The Good and Proper Use of the Law in 1 Timothy

The Apostle Paul wrote 1 Timothy to his Apostolic coworker Timothy in part to encourage him to defend the faith against certain false teachers, who were troubling the Church there. It should be remembered that earlier, Paul had warned the Ephesians that false teachers would come, and had exhorted them to be watchful, "Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be alert..." (Acts 20:28-31a ESV). Now, later on, Paul's prediction had come true and he has dispatched Timothy to deal with the false teachers (1 Timothy 1:3).

Now, it is not entirely clear as to the exact nature of the Ephesian heresy at this time. Paul does not go into detail nor does he issue a point-by-point rebuttal. He expects Timothy to be the one to confront them. But I think we can use some clues from 1 Timothy and make an educated guess. And from there, I want to make a brief application for today. It seems evident that to some degree, the heresy in Ephesus to which Timothy was commissioned to combat contained some element of Law keeping as a means of being right with God. In other words, it encompassed some kind of distortion of the Torah, the Law of Moses (i.e., Genesis-Deuteronomy). What Paul does in writing to Timothy is to fight fire with fire. Paul combats an erroneous use of the Law by showing its true use. Throughout 1 Timothy, virtually all of Paul's Old Testament references come from the first five books of the Bible, the Law of Moses. The following is not exhaustive of every possible OT reference in 1 Timothy, but it is representational of the major quotations or allusions.

Firstly, Paul calls out the false teachers who were, "desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions" (1 Timothy 1:7). Following this, Paul lays out the true purpose of the Law, which is to convict law-breakers! The vice list in vv. 9-10 contains a general list, but also mentions several sins which are expressly condemned in the Law. For example, the Law is for those who "strike their fathers and mothers" (Exodus 20:12, 21:15), murderers (Exodus 20:13), "the sexually immoral" and "men who practice homosexuality" (Leviticus 18:1-30), enslavers (Exodus 21:16), and liars and perjurers (Exodus 20:16).

In chapters 2 and 3, Paul instructs Timothy on matters of church order, selecting qualified leaders, and especially how believers should behave as members of the "household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15). Chapter 2 contains the extremely controversial passage on men and women in the covenant community. Whether or not Paul, in chapter 2, is describing the gathered assembly is beside the point here. But when Paul does instruct that women should not assume teaching and/or leadership in the church, but are to remain submissive and tend to their roles as wives/mothers, he grounds his reasons in the Genesis accounts of creation and fall in Genesis 2-3 (1 Timothy 2:11-15).

In chapter 4, Paul again goes on the offensive against false teaching. Again, he appeals to the Law of Moses - especially to the Genesis creation account. The heretics were apparently those who, "forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth" (1 Timothy 4:3). Paul, however, will have none of it, and responds by pointing out from the Law that "everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving" (1 Timothy 4:4). Both marriage (Genesis 2:24) and the foods which people eat (Genesis 1:25, 9:3) were given by God's institution in the beginning; as Moses had recorded.

In chapter 5, Paul instructs Timothy on proper treatment of widows (5:3-16). While this section does not explicitly quote or allude to the Old Testament or the Law specifically, there are echoes of the fifth commandment, to "honor your father and mother" (Exodus 20:12) in the honor which is to be given to true widows by their children and grandchildren. The believer is to care for his/her aging mother if she is a widow and to repay her for having raised them. Verse 8 is a pointed rebuke for those who fail to do so, "But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever" (1 Timothy 5:8). In fact, this passage does resemble the Lord's own scathing denunciation of the pharisees for their "corban" rule, which was effectively abused as a loophole to allow people to violate the fifth commandment by escaping caring for their aged parents with a pious-sounding excuse (Mark 7:9-13).

Paul then goes on in chapter 5 to quote from Deuteronomy 25:4 and to apply the principle from that passage to exhort Timothy to make sure that faithful elders, especially those who shoulder the responsibility to preach and teach, receive appropriate financial remuneration (1 Timothy 5:17-18). Again, it seems that Paul is correcting the false teachers' abuse of the Law of Moses by giving the true interpretation and application of it.

It is possible to see potential echoes of the Law of Moses in other places in 1 Timothy, though these are less certain. When Paul speaks of the "unholy and profane," in 1:9, he may be obliquely referring to the sin of Nadab and Abihu, who were killed by God for offering up "profane fire" and failed to honor the Lord as holy (Leviticus 10:1-3). Perhaps also, Paul's description of God as the one "whom no one has ever seen or can see" (1 Timothy 6:16) is an echo of Exodus 33:20, where God declares that "man shall not see me and live." Even if not, it is evident that in 1 Timothy Paul is looking to the Law of Moses itself to combat the false teachers who utilize the Law erroneously to become wealthy (1 Timothy 6:3-5). For Paul, the antidote for the improper use of Scripture is the correct use of Scripture.

So, what can we learn today from Paul's example? I can think of two things. Firstly, Christians in the New Covenant age should be careful in how they utilize the Law of Moses. On the one hand, Christians are not under the Law, but under grace (Romans 6:14). We should not view the Law as a means of attaining a right standing before God. But we must also avoid the opposite error of neglecting or rejecting the Law altogether. Paul elsewhere states that, "the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good" (Romans 7:12). The Law is a good thing, even though it has been superseded by the gospel. As can be demonstrated by my short survey above, much of the ethical and moral teaching of the New Covenant has its basis in the Law of Moses. Christians today read the Old Covenant Law through the lens of Christ and the New Covenant. But we should honor the Law as God-breathed Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Secondly, as already briefly noted, the correct use of Scripture is vitally important. Heretics and even Satan himself (Matthew 4:5-6) know how to twist Scripture. Often, their misuse of Scripture will sound like truth, thus deceiving those without discernment. For discerning believers, however, hearing Scripture twisted will seem off; the Spirit of God will alert them to it (John 10:3-5). It becomes most important then, to learn how to correctly interpret and apply the Bible. This is the best defense against false teaching and false prophecy.

Timothy faced an uphill battle in Ephesus, just as we do today against a multitude of errors. But Timothy had a mentor in the person of Paul, who gave him, through his letters, the ammunition he needed to "fight the good fight of the faith" (1 Timothy 6:12). While Paul has long since passed on to be with the Lord, we, too can be equipped to fight the good fight by heeding his instructions to Timothy along with the rest of the canon of the Bible. Even in our post-industrial Western cultural location, we today can find wisdom through the Law of Moses, the Prophets, the Writings, and the New Testament to live godly and productive lives in Christ Jesus. Amen.

The World According to John: Limited Atonement in the Writings of the Beloved Disciple

Many Christian people do not like the biblical teachings on predestination and sovereign election, or Calvinism for short if you prefer. But if there is one thing about Calvinistic doctrine which is even more offensive to most of its opponents than unconditional election, it is the doctrine of Limited Atonement. This teaching, also known as "Particular Redemption" or "Definite Atonement", basically states that the death of Jesus Christ on the cross was a true and actual sacrifice for the specific sins of His specific people, and for them alone. To simplify matters, Limited Atonement advocates believe that Jesus died for those whom God the Father had already chosen to be saved, and only for them. The death of Jesus then has no reference whatsoever to those not chosen for salvation from eternity past. I have written previously defending Limited Atonement in a concise fashion.

Against Limited Atonement is the doctrine of "Universal Atonement", which most North American Christians hold to. Universal Atonement posits a true atoning sacrifice for sins on behalf of sinners, but it holds that the death of Jesus was on behalf of literally every person in the entire human race, down to the very last person, whether or not they are ultimately saved. It is then up to the sinner to lay hold of that sacrifice by his or her faith, which flows from their alleged free will. A variant of this view is called Amyraldianism, which holds to most Calvinistic tenets, but nevertheless posits a universal atonement. 

Proponents of Universal Atonement point to a number of passages to bolster their view. The most famous of course is John 3:16, which is so familiar that it hardly needs quoting. But another favorite go-to text is 1 John 2:2. That passage reads: He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. Universal Atonement advocates believe that this verse definitively proves that the atoning death of Jesus was on behalf of literally the entire human race without exception. The logic goes like this: Jesus died not only for the sins of Christians (not only for ours), but also for every single person throughout the whole of time and space (the whole world). 

Based on the above understanding, it would seem that my view that Jesus died sacrificially and vicariously only for the elect of God would seem to be refuted. What I hope to show however, is that this verse must be interpreted in tandem with the whole of Scripture, but especially with the other writings of the Beloved Disciple. That is my task today. I intend to argue that John's statements in both John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2 should be understood firstly within the context of the first century milieu in which they appeared, but also compared with similar statements in his other writings which show that John believed that the atoning death of Jesus was intended only for the elect of God scattered throughout the whole of the earth, not only for his original audience. 

To begin with, we must discuss the meaning of the word "world", which is found not only in 1 John 2:2, but also the more famous John 3:16. Universal Atonement advocates naturally wonder what else it could mean but literally every person who has ever lived, is living, and will live. One Universal Atonement proponent says this, "There is no linguistic or exegetical or theological ground for reducing the meaning of 'world' to 'the elect' in such passages as John 3:16. John Owen made John 3:16 read 'God so loved those he chose out of the world,' which changes completely the sense of the verse and turns it into something opposite of its intended meaning. But to make the meaning of 'world' here 'the elect' is to make not only a linguistic mistake but also a logical mistake of category confusion". Contrary to the above quotation, I intend to show that there is in fact "linguistic", "exegetical", and "theological" grounds for understanding "the world" as meaning the elect of God who are gathered by the gospel throughout space and time. 

To be honest, I have never thought that John 3:16 was determinative for either the predestinarian or the free will view. This verse occurs too early in John and is not in a context of teaching over how sovereign election or the atonement works. Jesus uttered this famous statement while conversing with Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jewish people. When Jesus declared that God loved the world, how would Nicodemus have heard that? Remember, this is a man with Torah running through his veins from the time of his birth. This is a man steeped in Jewish particularism. The gentiles were unclean and had no knowledge of the true and only God. But here is Jesus saying that God loved the world in such a way as to send His only Son, bringing salvation to the believing ones. It seems more likely to me that Nicodemus would have understood "God so loved the world" as more of a general, rather than a specific, statement of God's saving benevolence beyond the boundaries of Judaism. 

It is doubtful Nicodemus would have understood Jesus as saying that God loves literally all people in some mathematical sense. Nicodemus was not a postmodern westerner with notions of egalitarianism. And neither was he a later puritan divine with access to the rest of the New Testament's teaching on election and the atonement. John 3:16 neither helps nor hurts the Calvinistic doctrine. Nor does it help or hurt the Free Will/Universal Atonement view. Most likely we should understand Jesus as simply foreshadowing in general terms that the gentiles will also partake of the salvation which Jesus, the Jewish Messiah is bringing to Israel. 

This understanding tracks well with John 12:32 in which Jesus is partially responding to the request of Greeks (i.e., gentiles from "the world") who wished to see Jesus. Jesus says, "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to myself." Here again, Jesus is speaking in general terms, foreshadowing that non-Jews will also participate in Israel's salvation and restoration which He will accomplish by His death.

But what about 1 John 2:2? Does not that text make unequivocally clear Universal Atonement for literally all people everywhere at all times and places? Actually, no it does not. To better illustrate my point, allow me to compare 1 John 2:2 with some similar Johannine passages which also speak of how Jesus' atoning death is both particular and wide reaching:

1 John 2:2	John 10:16b-16	John 11:51-52	Revelation 5:9b
And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins	I lay down my life for the sheep	[Caiaphas] prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation	For you were slain, and have redeemed us to God by your blood
And not for ours only		And not for that nation only
But also for the whole world	And other sheep I have which are not of this fold	But also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad	Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation

As can be seen above, John has a different understanding of "the world" than most contemporary Christians in North America (or to be fair in Europe during Reformation and post-Reformation eras). For John, "the world" is really shorthand for the elect scattered abroad throughout the nations of the earth in all time periods. They too would benefit from Jesus' atoning death for His elect people. Jesus was not merely calling Palestinian and Diaspora Jews and a handful of gentiles from the 1st century. No, Jesus has given His life up for His elect people from all peoples, places, and times from the beginning of creation to the final day.

To summarize then, the contrast John is making in 1 John 2:2 about whom Jesus died for is not between a limited group (Christians) and an unlimited group (all people literally without exception), but it is rather between a small limited group (John himself and his readers whom he addressed in chapter 1), and a much larger, but still limited group (those from the nations who will also believe in Jesus and participate in the fellowship which John described in chapter 1 of his first epistle).

One of the challenges of biblical interpretation is making sure to not bring prior assumptions into the biblical text. I find that those who hold to free will theologies with its Universal Atonement doctrine are generally well meaning believers who want to uphold the love of God and the call for people to repent and believe. Nevertheless, such good intentions must be submitted - like everything else - to what the Scriptures actually say and not what someone might want them to say. I understand that Calvinistic teachings are hard doctrines that challenge us. But I am convinced that they are true and that they serve to keep us humble before God as we trust Him to carry out His plan of redemption that includes an elect people scattered throughout the whole earth. In this way does God love the world. Amen.

A Brief Vindication of Christmas from the "Pagan Origins" Argument

I have always loved Christmas. Ever since I was a kid, I have looked forward to it all year long. I am sure many others can say the same thing. And honestly, I love almost everything about it. From the classic carols to the decorations and lights, the movies (like A Christmas Story or How the Grinch Stole Christmas), and the hot chocolate and candy canes, it really is the most wonderful time of the year! Admittedly, it is a little different now that I am an adult and not a kid anymore. But it is a singular joy watching my own kids open their presents and make their own Christmas memories.

Of course the main reason I love Christmas is because of the observance of the birth of Jesus Christ and the events surrounding it. I love to read the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke and trace out how Old Testament prophecies find their fulfillment in Jesus. It is a joy to meditate on and to sing of the truth of the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity:

Veiled in flesh the Godhead see,
  Hail th’ incarnate Deity!
Pleased as man with man to dwell,
  Jesus our Immanuel.

With all that said, one can excuse me if I find myself unimpressed and maybe even a little provoked many of the attempts to attack the Christmas holiday, both from the secular world and even within professing Christianity. Of course I expect the secular Babylon to hate anything to do with Jesus. I am not at all surprised that the world wants a thoroughly non-religious Christmas (not that there's anything wrong with Rudolph, Frosty, Winter Wonderlands, etc...).

But what really bothers me is when Christians eschew Christmas as somehow the fruit of pagan festivals, and thus offensive to God. Now I do believe that Christians should be able to abide by their own consciences. If any observance violates one's conscience, one should be left alone to follow where it leads, and others should respect it. But I equally have the right to disagree and to state why. And it is to that I turn. I intend to show that even if the so-called "pagan origins" of Christmastime traditions are true (and most of the time, that is debatable at best), those things can still be appropriated (or shall I say re-appropriated) for use in Christian observances. The same holds true of Easter and its unique traditions.

Now just for the sake of argument, let's assume that much of what is connected with Christmas - decorated trees, December 25, yule logs, etc. - can trace its origins to paganism. Does that therefore disqualify Christmas as a legitimate Christian celebration? The answer is a resounding no!

To prove my assertion, I appeal to Paul's teaching to the Corinthians regarding meat sold in the marketplace that had previously been offered up to idols in pagan ceremonies:

Now concerning things offered to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him.

Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse.

But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak.  For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ.Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.

1 Corinthians 8:1-13 NKJV

If any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience’ sake. But if anyone says to you, “This was offered to idols,” do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience’ sake; for “the earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness.”“Conscience,” I say, not your own, but that of the other. For why is my liberty judged by another man’s conscience? But if I partake with thanks, why am I evil spoken of for the food over which I give thanks?

1 Corinthians 10:30 NKJV

 

As the above quoted scriptures indicate, there is only one God and all things ultimately belong to Him because He created them. He already owned those elements that have been ostensibly offered to pagan "gods". Furthermore, according to Paul, idols are really nothing anyway. There is nothing inherent in an idol, nor in that which is sacrificed to the idol that can defile something that God already owned and pronounced "good" (Genesis 1:31).

 

To apply this teaching of Paul to Christmas traditions that were supposedly borrowed from ancient pagan practices, it really doesn't matter where they originally came from. First of all, in observing Christmas, no one is celebrating or worshiping Saturn (the Roman god, not the planet), the Invincible Sun, Odin, Thor, Zeus, or any other pagan deity. Christmas is the observance of Christ. Secondly, even if there are pagan origins to yule logs, wreaths, Christmas trees, mistletoe, etc... (a point which I concede merely for the sake of argument), we know that they are "nothing at all in the world" (1 Corinthians 8:4), so they cannot by definition be defiled. It is evident therefore that God is not displeased by Christmas observance or the various traditions that have arisen over the centuries. 

Christmas is a wonderful season filled with rich traditions. It has stood the test of time. In its very essence, it honors and glorifies the Lord Jesus Christ. Christians should certainly use their consciences to determine to what degree they celebrate, but I agree with Ebenezer Scrooge's nephew Fred:

 

"There are many things from which I might have derived good, by which I have not profited, I dare say...Christmas among the rest. But I am sure I have always thought of Christmas time, when it has come round -- apart from the veneration due to its sacred name and origin, if anything belonging to it can be apart from that -- as a good time: a kind, forgiving, charitable, pleasant time: the only time I know of, in the long calendar of the year, when men and women seem by one consent to open their shut-up hearts freely, and to think of people below them as if they really were fellow-passengers to the grave, and not another race of creatures bound on other journeys. And therefore, Uncle, though it has never put a scrap of gold or silver in my pocket, I believe that it has done me good, and will do me good; and I say, God bless it!"

  -Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol

Jesus and His Apostles: Button Pushers

Nobody would dispute that the Lord Jesus was a prolific preacher and teacher. We read in the Gospels that Jesus "went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease among the people" (Matthew 4:23 NKJV). Later, Jesus is daily in the Temple teaching (Luke 19:47). Jesus was often called "rabbi" by His followers, which means "teacher" (John 1:38). In the same way, after Jesus had been raised from the dead and after He had ascended to Heaven, the earliest Church "continued steadfastly in the apostle' doctrine..." (Acts 2:42).

 

So teaching was a big part of the ministries of both the Lord and the Apostles. But what concerns me today is not so much how prolific their teaching ministries were, but how provocative their teaching could be at times! Let me put it another way. In the Scriptures, there are occasions where both Jesus and the Apostles deliberately and self-consciously say things that they know full well will incite an emotional, and often a hostile, reaction.

 

Allow me to cite but a few examples and then briefly enter into some application. In John 6, Jesus is teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum after having fed the 5,000. To summarize, the people were fed and the next day they find Jesus across the Sea of Tiberias and they ask Him when and how He got there. Jesus replied, "Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled (John 6:26). In other words, Jesus says they just want another free lunch. Jesus is already calling out the impure motivations of the people and doing so quite tersely.

 

But it goes beyond that. Jesus goes on to teach the people that He is the true bread that came down from Heaven (6:35; 6:51), and that in order to have eternal life, they must eat His flesh and drink His blood (6:53-58)! Now the Jews had strict laws against consuming blood (Genesis 9:4; Deuteronomy 12:23), and certainly cannibalism was a no-no. But of course Jesus was speaking figuratively of faith in Him as the sole source of eternal life. Nevertheless, He knew that His words would be offensive to the people as a whole, but He still uttered them. In the context of John 6, I understand Jesus to be separating the elect whom God had given Him with those who were not His sheep. But my primary point here is that Jesus spoke something that He knew would generate a strong reaction, and He said it anyway. And sure enough, most of the people don't like it: On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" (6:60).

 

Jesus does much the same in both John 8 and John 10. In both chapters, during disputes with the Jewish religious leaders, Jesus specifically and unmistakably claims deity. In the first occurrence, Jesus states, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad" (8:56)  Then the Jewish leaders question Jesus about His cryptic statement: "Then the Jews said to Him, 'You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?' Jesus said to them, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM' (8:57-58) The Jewish leaders tried to stone Him, but Jesus was able to escape. But it seems clear that Jesus was well aware of how His words would be received. Yet He fearlessly spoke them anyway!

 

Again, two chapters later, Jesus makes a deliberately provocative statement, unmistakably claiming full deity: "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one." (John 10:27-30). And once again, the Jewish authorities react as one might expect, they picked up stones to stone him... (10:31). What follows is Jesus's defense of His deity. But to say it again, Jesus surely knew that His words would elicit such a visceral response. But that didn't stop Him.

 

Jesus does so again at His trial. Jesus will once again claim full deity before the Sanhedrin when asked point blank if He is the Messiah, the Son of God: "Again the high priest asked him, 'Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?' 'I am,' said Jesus. 'And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.' The high priest tore his clothes. 'Why do we need any more witnesses?' he asked. 'You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?' They all condemned him as worthy of death" (Mark 14:61b-64). Jesus knew what He was saying. He knew the reaction He would receive. And He said it despite it all.

 

But it not only the Lord who doesn't hesitate to speak plainly and provocatively. When one turns to the book of Acts, one finds the Apostles similarly saying deliberately edgy and instigating things, knowing full well that the response will likely be one of rejection. At the beginning of Acts 4, Peter and John are arrested in the Temple following the healing of the crippled man at the Beautiful Gate. But what was it that caused Peter and John to be arrested? Was it that they healed a cripple? Was it because they had gathered a crowd and were preaching? No. It wasn't that. Was it that they proclaimed Jesus as the Messiah? We are getting closer. What really provoked the Temple authorities was the specific content of their preaching: "The priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to Peter and John while they were speaking to the people. They were greatly disturbed because the apostles were teaching the people, proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead" (Acts 4:1-2). Don't you think Peter and John knew that preaching about the resurrection from the dead literally on the home turf of the Sadducees (who denied any doctrine of a physical resurrection) was bound to get them in trouble? They knew it and did it anyway.

 

So far we have seen that Jesus, Peter, and John each were not shy about deliberately and fearlessly stating the hard truth, knowing certainly that because of it they weren't likely to win friends and influence people. But what about Paul? Do we find Paul audaciously saying things that were sure to get him into trouble? Indeed we do. I want to highlight three instances.

 

In the first instance, Paul is preaching to the Athenian philosophers in Athens. Toward the end he makes mention of something which he knew the Greeks were not going to like. But Paul throws caution to the wind and openly declares: "'For [God] has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.'" When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, 'We want to hear you again on this subject.'" (Acts 17:31-32). Much like the Jewish Sadducees, the Greeks had an aversion to the idea of a bodily resurrection. That is why some of them "sneered" as the NIV puts it. The KJV and ESV have "mocked", while the NRSV has "scoffed". But either way, it was not a pleasant reaction, and Paul no doubt knew he had pushed a button.

 

But if you think that is bad, just wait until Paul is arrested in Jerusalem. Paul is arrested in the Temple because some Jews recognized Paul and thought that he was bringing Greeks into the Temple. After being rescued by the Romans, Paul makes a defense before his own Jewish people. After detailing his vision of the Lord Jesus on the Damascus Road, Paul recounts a vision in which the Lord appeared to him in that very Temple in which Paul was standing. Paul boldly states the words of Jesus to him, "I will send you far away to the Gentiles" (Acts 22:21). All was well with Paul's speech until then: "And they listened to him until this word, and then they raised their voices and said, 'Away with such a fellow from the earth, for he is not fit to live!'" (Acts 22:22). And note that Paul says this right after the Jews had rioted because of how his attitude towards the gentiles was perceived. Don't you think Paul knew that saying this would infuriate the mob (and it isn't difficult to infuriate a mob)? Yeah. He knew. We can be safely assured of it. But Paul's commitment to the truth outweighed his sense of personal safety.

 

One final example and then I'll get into some application. After Paul's arrest in Jerusalem, he is brought before the Sanhedrin. At a climactic point, the text says this: "But when Paul perceived that part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, 'Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged!' And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducess; and the assembly was divided. For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection - and no angel or spirit; but the Pharisees confess both" (Acts 23:6). Paul was completely aware of the vast theological differences between the Sadducees and the Pharisees. The dissension between them which arose after Paul's statement was calculated. He knew what he was doing. He knew what button to push and he pushed it. And I suspect that he did it because the truth of the resurrection of the dead was too important a truth to ignore for the sake of political correctness.

 

So what can we make of all this? Why does it matter? For one, I believe it matters because as I said just above, the truth of the Gospel must take priority over political correctness. Most of the time, the Gospel is best served by observing social protocol so as not to cause undue offense. But there are occasions where stating the truth plainly is more vital than keeping the peace.

 

Another point of application that can be made is this. Sometimes the only point of bearing witness for Jesus is just simply to bear witness for Jesus, even when you know that you will experience rejection. Sometimes the impression is given that leading the other person to faith in Christ is the ultimate end goal. But actually it's not. Bringing glory to God is the highest end of evangelism. God will take care Himself who comes to Him by faith. Sometimes, but not always, it is just simply better to state the naked truth and forget the consequences. I also sometimes observe that many ministries are trying to establish some kind of goodwill between Jerusalem and Babylon before introducing Christ into the equation, apparently thinking that softening non-believers up will somehow make them more receptive to the Gospel. 

I agree that kindness, meekness, and gentleness are hallmarks of Christian conduct. That's hardly controversial. Nevertheless, the Christian message will in the end confront the non-believer in his or her sin and demand a response. Gentleness, humility, holy living, good works, and even powerful demonstrations of the Holy Spirit are all good and necessary attendants to the Gospel message and can increase receptivity. But at the end of the day, the Gospel will stand on its own in the mind of the non-believer, who needs a work of grace to respond in faith to Jesus.

 

But here's a note of caution. In the scriptural examples I gave above, either Jesus or His Apostles were put on the spot. In other words, they didn't just show up in some random place at a random time with bullhorns, banners, and sandwich board signs. Either a miracle or some outward event was happening right in front of them and the Lord or His Apostles had no choice but to speak plainly. In such a situation, straight talk is the best policy. But in most other contexts, great care should be taken to speak the truth with tact, gentleness, and patience. The Gospel is meant to be spoken out loud. Wisdom, the surrounding context, and your audience will usually determine how to best go about speaking it. Amen. 

Learning Theological Terms: Heresiarch

This is another post in a series of blogs that I started last year on exploring some theological terminology within Christianity. Today I'll be briefly unpacking the term heresiarch.

In brief, a heresiarch is a term for the person who originates and/or popularizes a heresy, or a false teaching. It is not a flattering description. It is related to the terms heresy and heretic. Another term for a heresiarch is "arch-heretic".

The New Testament repeatedly warns the Church of the reality of false teachers, false apostles, false prophets, etc... and exhorts her to be diligent and on her guard against these liars:

Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even  from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. (Acts 20:29-30 NIV)

The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings will come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron... (1 Timothy 4:1-2 NIV)

But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

These examples could be multiplied. Other scriptures also warn about the danger of false teachers and false prophets (Matthew 7:15-20; 1 John 4:1-6; Jude 4). 

Interestingly, while the end result is much the same, I feel that it is necessary to distinguish between false teachers and false prophets. False teachers bring false doctrines, often fallaciously based on texts of Scripture that they twist to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16). They attack sound doctrine and in place they pervert the truth to suit their own desires. False prophets will usually do the same but they will claim exalted experiences like prophetic utterances, dreams, visions, and miraculous phenomena. 

So now that we know what we're dealing with, are there examples of heresiarchs today and throughout church history? Sadly yes. Below are but a few examples:

1. Cerinthus was a heresiarch who popularized the gnostic teaching that Jesus was a man upon whom the "Christ" spirit descended at his baptism and who promptly left him just before the crucifixion. 

2. Marcion taught a similar gnostic heresy that claimed that Jesus Christ was only a phantasm who did not truly possess a physical body.

3.  Arius was a bishop in the fourth century who taught that Jesus Christ was a created being and thus less than God Almighty.

4. In the modern era, Joseph Smith founded the Mormon Church. He produced false Scriptures, claimed that he had had visions of God, and that Jesus was the firstborn child of God and his wife, Satan was the second born, and everyone else on earth came later. 

5. Charles Taze Russell founded the Jehovah's Witnesses

6. Gregory Boyd has been the lead advocate for the heresy of "Open Theism".

7. The late Rachel Held Evans was a champion of so-called "Progressive Christianity". 

These are just a few examples. The New Testament leads us to expect that false teachers, false prophets, and false apostles will proliferate throughout the present era. The answer for Christians is to be ever diligent and ever discerning towards those who teach, prophesy, or otherwise minister in the Church. Amen. 

Why Was it Necessary that Jesus was Buried?

I admit, this is a question that I have sometimes wondered about. Why does the New Testament sometimes stress the burial of Jesus Christ? How does that contribute to my redemption? Understanding the death and resurrection of Jesus as necessary to my salvation is comparatively easy. But why must Jesus be buried, other than that is just what people do with dead people? I mean of course He was buried! What else would you do with a dead body? Cremation was not common back then in Jewish culture. In fact, I am fairly sure it was unheard of.

But what I mean is that it looks like the New Testament - almost in passing - will point out that Jesus was buried and where. For example, 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 reads:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures...

Likewise, each of the four Gospels emphasizes that Jesus was buried in a tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimathea, and that certain women observed the place where Jesus was laid (Matthew 27:57-61; Mark 15:42-47; Luke 23:50-56; John 19:38-42). Even the Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah's death account for His burial as well (Isaiah 53:9).

So what should we make of the fact that Jesus was buried, other than what was normal to do for dead bodies? I have some thoughts on this. There's nothing earth-shattering. I don't have anything that will change the face of New Testament studies. In fact, I am sure that many others before me have studied this and come to sound conclusions. But as I have pondered this problem in my own head, here is what I have come up with. 

Firstly, Jesus had to be buried to show that He really was dead. The Romans were cruel, but not so cruel as to bury someone alive! In fact, why go to all the trouble of crucifying someone if you're just going to leave the job half finished and bury them alive? Part of the point of crucifixion generally speaking was to leave the victim hanging on the cross for as long as possible (often for days) to prolong their suffering and simultaneously to humiliate them as they die slowly, naked and exposed. Jesus was really and truly dead. In fact, He died much more quickly than most victims of crucifixion, a fact that surprised Pontius Pilate (Mark 15:44). Jesus was buried to show that He was dead. As Dickens put it, "as dead as a door nail".

But secondly, I think that Jesus was buried to prove the reality of His resurrection. Jesus did not merely "swoon" or pass out as some skeptics in the past and present have suggested. And Jesus was not resuscitated as might happen to victims of cardiac arrest. He was dead. He was buried. He was in the grave for three days (by Jewish reckoning); long enough to be shown to be truly dead, but not long enough to decompose and see decay (Psalm 16:10). 

Jesus was buried in a specific place under specific circumstances in order to fulfill Scripture (see the Isaiah passage referenced above), show that He was truly dead, and to prove the reality of His bodily resurrection. Amen.

A Charismatic Complementarianism

I have never been ashamed of, nor have I ever made a secret of my belief in the continuation of all of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. And while I have no problem with owning the label "Charismatic", I find that there is much popular teaching, theology, and ethos within the broader Charismatic movement that I am unable to believe in and endorse. For example, the vast majority of the Charismatic movement believes in the doctrines of free will and Arminianism. I remain a convinced Calvinist. Most Charismatics believe in some form of standard or modified Dispensationalism, whereas I hold without apology to what is often (and pejoratively) called "Replacement Theology".

Now to be perfectly honest, as vehemently as I disagree with free will theology and Dispensationalism, I can, to a degree, get past that. But there is one area of popular Pentecostal/Charismatic practice and belief that for me is a deal breaker. The reality is that most Pentecostal/Charismatic churches believe in the ordination of women to pastoral ministry¹. For example, the Assemblies of God in a position paper on their official website, states,

After examining the various translations and interpretations of biblical passages relating to the role of women in the first-century church, and desiring to apply biblical principles to contemporary church practice, we conclude that we cannot find convincing evidence that the ministry of women is restricted according to some sacred or immutable principle.

Similarly, the Association of Vineyard Churches, on its official website, says this:

In response to the message of the kingdom, the Vineyard Movement encourages, trains, and empowers women in all areas of leadership.

We believe that God calls and gifts leaders within the church as He chooses and that this is not limited by gender, age, ethnicity, economic status, or any other human distinction (1 Cor. 12:11; Gal. 3:28).

The role of the church community is to discern God’s gifting and calling for leadership and also to discern the maturity and character required for leadership (1 Tim. 3:1-13).

In the Jesus-following community, leadership centers around serving the body of Christ in humility and self-sacrificial love (Matt. 20:25-28).

In the New Testament church, we see a call to servanthood in imitation of Jesus – a call given to both men and women equally. We believe we are better together.

This last example is particularly relevant to me because I was previously involved in two different Vineyard churches. In fact, I was, for a time, a worship leader and a pastoral intern of sorts. I had hoped that I would eventually be ordained within the Vineyard family of churches. In many ways, I still very much miss Vineyard. However, the issue of Vineyard's egalitarianism - alongside other issues - led to my eventual departure from the Vineyard USA. While I still share with Vineyard a particular theological understanding of the Kingdom of God that includes miraculous signs, I believe that that the Bible teaches clearly that the governing and teaching offices of the church, such as Apostles and Elders are restricted to men only. I do not believe that the Scriptures sanction women as governing and teaching church leaders.

In the statement of faith of David's Throne Ministries, I describe my position as follows:

In the beginning, God created the human race as both male and female, giving them dominion over the earth to fill it and subdue it. Because of this, men and women are equal in their essence before God. Through the Fall of Man however, discord and conflict have arisen between the sexes. Through the reconciliation brought about by Christ, men and women can again achieve harmony, however imperfectly, through sacrificial love and service.

The Bible teaches that God has given His Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit to both males and females in the Church. However, because of the original created order which Christ came to restore, there are certain functions and offices in the Church which God has specified that only males may perform. These offices are the governing and teaching offices, which are Apostles and Elders (Acts 2:17-18; 1 Corinthians 11:2-16; 1 Timothy 2:8-15). 

But before I continue, I feel that I should address the elephant in the room that will inevitably come up. Am I a sexist? A male chauvinist pig perhaps? I mean after all, why would I oppose women as pastors unless it somehow threatens my "toxic masculinity"? 

In all honesty, from a strictly personal perspective, I really don't care. I truly don't. I have always, as long as I can remember, had female authority figures in my life - from my mother, to teachers, to bosses, to police officers, etc... Why should a female pastor be any different? If I wasn't absolutely sure that the Bible disallows female pastors, I would be the first to support it. So the charge that I am somehow protecting my fragile male ego is predictable, but ultimately fails to measure up to the facts.

Now to be clear, I do believe that in this Kingdom age, the Holy Spirit has been poured out on both males and females who believe in Messiah Jesus (Joel 2:28-29; Acts 2:14-18). I believe that men and women alike may pray publicly as well as possess and exercise the gift of prophecy (1 Corinthians 11:4-5). I believe that men and women may both equally lead congregational singing (Ephesians 5:19). Lastly and most importantly, it is also clear from the New Testament that men and women share equally in the blessings of the salvation procured through Jesus (Galatians 3:26-28). Additionally, Jesus' kind, counter cultural treatment of women is well-documented.

But I just can't dismiss the two passages of Scripture which clearly and unequivocally indicate that leadership and teaching in the Church must be male. I am speaking of course of 1 Corinthians 11:3 and 1 Timothy 2:11-14. The former passage speaks thus:

 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

This verse gives to us an authority structure for the home and for the Church. In those spheres, there is a divinely-originated male authority structure. But it must also be noted that all men are under the headship of Christ. Whatever authority I may have as a male, I myself am under the authority of Jesus. I submit to Jesus. And it must be remembered that Jesus submits to God the Father. While there is apparently some debate as to whether the Son submitted to the Father in eternity past², it is clear that at least during His earthly ministry, God the Son willingly rendered obedience and submission to God the Father, even though the Son is equal to the Father in every way (John 12:49; John 14:31; Hebrews 10:5-7). With that in mind, it becomes easier to see how males and females can have equality of essence, even as they are distinct in certain roles.

Now there are some egalitarians (as those who advocate for women's ordination are often referred to as) who will argue that the Greek word translated "head" ( κεφαλή, kephale) should rather be translated as "source" instead of "head", thus removing any hint of authority from the text. For example, the above mentioned position paper of the Assemblies of God suggests that "kephale" should likely be thus understood. I am not sufficiently trained in Greek exegesis to determine between the two translations. However, I would argue that it probably doesn't matter all that much anyway. Why? I say that because it should go without saying that the "source" of something has intrinsic authority over it. I am the "source" of my children (as is my wife). Therefore, I (and my wife) have authority over them. So even if Paul meant to say that man is the "source" of woman rather than her "head", it still follows that the man has some authority over her (within the divinely ordained sphere of home and church anyway; it does not to my mind suggest absolute male authority or that a woman can never, in any context, have authority over a man - see my above comments about female authority figures).

But the battleground over women's ordination always tends to come back to 1 Timothy 2:11-14. As usual, I lack space for a full examination and exegesis, so I will simply quote the text and make a few comments on it. First Timothy 2:11-14 states:

 11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Now I do not typically have a problem with being frank, so I will be frank here. I really don't see what is so difficult about this passage of Scripture. I mean really, what is so hard here? I can see how it offends modern Western sensibilities. So what? Since when has God ever altered His will to satisfy the fickle and changing whims of a particular culture? Is this not the same God who said, "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord. 9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts."? (Isaiah 55:8-9 NKJV)

The Scripture here states with a fair amount of clarity that a woman should not be in a position of ecclesiastical authority over a man. Please note the italicized adjective in the previous sentence. Again, I see nothing here that suggests necessarily that a woman cannot possess authority over a man in the realms of government, business/commerce, law enforcement, etc... As I see it, it is only in the Church where Paul's instructions in 1 Timothy find their place.³ And it should be further noted that Paul roots his instructions in the created order, before the Fall of Man. God's creation of Adam and then Eve has timeless ramifications that cannot be overturned. So, contra the Assemblies of God, there is in fact, a "sacred and immutable principle" of male leadership in the Church. Similarly, Eve's sin has affected all of womanhood, down through the ages. For these reasons, church leadership is male.

That said, it would violate the spirit of this text to suggest that a woman may fulfill the leadership and teaching office of elder, since that office explicitly has to do with ruling and teaching (1 Timothy 5:17). Similarly, Paul's lists of qualifications for elders (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9) assume that the office-holder will be male since the individual in question must be "husband of one wife". It is obvious that a woman cannot be "husband of one wife" (regardless of what modern trends may try to tell us).

There are, of course, other lines of argumentation that are often used to try to argue for women's ordination. Some will attempt to suggest that Junia is a female apostle (Romans 16:7). Now there are those who espouse my position who will attempt to say that Junia (a woman) was actually Junias (a man). I don't know if I buy that really. On that subject, I would say two things. One, the much clearer texts I referenced above should not be set aside due to one (possible, but very debatable) interpretation of a more obscure text. Secondly, I don't think that Junia is actually called an apostle here. The key is the preposition "among". Now it is possible grammatically to say the Junia is "among" the Apostles as meaning that she is an apostle. But I suggest to you that the proper way to see this text is to understand that preposition as saying that "among" or within the closed circle of the Apostles (Paul, Peter, John, et al.), Junia is well thought of. That is, the Apostles think highly of Junia, though she herself is not an Apostle.

Still another line of argumentation is that Jesus was kind to women and so we should ordain women to pastoral ministry. This is what is known in logic as a non sequitur. It does not follow. Everyone agrees that Jesus was compassionate to women, children, gentiles, tax collectors, lepers, etc... But none of that overturns the created order nor the order with which God has established the Church.

The need of the hour in Western culture today is for strong men of God who are not ashamed to be men. The need is for men of courage, responsibility, compassion, leadership, and conviction. While there is always the danger of an irresponsible, overly exaggerated machismo, the equal danger is overcompensating to the kind of wet noodle "beta male" mentality that many of the cultural elites would foist upon our civilization. I for one, by God's help and grace, strive to be the kind of husband, father, and churchman (and perhaps one day Lord willing, elder) that other men would want to imitate. Amen.

¹ That is not to suggest that only Pentecostal/Charismatic denominations/movements ordain women to pastoral ministry. The Church of the Nazarene for example, is part of the Wesleyan-Holiness tradition and essentially non-charismatic, but does practice the ordination of women.

² I have not followed this debate with any closeness so I do not currently have a conviction concerning the eternal submission of the Son to the Father. Presently however, I do not think it has too great a bearing on the main thrust of the issue of women's ordination.

³ Elsewhere, both Paul (Ephesians 5:22-24; Colossians 3:18) and Peter (1 Peter 3:1-6) instruct wives to submit to their husbands, but that is in the sphere of the home. The present discussion is specifically about the sphere of the Church, although the two spheres do overlap.