God's 5 Covenants Part 2

 

Last week we covered God’s covenants with Noah and with Abraham.

The third covenant God made was with Moses, the Mosaic Covenant. This was given upon their exodus from Egyptian slavery, 430 years after Abraham.  This was about the occupation of the land. It was a covenant of (possible) security.  It was for their nation alone. He gave laws to live by, no less than 613 laws (10 of those were our familiar “big ones”) in Exodus and Leviticus--all the way from what kind of foods were acceptable, and sanitation facilities to keep out disease, what is sin and what are the retributions from man to man, on family life, and on deaths. If they follow these laws, God would make the land fertile, and they would be happy. The downside is, the opposite was also true.  With disobedience came the curses, which God named as a part of His covenant:  pestilence, drought, no rain, killed and oppressed by conquerors, even finally exiled from His land. All named in Deuteronomy. It took then a thousand years of fighting to get the land, but only 500 years to lose it all. This was a reminder that “God keeps His promises”—both negative and positive.  Few Jews will admit that that curse was brought on by themselves. But God is serious; He means what He says. One day He will divide the nations, like sheep from goats.

The Mosaic was a temporary covenant; it was only intended to operate until the Messiah came.  (Which He did. Though most of the Jews don’t know it, Jesus was their Messiah.) Those laws make us really aware of what sin is. Speaking of replacing the Mosaic with the New Covenant, we don’t abolish all the old law. For instance, many economists would tell you that operating our economies on the “Jubilee” scale, given by God, might still work on evening out the business cycle.  Or, the criminal justice system could learn something by applying the Mosaic system that emphasized restitution, instead of mostly punishment.

The fourth covenant was with David, and was about succession. The covenant had two parts:  God promised successors who would permanently sit on David’s throne—IF they obeyed Him.  Secondly, from David would come, not just a king of the Jews, but the King of kings, Jesus, who would sit on that throne forever.  In Matthew and Luke, the genealogies of Jesus, from both mother and stepfather, were given and it was proven that Jesus on both sides came from David That was unconditional.  Jesus will come in a Second Advent to do that.

David had great faith in God’s promise; on his deathbed, he thanked God, even though he could not see any of it come true.  Again, he showed faith. Dr. Pawson then gave a side note:  we were not made for a democracy; that concept was nowhere in Scripture.  Man is at his best in a kingdom, under a benign king—and what of a king that would lay down His life, who would have a special concern for the poor, someone who is not going to become power-hungry, or dazzled by wealth or fame—someone whose model is “service”—well, we found such a person—Jesus the Messiah.  There were several times when people wanted to make Him king during His first advent, but they were fickle, and He knew it; He rejected all that.  His purpose then was to show what love was, and to die for the ungodly.  His purpose on His second advent will be different.  It is to be a Judge and our King and Sovereign.  We will meet our Maker then. He will judge from David’s throne in the Millennium, for both Jews and Gentiles that are saved because they believe in Him.

Now we come to the final, fifth covenant.  It is called the New, or Messianic covenant.  It is detailed in three places in the Old Testament. God was kind enough to provide all five covenants in the Old Testament—and all five can be found in the New. This New Covenant was foretold by three prophets:   Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel. From Jeremiah 31:31-34:

 “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah…I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. ³⁴ No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me…  For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

First, as other Scriptures show, the New Covenant includes Gentiles in the “house of Israel.” Secondly, how to live would not be written on stone tablets, but on men’s minds and hearts.  This means they would have an inclination to avoid sin.  They wouldn’t have to be told for each thing how to live, but they would know the rule of love, and have a desire, not to seek for their own pleasure, but to live Christlike. Today, some churches in England, when each of the Ten Commandments are read, the congregation responds by saying, “Lord, incline our hearts to keep this law.”  The beauty of the New Covenant is, the inclination is already there. We will want to obey God; we will want to do good.

It shows us that there will be intimacy--all of us will know better what the Lord is feeling or thinking. There would be no need for teachers or classes on what God is like.

The third characteristic of the New Covenant in Jeremiah is innocence. As opposed to guilt—which comes between you and someone you love. Are you hiding a secret from your love in this life?  Not a good idea.  But innocence happens when you have confessed and have been forgiven; it is a wonderful feeling. Again, we will desire to have nothing between us and our “husband,” God.

Jesus improved the Mosaic commandments by making us guilty for thinking about some things, not just acting upon them. If our mind hates someone, and if we think about lusting after someone of the opposite sex, for instance—we are guilty as well as killing or having sex. Also, sin is not just “avoiding what we shouldn’t do;” it’s also not doing what needs to be done. Jesus had some radical ideas in His commands: When mercy is called for, we must practice to act and be merciful—or else we miss heaven.  If we need to forgive someone, we must do it regularly—or we miss heaven.

It’s important to stress this overall fact:  This Covenant is made active, in part, in each of us, by the sanctification of our souls, after we have truly seen Jesus for all He did, and have repented the wickedness of our nature, have confessed, been born again—and been baptized.

In the second set of Old Testament verses, from Isaiah, there is a seeming contradiction of character.  Isaiah 9:6ff, we learn that Jesus will be one who governs.  And He will be a:

Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace

And what will be His kingdom like? Endless, peaceful, with Judgment and Justice--forever.

Of the increase of His government and peace There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, To order it and establish it with judgment and justice From that time forward, even forever.

But in Isaiah 53, He is also prophesied to be the opposite, a suffering servant:

He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed.
⁶ All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all

As we see above, the details of Isaiah 53 are an accurate prophecy of Jesus’ first advent—written nearly a thousand years before Jesus fulfilled it and died for our sin. The 9:6 verse, on the other hand, will be fulfilled on His second advent.

The early Jews never thought that there would be two advents, and they could not put the two Isaiah statements together (they have even suggested two Messiahs coming), and never suspected Jesus to fulfill any of the Messiah’s requirements. They ignored the Servant and wished for a King out of a great desire for a ruler to deliver them from Roman oppression. Jesus spoke of us belonging to a kingdom, but for now, a kingdom of the mind, and conquering our enemy, sin.

Their desire to kill Him was more likely due to the fact that He snubbed the religious leaders of the day.  He also made blunt, outrageous statements pointing out their sin. They were so full of hate of Jesus that they lied to the Romans that He wanted to grab a kingship (Remember, the Romans alone had the authority to kill Him).

A side note: Pawson believes that baptism is a part of salvation (I have a blog on that). He doesn’t have time to debate this special baptism position theologically, but he does touch on one thing:  it was big enough that the idea was an introduction to 3 of the 4 Gospel accounts with the words of John the Baptist.  Here is Matthew 1:8 for example:

I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

He will also soften our stubborn hearts.  He will also give His Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was hidden until near the end of Christ’s ministry.  But Ezekiel prophesied on it, even though he was writing hundreds of years before, in 36:26-27:

²⁶ I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. ²⁷ I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them

Rev. Pawson insists that we will never truly enjoy the New Covenant until we receive the Holy Spirit. He also believes in a separate filling of the Holy Spirit. He has excellent proofs.  But his sermons have always blessed my spirit.  So read what he says next. His testimony is powerful. Being so baptized means, he says, “filled to overflowing”. How would you know when that occurs?  The mouth is the “overflow” chamber.  Jesus did say that whatever you are full of, will come out of your mouth. Dr. Pawson told of two personal incidents. The first was a conversation he had with a missionary in a park, who was bewildered and sad, and said that he hadn’t really accomplished anything measurable in 10 years of evangelism and work. The missionary confessed that he didn’t think he was ever filled with the Holy Spirit--though he was clearly saved.  He asked for Rev. Pawson’s prayer, and as soon as he gave an inauspicious one, the man’s head shot upright and he shouted “Hallelujah!” in the loudest possible voice. Got everyone’s attention.  Fortunately, they were in a public park. Rev. Pawson asked him if he had ever done that before, and the missionary said, “Never! I am a reserved Englishman.” But then he said, “Is that it?”  Pawson said, “I just heard you overflow. That’s it.”  Rev. Pawson says, within 24 hours the missionary had administered healing on two very sick people—which he had never done before.

Then he related an even better second story, this time involving him. When he was a senior pastor, a man at his church (named James) was the self-appointed leader of the opposition—repeatedly saying “we’ve tried that, it didn’t work” or “we’ve never done that before, and we’re not going to try it now.” This man flattened every idea of progress that Rev. Pawson brought up.  Pawson regretted him greatly, since the church wasn’t together or moving ahead.  But Pawson always got 6 weeks respite every year, when he could actually pursue some ideas—because Philip (another senior pastor) had a weak chest and was laid up in the hospital every springtime (all his life) with hay fever miseries.  He was gasping for air at the worst of it.

Well, upon Pawson’s annual trek to see him, driving there he heard the words “James 5” ringing in his skull. Perhaps you might have guessed what the words refer to: in James 5, where if you are sick, you should call for the elders, who administer oil, and you would be healed. Pawson thought, “I don’t want to do that for Philip.”  He rationalized that he needed a break, and it would be good for the church. Then he made a startling confession: “You know what, Lord, I have never administered oil.”  Clearly. he was a more worldly man then, since no one in his congregation even thought of him for any expectations of healing. Like many congregations, belief in the supernatural or miracles was most uncomfortable. Asking to administer oil showed belief in the supernatural, that God would act now like He did in the Book of Acts.  Few people had enough faith for that. Well, what was the first thing our hospital patient said when Pawson came through the door? “What do you think about James 5?” Pawson responded, “why do you ask?”  The patient said “I want you to do it to me.” His lungs were full again, the doctors said he should stay there for another 3 weeks, but he was thinking about a business appointment he didn’t want to miss, only 3 days away. So he said, “Will you come and do that?” Pawson sought a way out, so he said “I’ll pray about it.” He did pray on the way home, but not heroically--He said, “Lord, please tell me why I shouldn’t do this?” But the heavens were brass, he said.

Two days later Philip’s wife finally called, and asked, “Philip wants to know if you’re coming to anoint him.” He said, “All right, I’ll come tonight.”  He bought a large container of olive oil and went. Philip was, as usual, gasping for breath, so he opened his Bible to James 5, and read it robotically. The first thing it said was, “Confess your sins one to another.”  So Pawson said, “Philip, I’ve never lied to you.”  (Rev. Pawson’s audience was really enjoying this.) Philip responded, “That’s mutual.”  So “we dealt with that part,” he said to his laughing audience. So when they got to the “anoint” part, he got his bottle of oil, took the top off, and poured it all over his head!

Guess what finally happened?  Absolutely nothing. He still lay there gasping.  So Pawson was muttering how Philip would act worse than ever as he slunk out the door.  In a final grasping for straws, he said “I’ll run you to the airport for your business trip tomorrow.” But he didn’t believe it. Nor did he sleep all night, and didn’t think of Philip come morning. But he got a phone call.  “Hello, Philip here; can you pick me up?”  Pawson, shocked, finally said “Are you all right, James? What happened?” He said in the middle of the night, it was as if two hands squeezed his chest.  He coughed up a bucketful of liquid from his lungs, and, lo and behold, he could breathe freely. Upon Pawson asking, he assured him the doctors gave him a pass.  “In fact,” he said, “I’ve even been to have my haircut.” The barber said, “I’m afraid I’ll have to wash your hair first. I’ve never seen such a greasy head in all my life.”

Three more miracles arose from that event.  First, he never had that problem again.  Second, Philip got filled with the Spirit; and third, he became Pawson’s best friend.

“But I’ve missed out the most important part: Just before I did that, I went to my church, knelt down, and tried to pray for Philip. Have you ever tried to pray for a sick man when you want him to stay sick? And then, to my astonishment,” he said, “I found myself praying with all my heart and soul—but not in English!” He looked at his watch, and figured it went on for an hour.  He’d never done that intensive prayer that long, before. “That’s when I understood Acts chapter two, and understood the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Now I find myself doing things I’ve never done before in my life. I could administer God’s healing, give people wisdom and knowledge, even prophesy.” That’s the New Covenant. To go on being filled. The Spirit is softening our heart, conveying God’s forgiveness.  Thank God for His Spirit! Thank God for His covenants!

 

God's 5 Covenants

 God's 5 Covenants

I’d like to summarize a wonderful set of sermons by David Pawson on the subject of “God’s Covenants.” I have to split it up into two weeks. These are God’s promises to us.

First, he distinguishes between covenant and contract. The contract is, when two parties each have an item the other party wants, they strike up an agreement, usually on price, and complete the transaction.  In the case of the contractor to build a house, he has the skills, you have the money.  A covenant is different:  whereas a contract is bilateral, a covenant is unilateral. One person decides the terms, and may put themselves under an obligation to another or makes certain promises to the other.  The other person cannot change the terms—the only choice they have is to believe and accept, or ignore the covenant.

Along this line, he mentioned marriage; we used to see it as a covenant, following Scripture.  To most people 75 years ago, marriage was permanent. The only way out, Scripturally, was by finding your partner was unfaithful.  And even then a divorce was still a scandal.  Now, marriage looks more like a contract—they negotiate who makes decisions, in what area. They may even, before the marriage, anticipate the division of assets in the event of a divorce.  So you’ve got one foot out the door even before you begin. God wants long-term commitment in marriages, like they formerly said in their vows, “for better or worse.” He has made commandments in His Word, and He knows what’s best, so our ignoring Him guarantees that divorces will multiply.  Explaining a definition of love will help; a Hebrew word translated “lovingkindness” should better be defined as “covenant love,” or “loyalty.” That also suggests sticking to a covenant.

An oddity is that many people, while ignoring covenants, try to make a contract with God.  “I will avoid this sin forever if You agree to let me win the lottery.”  But you can’t make a bargain with God.  That’s because you’ve got nothing that He wants.  In Psalm 50, God says

If I were hungry, I wouldn’t tell you.  The silver and the gold are mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills.

Everything you’ve got is His—even if we think it belongs to us. Really, how much can you take with you when you die—so who does it go back to in the end?   Even while alive, God could give something to you and later take it away, just like that.  Rev. Pawson muses that he has never heard a preacher do a sermon on that part of God’s sovereignty. Such “deals” don’t establish our relationship with God.  Some preachers encourage this by saying, “You should give your money to the Lord, and He will bless your business.” Speaking of wrong theology, we should also note that if we are told to “tithe,” which usually means give 10% to the church, that idea originated under the Mosaic covenant, which we are not under any more, since Christ made a New covenant. (More on this later.)

Some covenants are “unconditional.”  Which means that if the other party breaks their promises, the covenant still stands. But some are “conditional;” and they look more like a contract because God says “if you do this, I will do that forever.”  But He sets the terms, and they are non-negotiable, so it is still a unilateral bond—thus, a covenant.

But think how amazing that a holy God, the creator of this vast universe, would pay attention to us and make a covenant with sinful people. He actually puts Himself under obligation to us when He forms a covenant.  Covenants have amazing good things for us—but in some cases, we have to stick to conditions to keep the benefits; in other cases, we don’t have to do anything, but the benefits still come around.

Another explanation that is needed to clear things up:  The Greek for “covenant” is the same word from which we get “testament” (as in “Last will and testament”), to unilaterally direct the flow of your assets to named other parties.  What’s beautiful about that is, WE (if we love and obey Christ) are the Heirs of His last Testament, or the New Covenant. This took effect upon His death.  (The fact that this covenant is still operating does not mean to suggest that He is still dead. He is very much alive).

But there is a problem:  Since people know there is an “Old Testament” and a “New Testament,” they might think that God only has had two covenants--and that since the time of Christ, His New covenant replaced the Old one. So many people conclude that it’s not necessary to pay attention to the Old Testament anymore. Some modern theologians even suggest there is no real value in studying the Old Testament. This is wrong for reasons stated below.

Rev. Pawson believes God made five covenants. These are, the Noahic, the Abrahamic, the Mosaic, the Davidic, and lastly, the New.  (This is not to be confused with “Dispensationalism,” the subject of another paper.) Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David lived in the Old Testament times, yet those covenants (except part of the Mosaic one) are still active, thus proving the value of reading the Old Testament after all. The New covenant replaces the Mosaic covenant. For instance, Jesus, author of the New covenant, commands, in the area of giving, to give everything above what we have to spend on necessities (see Matthew 6:19-20), and to give cheerfully (which replaces the 10% tithe in the Old covenant—and, I must say, which even fewer people obey).

Each of the covenants we will briefly discuss. Each covenant is for a particular people (not always Jews), a particular purpose, and for a particular period.

The first covenant in Scripture is with Noah, and is called the Noahic covenant.  Man’s violence and depravity had become so extreme that Scripture records that their thoughts were evil continually.  One of his worst sins was because mankind violated the “keeping separate” rules God demanded of animals, of mankind, and of angels.  Barriers were given, but crossed: Men had sex with animals.   Angels were having sex with human women, and producing non-human hybrids--strange creatures, including many tall and super-strong men. (I have another blog on that.)  Humankind DNA was getting perverted by crossing these barriers.  So, by a Flood, God wiped out the entire earth’s population—except Noah’s family.  Noah, once he landed on dry ground, would have been fearful about any further rainfall, but God reduced his anxiety by declaring His Noahic covenant—which is good for all mankind—that He would never destroy all of us again by water. The rainbow was His sign. He thus insured the survival of the human race, the purpose of the covenant—so it is still active. (Rev. Pawson makes an interesting case here:  Based on God’s desire to insure our survival, He has always kept food production capable enough to feed every single person on earth, no matter how much population has grown.  The fact that many die of starvation is due to mankind’s selfish desire to not share our food. (Ed. If you have ever read of Malthus and his fear of population increase, and his glum starvation theories, these ignore God’s promise.  Acting on them have led to horrible results—genocide, abortion, even some wars, have all been encouraged by many of his adherents through the generations.

But the starvation is not God’s fault; it is ours.

To the question, “Is there a proviso in this covenant?  Is there a penalty attached if we don’t do something?”  For the Noahic covenant, the answer is No. BUT God hopes that we respect certain rules regarding separation, and there are judgments for breaking them.  Here are some facts that are too often ignored. Human life alone is sacred—made in the image of God; so killing a person intentionally is sacrilege, a terrible sin, and should have life for life penalty.  So God is in favor of capital punishment.  (Ed. This speaks volumes regarding abortion: the embryo, even the zygote, has separate life from the mother; so the mother who kills her baby at any time in the womb is guilty too—a fact never commented upon, either by law or by pastors—but is easy to figure from God’s statements). Rev. Pawson (many years ago) had predicted that once we in the U.S. ignored God’s rule on capital punishment for murder, our disrespect for Him and for life meant a loosening of laws on abortion would follow—which came true--but then euthanasia would follow after that. There are a few organizations that encourage suicide for the old, but this editor predicts that when the next widespread famine comes, euthanasia will be acceptable by law in many places. A widespread minority will think like Hitler or Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood), who have called the old or disabled “useless eaters.”

Respecting God’s rules, there is no capital punishment for killing an animal, since none of them are sacred—so they could be for food.  Evolution and pagan theology have ruined our thinking on that, making man simply an evolved animal or making animals sacred. (Ed. Fornication without feeling guilt is happening more often among men, since they rationalize that, as animals, men cannot expect to be monogamous.) God allowed killing and eating animals, but—only if the blood is drained out first, so we don’t get a taste for blood.

Having sex with animals is unfortunately a growing trend.  But violating these will not result in another Flood; since the Noahic covenant is unconditional.

God preserved Noah’s immediate family and started over, despite our sin, because He wants to develop a family from His creation; He wants to share with us, to love us in person, someday. The Bible often shows His feelings; God often said “I will be their God, and they will be My people.” That’s why we are here; He put us here to search for and find Him, and have an ongoing relationship with Him. As Scripture says, He is not far away.  Our “pursuit of happiness,” to quote Jefferson, cannot be obtained, except in relating to God.  BUT—he has rules involving sanctification and fellowship with Him before we obtain heaven.  So God started again, with a righteous family, Noah’s family. We are all descendants of Noah—but more important, if we are born again and obey God, we are His descendants.  He adopts us and we share His inheritance.

Now let’s look at the next Covenant that God made with the human race—the Abrahamic covenant.  In that covenant, He promised land.  He laid out the boundaries of that land, in the area called Canaan.  Though Abraham never owned it, nevertheless, in his will, he gave it to his son—that’s how much faith he had in God’s promise.  Same goes for Isaac, leaving it for Jacob.  Jacob was renamed Israel. The boundaries were expanded a little, but never quite obtained what God said He hoped for, except maybe under David much later. God wanted a particular people that He would reveal himself to, a people that would be dedicated to Him. He picked Abraham because he had faith in Him.  Archeology proves that he was living comfortably in Ur of the Chaldeans.  But God told him to walk away from that to a Promised Land.  That would mean traveling a long distance—and he was 80.  And leaving friends and relatives.  He knew that he and Sarah, his wife, could not lay title in the new land (there were powerful territorial tribes around), despite God’s promise—it was for his race that he founded, the Jews. So they would be living in tents.  (I am amazed how Sarah was willing help him do this, especially after Abraham tricked her.) Despite his sins, his faith pleased God. He believed in the trustworthiness of God so much as to not only abandoning a house, but he also believed God’s promise of an heir. He and Sarah were childless, and she was around 70 years old, so having a child would be a miracle.  But he had faith that God would do that, so he did the trip.

God’s covenant with Abraham was a covenant of selection. Abraham and his descendants became, because of their laws that He gave them, Jews.  They were supposed to be a people that “stood out,” blessed by God, following His kind laws, so other nations would see their blessings and give credit to the Jewish God, and glorify Him as the only true God, not the “gods” they worshipped.  Some of the Laws made no sense (like rules on making clothes), but those were only to make the people stand out. He didn’t choose blessings on Abraham and his descendants because they were especially “good.” The sins of the patriarchs—Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—were laid bare.  But these patriarchs had faith that God would do what He promised, and they did what He told them to do—they were obedient.  Why did God choose and bless that group of people, in some ways forever, when the people were small in number, and even turned to idolatry—and they even wanted to kill their Lord? They didn’t deserve it.  Well, none of us deserve it. And, honestly, that question doesn’t deserve an answer because it questions and judges God’s sovereignty, and we can’t truly know His plan with our limited mortal minds. Let’s trust in His goodness, which He has proven thus far, in other ways.

God was giving them responsibilities which they carried out well in most areas—for a while.  One law that they were loyal to, could be a blessing or a curse because it made the men easily identifiable as Jews:  circumcision.  Interestingly, His Scripture directed them to cut with the knife on the eighth day after birth.  Yet that day was, as mankind didn’t find out until thousands of years later, the exact day when boy babies had the maximum chemical that was best to survive the operation from leaving infection.  It’s also true that stripping off an excess layer of skin there, would help reduce certain disease or infection that would otherwise grow between the layers—which did, indeed, happen to those uncircumcised men who refused to clean the area properly. This was another fact unknown to science of that day.  Other laws regarding “Jubilee” were effective in reducing the ups and downs of inflation and the business cycle—and still would be today.  So some laws God gave them were just to make the nation “stand out,” i.e., for evangelism, and others were for their benefit, as you can see above.

God told them to fight for that land.  But disobedience through their idolatry removed them temporarily from the land as exiles.  But in 1948 they chose that land again to live.  One day those of us who believe and act on Jesus’ commands will sit down there with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and have a banquet with Jesus, Scripture says.

Secondly, God promised Abraham a child so his generation could live on and form a nation and obtain the land. There is only one proviso, or condition:  If a man is not circumcised, he is out of the covenant.  As Rev. Pawson put it: “Every man who was circumcised was carrying the title deed to the Promised Land inside his trousers.” If you’re Jewish, don’t presume that this has anything to do with salvation, or heaven.  Most of the early Jews thought they would obtain heaven just by being a Jew.  Paul, in Scripture, tells both Jew and Gentile the requirements for being a true descendant of Abraham—being spiritually born again, on faith in God, as Abraham had. Also, the problem in the Middle East today with the Muslims is, they don’t believe God’s promise. They just want the land.

Thirdly, there is an international promise:  God promised that through the Jews, all the nations of the earth would be blessed. Especially for the saving of His Word, they’ve done a great job. They’ve preserved His Scripture over the ancient years before the time of printing—they spent a lot of money and resources to copy Scripture, and made counting rules that assured there were no errors.  Few people, secular or otherwise, doubt the Old (or even the New) Testament’s authenticity, and ALL of it was written by Jews. Also consider, many innovations have blessed society through these people today. The Nobel Prizes have been won disproportionately by them. But the big one is, the Jews produced our Savior, Lord, and King, Jesus. Those who want to go to heaven must believe in what He did, He being a Jewish Messiah.  Related to that, when the Gospel was proclaimed about His death because of our sin and His resurrection, it was proclaimed by Jews and went to the Jews first.  And our church began with the Jews. Many of our laws are called “Judeo-Christian” laws.

Despite how some feel about “organized religion,” which does, after all, have many members who are unsaved, and corrupt the Church, a simple reading of history shows not only evangelism in moving people to God, but social justice (see last week’s blog) and missionary activities to pagans-- all are good, on balance, when done by God’s true people. (Missions is not to make them to follow “white men’s” or “Western” laws,” or some other racist nonsense, but to bring people to follow Jesus, the ONLY way to heaven, per Acts 4:12.)

It’s too bad that God’s people do not contain too many incoming Jews, currently. A possible explanation for that:  The good things that Jews did, they have been poorly rewarded with our mistreatment of them. This was done by many who call themselves “Christian,” so Christianity has a terrible reputation among Jews.  In fact, our mistreatment is fatal to the salvation of many people--this ungodly behavior will prevent many Gentiles from reaching heaven, along with the Jews who refuse to listen to the Christian gospel. Did you know that Jews have suffered more in “Christian countries” than in Muslim countries?  Just think of Germany 85 years ago.  There is a “codicil” to God’s covenant:  Scripture says that every nation who blesses the Jews, God will bless; and those who curse them God will curse. The stain of the Holocaust gave Germany a destroyed economy in World War II, for example. Yes, God curses as well as blesses; He hates as well as loves; He kills as well as heals. He is a God of goodness—and severity. Just read the Old Testament—and no, the New Testament does not give God a personality change, making Him gloss over serious sin (I have a blog on that). He is the same God in Old and New Testaments.

There is a relevant poem:  How odd of God to choose the Jews. But odder still for those who choose the Jews’ God—but scorned the Jews. God, through picking Abraham and the resultant Jews, got a channel through whom He could communicate to the whole world, how blessed He could make you if you act under His Kingship.  And the position of Israel is in a perfect geography to do that—a land between the West and the East. But the Jews dropped the ball often, and also demonstrated how cursed they could be if they were idolatrous and unfaithful to Him. The Jews have been a living demonstration of both. Just like us.  (I have a blog on having us get together and healing our differences, with a “Passover+Easter” celebration. A LOT of people have no idea that those two events have anything in common.)

JOIN US NEXT WEEK FOR THE COMPLETION OF THIS STUDY

 

Scripture Speaks On Our 1776 Revolution

 

In light of today’s corruption and dementia in Congress these days, I have an exciting story for you.  The story begins with someone else, but I have a point at the end. It begins with the great accomplishment of William Wilberforce, God’s “Congressional” hero in the U.K. Many thanks to Focus on the Family; most of the next several paragraphs were theirs:

Can an individual – with the help of co-laborers and friends – actually change the times in which he or she lives? If you doubt it, consider William Wilberforce. It's possible that Wilberforce was one of the three or four most influential figures of the past two centuries—yet he is unknown. As a result of his labors, one of the most heinous evils of all human history – institutionalized slavery – was eradicated from the British Empire, an achievement that was directly attributable to his belief in the absolute truth of the Gospel.  Wilberforce was a convinced Christian who held that the biblical principles of selflessness, sacrifice, and love must be actively applied to help  people in society that need it the most.

Wilberforce was born at Hull, Yorkshire, on August 4, 1759. His father, a well-to-do merchant, died when William was nine years old, and the boy was sent by his mother to live with his aunt and uncle, strong evangelical Christians and firm friends of the preachers George Whitefield and John Newton. Under their care, William quickly came to possess "a rare and pleasing character of piety." Wilberforce’s fashionable mother, alarmed to think that her son was becoming a religious "enthusiast," soon brought him back to Yorkshire, where he was quickly introduced to the social "gaieties of Hull." By the time he went off to St. John's College, Cambridge at the age of seventeen, Wilberforce had all but abandoned his earlier Christian beliefs.

While at the University, having inherited a large fortune from his uncle, Wilberforce was compelled to choose a career from among the three options most commonly allotted to young gentlemen of wealth and station: pleasure, business, or public service. He selected the last, and upon leaving Cambridge at the age of twenty stood for and won election to the House of Commons as representative for Hull in 1780. In 1784 he was reelected. Wilberforce was well suited to the life of a politician. He rapidly became an important fixture in William Pitt's Tory government. He might even have succeeded Pitt as Prime Minister had events turned out differently.

But a "great change" was in the offing. In 1784 Wilberforce took a pleasure trip to France. He had no idea what he was letting himself in for by inviting Milner, a Cambridge professor and an evangelical Christian, to join the party. During the course of their travels, Wilberforce and Milner read and discussed the Greek New Testament and Philip Doddridge's The Rise and Progress of Religion in the Soul. By the time they arrived back in London, Wilberforce was intellectually convinced of the truth of biblical Christianity. Wilberforce received counsel from his childhood mentor, the Reverend John Newton, now vicar of St. Mary Woolnoth's church in London. "It is hoped and believed," said Newton, "that the Lord has raised you up for the good of His church and for the good of the nation." So Wilberforce decided to remain in politics.

In time, he became convinced that God had placed before him "two great objects: the suppression of the slave trade and the reformation of manners [morals]." It is important to understand that these two aims were intimately interrelated. For Wilberforce's accomplishments in the public square were predicated on the principle that social reform must flow from genuine spiritual fervor. He was not primarily a moralizer or a "do-gooder," but a Christian who believed that the well-being of a nation is directly dependent upon the sincerity with which its citizens adhere to basic biblical truths.

 It was in the strength of this conviction that Wilberforce, together with a group of likeminded Christian political associates – the so-called "Clapham Community" – set out to tackle the evil of slavery. He made his first parliamentary speech on the subject on May 12, 1789, and introduced a bill to abolish the trade in 1791. That bill went down to defeat by a vote of 163 to 88. But Wilberforce was not to be so easily discouraged. He re-introduced his slave trade measure in Parliament the following year – and the next year, and the next. He persisted in the battle for almost twenty years, enduring storms of criticism, slander, and malicious opposition along the way. At last, after nearly two decades of unremitting toil, the Abolition of the Slave Trade bill passed the House of Lords by a vote of 41 to 20. In Commons, where the victory was won by the stunning margin of 114 to 15, Wilberforce was accorded a standing ovation for his dedicated efforts. The bill became law on March 25, 1807. It was an incredible achievement; and yet, for Wilberforce and his associates, it was only the first step. From the beginning of the Anti-Slavery movement they had proceeded on the assumption that their goal would not be achieved until abolition, the end of the slave trade, was followed by the emancipation of all slaves within the confines of the British Empire. The fight for this second part of their objective, which continued beyond Wilberforce's retirement from Parliament in 1825, did not reach its conclusion until July 26, 1833, when the Abolition of Slavery bill passed the House of Commons on its third reading.

Three days later Wilberforce was dead. Wilberforce would have disclaimed credit for these earthshaking accomplishments; and yet, as biographer John Pollock assures us, "the essentials of his beliefs and of his conscience formed the foundation of the British character for the next two generations at least." He was convinced that "Christianity's supreme political value is its direct hostility to selfishness." In this, he merits the emulation of those of us today who are involved in the entire scope of pro-life issues. In death, Wilberforce was survived by his wife Barbara and six children – two daughters and four sons. He was buried in Westminster Abbey, where a statue now stands to commemorate his legacy of faith and freedom.

A great story, and a great benefit for Britain, right?  I mean, they got rid of slavery without a shot being fired.  Well, that’s getting to my point.

I need to change subjects—but I have a point. Let us consider our own days before the Revolution from Britain in 1776. According to Scripture, Britain was our government. Because what we should have been thinking at the time, was, it was placed there by God, and we should have submitted to it.  Here’s an extensive explanation of how we should have behaved in Romans 13:1-7:

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. ² Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. ³ For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. ⁴ For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. ⁵ Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. ⁶ For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. ⁷ Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

We, as a colony established by Britain, were to “be subject to” government.  Those who resist will “bring judgment on themselves,” from God.  And our governing authorities (Britain) were “God’s ministers” to us for good.

Seems pretty clear that a coup, or a revolution, would not be Scriptural.

Now those of you who know Thomas Jefferson’s words in the Declaration included a long list of grievances our colonies had, and you probably know of his argument that

it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them

Then you might assume, by his appeal to God, that Jefferson was a Christian. But I assure you that there is no doubt that Jefferson was NOT anywhere near a Christian. To quote a biographer: “Like other Founding Fathers, Jefferson was considered a Deist, subscribing to the liberal religious strand of Deism that values reason over revelation and rejects traditional Christian doctrines, including the Virgin Birth, original sin and the resurrection of Jesus.”

One of the biggest beliefs of the “Enlightenment,“ so called, was the idea that God exists, but is impersonal.  He created, then He “checked out.”  Much of the Bible was rejected as fantasy.  Jefferson made up his own Bible, in which he scissored out all the supernatural stuff and the “dogma” that imprisons people’s minds, as he saw it. Not much of the New Testament was left when he came to what he believed.  Christ was not a Savior, and was not God, he was sure.

As to his arguments in the Declaration, then, you must remember this was the writing of an unsaved man.  How can we assume his arguments parallel Scripture in any way?  Read those 7 verses in Romans above, again:  was he suggesting submission to British authority, or was he willing to push off British authority, even if our own men, and British men, die? We cannot dismiss from our conscience how his influence led to the wreckage of many families, seeing as how they depended on men as breadwinner, and as protector from Indians or from bears or wolves, for the many that lived on the “frontier.” (At that time, the frontier was Kentucky or Michigan.)  I cannot overemphasize the importance of losing a father or breadwinner.  There were very few jobs for women in those days. In many cases, the kids would have to be given to relatives, or the farm would have to be sold, and they would live somewhere else.  Plus, each military man was trying to kill anyone—including Christians, from a false, un-Scriptural belief that Jefferson put forth.

You also might use the argument, what if Britain had wicked and evil laws? If Christians could take power, and have all kinds of Scripture-based laws again—and prove that Christianity is not only good for the individual, but for the society as well.  More people could become more easily evangelized to salvation with that kind of example and foundation.

Well, your argument has logic, but God knows better.  When Paul wrote that Scripture, think of what he lived under; THE most corrupt government known to man.  Nero nailed Christians onto sticks and lit them aflame, as entertainment and lighting for his late-night parties.  Tacitus, who observed it, called it the “Roman Candle.”  They were murdered in horribly creative ways in the Colosseum. The Crucifixion is considered the most terrible capital punishment in history.  But did Paul (or God) write about rebelling against a government, even though under unendurable oppression?  No. 

Now I would like to get to my main point.  IF the majority of our founding fathers were true Christians, they would submit and remain under British rule.  Assuming that happened, the glory of Wilberforce would have spread to all the colonies—the North American colonies (us) would have eliminated the slave trade without a shot being fired. To quote: on 25 March 1807, King George III signed into law the Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade, banning trading in enslaved people in the British Empire (that would have included us). Today, 23 August is known as the International Day for the Remembrance of the Slave Trade and its Abolition.

Uh, we have no such day, do we?  Wait, you might argue, what about emancipation of slaves?  To quote: Britain's passage of the Slavery Abolition Act marked the start of freedom for 800,000 enslaved people in all its colonies on Aug. 1, 1834.

Which happens to be 26 years before the beginning of the Civil War.  Now don’t give me any arguments about that War not being fought for slavery; it was fought for “State’s rights,” as a re-enactor once told me.   What was the “right” they were claiming?  The right to slavery, of course

So—if we obeyed Scripture—which God always claimed was for our benefit—then we would not have had the horrible slave ships, which killed many black people; and we wouldn’t have killed over 600,000 men in the Civil War.  Over 600,000!  Think of what a difference that would have made in all those families! The Civil War was God’s punishment for disobeying Romans 13. Let’s read verse 2 again:

² Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.

That judgment was higher due to our treating people as sub-humans—it was also God’s punishment for the incredible greed that incited men to murder one another instead of giving up their “property” (i.e., people), so they could continue to get free labor, and so they could continue to rape, to sell, to whip.  A great stain on our history.  Let this make us humble before God, realizing the great depths of our sin.

 

Our God Don't Play

 

82. Our God Don't Play

I would like to summarize Francis Chan’s great sermon, When God Doesn’t Listen.  Here’s praying you get as much out of it as I did.

God is a lot more serious about sin than I am. But I don’t want to be in a middle ground between God and where the worldly culture is; I want to stand where He is.  I want to warn people, ‘This is where He is.’ I want all that boldness.

When you read I John, you can see the seriousness. God says, “I don’t care if you say you know Me…if you don’t obey my commands, you’re a liar…You can’t love the things of the world, and also have the love of the Father in you…You can’t say you love God if you hate your brother whom you can see…you can’t keep going on sinning if you’re really a believer…you’re not a real believer.”  This is so radically different, let’s just start reading Scripture afresh.  Every sentence Jesus says, let’s take it literally.  Most of the seminarians say, “Well, He didn’t really mean that literally.”  But read the book of Luke, fresh, and say, “If He really means this, what would my life look like if I took this literally?”  In our church culture, we soften things to our liking.  But God is not that way.

When I look at church in America, let’s face it, there are so many people who will only participate if everything is just right.  You got to have the right speaker, the right music, the right programs; and on Sunday, it has to be the right time of day, it can’t be too long, and there better be something good going on for the kids.  And I want the people to be exactly like me, whose personalities I enjoy.  But are we playing a game here? God is more intense than games; when Scripture says ‘fear God,’ it really means fearing God.  When people advise us to pray, they say to just talk to Him, say whatever you want to say.  But I don’t see that in Scripture.  Ecclesiastes tells us to “guard yourselves as you approach God.”  Don’t make hasty vows; God’s going to hold you to them and deal with you not fulfilling them.

Truth is, sometimes talking to God is a waste of time--God isn’t listening to you.  God is actually disgusted by some of the prayers, or by some of your activities.

I had this guy who says his wife and he weren’t getting along; he had another job opportunity, so he was going to leave his wife and family—so he asks me, would you pray with me that I would just have a great new start?  And I go, “you gotta be kidding me right now, I’m not going to pray for you.”  Look at I Peter 3:7:

Husbands, likewise, live with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.

Husbands, you treat her as a precious vessel, you protect her, you love her, you honor her…so that your prayers won’t be hindered.  God is saying, “That’s My daughter right there, so you better treat her the right way, or I’m not going to listen to you.”

One time we asked for prayer for healing, and a guy approached us for that. Later he said, “I’m living with this girl.”  So, sir, you claim to be a Christian and yet you’re sleeping around with this woman?  Let me ask you this:  If you were doing this with one of my daughters, would you have the nerve to come up to me and ask me for a favor?  No.  And you want me to join you in prayer? No; you should repent.   He is an awesome God, and will forgive. But God’s not going to listen to you right now.  Consider James 4:3:

 You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures.

 This life is not all about us.  We’re a created being; we were created for Him.   We should ask God, “What do You want me to do?”  Look at James 1:6-8:

But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. ⁷ For let not that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; ⁸ he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.

 If you have unconfessed sin, you may doubt that God is listening. If He is disapproving, you may not receive anything from your prayers.  Such a person is double-minded. One eye on God, one on the world’s sin that he likes.

Is there anything better than answered prayer? When you ask for something specific, and it actually happens!  And it couldn’t have been just circumstance, it was supernatural.  Isn’t that an awesome feeling?  “I actually talked to God—and He heard me all the way from heaven; out of seven billion people. He did it!”

But people have strange ways of doing things.  In Isaiah 58:5-9, people were fasting and praying, wearing sackcloth and ashes, so they could feel like asking God for favor.  His response was:

Is it a fast that I have chosen, A day for a man to afflict his soul?
Is it to bow down his head like a bulrush, And to spread out sackcloth and ashes?  Would you call this a fast, And an acceptable day to the Lord?  ⁶ “(But here is) the fast that I choose: To loose the bonds of wickedness, To undo the heavy burdens, To let the oppressed go free, And that you break every yoke.  ⁷ Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, And that you bring to your house the poor who are cast out; When you see the naked, that you cover him, And not hide yourself from your own flesh? 8 Then your light shall break forth like the morning, Your healing shall spring forth speedily, And your righteousness shall go before you; The glory of the Lord shall be your rear guard. ⁹ Then you shall call, and the Lord will answer; You shall cry, and He will say, ‘Here I am.

Do you think you’re going to suit up and bow before me, and think, “Ooh, what a humble guy I am.” Verse 6 shows what God really wants them to fast about.  That they would share their possessions with people in need, and not look down on them. Then He would say, when you cry out, “Here I am.”  Then He would listen—and satisfy your needs. But it’s conditional. As James 5:16b says:

The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much.

 A righteous man.

 Getting back to God’s seriousness, turn to Joshua 7. God had commanded Israel to destroy everything when they conquer the Amorites, but one man, Achan, didn’t—he kept some of the “accursed things.”  What’s interesting in Scripture is, “the anger of the Lord burned against the children of Israel.”  That means He was angry with All of them—over the sin of one man.  God allowed them to lose 36 men in a lost battle by retracting His favor. What does God say when Joshua asks Him, “Why!?”  Verses 10-13, in part:

¹⁰ So the Lord said to Joshua: “Get up! Why do you lie thus on your face? ¹¹ Israel has sinned… Neither will I be with you anymore, unless you destroy the accursed from among you.

So God allowed 36 men to die because of the sin of another man; and He even swore to abandon His people.  We find in verses 20ff that Achan did admit to his sin, keeping spoils of a piece of clothing and silver and gold, but he and his children were still stoned to death!  Only then was God willing to “turn from the fierceness of His anger.”

As Rev. Chan tells it, “Now you’re thinking, “that’s not fair,” but try to learn God's way.  I turn to God and admit, ‘I’m not as serious about this as You are, God.’  You wanted a purity among Your people, so much so that You would go that far…and the moment the sin was outside the camp, Your blessing returned to it.”

How serious are we about the purity of our place in the church today?  Remember Acts 5, Ananias and Sapphira?  They spoke a pretense, a lie, that they gave all the money to the church on a sale of land, when in fact they had kept back some (Ed: note that the sin was lying, not that they didn’t give every penny to the church). But God struck both of them dead!  They just collapsed.  Scripture says in v.11,

…great fear came upon all the church and upon all who heard these things.

 Fear of God is good.  My God don’t play.

Many of you have a problem here, saying, “He can’t have such a high standard.” So you might have a problem with Hell, and with Him at the Flood.  But these are about God’s seriousness about purity, and how sometimes He won’t listen to our prayers for a rosy path. God gave us His Spirit so if we call on Him in time of temptation, He will help, and we can indeed live up to that standard.  But we have to call for help.  You can’t be unrepentant.  We have a part we have to play in sanctification.  Just as He asked Joshua to help remove the sinner, He today asks His church to purge the unrepentant sinner from our gatherings. See Matthew 18:15.

There is a particular sentiment expressed by Mr. Chan that I would like to emphasize.  We’ll see it in I Corinthians 5:9-13:

I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. ¹⁰ Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. ¹¹ But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person… Do you not judge those who are inside? ¹³ But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.”

Mr. Chan makes a good point when he says, many of us were taught wrong on this.  We ARE supposed to judge…but those who are inside the church, who call themselves Christian, when we see a serious sin (Ed:  Sometimes, we are not sure what is a sin. Homosexuality is: Matthew 19. Please also read Rom. 14 for not judging in “disputable matters.”  By the way, seances, adultery, etc are not disputable—they are occult).  We are not supposed to judge those who don’t call themselves Christians.

“The church has got it backwards.  We keep judging, Ooh, the evil world out there, the evil world…God says ‘Stop that! I asked you to look in your own midst, and get serious about the purity of the church, and get those defiant people out of there. I don’t want someone who is taking the name of Christ, and living that sinful way…and you shouldn’t want that either.”  Look at Titus 3:10-11a:

Reject (have nothing more to do with) a divisive man after the first and second admonition, ¹¹ knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned.

Confront him in love. Say, “It’s not just about you…you hurt us…When you got baptized, you joined the family here. My sin can have an impact on your life; and your sin impacts me—and sin could impact our prayer.” What’s the first word of the Lord’s Prayer?  The word "our."  It is about us as a family. There ought to be family love. In today’s world, “unity,” staying and doing things together, is ‘weird.’  Everyone likes to drift off, meet up with friends from their phone. Why not let the world see something different?  True family should stay together.

Also, you’re living double lives if we hold something back from someone you profess to love.

As you can see, Mr. Chan holds a strong view on discipline within the church.  Praise God. Unfortunately, what often happens is, those people simply change churches, rather than searching within their hearts.

God is more serious than letting us let these things slide.  Our God Don’t Play.

 

  

I’ve been reading an excellent book by Thomas Horn (Blood on the Altar: The Coming War Between Christian vs. Christian). I sought further help on one of his subjects, the Emerging Church, online. So I found an interview between two opposing giants about the faith:  John MacArthur (Author of 150 books, pastor, radio preacher, president of Master’s Seminary in Los Angeles) and Phil Johnson (Retired U.C.-Berkley law professor, father of the “intelligent design movement.”) They’re both died, but their words—and type of churches—live after them. I thought I would highlight part of their interview here.

From the interview, I could see that one of the biggest threats to God's church is, would you believe, a church movement called the “Emerging Church.” So let’s start by defining it. Wikipedia said, 2 years ago, that they are post-Protestant, post-evangelical, post-liberal, post-conservative, and post-charismatic. Which is radical.

Some interesting facts: the Emerging movement hates preaching; they believe instead on “conversation” with people. This is to emphasize its developing and decentralized nature, its vast range of standpoints, and its commitment to dialogue. There is no central creed in these churches. What those involved DO mostly agree on, is their disillusionment with today's church--and they support the deconstruction of modern Christian worship. They believe, instead, that there are radically diverse "perspectives" within Christianity that should be listened to--their litmus test is on social justice and environmental stewardship of the earth (which are not emphasized in the Bible). They say they are creating a “safe” environment for those with opinions ordinarily rejected by modern conservative evangelism. They believe that non-critical interfaith dialogue is preferred over "dogmatically-driven" evangelism (i.e., they reject orthodoxy. They believe that capitalism degrades society.  Marxists love that phrase.  In the past, particularly with the Catholic missionaries, such beliefs among priests had them hiding the leaders of militia gunmen to overthrow the government.

In any event, the emerging church movement “went public” in November 2004, when they were spotlighted in an article in Christianity Today. (I'm not saying Christianity Today likes their stance). But they’ve been around since at least 1996.

The second way to get to know the Emerging Church, is by a few relevant quotes from their founding father, Brian McLaren. In a separate interview, after he "mistakenly" spoke of God in the male gender, he had this to confess: “This is as good a place as any to apologize for my use of masculine pronouns for God…I avoid (their) use because they can give the false impression…that the Christian God is a male deity.” On the subject of the atonement, Jesus’ sacrifice for us, he calls it a “violent view,” because it presents God as the “greatest existential threat to humanity.” This is what God’s grace is called--allowing His Son to pay the price for our sin.  A reader from Sweden, troubled by doubts, asked him: “If Jesus isn’t coming back…what about judgment or the resurrection?” His answer was psychobabble, but you can tell he's not disagreeing with the Swede's idea that Jesus might not come back.  Get this “answer”: “Jesus does say ‘I will come again.’…but I think it’s a mistake to assume that when he says those things, he means what we mean…with all our dispensationalist, premillennialist…or whatever categories. The hyperbolic imagery of the New Testament, moon turning to blood, etc. is political language, signaling the fall of powerful political luminaries. Also…Jesus didn’t come just to evacuate us from earth to a future heaven but to show us how to live and make this world more and more beautiful by following Jesus’ example which would eventually lead to God’s “kingdom come on earth.”"

You can see the attack on foundational Scripture in those quotes. The single Scriptural belief which is above all others, is the resurrection and His promise to return.

On homosexuality, he believes there is "uncertainty" enough to call for a new belief.  (But see Romans 1:26-28, which seems rather certain of God's stance).  He twists fundamentalism (he calls it a “scatological term”), calling conservative beliefs "fundasexuality." He also says we have "heterophobia," a fear of people who are different.

Another event emphasized in Wikipedia makes us even more skeptical about their belief in the validity of Scripture:

The TCPC website (the Center for Progressive Christianity, one of their "tents") gives an analogy that symbolizes the methodology of the Progressive Christianity movement. It involves a Sunday school teacher and a class of 9 or 10-year-olds. Even at that age, some were skeptical of the inerrancy of the Bible. The teacher suggested that they read Charlotte's Web . The class enjoyed the book. The teacher interjected the thought that pigs and spiders cannot talk. The kids protested: "Well, it's a story." The teacher asked whether the story was true. They decided that it was sort of true. "In a way, it was true." So the teacher suggested: "let's look at the Bible in the same way."

Another leader of the "Emerging" movement, Rob Bell, no longer a pastor of his Mars Hill church since he no longer believes in hell (from his book "Love Wins," 2011).   He also attacks fundamental doctrine; he doesn’t believe Scripture was inerrant when he mentions his greatest “discovery”—he declares “The Bible is a human product.”  In summarizing the movement’s view, he says “This is not just the same old message with new methods. We’re rediscovering Christianity as an Eastern religion…” Mr. McLaren agrees; he believes in inclusivism--that other religions (i.e., those that deny Christ as God) lead to salvation, too. For instance, he does not think we should convert Buddhists to Christianity; we should leave them as Buddhists who are followers of Jesus. But Buddhism is usually atheistic, so to them, Jesus is not God, since there is no God; so really, a “Buddhist Christian” is an oxymoron. They need to read Acts 4:12.

Now that we’ve read a bit of this unorthodox group, let’s let John MacArthur tell what he thinks. He’s smarter than me anyway.  He first distinguishes the emerging church movement from Modernism. Modernism was a product of the Enlightenment during the Renaissance in which they made human reason, not Scripture, the determinant of ethics.  He says “out of that came the worship of the human mind, and (in effect, they were saying), “the mind trumps God.” The Emerging Church, on the other hand, is post-modernism…In both cases, they assault Scripture. (This movement) "is a denial of the clarity of Scripture....they think we can’t really know what the Bible says. Whether it’s about sin or virtue...they don’t like rules, so their ‘out’ is…(they say) “Well, it (Scripture) is not clear.” This is just another way to set the Bible aside.

Scripture claims to be clear, however, and God holds us responsible: “A wayfaring man though he be a fool need not err.” (Isaiah 35:8). Dr. MacArthur also charges their leaders that “the reason they deny Scripture (by saying it is vague) is that men loved darkness rather than light (John 3:19). The light is there, they hate the light, they run from the light. The issue is not that Scripture is not clear, it is crystal clear.” Dr. MacArthur charged them with pushing heresy—which he says later on in the interview.

I would like to take the topic of homosexuality as an example of their approach. It's part of their pride in inclusivism, not finding anything morally wrong with homosexuals. Scripture, however, won’t let us do that. It’s condemned in Leviticus 18:22, where God says to men:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

God does not change His mind in the New Testament.  As Romans 1 points out, it is among the worst deviations that men come down to, after God “gave them up” in their insistence to defy Him.

Scripture is crystal clear on this subject, but not according to Emerging Church leader Mr. MacLaren, who says: “Many of us don’t know what we should think about homosexuality. We’ve heard all sides but no position has yet won our confidence…that alienates us from both the liberals and conservatives who seem to know exactly what we should think…the biblical arguments are nuanced and multilayered, and the pastoral ramifications are staggeringly complex.” The phrase that sticks in my craw--"no position has yet won our confidence." Thus, they are saying, "Our judgment is the final word."  Their judgment trumps God's, evidently.

But Dr. MacArthur insists that it’s bad news for the practicing homosexual, but it’s still the truth. He says, “the truth is what I will defend. It’s not personal. I’m not mad at people. I’m not trying to protect my own little space. That doesn’t make me popular in all circles, it creates just the opposite.” He maintains that it’s impossible for Christians to agree with the latest world's view: “there is no possible accommodation …Christianity would have to be reinvented to accommodate itself to any pattern of (worldly) culture thinking.”

But Brian McLaren, a founding father of the Emerging movement doesn’t believe MacArthur has good motives.  "We fear that the whole issue has been manipulated…by political parties…whatever we say gets sucked into a vortex of politicized culture-wars rhetoric...  I know what you guys' motives are, and I condemn them." (If their motives are to defend Scripture, that's reprehensible, I guess).

Really, a big question he touched on is, how do you evangelize the homosexual? The Emerging Church has decided to, as Dr. MacArthur says, "capture these people by “sanctifying the (gay) culture." But the Bible doesn’t adapt to culture. It confronts culture. The Emerging Church, on the other hand, wants to let the culture define what Christianity should be.

Dr. MacArthur then talks again about big non-Biblical movements in history. He summarizes Pre-modernism: “there is truth and it comes from God; it has a supernatural source…men believed in God or they believed in the gods.” What follows is Modernism (which I’m figuring covers 1750-2000).  He summarizes it as: “there is truth and we can find it by human reason…not revelation from God, not the Bible, but human reason.” But Modernism wasn’t a good idea in practice: “the world got worse than it has ever been…the totalitarian world…fascism, Nazism, Communism, and the massacre of millions and millions of people in the name of human reason.” (For instance, most Lutherans didn’t have any trouble using a gun to obey Hitler). Getting up-to-date, he says: “Now the idea of post-modernism, which says, in effect, “We give up. There may be truth, but we can’t know it. It may be from God, but we can’t know…so we embrace mystery…you have your truth, I have my truth…truth is whatever you think it is, whatever you want it to be, it’s intuitive, it’s experiential..but it’s not universal and it’s not knowable, universally knowable.” The interviewer responds, “That’s why these days the highest values, the sole remaining virtues, are things like tolerance, ambiguity, mystery..” To me, calling this a “mystery” in post-modernism opens the door to searching in the occult; people still want plain answers to reach their loved ones who have died--but they're not getting answers in this psychobabble of Mr. McLaren. Dr. MacArthur says, “Oh, Brian McLaren says ambiguity is really a good thing (based on McLaren's quote, “Certainty is overrated”)...it gives people a license to invent their own religion, really…no one is permitted to challenge it…it is wonderful if you want to sin without any guilt. And I think that’s at the bottom of this…they hate the light because their deeds are evil.”

He also charges, “It’s not a theology; (they say they) don’t "teach"…and the word “sermon” scares them… no, we want to have a conversation. But the only part of the conversation they don’t like is when you say, “That’s wrong. That’s sinful.” So their conversation...never has an objective…that’s another way to negate the Word of God. I say, you can deny that (the plain Word) is from God. But don’t tell me God has spoken, but unfortunately He mumbled. The worst thing we could do would be to soften the edges of what really is clear in Scripture.” (They claim) “the Bible is irrelevant, you can’t stand up for an hour and exposit the Word of God, you’ve got to tell them stories… To quote one of their leaders, “The bible (small “b,” to them) is no longer a principal source of morality as a rulebook. The meaning of the Good Samaritan is more important than the Ten Commandments —even assuming the latter could be remembered in any detail by anyone…” By the way, some of the most revealing McLaren quotes are on this website: http://carm.org/brian-mclaren-quotes-ignorance-bliss-theology.

Dr. MacArthur feels that (they should say) “since we don’t know what it means, why would we teach?  Nobody has a right to impose on anybody else their ideas.” They take a sort of reverse humility in confessing their ignorance. To turn truth on its head, they believe that if someone claims to know what Scripture means, they have committed an act of pride. To quote MacArthur: “It is an attack on the clarity of Scripture and they elevate themselves as if this is some noble reality…which they call humility…(it’s) a celebration of ignorance.”

They also have this feature: “They’re really, really aggressive at tearing down the church, tearing down historic theology...that have been a part of the church’s life for centuries…but that’s the lowest level of assault there is. Anybody can shred and destroy without having to build something back in its place…(they) just shred what people believe and walk away, leaving chaos everywhere…the egotism of it is pretty frightening. And the church is filled with people who have no foundation.”

He gives a few words of warning to people out there looking for a church home: "I don’t think a person should go to a church that isn’t answerable to a doctrinal statement…(if you do), you need to get out of there because you’re at the whim of a guy who can invent anything he wants any time. This entrepreneurial approach to the church is a very serious breach…" (There) “may be Christians who are seduced by this; in their ignorance they are the children tossed to and fro, carried about by every blowing wind of doctrine.” (Ephesians 4:14). The interviewer says “And every man does what’s right in his own eyes.” (Judges 17:6). Dr. MacArthur maintains that young people from a denominational church that often lacks life and fails to exposit Scripture, these are the likely victims of this movement: “I don’t think (the Emerging Church) is nearly as appealing to the non-churched people as to the marginally churched young people."   The young are attracted to Emerging movement "are reacting to the superficiality and…the legalism of (their church).”

Dr. MacArthur speaks again to the clarity of Scripture. (Jesus) “says things to them in His day like this, ‘Have you not read? Have you not heard what Scripture says?’ He didn’t say to them, “Oh, look, I know why you’re having a tough time with Me, because the Old Testament is so hard to understand.” Then he brings up the example of the Gentiles, who were totally ignorant of the Old Testament…"Paul (who assumes the regular people are smart as he) builds these massive cases of understanding the Christian gospel based on the sacrificial system from the Old Testament…Thus, to come along and say that the Bible is not clear is then to accuse God, and (accusing) the Scripture of claiming something for itself that it can’t deliver. (Charging God like that is) “pretty serious.”

**Note: Mars Hill Churches was the focus of the Emerging movement.  But Rob Bell was removed as senior pastor of his Mars Hill church in Michigan in 2011 after his beliefs were revealed in the book Love Wins. But he has come back, preaching at sold-out conferences in the U.K. and Ireland lately.

Another important name in the movement is Mark Driscoll.  He was removed from a separate Mars Hill pastorate in October 2014, most particularly because he called women "penis homes" and other misogynist remarks--plus, he's being charged with plagiarism.  It was also revealed that church money was used to pump up his book sales so he could make the NY Times Bestseller List. But he has come back, after taking in $1.1 million in donations in 2 years, he built a $1 million church in Phoenix, and has even been called upon to evangelical conferences.

Brian McLaren is still going strong, too:  His latest book, The Great Spiritual Migration, includes the following crazy quote:

“Christianity, we might say, is driving around with a loaded gun in its glove compartment, and that loaded gun is its violent image of God. It’s driving around with a license to kill, and that license is its Bible, read uncritically. Along with its loaded gun and license to kill, it’s driving around with a sense of entitlement derived from a set of beliefs with a long, ugly, and largely unacknowledged history.”

P.S. This is the last you will see of this movement, or this blog, as it has been downgraded in importance almost completely. I have substituted another one. 

Acknowledgement: Thomas Horn, Blood on the Altar and Christianity Today

 

God's Love is Misunderstood

 I wrote a blog in January titled: “Is the God of the Old Testament the same as the God of the New Testament?” That blog touched on God’s character.  For more enlightenment, I would like to summarize a sermon by Rev. David Pawson.  Here we go.

A Gallup Poll in Britain recently asked people “Do you believe in God?”  Sixty seven percent said yes.  But… that’s an irrelevant and pointless statistic.  Britain is so cosmopoliton, they should have followed that question up with “Which God do you believe in?”  It could be Allah, or one of the Hindu gods, after all.  But even more important is the question “What kind of God do you or do you not believe in?” I’ve talked to a number of atheists and asked, “what kind of God that you’ve envisioned that you don’t believe in?” When they got through explaining, I was able to respond, “I could be an atheist too, because I don’t believe in that kind of God either.”

So let’s broaden this and discuss, what kind of God do Christians believe in, nowadays?  I’m afraid that over half today would immediately say, “A God of love.”  Because the majority of pastors and evangelists have been preaching a God of love for over a hundred years, in their delivery of the Gospel.  More recently, an adjective has been added to that: a majority seems to now believe in “a God of unconditional love.”  That phrase has only been popular for 30 years, yet it has been preached around the world.

But that is not our Gospel for evangelizing.  I believe we are mistaken, Biblically, to teach the unbeliever that God is love, as a feature of the Gospel.  Such is not the Gospel we have been given by God; and it is not the Gospel they preached in the New Testament days.  Such a Gospel tends to mislead.  The Bible never adds “unconditional” to God’s love, either. We all happen to love adjectives--unlike the Bible.  We sing “Amazing Grace,” yet the Bible never attaches Amazing to grace.  It simply talks about grace. There is now a chorus called “Outrageous Grace.”  Amazing must have lost its novelty, so we need a more sparkling adjective.  But these are sentimental rather than Scriptural, I’m afraid.

I’d like to give you four main reasons why the Gospel to be preached is not “the God of love.”

Reason #1:  The Bible actually says very little about the love of God. But people have cherry-picked those verses that do, and preach on them endlessly, so people think that that’s a key phrase appearing frequently in Scripture. But here are most of the Books, and their count of verses about the “love of God”:

Genesis:  0.  Exodus:  1. Leviticus and Numbers:  0. Deuteronomy:  2. Joshua, Judges, Ruth:  0 each.  I, II Samuel, I II Kings:  0 each. Psalms talks about the “loving-kindness” of God. That phrase is an English translation of a Hebrew word which really means “covenant love.”  It is never applied to people outside the Abrahamic, or Hebrew covenant. It has a strong note of loyalty in it, loyalty to the covenant.  God loves those who are within His covenant.  But there is no mention of His love for the World in the entire Old Testament. Continuing, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes:  0 each.  You’d be shocked to know that Isaiah has only one verse about God’s love.  Jeremiah and Ezekiel, one each.  Of the 12 minor prophets, only Hosea has one verse.

So, the Old Testament does not back “God is love” anywhere, except a few—and that’s not the love we were thinking about.  Song of Solomon is on love, but it’s human love.  Of course, it’s an allegory of God’s love, but it’s not directly satisfying, being that it’s an allegory. Hard to take to heart about loving God by trying to identify with Solomon’s rapture over different parts of his wives’ (or concubines’) body.

Oh, you might be saying, God’s love, then, is in the New Testament everywhere.  I’m afraid you’re wrong. You would think Jesus talks about it in the four Gospel accounts, right?  Matthew strikes out, 0. Likewise, Luke and Mark.  But John does.  Everybody knows John 3:16. But Rev. Pawson refers to a previous session where he mentions the mistranslation and misunderstanding of the verse.  Here are my words on that.  The “correctest” meaning of the Greek words in that verse, per the Pure Word translation (that translation slaughters the nice flow of words that other translations have; but it is great for analyzing details of Greek meaning—so they are for scholars, not for readers).  Here is the NKJV:

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 

Now the Pure Word translation; note all the words substituting for the word “believes:”

God has loved in such a manner the Satan’s world, so that He Gave His Son, the Only Begotten Risen Christ, in order that whoever is Continuously by his choice Committing for the Result and Purpose of Him, should not perish, but definitely should, by his choice, be Continuously Having Eternal Life.

Yes, that’s a mouthful, but carefully observe the words “continuously,” and “by his choice,” and their contexts.    This translation refines the word “belief” so that it is more than a mental assent. It expresses an ongoing need for us to choose to abide with Christ’s commands and purposes, in order to continue to have eternal life (see John 15:6’s warning too).  So this verse definitely doesn’t fit the word “unconditional” for God’s love; He has conditioned His love upon continued obedience and commitment.  We need to intentionally, day by day, strive to abide with Christ, and make our choice to be more like Him. We should choose that we want to be sanctified, and there are works to perform, and evil not to perform, to attain that likeness of His holiness. We need to be reliably doing that to obtain heaven.

It is not easy for a pastor to give the Pure Word version of the verse, and how they need to listen to a “truer explanation of Greek before they get the wrong idea.” So pastors skip the difficulty and ignore crucial details. But they go beyond that simple harm  and then preach “unconditional” when it is not.  Then too many people relax on the effort of sanctification.  So, many people, in the future, will therefore be surprised when they are denied heaven.

Even the loving apostle John only has one more verse (besides 3:16) on the love of God in the Book of John.  But the biggest surprise of all is the Book of Acts, where the Gospel that moved the world was preached several times.  I assume that the Gospel was nearest to perfection when preached evangelically then, because God enormously blessed their work with signs and miracles, and thousands were converted.  We can believe they taught it like that; they emphasized words of godliness and commitment in the Anti-Nicene Fathers albums. They must have had the right approach; they knew Greek backward and forward, they lived in the culture that understood the meaning of each word. They had the apostles right there, who had heard straight from the lips of Jesus Himself, and they got answers to the meaning of doctrines.  But here’s the shocker:  Not one verse in the whole of the Book of Acts mentions the love of God. Now a serious question arises:  Shouldn’t we follow their successful model? Do you really want to introduce a huge variant from their Gospel, when you consider how God blessed theirs? I mean, how have we improved society from preaching today’s Gospel—we still have higher crime and violence, many of us are totally confused on men and wives’s roles, and even about what gender we are; we vote extremely leftward politicians into office, favor abortion; our children at school get dumber by the year as Christianity and the Bible are banned from campuses. Compare our results with theirs.  As Acts show, they have “turned Rome over” with their preaching. Which is really best?

Continuing on preaching the love of God:  Romans:  1 verse.  I and II Corinthians:  0.  Saving space, only I John mentions God’s love more than once or twice.  Nearly at the end of I John (4:7), you find the three words, “God is love.”  Yet those words are not in a section describing God.  They are in a section exhorting believers to love one another. Finally, we come to Revelation.  The only mention of love in that book has a negative attached:

Those whom I love I rebuke and chasten (Revelation 3:19)

That’s it for God’s love in our New Testament. All that should tell us something and make us think. Flat out, the Bible cannot be described as a Book about preaching God’s love.

Point #2: Every mention about God’s love is addressed to people who are already redeemed. As far as we know, from studies about what they said, few heard about God’s love, as a theme through evangelistic preaching. By the way, I have never denied that God loves us; I am merely pushing the idea that it is not great to evangelize on it. Rev. Pawson considers that God’s love is precious, a pearl NOT to be thrown to the swine (Matthew 7:6).  Unredeemed people do not understand God’s love (more on this later). I add that the phrase about the love of God is too easily misunderstood when presented to the unsaved.  It works gets twisted, much to the delight of hell’s masters.  It often leads to “easy believism.” God’s holiness and wrath are little dwelt on, and, to them, God becomes a soft mark.

Point #3:  When Scripture uses the words “love of God,” what we are thinking of doesn’t come from Greek words for “love.”  The Greeks were far more careful than the English about the use of the word “love.”  They had different words for different kinds of love.  There were four: 1) “epithumia,” which is a love from addiction.  You need it to survive.  Nothing can get in your way to getting it; you even hurt other things or people, including yourself.   2) “Eros” is the love of sexual attraction. That would be love between two genders, as God intended.  So this attraction, say between men and women, means you want to learn everything about your lover—the opposite sex are different, right?—which is meant to take a lifetime to explore the joys of.  A marriage needs eros to survive—even beyond when sex becomes absent in old age.  3) “Philia” is affection, or deep friendship, such as what David and Jonathan had (they were not gay).

The world knows and expresses those three kinds of love, but uses the same English word for all three, unfortunately.  But there was one other word for “love” in the Greek language, which was rarely used—because it expressed a love that was not common--namely, 4) “agape.” That word stressed action. You can’t have agape without acting in love.  It has an emotional connection, because it is usually born out of compassion, for someone in a desperate need. But it doesn’t become agape until you act to meet that need. That is the only word for “love” that is used of God in your New Testament. Our need is a Savior because of our sins offending a holy God.  So when you find the word love related to God, you find immediately a mention of the Cross (First John 3:16, for example). This is what God did, acting out of compassion for the human race. This is how we know God loves us, because Jesus the Christ died for the sinner and the ungodly. In I John where it says “God is love,” it goes immediately on to say, “and He sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” Many people are unaware of the depth our sin has been to a holy God.

Thus, you need to learn about the wrath of a holy God before you will appreciate His love. That’s why Romans begins (first two chapters) with the wrath of God rather than the love of God.

A good presentation would be the wrath of God, then the love of God--and you should linger on the first point ‘way more.  Do not give His offense at our sin short shrift--most people, by studies, give themselves a pass, and a fair certainty of heaven, because they're "better than the bad guys."  But God is not making that kind of comparison. He compares our unholiness to His demands. The current preaching, by not dwelling on that, might not change their mind from feeling “better;” they might still believe that deficient Gospel. We cannot ignore the subject of hell.  Fact is, 60% of people do not even believe that hell exists.  Emphasize that God wants to hear our expressed desire to stop offending Him and quit the sin—with help by appealing to the Holy Spirit. The point is, these ideas are seldom taught from our pastors and teachers.

Rev. Pawson’s final Point #4:  Neither Jesus, nor any of the apostles ever preached publicly about the love of God. “Check me out in your Bible,” he says. If I’m right, tell people the Bible says it, not me. Remember, for reasons we’ve brought up here, it was clearly a pearl.  Keep the concept among the Redeemed, lest it will most always be misunderstood.  You should evangelize like Paul or John did.  When Paul spoke to the Jews, he quoted their prophets or poets, the Old Testament. Then, since they already knew about God, he taught them about Jesus.  When he spoke to the non-Jews, he began with teaching them about God. They needed to understand God, or they won’t be interested in reconciling to Him in fear and worship.  (Read Acts 17 for an example of that approach).  Note also in Romans 1:16-17a:

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. ¹⁷ For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith

If you start your evangelism with praising what Jesus did, they might just come to be a Jesus fan, rather than the deeper truth of thanking Him for reconciling us to His Father.  If someone is a Jesus fan, their shallow Gospel could mean their attachment might blow away in times of stress.  They, too, must ‘take up our cross’ and follow Him.  We don't want to end up, like the Buiding parable, on shallow foundation—it makes it easier to lose our salvation.

May God help us to revolutionize our evangelism and help to create a revolutionized country, eager to know Him.