  This should be done again and again with the questionable issues of our day.  Though we may not change our view (and sometimes we may), we owe it to those behind us to give our best answers.

There are two general views of what Bible wine was.  The first is the “one wine” view.  This view says that all wine was fermented but to various degrees, and, therefore, everyone drank fermented wine of some kind.  One may hold to this view and apply it different ways.  One could still abstain totally on grounds of testimony and prudence.  Another may drink in moderation (the most common position) but be careful not to over indulge.  Another may place no limits on his/her “Christian liberty.”  The other view is the “two wine” view which says that the word “wine” in the Bible sometimes refers to fermented wine and sometimes refers to unfermented grape juice.  In this view, total abstinence is practiced toward fermented wine (and other intoxicating drinks) but freedom, even blessing, is placed upon drinking the fresh juice of the grape.

The view one takes makes all the difference when approaching Biblical texts that mention wine, especially in the narratives such as Jesus turning water into wine.  Was the “good wine” newly fermented alcohol and brought out at the last when most were drunken anyway?  Or was the “good wine” really fresh, sweet juice that tasted wonderful even late in the supper?

My own re-study of this subject has brought me to the “two wine” position.  I believe this best fits with the available information and with the Biblical passages that mention wine either as warning or blessing.  In this short space I’ll mention four reasons for my conclusion and then apply the “two wine” view to some popular passages.

The definition of the word “wine”

Our English dictionaries carry a foregone conclusion that has evolved over time, placing fermented wine first in their list of definitions.  Any English reader first thinks of fermented wine.  But this wasn’t always so (or hardly ever so).  Bacchiocchi traces dictionaries from the present day back to the 1700s showing this digression.2 From about the 1900s back, the first definition was grape juice.  Robert Teachout says, “The problem is that people have taken the very usual meaning of the word (whether in Hebrew, Greek, Latin or English)—as an intoxicating beverage—and have made it the only definition of the word.  That is incorrect scholarship!  It is inaccurate both biblically and secularly, and it is inaccurate in the English language historically.”3

This means that we as English readers of the Bible have a built-in bias toward wine being fermented due to our popular, current usage.  English readers of past years did not carry this bias as we do today.

Ancient authors concur over the ancient languages

It is also easily shown that the words vinum (Latin), oinos (Greek), and yayin (Hebrew) are all used sometimes of fermented and sometimes of unfermented wine in both ancient literature and (with Greek and Hebrew) in the Scriptures.  William Patton’s work, Bible Wines, first printed in 1871, quotes Pliny, Plutarch, Josephus, and many others showing this very thing.4 Bacchiocchi, Teachout, and others do the same.  For example, Papias, from the first century describes the millennium saying, “Vines will grow each with . . . Ten thousand clusters on each twig, and ten thousand grapes in each cluster, and each grape, when crushed, will yield twenty-five jars of wine [oinos].”5 Teachout quotes from a papyrus from the second century which says, “They paid to the one who had earned his wages pure, fresh wine [oinos] from the vat.”6

It would be easy to quote ancient authors and Scriptures that use these original words as fermented wine as all moderationists do.  But if, as these (and other) men have done, it can also be shown clearly that these words were commonly used of unfermented grape juice, then only the two wine theory explains all the historic evidence.

Misunderstanding of the fermentation process

The crux of the wine argument either way revolves around the nature of fermentation in Biblical times.  One wine theorists must suppose that all fruit of the vine was in the process of being fermented.  But this is incorrect.  Fermentation was a process, but a process that was difficult and had to be monitored carefully if fermented (alcoholic) wine was produced.  Likewise, keeping grape juice fresh (called “sweet” or “new” wine) was a process as well, though actually not as difficult as the fermentation process.  Grape juice left to itself did what all fruit does, it spoiled and was good for little other than a vinegar.

The nineteenth century French chemist, Jean-Antoine Chaptal wrote, “Nature never forms spirituous liquors; she rots the grape upon the branch; but it is art which converts the juice into (alcoholic) wine.”7 This process for fermentation was well known in Bible times.  “Fermentation is the process whereby yeast germs eat the sugar in the fresh juice and throw off alcohol and carbon dioxide.”8 This is a controlled process in which the juice must be at just the right temperature, air, and yeast or leaven.  Without these specific parameters, the juice will either remain juice or spoil.

Similarly, the preservation of grape juice must do the opposite, that is, keep the juice fresh and sweet and avoiding any contact with yeast.  This was done primarily by boiling the juice and sealing it from the air.  In this manner juice could be kept for a long time in its fresh state.9 The thick, boiled juice (actually like jam) could be easily mixed with water to make a juice drink.  The common mixture for drinking was 20:1 and the mixture for the Passover was 3:110 (“fruit of the vine” Luke 22:18).  The point is, “wine” in the Bible can be either fermented or unfermented depending on the user’s desire in making it.

The obvious dichotomy of blessing and curse among the Biblical usages

Nothing could be more clear than that the Bible often calls wine a blessing and often calls it a curse.  How are we to account for this dichotomy?  Wine is called God’s blessing by Jacob, “Therefore God give thee of the dew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and plenty of corn and wine” (Gen. 27:28).  Wine was brought as an offering to God (Num. 18:12); was often a sign of coming millennial blessings (Isa. 55:1; Amos 9:13); was also a symbol of the Lord’s blood (Matt. 26:26).

At the same time the Bible is full of prohibitions to wine.  Solomon clearly describes wine as a mocker that brings woe, sorrow, drunkenness and addiction (Prov. 23:29-35), its effects are like a serpent’s bite and an adder’s sting (32).  He adds that anyone who is deceived by it (wine) is not wise (Prov. 20:1).  Habakkuk calls wine a transgression and pronounces a woe to one who gives it to his neighbor (Hab. 2:5, 15).  Paul commands us not to be drunk with wine because in it (en ho estin, “in which is”) is excess (asotia, wantonness, debauchery).  Not in the drunkenness but in the wine itself.

The best explanation of this dichotomy is the two wine view.  The Biblical words yayin and oinos, and the English word wine can mean either fermented or unfermented.  God has given us the fruit of the vine (as He did with all fruit) in its created state as a blessing and a refreshment.  Man has taken God’s gift and by his own artistic ability (as he has with many of God’s raw materials) and made a poison which God has warned against.  The sins of Noah and Lot are examples enough of alcohol’s destructive nature.

A better explanation of Scripture

Did Jesus come to a party where hundreds were drunk with alcohol and give them 120 gallons more?  Would He violate the very Scripture He Himself wrote?  No.  The wine was “good” because it was fresh.  Jesus, the Creator of all fruit and juice, created the same thing He always creates with water and vines only much faster.

New wine must be put in new wine skins so that both wine and bottle will not be destroyed (Matt. 9:17).  The usual explanation is that the violent fermentation process will cause the skin to expand and burst if it is not a new skin.  But “it is impossible that the must [juice] could ever have been put into skins to undergo the whole process of fermentation, as is usually stated, the action of the gas given off in the earlier stages of the process being much too violent for any skins to withstand.”11 As Bacchiocchi says, “new wine was placed into fresh wineskins to insure the absence of any fermentation-causing substance.”12 The mention of new wine skins assures the presence of freshly preserved grape juice, kept from contamination of air and leaven so that fermentation could NOT take place and burst the bottle.

Was Timothy supposed to take a little fermented wine for a stomach that was already ailing (1 Tim. 5:23)? No.  Only fresh grape juice would be good for such a stomach.  The ancient Pliny said, “For all the sick, wine is most useful when its forces have been broken by the strainer.”13 Straining the wine was one common way to keep it fresh from contaminates.

Were the apostles accused of being drunk on “new wine” (Acts 2:13) that was alcoholic?  This is the only place where the Greek word gleukos is used in the New Testament.  It is translated “new wine,” meaning sweet wine, as our word glucose means.  The mockers knew that the apostles only drank sweet wine (grape juice) and thus the heightened mocking of being so stupid as to be drunk on new wine.

Did Jesus use a fermented, leavened product to symbolize His own sinless body and blood?  Not in either case.  The juice was as unleavened as was the bread (and perfectly acceptable in the Jewish feast).

As I stated, we all come to this discussion with a bias.  My bias must be toward the total abstinence of alcoholic beverage for the believer.  This two wine view answers the questions much better.  It preserves the integrity of the Scripture and our sensibilities.

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Read More

A New Kind of Liberalism

Written by Rick Shrader

A New Kind of Liberalism

by Rick Shrader

Christianity Liberalism

 

 In 2001 Brian McLaren wrote A New Kind of Christian1in which he made bold statements against orthodox Christian beliefs.  He proposed that heaven and hell are really the same place which some will enjoy and some will not;2 salvation belongs to everyone because God loves everyone and, therefore all will eventually be reconciled to God;3 evolution is “one of God’s coolest creations;”4 and that most of Christianity is steeped in modernistic thinking and it is time we all adapted to the new postmodern world.5

In 2011 Rob Bell updated McLaren’s beliefs with his more shocking book, Love Wins.6 This has received a lot of attention because Bell’s message has also been played on YouTube and has been reviewed quickly by many good men.  Bell also denies that God will send anyone to hell forever, and redefines most of Christianity as we have known it.

However in 2010 McLaren had struck a harder blow at orthodox Christian beliefs with his book, A New Kind of Christianity7 (by the same publisher  as Love Wins). This builds on his previous book (ten years earlier) and gives an even fuller explanation of why he and others are attempting to totally redefine the faith that Christians have known for two thousand years.  The sub-title to the book is, “Ten questions that are transforming the faith.”  Before jumping into these, McLaren takes the reader through 30 pages explaining how he came to his current belief system.  It’s not an uncommon story of how a man gradually became disappointed and disillusioned with his evangelical faith and those who practice it.  McLaren grew tired of the “us and them” attitude which categorized the world into saved and lost and, worse, made God into a Bully Who loved one but would punish the other.

It is also typical of writers like McLaren and Bell to make broad generalizations and caricatures especially of fundamentalists and even evangelicals, while at the same time bemoaning (what he sees as) the name-calling and ridicule toward liberal Christians.  The conservative reader will just have to put up with this in order to get to the heart of the matter.

After having read McLaren and Bell for a while, I would say that the most striking protest they want to make is against the orthodox Christian view of an eternal hell, and of a God Who would put human beings there.  As Bell wrote,

And that is the secret deep in the heart of many people, especially Christians: they don’t love God.  They can’t, because the God they’ve been presented with and taught about can’t be loved.  That God is terrifying and traumatizing and unbearable.8

McLaren puts it this way,

Yes, I find a character named God who does a good bit of smiting, but those who are smitten are simply smitten and buried, and that’s it.  They are not shamed and tortured for a while by the ‘godly’ before death and then shamed and tortured by God after death—forever and ever, without end.9

It seems to this reviewer, that these men (and others) begin with what to them is an unacceptable teaching—a loving God who sends people to a horrible place like Hell forever!—and proceed from there to dismantle this doctrine in whatever way they can.  Whereas Bell’s book is short and shocking, McLaren’s newest book is more methodical and detailed.  I intend to let him speak for himself about his 10 questions.  To anyone who is even moderately familiar with Biblical doctrine and content, McLaren’s own words are revealing enough.

1. The Narrative Question

McLaren starts with questioning the basic understanding of the story line of the Bible.  Rather than seeing innocence in the garden, followed by a fall into sin, followed by a history of condemnation, followed by either salvation and heaven or no salvation and hell, he believes that all of that is read into the Bible through western, Greco-Roman eyes.

“What we call the biblical story line isn’t the shape of the story of Adam, Abraham, and their Jewish descendents.  It’s the shape of the Greek philosophical narrative that Plato taught!” . . . . “Now the god of this Greco-Roman version of the biblical story bears a strange similarity in many ways to Zeus (Jupiter for the Romans), but we will name him Theos.”10

From there he constantly criticizes “Theos” for being a mean and vicious God who only wants to hurt and punish people.  His point is that we got this idea of God, from reading our Bible backwards through the lens’ of the Greeks and Romans.  He doesn’t consider whether he may be reading his Bible from the wrong direction!

2. The Authority Question

This section reveals McLaren’s unorthodox view of revelation and inspiration.  Our problem has been, he says, that we take the Bible literally or as a “constitution” from which we get categorical statements rather than as a “library” which is more like an ongoing conversation.  The reader must remember that McLaren was a literature major in school whose favorite writers are men like Gustavo Gutiérrez and Hans Küng.11 McLaren believes that the Bible writers matured over the years.  The early writers wrote what they knew about God but they didn’t know very much so they described a God according to their backward, violent culture.  As time went on the Bible writers matured and God was able to use them to show His true character.  He writes,

I am saying that human beings can’t do better than their very best at any given moment to communicate about God as they understand God, and that Scripture faithfully reveals the evolution of our ancestors’ best attempts to communicate their successive best understandings of God.  As human capacity grows to conceive of a higher and wiser view of God, each new vision is faithfully preserved in Scripture like fossils in layers of sediment.  If we read the Bible as a cultural library rather than as a constitution, and if we don’t impose a Greco-Roman plotline on the biblical narrative, we are free to learn from that evolutionary process—and, we might even add, to participate in it.12

This is why he also can say, “To say that the Word (the message, meaning, or revelation) of God is in the biblical text, then, does not mean that you can extract verses or statements from the text at will and call them ‘God’s words.’”13

3. The God Question

The traditional understanding of God is a real problem for McLaren.  To take the Bible as it is leaves us with a God Who does things that seem (to him anyway) wrong and distasteful.  In speaking of the Genesis flood, for example, McLaren says,

In this light, a god who mandates an intentional supernatural disaster leading to unparalleled genocide is hardly worthy of belief, much less worship.  How can you ask your children—or nonchurch colleagues and neighbors—to honor a deity so uncreative, overreactive, and utterly capricious regarding life? . . . . Now remember, in making this contrast, I’m not trying to defend the view of God in the Noah story as morally acceptable, ethically satisfying, and theologically mature. . . . I’m recommending we notice the theological progress the story demonstrates instead of simply condemning it for not having progressed more.14

He means that the Genesis story is an improvement on the older Gilgamesh story which really portrayed God as unkind.  It’s just that the Genesis story hadn’t come nearly far enough to show us a better picture of God.  Also keep in mind that none of this means that McLaren takes the flood story literally.  He does not believe God actually did that.  This is just how the Bible tells the story so we can progress in our understanding of God.

4. The Jesus Question

To McLaren, Jesus is the only reality in Scripture.  Whether creation, history, or prophecy, only Jesus can be taken at face value.  But, it seems, even Jesus must fit McLaren’s preconceived “three-dimensional biblical paradigm” of creation, liberation, and peace-making.  He sees the Jewish point of view (rather than what he calls the old “six-line narrative”) as these three themes taken from Genesis, Exodus, and Isaiah (for no apparent reason other than his agenda).  Yet while criticizing everyone else for fitting their point of view into a preconceived perspective, McLaren forces everything in the life of Jesus (and beyond) into his three-fold mold.

In these two chapters McLaren renders all prophecy, whether in Isaiah 4 (discussed in length) or Revelation 19 (also discussed in length) as allegory and merely pictorial language of peace that Jesus brought to us in the gospels.  Dealing with no theology or theologians and using only online fanatics as examples, he ridicules those who believe Jesus came “to save us from hell.”  He says,

But even these few examples, selected from so many more, make it clear that Jesus, contrary to my dear loyal critic’s assertion, did not come merely to “save souls from hell.”  No, he came to launch a new Genesis, to lead a new Exodus, and to announce, embody, and inaugurate a new kingdom as the Prince of Peace (Isa. 9:6). Seen in this light, Jesus and his message have everything to do with poverty, slavery, and a “social agenda.”15

McLaren calls his new perspective a “renaissance” of new understanding currently taking place.  But it seems much closer to the old “liberalism” of the nineteenth century and beyond.

5. The Gospel Question

The reader may hope that in this fifth question he would see a clear gospel definition, but that hope will not be realized.  McLaren tries to blend his previous thoughts with the gospels and the book of Romans but his attempt is less than satisfying.  Noticeably, his previous reference to N.T. Wright and James Cone (p. 46) as two of his favorite authors, might give a hint to finding a gospel somewhere between the New Perspective on Paul and Liberation Theology.

McLaren starts with the gospels and their frequent “gospel of the kingdom” being “at hand.”  He defines this as a kingdom that Jesus began that is not the old Jewish idea nor the traditional Christian idea nor an eschatological idea, but “God’s new benevolent society [which is] already among us.”16

A new kingdom is much bigger than a new religion, and in fact it has room for many religious traditions within it.  This good news wasn’t simply about a new way to solve the religious problems of ontological fall and original sin (problems, remember once more, that arise centuries later and within a different narrative altogether).    It wasn’t simply information about how individual souls could leave earth, avoid hell, and ascend to heaven after death.  No, it was about God’s will being done on earth as in heaven for all people.  It was about God’s faithful solidarity with all humanity in our suffering, oppression, and evil.  It was about God’s compassion and call to be reconciled with God and with one another—before death, on earth.  It was a summons to rethink everything and enter a life of retraining as disciples or learners of a new way of life, citizens of a new kingdom.17

In the second chapter of this section, McLaren presses this definition of the kingdom of God into the book of Romans.  He describes inspiration as a “wonderful dance of the Spirit of God and the mind of a man in the context of a community in crisis.”18 He then gives seven “moves” that Paul makes as he writes this book by the Spirit.  In the end, McLaren tries to force Romans to mean that the gospel is the message that God has reconciled the world (though he often contradicts himself by referring to “everyone who believes” and similar statements) or has already finished the “justification of all humanity.”19 The invitation, evidently, is “to share a common life and mission—living out the restorative justice, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit that constitute the kingdom of God.”20

Book Two:  Emerging & Exploring.  That is what McLaren titles the second half of his ten questions.  These are shorter, outgrowths of the first five.  Therefore, and for space, I will give brief summations.

6. The Church Question 

Since the kingdom of God includes all people, churches exist to train people how to become profitable members of this kingdom.  To save someone is to rescue them from uselessness.

7. The Sex Question 

In this longest chapter of the section McLaren OKs nearly all sexual life-styles, or at least says they should be open and not condemned.  The real culprit here is what he calls “fundasexuality,” the “brand of religious fundamentalism that preoccupies itself with sexuality.”21 That is, any who still condemn homosexuality, even premarital sex,22 are the real anti-Christians who are keeping the church from being all it should be.

8. The Future Question 

McLaren unequivocally rejects a second coming of Christ (in any literal sense), especially a dispensational approach which he calls a conventional, “flatline,” deterministic view.  His view is a “3-D participatory eschatology” which defines the “parousia” (presence, specifically not an “apousia” or absence) as Jesus being present in the world since His resurrection.

If McLaren does not subscribe to an Open Theism approach to the future he subscribes to its twin.

In this 3-D view, God is not in control in the sense of being a machine operator pulling levers or a chess master moving bishops and pawns.  Nor is the universe out of control in the sense of being chaotic, random, and purposeless.  Instead, God and the universe are in relationship.23

Final judgment (he calls “reconciling”) is redefined as the time when God finally reconciles all of creation back to Himself.

 

9. The Pluralism Question

By cleverly explaining away John 14:6, McLaren does away with evangelizing non-Christians.  His new evangelism “would celebrate the good in the Christian religion . . . Just as it would in every other religion, calling people to a way of life in a kingdom (or beautiful whole) that transcends and includes all religions.”24

 

10. The What-Do-We-Do-Now Question

According to McLaren we quit the old and start the new.  He calls this “ubuntu, from Africa, a rich word meaning one-another-ness, interconnectedness, jointed-in-the-common-good-ness, and profound commitment to the well-being of all. . . The transformation of ‘the other’ into ‘one another.’”25

 

And So . . .

So much more could and needs to be said.  This is liberalism whether short-lived or long-lived.  God will see to its end either way.

 

 

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

The Highways and Hedges

Written by Rick Shrader

The Highways and Hedges

by Rick Shrader

I found the joy of the salvation of others.  Oh, the privilege, the blessed privilege, to be used of God to win a soul to Christ, and to see a man or woman being led out of bondage by some act of ours toward them.  To think that God should condescend to allow us to be coworkers with Him.  It is the highest honor we can wear.1

 Such was the compassion of D.L. Moody, a compassion that we have largely lost today!  Jesus anticipated the future evangelizing effort of the church when he described, in a parable, the great supper invitation:  “And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and the hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be full” (Luke 14:23).

H.A. Ironside said of that early church, “It is a wonderful testimony to the devotion of the early believers that even within one generation after our Lord’s ascension the evangel had been carried throughout the known world.”2 But the commission of our Lord was not finished with that first generation.  As William Carey argued to his hyper-Calvinistic brethren, the Lord’s commission was not finished with the apostles.  If we still baptize and teach in our churches, then we must still preach the gospel to all the world.  We don’t have two-thirds of a Great Commission!3

We have always had to guard against by-passing the hard work of evangelism.  The cults merely indoctrinate people into a system; the Roman church went over the whole world and baptized the nations, not gospel converts; Liberalism sought to redefine the whole world into the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man; similarly, the ECT document (Evangelicals & Catholics Together) invented a sort of “redefinition evangelism” by simply declaring all Catholics saved, supposedly accomplishing by the stroke of a pen what missionaries could not do in 2000 years!  The current climate of emerging churches (especially in the wildly popular writings of Rob Bell and Brian McLaren) has grown so tired of evangelization and seeing the world as “us and them” (i.e. saved and lost) that it has invented a new universalism where all will be saved in the end anyway. So just relax and stop feeling guilty that you are not evangelizing at all.  As John Rylands, Sr. told young William Carey, “If God wants to save the heathen, He’ll do it without your help or mine.”  How we have come full circle from his day to ours!

A.W. Tozer wrote a generation ago,

God’s invitation to men is broad but not unqualified.  The words ‘whosoever will may come’ throw the door open, indeed, but the church is carrying the gospel invitation far beyond its proper bounds, turning it into something more human and less divine than that found in the sacred Scriptures.  What we tend to overlook is that the word ‘whosoever’ never stands by itself.  Always its meaning is modified by the word ‘believe’ or ‘will’ or ‘come.’4

We must not excuse our own fundamental churches from abuses even though we faithfully witness, win souls, and give invitations.  We too have often looked at winning souls as simply obtaining a notch on our gospel gun-belts.  The sinner’s prayer is not a magic formula that only needs repeating with no personal commitment.  If all of the “souls saved” which have been reported in the last fifty years were genuine, America would be saved twice over.  The hindrance this has caused becomes obvious.  One commonly hears, in witnessing to a worldly, uninterested person, “Oh, I did that when I was a kid going to such and such church.”

Whatever the abuses of the gospel have been or the obstacles in the way today, the Word of God stands as a megaphone sending the believing child of God out into the world “that my house may be filled” (Luke 14:23).  We need not be discouraged by the slow progress or the faint-heartedness of some or the persecution of others.  L.S. Chafer wrote, “When a soul has received the redemption which is in Christ and is saved, that one is then privileged to suffer with Christ in a compassion for the lost; being prompted, in some measure, by the same divine vision and love, through the presence and power of the indwelling Spirit.”5 This is still our calling today as much as it was to those first century believers.

The world as it was then

Paul affirmed to the Galatians that Christ came into the world “in the fullness of the time” (Gal. 4:4).  Consider what advantages and help God gave to those first Christians.  The Roman roads and sea-ways provided nearly worldwide access to all people groups.  Merrill Tenney wrote, “The rule of Rome over the provinces was greatly facilitated by its excellent system of roads, which, until the recent era of the automobile, were the best that the world had ever seen.”6 In the book of Acts Luke seems almost thrilled to describe his travels with the great apostle as much as a modern traveler would be today.

The Greek language provided crucial understanding for the gospel almost everywhere it went.   Thanks to Alexander’s conquest directed by God’s providence, the Jews and Gentiles alike understood in one language.  William Ramsay wrote that “Greek was the language of all even moderately educated persons,” and that, “Graeco-Roman manners and ideas were being actively disseminated and eagerly assimilated by all active and progressive and thoughtful persons.”7 Conybeare and Howson wrote, “The Greek language had already been prepared as a medium for preserving and transmitting the doctrine; the Roman government was now prepared to help the progress even of that religion which it persecuted.”8

The Diaspora, that great dispersion of the Jews from their homeland, also took the early Jewish Christians to every part of the world.  The Jews established synagogues in most cities and kept the Sabbath and most Mosaic Laws.  This afforded the Jewish believers in those areas a ready pulpit for the gospel.  Philip Schaff described this particular advantage, “Jesus and the apostles availed themselves of this democratic privilege to preach the gospel as fulfillment of the law and the prophets. . . . Paul preached Christ in the synagogues . . .  Which furnished him a pulpit and an audience.”9

Paul used his Roman Citizenship as an access to gospel opportunity.  The provincial system of annexation by conquest gave Roman citizens liberties in areas such as Achaia, Pontus, Cappadocia, Galatia.  “The Romans never interfered with the religious freedom of the subject peoples.”10 Paul often appealed to his Roman citizenship if it helped his purpose of preaching the gospel.

Even the Bema seats of the Roman Empire helped the spread of the gospel.  Paul was helped by Gallio’s Bema judgment in Acts 18:12 when he would have otherwise been beaten and run out of town.  It was Herod’s Bema in Caesarea that allowed Paul to appeal to Caesar and be transported duty-free to Rome so he could fulfill a long-time desire to preach there also (Acts 23:35).  It was Nero’s Bema in Rome that allowed him to preach while in prison waiting for sentencing (Acts 23:11; 25:10).  Even under Rome’s own persecution, the Bema “was to give shelter to the infant church, with opportunity of safe and continued growth.”11

Persecution itself sent the infant church into all parts of the world fulfilling the great commission.  Acts 1:8 outlines Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and then the uttermost parts of the earth as the road map for the gospel dissemination.  This becomes the outline for the book of Acts.  Even the apostolic gifts were exercised in this order to help the witness of the apostles.12 Beginning with the stoning of the first martyr, Stephen, the church was forced to spread out in these four areas.  “And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at [1] Jerusalem; and they were scattered abroad throughout the regions of [2] Judea and [3] Samaria” (Acts 8:1).  “Therefore they that were scattered abroad went [4] everywhere preaching the word” (Acts 8:4).

The divine wisdom of the local church itself was a great advantage for the spread of the gospel.  This simple form of Christian gathering was flexible enough and mobile enough to be practiced in any locale where God’s people were scattered.  It was not only “multi-cultural” in that, by conversion, it was made up of Jews and Gentiles, bond and free, it was also “omni-cultural” in that it could exist in many places and circumstances.  The great Ephesian church began this way.  “But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he [Paul] departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus.  And this continued by the space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks” (Acts 19:9-10).

The World as it is today

God has not left Himself without witness today nor without the availability of the gospel to all people.  Travel today is nearly a miraculous thing compared to world travel throughout history and until just a hundred years ago.  Today’s missionaries can come and go from and to the fields of the world in a matter of hours rather than weeks and months.  In addition  there are amazing internet and satellite communications that allow instant audio and visual communication anywhere in the world.

For centuries English has been the most common language for travel and has allowed an English-speaking traveler to navigate through almost any location.  And now, because of technology, languages are learned quickly and Bible translation is done easier and is therefore traveling  faster to every part of the globe.

American citizenship has helped the gospel go around the world since WWII.  Many missionaries in the 40s and 50s were GIs who went back to the land of their military service.  Yet in most advanced countries, like the United States, the mission field is coming to us.  Immigration, the ease of world travel, and commerce, bring people to our shores that we cannot reach in any other way.

The local church is still God’s divine agency in this dispensation of grace.  By its amazing adaptability, it continues to spread and preach the gospel in all parts of the world.  Though we see the number of volunteers needed to go into all the world and the funds needed to send them waning, the possibilities are still numerous.  Churches at home will trim their appetites if necessary in order to find missionary money.  Bible colleges and seminaries will find ways to operate more leanly in order to continue to train young men and women who are willing to go.  God’s people will see the crisis coming that would result if we do not sacrifice, and they will adjust their lifestyles in order to continue supporting God’s work.

Most of all, the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ is still the only hope of the world.  It does not need updating nor refining.  It has gone through rough waters before and still stands.  Paul’s anathema upon any who would change it is still in effect today (Gal. 1:8-9).  We are sent to evangelize the world even though we will not be able to convert it.  It is not ours to help the gospel by making it more palatable to those who don’t want it.  Ours is but to offer the great love and forgiveness of Christ.  And “as many as received him, to them gave he the power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name” (John 1:12).

We are still to go to the highways and hedges of our world.  Wherever our “synagogues” or “temple steps” are today we must go with the good news that Jesus saves.  Let us not forget to shod our feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace.

O Zion haste, thy mission high fulfilling,

To tell to all the world that God is Light;

That He who made all nations is not willing

One soul should perish, lost in shades of night.

Give of thy sons to bear the message glorious;

Give of thy wealth to speed them on their way;

Pour out thy soul for them in prayer victorious,

And all thou spendest Jesus will repay.

Publish glad tidings, tidings of peace;

Tidings of Jesus, Redemption and release.

 

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

Does Love Win?

Written by Matt Shrader

Does Love Win?

by Matt Shrader

Recently, there has been an explosion of attention focused on Rob Bell and his new book, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, which was released in March 2011 by HarperOne. The buzz surrounding this book began when Bell posted an introductory video to his book which contained strong statements concerning heaven, hell, and the love of God. The blogosphere has exploded; responses have been written and given via video; conferences have had panel discussions to discuss Bell’s book and the related issues; and Bell has appeared on various television talk shows discussing his book and the huge attention it is receiving.

With the publication of Love Wins Bell has been accused of many things including being a universalist, preaching a false gospel, and ultimately serving a false god. Bell pastors in Grand Rapids, Michigan a church which averages 10,000 attendees per week. It is reported that up to 50,000 receive Bell’s sermon podcast each week. Love Wins has become a New York Times bestseller (this is not the first successful book Bell has written). Also, Bell has helped to produce a series of popular short films on issues of spirituality. Bell has considerable influence and attention directed toward him which warrant, at the least, that we take a closer look at what he is saying and make a few decisions concerning his claims.

 

Summary of Love Wins

Bell writes his book for those “who have become acutely aware that Jesus’s [sic] story has been hijacked by a number of other stories, stories Jesus isn’t interested in telling” (vii). Bell says he is writing  “for all those, everywhere, who have heard some version of the Jesus story that cause their pulse rate to rise, their stomach to churn, and their heart to utter those resolute words, ‘I would never be a part of that’” (viii). So, what is it that has been  hijacked? Bell answers:

A staggering number of people have been taught that a select few Christians will spend forever in a peaceful, joyous place called heaven, while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better. It’s been clearly communicated that this belief is a central truth of the Christian faith and to reject it is, in essence, to reject Jesus. This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus’s message of love, peace, forgiveness, and joy that our world desperately needs to hear (viii). 

Bell wants to give responses to the questions that are asked about salvation. Many of these questions are real and difficult, but important. Bell wants to know what is heaven; what is hell; the kind of God who is behind that; how salvation ought to be understood; how exclusive is Jesus; and what is the gospel.

What is heaven? Bell sees the word “heaven” as a substitute for the name of God. Bell also sees heaven as the future reality of the age to come. Bell’s third conception of heaven is his focus. It is the idea of heaven as a present reality. It is “our present eternal, intense, real experiences of joy, peace, and love in this life, this side of death and the age to come” (58-9). Bell has defined eternal life in a very specific way: “Eternal life is less about a kind of time that starts when we die, and more about a quality and vitality of life lived now in connection to God” (59). So, heaven and eternal life are referring to the possibility of a certain kind of experience now and in the age to come.

When Bell talks about hell he refers to the times when love, grace, and humanity are rejected, whether in this life or the next. For Bell, hell is not a place of torment, it is not final, and it is not eternal. Bell summarizes what he means by hell:

We need a loaded, volatile, adequately violent, dramatic, serious word to describe the very real consequences we experience when we reject the good and true and beautiful life that God has for us. We need a word that refers to the big, wide, terrible evil that comes from the secrets hidden deep within our hearts all the way to the massive, society-wide collapse and chaos that comes when we fail to live in God’s world God’s way.

And for that,

the word “hell” works quite well. Let’s keep it (93).

Bell asks the question: “Does God get what God wants?” (95). Bell presents a view of God which says that because God is loving, all will be reconciled to him. Without that reality, God would be less than great. Bell says that God gets what God wants and we get what we want. If we want hell or heaven, it is ours because we are completely free.

Salvation, for Bell, has to be cosmic in scope and is essentially the new creation. Bell argues that the metaphors of salvation (reconciliation, redemption, etc.) are merely ways that first century believers described the cross and the resurrection. They tried to describe the “epic event” (129) of Jesus making all things into the new creation. Jesus has started the ball rolling toward the reconciliation of all things which is a restoration of the original plan of creation.

So, if God is undoubtedly reconciling all to him and Jesus has started this at the cross, is Jesus the only Savior? Bell claims that he holds to an “exclusivity on the other side of inclusivity” (154). Bell explains John 14:6:

What [Jesus] doesn’t say is how, or when, or in what manner the mechanism functions that gets people to God through him. He doesn’t even state that those coming to the Father through him will even know that they are coming exclusively through him. He simply claims that whatever God is doing in the world to know and redeem and love and restore the world is happening through him (154).

So, Jesus is the way, but you may not understand that it is Jesus you are coming though. You may come through the mechanism of Buddhism or Hinduism or anything that actually teaches any part of the truth. There is a “mystery present in all the world” (157), Christianity merely names it correctly.

What then is the gospel? Bell argues that it is not about entrance into heaven but about joyous participation in it. Bell does not want to frame the gospel in terms of entrance because this a “destructive, violent understanding of God” (183). Bell argues that when we make God to be one who determines (based on a decision) who enters where, then God becomes  a terrible slave driver who demands sin to be punished by his wrath (183). Bell says: “We shape our God, and then our God shapes us” (182-4). The gospel is not about how to gain entrance because that contains connotations that God would become all that Bell has just called bad. As Bell says: “The good news is better than that.” Grace and love, for Bell, simply are (187-91). The gospel is that all are forgiven. What we believe or do does not get forgiveness, “it just is.” Salvation is becoming aware of the forgiveness that is already yours.

Bell ends his book with this invitation:

Whatever you’ve been told about the end–

the end of your life,

the end of time,

the end of the world-

Jesus passionately urges us to live like the end is here, now, today.

Love is what God is,

love is why Jesus came,

and love is why he continues to come,

year after year to person after person.

Love is why I’ve written this book, and

love is what I want to leave you with.

May you experience this vast,

expansive, infinite, indestructible love

that has been yours all along.

May you discover that this love is as wide

as the sky and as small as the cracks in

your heart no one else knows about.

And may you know,

deep in your bones,

that love wins. (197-8)

 

A Short Response:

It is difficult to critique Bell’s writings because there is so much with whichto disagree. Kevin DeYoung has written a very helpful review of Love Wins (“God is Still Holy and What You Learned in Sunday School is Still True,” available at: 

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2011/03/14/rob-bell-love-wins-review/). 

Love Wins. The theology is heterodox. The history is inaccurate. The impact on souls is devastating. And the use of Scripture is indefensible. Worst of all, Love Wins demeans the cross and misrepresents God’s character” (Ibid., 2). DeYoung goes on to spend 20 pages meticulously showing the faults of Bell’s book, and even he admits that he is selective in his critique. To pick and choose what to talk about is very difficult. However, a few general issues are worth considering. 

The Importance of Context. It is possible to pick up Love Wins and read something out of it that sounds very good. Bell is quite adamant that he is orthodox. If you read Love Wins you ought to read the entire book and understand what he is saying in light of the context of the book and how he has defined words and concepts (that advice transfers to his videos). For instance, Bell denies being a universalist. He would argue that there is a real hell that people go through if they reject Jesus. But, what he means is that rejecting Jesus is simply not realizing that you are already forgiven and not living like it. So, hell can be now or in the next life. It is not a place of torment. Also, hell is not final and does not last forever (88-93). He believes you do not have to believe in Christ in this life in order to get past hell (110). In the end, God will reconcile all things. Somehow everyone will accept their forgiveness and God’s love and will move past their self-inflicted hell. In other words: Love Wins! Bell denies that hell is everlasting for anyone. He affirms that everyone will eventually become saved (which is simply to realize you are already forgiven). While Bell contends that he is not a universalist (because he has redefined it), how can he not be considered one?

Unfounded Claims. If you read Love Wins you need to take Bell’s own advice: wrestle with it to see if it is correct. A major frustration I have is that the majority of the book makes claims which are not founded, and yet many will simply accept as true! As DeYoung highlights in his review, Bell makes unfounded assumptions on issues of evangelicalism, history, exegesis, eschatology, Christology, the Gospel, and God. Bell misrepresents positions such as the nature of traditional evangelicalism and the major positions of historic Christianity concerning the redemption of all things. Bell argues: “At the center of the Christian tradition since the first church have been a number who insist that history is not tragic, hell is not forever, and love, in the end, wins and all will be reconciled to God” (109). Bell may be able to find a few who take these positions, but the reality is that Bell’s version of universalism is nowhere near the center of historic orthodoxy! Bell also provides questions which misrepresent a certain position and make it sound absurd. For instance, Bell asks: “Does God punish people for thousands of years with infinite, eternal torment for things they did in their few finite years of life?” (2). Bell questions on what basis God would choose these people and then questions what kind of God that is. Bell continues his questions page after page. Through similar questioning tactics, Bell misrepresents many viewpoints. 

Essential Beliefs. When Bell presents his views of the gospel, of Jesus, of God, and of the nature of Christianity (which are far removed from orthodoxy), he proves to be heterodox. What you believe and teach is essential because it does impact people for good or for ill. Bell’s gospel teaches an errant path to God which has massive consequences for the souls of those who accept it.

Many have been enraged that Bell is labeled as a universalist and that his teachings are called heretical and heterodox. They argue that Bell is trying to be a good Christian and love people. This response to Love Wins is not an attack on Bell as a person, it is an exercise of calling false what is not the truth. True love will tell a person the truth. The truth is that sin is real. Hell is a real place of torment. Jesus makes exclusive claims (Acts 4:12). The wrath of God does abide on those who do not believe (John 3:16, 36). There are areas of belief where charity is important, but there are also areas where lines must be drawn. When faith, God, and the gospel are redefined and re-explained the line has already been drawn. It is truth that is at stake! 

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

A Word About Small Churches

Written by Rick Shrader

A Word About Small Churches

by Rick Shrader

There is no more satisfying statement to the New Testament believer than John’s on the Isle of Patmos, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day” (Rev. 1:10).  That says everything to us.  John was a believer who possessed the Holy Spirit, who, though no one else cared what he did that day, made special effort to prepare himself for worship on the day commonly recognized by believers as the day of Christ’s resurrection, or the Lord’s Day.  The circumstances of his confinement on Patmos had been of God’s providence.  He was there “for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ” (1:9).  But circumstances, whether difficult or easy, do not detract from the believer’s primary focus, that of worshiping God through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.  And this John was determined to do!

Would I be far off if I surmised that most Christians today, faced with the same circumstances as John, would not have “been in the Spirit on the Lord’s day?”  It would have been bad enough knowing that no one else was going to be at church except you, but add to that the fact that there would be no coffee and donuts (in itself enough to stop many Baptists); no tailor made class time to be led through an easy five-step lesson; no praise team to give a mini-concert in the main service; no power point presentation; not much of anything except you, your Bible, and the Lord.  And I am inclined to believe that John had attended many services already on Patmos with no other added attraction than that.  John’s Lord’s Day service, however, was more profitable than any before because the Lord Himself was there in person and John fell at His feet as dead in reverent worship.

It has been an observation of mine for some time now that if we reduced church services to the irreducible minimum of what a service could be, few would be interested in it at all.  If we were forced by circumstance to experience Jesus’ hypothetical, “Where two or three are gathered together in my name” (Matt. 18:20), I’m not sure that many would still attend even though they believed the related promise, “there am I in the midst of them.”  Would we be truly warmed and filled in a church service with two or three people singing a simple song, having a time of prayer, and someone bringing a lesson from God’s Word?  I’m not saying that we should only create such a format, I’m saying that if we are true worshipers of Jesus Christ, we should be satisfied if that’s all we have.  Sure we would like to have some more things going on, but do we attend for those “things” or for the pure worship of the Lord?

Not long ago I read an article from a man who makes it his ministry to revitalize “dead” churches.  What is usually meant by “dead” is that there is little else going on there besides simple (pure) worship.  If the church once had 200 and now it only has 50 attendees; if the church building once looked new but now it looks run down; if there were more visitors in the past than now come; if the average age has gone from 35 to 55; and if the pastor still preaches 45 minutes without any electronic help in what amounts to a long lecture, then that church is a “dead” church.  Evidently, in this definition, fewer can’t worship as well as more; older aren’t as valuable as younger; up-to-date trumps out-of-date; and visual experience is always better than audio experience.  This is why many of our rural churches are looked down upon and why few young ministers would consider pastoring in such a setting.  It is also why many so-called revitalizing ministries make grand assumptions as to what the church needs with little thought of mere worship.

Recently I had a wonderful lunch with two young brothers, Dan and Ben, who are both seminary graduates and are both now pastoring small rural churches in Iowa and loving it.  They didn’t grow up there, but God led them both to their respective churches and they have grown to love the people and are working hard in both shepherding and evangelizing.  I thought to myself, “how many young people would even consider such ministries?”  I can imagine it at my age (61) because I have come to a place where I no longer care about the bells and whistles of larger ministries, but for these young men to be satisfied with Jesus simply being “in the midst” was truly refreshing.

Jesus commissioned John to write to seven churches in Asia which were probably very similar to our rural churches.  At least they weren’t mega churches by any stretch of the imagination.  In fact, the Jerusalem church, due to its unique history and geography, seems to be the only really large church in the New Testament.  Yet these Asian churches were important to Christ and became the examples (positive and negative) for all churches in the coming church age.  Here are a few observations about these churches.

Size was not important

We cannot know the exact size of these churches but we do know that John places no emphasis on it.  Wm. Ramsay, in one book, describes the cities as “spots here and there, showing only as dots on a map, small islets in the great sea of stagnant, unruffled, immovable Orientalism.”1 In all of the Lord’s admonitions to these seven churches, nowhere does He speak of their success or failure due to the size of the church.  He does, however, encourage faithfulness regardless of the amount of opposition.  “and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine” (2:24); “Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments” (3:4).

Maybe it is just our human nature to measure success by size.  I remember being very happy when my home church was listed as one of the ten largest Sunday Schools in America by Elmer Towns!  But we were more like Vance Havner said, “The church has moved from the catacombs to the Coliseum in its emphasis on size.”2 Yet still today the first question a pastor is asked is, “how large is your church?”  Jesus never asked that question.  The Bema may inquire “how” but not “how much?”

Notoriety was not important

Laodicea was perhaps the richest and therefore most well-known city, but this surely wasn’t an asset to the church of Laodicea.  Smyrna and Philadelphia are the only two churches which receive no rebuke, and to Smyrna Jesus says, “I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty (but thou are rich)” (2:9).  They were rich in spirituality, though poor in earthly goods.  To Philadelphia He said, “For thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and not denied my name” (3:8).  Notoriety with the Lord has to do with faithfulness, not with worldly popularity.

Paul reminded the Corinthian church that, “we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise” (2 Cor. 10:12).  Paul told Timothy that some think that “gain is godliness” (1 Tim. 6:5), or literally, “godliness is a means to gain.”  If the pastoral ministry becomes only a road to success, then we have our reward.

Busyness was a side issue

Too many times we associate busyness with ministry or worship.  We get so intent on making sure that everyone has a place of “service” that no one is going to church!  In fact, I think we have forgotten how to just go to church.  It ought to grieve us that it takes so many helpers to put the average church service together.  The number one intention of every church attendee ought to be—to be in church!

To every church in Asia Jesus said, “I know thy works.”  Yet five out of those seven times He also says something like, “nevertheless I have somewhat against thee” (2:4), or “But I have a few things against thee” (2:14).  A.W. Tozer wrote, “Our meetings are characterized by cordiality, humor, affability, zeal and high animal spirits; but hardly anywhere do we find gatherings marked by the overshadowing presence of God.”3

Purity was important

For some reason we tend to think that purity, holiness, or righteousness are enemies of a “revitalized” church.  But the fact is,  “vital” means “life” and there is no life for the church without holy life.  For the true worshiper of Jesus Christ, no amount of people, activity, or possessions can take the place of a pure walk with God.  And this pure walk ought to be manifest in church as well as anywhere else.

Nothing stands out in these seven letters more than the Lord’s scathing rebuke for the intermingling of ungodliness within the church.  Pergamos had within it the doctrine of Balaam and of the Nicolaitans, “which thing I hate” says the Lord (2:15).  Thyatira had allowed a prophetess He calls “Jezebel” to seduce God’s people yet Jesus is the One Who “searches the reins and hearts” (2:23).  Laodicea needed to buy white raiment (purity) “that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear” (3:18).  It seems the lack of separation from the moral evils of the world began early in church history.

The Word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ were central

Not only was John on the isle of Patmos for this reason (1:2, 9), the churches are either commended or reprimanded for the same reason.  Philadelphia was a good church with an open door from the Lord, “for thou has a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name” (3:8).  To them He also said, “Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth” (3:10).  The promise of rapture is to those who know and hold the Word of God.

What could be more central to local church worship than these two things?  It was all John had on Patmos and those in prison at Smyrna had little else except the expectation of a martyr’s death (2:10).  Could we come to church week after week just to sing a hymn about Jesus Christ and to hear a message from the Word of God?  Would our kids come for the same reason?  Would the youth group be as large?  Or would we just have a few older saints who would be seen as a “dead” church?

A fortress mentality was commended

It is interesting how we have twisted such wording today and made it a bad thing.  We seem to think that a church cannot “hold the fort” and also keep the faith; that we cannot be a “holy huddle” and also a city set on a hill.  I think such thinking reveals its own narrowness.  If our churches cannot be strongholds of safety for believers, and shelters in which we can hide from the world, then we certainly cannot be Biblical churches.

To the church in Philadelphia Jesus said, “Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown” (3:11).  To the church at Thyatira (at least to the “rest in Thyatira”) Jesus said, “But that which ye have already hold fast till I come” (2:25).  We still have P.P Bliss’ song in our song books, “Hold The Fort” and it is in the same section as Luther’s “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God,” both in the Christian Warfare section.

And So . . . .

I have been in John Bunyan’s church building in Bedford, England.  I have seen the roll sheets of services in his day:  Twenty five, maybe thirty names.  Yet no man was ever so glad to meet with those few precious saints as the man who had been in jail for his faith.    He once wrote, “When a company of saints are gathered together in the name of Christ to perform any spiritual exercise, and their souls be edified, warmed and made glad therein, it is because this water, this river of water of life, has in some of the streams thereof, run into that assembly.”4

I have seen similar roll sheets for William Carey’s church and even John Newton’s.  I doubt that any of those attendees believed their churches were in need of revitalization!  And indeed, they were not.

 

Notes:
1. Wm. M. Ramsay, The Letters to the Seven Churches (New York:  Hodder & Stoughton, nd) 134-135.
2. Vance Havner, Hearts Afire (Old Tappan:  Fleming H. Revell, nd) 113.
3. A.W. Tozer, Worship and Entertainment (Camp Hill, Penn:  Christian Pub, 1997) 30.
4. John Bunyan, The Water of Life , 60.

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

In The Law of Christ

Written by Rick Shrader

In The Law of Christ

by Rick Shrader

 When Paul wrote that if we walked in the Spirit we would not fulfill the lust of the flesh (Gal. 5:16) and that if we bore one another’s burdens we would fulfill the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2), he was lifting us to higher ground than we commonly know.  To the Romans he wrote, “for the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death” (Rom. 8:2).  We are usually more aware that the law of sin and death has ended than we are that the law of the Spirit in Christ Jesus is now operative in us.  However, we really cannot know one without the other, or at least we shouldn’t.

For that reason I want to walk the long way around the barn to get to the door.  A full and sure grasp that we are no longer under the law will set us free from the works of the law but then, being set free, we need a new compass that will direct us to a greater, even higher, law of love and of the Spirit.  When Jesus was giving kingdom principles to the Jews in what we call the sermon on the mount, He used the formula, “Ye have heard that it hath been said . . . . But I say unto you” (see Matt. 5:21-48).  His words lift us from mere non-violence to right thinking; from avoiding fornication to avoiding thinking about fornication; from not swearing in anger to not swearing at all; and from not hating our enemies to loving our enemies.  With the completion of the New Testament canon these principles will also be seen in the transition from law into grace, from flesh into Spirit, from the law of Moses into the law of Christ.

To understand our position in this law of Christ we must clearly see this dispensational transition.  The following progression of thought will help clarify that change.

The Mosaic law is only one expression of the law of God.

We should not think that “law” has only existed from Moses to Christ.  God said to Isaac, hundreds of years before the law, “Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws” (Gen. 26:5).  Paul reminded his readers in Rome that Gentiles, who have not had the Mosaic law, nevertheless have “the work of the law written on their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness” (Rom. 2:15).  God gave Adam and Eve laws to keep which had eternal consequences for obeying and disobeying.

In a Faith Pulpit article, Dr. Myron Houghton listed nine ways in which the Bible can refer to law.1  These range from the Ten Commandments to any statement in Scripture that condemns or makes a person feel guilty.  This is important because some may think that if we believe that we are no longer under the law, then we are guilty of lawlessness.  But man has never been without a law from God though it may not have been the Mosaic law.  The word “dispensation” literally means “the law of the household” and there have been dispensations before and after the Mosaic period, each containing specific revelation incumbent upon those believers living at that time.

The Mosaic law had a definite beginning and ending.

Paul wrote, “Wherefore then serveth law?  It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made” (Gal. 3:19).  The Abrahamic covenant (Gal. 3:18) was in effect before Moses and remains in effect after Moses (Gal. 3:17) as an unconditional covenant.  But the law, given through Moses at Mt. Sinai, was given to Israel alone for a specific time as a conditional covenant.  Alva J. McClain wrote, “Viewed as a law code, it was given to Israel because of sin.”2  L.S. Chafer wrote, “The Law which came by Moses is declared to be an interim dealing which served its purpose during the interval of 1,500 years extending between its enactment and the death of Christ.”3  The law began at Sinai when God made a covenant with the nation of Israel (Ex. 24:8; Deut. 29:1) and ended when Christ finished His redemptive work on the cross.  “For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (Jn. 1:17).

The New Testament gives specific statements that the law ended with Christ.  “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for you are not under the law, but under grace” (Rom. 6:14).  “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.  But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster” (Gal. 3:24-25).  Paul often uses the word katarge?, meaning to put away or abolish in describing the ending of the law:  “Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances” (Eph. 2:15; see also 2 Cor. 3:7, 11, 14, “done away;” 3:13, “abolished”).

Paul is very specific that the law ended with Christ.  “For Christ is the end [telos] of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth” (Rom. 10:4).  Douglas Moo writes, “Paul’s use of telos points to a meaning that is perhaps best translated in English as ‘culmination,’ combining the ideas of both goal and end.  In other words, Paul is saying that Christ is the one to whom the law has all along been pointing—its goal.  But now that goal has been reached, the regime of the law is ended, just as a race is ended once the finish line, its goal, has been attained.”4

Mosaic law is still a large part of the Scripture.

The period covering the law of Moses takes up most of the Bible.  It starts in Exodus and goes until the cross of Christ.  Because the law has been abolished, does that mean it no longer has a place in the Word of God?  No.  Again, all dispensations are found somewhere in the Bible but we only live in one of them (for us, of course, the dispensation of grace).   Since all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16-17), so also is the Mosaic law.  I can learn, be admonished, be warned, and even grow in my Christian walk from reading the law portions of the Old Testament.  But that is not to say that I live under the Mosaic law any more than that I live under the dispensation of Innocence in the garden of Eden just because I read about it in the Bible.

In fact, Arnold Fruchtenbaum (a converted Chasidic Jew) points out about the law, “Nearly all the regulations of the corpus—over ninety-five percent—are so culturally specific, geographically limited, and so forth, that they would be completely inapplicable, and in fact unfulfillable, to Christians living throughout the world today.”5  Yet because the Mosaic law is a large part of Scripture, I read it and profit from it continually.

Since God’s laws are always in existence, today’s church lives under whatever commands exist for her at this time.

This same reasoning has always been true for any believer of any age.  God reveals Himself to His followers with various instructions, commands, or prohibitions (see again Gen. 26:5), and those followers follow Him by keeping His laws.  I don’t have to build an ark just because God commanded Noah to do so.  I don’t have to keep the Sabbath just because God commanded the Israelites to do so.  Nor do I have to go to Jerusalem to see the King once every year just because that is what we will do in the millennial reign of Christ.  But I do have to be baptized (1 Pet. 3:21) and attend church regularly (Heb. 10:25) because these are specific commands given to me for this age of grace.  These, and many other things, become God’s law to us who live in the present age.

Many worry when we say that the Mosaic law is completely abolished because there are many good things in it which we still follow today (most of the ten commandments, for example).  But we do not keep the ten commandments because they are in the Mosaic law but because they are reiterated for us in the New Testament.  Charles Lee Feinberg (in a 1938 article) pointed out specifically where all of the ten commandments are repeated in the New Testament with the notable exception of the fourth, keeping the Sabbath day.6  It is nowhere reinstituted in the New Testament.  That means, then, that for the New Testament believer, these nine things are specific laws for us in this age of grace, but that Sabbath keeping is not.  I don’t look to be commanded to stop specific Mosaic laws since the whole law was annulled, I look for specific laws to be reiterated for the age in which I live.

The church is a new body in Christ and under the law of Christ.

Those who have believed on Christ since the Day of Pentecost (and until the rapture of the church) have been baptized by the Holy Spirit into the new body, the church.  This new body is being formed by the regeneration of the Spirit which includes Spirit baptism (1 Cor. 12:13) into the body of Christ.  It is a Spirit circumcision of our old life (Phil. 3:3; Col. 2:11) rather than a physical circumcision of the Mosaic law.  This new body (the very Bride of Christ) lives in a heavenly presence before God because, in this spiritual salvation, Jesus Christ has brought us through the veil of His flesh into the very presence of God (Heb. 10:1-25), and we are seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:6).

The believer in this age, therefore, is not under the law of Moses (a law for an entirely different age) but is under the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2).  The believer now has the Holy Spirit living in him and therefore this law of Christ can be called “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:2).  As God has given us the law of Christ (the “New” Testament), we live by it in the power of the Spirit to fulfill that law which is a fulfillment of all righteousness (Rom. 8:4).  This is seen specifically in our love for the brethren, “for love is the fulfilling of the law” (Rom. 13:10).

D.R. de Lacey writes, “That the ‘law of the Spirit of life’ is not the Torah in other guise is evident from the fact that it achieves precisely what the law could not do (Rom. 8:3).  Here as before (see on 7:25) ‘law’ represents the controlling power over a man.  For the Christian it is supremely that of the Spirit of life, whose working transcends the law, for as well as fulfilling the law’s requirement, it provides life and peace.”7  The book of Galatians has been called the “Declaration of Independence” of the New Testament.  In it Paul proclaims “liberty” from the law of Moses (2:4, 5:1) and reminds us that “a man is not justified by the works of the law” (2:16).  But neither does Paul want us to be born of the Spirit and then live by the law of Moses.  In that case we would be “a debtor to do the whole law” (5:3) and “fallen from grace” (5:4) as a way of life.  In addition, just as the “works of the flesh” (6:19-21) are natural for the unbeliever, the “fruit of the Spirit” (6:22-23) is natural for those who possess the Spirit.  “If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit” (6:25).  That is, if we have been born again by the Spirit of God and have been brought into this new relationship with Christ, if the “love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us” (Rom. 5:5), then we can live in a way which the law of Moses could never produce.  We can be filled with the Spirit.

Paul, then, begins the sixth chapter by addressing “ye which are spiritual” (6:1) and admonishes us to “bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ” (6:2).  He will end this concluding chapter by writing, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature” (6:15).  This is what we are when we know Christ by faith.  We are new creatures in Christ and old things have passed away and all things have become new (2 Cor. 5:17).  We worship God in a new way, on a new day, with a new law, and with a full assurance of faith.

Notes:

1. Myron Houghton, “Distinguishing Law and Grace,” Faith Pulpit, June/July, 1998.

2. Alva J. McClain, Law and Grace (Chicago:  Moody press, 1967) 33.

3. L.S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, vol. IV (Dallas:  Dallas Seminary Press, 1969) 159.

4. Douglas Moo, “The law of Christ as the fulfillment of the law of Moses:  A modified Lutheran view,” Five Views on Law and Gospel, Stanley Gundry, ed., (Grand Rapids:  Zondervan, 1999) 359.

5. Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Israelology:  The Missing Link in Systematic Theology (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 1989) 663.

6. Charles Lee Feinberg, “The Sabbath and the Lord’s Day,” Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1938.

7. D.R. de Lacey, “The Sabbath/Sunday Question and the Law in the Pauline Corpus,” From Sabbath to Lord’s Day, D.A. Carson, ed., (Eugene:  Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1982) 172.

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

Why We Love The Brethren

Written by Rick Shrader

Why We Love The Brethren

by Rick Shrader

Love is one of those things that almost all people think they possess.  Brotherly love is something that almost all believers would say they possess and practice as well as most Christians.  We know God has loved the world of people, that believers ought to love other believers, and yet we also know that there is a lot of hypocrisy hidden behind hand shaking, back slapping, and the common, “God bless you.”  

The fact is, this is a broken world!  We are very aware that it is God’s world in the sense that He is the Creator and Owner, but sin has made it a fallen world with Satan as the god of its commerce and culture, who has taken over and usurped the Owner’s position.  The longer time rolls on since that fateful day of Adam’s choice, and the longer the Lord delays His coming, the more broken it will become.

God has a plan, however, for the future of this world and for eternity.  Through redemption that is provided by faith in Jesus Christ, His Son, God is taking the world back one person at a time.  Eventually, Christ Himself will return and finish the takeover and bring in everlasting righteousness and peace where these redeemed ones will reign with Him in the “kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him” (Jas. 2:5).  The present evangelistic enterprise has both a broad and narrow scope to it.  Whosoever will believe the message of redemption and future reward may become a part of this great company of saints (Jn. 3:16).  Yet, no one may come any other way (Jn. 14:6).  Those who do come have a distinguishing mark upon them from public baptism, the confession of their new-found faith and their change of allegiance.  They also have a retreat center called the church, where they meet weekly and sometimes daily to strengthen their resolve and to make plans for the continuation of their mission.

These believers find themselves in stark contrast with their former comrades.  In an almost surprising realization, they find that their former friends resent their conversion and the change that has come over them and they “speak evil” against them (1 Pet. 2:12; 3:16; 4:4).  But no wonder!  These converts have experienced a new birth that has made them new creatures by a wonderful regeneration performed by the Holy Spirit of God (Tit. 3:5).

Out of love, these converts speak to their former comrades of a coming day of wrath and judgment from God upon those who refuse to accept the proffered salvation.  But this only brings more resentment and even retaliation from these former friends.  They do not believe that a God of love can also be wrathful, even over outright sinfulness and unrighteousness.  They are usually the same ones who have a hard time with the “rule of law” in their own civil society.  For them, law and love just don’t go together.

So the feud between families continues, sparked by Satan himself who has “blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them” (2 Cor. 4:4).  Satan is “the accuser of the brethren” (Rev. 12:10) and keeps this war stirred up, even to a fever pitch at times, while the saints continue to speak what the worldlings consider “hate speech.”  Though this “gospel” continues to make Satan angry and many of his worldlings hateful, many are also converted by its wonderful message of redemption and they return to their rightful Owner.  With children and future generations at stake, believers continue their weekly retreats and the waging of their holy war to rescue more of Satan’s captives.

The preceding is a depiction of spiritual life for the believer while still on this earth.  It is a reminder of how badly we need the local church and how we need local churches to remain faithful to their purpose in Scripture.  While doing some reading recently I was reminded of a Barna survey in which he found that Christians don’t live any differently than non-Christians.1 The problem is that Barna assumes that anyone who says he’s a Christian really is a Christian, and if that person doesn’t live differently because of his faith, then evidently the Christian faith doesn’t really change people.  Barna should have concluded, of course, that if a person makes a profession of faith in Christ and his life doesn’t change, he should seriously question whether his faith is real.  That would be the Biblical way to look at it because the Bible definitely tells us that salvation changes a person.

 

 

Some Immediate Changes

One of the major changes that takes place in a person’s life when he becomes a believer is his view of other believers.  The immediate common thread that exists among believers is that they have all come out of darkness into light (1 Pet. 2:9).  If they understand the Bible at all they realize that they were under the condemnation and righteous wrath of God, and now have been delivered by God’s grace.  They have become members one of another in the family of God (Eph. 4:25).  This love for the family of God is shed abroad in the hearts of believers  from the moment of spiritual conception (Rom. 5:5).  This new love of God’s family is called “love of the brethren” (1 Jn. 3:14), the “brotherhood” (1 Pet. 2:17), or just “brothers” and “sisters,” “fathers” and “mothers” (1 Tim. 5:1-2).  Jesus first called His followers “brethren” on the day of His resurrection (John 20:17) and early in the church’s life the whole group is addressed the same (Acts 6:3).  Acts 15 has eleven references to the same wording.  It is a family relationship.

A second major change that takes place when anyone is converted from Satan’s lordship to Christ’s is that they are no longer part of the old way of life, or what the Bible calls the “world.”  Immediately the Holy Spirit begins changing them from the inside out.  Because they are “new creatures” (2 Cor. 5:17) in Christ, Holy Spirit conviction and instruction from the Word of God begins changing their mind and heart.  They are uncomfortable in the old worldly settings.  The very language that used to flow so easily from their mouth now offends themselves!  The sins that were so easily committed and enjoyed by the flesh now bring conviction and a desire to be removed from them entirely.

A third change comes especially on Sunday.  This used to be a day off, or a day to sober up, or a day to sleep in.  Now the new believer learns that this is the day when, from the very beginning (John 20:19, 26), believers have met together, yes, are commanded to meet together (Heb. 10:25; 1 Cor: 16:2; Acts 20:7).  In fact, these believers love and enjoy these meetings so much that they meet twice on Sunday and then again on Wednesday evening, and fill their calendar with various other meetings!  The new convert cannot miss the fact that he should be in church with the other brethren, especially on Sunday.

Some Expected Changes

As the new believer grows in Christ and time allows him to observe a few things, he learns for the first time what many of us take for granted.  He learns that the church is made up of Christians, that is, people who have been converted as he was.  It is not just a place for religious-feeling people who like to make a show of religion on Sunday.  These are truly born again people who have been changed from their old lives also.

He also finds that the church has two obligations (we like to call them ordinances) to which he is being orientated.  He finds that baptism is not only  a pattern in Scripture (Acts 2:41, 8:36; 9:18; 10:47; etc.) but it is something he must do immediately for the sake of his own conscience (1 Pet. 3:21).  The other ordinance, the Lord’s Supper, now becomes a significant and rewarding experience, and something graciously shared among other believers.

The new believer also begins an immediate but life-long study of the Bible.  In fact, his hunger for the Word of God is like a baby who desires milk (1 Pet. 2:2), he cannot get enough of it.  Yes, he is discouraged by the time wasted in his life, and he realizes how far behind he is from other believers.  But the great advantage he finds is that the Bible is a book!  His knowledge is only limited by himself.  He can read to his heart’s content and study so that he is no longer ashamed by his lack of knowledge (2 Tim. 2:15).  Best of all, he finds that the Bible is a powerful sword in his struggle for the mastery of his own life and passions (Heb. 4:16).

As a believer begins studying the Bible with the help of the Holy Spirit, he is going to find an intense urging toward holiness.  From the fact that his Heavenly Father is holy (1 Pet. 1:15,16), to the fact that His Savior is holy (1 Pet. 2:22), to the fact that the Spirit within him is holy (1 Thes. 4:8), this believer knows he is also called to holiness (1 Thes. 4:7).  This intense desire to be like the One who saved him will grow naturally within him like a branch which reproduces the qualities and fruitfulness of the vine (John 15:1-8).

Some Gradual Changes

As anyone grows in Christ and becomes mature in his Christian walk, certain realities of the Christian life become clear.  Sin is real, and forgiveness is real.  Deciphering how sin remains in the believer even though Christ has justified him from all sin, past, present, and future, can become a daunting, even discouraging task.  It can be a defeating experience if the new believer falls under bad theology.  But gradually the believer learns that he is secure in his salvation by the blood of Christ and yet his sin can be confessed boldly at the throne of God because he is God’s child (1 John 1:6-2:2).

Sooner or later the new believer will realize that there are tares among the wheat, wolves among the sheep, false belief among the true.  Hypocrisy is not primarily the failure of Christians (he already has learned about his own sin) but is the presence of unbelief among true belief.  How is it that someone could make a claim of being born again and not really be born again?  With a little thought, however, this can be a liberating new truth, not a discouraging one.  It is not that the claims of Christianity are not true (as Barna mistakenly concluded) but that the false claims about Christianity are truly false.  An unbeliever cannot live as a Christian and a Christian cannot live as an unbeliever.  Sooner or later the oil and water will separate.

The new believer may be surprised at his new desire to see his old friends saved.  He still remembers the anger he felt when Christians tried to witness to him and how he despised them for pushing their religion on him.  Now he feels the need to do the same!  This comes partly out of his new understanding of their spiritual condition, but also out of his natural love for people who are in danger (Jude 22-23).  This will probably be a school of hard knocks.  His first attempts at sharing his faith will be rough.  But then he will find a most satisfying feeling come over him.  He will realize that he is engaged in the most wonderful work in the world.  There is nothing he could be doing that would be more helpful to his fellow man in this world or the next (1 Tim. 4:8-10).  This understanding will cause him to withstand the most brutal opposition, such as he himself used to dish out.  What if those believers had given up on him!

A true believer will also learn to love the brethren.  This is not just an empathy for some individual believer who is having a rough time of it, though that is a vital part also.  Loving the brethren means to love who brethren are.  It means to love what brethren ought to be.  It is to learn from the Scripture what Christians would be like if they lived totally for God and to want to be like that!  It is this love that brings the believer to church.  It is this love that causes the backslidden, discouraged believer to come back into fellowship.  The love of the brethren is the love of Christ.  The brethren were first called “Christians” at Antioch because they were like Christ (Acts 1:26).  Brotherly love is Christian love.

And So . . .

“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold all things are become new.  And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:17-18).

Notes:
1. D.A. Carson (The God Who Is There) reminded me of this old survey and made the same comment about it I’m making.
 

 

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

In Jesus’ Name

Written by Rick Shrader

In Jesus’ Name

by Rick Shrader

12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever.

John 14:12-16

 

Jesus has admonished us to bring our petitions before God in His name.  The pronouncing of the words “in Jesus’ name” at the end of our prayers has become a proper and common ending.  Though I want us to rethink what these beautiful words mean, I will not at all argue for the removal of them from our prayers.  There is no doubt that they are used carelessly, maybe even most of the time.  But that is a matter of inattentiveness, not profanity.  I love to hear my young grandchildren pray their prayers as they rise to the final crescendo, “In Jesus’ name, Amen!”

The words, no doubt, are sometimes used as a sort of “abracadabra” as if, in just repeating the sacred line, our prayers must be answered in just the way we want.  Others may look at it as a blank check from the Savior Who, evidently, was asking us to fill in the blank because He had already signed the bottom line.  Even though we often pronounce the words without thinking, we are aware that such is not the meaning of our Lord.

I believe all of our prayers are answered because they are always heard (1 Jn. 5:15).  However, few of them are answered in the way we ask because our prayers are usually selfish.  “Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts” (Jas. 4:3).  I believe God even hears the profanity of the lost as they ask God to “damn” this or that because Jesus said, “But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment” (Matt. 12:36).  Yet Peter reminds us from the Psalms that “the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers” (1 Pet. 3:12); and James also says, “The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much” (Jas. 5:16).  A lost man cannot pray in Jesus’ name because the Holy Spirit is not his Advocate, but any believer can and should.

Jesus reminded His disciples of the great miracles which He had done (vs. 12).  These apostles would also do miracles, albeit lesser than those of their Lord.  What were the “greater works” (lit. “things”) they would do specifically “because” Jesus would return to the Father?  These must be related to the Holy Spirit Who would come to the believers (at Pentecost) in exchange for Jesus returning to heaven and His place at the Father’s right hand.  That is why the subject in the remaining of this chapter is the Holy Spirit’s dwelling in believers.  When Jesus is gone, He cannot do works on earth except through others.  The vine does not bear fruit but the branch.  The head does not do work but the body.  The disciples are left to do Jesus’ work on the earth in His absence.  But, oh, what a daunting task!  How can they do such a thing?  They will do it by asking the Father to do it through them for Jesus “that the Father may be glorified in the Son” though He will be in heaven.  And, in addition, Jesus will leave the believers with a double Advocacy:  Jesus in heaven, at the right hand of God, and the Holy Spirit (“another Comforter”) on earth, actually indwelling the believer.  A “near” and a “far” Advocate.  The gospel era would see souls saved that could not have happened unless Jesus ascended back to heaven to intercede with His blood and the Holy Spirit descended to earth to convict the world of sin and judgment.  And in addition, these souls would not be saved without a preacher who will work with both Advocates.

Greater Works?  “What St. Peter did at Pentecost, and St. Paul did throughout the world,—what a simple preacher, a simple believer effects in causing the Spirit to descend into a heart—Jesus could not do during His sojourn on earth.”1 Yet these greater things are precipitated on the possessor of the Holy Spirit asking them to be done “in Jesus’ name.”  If this is not a simple polite closing on a prayer, then what is it?  The answer may have many facets.

 

 

In His Place

The first way in which we ask in the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ, is that we simply ask from earth where Jesus no longer dwells.  We ask in His place.  But Jesus is also where we cannot yet be—in heaven.  “Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us . . . Come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need” (Heb. 4:14, 16).  In the same way, Paul said that “we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5:20).

We are now the ones doing the work of Christ on the earth.  God still intends this work to go on even in Christ’s absence and He is eager to help us since we are doing it in the place of Christ.  I once attended a meeting for my father-in-law and introduced myself as coming in his place.  I was welcomed by all and was accepted as if my father-in-law had been there himself.  I would not say I did as good a job as he would have, but that was my lack of expertise, not his.

 

By His Merits

The second way in which we ask in Jesus’ name is to ask that the merit or moral authority of Jesus be applied to our prayers.  When Jesus gave the disciples the great commission, He said that “all power” (lit. “authority”) had been given to Him (Matt. 28:18-20).  He then instructed them to disciple, baptize, and teach under that authority.  Baptism was to be done, “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”  This authority to baptize was carried on in the name of Jesus throughout the book of Acts.2

Answered prayer isn’t my reward for proper living.  Prayer is the proper appeal that the righteousness of Jesus Christ be allowed to work through me.  Yes, He lives forever to make intercession for us (Heb. 7:25), but this is so that His holy work will continue. “For such an high priest became us (was becoming of us, magnified to us) who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens” (Heb. 7:26).  As in my justification where God looks beyond me and sees the righteousness of Christ, and on THAT basis treats me as “accepted in the Beloved” (Eph. 1:6), so when I pray in Jesus’ name, God looks beyond me and my faults and hears me by the merits of Christ’s own righteousness.  How sad, then, to pray by my own merits rather than by His glorious grace and peace.

For His Benefit

The third way in which we pray in Jesus’ name is what Jesus emphasized in verse 13, “that the Father may be glorified in the Son.”  How can prayers be answered that are prayed for the glory or recognition of the one praying?  Why pray at all if that is the motive?  But notice that God will be glorified through the Son when we pray in the Son’s name.  These kinds of prayers are done for the glory of God alone.  God is glorified through  the continued testimony of Jesus Christ, which is carried on in this age through the believer possessed by the Holy Spirit.  Every work that we do ought to be designed as part of Christ’s work.  If it is, God will be glorified because the Son is magnified.

When Jesus taught His disciples to pray, He began and ended the model prayer with glory to God.  “After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. . . . And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever.  Amen” (Matt. 6:9, 13).    In Paul’s appeal to the Philippians to pray for his release, he reminded them, “For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, According to my earnest expectation and my hope, that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but that with all boldness, as always, so now also Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether it be by life, or by death” (Phil. 1:19-20).  How often we pray for our own benefit without thinking of what would glorify God if He answered our prayer the way we prayed it.

Not what I wish, but what I want,

O let Thy grace supply;

The good unasked, in mercy grant,

The ill, though asked, deny.

William Cowper

 

With His Knowledge

The fourth way in which we can pray in Jesus’ name is to pray as one who loves to keep His commandments.  Doesn’t it seem odd that Jesus would include that 15th verse at that point?  It is almost as if the verse was lost from some other context.  But a moment’s thought may restore it properly in our minds (which is the only place verses can get lost).  We are to be the mouth and feet and hands of Jesus while we live on this earth.  His work must be done through us.  And how can this be done except by obedience?

We have two great motivations in keeping His commandments.  The first is that we love Him.  “If ye love me,” Jesus offers, then you will keep his commandments. “He acknowledges no love which does not find its expression in the observance of His laws.  These cannot be separated from the person.”3 The second motivation is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit who is “the Spirit of truth” (vs 17).  “He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance” (vs. 26).

How could we petition the Father to answer our prayers in Jesus’ name and disobey the same Lord Jesus Christ?  John repeats this same imperative in his epistle, “And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight” (1 Jn. 3:22).  “And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: and if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him” (1 Jn. 5:14-15).

The Word of God will tell us what pleases the Lord and what is in His will.  Knowledge always follows purity in the Scripture (2 Pet. 1:5; Jas. 3:17).  When we love the Lord we will want to know what pleases Him.  We add to our virtue, knowledge, and to our knowledge, perseverance.  Even our meals are “sanctified by the Word of God and prayer” (1 Tim. 4:5) because the Scripture has informed us that we can eat without condemnation and therefore we give thanks.

And So . . .

We ought to keep saying “in Jesus’ name” when we pray, but we ought to really mean it!  We rush in and out of our prayers without thinking of the great work we are doing.  Whether in a great Christian gathering or at a simple meal, let us invoke that name which is above every name and come boldly before the throne of grace!

Approach my soul, the mercy seat,

Where Jesus answers prayer;

There humbly fall before His feet,

For none can perish there.

Thy promise is my only plea;

With this I venture nigh;

Thou callest burdened souls to thee,

And such, O Lord, am I!

Bowed down beneath a load of sin,

By Satan sorely pressed,

By war without and fears within,

I come to Thee for rest.

Be Thou my shield and hiding place,

That, sheltered near Thy side,

I may my fierce accuser face,

And tell him Thou hast died.

O wondrous love! To bleed and die,

To bear the cross and shame,

That guilty sinners, such as I,

Might plead Thy gracious Name!

John Newton

Notes:
1. F. Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John , vol. II (New York:  Funk & Wagnalls, 1886) 276.
2. The formula for triune immersion remained the same, the authority to carry it out was done by the merits of Jesus Christ.
3. E.W. Hengstenberg, Commentary on the Gospel of John , vol. II (Edinburgh:  T&T Clark, 1865) 209-210.

 

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More