Chuck Norris now on board with a Fed Audit
Ron Paul and Barney Frank team up to decriminalise MarijuanaChurch-ish?
Did Stephen Harper Steal Jesus?
The latest in the state religion’s takeover of Christianity - the American Patriot’s BibleHurt Mail, The New Hate MailBishop NT Wright on what the Episcopal Church just did
As has already been established in part 1 of this series, Christ is the basis of our faith, and the grounding upon which the church is built. There can be no foundation laid without Christ being established as the cornerstone. Here are some facts from the gospel accounts about Christ that must be established before anyone can attempt to rightly build on this foundation:
We must now address the question of how the church is to build upon the foundation that has been established. In other words, which teachings apart from the revelation of Jesus as the Son of God are to be emphasized in order to secure a doctrinal foundation in those who already believe in Christ?
Many churches today disagree about which teachings are essentials. In fact, some teachings which are identified as essential are not even emphasized in the New Testament. The doctrine of the Trinity, while certainly important in my opinion, is not essential considering the New Testament record of doctrinal emphases; yet it is regarded as such in many churches. Again, I am not saying it is unimportant, because I believe it is. But it is not listed among the foundational doctrines of Christ listed in Hebrews 6, and there little if any evidence that teaching about the triune nature of God was a major emphasis of the early church. I comment on this only to communicate that what church tradition has prioritized in the way of teaching, in many instances, is not the express priority of God as outlined in the Scriptures.
The First Principles of the Oracles of God
In Hebrews 6, the author outlines the foundational teachings of Christ:
1 Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
Here we see that these teachings are the basis from which one may progress toward spiritual maturity. Believers who lack this foundation are not in a position to lead successful Christian lives.
The Sincere Milk of the Word
Jesus, quoting from Deuteronomy, said, “Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God” (Deuteronomy 8:3; Matthew 4:4; Luke 4:4). By this he illustrated that God’s word is a source of spiritual sustenance, just like natural food is a source of physical sustenance. This same principle is emphasized in the epistles.
Just as there are stages of physical development, there are stages of spiritual development for believers. The stage of spiritual development one is in determines the proper diet he should partake of. Naturally speaking, infants need a steady diet of milk before they are capable of digesting solid food. The same is true for spiritual babies. Notice what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 3:
1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able.
Here Paul explained his responsibility to “feed” the Corinthians. He determined their spiritual condition and taught them accordingly.
In Hebrews 5, the chapter preceding the one where the foundational teachings are presented, the author indicates that this audience was maturing at a much slower rate than they should have been. Although they should have grown considerably more, they had not graduated beyond babyhood.
12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food. 13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. 14 But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
From this point, the author transitions into his statement about the foundational teachings of Christ in the very next verse in chapter 6, making it clear that the milk he was referring to were these basic doctrines. These are synonymous with the “first principles of the oracles of God” listed in Hebrews 5:12.
I’m sure this title has some people scratching their head. “Of course it can,” you say to yourself “no one believes in Odin and Thor anymore.” Well that is not totally true, but yes, the majority of people have rejected Norse mythology as fact. They do not worship the Asgard or trim their nails before going into battle in an attempt to slow the coming of the end of the world (See Naglfar). But rejection of the literal truth of Norse Paganism (I use Norse Paganism as an example here since I am interested in it, I am sure similar theme(s) can be found in many other pagan beliefs) is not what this entry is about, I wish here to speak for a moment on the mindset and values of Norse mythology.
Norse mythology embodies strength. The warrior is at the center of the myth. It revolves around him and the strength he has to overcome evil, and receive glory and honour. These are themes that appeal to everyone. Everyone wants to be the hero, wants to overcome enemies on their own, everyone wants to have their praises sung. Christianity directly opposes these themes. It glories in weakness, and it tells people that they have no strength and deserve no glory.
What I mean here when I say Christianity glorifies weakness, I mean as a virtue. I mean what Peter Leithart says in Against Christianity “Few Christians have been as astute readers of Paul as Nietzsche [See The Geneology of Morality]. Pagan that he was, he could see what Paul was up to. He could see that Paul was slyly going about the business of ‘transvaluating all values,’ at least pagan ones, giving new names and encouraging as virtue behavior once considered disgraceful.”
Against Pagan virtues and values Christians have lifted up: Humbleness, humility, meekness, submission, and charity. We have denounced pride, strength, glory, and power. We relate to the servant and reject being the master. This is what I mean when I say Christians “glorify in weakness”
The Christian is still weak after they become a Christian. The gospel is a gospel of weakness (In that it is antithetical to pagan thought), it’s admitting that we can not do what we need to do on our own and that we need to give ourselves up to Christ. This does not only happen when one becomes a Christian, but is the continual pattern of the Christian life.
Look at what Paul says about the weakness of the Christian:
1Co 2:3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. … (Read More)
2Co 12:9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
And when Paul does speak of power, it is not his own, but God’s power, which comes in his weakness:
2Co 13:4 For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God toward you.
The scriptures take what was virtue, and changes it. What was the virtues that pagans strove for are now considered “bad” by Christians, and what was considered weak by pagans are now “good” for Christians. Christianity therefore embraces weakness and glorifies in it. The Christian savior died in the most humiliating way possible at the hands of those had strength. Yes, power comes out in the end, but that power comes through weakness.
When these two views clash why then would anyone choose the Christian values? Why would someone stand up and choose weakness over strength?
There can be only one answer; those who choose Christianity over Norse paganism have come to understand that they have no strength. One who is sure of his own strength will never choose Christianity. This is what is meant when Christian speak of brokenness. Unless one has tried to live like a Norse warrior and failed they will always reject the Christian worldview. Until one sees their own strength as an illusion they will continue to embrace it. In this Christianity is a religion of failures.
This is not to say that there is no glory and strength in Christianity, but that as opposed to Norse mythology, it is directed away from the individual and towards God. Not only is it direct towards God, but it comes out of our own weakness. It is, quite literally, the pagan world turned upside down.
What then is the answer to the opening question? If men can succeed on their own strength then Christianity has nothing on Norse Paganism. If however, the strength that is lifted up as virtue in Norse Paganism is unattainable in reality, then Christianity is there for all who fail.
A friend of this blog posted an excellent and thorough defence of the death penalty from a Christian perspective here. While I don’t really care to go through the ins and outs of the author’s points, one of the pieces he cited, a column by Dennis Prager, gets to the essence of the divide and shows where those trying to reconcile the bible with state enforced capital punishment go wrong.
Here is a look at each of three arguments Prager makes and my response to them.
Murder Must Be Punished?
1. It is a cosmic injustice to allow a murderer to keep his life.
This actually is true. Yes, God prescribed that if a man is guilty of murder, then he is to be put to death. He gave this command in several ways. It is also clear that justice demands this in both old and new covenant. Noah was given this command (Genesis 9:5-6), as were the Israelites. Though Jesus commands us to turn the other cheek, I am not yet convinced that this means that just retribution is also nullified. Secondly, just because scripture gives clear teaching that death is a legitimate penalty for some crimes, does not mean that the bible also condones the process that is currently in practice.
Capital Punishment Shows Society that Murder is More Evil?
2. Killing murderers is society’s only way to teach how terrible murder is. The only real way a society can express its revulsion at any criminal behavior is through the punishment it metes out. If murderers all got 10 years in prison and thieves all got 20 years in prison, that would be society’s way of saying that thievery is worse than murder. A society that kills murderers is saying that murder is more heinous a crime than a society that keeps all its murderers alive.
I agree in principle, but the application is not consistent. It is true that murder is more terrible in society than, say, stealing. But this is not because murder is inherently more sinful, but because the effects of murder are more severe - that is why society punishes it more severely. God will punish murder and stealing equally - all is sin - there are no shades of grey. In society, however, we punish murder with death because the effects against those murdered are permanent. We can always pay someone back or make restitution for other crimes. Murder removes that option.
However, punishment does not exist to show how bad something is. Punishment exists to bring justice. If we punished things in society on proportion to how “wrong” they are - then we must call for the death penalty for everything - even thoughts. We deserve hell and judgement for every word and thought (Hebrews 4:12).
As Christians, it is key that we realise that the bible cannot and should not be made the absolute authority for secular laws. In fact, the bible itself declares that it is not the bible which rules over governments, but God (Romans 13:1). It is not man’s job to implement the punishments for God’s laws on earth - we can’t - the punishment for breaking God’s law is hell. We can’t send people to hell.
What the bible declares is our job, is to tell men God’s law - to show them they have broken it and proclaim the gospel to them. So when we are dealing with crimes (as opposed to sins) - we are now outside of the realm of punishing sin and enforcing morality as the bible lays out. This does not mean we abandon the bible, in fact, we should embrace the bible and use it as a guide for informing our legal and judicial systems. For example, we can now see that murder is wrong not only because it is a sin, but because it goes against those laws which God has put in place in his creation. It disrupts this order in a criminal way - a perpetrator, a victim and an act of aggression.
Capital Punishment Deters Future Murders?
3. It can, if widely enacted, deter some murders. Though I regard this as a less important argument than the first two, there is no doubt that it is true. Everyone acknowledges that punishments can deter all other crimes — why wouldn’t capital punishment deter some murders? Is murder the only crime unaffected by punishment?
First, let me say that I find this “widely enacted” language downright scary. There is no question that men have the ability to coerce men into not doing things by threatening to kill them. This does not take massive amounts of brain power to realise.
However, just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should. Again, while obviously justice will deter crime in the future (men are inherently evil and will kill, steal, lie, blaspheme, etc…) it is not the primary purpose of justice to do this. We can’t confuse the indirect benefits of justice with the primary motives - justice exists primary to redress wrongs and establish a set of agreed-upon standards for ordering society. Again, the execution of justice will deter crime on its own -but this is not a selling point for the death penalty. The only question that is of primary importance is: is it just?
What About The Innocent?
I also want to address what I feel is the heart of my own objection to the death penalty as it now is administered - the fact that innocent people can and will be executed. Prager:
My answer has always been that this is so rare (I do not know of a proved case of mistaken execution in America in the last 50 years) that society must be prepared to pay that terrible price. Why? Among other reasons, because more innocents will be killed by murderers who are not executed (in prison, or once released or if they escape) than will be killed by the state in erroneous executions.
So, yes, I acknowledge the possibility of an innocent being killed by the state because of a mistaken murder conviction. But we often have the tragedy of innocents dying because of a social policy. I support higher speed limits even when shown that they lead to more traffic fatalities. I support the right of people to drink alcohol even though the amount of violence directly emanating from alcohol consumption — from drunk drivers to spousal and child abuse — is so high.
And now I have an additional argument. Regarding murder, it is not only those of us who support capital punishment who support a policy that can lead to the killing of innocents. So do almost all those opposed to capital punishment. Nearly all opponents of capital punishment (and many supporters of capital punishment) believe that if the police obtained evidence illegally, the conviction of a murderer should be overturned.
There are several breaches of logic and morality in this statement.
The argument put forward here is this: in order to have justice, society must accept a unjust system. This is double-speak. A logical fallacy. It does not add up. One cannot say that injustice is justice.
What would it be called if the state executed an innocent man? The answer is: murder. Killing innocent people is murder - regardless of whether it is a gang on the street or a government with flags and uniforms. If we have to have to tolerate murder - a heinous, terrible crime and moral evil - in order to be free of other murders, then I cannot condone it. I cannot support murder. I cannot! It doesn’t matter what the motives, ends or stated goals are- murder is evil - always!
In a case of clear cut guilt, then I think that we can execute a person. However, I believe that the state is incapable of achieving this kind of omniscience. So while the death penalty is acceptable in theory, it is not really applicable in practice. The death penalty can be good, right and moral - but only if it is carried out without injustice. Having a “justice system” where, built into the system, are crimes themselves is not acceptable for a Christian to support.
Prager also adds the following:
The people who believe in this policy do so knowing that it will lead to the murder of innocent people… So those who still wish to argue for keeping all murderers alive will need to argue something other than “an innocent may be killed.” They already support a policy that ensures innocents will be killed.
This is another logic game. Prager is arguing that lesser crimes must be broken in order to punish greater ones. If a person desires to be morally consistent(not committing any crimes) that they are responsible for the choices that others make. Again, this kind of tribal mentality is a little scary. Because I support someone’s right to not be tortured, abused or spied upon- I would be partially responsible if this person then went and murdered someone? Outrageous.
The bible makes it clear that each individual is responsible to God for the choices he makes. We are called to warn and educate those who are in danger of sin of their peril. But if they continue on in sin (or crimes) then they are responsible. It is not our job to police potential crimes - preventative actions that commit crimes against others (regardless of the motives) are wrong.
This gets to the heart of the issue. Christians must avoid compromising with the world. We must not allow men, popular culture, traditions or governments to dominate over what God has revealed is true and good. We are not obligated, just because the government tells us so, or because everyone generally accepts it, to go along with a system or set of laws that we know is wrong.
The relativistic and subjective wills of society and governments are not to trump the objective truth of God and his revealed word. This means that we have to be willing to have our views on capital punishment (and indeed, many laws that violate biblical laws) challenged.
Since I wrote my last piece on this subject, I have had the time to think a little more about the nature of cultural and political shifting over time. I’ve realized that the principles I examined apply just as easily to other arenas as well - including religion. When one of our forum members posted a link last week to this study, I could very easily see that another look was needed.
Less than one in five Christians had the following characteristics:
* Believe salvation comes through Jesus Christ
* Committed churchgoers
* Bible readers
* Accept leadership positions
* Invest in personal faith development through the church
* Feel obligated to share faith; 79% do so.
I would argue that these are the mainstream features in the bible and of the major figures in Christianity. But yet why is it that four in five people calling themselves by the very same name do not share all of these values?
Christianity is considered the mainstream religion in the western world and the US but only 1/5 of the people who identify themselves in the mainstream seem to actually abide by these basic principles. In other words, four fifths of the mainstream have adopted an extreme version of Christianity while still identifying it, describing it and surrounding it in those traditions and terms which define it historically.
This explains part of my last article, where I maintain that “Christianity” is likely much more of a threat to the United States (for example) than radical Islam. This is why: when four fifths of the dominant religion, while still couched as one thing, are openly acting to various degrees in opposition to that thing, we have a massive break from reality on the behalf of most Christians. It is no wonder that many Christians (probably even including the first group) generally support such reckless, irresponsible and reactionary politics and are the greatest threat for ushering in destructive policies and leaders.
Evangelizing “Evangelicals”
But moving away from the politics of it, consider that this means that a good portion of people whom bible-believing Christians will evangelize are people who already consider themselves Christian! No wonder such seeker-friendly methods such as relationship and friendship evangelism or the “four spiritual laws” are complete failures - they use terminology that most people think they already know and abide by (so they believe).
If I say to a member of the other four fifths:
Jesus loves you and died on the cross for your sin
then we might see the dissonance. Whereas I would mean:
Jesus loves you - in that you were deserving of hell because you are a sinful, wicked person who has broken God’s law and deserve god’s wrath and judgement. But Jesus showed his love by enduring your punishment for you so that you could be forgiven from your sins.
But he, believing he already is a Christian, might hear:
God (whoever he is, I guess Jesus is one way to view God) does indeed think I am swell and good. That story about him on the cross reminds me that I am loved and encourages me to live a good, self-sacrificing life.
This is our challenge and the great failure of the Church since it was first birthed.
Like a Man Who sees Himself in the Mirror…
The propensity of men to continually move farther and farther from some point in history, while still proclaiming that they really haven’t moved at all, is astounding. How many times is Spurgeon, Luther, Calvin, Paul or Jesus quoted to give legitimacy to some idea or doctrine that they would have never supported or approved? I am not talking a Simpson’s episode that is done openly in jest, I am talking about an idea within “the Church” that is sold as a legitimate extension of some traditional leader or scriptural doctrine. I would throw in here everything from egalitarianism on the liberal side to hyper-Calvinism on the conservative side.
I suspect this has come about with Christianity in the same way it has come about in politics - through a lack of independent, critical thinking and also blind devotion and trust of leadership. In the same way that George W. Bush or John McCain is eventually just accepted and amalgamated into conservative political ideology so too are men like Joel Osteen or Rick Warren embraced as bible-believing theologians. I am not saying these men aren’t saved, but I am saying that their books and teachings often try to lend the authority of God to extra-biblical or even unbiblical ideas.
Examples: Prophecy, Guidance
But that is really the problem. Take most of the first fifth’s view on prophecy. Many will say that the New Testament “gift” of prophecy is exactly the same as the kind of massive, authoritative pictures that Ezekiel got from God. An otherwise bible-believing Christian has no problem elevating a dream (possibly the product of last night’s fettuccine alfredo) to the same authority as a “thus saith the Lord” from the Old Testament prophets.
We see this same product with mysticism and divination in guidance - X worked out well, it must be God’s will. Or X didn’t work out, plus I had a feeling about it - therefore it must not be God’s will. With so many Christians, even with generally biblical theology, placing the authority of God to personal impressions or circumstances - it is no surprise that objective anchors such as the bible are given a lower and lower place. Nominally, of course, the bible will always take the highest place, but functionally, it will continue to lose influence.
The World is Up in Arms - But Not Really
Some might object to both these articles and say that I am over-exaggerating the problem as we aren’t seeing everything blowing up in Christianity or the society at large. But that is precisely my point - it would be healthy if people were up in arms over the kind of ideals, worldviews, policies and doctrines that are dominating the culture, but aside from the vocal minority, most people are content with the current streams of debate and discourse. So while there is plenty of argument in the Church - it is often more about something trivial like whether homosexuals should legally marry rather than whether perseverance of the saints is a acceptable teaching.
In church in Sunday, we went through this passage in Luke:
Now great multitudes went with Him. And He turned and said to them, “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost, whether he has enough to finish it— lest, after he has laid the foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish’? Or what king, going to make war against another king, does not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is still a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks conditions of peace. So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple (Luke 14: 25-33).
The speaker made an excellent point about the nature of grace. While Grace is a free gift, it is most certainly not cheap or without value. Before we accept the free gift of grace, we should also be willing to count the cost of following Jesus - which includes submitting our possessions, relationships and even our very life.
This point meant a lot to me, especially being versed in economic principles. Indeed, grace can be thought of in basic economic terms.
In a free market, the price of something (which is how we assess it’s value) is determined by the subjective preference orders of both buyers and sellers. The price of a quart of milk, for example, is not “set” by the grocery store. Rather the price is a meeting place somewhere within a relative spectrum between the minimum value the seller can bear to let it go and the maximum cost that the buyer will pay for it. The price, or value, is finally determined by where those two opposing forces can come to an agreement.
But the value of grace has been set objectively by God because, unlike milk at a grocery store, there is no exchange taking place. Since grace is unmerited - we do not give anything to obtain it - then God actually can “set” the price.
While it cost God a great deal, he has chosen to set the price at zero. But since we are hardwired to determine value subjectively, a free gift to us is likely to be undervalued. It really should not surprise us that grace has a propensity to be trampled and abused as though it was a worthless thing - we believe that the price was free - therefore, grace seems cheap.
Moreover, while the gift itself is free - accepting the gift will lead to opportunity cost. This makes following Christ even more difficult, as we can see the costs immediately (possessions, relationships, life) but the profit is still to come in the eternal.
In other words, while we need not give anything in exchange for grace - accepting it is going to bring about changes and costs. If someone were given a free house, they will still have to deal with consequences to owning that house - even though it cost them nothing to obtain it.
This is why we must not present the gospel in a manner that cheapens grace. We must not be like scam-artist salesmen and fraudulently disguise following Jesus as a life-enhancement opportunity. We need to accurately explain where the profit is, and what the costs are upfront. It is no surprise that so many who claim to accept grace soon fall away after confronting the costs - they thought they were getting something cheap.
Zionist tendencies among American Christians have become ever apparent. Many times we hear the term Judeo-Christian, signifying an historical and theological link between the Hebrew people and Christians. It is obvious that a link exist. Most Christians understand that the Hebrew people were the chosen people of God, through whom the scriptures and messianic prophecies came. Jesus was a Hebrew from the tribe of Judah, and all of the first Christians were Jews. Jesus himself often referred to the Old Testament scriptures written to the Jews. Often this term, Judeo-Christian, is used to describe shared core values between Jews and Christians.
Support of Israel
Christian Zionism, while recognizing historical and theological connections between Christians and Jews, takes the concept a bit further. Current geopolitical events surrounding Israel are often compared against eschatological prophecies, with the state of Israel being viewed as the favored side in any conflict with her neighbors; these conflicts, of course, are generally with respect to what is regarded among opposing sides as holy land. Arab Palestinians believe they have a right to the land, and claim to have been disenfranchised by Israel. The Christian Zionist perspective takes sides against Palestine, citing God’s covenant with Abraham in which the holy land was promised to Abraham’s descendants. The Arab Palestinians, although also descendants of Abraham, are not considered to be rightful heirs to the land because they descended from Ishmael and not Isaac. The dispute over land rights has been a particular point of international contention ever since the end of World War II, with Arab and Muslim nations typically supporting the Palestinians.
Biblical Justification for Support of the Nation State
As has already been mentioned, support of Israel is in part predicated on the belief that the Holy Land rightly belongs to the Jews. But there is another common reason many Christians believe support of Israel is necessary, and it is found in Genesis 12:3.
“And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.
Another scripture often used to muster up Christian support of Israel is Romans 15:27.
Yes, they were pleased to do so, and they are indebted to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual things, they are indebted to minister to them also in material things.
There are other scriptures used by Christian Zionists to back up their theology, but these two references are among the most common.
Problems with the Use of Scripture
The problem I have with Genesis 12:3 being used as a reason to support the nation-state of Israel is that it equates Abraham and his descendants with the modern nation state. Certainly there are descendants of Abraham in the Israeli government, but are we to believe that they represent all his descendants? Even many of the citizens of Israel, as well as other Jews, oppose much of what that government does. Are they too in danger of being cursed?
The Bible should be used to interpret the Bible, and since the Bible is progressive revelation, the Old Testament should always be interpreted in light of the New Testament. Consider Paul’s explanation of Genesis 12:3 found in Galatians 3:
6Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS. 7Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. 8The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU.” 9So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer… 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us–for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE”– 14in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Here we find a very different interpretation of the Genesis account. Paul, himself a Hebrew, says the blessing of all nations was in relation to their receiving the Seed of Abraham, who is Christ.
I will not dismiss the possibility of a dual meaning of this scripture altogether, but it is clear that Genesis 12 in no way should be interpreted as blind support for any government.
Now, with Romans 15, let’s look at the context of what Paul said to determine whether this had anything to do with support of Israel.
26For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem. 27Yes, they were pleased to do so, and they are indebted to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual things, they are indebted to minister to them also in material things.
Verse 26 plainly reveals that the subject under discussion was monetary support of the Jewish Christians. What did Paul mean when he said that the Gentiles had shared in their spiritual things? Well, he could have meant that the Gentiles were made partakers of the knowledge of God through the Jewish Christians. But I tend to think that he was speaking specifically about the “saints in Jerusalem” since this is where the church was born. At any rate, it is clear that Paul was speaking about Christians who were Jewish, rather than all of Israel.
Continue reading ‘A Biblical Critique of Christian Zionism’
Recently a discussion arose on this blog about the status of people who followed after God before Christ died. In this entry I will attempt to show that old testament saints were born again and had the same status before God as we do today. This is not to say that the experience of a believer before Christ and those who believe after Christ are exactly the same, but I believe there is more continuity between the experiences then often assumed. We will begin our discussion with a brief examination of John 3:1-10:
Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?
Here Christ is explaining that one must be born again to enter the kingdom of God. He offers no date as to when this type of experience is to begin, it reads as if one must already be born again to enter the kingdom. But I want to draw attention to the last line in particular; Jesus assumes that Nicodemus should know this. Jesus is not laying down a new teaching here, this is what the Old Testament teaches and as a teacher of Israel you should know this. It is taught and shown throughout the Old Testament (as well as the new) that one is saved by being born again, this is the simplest reading of this passage. For the purposes of this entry the question of what “water” refers to in this passage will be left aside and we will examine only the role of God’s Spirit in this action. To prove this several passages will be examined that shows this.
So the LORD said to Moses, “Take Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the Spirit, and lay your hand on him (Num 27:18).
With Joshua (see also Caleb Numbers 14:21) we have a clear example of an OT saint who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and Romans 8:7-11 explains that the indwelling of the Spirit is what gives life to the believer (a more detailed explanation of what Jesus was discussing with Nicodemus). The concept of the Spirit being in the believer is therefore not something new to the New Testament, it happened in the Old. A further explanation of what this means is given in the New Testament, but although Christ’s connection to the the Spirit is not explained until the New Testament does not mean it did not exist in the Old. The OT saints understood in part, but they still understood part (or should have) and took part in the Spirit.
And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live (Deu 30:6).
The saints in the OT had circumcised hearts, they loved God with their hearts. This can only be true of someone born again, only the Spirit can do this. Romans 2:8-29, explaining further on this as the NT does, making it clear that this is done through the Spirit.
But now your kingdom shall not continue. The LORD has sought out a man after his own heart, and the LORD has commanded him to be prince over his people, because you have not kept what the LORD commanded you (1Sa 13:14).
Here we see why God choose David to be king; He wanted someone who was after Hid own heart. Could someone be after God’s heart and not be born again? Romans 8:8 says that “Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” How does one leave the flesh but by being born again? How can one please God but by being after His heart?
When he turned his back to leave Samuel, God gave him another heart. And all these signs came to pass that day (1Sa 10:9).
Often it is assumed that being given a new heart by God is what makes one born again and that it happens only in the New Testament, yet the one instance where it is explicitly said to have happened in scripture takes place in the Old Testament. King Saul when he was made King by God was given a new heart. We also see in Ezekiel 18:31 God telling people to turn away from their sin and embrace a new heart. The people in the OT had an understanding of what this meant and had the ability to do so.
Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from your presence, and take not your Holy Spirit from me. Restore to me the joy of your salvation, and uphold me with a willing spirit. Then I will teach transgressors your ways, and sinners will return to you. Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, O God of my salvation, and my tongue will sing aloud of your righteousness. O Lord, open my lips, and my mouth will declare your praise. For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it; you will not be pleased with a burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise. Do good to Zion in your good pleasure; build up the walls of Jerusalem; then will you delight in right sacrifices, in burnt offerings and whole burnt offerings; then bulls will be offered on your altar (Psa 51:10-19).
Here we have King David in the OT touching on all aspects of what it means to be born again. The Spirit, joy in salvation, true worship of God, and a heart set after God. Of course this passage brings up the question of if someone can have the Spirit taken away from them or not, and is the answer different in the OT from the NT. Although I have recently become convinced that someone can have the Spirit removed both in the OT and the NT, I do not believe a view that holds that the Spirit can be removed in the OT and not the NT proves that OT saints were not born again. Is not being able to give up one’s salvation what it means to be born again? What scriptures that discuss being born again makes that the central point? It may be argued that it is a difference between the OT and NT (and as I admitted at the beginning there are differences) but I don’t believe it’s a difference (assuming it is different which will take a whole other entry to work out) that has anything to do with what it means to be born again
All of this now begs the questions; if the saints in the Old Testament were born again how were they before Christ?
When this topic was discussed in another blog entry a few weeks ago John 1:12-13 was brought up as proof that a direct knowledge of the incarnate Jesus was needed to be born again, but is that what that passage teaches?
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
Joh 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
Joh 1:7 He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him.
Joh 1:8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.
Joh 1:9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.
Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.
Joh 1:11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.
Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,
Joh 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Jesus does not come and dwell incarnate in this passage until verse 14 when the Word becomes flesh, yet verse 12 and 13 speak of being born of God. How is that possible? Verses 10 and 11 explain; Jesus was in the world He just was not incarnate yet. The saints in the Old Testament received Christ in this form and were born again. They did not fully understand who it was that they were embracing, but they trusted God and had faith that He would send a Messiah who would save them from their sin. This was the experience of Simeon and Anna in Luke 2. They had placed their faith in a coming saviour, they embraced Him even though He had not yet been born. For this they were part of those who became children to God, they were born again.
The Christ was known to those in the Old Testament through the shadows in the temple, through the prophets, and through their history as a nation. Trusting in God and His Messiah was how one received the Spirit of god, how one was given a new heart and how one loved God. Those who believe that the Old Testament saints were not born again must show how the born again experience we have today differs in these regards.
As was mentioned in the previous article entitled Our Introduction to the Holy Spirit, following the experience of being convicted of sin such that we recognize that we need Jesus, the sinner is born again. This occurs when a conscious effort is made towards a profession of faith in the redemptive work of Christ. When a person receives Jesus by faith, he becomes a new creation spiritually (2 Corinthians 5:17). This is made possible by the Holy Spirit.
Born of the Spirit
Jesus explained the New Birth to Nicodemus in John 3:
1Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him.”
3In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.”
4″How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!”
5Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”
In this passage, Jesus contrasts two very different kinds of birth, both of which are necessary for entrance into the kingdom of God – the natural birth and the spiritual birth. Spiritual birth is necessary because of the spiritual death that passed on all the sons of Adam (Romans 5:12, Romans 5:15, 1 Corinthians 15:22). The experience of being born again signifies the death of the spiritually dead man and the creation of a new man with a new spiritual nature, having the capacity to express the nature of God and overcome the world (Romans 6:4, Romans 6:6, Colossians 2:12, Ephesians 4:24, 1 John 5:4, 5).
Sonship
Anyone who has been born of the Spirit has become a son or daughter of God. Contrary to what some people often say, the whole of humanity is not included in the family of God; only those who have entered into the kingdom of God through the only way (Jesus) are recognized by God as his children. Being born again not only involves the process of adoption by God the Father, but naturally puts believers into a sibling relationship with Jesus.
11Both the one who makes men holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers. 12He says, “I will declare your name to my brothers; in the presence of the congregation I will sing your praises” (Hebrews 2:11, 12).
Because we have the same Father and are part of the same family, we receive the same degree of love from the Father as does Jesus. To put it another way, God does not love Jesus any more than he loves his other children.
22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. 24″Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world (John 17:22-24).
Spiritual Growth of the Newborn
Much the same way newborn babies have to grow and develop, those born of the Spirit must do the same. Growing spiritually involves the development of spiritual fruit. Jesus spoke of this in John 15.
4Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.
5″I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.
The food necessary to facilitate spiritual growth is the word of God. Jesus, who is the Word incarnate, said that it was impossible to bear spiritual fruit apart from him. 1 Peter 2:2 is in complete agreement with this concept.
“Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation.”
The passage most generally referred to with respect to spiritual fruit resulting from growth is found in Galatians 5.
22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
Most Bible translations, including the New International Version which is quoted above, capitalize the word spirit. In one sense it is accurate to say that spiritual fruit is of the Holy Spirit because it occurs subsequent to one being born of the Spirit. However, the Holy Spirit is not the one bearing fruit – the believer is (John 15:4, 5). Therefore, it is more accurate to say that the fruit mentioned is the fruit of the human spirit having been recreated by the Holy Spirit.
The Anointing
Jesus Christ is uniquely totally God and totally man. He is not a mutant, but is the totality of divinity and humanity in one person. He demonstrated the love of God for humanity by reconciling man back to God. This reconciliation culminated with Christ redeeming mankind by offering his own body as a ransom.
However, prior to his death, burial, resurrection, and ascension - he manifested the Spirit of reconciliation by healing the sick and forgiving sin. It would behoove us to examine how Jesus was able to heal the sick. Many have assumed that Jesus was able to heal simply because he was the Son of God. However, the Bible does not support this position. In fact, Jesus made quite clear what enabled him to heal when he quoted Isaiah 61 in the fourth chapter of Luke.
14And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about. 15And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all. 16And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. 17And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, 18The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 19To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. 20And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. 22And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph’s son?
Jesus said he was able to heal the brokenhearted and open the eyes of the blind because he was anointed with the Spirit of God. Even the power of Jesus’ preaching should be attributed to the Holy Spirit. Up until this moment Jesus had been the Son of God. Yet he had not been anointed to work the works of God until after the Holy Spirit descended on him following his baptism by John. Peter also made clear the fact that Jesus healed by the power of the Spirit.
How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him (Acts 10:38).
Notice the emphasis on Jesus’ humanity in this verse. Peter referred to him as “Jesus of Nazareth”. If Jesus had been working miracles as God in the flesh, then he would not have needed to be anointed. Who would be qualified to anoint God?
Jesus himself even attributed his ability to cast out evil spirits by the Spirit of God.
But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. (Matthew 12:28)
The Anointing to Heal in Demonstration
There are various passages that we could look at that show Jesus’ ministry to the sick. Some of them are more specific in terms of revealing to us how Jesus healed with the aid of the Holy Spirit. One such passage is found in Luke 6. For clarity we will examine this passage from the New International Version.
17He went down with them and stood on a level place. A large crowd of his disciples was there and a great number of people from all over Judea, from Jerusalem, and from the coast of Tyre and Sidon, 18who had come to hear him and to be healed of their diseases. Those troubled by evil spirits were cured, 19and the people all tried to touch him, because power was coming from him and healing them all.
Notice that verse 19 says that power was coming from him. What was that power? It was the power of the Holy Ghost that Jesus was anointed with. When people touched Jesus that power was released and caused healing to take place in those that touched him.
The most overlooked part of what transpired here is found in verse 17. Why did people come to Jesus in the first place? They came first to hear him, and secondly to be healed. Faith comes by hearing, and that is directly linked to whether a person receives healing or not. Even though the Spirit of God was in manifestation, it took faith to receive as we see in Mark 5. Once again we will go to the New International Version.
The Woman with the Issue of Blood
25And a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years. 26She had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse. 27When she heard about Jesus, she came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak, 28because she thought, “If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed.” 29Immediately her bleeding stopped and she felt in her body that she was freed from her suffering. 30At once Jesus realized that power had gone out from him. He turned around in the crowd and asked, “Who touched my clothes?” 31″You see the people crowding against you,” his disciples answered, “and yet you can ask, ‘Who touched me?’ ” 32But Jesus kept looking around to see who had done it. 33Then the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came and fell at his feet and, trembling with fear, told him the whole truth. 34He said to her, “Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace and be freed from your suffering.”
Again, pay special attention to verse 27 which says, “When she heard about Jesus…” This is where faith is initiated. When she touched Jesus, Jesus felt the power of the Spirit go out from him. So we know that the anointing of the Spirit played a major role in the healing of this woman, yet Jesus attributed this woman’s healing to her faith. It is faith that gives action to the power.
Recent Comments
Dancer, pastasmissus, Colin, Atanamis, Chris A [...]
Atanamis, cchrisr, Colin, Ross Wolf, Atanamis [...]
cchrisr, Atanamis, Bryan, Colin, cchrisr [...]
Jew, cchrisr, Randy, Atanamis, Ornot the Majestic [...]
Atanamis, quicksilver, Atanamis, Liberty Thought, CTLovesNathanHale [...]
Colin, Atanamis, cchrisr, Colin, cchrisr [...]