http://www.alliancenet.org/christward/the-second-commandment-westminster-and-images-of-jesus
http://solareformed.blogspot.com/2012/03/2nd-commandment-and-pictures-of-jesus.html
https://protestantreformed.wordpress.com/2016/04/10/images-of-christ-and-the-violation-of-the-second-commandment/
Wednesday, February 27, 2019
John Murray on Images of Christ
The question of the propriety of pictorial representations of the Saviour is one that merits examination. It must be granted that the worship of Christ is central in our holy faith, and the thought of the Saviour must in every instance be accompanied with that reverence which belongs to his worship. We cannot think of him without the apprehension of the majesty that is his. If we do not entertain the sense of his majesty, then we are guilty of impiety and we dishonor him.
It will also be granted that the only purpose that could properly be served by a pictorial representation is that it would convey to us some thought or lesson representing him, consonant with truth and promotive of worship. Hence the question is inescapable: is a pictorial representation a legitimate way of conveying truth regarding him and of contributing to the worship which this truth should evoke?
We are all aware of the influence exerted on the mind and heart by pictures. Pictures are powerful media of communication. How suggestive they are for good or for evil and all the more so when accompanied by the comment of the spoken or written word! It is futile, therefore, to deny the influence exerted upon mind and heart by a picture of Christ. And if such is legitimate, the influence exerted should be one constraining to worship and adoration. To claim any lower aim as that served by a picture of the Saviour would be contradiction of the place which he must occupy in thought, affection, and honour.
The plea for the propriety of pictures of Christ is based on the fact that he was truly man, that he had a human body, that he was visible in his human nature to the physical senses, and that a picture assists us to take in the stupendous reality of his incarnation, in a word, that he was made in the likeness of men and was found in fashion as a man.
Our Lord had a true body. He could have been photographed. A portrait could have been made of him and, if a good portrait, it would have reproduced his likeness.
Without doubt the disciples in the days of his flesh had a vivid mental image of Jesus' appearance and they could not but have retained that recollection to the end of their days. They could never have entertained the thought of him as he had sojourned with them without something of that mental image and they could not have entertained it without adoration and worship. The very features which they remembered would have been part and parcel of their conception of him and reminiscent of what he had been to them in his humiliation and in the glory of his resurrection appearance. Much more might be said regarding the significance for the disciples of Jesus' physical features.
Jesus is also glorified in the body and that body is visible. It will also become visible to us at his glorious appearing "he will be seen the second time without sin by those who look for him unto salvation" (Hebrews 9:28).
What then are we to say of pictures of Christ? First of all, it must be said that we have no data whatsoever on the basis of which to make a pictorial representation; we have no descriptions of his physical features which would enable even the most accomplished artist to make an approximate portrait. In view of the profound influence exerted by a picture, especially on the minds of young people, we should perceive the peril involved in a portrayal for which there is no warrant, a portrayal which is the creation of pure imagination. It may help to point up the folly to ask: what would be the reaction of a disciple, who had actually seen the Lord in the days of his flesh, to a portrait which would be the work of imagination on the part of one who had never seen the Saviour? We can readily detect what his recoil would be.
No impression we have of Jesus should be created without the proper revelatory data, and every impression, every thought, should evoke worship. Hence, since we possess no revelatory data for a picture or portrait in the proper sense of the term, we are precluded from making one or using any that have been made.
Secondly, pictures of Christ are in principle a violation of the second commandment. A picture of Christ, if it serves any useful purpose, must evoke some thought or feeling respecting him and, in view of what he is, this thought or feeling will be worshipful. We cannot avoid making the picture a medium of worship. But since the materials for this medium of worship are not derived from the only revelation we possess respecting Jesus, namely, Scripture, the worship is constrained by a creation of the human mind that has no revelatory warrant. This is will worship. For the principle of the second commandment is that we are to worship God only in ways prescribed and authorized by him. It is a grievous sin to have worship constrained by a human figment, and that is what a picture of the Saviour involves.
Thirdly, the second commandment forbids bowing down to an image or likeness of anything in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. A picture of the Saviour purports to be a representation or likeness of him who is now in heaven or, at least, of him when he sojourned upon the earth. It is plainly forbidden, therefore, to bow down in worship before such a representation or likeness. This exposes the iniquity involved in the practice of exhibiting pictorial representations of the Saviour in places of worship. When we worship before a picture of our Lord, whether it be in the form of a mural, or on canvas, or in stained glass, we are doing what the second commandment expressly forbids. This is rendered all the more apparent when we bear in mind that the only reason why a picture of him should be exhibited in a place is the supposition that it contributes to the worship of him who is our Lord. The practice only demonstrates how insensitive we readily become to the commandments of God and to the inroads of idolatry. May the Churches of Christ be awake to the deceptive expedients by which the archenemy ever seeks to corrupt the worship of the Saviour.
In summary, what is at stake in this question is the unique place which Jesus Christ as the God-man occupies in our faith and worship and the unique place which the Scripture occupies as the only revelation, the only medium of communication, respecting him whom we worship as Lord and Saviour. The incarnate Word and the written Word are correlative. We dare not use other media of impression or of sentiment but those of his institution and prescription. Every thought and impression of him should evoke worship. We worship him with the Father and the Holy Spirit, one God. To use a likeness of Christ as an aid to worship is forbidden by the second commandment as much in his case as in that of the Father and Spirit.
It will also be granted that the only purpose that could properly be served by a pictorial representation is that it would convey to us some thought or lesson representing him, consonant with truth and promotive of worship. Hence the question is inescapable: is a pictorial representation a legitimate way of conveying truth regarding him and of contributing to the worship which this truth should evoke?
We are all aware of the influence exerted on the mind and heart by pictures. Pictures are powerful media of communication. How suggestive they are for good or for evil and all the more so when accompanied by the comment of the spoken or written word! It is futile, therefore, to deny the influence exerted upon mind and heart by a picture of Christ. And if such is legitimate, the influence exerted should be one constraining to worship and adoration. To claim any lower aim as that served by a picture of the Saviour would be contradiction of the place which he must occupy in thought, affection, and honour.
The plea for the propriety of pictures of Christ is based on the fact that he was truly man, that he had a human body, that he was visible in his human nature to the physical senses, and that a picture assists us to take in the stupendous reality of his incarnation, in a word, that he was made in the likeness of men and was found in fashion as a man.
Our Lord had a true body. He could have been photographed. A portrait could have been made of him and, if a good portrait, it would have reproduced his likeness.
Without doubt the disciples in the days of his flesh had a vivid mental image of Jesus' appearance and they could not but have retained that recollection to the end of their days. They could never have entertained the thought of him as he had sojourned with them without something of that mental image and they could not have entertained it without adoration and worship. The very features which they remembered would have been part and parcel of their conception of him and reminiscent of what he had been to them in his humiliation and in the glory of his resurrection appearance. Much more might be said regarding the significance for the disciples of Jesus' physical features.
Jesus is also glorified in the body and that body is visible. It will also become visible to us at his glorious appearing "he will be seen the second time without sin by those who look for him unto salvation" (Hebrews 9:28).
What then are we to say of pictures of Christ? First of all, it must be said that we have no data whatsoever on the basis of which to make a pictorial representation; we have no descriptions of his physical features which would enable even the most accomplished artist to make an approximate portrait. In view of the profound influence exerted by a picture, especially on the minds of young people, we should perceive the peril involved in a portrayal for which there is no warrant, a portrayal which is the creation of pure imagination. It may help to point up the folly to ask: what would be the reaction of a disciple, who had actually seen the Lord in the days of his flesh, to a portrait which would be the work of imagination on the part of one who had never seen the Saviour? We can readily detect what his recoil would be.
No impression we have of Jesus should be created without the proper revelatory data, and every impression, every thought, should evoke worship. Hence, since we possess no revelatory data for a picture or portrait in the proper sense of the term, we are precluded from making one or using any that have been made.
Secondly, pictures of Christ are in principle a violation of the second commandment. A picture of Christ, if it serves any useful purpose, must evoke some thought or feeling respecting him and, in view of what he is, this thought or feeling will be worshipful. We cannot avoid making the picture a medium of worship. But since the materials for this medium of worship are not derived from the only revelation we possess respecting Jesus, namely, Scripture, the worship is constrained by a creation of the human mind that has no revelatory warrant. This is will worship. For the principle of the second commandment is that we are to worship God only in ways prescribed and authorized by him. It is a grievous sin to have worship constrained by a human figment, and that is what a picture of the Saviour involves.
Thirdly, the second commandment forbids bowing down to an image or likeness of anything in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. A picture of the Saviour purports to be a representation or likeness of him who is now in heaven or, at least, of him when he sojourned upon the earth. It is plainly forbidden, therefore, to bow down in worship before such a representation or likeness. This exposes the iniquity involved in the practice of exhibiting pictorial representations of the Saviour in places of worship. When we worship before a picture of our Lord, whether it be in the form of a mural, or on canvas, or in stained glass, we are doing what the second commandment expressly forbids. This is rendered all the more apparent when we bear in mind that the only reason why a picture of him should be exhibited in a place is the supposition that it contributes to the worship of him who is our Lord. The practice only demonstrates how insensitive we readily become to the commandments of God and to the inroads of idolatry. May the Churches of Christ be awake to the deceptive expedients by which the archenemy ever seeks to corrupt the worship of the Saviour.
In summary, what is at stake in this question is the unique place which Jesus Christ as the God-man occupies in our faith and worship and the unique place which the Scripture occupies as the only revelation, the only medium of communication, respecting him whom we worship as Lord and Saviour. The incarnate Word and the written Word are correlative. We dare not use other media of impression or of sentiment but those of his institution and prescription. Every thought and impression of him should evoke worship. We worship him with the Father and the Holy Spirit, one God. To use a likeness of Christ as an aid to worship is forbidden by the second commandment as much in his case as in that of the Father and Spirit.
The Difference between Reformed and Lutheran Perspectives on the Use of Icons in Ecclesiastical Architecture
I find that, in the debate over the use of icons, when it comes to Lutheran and Reformed arguments, the two groups are speaking past one another.
First, some Reformed folk often speak of the Lutheran veneration of images and use the second commandment to argue against it. Lutherans do not view themselves as venerating images, but instead using images didactically, i.e., to remind, inspire, teach about the story or idea that the image represents. No one, at least no one who understands Lutheran theology, is worshiping or venerating the images.
Second, Lutherans often counter by saying that many images are used in the Old Testament, but this is a bit of a straw man fallacy, as the Reformed are not arguing against the use of any image, or at least they shouldn't be, but against images of God and Christ.
Third, Lutherans often think that the entire debate is centered around whether they worship or venerate the images; but this is not the issue. The issue is whether the Bible prohibits the act of representing God or Christ with an image, regardless of whether the image is being used as an object or vehicle of worship or veneration. Hence, Lutherans tend to think that if they can show the second commandment is about worshiping through an idol, or about other gods, etc. then they have won the debate and their Reformed counterparts simply need to study more.
The problem is that the Sinai Theology in Exodus and Deuteronomy indicate that God does not want to be represented by an image at all, for any reason, and so prohibits the making of an image that would represent Him. The contrast in the texts are not between a rightly used image and a wrongly used image, but between image and word. For instance, in Deuteronomy 4:12-20, YHWH instructs His people to make no image of Him because they saw no image of Him on Sinai. Since He did not reveal Himself in an image, but through what was spoken, they are to pay extra close attention to what He has spoken, i.e., what He did reveal on Sinai.
Then the Lord spoke to you out of the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of words, but saw no form; there was only a voice. And he declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments, and he wrote them on two tablets of stone. And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and rules, that you might do them in the land that you are going over to possess. “Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth.
And beware lest you raise your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them, things that the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven. But the Lord has taken you and brought you out of the iron furnace, out of Egypt, to be a people of his own inheritance, as you are this day.
One might argue that the additional warning about worshiping other gods means that the entire prohibition is just about other gods, but this ignores the context. The additional warning is just that: additional. The original command is connected to the fact that they saw no form of God and so must represent Him by what He has spoken, and not by what is seen.
This is a continuation of the larger Sinai Theology that one sees in Exodus 32. A golden calf is made, not representing other gods, but representing YHWH. Hence, Aaron says that it is the God who brought them out of Egypt, and the following day, therefore, will be a feast to YHWH.
This is in the context that contrasts Moses receiving the written law on tablets with the Israelite desire to have a physical image that represents God. Note that the physical image is not meant to look like God. No one thought YHWH was a young bull anymore than they thought Baal was a young bull (a symbol that often represented him). It was simply meant to teach about YHWH (the bull represents the strength with which YHWH delivered them out of Egypt and the fertility of the land that flows with milk and honey into which He was bringing them). It is a fitting image for YHWH. No one thought that it was YHWH, only that it represented Him. In other words, this image, as all images in the ancient Near Eastern world, is constructed for didactic purposes and for veneration.
So the issue is whether God only had a problem with the use of the image for veneration, but not a problem with the didactic use. Because of the contrast between the word as God's representative and the image as represenatative in Sinai Theology, it seems clear that God has a problem with the physical image representing Him for any reason, i.e., with it being created at all. This is why there simply is no "right use" of any image of God found in Scripture.
Some Lutherans will acknowledge this when it comes to God (as do the Eastern Orthodox), but not when it comes to Christ, since, in line with the Seventh Ecumenical Council, the incarnation means that God has now expressed Himself through a physical form. Unlike the council, however, Lutherans do not conclude what logically follows from that idea, i.e., that one can worship Christ through the image and venerate it. Either way, the idea that the incarnation changes things is an argument made by the Eastern theologians like John of Damascus.
It is clearly a prohibition against representing the invisible God. But when you see Him who has no body become man for you, then you will make representations of His human aspect. When the Invisible, having clothed Himself in the flesh, become visible, then represent the likeness of Him who has appeared. When He who, having been the consubstantial Image of the Father, emptied Himself by taking the form of a servant, thus becoming bound in quantity and quality, having taken on the carnal image, then paint and make visible to everyone Him who desired to become visible (in Ouspensky 1978:44).
The problem with this idea is that John's Gospel adopts the Sinai Theology and applies it to Christ. His adoption of it is seen clearly in John 4, where He argues to the woman at the well that God is not worshiped through a physical representation, like a temple or hill, but through Spirit and Truth, i.e., the unseen Person of the Trinity creating through what God has spoken. John then applies this to Christ when Christ declares that it is actually beneficial that He goes away, so that the Spirit of Truth comes to the disciples and reveals all things to them, reminds them of Christ's words, convicts, etc. Until then, the disciples see Christ, but not really. Only after He leaves will they really see/comprehend Him. Hence, the physical is a hindrance, not a help to following Christ. This is why it is said to Thomas that those who do not see and believe are blessed. Hence, Christ is called the "Word," He alone has words of eternal life, the words He speaks are Spirit and life, to abide in His word is to abide in Him and Him to abide in His disciples, etc.
John argues this because the apostles are dying off. He is likely the last one. He wants to convey that no physical presence of the apostles is necessary to worship and know Christ because Christ's physical presence is not necessary, and even a hindrance because it causes one to think he sees and follows Christ by following Him physically. To truly follow Christ is to abide in His words. This is the truth of the Sinai Theology that negates the idea that because Christ is now incarnate representing Him as a teaching aid is somehow helpful rather than a hindrance that would be prohibited.
It should be said that all scholars agree (how could they not) that no images of Christ or God were ever used in the first couple centuries of the Christian church. It was not until the church had become more Greco-Roman than Jewish that images of Christ that began to resemble the gods like Zeus were created to replace the images of the Empire's former paganism.
The issue of debate, therefore, is not over whether one venerates the image, but whether God has a problem with the making of divine images for any reason at all. In this regard, I find the usual path of argumentation from both sides to be off course.
We have taught that the knowledge of God, otherwise quite clearly set forth in the system of the universe and in all creatures, is nonetheless more intimately and also more vividly revealed in his Word (John Calvin, Institutes 1.10.1).
First, some Reformed folk often speak of the Lutheran veneration of images and use the second commandment to argue against it. Lutherans do not view themselves as venerating images, but instead using images didactically, i.e., to remind, inspire, teach about the story or idea that the image represents. No one, at least no one who understands Lutheran theology, is worshiping or venerating the images.
Second, Lutherans often counter by saying that many images are used in the Old Testament, but this is a bit of a straw man fallacy, as the Reformed are not arguing against the use of any image, or at least they shouldn't be, but against images of God and Christ.
Third, Lutherans often think that the entire debate is centered around whether they worship or venerate the images; but this is not the issue. The issue is whether the Bible prohibits the act of representing God or Christ with an image, regardless of whether the image is being used as an object or vehicle of worship or veneration. Hence, Lutherans tend to think that if they can show the second commandment is about worshiping through an idol, or about other gods, etc. then they have won the debate and their Reformed counterparts simply need to study more.
The problem is that the Sinai Theology in Exodus and Deuteronomy indicate that God does not want to be represented by an image at all, for any reason, and so prohibits the making of an image that would represent Him. The contrast in the texts are not between a rightly used image and a wrongly used image, but between image and word. For instance, in Deuteronomy 4:12-20, YHWH instructs His people to make no image of Him because they saw no image of Him on Sinai. Since He did not reveal Himself in an image, but through what was spoken, they are to pay extra close attention to what He has spoken, i.e., what He did reveal on Sinai.
Then the Lord spoke to you out of the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of words, but saw no form; there was only a voice. And he declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments, and he wrote them on two tablets of stone. And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and rules, that you might do them in the land that you are going over to possess. “Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth.
And beware lest you raise your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them, things that the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven. But the Lord has taken you and brought you out of the iron furnace, out of Egypt, to be a people of his own inheritance, as you are this day.
One might argue that the additional warning about worshiping other gods means that the entire prohibition is just about other gods, but this ignores the context. The additional warning is just that: additional. The original command is connected to the fact that they saw no form of God and so must represent Him by what He has spoken, and not by what is seen.
This is a continuation of the larger Sinai Theology that one sees in Exodus 32. A golden calf is made, not representing other gods, but representing YHWH. Hence, Aaron says that it is the God who brought them out of Egypt, and the following day, therefore, will be a feast to YHWH.
This is in the context that contrasts Moses receiving the written law on tablets with the Israelite desire to have a physical image that represents God. Note that the physical image is not meant to look like God. No one thought YHWH was a young bull anymore than they thought Baal was a young bull (a symbol that often represented him). It was simply meant to teach about YHWH (the bull represents the strength with which YHWH delivered them out of Egypt and the fertility of the land that flows with milk and honey into which He was bringing them). It is a fitting image for YHWH. No one thought that it was YHWH, only that it represented Him. In other words, this image, as all images in the ancient Near Eastern world, is constructed for didactic purposes and for veneration.
So the issue is whether God only had a problem with the use of the image for veneration, but not a problem with the didactic use. Because of the contrast between the word as God's representative and the image as represenatative in Sinai Theology, it seems clear that God has a problem with the physical image representing Him for any reason, i.e., with it being created at all. This is why there simply is no "right use" of any image of God found in Scripture.
Some Lutherans will acknowledge this when it comes to God (as do the Eastern Orthodox), but not when it comes to Christ, since, in line with the Seventh Ecumenical Council, the incarnation means that God has now expressed Himself through a physical form. Unlike the council, however, Lutherans do not conclude what logically follows from that idea, i.e., that one can worship Christ through the image and venerate it. Either way, the idea that the incarnation changes things is an argument made by the Eastern theologians like John of Damascus.
It is clearly a prohibition against representing the invisible God. But when you see Him who has no body become man for you, then you will make representations of His human aspect. When the Invisible, having clothed Himself in the flesh, become visible, then represent the likeness of Him who has appeared. When He who, having been the consubstantial Image of the Father, emptied Himself by taking the form of a servant, thus becoming bound in quantity and quality, having taken on the carnal image, then paint and make visible to everyone Him who desired to become visible (in Ouspensky 1978:44).
The problem with this idea is that John's Gospel adopts the Sinai Theology and applies it to Christ. His adoption of it is seen clearly in John 4, where He argues to the woman at the well that God is not worshiped through a physical representation, like a temple or hill, but through Spirit and Truth, i.e., the unseen Person of the Trinity creating through what God has spoken. John then applies this to Christ when Christ declares that it is actually beneficial that He goes away, so that the Spirit of Truth comes to the disciples and reveals all things to them, reminds them of Christ's words, convicts, etc. Until then, the disciples see Christ, but not really. Only after He leaves will they really see/comprehend Him. Hence, the physical is a hindrance, not a help to following Christ. This is why it is said to Thomas that those who do not see and believe are blessed. Hence, Christ is called the "Word," He alone has words of eternal life, the words He speaks are Spirit and life, to abide in His word is to abide in Him and Him to abide in His disciples, etc.
John argues this because the apostles are dying off. He is likely the last one. He wants to convey that no physical presence of the apostles is necessary to worship and know Christ because Christ's physical presence is not necessary, and even a hindrance because it causes one to think he sees and follows Christ by following Him physically. To truly follow Christ is to abide in His words. This is the truth of the Sinai Theology that negates the idea that because Christ is now incarnate representing Him as a teaching aid is somehow helpful rather than a hindrance that would be prohibited.
It should be said that all scholars agree (how could they not) that no images of Christ or God were ever used in the first couple centuries of the Christian church. It was not until the church had become more Greco-Roman than Jewish that images of Christ that began to resemble the gods like Zeus were created to replace the images of the Empire's former paganism.
The issue of debate, therefore, is not over whether one venerates the image, but whether God has a problem with the making of divine images for any reason at all. In this regard, I find the usual path of argumentation from both sides to be off course.
We have taught that the knowledge of God, otherwise quite clearly set forth in the system of the universe and in all creatures, is nonetheless more intimately and also more vividly revealed in his Word (John Calvin, Institutes 1.10.1).
Q 96. What is God's will for us in the second commandment.
A. That we in no way make any image of God nor worship him in any other way than has been commanded in God's Word.
Q 97. May we then not make any image at all?
A. God cannot and may not be visibly portrayed in any way. Although creatures may be portrayed, yet God forbids making or having such images if one's intention is to worship them or to serve God through them.
Q 98. But may not images be permitted in churches in place of books for the unlearned?
A. No, we should not try to be wiser than God. God wants the Christian community instructed by the living preaching of his Word—not by idols that cannot even talk. (Heidelberg Catechism)
Tuesday, February 26, 2019
The Sin of God in Fundamentalist Ethics
If placing something in someone's presence that can be a huge temptation to them is wrong, then God is the biggest sinner in the history of sinners for placing the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden, knowing full well that the man and woman would be tempted by it. Indeed, everything we are tempted with has been created by Him and placed near us, i.e., made accessible to us, by Him.
In biblical ethics, however, there is no sin in the matter. Placing a created thing that can become a temptation in someone's presence is not a sin, but instead must be seen as a good. The difference is that God does not tempt Adam and Eve with it. The serpent does that. God merely creates the good thing and makes it accessible to the man and woman, but the devil distorts its use and tempts with it. Hence, the world of created things and people is a world of good things placed in our presence that only our corrupt nature and the wicked around us use to tempt us for evil. The things themselves are not tempting, nor the situations in which they are placed. The problem is us, not what is created or where it is placed.
In biblical ethics, however, there is no sin in the matter. Placing a created thing that can become a temptation in someone's presence is not a sin, but instead must be seen as a good. The difference is that God does not tempt Adam and Eve with it. The serpent does that. God merely creates the good thing and makes it accessible to the man and woman, but the devil distorts its use and tempts with it. Hence, the world of created things and people is a world of good things placed in our presence that only our corrupt nature and the wicked around us use to tempt us for evil. The things themselves are not tempting, nor the situations in which they are placed. The problem is us, not what is created or where it is placed.
Notes on Revelation 2-5
The letters of Revelation, often treated as though they are less interesting than the vivid imagery of future things, are actually the key to understanding the purpose of the book. John is writing to argue that a true Christian is one who values Christ above all other things, even his own life. As such, those who value Christ more than all else are encouraged to continue on in their work, since it will result in the reception of all of the promises of God's new creation and victory; and those who do not are told to repent lest they are cast out and partake of the damnation of the devil, beast, and false prophet.
Along these lines, John desires to communicate that there are three groups in the world: professing believers who are truly saved, the non-professing world that is damned, and professing believers who are not truly saved. Each is known by its faith and works together (as is a common theme in the Synoptics and General Epistles).
The seven churches likely represent the whole church, and not just the specific churches that are being addressed in the chapters. This is confirmed by the fact that each letter to a specific church ends with the statement, "He who has an ear to hear, he better listen to what the Spirit says to the churches (plural)." These churches, therefore, merely stand as representative of the entire church.
All of them are encouraged to continue in those things that are faithful to Christ. All but two (Smyrna and Philadelphia) are encouraged to repent where they are not faithful.
An inclusio is created from what is said to the first church, Ephesus, and the last church, Laodicea, where those in Ephesus were compromising by not having Christ as their primary love, i.e., choosing Him above all other things, and those in Laodicea who were doing the same by not choosing Christ over other things, but instead mixing their "love" of Christ with their love of a rich and comfortable lifestyle. In other words, Christ is not valued above all other things. He is not their "first" or "preeminent love." This then gives the framework for the rest of the letters. The real problem of theological and ethical compromise is not merely in actions, but in not loving and valuing Christ, not choosing Him, above all other things with the result that one loves his or her life and the things the world offers to that temporary life, more than Christ.
Hence, with this rejection of Christ is the warning that those who do not repent will not inherit the promises of the new creation. They do not do so because inheritance has to do with unification with Christ (i.e., taking upon oneself His name) and one who professes Christ while denying Him through either his compromised worship and activity does not take upon His name, i.e., is not united to Him, and thus, is not saved.
The eating things sacrificed to idols and sexual immorality is stock New Testament language that utilizes the figure of speech called synecdoche (a part represents the whole). Eating meat sacrificed to idols refers to pagan worship, i.e., the worship of other gods/theology of another religion. Hence, it represents pagan ideas concerning who God is, what is true, etc. In that regard, we might just summarize it as bad theology, false doctrine. Likewise, the practice of sexual immorality refers to a distortion of the creational activity of the image of God that undergirds all biblical ethics. As such, it stands at the head of all ethical understanding, and represents bad, chaotic, anticreational ethics. It is why the Gentiles are told in Acts 15 that, although they do not need to worry about practicing the rituals of the law that are mere pictures of holiness and have been fulfilled in Christ, they do need to observe biblical theology and ethics, i.e., abstaining from pagan worship and sexual immorality.
This is the book's concern. Christians are being pressured by the world to compromise in their theology and ethics by partaking in the worship and practices of the Roman world. This will culminate in the description of worshiping the beast and his image.
But John's point will be that one is made to be a priest of the kingdom today, a martyr/witness in one's life, not just in one's death. One who gives his life for Christ by being executed is one who has been giving his life for Christ all the while before it. This is what it means to be a victor (nikon) in life as a Christian. To the victor is given the spoils, and John's point is that only those who are victors will be given them.
Thus, after the rebuke and exhoration of the letters, John moves on to give the heavenly vision of God and Christ as the only Ones worthy of being worshiped and followed, the only Ones who should be valued above all other things. God the Father, who is described as having the beauty of precious jewels and halos of light, who is worshiped by angels and all of the patriarchs of the Old and New Testament, hands His scroll over to the Son, who alone is worthy to open it. It contains the power of rule and judgment upon the world that also saves His people from the oppression of the world. He is also said to have achieved victory via His death. He is described both as a lamb that is slain and the Lion of Judah who has a crown of seven horns (i.e., complete rule and authority), displaying that His path to life, victory, and rule was suffering and death, as He now calls His people to follow.
Along these lines, John desires to communicate that there are three groups in the world: professing believers who are truly saved, the non-professing world that is damned, and professing believers who are not truly saved. Each is known by its faith and works together (as is a common theme in the Synoptics and General Epistles).
The seven churches likely represent the whole church, and not just the specific churches that are being addressed in the chapters. This is confirmed by the fact that each letter to a specific church ends with the statement, "He who has an ear to hear, he better listen to what the Spirit says to the churches (plural)." These churches, therefore, merely stand as representative of the entire church.
All of them are encouraged to continue in those things that are faithful to Christ. All but two (Smyrna and Philadelphia) are encouraged to repent where they are not faithful.
An inclusio is created from what is said to the first church, Ephesus, and the last church, Laodicea, where those in Ephesus were compromising by not having Christ as their primary love, i.e., choosing Him above all other things, and those in Laodicea who were doing the same by not choosing Christ over other things, but instead mixing their "love" of Christ with their love of a rich and comfortable lifestyle. In other words, Christ is not valued above all other things. He is not their "first" or "preeminent love." This then gives the framework for the rest of the letters. The real problem of theological and ethical compromise is not merely in actions, but in not loving and valuing Christ, not choosing Him, above all other things with the result that one loves his or her life and the things the world offers to that temporary life, more than Christ.
Hence, with this rejection of Christ is the warning that those who do not repent will not inherit the promises of the new creation. They do not do so because inheritance has to do with unification with Christ (i.e., taking upon oneself His name) and one who professes Christ while denying Him through either his compromised worship and activity does not take upon His name, i.e., is not united to Him, and thus, is not saved.
The eating things sacrificed to idols and sexual immorality is stock New Testament language that utilizes the figure of speech called synecdoche (a part represents the whole). Eating meat sacrificed to idols refers to pagan worship, i.e., the worship of other gods/theology of another religion. Hence, it represents pagan ideas concerning who God is, what is true, etc. In that regard, we might just summarize it as bad theology, false doctrine. Likewise, the practice of sexual immorality refers to a distortion of the creational activity of the image of God that undergirds all biblical ethics. As such, it stands at the head of all ethical understanding, and represents bad, chaotic, anticreational ethics. It is why the Gentiles are told in Acts 15 that, although they do not need to worry about practicing the rituals of the law that are mere pictures of holiness and have been fulfilled in Christ, they do need to observe biblical theology and ethics, i.e., abstaining from pagan worship and sexual immorality.
This is the book's concern. Christians are being pressured by the world to compromise in their theology and ethics by partaking in the worship and practices of the Roman world. This will culminate in the description of worshiping the beast and his image.
But John's point will be that one is made to be a priest of the kingdom today, a martyr/witness in one's life, not just in one's death. One who gives his life for Christ by being executed is one who has been giving his life for Christ all the while before it. This is what it means to be a victor (nikon) in life as a Christian. To the victor is given the spoils, and John's point is that only those who are victors will be given them.
Thus, after the rebuke and exhoration of the letters, John moves on to give the heavenly vision of God and Christ as the only Ones worthy of being worshiped and followed, the only Ones who should be valued above all other things. God the Father, who is described as having the beauty of precious jewels and halos of light, who is worshiped by angels and all of the patriarchs of the Old and New Testament, hands His scroll over to the Son, who alone is worthy to open it. It contains the power of rule and judgment upon the world that also saves His people from the oppression of the world. He is also said to have achieved victory via His death. He is described both as a lamb that is slain and the Lion of Judah who has a crown of seven horns (i.e., complete rule and authority), displaying that His path to life, victory, and rule was suffering and death, as He now calls His people to follow.
Monday, February 25, 2019
Apostasy in Ephesus
That Ephesus was plagued by gnostic influences within the church is clear from the Book of Revelation, where Jesus commends the church for rejecting false apostles and the teachings of the Nicolaitans, which seems to be a gnostic group arguing for their own standards of morality.
In 1 Timothy, Paul writes to Timothy in Ephesus and tells him to urge people not to teach false doctrines, myths that are man-made, and practices that stem from a warped worldview that sees the created world around them as the problem.
In Chapter 4, a famously quoted passage, Paul writes that the Spirit of God has declared that some will even reject the faith to turn aside to this false worldview, and teach things that are actually the teachings of demons and deceptive spirits.
One would think his examples of this teaching would be that these demonically-influenced teachers would be telling people to reject holiness and go worship a goat's head as they sacrifice virgins to Satan; or, one would think, at the very least, they would be telling people to deny that Jesus is God or that He is the Christ or has come in the flesh, as they do according to John in his first epistle.
However, these followers of demonic teachings actually just tell people to avoid things that would tempt them to be too hinged to the world, specifically, the eating of certain foods and marriage. Here we are reminded of the gnostic ascetics in Collosae, a letter with similar instructions to those given to the Ephesians. "Do not taste," "Do not touch" is the mantra. "Taste" is a synecdoche for eating certain foods here. "Touch" is Paul's word for having sex with someone. Obviously, Paul advocates for the right use of food and sex. Hence, eating certain foods and marriage are those things that are being prohibited with these commands.
As discussed before, the gnostic method of dealing with sin stems from their worldview that the real problem is the presence of temptations that created things or people. In other words, the environment is the problem. Hence, salvation for the gnostic is to escape from the created world of tempting things rather than the orthodox, biblical view that sees salvation as the restoration of and to all created things through transformation of ourselves in Christ. We are transformed in biblical theology through the Spirit and the Word placed within us as we meet the created world that our fallen nature tempts us to distort for our own fleshly purposes with a renewed heart that wishes to use all creation in worship of God. This transformation and right use of all created things and people cannot be accomplished if they are removed because we wish to avoid temptation. Instead, worship only takes place when they are addressed head-on in the righteousness that Christ has given to us and to which we are being conformed through this process.
In essence, remove the possible temptation of the created thing by removing the created thing and you remove the possibility of worshiping God through the created thing. Remove that possibility and you remove any display of God's transforming work, i,e, the work of the gospel of Christ itself. God gets no glory so that the self-righteous gnostic can give some to himself.
And that is why Paul calls this apostasy. It is why the Holy Spirit explicitly says that these people withdraw from the faith, the true faith that Paul is teaching, by believing this. It isn't merely pettiness about peripherals or disagreements between Christians. It is a gospel issue.
The common American methodology of dealing with sin by removing temptation is not just a variant opinion that Christians can hold and still be in good standing. The Spirit of God Himself has called it an apostasy, a teaching of demons, a denial of the faith by those who profess to be Christian teachers but are, in fact, "speakers of falsehoods" who live in a mask ("in the outward presentation of an actor").
Paul will talk about apostasy throughout the letter, and warns that rejecting the faith does not always look like one might think. Apostasy is subtle. It sometimes is the way one deals with temptations and sin. Sometimes it is having nice feelings toward a person outside the faith who you desire to marry. Sometimes it's just being focused too hard on making money and not enough on helping people. Sometimes it's just talking bad about Christian teachers who are teaching the truth. All of these are examples of apostasy Paul gives in 1 Timothy (1:6, 19; 4:1; 5:8, 11-12, 15; 6:10; 6:20-21).
Hence, it is not always some explicit denial that is apparent in the church, but the implicit practices of those who claim Jesus as Lord, but deny Him by their deeds.
In 1 Timothy, Paul writes to Timothy in Ephesus and tells him to urge people not to teach false doctrines, myths that are man-made, and practices that stem from a warped worldview that sees the created world around them as the problem.
In Chapter 4, a famously quoted passage, Paul writes that the Spirit of God has declared that some will even reject the faith to turn aside to this false worldview, and teach things that are actually the teachings of demons and deceptive spirits.
One would think his examples of this teaching would be that these demonically-influenced teachers would be telling people to reject holiness and go worship a goat's head as they sacrifice virgins to Satan; or, one would think, at the very least, they would be telling people to deny that Jesus is God or that He is the Christ or has come in the flesh, as they do according to John in his first epistle.
However, these followers of demonic teachings actually just tell people to avoid things that would tempt them to be too hinged to the world, specifically, the eating of certain foods and marriage. Here we are reminded of the gnostic ascetics in Collosae, a letter with similar instructions to those given to the Ephesians. "Do not taste," "Do not touch" is the mantra. "Taste" is a synecdoche for eating certain foods here. "Touch" is Paul's word for having sex with someone. Obviously, Paul advocates for the right use of food and sex. Hence, eating certain foods and marriage are those things that are being prohibited with these commands.
As discussed before, the gnostic method of dealing with sin stems from their worldview that the real problem is the presence of temptations that created things or people. In other words, the environment is the problem. Hence, salvation for the gnostic is to escape from the created world of tempting things rather than the orthodox, biblical view that sees salvation as the restoration of and to all created things through transformation of ourselves in Christ. We are transformed in biblical theology through the Spirit and the Word placed within us as we meet the created world that our fallen nature tempts us to distort for our own fleshly purposes with a renewed heart that wishes to use all creation in worship of God. This transformation and right use of all created things and people cannot be accomplished if they are removed because we wish to avoid temptation. Instead, worship only takes place when they are addressed head-on in the righteousness that Christ has given to us and to which we are being conformed through this process.
In essence, remove the possible temptation of the created thing by removing the created thing and you remove the possibility of worshiping God through the created thing. Remove that possibility and you remove any display of God's transforming work, i,e, the work of the gospel of Christ itself. God gets no glory so that the self-righteous gnostic can give some to himself.
And that is why Paul calls this apostasy. It is why the Holy Spirit explicitly says that these people withdraw from the faith, the true faith that Paul is teaching, by believing this. It isn't merely pettiness about peripherals or disagreements between Christians. It is a gospel issue.
The common American methodology of dealing with sin by removing temptation is not just a variant opinion that Christians can hold and still be in good standing. The Spirit of God Himself has called it an apostasy, a teaching of demons, a denial of the faith by those who profess to be Christian teachers but are, in fact, "speakers of falsehoods" who live in a mask ("in the outward presentation of an actor").
Paul will talk about apostasy throughout the letter, and warns that rejecting the faith does not always look like one might think. Apostasy is subtle. It sometimes is the way one deals with temptations and sin. Sometimes it is having nice feelings toward a person outside the faith who you desire to marry. Sometimes it's just being focused too hard on making money and not enough on helping people. Sometimes it's just talking bad about Christian teachers who are teaching the truth. All of these are examples of apostasy Paul gives in 1 Timothy (1:6, 19; 4:1; 5:8, 11-12, 15; 6:10; 6:20-21).
Hence, it is not always some explicit denial that is apparent in the church, but the implicit practices of those who claim Jesus as Lord, but deny Him by their deeds.
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
Notes on Revelation: 1:12-20
John then turns to see who is talking to him in the Spirit-induced vision.
I turned to see whose voice was speaking to me, and when I did so, I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and in the midst of the lampstands was one like a son of man. He was dressed in a robe extending down to his feet and he wore a wide golden belt around his chest. 14 His head and hair were as white as wool, even as white as snow, and his eyes were like a fiery flame. 15 His feet were like polished bronze refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters. 16 He held seven stars in his right hand, and a sharp double-edged sword extended out of his mouth. His face shone like the sun shining at full strength. 17 When I saw him I fell down at his feet as though I were dead, but he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid! I am the first and the last, 18 and the one who lives! I was dead, but look, now I am alive – forever and ever – and I hold the keys of death and of Hades! 19 Therefore write what you saw, what is, and what will be after these things. 20 The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.
The imagery in Revelation 1:13–18 echoes that said of the Ancient of Days in Daniel, as well as some things said in Ezekiel of God, but is now being applied to Christ. Daniel 7:9-14 presents the following vision.
“thrones were set in place,
and the Ancient of Days took his seat.
His clothing was as white as snow;
the hair of his head was white like wool.
His throne was flaming with fire,
and its wheels were all ablaze.
10 A river of fire was flowing,
coming out from before him.
Thousands upon thousands attended him;
ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him.
The court was seated,
and the books were opened.
and the Ancient of Days took his seat.
His clothing was as white as snow;
the hair of his head was white like wool.
His throne was flaming with fire,
and its wheels were all ablaze.
10 A river of fire was flowing,
coming out from before him.
Thousands upon thousands attended him;
ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him.
The court was seated,
and the books were opened.
11 “Then I continued to watch because of the boastful words the horn was speaking. I kept looking until the beast was slain and its body destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire. 12 (The other beasts had been stripped of their authority, but were allowed to live for a period of time.)
13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
John uses the terminology of the “Son of Man” receiving His kingdom and exalted above the other kings and empires in Daniel of Christ here in Revelation. However, His receiving His kingdom is through His Church, represented by the seven lampstands and governed by the seven stars (i.e., all of the holy angels).
That John wishes to present Jesus as God is clear. In Ezekiel the voice that sounds like many waters is God’s voice (Ez 43:2), and John likely uses this to expand upon the description of the divine Son in Daniel 10. He is the first and the last, the Alpha and the Omega, the One who was and is and is to come (1:8, 17; 22:13) just like God the Father (1:4; 21:6). Hence, His appearance is as the appearance of the Ancient of Days, i.e., God the Father, in Daniel. In fact, the other half of the imagery applied to Christ is taken from Daniel 10:5–11.
7 I, Daniel, was the only one who saw the vision; those who were with me did not see it, but such terror overwhelmed them that they fled and hid themselves. 8 So I was left alone, gazing at this great vision; I had no strength left, my face turned deathly pale and I was helpless. 9 Then I heard him speaking, and as I listened to him, I fell into a deep sleep, my face to the ground.
10 A hand touched me and set me trembling on my hands and knees. 11 He said, “Daniel, you who are highly esteemed, consider carefully the words I am about to speak to you, and stand up, for I have now been sent to you.” And when he said this to me, I stood up trembling.
This Person that Daniel encounters in Chapter 10 is said to be one like a human, lit. “Son of Man.” Notice that John has the same reaction to him that Daniel has in the original scene. He commands the two greatest of archangels in Second Temple Jewish thought, Gabriel (8:15-16) and Michael (10:13, 20–21). John now reveals that this is the Son who holds all of the holy angels in His hand, i.e., under His authority. He will bring out throughout the book that Jesus is the King of Kings who opposes the devil’s kingdom, which has now switched from Persia in Daniel 10 to Rome in Revelation 13.
This contrast between Jesus and the Roman Emperor is important because Domitian has lifted himself up as deity, and Christians now must make a choice about who they are going to obey when there is a conflict of commands. In the same way, government lifts itself up as deity with a will of its own and it has conflicted with God’s will for His people throughout history. Knowing that Jesus is the true God, and not one of the devil’s fakes, is a comforting theology that also gives strength in the moment where one’s livelihood and very life are at stake. He is the Pantokrator, the Almighty, the Victorious One over the death and the grave itself, the Ruler of all rulers, and those persecuted Christians undergoing tribulation can take refuge in this truth.
The lampstands represent His kingdom and they refer to things found within His temple. Christ is dressed as the High Priest in the temple and walks among the individual churches/lampstands in the temple. What is the temple? According to the book, the temple is God’s/Christ’s dwelling place, and can refer to either heaven or the people of God themselves. Here, it clearly refers to the church.
Christ states that John is to write ἃ εἶδες καὶ ἃ εἰσὶν καὶ ἃ μέλλει |γενέσθαι| μετὰ ταῦτα “that which you see [Aorist as a perfective aspect, not past tense], that which is and what is destined to take place” in v. 19. “That which is” is typically understood as referring to the present judgment of Christ concerning the churches in the letters and then “that which is destined to take place after these things” refers to the future. This is not completely false, but may need some nuancing. What is likely being said is that the microcosmic events occurring now and the macrocosmic events occurring in the future are what John is seeing and writing about throughout the book. They are combined and one is being placed in the context of the other rather than seen as two separate events that don’t have much to do with one another. The judgment Christ renders of the churches now is part of the judgment to come. The salvation He gives to the churches now is part of the salvation that is to come. Hence, John is told to write in the typical framework of the apocalyptic genre. What is now is placed in the context of what is to come as though what is to come is, to a smaller degree, taking place now through the microcosmic event occurring in the present. This is made clearler by understanding that John has split the scene in Daniel, where the Ancient of Days opens the books to render judgment. The Son comes to render judgment upon the churches and receive His kingdom in the present, but will ultimately not receive it from the Ancient of Days until the final judgment (i.e, John's "already-not yet" framwork is on display in Revelation as it is in his Gospel).
With this understanding, he begins Christ's assessment of the churches in Chapters 2-3.
Monday, February 18, 2019
The Authority of Elders in the Christian Church according to the Bible
The New Testament teaches that every authority, even secular authorities, are from God and represent God in an ambassadorial role. Hence, the wrath of God will come upon those who disobey it (Rom 13:1-5; 1 Peter). Even unbelieving rulers are to be honored (Acts 23:2-5; 1 Pet 2:13-15). It places a greater honor and obedience toward its leaders, and confers an authority upon them that is not often recognized in modern, American Evangelicalism. The following are just a few verses that display this authority. Many more could be taken from the Old Testament to show the continuity between Levitical priests, prophets, elders, etc.; but that would be a much larger post. I include here the authority of the apostles which is transferred to the elders, not in their revelatory or sign gifts, but in the continued office of teaching and exercising authority over the church.
"Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you." (Heb 13:17)
"So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not abusing those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. Likewise, you who are younger in the faith, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” (1 Pet 5:1-5)
“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed[f] in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” (Matt 18:15-20)
Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” (John 20:21-23)
Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.
3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”
5 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6 Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.
7 About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”
“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”
9 Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”
10 At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events. (Acts 5:1-11)
For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. 4 When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord." (1 Cor 5:3-5)
Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they might be taught not to slander. (1 Tim 1:20)
14 Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective. 17 Elijah was a human being, even as we are. He prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the land for three and a half years. 18 Again he prayed, and the heavens gave rain, and the earth produced its crops. (James 5:14-18)
14 Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through prophecy when the body of elders laid their hands on you. (1 Tim 4:14)
"Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you." (Heb 13:17)
"So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not abusing those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. Likewise, you who are younger in the faith, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” (1 Pet 5:1-5)
“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed[f] in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” (Matt 18:15-20)
Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” (John 20:21-23)
Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.
3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”
5 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6 Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.
7 About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”
“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”
9 Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”
10 At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events. (Acts 5:1-11)
For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. 4 When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord." (1 Cor 5:3-5)
Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they might be taught not to slander. (1 Tim 1:20)
14 Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective. 17 Elijah was a human being, even as we are. He prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the land for three and a half years. 18 Again he prayed, and the heavens gave rain, and the earth produced its crops. (James 5:14-18)
14 Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through prophecy when the body of elders laid their hands on you. (1 Tim 4:14)
Colossians on Gnostic Asceticism
Paul had to deal with alternate "Christianities" that came about due to the syncretization of the gospel with certain Greek worldviews prevalent in the culture. The most prevalent were gnostic sects promoting a Platonic worldview that believed the problem of evil in the world was the physical world itself. The base desires of the body craved to use the physical world around it in an erroneous manner. Gnostics took hold of Christianity and adopted the idea that this erroneous way of using the world was sin and the way to rid oneself of sin was to remove the temptations of physical things/people/etc. from one's life as much as possible.
Paul addresses some of this thinking in Colossians 2. He first warns the Colossians not to be deceived by human reasoning that is void of substance in its understanding of how to achieve holiness (2:8). The Colossians are being built up in faith and strengthened by Christ who is God incarnate (vv. 6-9), and Christians have been filled with Him and His power as the ruler of all things through His overcoming of sin through the cross, so that the forces that would tempt them have been overcome in this way (vv. 10-15). In other words, the strength of the Christian to overcome sin is the cross, the new life He has given him through it, and being firm in one's faith as he lives in the gospel and teaching of Christianity with thanksgiving (i.e., using all things that once tempted rightly in thankfulness).
He then proceeds to reject anyone who judges another concerning their acceptance of things that might be tempting these Gentiles to return to their paganism: new moon festivals, rest days, feast days, foods once dedicated to other deities, etc. (vv. 16-19). These things were so closely connected to their former paganism that surely the wisdom of the world's holiness would be to rid oneself of them altogether. However, Paul argues that this is wrong-headed.
Instead, he tells them not to remove things that tempt one to sin, as though it will somehow help them to grow internally strong in their minds and spirits by removing something external from their situation. He states:
Paul addresses some of this thinking in Colossians 2. He first warns the Colossians not to be deceived by human reasoning that is void of substance in its understanding of how to achieve holiness (2:8). The Colossians are being built up in faith and strengthened by Christ who is God incarnate (vv. 6-9), and Christians have been filled with Him and His power as the ruler of all things through His overcoming of sin through the cross, so that the forces that would tempt them have been overcome in this way (vv. 10-15). In other words, the strength of the Christian to overcome sin is the cross, the new life He has given him through it, and being firm in one's faith as he lives in the gospel and teaching of Christianity with thanksgiving (i.e., using all things that once tempted rightly in thankfulness).
He then proceeds to reject anyone who judges another concerning their acceptance of things that might be tempting these Gentiles to return to their paganism: new moon festivals, rest days, feast days, foods once dedicated to other deities, etc. (vv. 16-19). These things were so closely connected to their former paganism that surely the wisdom of the world's holiness would be to rid oneself of them altogether. However, Paul argues that this is wrong-headed.
Instead, he tells them not to remove things that tempt one to sin, as though it will somehow help them to grow internally strong in their minds and spirits by removing something external from their situation. He states:
If you have died with Christ to the elemental spirits of the world, why do you submit to them as though you lived in the world? “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!” These are all destined to perish with use, founded as they are on human commands and teachings. Even though they have the appearance of wisdom with their self-imposed worship and humility achieved by an unsparing treatment of the body – a wisdom with no true value – they in reality result in fleshly indulgence.(vv. 20-23)
Notice that this type of reasoning sounds very convincing, but its origin is human wisdom and not God, who would have Christians become strong from the inside-out. Hence, Christians are to meet those things that are potential temptations to reenter a life of unbelief with a life of faith and thanksgiving by surrounding themselves with those things if they choose, partaking in them in a manner that places the gospel and thanksgiving at the center of the situation.
Notice also he ends by saying this corrupt doctrine ends with fleshly indulgence because a person never grows and learns how to deal with temptation from the inside. Once exposed to temptation again, he falls and enters into a life of sin because removing temptation never allowed him to become strong in his resistance of it.
The remedy for the alcoholic is not to remove alcohol, but to meet the temptation with strength provided by faith and thanksgiving toward Jesus Christ, the divine ruler over all things and the life-giving good news. In other words, what was misused before should be used now to worship Christ, and temptations are an opportunity to do so. As such, the Christian community can surround such an individual to give him strength and encouragement in the same without removing the created thing or person that may tempt him.
The heretical idea of holiness is why children leave fundamentalist families and indulge in sin. It is why Amish children run to sin both in and outside the community. Removing temptations, including temptations here with which the Colossians have a history, as Paul says, "has no value."
A Holiness Built on Sand
In the previous post, I contrasted Christianity with modern fundamentalism's view concerning how one fights sin. The verses that are often used to support this view remind me very much of verses used to support cults. They all sound like they are saying what the traditional interpretation of the cult says they do until one reads them in context.
In Christianity, one does not remove the world of temptations from himself, but instead meets temptations with the strength of the Word of God and fellowship of other believers, i.e., the support and accountability of the Church. Those are the sources of strength for the believer to help resist sin when tempted. The fundamentalist view, rooted in the heresy of Gnosticism, where the problem is the physical object or situation or created things in the world itself, attempts to deal with sin by removing himself from those physical objects, people, situations, world, etc. In fact, salvation for the Gnostic is actually a deliverance from the physical world much like fundamentalism's idea that Jesus is going to fly back to earth to take us all away to heaven so we can be saved from this terrible place. The problem is our location and situation (i.e., the external creation itself) rather than internal. Hence, to fight sin in fundamentalist gnosticism is to remove the temptation. Avoiding temptation is a godly endeavor in the fundamentalist view, and so many laws were created to get rid of liquor stores, burn offending books, get rid of that rock and roll music, outlaw gambling, etc. I remember being at Moody where no playing cards were allowed because of this tradition.
There are a couple verses used to support this view, and I would like to look at them in context now.
The first is Proverbs 6:27-28:
Can a man scoop fire into his lap
without his clothes being burned?
Can a man walk on hot coals
without his feet being scorched?
This is quoted over and over again in fundamentalism to support the idea that if one plays with fire, i.e., puts himself in situations where he can be tempted, he's likely going to sin. However, the verse, in context, is not talking about temptation at all. Here is the context.
19 Do not put the light of the Spirit out. 20 Do not treat prophecies with contempt 21 but test them all; hold on to what is good, 22 reject anything that is clearly evil.
The context is clearly talking about what one does with prophecies that are given. Instead of extinguishing the light of the Spirit (v. 19) by treating prophecies with contempt (v. 20), the Thessalonians are to allow them and test them (v. 21), holding tightly to what is good (v. 21), but rejecting anything that is clearly seen by the Thessalonians to be evil (v. 22).
What trips people up is the word eidous, which can mean "appearance" in some contexts. The unmarked meaning of the word seems to be just something that is apparent or seen, as in 2 Corinthians 5:7, which contrasts that which is clearly seen with that which is not seen and must be accepted by faith. The translation "appearance" does not quite capture the idea here, and is not a great translation, even though it still would not negate the meaning of the passage in the context. It would simply have to be understood that the Thessalonians are to hold onto whatever in the prophecies that are given is good and to steer clear of anything in them that is an obvious evil. In fact, this is the larger context as well, since Paul is exhorting them to not partake in anything like sexual immorality, rebellion or disrespect toward church leadership that represents Christ in its authority, not loving fellow Christians, etc.
The point is that this is not talking about being in situations that could be tempting or suspicious to others. It is talking about rejecting anything evil in a prophecy.
But a further comment on this verse in relation to our subject would be instructive. Notice that Paul is arguing that they should not remove all prophecy because they could be tempted by something evil in it. There is a real danger in people believing prophetic utterances that tell them to do what is evil. If Paul were a gnostic, he might just commend the Thessalonians for getting rid of prophecy. Instead, he tells them not to remove the very possible temptation of following an evil teaching by removing prophecy, but to endure all prophecy and to deal with it by being strong in one's mind to discern/test what is said, and accepting only the good teaching while rejecting the bad. That is Christian response to things/people that may tempt in the world, i.e., rid oneself of the error rather than to rid oneself of the external thing that could bring the error. One is a worldview gained from a false religion and the other is a worldview obtained by the truth of apostolic Christianity. One is a false holiness, therefore, and one genuine, biblical holiness. The regenerate Christian who is guided by the Spirit of God will be directed to true holiness when this is pointed out to him. The naturally-made "Christian" will continue in his Gnostic form of ascetic holiness because his method of addressing sin seems better to him than the one proposed by the Bible. As we can see, eisegeting Scripture in the delusion of confirmation bias is a dangerous game. If you look for another religion in the Bible than genuine Christianity, you will find it. You just can't look too hard lest that religion soon be refuted by its whole counsel of what is said.
In Christianity, one does not remove the world of temptations from himself, but instead meets temptations with the strength of the Word of God and fellowship of other believers, i.e., the support and accountability of the Church. Those are the sources of strength for the believer to help resist sin when tempted. The fundamentalist view, rooted in the heresy of Gnosticism, where the problem is the physical object or situation or created things in the world itself, attempts to deal with sin by removing himself from those physical objects, people, situations, world, etc. In fact, salvation for the Gnostic is actually a deliverance from the physical world much like fundamentalism's idea that Jesus is going to fly back to earth to take us all away to heaven so we can be saved from this terrible place. The problem is our location and situation (i.e., the external creation itself) rather than internal. Hence, to fight sin in fundamentalist gnosticism is to remove the temptation. Avoiding temptation is a godly endeavor in the fundamentalist view, and so many laws were created to get rid of liquor stores, burn offending books, get rid of that rock and roll music, outlaw gambling, etc. I remember being at Moody where no playing cards were allowed because of this tradition.
There are a couple verses used to support this view, and I would like to look at them in context now.
The first is Proverbs 6:27-28:
Can a man scoop fire into his lap
without his clothes being burned?
Can a man walk on hot coals
without his feet being scorched?
This is quoted over and over again in fundamentalism to support the idea that if one plays with fire, i.e., puts himself in situations where he can be tempted, he's likely going to sin. However, the verse, in context, is not talking about temptation at all. Here is the context.
26 For a prostitute can be had for a loaf of bread,
but another man’s wife preys on your very life.
27 Can a man scoop fire into his lap
without his clothes being burned?
28 Can a man walk on hot coals
without his feet being scorched?
29 So is he who has sex with another man’s wife;
no one who touches her will go unpunished.
but another man’s wife preys on your very life.
27 Can a man scoop fire into his lap
without his clothes being burned?
28 Can a man walk on hot coals
without his feet being scorched?
29 So is he who has sex with another man’s wife;
no one who touches her will go unpunished.
30 People do not despise a thief if he steals
to satisfy his hunger when he is starving.
31 Yet if he is caught, he must pay sevenfold,
though it costs him all the wealth of his house.
32 But a man who commits adultery has no sense;
whoever does so destroys himself.
to satisfy his hunger when he is starving.
31 Yet if he is caught, he must pay sevenfold,
though it costs him all the wealth of his house.
32 But a man who commits adultery has no sense;
whoever does so destroys himself.
The passage is clearly talking about commiting adultery, not merely being tempted to commit adultery. Bringing fire into one's lap/walking on hot coals is parallel to having sex with another man's wife. Being burned refers to the judgment to come as a result of the sin. It has absolutely nothing to do with temptation, and everything to do with sin.
The second passage, misunderstood more than the other, has a long tradition of being taken out of context and mistranslated because of it. 1 Thessalonians 5:22, they say, tells us to "abstain from/avoid every appearance of evil." What they take this to mean is that we are to avoid even any situation that could be construed as tempting, since people could speculate and think that we are sinning.
There is a lot more to unpack there in terms of whether Christians are to avoid situations where others could more easily imagine them sinning. However, the idea that one is to avoid tempting situations, i.e., situations that appear evil to others, has nothing to do with what Paul is saying here in context. The context is presented below, translated correctly according to the context.
The context is clearly talking about what one does with prophecies that are given. Instead of extinguishing the light of the Spirit (v. 19) by treating prophecies with contempt (v. 20), the Thessalonians are to allow them and test them (v. 21), holding tightly to what is good (v. 21), but rejecting anything that is clearly seen by the Thessalonians to be evil (v. 22).
What trips people up is the word eidous, which can mean "appearance" in some contexts. The unmarked meaning of the word seems to be just something that is apparent or seen, as in 2 Corinthians 5:7, which contrasts that which is clearly seen with that which is not seen and must be accepted by faith. The translation "appearance" does not quite capture the idea here, and is not a great translation, even though it still would not negate the meaning of the passage in the context. It would simply have to be understood that the Thessalonians are to hold onto whatever in the prophecies that are given is good and to steer clear of anything in them that is an obvious evil. In fact, this is the larger context as well, since Paul is exhorting them to not partake in anything like sexual immorality, rebellion or disrespect toward church leadership that represents Christ in its authority, not loving fellow Christians, etc.
The point is that this is not talking about being in situations that could be tempting or suspicious to others. It is talking about rejecting anything evil in a prophecy.
But a further comment on this verse in relation to our subject would be instructive. Notice that Paul is arguing that they should not remove all prophecy because they could be tempted by something evil in it. There is a real danger in people believing prophetic utterances that tell them to do what is evil. If Paul were a gnostic, he might just commend the Thessalonians for getting rid of prophecy. Instead, he tells them not to remove the very possible temptation of following an evil teaching by removing prophecy, but to endure all prophecy and to deal with it by being strong in one's mind to discern/test what is said, and accepting only the good teaching while rejecting the bad. That is Christian response to things/people that may tempt in the world, i.e., rid oneself of the error rather than to rid oneself of the external thing that could bring the error. One is a worldview gained from a false religion and the other is a worldview obtained by the truth of apostolic Christianity. One is a false holiness, therefore, and one genuine, biblical holiness. The regenerate Christian who is guided by the Spirit of God will be directed to true holiness when this is pointed out to him. The naturally-made "Christian" will continue in his Gnostic form of ascetic holiness because his method of addressing sin seems better to him than the one proposed by the Bible. As we can see, eisegeting Scripture in the delusion of confirmation bias is a dangerous game. If you look for another religion in the Bible than genuine Christianity, you will find it. You just can't look too hard lest that religion soon be refuted by its whole counsel of what is said.
Wednesday, February 13, 2019
Should Unrelated People of the Opposite Sex Live in the Same Familial Household?
I know this is an odd question. It would seem rather obvious to me that the answer is yes. However, it has come up at our church for a specific reason, and I want to address it here, and then maybe address a more important issue of epistemology as well.
First, obviously it is OK for family members to live with one another. It would be an absurdity to try and argue that it is not. Likewise, an unmarried male and female should not live alone together in the household if they are just sinning with one another. The issue is really tempation, not sin (two elements that are unfortunately confused in many churches). This question is really whether it is OK for a family to take in a member of the opposite sex when other members of the household (a father, son, male servant, etc.) also live in the household. Specifically, let's just limit it to taking in a female for purposes of brevity.
Biblically, we have to ask concerning multiple scenarios. If it is wrong to take an unrelated female into the family household because there are males who live there who might be tempted by it, then it is wrong no matter what the situation. One cannot pick and choose between scenarios that he finds more palatable than others. If there is a principle that would reject an unrelated female from being taken into the household then it should reject any situation where the unrelated female might be.
The hard part of this is getting Scripture to agree with one's sentiments, as well as being consistent with those sentiments. Most people who would have a problem with this would only take issue with a single unrelated female, but does this mean that adultery is not a threat? Is there no temptation for married people? Plenty of married couples/families share households around the world, and in America, for economic reasons. The principle that rejects an unrelated female from living in the household should also reject this practice. Likewise, it should reject the practice of foreign exchange students who are female. It should also reject adoption of older orphans who have entered puberty. Any sort of communal living would be evil. One might even say vacationing with other families, if there is shared housing, is wrong.
The Bible, of course, sets up no principle against this, as it becomes an absurdity. It would mean that one cannot take in a widow or orphans, have handmaids, take in their betrothed, leave their daughters with others while they have to leave for work, war, etc.
The argument seems to be that having the unrelated opposite sex in the household is a temptation, but there are numerous problems with this line of reasoning.
1. The Bible doesn't tell us to remove temptations, but to refrain from sin or making others sin. These same people have greater temptations every day on their computers and TV's. Do they get rid of them? Why not? Do these people go out into the world? Why? Aren't they freer of temptation at home once they get rid of all of the possible temptations there? We ask God not to drive us into the temptation so that we are delivered from evil. We are not asking God to help us avoid all temptation. Temptation is an opportunity to become stronger. We may remove someone from a situation if we know they are just going to sin, and have a track record of doing so, because they are not strong, but we do not remove temptations beyond this point.
2. The Bible has multiple instances of unrelated females living with males (and vice versa) even though it is a temptation for everyone. As mentioned before, the greatest temptation of an unrelated female living in the household would be either one to whom a male in the household was betrothed (and therefore one could reason that premarital sex was Ok because he was going to marry her anyway) or with a female servant that a member of the opposite sex owned (since the one in power has a greater influence over the one who is easily influenced by that power). These would be the most tempting scenarios where one would be tempted, and yet, the Bible does not even hint at forbidding taking in an unrelated female into the household.
3. There is actually greater temptation for a couple to be alone than to be surrounded by family. If one wanted to truly get rid of temptation, he or she might want to forbid any alone time. That would mean forbidding driving anywhere together alone, going out alone on dates or otherwise, etc. Yet, these people evidence their cultural traditions by having no problem with that scenario and every problem with an unrelated female being in the household.
4. Not only does the Bible have no problem with this, Christians throughout history have no problem with it either. All of these practices: betrothed females, handmaids, adopted adolescent and adult females, widows, females of friends or distant relatives like distant cousins, etc. all stayed with families where men could possibly be tempted by their presence. No one ever thought that the practice itself should be abandoned. Indeed, in many cases, it would be contrary to Christianity to not allow for it.
All of this to say, the aversion to this seems to be due to a gnostic element in the religious subculture that seeks to remove sin by removing the physical as a temptation of sin. It reminds one of monks who scurry away into their monasteries so that they are no longer burdened by temptations. Our religious subculture views these men as holier than others when, in fact, biblically, they would be viewed as weaker, and even moreso, disobedient, than the rest.
Gnosticism is a real problem in fundamentalism. If some physical thing can be tempting, the thing itself must be removed. If alcohol can tempt anyone, it must removed from all households and churches. If television is a temptation, one should not have one. Likewise, if the presence of unrelated women are a temptation, one can see how the argument should just say, "Let's remove the presence of women." However, since this is impossible, one just tries to sanitize what he can by removing unrelated women from any spheres that the religious subculture would find acceptable.
This is not how Christians become strong. This is not how Christians deal with sin. Christ does not avoid the wilderness because He knows He will be tempted there. Once tempted, He does not run screaming back into the city. He displays His strength in temptation to the glory of God by meeting it with an unwavering faith in the truth of the Word of God. We don't entice people, which is what the devil/world/flesh does, and what the Scripture means by the phrase, "stumbling-block"; but we do not remove temptation or avoid all situations where one might be tempted either, since that would mean that one is not growing as a Christian, but has simply rid himself of the world itself. The world being gone, he remains the same unchanged bag of flesh he was before. Instead, rather than trying to change the world and the possible situations that tempt us, we allow God to change us through temptation, not in its absence.
A last note to ponder is how the fundamentalist gnostics know that this is bad apart from Scripture. It seems to me that those who argue this way are using their own intuition and reason based upon the theology of the false religion/Christianity I mentioned above. We know nothing apart from Scripture. To argue otherwise is to make rules from the teachings of men, the very thing Christ rebuked the Pharisees for doing. Indeed, men work hard for antichrist (i.e., to replace Christ with one's own religion and ideas of holiness); but the Christian should work hard for Christ, seeking to strengthen one another, keeping one another accountable as we encounter temptations in our homes and in the world. The heretical, gnostic view makes sense in liberalism, where God speaks to us through intuition, feelings, cultural sentiments largely influenced by the zeitgeist, human reason, etc. It is the enemy of the orthodox Christian faith, however, when it tends to disregard and even contradict the principles in Scripture.
In the end, God has filled the world with temptations, and He has not removed them from us. Instead, Christ prays that we would be strengthened in the world of temptation so that we would not be of the world, but rather that we might become like Him in the world.
As such, if it is loving to take in a widow, a homeless Christian woman, a housemaid in need of work, a single Christian mother who is pregnant, a distant relative in need of a place to stay, a girl in need who is betrothed to a son in the family, a Christian girl is left by a parent who must go elsewhere, a Christian woman who needs protection, etc. then to do otherwise because of some man-made ethic that rejects both the testimony of Scripture as the supreme guide of our ethics, and the Church as supreme intepreter of that revelation, is self-exaltation, antichrist, hatred of God and His people, anticreational, and murder, all in the name of heretical holiness.
First, obviously it is OK for family members to live with one another. It would be an absurdity to try and argue that it is not. Likewise, an unmarried male and female should not live alone together in the household if they are just sinning with one another. The issue is really tempation, not sin (two elements that are unfortunately confused in many churches). This question is really whether it is OK for a family to take in a member of the opposite sex when other members of the household (a father, son, male servant, etc.) also live in the household. Specifically, let's just limit it to taking in a female for purposes of brevity.
Biblically, we have to ask concerning multiple scenarios. If it is wrong to take an unrelated female into the family household because there are males who live there who might be tempted by it, then it is wrong no matter what the situation. One cannot pick and choose between scenarios that he finds more palatable than others. If there is a principle that would reject an unrelated female from being taken into the household then it should reject any situation where the unrelated female might be.
The hard part of this is getting Scripture to agree with one's sentiments, as well as being consistent with those sentiments. Most people who would have a problem with this would only take issue with a single unrelated female, but does this mean that adultery is not a threat? Is there no temptation for married people? Plenty of married couples/families share households around the world, and in America, for economic reasons. The principle that rejects an unrelated female from living in the household should also reject this practice. Likewise, it should reject the practice of foreign exchange students who are female. It should also reject adoption of older orphans who have entered puberty. Any sort of communal living would be evil. One might even say vacationing with other families, if there is shared housing, is wrong.
The Bible, of course, sets up no principle against this, as it becomes an absurdity. It would mean that one cannot take in a widow or orphans, have handmaids, take in their betrothed, leave their daughters with others while they have to leave for work, war, etc.
The argument seems to be that having the unrelated opposite sex in the household is a temptation, but there are numerous problems with this line of reasoning.
1. The Bible doesn't tell us to remove temptations, but to refrain from sin or making others sin. These same people have greater temptations every day on their computers and TV's. Do they get rid of them? Why not? Do these people go out into the world? Why? Aren't they freer of temptation at home once they get rid of all of the possible temptations there? We ask God not to drive us into the temptation so that we are delivered from evil. We are not asking God to help us avoid all temptation. Temptation is an opportunity to become stronger. We may remove someone from a situation if we know they are just going to sin, and have a track record of doing so, because they are not strong, but we do not remove temptations beyond this point.
2. The Bible has multiple instances of unrelated females living with males (and vice versa) even though it is a temptation for everyone. As mentioned before, the greatest temptation of an unrelated female living in the household would be either one to whom a male in the household was betrothed (and therefore one could reason that premarital sex was Ok because he was going to marry her anyway) or with a female servant that a member of the opposite sex owned (since the one in power has a greater influence over the one who is easily influenced by that power). These would be the most tempting scenarios where one would be tempted, and yet, the Bible does not even hint at forbidding taking in an unrelated female into the household.
3. There is actually greater temptation for a couple to be alone than to be surrounded by family. If one wanted to truly get rid of temptation, he or she might want to forbid any alone time. That would mean forbidding driving anywhere together alone, going out alone on dates or otherwise, etc. Yet, these people evidence their cultural traditions by having no problem with that scenario and every problem with an unrelated female being in the household.
4. Not only does the Bible have no problem with this, Christians throughout history have no problem with it either. All of these practices: betrothed females, handmaids, adopted adolescent and adult females, widows, females of friends or distant relatives like distant cousins, etc. all stayed with families where men could possibly be tempted by their presence. No one ever thought that the practice itself should be abandoned. Indeed, in many cases, it would be contrary to Christianity to not allow for it.
All of this to say, the aversion to this seems to be due to a gnostic element in the religious subculture that seeks to remove sin by removing the physical as a temptation of sin. It reminds one of monks who scurry away into their monasteries so that they are no longer burdened by temptations. Our religious subculture views these men as holier than others when, in fact, biblically, they would be viewed as weaker, and even moreso, disobedient, than the rest.
Gnosticism is a real problem in fundamentalism. If some physical thing can be tempting, the thing itself must be removed. If alcohol can tempt anyone, it must removed from all households and churches. If television is a temptation, one should not have one. Likewise, if the presence of unrelated women are a temptation, one can see how the argument should just say, "Let's remove the presence of women." However, since this is impossible, one just tries to sanitize what he can by removing unrelated women from any spheres that the religious subculture would find acceptable.
This is not how Christians become strong. This is not how Christians deal with sin. Christ does not avoid the wilderness because He knows He will be tempted there. Once tempted, He does not run screaming back into the city. He displays His strength in temptation to the glory of God by meeting it with an unwavering faith in the truth of the Word of God. We don't entice people, which is what the devil/world/flesh does, and what the Scripture means by the phrase, "stumbling-block"; but we do not remove temptation or avoid all situations where one might be tempted either, since that would mean that one is not growing as a Christian, but has simply rid himself of the world itself. The world being gone, he remains the same unchanged bag of flesh he was before. Instead, rather than trying to change the world and the possible situations that tempt us, we allow God to change us through temptation, not in its absence.
A last note to ponder is how the fundamentalist gnostics know that this is bad apart from Scripture. It seems to me that those who argue this way are using their own intuition and reason based upon the theology of the false religion/Christianity I mentioned above. We know nothing apart from Scripture. To argue otherwise is to make rules from the teachings of men, the very thing Christ rebuked the Pharisees for doing. Indeed, men work hard for antichrist (i.e., to replace Christ with one's own religion and ideas of holiness); but the Christian should work hard for Christ, seeking to strengthen one another, keeping one another accountable as we encounter temptations in our homes and in the world. The heretical, gnostic view makes sense in liberalism, where God speaks to us through intuition, feelings, cultural sentiments largely influenced by the zeitgeist, human reason, etc. It is the enemy of the orthodox Christian faith, however, when it tends to disregard and even contradict the principles in Scripture.
In the end, God has filled the world with temptations, and He has not removed them from us. Instead, Christ prays that we would be strengthened in the world of temptation so that we would not be of the world, but rather that we might become like Him in the world.
As such, if it is loving to take in a widow, a homeless Christian woman, a housemaid in need of work, a single Christian mother who is pregnant, a distant relative in need of a place to stay, a girl in need who is betrothed to a son in the family, a Christian girl is left by a parent who must go elsewhere, a Christian woman who needs protection, etc. then to do otherwise because of some man-made ethic that rejects both the testimony of Scripture as the supreme guide of our ethics, and the Church as supreme intepreter of that revelation, is self-exaltation, antichrist, hatred of God and His people, anticreational, and murder, all in the name of heretical holiness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)