LXXII: American Spirituality

The Barna Group came out with the findings of their recent survey on American perspectives on their own spirituality. Not that they really reveal anything new. They just confirm what Jesus already said.

For instance:

And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples,
"Why eateth your Teacher with the publicans and sinners?"
But when he heard it, he said, "They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what this meaneth, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,' for I came not to call the righteous, but sinners" (Matthew 9:11-13).

Is anyone really righteous? No, of course not. But plenty of people think they're righteous, and therefore have no need of reformation.

And lo and behold:

...71% of Americans think spirituality is "very important"
...64% are "deeply spiritual"
...82% of those who are spiritual are "spiritually mature".

Really. I'm waiting to see one local congregation that can truthfully and soberly say that 82% of its members are "spiritually mature." Let alone the whole country!

What is telling is that only 55% of the people surveyed rejected the statement that they would not change anything significant about their life. That means that a good chunk of the 45% of the people in this country are in that "righteous" category. They're completely "fine." They are "good, moral people" who have "pulled themselves up by their bootstraps" and have "made it."

Then we have the "good moral people" statistics:

Americans who believe that they are making a positive difference in the world: 78%
Americans caring "deeply" about social injustice: 86%
Americans "concerned about the moral conditions of our country": 86%

Really? Then where are all of these people and why aren't they helping to foster or adopt children who have had injustice committed against them? Where are all the people working to end injustice in Darfur, Burma (Myanmar), and in countless other places around the world? Where's the national outrage over the sex trafficking/slavery black market in America and around the world? If so many people are so concerned about morality, what gives?

Jesus made answer and said, "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho; and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance a certain priest was going down that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And in like manner a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he was moved with compassion, and came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on them oil and wine; and he set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow he took out two shillings, and gave them to the host, and said, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, I, when I come back again, will repay thee. Which of these three, thinkest thou, proved neighbor unto him that fell among the robbers?"
And he said, "He that showed mercy on him."
And Jesus said unto him, Go, and do thou likewise" (Luke 10:30-37).

If you stopped the above priest and Levite and asked them the questions in this poll above, what do you think would be their answer? Do you think that they would be concerned about the moral conditions of first century Judea? Do you think that they would believe themselves to be working to make a positive difference in the world, and that they would be against injustice?

Of course they were "good, moral people." Of course they would be against injustice and working to make a positive difference in the world.

But when it was convenient, not defiling, and within their comfort zone. And not for that guy on the side of the road.

It's always interesting to see what people profess versus what they actually do. We're not that far departed from the priest and the Levite.

And finally, here's the kicker:

Americans who believe they live a simple life: 84%.

I guess it's all in how you define the "simple life."

This survey and the answers provided show exactly what's wrong with America: it's full of a bunch of people who think a lot more highly of themselves than they should, a nation that ought to humble itself, and people who talk a far better game than they actually accomplish. Americans are concerned about the morality of their country but are unwilling to exemplify the characteristics of the Spirit that lead to better morality. Americans are against injustice in name but when it comes down to their pocketbooks and their convenience are willing to support all kinds of injustices, whether consciously or not.

A nation of hollow righteousness. Self-deceived and happy about it (84% were "at peace" with their lives).

Do we really wonder why it's so hard to find receptive ears to the preaching of the Gospel in this land?

Do we really wonder why sometimes even we get caught up in this and fail to practice what we preach?

ELDV

Churches of the New Testament Available for Pre-Ordering!

I am pleased to announce that my new book, Churches of the New Testament, is now available for pre-ordering.

The book costs $13.00. You get free shipping by pre-ordering.

Please visit the book's website for more information and/or to order!

Thanks!

ELDV

LXXI: Worship and the Assembly

There is legitimate concern regarding the way that the assembly is viewed among many members of churches of Christ. As Christians seeking to serve God according to the New Testament, we say that we strive to "speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent," and so therefore the New Testament should be our primary guide.

When we examine the New Testament regarding the nature and purpose of the assemblies, we find the following as the some of the revelation concerning them:

And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers (Acts 2:42).

What is it then, brethren? When ye come together, each one hath a psalm, hath a teaching, hath a revelation, hath a tongue, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying (1 Corinthians 14:26).

And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and good works; not forsaking our own assembling together, as the custom of some is, but exhorting one another; and so much the more, as ye see the day drawing nigh (Hebrews 10:24-25).

For if there come into your synagogue a man with a gold ring, in fine clothing, and there come in also a poor man in vile clothing; and ye have regard to him that weareth the fine clothing, and say,
"Sit thou here in a good place;"
and ye say to the poor man, "Stand thou there," or "sit under my footstool;"
Do ye not make distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts? (James 2:2-4)

Granted, there are other passages, and we will refer to many of them later, but these help to show the general contours of what was going on and what the purpose was.

The primary purpose of the assembling of the saints as seen above is the edification and exhortation of the brethren. Yes, Christians came together to remember the Lord's death (Acts 20:7) and took up collections then also (1 Corinthians 16:1-3), but such were not the overarching purposes of the assembly. Furthermore, they didn't just have chaos or do whatever they felt was right, but followed after the pattern of the early church in Jerusalem: they devoted themselves to the Apostles' teaching, the breaking of bread, association, and prayers (Acts 2:42). While the Christians spent other times associating with one another in more social ways (Acts 2:46), that was not why they assembled on the first day of the week or in other spiritual assemblies.

From the Scriptures, therefore, it seems certain that Christians assembled to encourage one another spiritually, and they did so through remembering the Lord's death in the Lord's Supper (Acts 20:7), singing to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16), corporate prayers of thanksgiving (1 Corinthians 14:16-17), lessons of exhortation (Acts 14:22; 20:7), and taking up a collection for the work of the church (1 Corinthians 16:1-3). The Christians called such gatherings the "assembly," and the members were expected but unbelieving visitors could also be present (Hebrews 10:25, 1 Corinthians 14:23-25).

That's what the Scriptures teach. Yet what is often heard among churches of Christ? That Christians are to come together for a "worship service," that the primary purpose of the assembly is "worshiping God," and expect this "worship service" to be an extremely formal and mostly vertical event.

Where did this perspective come from? You won't find it in the New Testament, no matter how hard or often people try to lay it upon God's Word. In reality, it is a denominational tradition, and it is high time that we recognized it, confessed it, and repented.

The progression to this point is actually quite clear. Within a couple centuries of the end of the Apostolic age, many in "catholicism" began to integrate old covenant concepts onto the new. Don't take it from me; take it from a Lutheran:

The Christian church is to imitate the pattern in ancient Israel before Christ, where priests and levites were ministers in worship, taught the people, offered prayers and made sacrifices...In this way a Christian clergy came into being, alongside which the universal priesthood of believers was no more than a theoretical entity. Accordingly, the eucharist (Lord's Supper, eldv) was now understood as a sacrifice. And since the Old Testament law requires daily sacrifice, the Christian priest now offered the sacrifice of the mass every day. Sacrifice in turn needs an altar; church buildings were arranged liturgically and built accordingly. And just as at one time the tent of meeting was the place where Yahweh made himself present, so now Christ dwelt in the tabernacle which housed the transformed hosts. Since Israel had kept the sabbath, and the strict observance of feast days had been a confessional act, it was now important to hallow Christian festivals. The privileged and exclusive status of priests and levites in the Old Testament was transferred to priests and deacons, and the bishop now took the place of the high priest. Just as the eucharist was interpreted in terms of the Old Testament sacrifices, so baptism was interpreted as a rite of initiation after the model of circumcision. Nor were the financial aspects of these analogies ignored: tithes were given to Christian priests as they had once been given to the house of Aaron" (A.H.J. Gunneweg,Understanding the Old Testament:, 107f, as quoted in Gerstenberger, The Old Testament Library: Leviticus, 15-16).

Preachers became priests; the Lord's Supper a sacrifice; supposed Christian observances became feast days; infants were baptized as parallel to Jewish circumcision. Tithes started to be practiced again, and church buildings were viewed in terms of the Temple.

We can add to this list another term: worship. "Worship" is a loaded word, full of confusing matters, much like "church" and ekklesia. Like "church," the word "worship" has meaning in English that is independent of the Hebrew/Greek words it translates. In English, "worship" refers to the act of honoring, deriving from older words that indicated that the one receiving worship was "worthy" of the honor.

But that's not really what the Hebrew and Greek words mean. They tend to be much more specific. On one side, we have the Hebrew shahach and the Greek proskuneo, both meaning "prostration." Falling down to the floor with the nose on the ground, so to speak. Hebrew 'abad and Greek latreuo are also sometimes rendered "worship," yet strictly they mean "to serve."

Let us first focus on shahach/proskuneo, the tandem that are normally translated "worship" and the focus of discussion.

1. From the establishment of the First Temple onward, shahach/proskuneo, when used in religious senses, was entirely focused on the Temple and its location. One would either prostrate oneself in it or prostrate oneself toward it.

2. It is true that shahach/proskuneo would end up taking on a metonymical representation for all the things that one would do while in the Temple (cleanse oneself, enter in, prostrate oneself, offer prayer, possibly offer sacrifice or gifts, etc.), as seen in Acts 8:27 and 24:11. But this does not change the primary meaning of shahach/proskuneo: to prostrate oneself.

3. In the New Testament, proskuneo is found mostly at the "bookends": the Gospels and Revelation, in the presence of Christ the Lord. Other references involve actions according to the old covenant, as seen above.

4. proskuneo is never used to describe an event in which Christians participate in any assembly. It is also never used to describe the assembly. The only time it is used in the context of an assembly is 1 Corinthians 14:25, and it describes the reaction of the unbeliever to the prophecies being uttered by Christians.

The New Testament, therefore, does not describe the assembly as a "worship service." It never speaks of Christians "worshiping" in an assembly context. Such ideas come from denominational traditions who themselves got it from importing Old Testament concepts on the New. This is why, whenever this view of the "worship service" is defended, it is replete with either (a) Old Testament examples or (b) examples in the New Testament of persons acting according to the old covenant.

Well, what's so wrong about importing these concepts? After all, was not the old leading to the new? God hasn't changed, has He?

The problem with importing these concepts is the same problem that we have with importing the priesthood concept, the church building as Temple concept, etc.: it undermines new covenant truth and reality, and this is why we need to seriously reconsider how we perceive the assembly.

Consider:

"Howbeit the Most High dwelleth not in houses made with hands; as saith the prophet,
'The heaven is my throne, And the earth the footstool of my feet: What manner of house will ye build me? saith the Lord: Or what is the place of my rest?'" (Acts 7:48-49)

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service (Romans 12:1).

Know ye not that ye are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man destroyeth the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, and such are ye (1 Corinthians 3:16-17).

Or know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have from God? and ye are not your own; for ye were bought with a price: glorify God therefore in your body (1 Corinthians 6:19-20).

So then ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but ye are fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God, being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone; in whom each several building, fitly framed together, groweth into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God in the Spirit (Ephesians 2:19-22).

Through him then let us offer up a sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of lips which make confession to his name (Hebrews 13:15).

If ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious: unto whom coming, a living stone, rejected indeed of men, but with God elect, precious, ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:3-5).

We have an impressive litany of New Testament witnesses here: Stephen, Peter, Paul, and the Hebrew author. And notice that all three appropriate the imagery of the Temple and its service and apply it to the Christian and the church.

The Temple is no longer a building but each individual Christian and the collective church, for it is within each Christian that God now dwells, according to 1 Corinthians 6:19-20.

The sacrifices are no longer bulls and goats but ourselves and our praise to God.

The priests are no longer the Levites or any subgroup; all Christians minister as priests in the new covenant, offering up themselves and their service as spiritual sacrifices to God.

Remember what we said above about shahach/proskuneo? It was focused on the Temple. Well, guess what? That particular edifice is gone, as Jesus said it would be (John 4:21). What takes its place? People. Individual Christians.

Jesus did speak about this.

Jesus saith unto her, "Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father. Ye worship that which ye know not: we worship that which we know; for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth: for such doth the Father seek to be his worshippers. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth" (John 4:21-24).

Here we have the only passage that speaks of proskuneo in the current Christian context. And notice that it speaks in a contrasting way with what was currently in existence.

True worshipers will worship "in spirit and truth". Jesus is not saying that people are going to go through the "acts of worship" with the right heart and the proscribed way; no, He is speaking in much greater depth than that. Remember, "worship" here does not mean "going to church." It means "prostration."

Jesus is saying that true prostrators will now prostrate themselves in spirit and truth. To take such a statement in concrete terms would be ludicrous: a spirit bowing? But what Jesus is saying is that the soul of the true prostrators will humble itself before God and render homage and obeisance to Him. And it will be done according to God's will.

How is this reckoned practically? Well, Romans 12:1, Colossians 3:17, and 1 Peter 2:3-5 seem to get us closest to it. We worship spiritually when we go about and do the will of God the Father in His Son Jesus Christ. When we present ourselves as living and holy sacrifices, doing all things in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we worship in spirit and truth.

And we get back to the assembly. Looking at the above, we see that we do actually worship in the assembly, for we subject our own will to Christ's and seek to minister to each other, and to remember Him in the Supper.

So I'm sure you're wondering: if we end up worshiping in the assembly anyway, why is this a big deal?

Perspective and worldview.

1. The assembly is not the sum of Christian "worship." As we indicated earlier, it should be the "least" of what we do-- it's for our benefit, and we should not want to lose the encouragement that we can from our fellow brethren. Therefore, the assembly is part of a life of worshiping God, but is not the sum or even the larger part thereof.

2. Christianity is a whole lot more than the assembly. Assembly as worship blurs that distinction, and when the assembly is elevated as the Christian experience, "Sunday only Christians" are the result. When you reduce the religion to acts you do on Sunday morning, don't be surprised when people consider their religion as things they do on Sunday morning.

We also obsess about the assembly. How many articles and books are written about the proper way of acting during the assembly? This is not to say that chaos ought to reign, or that what we do is not important, or that we should throw everything to the wind. But there's something to be said for Biblical balance, and we've lost it. We spend more time bickering about the assembly and less time encouraging each other to live a godly life in an ungodly world, and we wonder why we're not getting anywhere.

3. Much is made of what should or should not be worn in the assemblies. Much logic involves Old Testament concepts, and as seen above, we should be wary of that. Modesty is the only standard in the New Testament for Christian dress (1 Timothy 2:9), and when we consider James 2, we see that there were likely very poor people with very poor dress in the assembly, along with rich people in finery.

Early Christians would probably align more on the "casual" or "normal" side of the equation than the "formal" one; Tertullian in fact condemns people who wear their best clothing to the assembly as persons who are acting immodestly.

Making a big deal about clothing is hindering our real purpose, which is not a stuffy formal service, but the encouragement of one another. Furthermore, it hinders our opportunity to welcome those without, because they are made to feel out of place.

4. It hinders our Biblical purpose. The assembly is critically important because it of all things represents the coming together of God's family to build itself up. When you look at passages like Romans 12:3-8, 1 Corinthians 12:12-27, and Ephesians 4:11-16, what do you see? How do we practically exercise these concepts? Yes, we can manifest the unity of the body in one-to-one exchanges, small groups, and the like, but there's something about the gathering of the saints for spiritual edification that should be different from all these.

The assembly should be an enjoyable family gathering designed to spiritually encourage the members to greater faithfulness and devotion to Christ. But this is often missed in the overlaying of Old Testament formalities on the NT assembly.

I know many people want to take 1 Corinthians 14:40 and turn the assembly into the equivalent of the Mass or other completely scripted liturgical event, but such is an extreme. One can be orderly without being cold and unfeeling. Guess what? When brethren have warm and loving relationships among each other, there's likely to be a little less formality in the assembly. It is not the end of the world. It, in fact, may be the beginning of a new one.

I'm sure that many people believe this to be heretical, and that I have apostasized and gone the same way as these "radical restorationists." And that is too bad, because I have done no such thing. I've re-examined what the Bible actually says versus what is imposed upon it, and found another denominational tradition that we would do better to excise. I have no desire to change the way anything is done in the assembly; the New Testament has already established what Christians did within them. Instead, I encourage everyone to reconsider their perspective and understanding of purpose of the assembly.

Sometimes that makes all the difference.

ELDV

LXX: Families

The family is often under duress and assault in our society. There are many reasons for it, but there are also many larger themes that are often ignored.

Consider the "nuclear family." While in a sense it is the base unit that God established (Genesis 2:24), its isolation and intense focus is a more recent phenomenon.

We hear all the talk about how the family has degenerated since the 1950s. In reality, it began degenerating in the 1830s, thanks to the Industrial Revolution.

First, divorce. Statistics show that whenever industrialization and urbanization increase around the globe, so does divorce in those places, no matter the previous cultural norms (Sell, Family Ministry, 52).

What happens seems relatively clear. The ancient, medieval, and even early modern societies placed the individual family as the primary economic unit. A shopkeeper, blacksmith, farmer, laborer, etc., would work with his family at his residence. The wife would be a business partner, and children were put to work to assist them and later to take on the trade or occupation (54).

It was the shift in the Industrial Revolution that, well, "revolutionized" things. Men would go and work at the factories and be more separated from their families than before. The increase in income led to women exclusively devoting themselves to housekeeping-- the modern concept of the "housewife" is therefore less than 200 hundred years old (55).

This explains a lot: in olden times, to leave the family, either as a wife or a child, would be economically costly and hazardous. Today, not so much.

Likewise, it explains the Proverbs 31 woman in context. I feel for you Christian ladies out there; so much interpretation of the Proverbs 31 woman wants to make her someone modern, a woman who can work 8 to 5 at the office and yet have all the household chores completed with a happy husband and children...and you're not even given the benefit of the servants! Yet the Proverbs 31 woman (and man) were quite different from us moderns. He did not go work in a factory or office, and neither did she. Whatever his occupation, he would work quite near the family ore even within the living space. Her work would complement his, either helping in the bookkeeping end or, more likely, making fabrics or other clothing goods for sale. It was a whole lot more holistic than what we see today...and not nearly as stressful. Especially since she had servants to do all the dirty work. :D

Other interesting truths abound. The world around us was only considered a "jungle" from which "home life" was a "repose" since the....Industrial Revolution. Family is now to be a haven of rest from the world around us, and we have greater expectations out of our family lives now than ever before (56). Since we are imperfect people, and imperfect people make imperfect families, oftentimes the family cannot possibly live up to the ideal that we create and perpetuate in our lives.

The role of intimacy (non-sexual) in families is also illuminating. One of the often recognized effects of the industrial revolution has been the loss of community and the greater isolation of the family unit. The greater mobility that modern technology has allowed has led to "nuclear" families being separated by hundreds or thousands of miles from their "extended" families. For these and many other reasons, we now look more to the nuclear family for the complete satisfaction of our emotional needs (38-39).

Again, we humans are weak. Greater expectations rarely lead to better outcomes, but instead more disappointment. Because of the greater need of emotional fulfillment, families often become explosively emotional, and thus no longer the haven of rest in a hectic world. Children often bear the brunt of this: their emotional attachments to many adults are often now limited to just mom and dad, and that can lead to difficulties down the line.

And, of course, there is the husband-wife relationship. Americans now expect that relationship to be the most important source of emotional satisfaction and support. In many instances, people expect it to do so almost exclusively. But is that the way it was designed?

This desire for intimacy also forces couples to concentrate on their relationship to such a degree that a tremendous pressure to succeed sometimes makes that success elusive. High expectations for marriage may make couples less satisfied with their marriage. Studies show that lower expectations have played a part in the degree of marital satisfaction that working class couples achieve. Housewives who do not have, nor greatly expect to have, a close relationship with their husbands, but do have close friendships with other housewives are, on the whole, more satisfied with their marriages than the wives of white-collar workers. This means that when couples are isolated from kin and community and thus more in need of intimacy in their own marriage, their marriage is at greater risk (39).

This is not to say that wives should look everywhere but their husbands for emotional support, but it does show that just as man is not an island, neither is a marriage. We can (and often do) elevate what we expect out of marriage or our family so high that our spouses and children can just never reach our expectations.

We need to be realistic about ourselves, our spouses, and our children. And this entirely underscores the reason why we must become quite emotionally intimate with the body of Christ, the church. Why is it that we should bear each other's burdens (Galatians 6:2)? Because we need more people close to us in our lives than just one or two!

If we are married with children, we need to have emotional intimacy as appropriate with our family members. But we also need close friends, especially within the body of Christ, who can bear part of our emotional load as we bear part of theirs, and what we expect out of our spouse and family can be more realistic.

Single people should not be punished for not having a spouse with whom they can be emotionally intimate; they have emotional needs too, and the body of Christ can meet theirs. The same is true with divorced persons and widows and widowers.

Yes, the Industrial Revolution has led to all kinds of problems and havoc with the family, and more modern trends have exacerbated them. But we're not going to do well if we just put our heads in the sand and cling to some mythical family of yore that probably never existed anyway. We need to do what we can with whom we have and with the resources available to us. Of great importance, however, is the community of believers. If the local church is family-like in their care and concern for all members, as God intended it to be (1 Corinthians 12:12-27), then its members can bear each others' burdens and make modern life livable, and be a beacon of light to the world because of it. If the church decides to be a cold social club, don't be surprised to see more marriages ending in divorce, more teenagers run screaming in rebellion, dwindling numbers, and no significant evangelistic success.

Not only can we achieve God's intentions for families in the 21st century, we can do so while still living in the 21st century and being a great and powerful testimony to God in the community while doing so. But we can only do it when we provide the support network within the body to make it work.

What shall we do?

ELDV

LXIX: The Power of Influence

Perhaps one of the less emphasized matters of concern in the life of a Christian is the power of influence of other people. In many ways, we would like to think of ourselves as above the fray-- able to be around all kinds of negative influences while remaining pure. Power of influence is more of a problem for teenagers, perhaps, but not for adults.

Yet God knows better. God recognizes the power of influence, and how it can work either for evil or for good.

This is especially clear when it comes to His expectations for Israel. When God chose Israel and brought them near to the land that He was going to give them, He set forth how they should live. In His ideal, Israel would be a nation that served God. Its cities would be full of the people of the LORD, and serving Him and doing His will would be a given among the people.

Such was God's ideal, but God knew better. He recognized the power of influence. Hence, He made the following commandment:

"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, that is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying,
'Let us go and serve other gods,'
which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; of the gods of the peoples that are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: but thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him to death with stones, because he hath sought to draw thee away from the LORD thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do not more any such wickedness as this is in the midst of thee" (Deuteronomy 13:6-11).

We moderns read such a commandment and our mouths begin to gape. How could God ever utter such words? Granted, we know that Israel should not serve other gods, but to execute even one's wife or children by your own hand because they would even suggest such a thing? How barbaric, we think!

If such is our mindset, what about the next command?

"If thou shalt hear tell concerning one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God giveth thee to dwell there, saying,
'Certain base fellows are gone out from the midst of thee, and have drawn away the inhabitants of their city, saying, "Let us go and serve other gods,"'
which ye have not known; then shalt thou inquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in the midst of thee, thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, unto the LORD thy God: and it shall be a heap for ever; it shall not be built again. And there shall cleave nought of the devoted thing to thy hand; that Jehovah may turn from the fierceness of his anger, and show thee mercy, and have compassion upon thee, and multiply thee, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers; when thou shalt hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep all his commandments which I command thee this day, to do that which is right in the eyes of the LORD thy God" (Deuteronomy 13:12-18).

To destroy a whole city, even the poor cattle, when some worthless fellows try to stir up trouble? Has God entirely gone off the deep end here?

It might seem that way until we consider the power of influence. Israel was a chosen people, one who would be distinct on their belief not just in the One True God but to serve Him without any graven images (cf. Exodus 20). They were surrounded by (and even lived in the midst of) people who served many different gods, and did so with graven images that they believed represented those gods. The power of their influence would be very great.

Temptations to sin are strong, and they are even stronger when those whom we love are involved. If one's own wife, or children, want to go and serve other gods, there's a strong pull for us to do so also. Likewise, when a few people start talking about doing some different things, others may go along with them.

God wants His people Israel to be holy, to be His people, no matter the cost. The temptation to turn away from Him must be obliterated, even if that temptation involves one's dearest family members. No city of Israel can tolerate even the hint of service to other gods, lest the idea become popular. As God establishes in Deuteronomy 13:6, His point is for Israel to fear Him, and not allow such wickedness to continue in the land.

The sad reality is not that Israel carried out these commands, but that they did no such thing. Within only a few generations of Moses saying these words, Israelites will be indignant with Gideon for destroying an altar for Baal and an Asherah, and desire to kill him for it (Judges 6:28-31)-- when God commanded the exact opposite! They all should be executed for serving other gods! Such indicates the power of influence. They entered a land full of idols and ended up serving them.

We are under a new covenant enacted under better promises with a better witness (Hebrews 8:6). We are not to overcome evil with evil (Romans 12:21), and strive to do good to all men, even those who are our enemies (Galatians 6:10, Luke 6:32-35). If there are Christians in our midst who go after the world and no longer serve God, we are to disassociate from them, but by no means kill them (cf. 1 Corinthians 5).

Nevertheless, God is still concerned about the power of influence.

Be not deceived: Evil companionships corrupt good morals (1 Corinthians 15:33).

We need to recognize that was written in the Old Testament was provided for our learning (Romans 15:4), and there is much to learn from Deuteronomy 13. Temptations to sin will not just come from those outside, but could even come from within our own family. We can never equivocate God's will, even if our wives or our children would try to get us to do so.

We must be on guard for the temptation to worship "other gods" whom we have not known. We must recognize that we, like Israel before us, are a chosen people, and peculiar (1 Peter 2:9). While we are no longer in the midst of people who go about and serve gods represented by graven images, we live in no less of an idolatrous society. People all around us worship money, celebrity, America, individualism, naturalism, sports, sex, comfort, happiness, and all sorts of similar idols. People-- even within our own family, even those who might be supposed children of God-- may not understand our devotion to the LORD of Hosts and why we strive to serve Him in all matters (Matthew 6:33, Colossians 3:17). Just like Israel of old, when God's people who believed in YHWH also served other gods because others around them were doing so, so many Christians today try to serve both God and these other idols, and they fail miserably (Matthew 6:24). But it's easier to justify their divided loyalties when others are doing the same.

We should not ascribe evil motives to such people, but it is part of the conscious and unconscious aspects of the power of influence. Focusing on the will of God as the greatest priority in life is not the easiest choice, and those who would do so must be continually on guard against the powers of influence of the "nations among us" and even unfortunately our own brethren at times.

Yet there can be a positive value in the power of influence-- the power of positive influence of godly people upon each other. God presupposed that Israel would be a holy nation, and that they would mutually build each other up in their particular faith, and any aberration from that faith would be duly punished so that all would fear. Christians as spiritual Israel ought to mutually build each other up (Hebrews 10:24-25), and encourage each other for good. A little leaven still leavens the whole lump (Galatians 5:9, 1 Corinthians 5:6), and God will have a holy and spotless church on the last day (Ephesians 5:23-28).

The power of influence is vast-- so vast that God was willing to have His people Israel kill even the most beloved people in their lives if they acted as tempters away from God's will. Whole cities could be leveled because of a few bad apples promoting false religion. We are not bound to follow their example, but the gravity of the concern should give us pause. Are we being tempted to serve "other gods whom we do not know" because of the influence of others around us, both of the world and perhaps even in our own family? Is the church brought down because some "worthless fellows" have brought in "other gods"? What can we do to withstand negative spheres of influence and to promote positive spheres of influence?

The power of influence is too strong for us to ignore, the teenager and the adult alike. Let us wholeheartedly serve God, and not serve any other!

ELDV

LXVIII: Defining Ourselves

Many times in life we see a crisis of definition. How are we being defined? Who are we? What do we stand for?

You can see this clearly in political disputes. I have no desire here or now to get into a significant political disputation, but it is beyond doubt that both presidential campaigns are currently working to define their candidate (or their opponent) in various ways. The media has constantly been defining them (among other things) according to the story which they would like to tell. We will see how it all plays out, and how the various people involved will either capitulate to their definitions or rise to oppose them.

This is also true in spiritual terms. We need to be just as concerned with how we are defined-- and how we define ourselves-- as politicians are. Ultimately, part of our success or failure in promoting the Kingdom is based on people's perspectives of God, the faith, and us. Sometimes this perspective is accurate; many times it is not.

I fear that we (and by "we" I speak of members of churches of Christ generally) are suffering a crisis of definition. The difficulty is that we are defined more by what we are not than what we are.

This is in many ways self-inflicted. We spend copious amount of time indicating the contrast between what we teach and what "all those denominations" believe. Much of it is negatively presented. "We don't believe in denominationalism." "We don't use instruments." "We don't believe the church should give to institutions/have a fellowship hall/have a gym."

I am not saying that we should spend all of our time indicating areas of agreement, or to deny the distinctions between ourselves and others. On the other hand, when all we ever do is talk about what we don't do, why are we surprised when others define us only by what we are not?

"Those people are church of Christ. They don't use instruments."

When was the last time you wanted to be part of something that you defined in terms of what it was not? We tend to want to be part of things for what they are for, not for what they're not.

The sad thing about all of this is that it is entirely based on definition.

As opposed to defining ourselves as "not being part of a denomination," we could define ourselves as "a group of people seeking to reflect the image of God and part of His Body (Ephesians 5:22-33)."

As opposed to defining ourselves as "not using instruments," we could define ourselves as "those who believe strongly in the value of singing praise to God, speaking to one another in spiritual songs (Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16)."

As opposed to defining ourselves by how we don't use the treasury, we could define ourselves by what we do with one another, and how we strive to help all men in need (Galatians 6:10, Acts 2:42, etc.).

People like being part of something that has value for what it is for; it's not as easy to just be "against" something, or to attract merely on the virtue of not being something else.

And, interestingly enough, Jesus provides a hint of this.

"Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself,
'God, I thank thee, that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week; I give tithes of all that I get.'
But the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote his breast, saying, 'God, be thou merciful to me a sinner.'
I say unto you, This man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled; but he that humbleth himself shall be exalted" (Luke 18:10-14).

Notice here the nature of the Pharisee: he defines himself primarily by what he is not. He is not a "terrible" person. The basis of his righteousness, or his supposed righteousness, is in what he isn't. The tax collector, however, is more than willing to define himself by what he is-- a sinner-- and notice who, in the end, is justified.

We have no basis to glory in what we're not. God is concerned more with who we are (or, more accurately, who we're supposed to be-- obedient servants of Him) than who we're not. Yes, we are supposed to avoid sin, and we should not suffer being accurately called sinners in various ways (1 Peter 4:15).

But look in the Scriptures. Peter doesn't define himself by not being a Gentile, or not in error. Neither does Paul, nor James, nor anyone else. They define themselves by who they are-- servants of Jesus Christ, chosen to be His Apostles, etc. (Philippians 1:1, 1 Thessalonians 1:1, James 1:1, 1 Peter 1:1).

Again, we do need to be against error. But we stand against error best by being for the truth, living the truth, manifesting the light of Christ to men (Matthew 5:13-16). Ephesus was condemned for being against error but not living for Christ (Revelation 2:1-6). That should be a sober warning for us.

As long as churches of Christ are known more for what they aren't than what they are, don't be surprised when it's a challenge to grow. It's when Christians and the church are better known for what they are for and what they do than what they aren't and what they're not doing that people will be more interested.

So the church throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria had peace, being edified; and, walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, was multiplied (Acts 9:31).

ELDV

LXVII: Sin and Disassociation

Put to death therefore your members which are upon the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry; for which things' sake cometh the wrath of God upon the sons of disobedience: wherein ye also once walked, when ye lived in these things; but now do ye also put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, railing, shameful speaking out of your mouth: lie not one to another; seeing that ye have put off the old man with his doings, and have put on the new man, that is being renewed unto knowledge after the image of him that created him: where there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondman, freeman; but Christ is all, and in all (Colossians 3:5-11).

Do we really despise sin anymore?

Notice what Paul says about it here in Colossians: we are to put sin and its tendencies to death. Because of it God's wrath is coming. We are to make it clear that we have indeed "put off" the old man, and show that we now wear the "new man."

Most of us realize this, no doubt. I would hope that we are doing what we can to remove sin from our lives. Even though there are many disagreements among brethren on Pleonast on many matters, most of you recognize the problem of sin and the need we have to put it to death, to put on the new man and reflect Christ's image.

But what about the sins of others with whom we associate? Yes, I know, it's not easy to talk about it. After all, we have our sins too. We don't want to come across as hypocritical or judgmental. We surely don't want to be guilty like those of whom Jesus speaks in Matthew 7:1-5. We don't want to be the guy with the beam in our eye.

Yet consider the following:

Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, even as ye are unleavened. For our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ: wherefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. I wrote unto you in my epistle to have no company with fornicators; not at all meaning with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous and extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world: but as it is, I wrote unto you not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no, not to eat. For what have I to do with judging them that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Put away the wicked man from among yourselves (1 Corinthians 5:6-13).

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it; that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish (Ephesians 5:25-27).

While we should remember the principles of Matthew 7:1-5, we need to keep 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 in mind also. We do have the responsibility of judging those who are within, and to put away the wicked man from among ourselves.

But haven't we all sinned? Of course we all have. But when we repent, we can obtain forgiveness (1 John 1:9, the likely sin not leading to death in 1 John 5:16). But when we see people in the church sinning, their sin is brought up to them, and they keep sinning, their sin is leading to death (1 John 5:16). They're spurning the Son of God, and crucifying Him afresh, leaving themselves nothing but terror and fear at the upcoming day of God (Hebrews 10:26-31).

Jesus Himself makes it clear that there comes a time when lines must be drawn, as difficult as that may be:

"And if thy brother sin against thee, go, show him his fault between thee and him alone: if he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he hear thee not, take with thee one or two more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established. And if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto the church: and if he refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican" (Matthew 18:15-17).

Is God being harsh? After all, we humans have a bad record when it comes to making judgments. Wouldn't it be better to just leave it in the hands of God?

The problem-- one that should make us more uncomfortable than it often does-- is the nature of sin as leaven (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:6, Galatians 5:9). It spreads. When it is allowed among brethren, and it is tolerated, it spreads like gangrene or cancer.

God has indicated that His Church will be holy and spotless. While we can never be the ultimate arbiters of such, we do have a twofold obligation to maintain that holiness and spotlessness: by keeping ourselves pure (James 1:27), and by rebuking, and if need be disciplining, those who persist in sin (1 Timothy 5:20, 1 Corinthians 5). If someone is guilty of sin without repentance, even within the church, be sure that they have already been cut out (Romans 11:21-25, Hebrews 10:26-31). Just as dead appendages to the human body provide no value and can lead to the destruction of the whole body, so it is with sinful Christians, and the expected results are the same: removal.

Can discipline/disassociation/rebuke be abused? Certainly. Can it be misapplied to the weak when it ought to be directed toward the errant? Absolutely. Must we always remember that we too have sinned and that by the grace of God so go we? Of course. But that doesn't change our responsibility to edify the Body of Christ (Ephesians 4:11-16), and unfortunately, some times we have to decrease to increase-- dead growth must be cut out to facilitate new growth. Just letting the dead stuff stay there, choking out life, is not edifying the Body!

ELDV

LXVI: The Jubilee

Perhaps one of the more startling and profound charges that God gave to Israel involved the idea of the Jubilee. The Jubilee year represents an idea that seems rather foreign to us in our materialistic society, and yet indicates God's great concern for the welfare of all of His people.

The Jubilee concept is described in Leviticus 25. God first lays down the legislation regarding the regular Sabbath years-- the Israelites will let the land lay fallow every seven years so that the land may receive a rest (Leviticus 25:1-7).

The Israelites are charged to number "seven sevens" of the Sabbath years, which makes up 49 years. On the Day of Atonement (the tenth day of the seventh month) of the 50th year, the Israelites were to sound the ram's horn (shofar)), and thus proclaim the Jubilee (the word "jubilee" comes from the Hebrew yobel, the proclamation of the ram's horn; Leviticus 25:8-11).

The Jubilee year was to be reckoned like a Sabbath year, and the land was to again lie fallow (v. 12). The significance of the Jubilee is not found in this-- it is found in the "release" that is to be proclaimed (v. 10).

It is in the Jubilee year that any ancestral land sold to pay a debt was to be returned to its original tenants (v. 13). This is quite a remarkable concept with very radical purposes.

God, quite rightly, is concerned that some among His people will accrue prestige and resources and then use them in ways that oppress their fellow men. God does not intend for the land of Israel to only be controlled by the wealthy; all of His children are to receive their proper share. If times are difficult, and land needs to be sold, that land must be returned, for God delivered all the Israelites from bondage, not just some of them (v. 38).

Nevertheless, God does not want people to be cheated, either (v. 14). Israelites were not to sell their land at full price just before a Jubilee year and then receive it back again; if they must sell the land, the value of the harvests between that point and the next Jubilee must be ascertained, and thus a priced will be fixed for it (vv. 15-17).

What is quite profound about this entire discussion is the perspective that Israel is to have regarding their land. As it is written:

And the land shall not be sold in perpetuity; for the land is mine: for ye are strangers and sojourners with me. And in all the land of your possession ye shall grant a redemption for the land (Leviticus 25:23-24).

Israel is not to see the land as something they own; they are sojourners on the land. Others lived on the land before them and others would live on it after them. We, in our Western customs, think highly of land possession and generally accept the premise that we can own property. Yet, in truth, we as Christians should see ourselves as sojourners in this world (Philippians 3:20-21). This principle of sojourning is used to demonstrate the need of the Jubilee: redemption should exist for the land because no one really has any better a claim on it than anyone else.

God required Israel to trust in Him during the Jubilee year. He imagines how the people will ask how they will survive since their fields would be unworked for two years (Leviticus 25:20). God promises that He will provide for them in the sixth year for three years, and that through faith they would succeed and be secure (vv. 21-22). This is comparable to the faith that the Christian should have toward God in terms of all necessities-- if we seek Him first, He will provide our needs (Matthew 6:21-34).

God also has much to say about redemption of land and people in Leviticus 25. As long as proper payment can be made by the person or his family, the land ought to be redeemed from the one who bought it, or it will be redeemed in the Jubilee year (vv. 25-28). The only exception is for houses in walled cities-- if it is not redeemed within a year, it becomes a permanent possession of the buyer, and does not go out in the Jubilee (except for the Levitical cities and the Levites; vv. 29-34).

The Jubilee was not only about property-- it was also about people. In ancient times many succumbed to debt slavery: a man would sell his children, his wife, or even himself to another to serve as a slave to pay off a debt. This is allowed in Israel, but only until the time of the Jubilee or until redemption is paid by the debt slave or his family, and the debt slave is to be treated like a hired servant, since all of the Israelites are really slaves of YHWH. Under no circumstances will an Israelite be sold to a foreigner by a fellow Israelite. Slaves can be bought and/or taken from the nations around them, and an Israelite can even become a debt slave of a foreigner. Nevertheless, in Israel, even the foreigners must respect the Jubilee, and release the debt slave in that year (vv. 35-55). It is also within Leviticus 25 that we find the legislation indicating that Israelites were not to charge their fellow man with interest; they could only exact interest from foreigners (vv. 36-37).

This legislation is quite startling; we have no indications as to whether it was ever carried out during Biblical times in Israel. Jeremiah records in Jeremiah 34:8-11 that Zedekiah proclaimed a year of Jubilee only to immediately re-enslave all the debt slaves, incurring the anger of the LORD.

Nevertheless, we can learn much regarding how God expected Israelites to treat one another from the idea of the Jubilee. God indicates that He has no desire for anyone to be wronged: debts need to be paid, yes, and buyers should not lose money on account of the Jubilee years. On the other hand, God's people should not be consigned to life as debt slaves without any land holdings on account of dire circumstances. God indicates how there should be a balance between the interests of the poor and those with greater means.

The Jubilee concept shows just how separate the interests of God and the interests of worlds happen to be. Can any imagine a proclamation by the US government establishing the release of all citizens from their debts after a given amount of time? What would happen if the government declared that no one ever really owns land, and if anyone sells his land to pay off debt, that the land must be returned to that person after a given amount of time? What would happen if the government forbade Americans from charging fellow Americans interest on loans?

The Jubilee concept is one from the Old Testament, and is not explicitly bound upon anyone today. The principles behind the Jubilee year-- care for all members of society, ending of oppression, opportunities for redemption from difficult circumstances, equality of all persons under God, and the lack of true claims of ownership over land-- resonate with ideas of a just society and proper conduct toward one's fellow man (Romans 13:8-10, Galatians 2:10; 3:28; 6:10, Philippians 3:20-21, Romans 14:9-12, James 5:1-8). After all, why was it that Jesus came?

And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Isaiah. And he opened the book, and found the place where it was written,
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, Because he anointed me to preach good tidings to the poor: He hath sent me to proclaim release to the captives, And recovering of sight to the blind, To set at liberty them that are bruised, To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord."
And he closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant, and sat down: and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fastened on him.
And he began to say unto them, "To-day hath this scripture been fulfilled in your ears" (Luke 4:17-21).

We now have the Jubilee- the acceptable year of the Lord, the proclamation of liberty to those captive under sin (Romans 6, 2 Corinthians 6:1-2). Let us consider the idea of the Jubilee year, and do what we can to love our neighbors as ourselves!

LXV: Our Fellow Man

Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumblingblock before the blind; but thou shalt fear thy God: I am the LORD (Leviticus 19:14).

There are some times when you would think that certain legislation would not even be necessary, and perhaps this is one of them. How terrible is it for anyone to take advantage of people who have disabilities? How base and shallow is a person if they must say nasty things to people who cannot hear, or put hindrances in the way of people who cannot see?

But is God really only interested here in those who are physically blind and deaf? What about those who live in ignorance, either because of disability or simply a lack of understanding?

It is quite interesting that it is only a few verses later that God declares that Israelites should "love [their] neighbor[s] as [themselves]" (v. 18), a concept also established in the new covenant (Romans 13:8-10).

God has no desire for anyone to take advantage of the deficiencies of their fellow men. Yet how many are so shallow and base as to do such things? Perhaps it is only a few revelers or punk kids who would curse the deaf or put hindrances before the blind. But there are many in society who profit off people in their ignorance and take advantage of people because of their circumstances.

Payday loan centers stay in business because of such practices. Banks have little difficulties loaning money to people who they know are unable to repay. Senior citizens and those who are disabled are especially prone to con men and con corporations. As opposed to trying to instill proper spending habits in people (especially the young), plenty of people, agencies, and corporations are more keen to profit on their ignorance or lack of self-control. The government looks away.

God is the God of the dispossessed (Exodus 22:21-23, James 5:1-6), and does not take kindly to people taking advantage of their fellow men. Our society would be much better off if these principles were more diligently considered. Love your neighbor as yourself-- how much different would America be if people actually heeded this charge?

ELDV

LXIV: Caricatures and Mischaracterizations

It's the political season again (if there is ever a time without it), and we see, in full force, caricatures and mischaracterizations. I have no desire to get into the merits or lack thereof in the current political candidates, but I do believe that we need to think just for a moment about how we perceive others.

It is quite easy to go along with the crowd and just accept labels, half-truths, and caricatures of reality. It makes everything nice and neat and compartmentalized. "Liberals like to tax and spend." "Conservatives don't care about poor people." "Liberals are godless." "Religious conservatives just want to turn America into a theocracy."

This is not just about politics. "Liberals do not care about Biblical authority." "Traditionalists are sticks in the mud." How many other such statements could we make?

We live in a society that has been goaded into polarization and extremism, and it comes as no surprise to see plenty of people operating on false beliefs and assumptions regarding others.

Does anyone really think that Democrats want terrorists to win?
Does anyone really think that George W. Bush is the antichrist?

Why is it that so often we must resort to caricature, or false polarities, and not try to work on the substantive issues of the day?

Extremism is by no means restricted to politics; there's plenty of it in religious circles. Rarely is there an attempt to understand and intelligently discuss-- we just want to see what the person says, put them into the box into which we think they should go in our mental compartmentalizations, and provide our stock answers to their disagreement.

How is this productive? How is this an intelligent defense of the faith? What does the Bible say about such things?

The heart of him who has understanding seeks knowledge, but the mouths of fools feed on folly (Proverbs 15:14).

A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion (Proverbs 18:2).

Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, for he will despise the good sense of your words (Proverbs 23:9).

What we see all too often in the political realm is sheer folly, according to wise Solomon. Political pundits are the definition of fools.

Too often, in religious discussions, we play the same foolish role. We think we understand when we do not really understand (and I have done the same on many occasions). We are quicker with answers than with questions; we think we have it figured out when we need to first understand.

Now, I am not saying that we must automatically agree; there is room for disagreement when there is understanding. What I am saying is that we're not going to get anywhere if we just relate to others on the basis of caricatures and mischaracterizations and just spew out pat answers.

We may feel threatened by "godless liberals," "denominationalists," "theocrats," "environmentalists," or whatever other subgroup you can think of, but in the end they're human beings, many of whom need to learn of God or understand Him better, and who just might be, on the whole, rather honest and hard-working Americans like many others. Demonizing those whom we oppose only helps out Satan and his demons, and does not accomplish the purposes of God.

ELDV

LXIII: Jesus on the Cross and Holiness

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, "Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, saying,
'This is the law of the sin-offering: in the place where the burnt-offering is killed shall the sin-offering be killed before the LORD: it is most holy. The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it: in a holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tent of meeting. Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall be holy; and when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any garment, thou shalt wash that whereon it was sprinkled in a holy place. But the earthen vessel wherein it is boiled shall be broken; and if it be boiled in a brazen vessel, it shall be scoured, and rinsed in water. Every male among the priests shall eat thereof: it is most holy. And no sin-offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tent of meeting to make atonement in the holy place, shall be eaten: it shall be burnt with fire'" (Leviticus 6:24-30).

These regulations are being provided specifically to the priesthood and regard the offering for sin. What I found quite interesting from this presentation is the emphasis on holiness: the sin offering is described as "most holy" in verse 25, it is to be eaten in a holy place (v. 26), and anything touching it is made holy (v. 27). If it gets on your clothing, you must wash it in a holy place (v. 28). If the blood gets in a clay vessel, it must be broken; if in a metal vessel, it must be thoroughly cleaned (v. 29).

There is much that we can gain here. First and foremost we see an illustration of holiness in the most concrete way. Holiness is intertwined with sanctification-- being set apart, special to God. There is nothing intrinsically "holy" about said bull, or the location, or its blood. If the bull were used for another purpose, it would not matter where its blood went. If the tabernacle were somewhere else, that plot of dirt would be no different from the plot of dirt next to it. We see that God is teaching Israel about holiness, and we can also learn from this tutor (cf. Galatians 3:24). That which is set apart for God is to be considered special. Elaborate arrangements are made for the handling of the object. Great care is expected to be used. Everything is supposed to be deliberate and according to the specifications of God.

That's what holiness really is. It requires deliberation and calculation. We must strive to act deliberately, differently, and according to God's specifications (1 John 2:1-6, Galatians 5:17-24, 1 Peter 1:13-16). There is nothing intrinsically holy about any of us-- the holiness comes from God's designation, and we are consigned to manifest that designation.

I wonder if this passage also has something to say about Christology. We recognize that the sacrifices, especially the sacrifice for sin, was the earthly copy of the heavenly reality undertaken by Jesus (cf. Hebrews 9:1-15, 10:1-12). There is a theme in the Scriptures that speaks about how Christ was "made sin" for us on the cross (2 Corinthians 5:21), and since sin is what separates us from God (Isaiah 59:1-2), it is reasoned that our sin separated Jesus from God while He was on the cross, and hence His quotation of Psalm 22:1 in Matthew 27:46.

This all presupposes, however, that Christ taking on our sins would separate Him from God. Yet look here in Leviticus-- the sin offering is reckoned as being holy. By being the representative sacrifice, the animal is set apart, or made holy, to God.

What if, as opposed to separating Jesus from God, Jesus being the sin offering for all mankind in fact makes Him set apart, or holy, to God? Are we not to be holy, as He is holy (1 Peter 1:16)? Is not sacrificial death represented as an act of love (1 John 3:16), and held up as an example for all of us? Is it possible that Jesus' death is in itself an act of holiness, setting Himself apart for God so that He could set us apart for God (to make us holy/consecrate us/sanctify us) in His blood (cf. Hebrews 10:14)?

Leviticus helps us to understand much about God and the problem of sin and sets before us the physical shadow of the heavenly substance regarding much of our service to God. Let us receive the encouragement and hope that comes from that which was written to Israel (Romans 15:4)!

ELDV

LXII: Division

While preaching recently, I noticed something about 1 Corinthians 12 that I hadn't noticed before:

But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another (1 Corinthians 12:24b-25).

When we speak of "divisions" in the church, we normally gravitate toward divisions on account of false doctrines, or the imposing of a liberty (or the lack thereof), or some other substantive issue, no matter how ridiculous that issue might be.

Yet this does not seem to fit the context here at all. No-- when Paul speaks about division in this passage, division has less to do with doctrine or things as much as a lack of openness, love, and mutual honesty/accountability.

It's a difficult idea to swallow: when we are unloving or discouraging toward the brethren, we create divisions within the body. When we withhold ourselves from the brethren-- do not confess our sins to one another (James 5:16), do not allow others to bear our burdens (Galatians 6:2), and in various ways compose ourselves in ways aloof from our brethren-- we are the authors of division within the body.

The type of division concerning which Paul speaks can only be addressed by members having "mutual care" for one another.

The Body of Christ is not one only by its very nature: it's something to which we must diligently apply ourselves. We can only be one in the body of Christ when we work toward that end, being open with one another, accountable to one another, seeking to both be a source of encouragement and to gain encouragement within the body.

Therefore, when we consider the potential for division within the body of Christ, let us not neglect the divisions caused by a lack of love, a lack of interconnectedness, and a lack of true association/joint participation. These forms of division are just as insipid, if not more so, than the threat of false doctrines et al. After all, remember Ephesus (Revelation 2:1-7)!

ELDV