The Most Ignored Doctrine in the Bible

I would like to take four sections of Scripture and analyze them together, since they are all on the same subject—namely, the woman’s role in the family and in the church.  A hot topic, for sure.  Scripture is crystal clear on several points, but churches and families are not being taught this by their pastors.  The question is, Why?

First, let’s look at I Corinthians 11:3-8:

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. ⁴ Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. ⁵ But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. ⁶ For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. ⁷ For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. ⁸ For man is not from woman, but woman from man.

Here are the facts clearly taught regarding the role of women from these verses: 

1.       Verse 3  “the head of woman is man” says he is the head of the home.  This is affirmed in v. 8, “for man is not from woman, but woman from man.” It is also affirmed by v. 7, where the man does not cover his head, but she does. 

2.       V. 5 Women could lead in a prayer, or prophesy in church, in their weekly meetings.  The earliest church had services which allowed congregation participation—someone could lead in a song, another could lead in a prayer of intercession, protection, etc; another could speak in a tongue—and another could “prophesy.”  This is not just foretelling the future; it’s also, as Vine puts it in his Expository Dictionary, “telling forth the divine counsels”—i.e., as I Corinthians 14:3 says, speaking “edification and exhortation and comfort.”  These two gifts, prayer and prophecy, had great meaning in the early church—but the prophetic gift has fallen into disuse, along with congregational participation. 

3.       Vv 5-7  A woman should have her head covered.  This is because she is the “glory of man.”  It was important enough that if she didn’t do it, it was “shameful,” it “dishonors her head,” or as bad as if she shaved off all her hair.    

My question is, have you ever heard a sermon pointing out the obvious facts in these verses?  I doubt not. In fact, and I realize the third point is not as major as the other two, have you ever been to a church where the women covered their heads?  I’ve visited a Mennonite church (so said the online yellow pages), but they hired a Baptist pastor and only one very old woman was covered.    I’ve been to a Plymouth Brethren church, which only had maybe five women covered, and covering wasn’t stressed in sermons.

Next, let’s go to I Corinthians 14:33-37:

For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. ³⁴ Let your  women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. ³⁵ And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church. ³⁶ Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? ³⁷ If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.

1. V. 34 The women’s role, “they are to be submissive,”  is also taught in Ephesians 5:22-23a: 

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.  For the husband is head of the wife…” 

This confirms #1 in I Corinthians 11 above.

2.   V. 34  “Let your women keep silent in the churches…”  In accordance with submissiveness, women were not to be teachers or take on any speaking, or leadership role.  Again, there’s that word “shame” if she disrespects that.   But they could, as we saw in I Cor. 11, pray or prophesy in church.   

3.   V.36-37  Paul’s tough words here suggests that the Corinthian church was in violation of this. He took that very seriously.  I think his opening sentence in v. 33 about “confusion” has to do with this—confusion is what happens  when these rules are violated. 

Are THESE verses being preached on for their obvious meaning?  Again, I suspect, No.  It is another Scriptural command, is it not?  I've heard people call Paul a "sexist guy."  But Paul wrote what God inspired.  So, is God a "sexist" God?  I'm not around making accusations like that to our loving, sovereign God.

Next,   I Timothy 2:9-14:

In like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, ¹⁰ but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. 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.

1.   V. 9-10 The women are urged to be “modest” in their apparel, with “propriety” (another version reads “discreteness”).  This suggests not rousing up lustfulness in men.  (Hey, I'm not saying women are at fault in rape.)  Not using “gold or pearls or costly clothing” suggests that they are expressing that their thoughts in life are sober and God-fearing, not gaudy or worldly. 

2.   V. 11-12 She is to “learn in silence with all submission,” and “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence” confirms our earlier discussions.  Paul (or, really, God, right?) is driving home this point several times. 

3.   V. 13, “Adam was formed first, then Eve,” affirms an earlier point.

4.   V. 14 The fact that Adam was not deceived doesn’t really speak well of him, I think.  Lucifer convinced Eve to doubt God’s goodness, as well as hinting that God was a liar, a great sin for her to think that (see Genesis 3).  If you say, “she should have never believed a serpent, or snake,” keep in mind that the serpent wasn’t cursed to crawl until later.  He might have looked elegant when speaking with her.  Keep also in mind that perhaps it was not a surprise that animals talked—after all, this was a whole new world for everybody.  What I’m saying is, she had “excuses.”  But Adam fell just because Eve talked him into it.  It wasn’t deception.  Maybe he just did it because he wanted to please her more than pleasing God.  But that was a sin too.  He lost his immortality as she did.  In fact, HE gets chief blame elsewhere in Scripture for this event (see Romans 5).  Verse 14 is not saying that Adam was not into transgression.  His simply had a different “excuse” than deception. 

It’s true that if a church or youth leader were to teach about sober-minded clothing to teenage girls (along with these other verses on submission to men), the whining would be big and the youth group would be small.  You’ve got to be “sexy,” says the modern young women. 

Finally, let’s look at I Peter 3:1-6: 

Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, ² when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear. ³ Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel— ⁴ rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God. ⁵ For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, ⁶ as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror.

1.  V. 1-2  One reason given for submitting to husbands:  it’s an evangelistic effort to win an unbelieving husband to Christ.  But this idea is a huge “turn-off” to so many women; but that reaction suggests how far we are from the spirit of sacrifice that real Christianity demands.  I might add that you could oftentimes avoid this fate if you obey another Scripture that says not to marry an unsaved person.

2.  V 1-2 Wives are to “be submissive,” be in “chaste conduct,” and “accompanied by fear.”  (Fear is mentioned in verse 2 as well).  This is NOT fear of the husband; it is a fear of God, submitting yourself to His commands.  I have a blog on “Fear of God” that point out that this attitude is beneficial to the possessor. 

3.  V. 3  Again, Scripture is against outward adornment, “arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel.”  Our women are urged to be God’s adornment, the “hidden person of the heart…beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God.”  Being submissive to husbands, and beauty because you are gentle, was an adornment to God.

4.   Sarah was given as an example of proper womanhood, calling her husband “lord.”  I’m not saying we should do THAT, but the woman’s mind should have the same vibe. 

Note that in all four of the Scriptures above, which are all focusing on the teaching on the role of women at home or at church-- submissiveness, being under his headship—is stressed every single time. Thus it is a crystal clear commandment of God.  But it is never stressed in sermons, or else watered down beyond all efficacy.  It is without question the most ignored important doctrine today.   
If men or women read their Bible with the intent to obey it, it would be clear to them as well, so they too are at fault when they casually ignore it.  The symptoms of this disease?  Confusion over leadership.  This results in fights over leadership, and marriage is stressful.  A family with two heads doesn’t work in a situation where the decision is extremely important to both, and they differ in opinion.  The result?  As every current study shows, divorces are the same high percentages in “Christian” homes as they are in pagan homes.  Yet we should all know,  God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16)—and provided narrow guidelines where it was allowed.   Never the best solution, only allowed.

So here’s what I’m saying in response to this elephant in the room that nobody sees:  Do you believe in the plenary inspiration of the Bible?  That phrase means, every and all words (of the original manuscripts) are as if written by God—it is written exactly as how He intended it.  Now you could argue that Scripture has been changed over the years due to flawed copying, but examples from the Dead Sea Scrolls and others show that only a few occasional, minor, undamaging changes have happened. 

If you do believe in God-breathed inspiration, then you can’t accuse Paul as being a sexist for writing what he did, because the words he wrote came directly from God.  It wasn’t like a dream, where God gave him the general idea and let him fill in the rest—and then he did so crudely.  We’re saying, every word was really from God. 

So, you say, OK, based on these “rules,” then God is a sexist.  We're so culturally past submission, you say.  If you believe that God, or Paul, wrote every Scripture as biased males, then you don’t really believe in the all-goodness of God.  His commands are for one purpose:  For everybody to live our lives to the fullest.  As Jesus said in John 10:10:

I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly

This is certainly what God, who loves you beyond your mother, your husband, even you, could ever love you, wants.  But would you reject that?  You want to live your own life as a female, make your decisions based on your perspective?  This “revolution of independence” is not new. Any such independence is a movement away from God, and increases the likelihood that you are denying Him—not a great position to be in at God’s judgment seat, besides making your life less than it could be under His loving wing.  Guess what rules He uses to decide who is on His side, and who is on the devil’s side?  Why, the Bible, of course.  That would be the Bible that you rejected for being sexist.  Our “sexist” God decides who goes to heaven and who goes to hell--and that depends on us following His Biblical commands.  So where does that leave you, who decided it was cooler to make up your own rules and ignore this Bible rule?  Will that get you to heaven?  I have read the Bible many times, and have never seen a verse where God rewards the “willful, independent thinkers” to heaven.  It’s the opposite, obeying God to the letter.  Consider the prodigal son (Luke 15).   God rewards obedience, and those who repent from disobedience.  That’s a big part of love.

Here’s a little different argument you may have.  You believe that the Bible has many truths, but many indefensible culturalisms (like its position on womanhood).  But you say that relationship to men has evolved beyond that ugly culture, so you will choose which Bible verses are proper to live by, and which are better for you to ignore.  In response, I say this:  First, you are denying that the Bible is God’s Word for all time.  Secondly, for you to pick and choose your verses, you are judging God.  You are a better judge of what’s moral than God?  Again, not a good status as you approach the judgment seat of God someday.   

It is amazing to me that so many people claim they believe the Bible, but in a critical situation, they cave in to self-will.  I Will decide this one, they say, never mind what Scripture commands.  I can figure out the best solution for this, they say.  This is sin; this is doing the same thing Eve did, doubting the goodness of God.  Can they go to heaven, when 90% of   the time under stress, they ignore His commands and prefer their own?  I say no.  Consider I John 2:3-4:

Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. ⁴ He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

So, if we do not know God, by not keeping His commandments, we can be denied heaven. 

To get back to the question I posed at the very beginning:  Why don’t pastors preach on this?  Why do men go along with this, and refuse to stand with Scripture—and refuse to stand up to their wives, acting like so many milquetoasts?  I have a theory as to the reason.  The theory is surrounded by greed, covetousness, and self-gratification.  This whole thing started with women going to work and making some serious money.  From 1950 to 1990, according to the 1996 Green Book, Bureau of Labor Statistics, the percentage of working mothers with children under 6 achieved its greatest growth—it quintupled—from 12% of all working age women to a horrendously high 60%.  To me, that means that 60% of mothers have abandoned the home in favor of making more money for the family to spend.  I realize I’m stomping on some nervous threads here, but let’s get it all out:  They’re saying, “Let’s buy, buy!  Yes, sacrifice the little ones for our idol, named Possessions.” 

If you’re thinking, well, this chart’s rise could mostly be the increase in welfare moms, with no husband, they need this money to survive.  That would only be true if the percentage of such “welfare moms” has quintupled in the 40-year period.  Sad to say, not true.  The percentage of “welfare moms” has less than doubled—from 9.2% in 1950 to 16.8% in 1990.  The rest of the quintupling is made up of women with a husband.  If you think this data gets better if it’s updated, you’re wrong.  In 2006 (the Bureau of Labor Statistics works slow, I guess), 71% of married women with kids under 6 were working (1).  That’s higher yet than the 60% indicated above for 1990. 

If you’re thinking, well, the unemployment rate is getting higher, the women have to pitch in to support the family, that’s what’s doing it, you’re wrong again.  The unemployment rate is a roller coaster for the 1950-2006 period we’ve covered—between 3% and 7.5% (except for two years).  That certainly does not explain why the chart above is straight up, no pauses or backing up like a roller coaster—if that thought were correct, it would be a roller coaster too.

If you’re thinking, that’s not serious labor; that could be minimum hours a week, just some pin money added, on average, not a real sacrifice for wives—the chart below proves that idea wrong.  In 1974, wives contributed 25% of family income, a significant percentage—and a significant sacrifice to family time and their well-being.  As of 2012, the wives contribute 37% of family income.  To me, this is going the wrong way.

Do the husbands want to fight this upward trend ?  And I say this sadly, apparently not.  In fact, based on the following chart, maybe it looks that way because they’re willing to drop out of the rat race and let the wives be the primary breadwinner. 

In the chart just above, in 1950, 87% of men were in the work force.  In 2015, it’s 71%.  A 16% drop.  In the same period of time, women went from 34% to 60%.  A 26% rise. I don’t think that’s coincidental.  

Of course, the reason for this trade-off from men to women might not be “men dropouts.”  It could be that the labor force can’t hold all the men and women who want jobs, so in many cases, it gets competitive—and the women got the job over the men. 

If you ask me, either possible reason for this trade-off is warped.  If the women were to quit, and go home raising kids, in the first place, we’d have better kids.  Secondly, if they went home, where jobs would suddenly be screaming for people, more men could work, and they could raise their average pay.  Of course, their total family incomes would decline, but not as much as you think (especially after taxes). With one person at home, they wouldn’t have to spend as much—they wouldn’t need a second car, they would spend less on child care, less on clothing and eating out, less on paying Uncle Sam.  They might be forced to spend less on vacations and fancy possessions; they might want to spend more time looking at discounts.  They might even, God forfend, do a lot more things around the house as a family.  What’s wrong with family talks at dinner,  family games, reading the Bible together?  It’s certainly less expensive.  Throw out the multiple cell phones and IOS 7’s, multiple TVs and computers.  “Together” is socially beneficial.  Have one computer in the house, in a major traffic area, if you ask me.  If a child wants to do his homework from it, he can put on silencers—or the TV watchers can.  Anyway, less porn results.  Let the kids develop normal thoughts about people of the opposite sex. 

You’re not going to argue here, to tell me that the trends in kids and young marrieds are terrific, so you want to defend the status quo rat race.  You’re not going to tell me that “money buys me happiness” when divorces, child suicides are at all time highs.  You’ve got to take the long view on this. 

Getting back to my original theme, God really does know what’s best for you, ladies.  Forget the grab for more dollars—grab for the husband.  Submit.  Yeah, he might be churlish and make lots of dumb mistakes.  But that’s where you can ask God to fight for you, rather than nagging the husband.   God won’t kill him, like you want on some days (there is virtue in patience), but God is very effective in answering prayers of righteous women.

(1)    American Families: 75 years of Change; J Wetzel, 1990, Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Charts also from the BLS.

Saving Christians from ISIS Persecution

This week's installment is straight out of the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal. It is a very compassionate plea. Do what you can to your Congressman, and forward this to anybody who might help.

Our government could launch a program that would save many, many Christians from ISIS persecution. We should follow a 1975 U.S. humanitarian mission: The rescue of South Vietnamese from Communist rule.
By
CHLOE VALDARY
Oct. 1, 2015

In 1975, as desperate Vietnamese sought to escape Communist rule, the U.S. embarked on what remains one of the greatest humanitarian rescue missions in history. Over the span of several weeks, Operation Frequent Wind, Operation Babylift and other missions by air or on sea saved and resettled tens of thousands of Vietnamese in the U.S., where they would become thriving American citizens.

Now another desperate population needs rescuing: persecuted Christians in the Middle East. Could there be an Operation Frequent Wind for them?Mark Arabo thinks so. He is a Chaldean-American and the founder of the Minority Humanitarian Foundation, a nonprofit organization whose mission is to get Iraqi Christians out before it’s too late. “There is historical precedent for this,” he says from his base in San Diego. “President Ford airlifted thousands during the Vietnam War and we need to do the same.”

An operation of this size would require extensive logistical planning, but Benjamin Weinthal, a research fellow for the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, says Operation Frequent Wind is repeatable. “Incirlik, the U.S. air base near Adana in Turkey, is close to the Syrian-Turkey border,” he says, suggesting that U.S.-led special-operation teams could stage a mission in partnership with European countries. “There are service personnel and planes to accomplish a rescue operation for persecuted Christians.”

Since the rise of Islamic State, known as ISIS, about 125,000 Christians have fled the country. After ISIS took Mosul in June 2014, the city’s Christians flocked to Erbil, the Kurdish capital. In Syria, once home to nearly two million Christians, at least 500,000 have been displaced during four years of war.
It is ISIS policy to kidnap and rape Christian women and girls.

The terrorist group has razed Christian sites, including monasteries dating to the fifth century. Last October

the ISIS magazine Dabiq referred to Christians as “crusaders” and vowed to kill “every Crusader possible.”

That should remind Western policy makers: Christians are not random victims, caught in the maw of Mideast strife.

They are targets of genocide, much like the Jews during World War II.

This entitles them to broad protection under the 1951 U.N. Genocide Convention, to which the U.S. is a signatory.

It is also worth noting that because Christians in Iraq and Syria are facing genocide—as opposed to displacement—there is a limited window for rescue. Unlike the thousands of refugees pouring into Europe, who are mostly escaping the violence driven by the sectarian war in Syria, Christians are facing a targeted campaign of annihilation. The U.S. ought to take that distinction into consideration when prioritizing the resettlement of the additional 30,000 refugees the country is slated to absorb over the next two years.

Earlier this year, Rep. Juan Vargas, a California Democrat, introduced House Resolution 1568, the “Protecting Religious Minorities Persecuted by ISIS Act of 2015.” The act’s modest goal is to require the secretary of state to “report to Congress a plan to expedite the processing of refugee admissions applications” for religious minorities threatened with extinction by ISIS.

The bill hasn’t moved in Congress, partly due to inattention but also because the Obama administration seems to want nothing to do with it. “I haven’t heard anything from the administration on moving this bill forward,” says Illinois Republican Randy Hultgren,one of the bill’s co-sponsors. Mr. Arabo says the lack of movement illustrates “bureaucratic negligence and indifference” on the part of the administration. “The State Department has already indicated their unwillingness to reinstate processing for religious minorities.”

Meanwhile, Mr. Arabo is essentially running an underground railroad to help Christians escape. “We are bringing them to America, Australia and France,” he said. “In the U.S. alone, we have identified 70,000 Christians who have been displaced and have matched them with 70,000 people willing to bring them in.” But that depends on the administration’s willingness to allow them to enter.

In January 1944, two years after the Nazis settled on the “Final Solution” at the Wannsee conference, Franklin D. Roosevelt established a War Refugee Board “to forestall the plan of the Nazis to exterminate all the Jews and other persecuted minorities of Europe.” Though the board helped rescue some 200,000 people, it arrived too late—by this time, more than a million Jews had perished in Auschwitz. With another religious minority facing a similarly grim fate, Congress and the administration don’t have another moment to waste.

Ms. Valdary is a Robert L. Bartley Fellow at the Journal.

Let's Re-Introduce Proper Church Discipline

In the area of church discipline, here’s where we are now: If your church is evangelistic, you're probably too careful about not offending people to exercise any church discipline, unless it’s to quietly reprimand the offender to make them uncomfortable, and hopefully they leave the church. But if a guy is known as living with a woman, and they show up together Sunday morning, week after week (definitely a need for church action), many churches won’t do a thing, on the grounds of wanting them to keep hearing the gospel. In some evangelical churches, many times the only real "church discipline" might occur if you question the pastor’s authority, or point out where Scripture seems to differ from what is being taught.  That person might get the left foot of fellowship.

Some churches take an opposite approach. If they do exercise serious discipline, like shunning, they go overboard on applying it too much; the cults are big at this.  My point is, seldom are the Scripture's rules on church discipline used as a guideline any more—which is too bad, since the rules are laid out there in detail and are easily understandable--and are meant to keep a healthy church, free of unsaved people who sneak in and destroy God's local light of evangelism and fellowship.

So, let’s take a look at what churches should be doing, by looking at Scripture. There are graduating steps. First, let’s say you, a regular churchgoer, have a problem with another person at church; they are definitely in sin, which has hurt you. Let’s say you confronted them, exhorted them, but their only reaction was feeling victimized--or they ignore you. If you are close to the Lord, you know this sin hurts them and the church you both attend, so something has to be done. The next step, in most cases will be in Matthew 18:15-16:

“Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’

The church is an interested party if anger and bitterness among its members have negatively affected its evangelistic light. (We'll assume when they became members, they knew about this brand of accountability being expected in church bylaws).  The church's role in this situation is to provide objective witnesses trying to get at the truth, and render solid advice to repair relationships.  But--in today’s society, if you tell one of the offenders that you’re bringing a couple witnesses to listen and talk to him, it’s unlikely that he will even meet with you. But bringing witnesses are necessary—they are important for validating what was said, critical in later steps below. (By the way, though I'm using male pronouns, all these rules work for women too). Let’s say he does meet with you and the witnesses (which are, hopefully, not just your friends at church).  But, in the end, he still won’t agree with you. Then it’s time for step 2, in Matthew 18:17a:

And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church.

This means telling the senior pastor or counseling person. They will need to check out your story by asking you, him, maybe a couple others some questions. Getting the church administration involved could be a big step. Do you have mature people in leadership who will follow the Scripture’s discipline rules? Hopefully. Then there is another problem: Your problem person might react like the church is “ganging up” on him, and just mentally make himself the victim—so it may make him even less likely to repent. On the other hand, if he’s got a long history with the church, his next step could be to round up his church friends, make everything “your side vs my side,” and may even split the church. The success of all this depends on whether most church members choose to follow Scripture--or do they follow charismatic personality instead, even if that person is hurting the church?

So here’s what SHOULD happen next if the church leaders feel you have a genuine case, have checked out all the facts, and have the courage to actually do church discipline—I Timothy 5:20:

Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.

Wow, a public rebuke. Scripture doesn't list what sins are serious enough to get into this stage of treatment; it’s the elders’ call. They shouldn’t shirk from it, since God may want to “prune” His disobedient church member (John 15:1-6) to make him better, and the pastor has proper authority, by Scripture, to do a public rebuke to a member. Keep in mind, I remind you, that it is all done in love, with the goal of bringing this person to repentance and reconciliation. It has a side benefit, as stated above: “the rest also may fear.” (I have a blog on the benefits of a fear of God; there are many, many Scriptures that speak of it.) Ideally, in the public event, the offender, who has been told, is present. If he is not there, do it anyway.  I know this sounds contrarian, but the reprimand should seek to make sure as many church members as possible are there, too. If everyone hears all the details of the case and the reprimand, there will be fewer rumors and lies that fester and grow later.

Most churches today would really be shocked and anxious when they hear about such an upcoming public rebuke, it's so rare it happens anymore, so the pastor has to prepare them Scripturally for it. Some of the regular attendees will leave the church even before the public rebuke, and some after, since the church no longer served their purpose as the comfy place where they can relax and do whatever they want, sin as much as they want, without accountability. Don't worry about losing such members.

This public rebuking was done in the earliest days of the Church—and we’re not talking about Salem, or The Inquisition here. We’re talking about the Acts 2-5 church, the most powerful, Spirit-infused church in history—so the public rebuke wasn’t harmful to church evangelism of the Gospel—I believe it was part of the reason why they were the most effective church in history. So, you may lose some weaker members—this may not be bad. As Gideon proved, you can accomplish more for Him by obeying His difficult Word—in this case, properly exercising church discipline--even though you’re now operating with fewer in number. Accomplishing more for God--that is what you want, right? Not just a puffed-up membership number.

Well, the disobedient one may not show up for “the reprimand,” or even if he shows up, maybe his heart is hardened and he will not change his mind. Now what do you do, as a church? Matthew 18:17b shows us the next step:

But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.

What does that mean, “let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.” Well, don’t just assume this means “shunning.” Yes, you’ll find that in the Old Testament, where the Pharisees ruled.  But, why do we care about how the Pharisees thought, whom Jesus condemned? We're under a new covenant, the New Testament, which has our instructions.  Instead, let's look at how Jesus treated the heathens and tax collectors. (The tax collectors were Jews who collected taxes for Rome. Some cheated on the books and made themselves rich.  Not a beloved crew).There are plenty of verses on this. Consider Mark 2:16-17:

And when the scribes and Pharisees saw Him eating with the tax collectors and sinners, they said to His disciples, “How is it that He eats and drinks with tax collectors and sinners?” 17 When Jesus heard it, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”

As an aside, Jesus is not saying the Pharisees are righteous; it’s more like self-righteous, and “those who are well” really means “well in your own eyes.” These are the proper definitions of the Greek--and thus we see His sarcasm of the Pharisees. The point is, He had no problem mingling with the sinners and tax collectors—in fact, it was one of the charges against Him at His trial. He did good things with the Gentiles (non-Jews), as well--such as the Roman centurion and the Samaritan woman. The Jews normally refused to even speak to Samaritans. He also went into their homes.  More fascinating reading is Luke 19:5-7, the story of Zacchaeus, a Jewish tax collector:

And when Jesus came to the place, He looked up and saw him, and said to him, “Zacchaeus, make haste and come down, for today I must stay at your house.” 6 So he made haste and came down, and received Him joyfully. 7 But when they saw it, they all complained, saying, “He has gone to be a guest with a man who is a sinner.”

Note that in later verses, Zacchaeus believes in Jesus and performs righteous acts of large amounts of alms for the poor and people he offended. So Jesus' testimony was effective. Even though he was a known sinner, and might have even stolen from his Jewish brothers, Jesus just wanted to save souls, and this man had a sincere salvation experience.  The best place to evangelize is among people who are humbled and low in life, unloved by the masses.

Well, then, did all this carrying on with the obscure sinful folk mean that Jesus winked at sin, and caroused with sinners? Not at all; Jesus wanted to bring salvation to as many people as He could. Sometimes people are reached through hard rebuke—Jesus did those at other times. Other times, it was by love—such as with Zacchaeus.

So, are we done with church discipline? No, you need to know a little more history: Jesus knew that no “sinner” or Gentile or tax collector could ever be a member of a synagogue. They were denied sacred ritual. This in itself was a serious disciplinary rebuke. In the same way today, I’m saying, after a public rebuke, the unrepentant sinner should not be allowed Communion, or the Lord’s Supper, which is, after all, a channel of grace—thus he is “ex-communicated.” (Ex-communication, for several hundred years, was a fearful situation to be in, and was often used as a weapon to get people to toe the "proper" doctrinal line.) Communion was so important to the early Church that it was celebrated weekly—even daily, for some. They were so strict on this, that in the case of a serious sin, even if a person were repentant, the early church might still keep him in ex-communication for awhile longer to test out the sincerity of his repentance.  In those early days, if you denied Christ under persecution, let’s say, then later wanted to repent and rejoin the church, you could still be denied Communion for ten years. I remind you, this delay of reinstatement had to do with really serious sins. The sinner needed to be reminded of the gravity of his sin, and the church wanted to know if he is really serious in his repentance.

Ex-communication doesn't have the effect on people that it once did, but it still should be used.  It could still be advised for a lesser sin, after public rebuke has failed to work.  As an example, in earlier days, women were supposed to wear head covering, as commanded in I Corinthians 11.  It was a sign of her headship being her husband (so this idea might not fly nowadays).  So let's say she "forgets" her head covering (actually an act of rebellion).  It might mean she couldn’t take communion for that week. If she continues to forget for months, she should be subjected to public rebuke, and taught about Scripture's roles for wives and husbands, and the grave importance of Communion.

It was a judgment call, then as now, for elders to decide on this chastising. An unrepentant sinner might never have Communion again. In the middle ages, that was enough for him to feel that he lost his salvation. Now its importance is casually ignored.  We will pay the price for being casual about adult baptism and Communion; they are important instruments of maintaining salvation.

Getting back to the present subject, the unrepentant sinner, still stubborn after a public rebuke, has not only lost Communion, but he is not a “member in good standing,” either-- which means he can go to meetings, but only as a listener. Not as a speaker, or voter. But here’s what separates Scripture from cults: at this level, for unrepentant sinners, based on what Jesus did above for Zacchaeus, and others, it’s OK for regular members to socially get together with them. You're not at the shunning stage yet.  But, in your getting together with them, still carry a good testimony; the real goal is the desire to gently nudge them to reconciliation. After all, if the sin involves his unmerciful attitude, or unwillingness to forgive, he could be unsaved just because of that. Consider Matthew 6:15:

…if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

A word of warning here:  we cannot say someone has lost his salvation, because Scripture says we often can’t tell the wheat from the tares (Matthew 13:29, 30).

So Scripture teaches a delicate mix (shunning them from the sacred ritual, but not shunning them from church society). This is what God decided through Scripture to handle this situation at this point.

I want to remind you: The pastor who refuses to wade deep into discipline is not a friend of the flock. After all, he has treated Scripture lightly, besides turning his head on evil deeds—that’s a bad example. He will be judged by God on judgment day.

Now, let’s move on to the next level and when it’s activated. Read I Corinthians 5:11:

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.

Keep in mind that this person would have already gone through public rebuke and ex-communication.  Now we're talking about breaking away socially as well, almost complete shunning, and this level is for the most serious of sins: Someone who was, or claimed to be, a brother and has done one of these terrible things, you are not to eat or socialize with them. (But you could, of course, attempt to save them if they were drowning, or you could do a good deed for them, as Christ commanded even for an enemy). This seriousness is in contrast with the woman who refused to have head coverings. While she might never have communion, if she stayed in rebellion, she could still socialize with believers, since her sins would not be as serious as those listed here. Other lists of serious sins are: Ephesians 5:3-5, I Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21, and Revelation 21:8. They do not all list the exact same serious sins, but they’re very close. It shouldn’t be hard to decide when to take this step. Note the phrase above, "anyone named a brother." By his behavior, he has denied His Savior. Unrepentant denial of our Savior could mean eternity in hell (Matthew 10:33).

One other set of verses is a serious enough sin to place it in this level of discipline: it's in II Thessalonians 3:6-15:

But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us. 7 For you yourselves know how you ought to follow us, for we were not disorderly among you; 8 nor did we eat anyone’s bread free of charge, but worked with labor and toil night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, 9 not because we do not have authority, but to make ourselves an example of how you should follow us. 10 For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. 11 For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner… 14 And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. 15 Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

Thus, living off welfare with no intention to work was a serious sin to be added to this level of discipline.

In all these above verses, keep one thing in mind: All those verses speak of an UNREPENTANT sinner, who has/is attending church as a "Christian," doing those things. Every saved person should know repentance. God loves us enough to clean us from sin and obtain forgiveness if we are repentant at the foot of the Cross.

Next let's talk about the “total shunning” level: This is reserved for those who are bringing a doctrine that says Christ has not come in the flesh. In the church’s early days, the target of this one was the Gnostics. In their mysterious religion, they had two gods; the inferior god created an inferior race, Man. But the perfect Jesus couldn’t come to earth as a man, they said, which is inferior, so in His appearances, He wasn’t really flesh and blood. This heresy is spoken about in II John 10-11:

For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist…10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; 11 for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.

It’s the phrase “nor greet him” that makes this level of discipline unique. That’s total shunning. Is there a limit to the shun? I guess it’s OK to save him if he were drowning, but I don’t know—what if he’s heavier, what if he’s thrashing wildly? I’d think about it for awhile, hmmm.  No, I’m just kidding. You don’t take shunning THAT far.  This person is a true enemy of God's people, but don't forget, Christ said we should still love and pray for our enemies.  But they're kryptonite, and working with the devil to destroy the Church.

Anyway, these are the levels of church discipline. May God help us to pray that our church leaders will have courage to exercise these things before some really bad people start secretly tearing things down in our church. Let’s stay Scriptural, with lots of love and firmness to go around.

Acknowledgement: Dave Bercot, CD: Church Discipline, Scroll Publishing.

A Radical Truth: Jesus Taught That We are Not to Accumulate Wealth (Part 1)

Jesus taught us a strange and radical doctrine: that we are not to accumulate wealth. He made two commands that together form this doctrine. The doctrine is further supported in Acts and in the Pauline epistles. The first command I will cover here in Part I. It is found in Matthew 6:19-20:

Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; 20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal.

Since the Greek for “treasures” means “concentration of wealth,” Jesus is clearly commanding us not to accumulate wealth assets on earth. This command is radical—and seldom preached. Dr. William MacDonald, late president of Emmaus Bible College, author of 84 published books, had this to say in his Believers Bible Commentary about these two verses:

“…contains some of the most revolutionary teachings of our Lord—and some of the most neglected. In verses 19-21 Jesus contravenes all human advice to provide for a financially secure future (Thus he’s saying “wealth assets” include retirement funds)… This teaching forces us to decide whether Jesus meant what He said. If He did, then we face the question, “What are we going to do with our earthly treasures?” If He didn‘t, then we face the question, “What are we going to do with our Bible?””

Most Christians don’t even think about the real meaning of the Matthew verses; they are either reading their Bibles without asking the Holy Spirit for interpretation; or their pastors, when covering this Scripture, have distorted the teaching to make it more palatable--such as emphasizing our “attitude” about our possessions. They often tell us that our sin here is to “treasure in our heart” our possessions. Unfortunately, that severely changes the verse, detracting from its clear meaning of not accumulating assets to “watching our heart attitude of coveting,” a much more vague concept--and one easily dismissible--so, they conclude, "I'm not sinning if I'm not coveting." We thus can forget the radical demand of the verse if we’re in a complacent mood (which we usually are). But the verse should be taken literally; it is simply a command not to lay up, or “store.” To preach that we need to look first at our heart to determine whether our possessions are our “treasure” is the exact opposite of what the verse says: as Jesus says in verse 21: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. Jesus knows (better than we do) that if our treasures are on earth, then the heart’s desire is earthly as well.

For further proof, let’s go to Luke 12:16-20. Here is a man who simply wants to be a saver, an investor—normal godly traits, we assume. If we didn’t read the verses that follow, we would assert that he is a model of wise behavior:

"The ground of a certain rich man produced a good crop. 17 He thought to himself, 'What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.' 18"Then he said, 'This is what I'll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. 19And I'll say to myself, "You have plenty of good things laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry." ' 20"But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?'

This man DIES, seemingly, for being a wise planner! Hmmm. God evidently does not see the virtue of “saving” as we see it (not a surprise, actually; see Isaiah 55:8). What was the sin of the rich man, that he was called a “fool?” Was it that he forgot to ask God’s advice on what to do with his riches? Was it his intent on laziness? His pride? Well, Jesus answers that question in the next verse. Did Jesus say, “So is he who forgets to seek counsel from God?” Or, “ so is he who is proud?” No; Jesus says in the next verse:

“So is he that lays up treasure for himself.”

Let me emphasize this: His sin that made him a fool and paid with his life--was laying up treasure, accumulating wealth assets--the same sin as Matthew 6. People, this is a financial life-changing doctrine. This kind of saving is a SIN! Meditate on it. Let’s call this concept Jesus’ command to Non-Accumulate. I suspect that pastors generally don’t believe that non-accumulation is a genuine command. They say, “Jesus cannot be teaching us to be so imprudent. What if I lose my job? If I haven’t saved some wealth, what could happen to me and my family? Jesus must be using allegory here; or, He doesn’t mean this for everyone at all times. So, since it is not a real command, I can ignore it.” Well, there are two answers to this train of thought. The first answer is: If it’s a command, it’s a command to obey, no questions asked. Our job is to obey it, not explain it away because it might leave us feeling insecure. God knows better than us. We can’t always know why. We should have faith in a loving God as His children that He will sort out the repercussions to our best spiritual interest. The second answer is: Where is your faith in God’s power? Jesus knows our concern here and answers it only a few verses later—in Matthew 6:26 and 31-32:

Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?…So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' 32For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them.

In other words, trust in God, not in yourself (your savings). Look, we all need to see God at work more, to know that He is real. What better way to experience this than seeing God rescue us from a financial tough spot? If He doesn’t rescue in a tight spot, maybe He is telling us: Hey, how did you get in that spot? Overspending? Maybe we need to get less worldly in the use of our money and time. A second possibility may be that He wants to teach us not to buy an item yet—teaching us patience, or maybe we would use it to indulge in some sin, or idolize it, pulling us farther away from Him. In any of these, we should leave ourselves open to God speaking to us—which He can only do if we don’t just fall back on our savings or credit card, our own security, for rescue. Families with kids living with them should get their children involved too. If you and your kids actually plead with God and then see God rescuing you, or if God refines worldly desires from your family, you—and the kids—are more likely, from that personal touch from Him, to be “sold out” for the Lord. Isn’t that where you want your family to be? What would really sell the kids—and do good for humanity—would be to use your extra cash to give to the needy (to be discussed later) rather than add to savings. By giving away your savings, you test Him (Malachi 3:10). He will be happy to show that He is your security, not your reserve savings. You are not insecure. According to Psalm 37:25, you are not vulnerable to poverty if you are in the center of God’s will. You can’t be in that wonderful place by trusting in yourself rather than God.

The Nation Israel Has Been Rejected by God

Have you ever walked into a Christian bookstore looking for End Times material, and were puzzled about the number of books on Israel? That’s probably because, either the bookstore is owned by dispensationalists —or because the bookstore simply buys what they know sells—and dispensational books sell. But there are problems with this doctrine.

The purpose of this paper is to give you a thumbnail sketch of dispensational doctrine, so that you can see the one tenet by which everything else in this doctrine hangs. If we blow that tenet up, through Scripture, then the whole doctrine collapses.

Per Wikipedia, dispensationalism is defined as “an evangelical, futurist, Biblical interpretation that understands God to have related to human beings in…“dispensations,” or periods in history…expounded in the writings of John Nelson Darby (1800-82) and the Plymouth Brethren movement, and propagated through…Scofield Reference Bibles…they hold to a pretribulation rapture…they believe that the nation of Israel is distinct from the Christian Church, and that God has yet to fulfill His promises to national Israel. These promises include…a millennial kingdom and a Third Temple where Christ, upon His return, will rule the world from Jerusalem for a thousand years…. Dispensationalists also believe that toward the end of the Tribulation, Israel as a nation will turn and embrace Jesus as their messiah right before his second coming during the Great Tribulation…the Church, though, is a "parenthesis" or temporary interlude in the progress of Israel's prophesied history.”

Sorry about the long definition. Now here is their timeline of relevant events of the last days: With no prior specific warning, the Rapture comes—when Christ comes, and all alive at the time who have had faith in Jesus will be called up by Christ to meet Him in the clouds, and onward to heaven. That means, of course, that those who are left on earth will all be unsaved, and will immediately endure seven years of tribulation and persecution by the antichrist. Somehow (despite no saved people to start with), a huge evangelism effort (presumably led by 144,000 newly-saved Jews) will lead a huge number of additional Jews and newly-saved Gentiles to Christ, who will face off against the antichrist at Armageddon, when Christ comes to strike down the enemy. That ushers in the Millennium, ruled by mostly Jews; and then after a short rebellion, there is final judgment—when the unsaved of all ages are tried and sent to the lake of fire.

You can see how their idea of a rapture, followed by the tribulation, came to be called “pre-tribulation rapture.” What you may not know is that this idea was unheard of through the first 1800 years of the Church. Great, godly men, including men who were disciples of the apostles, didn’t come up with that idea, and suddenly it appeared in the early 1830s. Until 1830, those who held a futurist view almost universally felt that there is still coming a great tribulation, after which the saved are raptured, followed immediately by a great judgment for saved and unsaved.

So you see, Darby’s “pre-trib rapture” idea switches those two events—the tribulation-then-rapture becomes a rapture-then-tribulation for him. Mr. Darby, despite the fact that his idea was the new one, called other churches “apostates.”

But I’m not here to discuss the timing of the rapture and tribulation. I have written three blogs on the subject, very carefully laying it all out by clear Scripture (hint: It doesn’t agree with Mr. Darby). What I want to question is indicated in my italicized statements in the definition above. I’m speaking of their claims that (1) God has promises to fulfill to the Jews; and (2) the Church is a “parenthesis,” or temporary interlude, in the progress of Israel’s prophesied history. You can see how that second tenet, in particular, is crucial to their whole doctrine—they believe that with the Christians raptured to heaven, the church is out of the way (it was only a parenthesis, anyhow), and God can resume His promises to the Jews. So all subsequent events on earth after the rapture feature the Jews. The 144,000 Jews are massive evangelists, and the Jews rule the Millennium.

My problem with his theory is this: Scripture indicates, instead, that God has rejected Israel as a fleshly nation. Further, in the present church age, the Church—saved Gentiles and Jews--is God’s “Israel” today. All Christians are sons of Abraham. Saved people are all one people—God doesn’t have two programs for two peoples, as dispensationalists allege. The “saints” mentioned several times in Revelation are saved Gentiles and Jews, together. The Millennium will be ruled by the saints—Jews and Gentiles. The Church is not a “parenthesis” to God; we carry the Holy Spirit, we are Jesus’ body—we represent Jesus in exercising compassion and rescue in the tribulation—we have a vital part to play in that time of great suffering and spiritual battle. I will easily prove these facts by Scripture. Scripture is so clear on this, frankly, that the only reason someone could believe dispensationalist doctrine is because either (1) the idea of God rejecting people that He once blessed is an unacceptable thought to them; (2) rejecting the Jews sounds anti-Semitic; or (3) dispensationalist thought is attractive-- it asserts that Christians “get outta town” (via Rapture) before the bad days of the tribulation comes. Getting to watch the tribulation from heaven sure sounds better than being in the thick of it.

Of the three reasons listed for liking dispensationalism, I can challenge two of them right away (the third will be covered in my main points below): (1) Whom God rejects depends simply on his or her reaction to His clearly-worded Scripture about redemption through Christ, and the required righteous life. Unfortunately, most people don’t truly love God—their lives ignore God. So God, in turn, has to reject them—in the end, most people want to run their own lives, and make themselves the god of their lives. So He has to consign most people to hell for their disobedience. Matthew 7:13-14 speaks clearly about life (heaven) and destruction (hell). Note that heaven is attained for a small minority of people:

“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

(2) As to marking me as anti-Semite: I’m just following Scripture in my analysis. The Jews had a part in killing Our Lord, as you know. Consider Mark 15:12-14:

Pilate answered and said to them again, “What then do you want me to do with Him whom you call the King of the Jews?” 13 So they cried out again, “Crucify Him!” 14 Then Pilate said to them, “Why, what evil has He done?” But they cried out all the more, “Crucify Him!”

We’re not just talking about the Pharisees crying out here—there weren’t enough of them to make a noise. Pilate felt Jesus was innocent, but was afraid that the noise and hate meant he would have a riot on his hands if he didn’t shed blood that they wanted; so that means the majority of Jews present were screaming—thus, the majority of them rejected Him. So the majority of Jews were guilty. And Pilate (a Gentile) could have had a spine, too, but believed Jesus was disposable. So that makes Gentiles guilty too (heavy discussion of this in the first several chapter of the book of Romans). Everyone’s sins doom us before a holy God who cannot stand sin. Without Christ, our Advocate, we are lost. Salvation is available—but only one way to attain it.

Now let’s get to our main point: God has rejected Israel as a fleshly nation. Scripture below will make that point forcefully. God’s Old Testament prophecy of the Jews’ unfaithfulness was in the mouths of all His prophets, as far back as Moses. Read Deuteronomy 31:16-17a:

And the LORD said to Moses: “Behold, you will rest with your fathers; and this people will rise and play the harlot with the gods of the foreigners of the land, where they go to be among them, and they will forsake Me and break My covenant which I have made with them. 17 Then My anger shall be aroused against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide My face from them, and they shall be devoured.

Note that God said He would forsake them. The Jews could have repented of their unfaithfulness, and God would take them back, with His forgiving heart; but instead they killed the prophets. As the prophets predicted, the Jews were, in time, captured and made slaves, but later a small ragged group returned to the land. If you felt that that little return meant God forgave the Jews—that is not the case. The few who returned were not a free people for long after the return, being taken over by Rome.

God begins the New Testament with the same theme of rejection, starting with John the Baptist in Matthew 3:9:

…and do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.10 And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

(I have blogs on the subject of good fruit being crucial to salvation). John was bluntly telling the Jews that they won’t get to heaven on their genes—being a Jew doesn’t get you there. Thus, the Jews were still failing heaven by relying on the wrong source.

Jesus is even more violent with words than John, in John 8: 22-47:

So the Jews said, “Will He kill Himself, because He says, ‘Where I go you cannot come’?” 23 And He said to them, “You are from beneath; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”…33 They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants 34 Jesus answered them,…37 “I know that you are Abraham’s descendants, but you seek to kill Me, 39 They said to Him…we have one Father—God.”…42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; …44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do.…47 He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.”

Note the beginning words, "the Jews said...and note His reply: "you will die in your sins..." Calling the majority of Jews sons of the devil couldn’t be printed in America without getting into trouble today, but it’s Scriptural. Jesus even called the Pharisees “serpents, brood of vipers” in Matthew 23:33—and asked them, “How can you escape the condemnation of hell?” It’s true, of course, that nowadays some Jews are saved—but few. Under 1% of Christians are former Jews!

The actual rejection of the Jews is more plainly laid out elsewhere. Look at Matthew 8:8-12:

The centurion answered and said, “Lord, I am not worthy…But only speak a word, and my servant will be healed… 10 When Jesus heard it, He marveled, and said to those who followed, “Assuredly, I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel! 11 And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

“Many will come from east and west” are the Gentiles; the “sons of the kingdom” are the Jews. There it is, plain as day: The Jews would be cast out into outer darkness (hell). When Jesus said things like this, it was God’s miracle that He even lived for three years of ministry, they would so want to kill Him—rather than repent. More confirmation is in Matthew 21:33-43, a parable where everyone figured out the meaning:

There was a certain landowner who planted a vineyard… And he leased it to vinedressers and went into a far country. 34 Now when vintage-time drew near, he sent his servants to the vinedressers…38 But when the vinedressers saw the son (Jesus), they said among themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.’ 39 So they took him and cast him out of the vineyard and killed him.40 “Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard (God the Father) comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?”41 They said to Him, “He will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons.”42 42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: ‘The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone. This was the LORD’s doing… 43 “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.

As plain as day about the kingdom of God: Taken from the Jews, given to another. Don’t misinterpret the word “nation” in verse 43. It simply means “people.” God isn’t going to make a country like Israel or the U.S., the apple of His eye now. The singular word is, in Greek, “ethnos.” Vine’s Expository Dictionary says: “in the plural (which this is) it means all the nations, as distinct from Israel.” God is giving the kingdom to people, from all countries, who bear the Holy Spirit’s fruit (Gal 5:22-23).

Paul also deals specifically with this rejection of the Jews, in Romans 9:30-32. Remember, the only Gentiles written to here are the ones saved by attaching their faith to the righteousness of Christ:

What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness (of the Law), have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law.

“Attaining to righteousness” is heaven; and “not attaining” is hell. Again, the Jews hung their belief system on the wrong hook—so the majority of them will be in hell for eternity.

In Galatians 3:28-29, Paul deals with two subjects at once: (1) In the New Testament, all saints are one. God doesn’t have separate programs for two groups of saints: one group who get parenthetically shunted aside, and then dealing with another group to fill an Old Testament plan. (God is not interested in Old Testament covenant, anyhow—just the New covenant). (2) Saved people, the Church, in the New covenant, are God’s Israel, and sons of Abraham. Thus, Israel, as a nation, has been rejected and the majority of Jews are not sons of Abraham.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Plain as day: In the New Testament (the only one to consider, since it replaces the Old covenant), saved people are sons of Abraham—saved people are now the Israel of God, not a fleshly nation which has been rejected.

Part of the Old covenant given to the Jews was the rite of circumcision; but the problem is, they felt that it guaranteed their salvation. We can see in this paper that they were quite wrong in thinking a fleshly sign or their genes is all you need. There were big arguments in the New Testament where the saved Jews felt that if Gentiles wanted to be saved, they would have to get circumcised too. Paul was against any part of the old Law as a prerequisite for salvation. It all begins in Christ. See what he has to say in Galatians 6:15-16:

But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. 15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation. 16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

Who is the “Israel of God?” You can see it: “New creations,” or saved people. Born again people, all saints, all one. What is “this rule?” It’s “the world has been crucified to me.” That means I have prayed away the love of the world so my body’s members don’t respond to it, as if they’re dead. What is the meaning of “and I to the world?” That means I am ready to give my life to Christ’s mission for me, rather than chasing after the world.

I Peter 2:8-9 has a secret message: They (unsaved Jews) stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.9 But you (saved Gentiles) are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him..

The secret message? The three phrases that Peter uses for saved people were once given by God to the Jews. But you see, they have been rejected, and the phrases are now given to the saved.  By the way,the phrase "to which they...were appointed" is not a fatalistic Calvinistic phrase, that God appointed them to hell, and there's nothing they could do.  They were appointed to hell after their behavior revealed them as unsaved.

Now we come to the most difficult verses of our study, Romans 11:21-26. Here's a helpful prelude: God wants a cultivated olive tree, the “Israel of God,” made up of Gentiles and some Jews. The Jews are, by background, “natural” branches, and the Gentiles are “wild” branches (no slight intended for Gentiles there). Jewish branches were mostly rejected, and have been cut off the tree. If they repent, they can be “grafted” back onto the tree again. We Gentiles shouldn’t brag about God grafting us onto the cultivated tree over them. Pride goes before a fall, you know, and we could be cut off too (this verse doesn’t help the “eternal security” believers, by the way). These verses are a word of caution being spoken to the saved Gentiles.

For if God did not spare the natural branches (the Jews who are hell-bound), He may not spare you (Gentiles) either.22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell (the Jews), severity; but toward you (Gentiles), goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they (Jews) also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you (Gentiles) were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree (i.e., saved), how much more will these, who are natural branches, (the Jews), be grafted into their own olive tree? 25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved…

As you can see, the Jews’ rejection gave them spiritual blindness—so they were set aside and the Gentiles allowed into the ranks of salvation--IF they don’t get prideful; they must “continue in His goodness.”

What about that phrase, “the fullness of the Gentiles?” As Luke 21:24ff and Revelation 11:2 will explain, that’s talking about End Times, when the last of the Gentiles gets saved and the Rapture can come. (As I proved by Scripture in another blog, that will happen toward the end of the tribulation). But don’t get the idea that it means “the Gentile number for heaven is full, so let’s rapture them and start working on building up the Jewish number during the tribulation.”

And what about that last phrase, “all Israel will be saved?” This has been debated heatedly. Well, that could have two possible meanings: (1) In the End Times, when the antichrist has slaughtered millions of Jews, the remaining remnant sees the light—and loses the “blindness” which has pervaded them for centuries. Many of the remnant get saved. Or it could mean (2) What have we been talking about? “All Israel” could simply mean “all saved people.” Obviously all of them are saved, by definition.

Two more thoughts: (1) Just because of the possibility that Israel gets evangelized in the End Times and a remnant gets saved does NOT justify the dispensationalists’ wild curriculum. I would hope you would agree that we have proven that the Jewish nation has been rejected, and does not have a separate, premier program in the Last Days. This does a lot to destroy many of the distinctive facets of dispensationalism. And (2) I don’t care which of the two meanings above apply to “saving all Israel.” If hundreds of thousands of Jews get saved at the end, high fives for them—lots more interesting stories to share while we’re all in heaven forever. Remember, I don’t have an ax to grind against the Jews. I'm just figuring out doctrine from Scripture about being saved. God help us to study Scripture and not be rejected on that Day.

Also keep in mind, that according to dispensational thought, Christ has a second advent to do the rapture, and a third advent to rescue the tribulation saints at Armageddon. (First advent was His birth on earth). Three advents! It has never been taught that Christ has three advents. Scripture clearly indicates two.

But there are a couple other things going on with this “pre-trib” doctrine that I don’t like to see. First, what’s with this AWOL mentality among the dispensationalists? Are you saying you want to be raptured and leave your family or friends behind to suffer the tribulation alone? What’s with that? But your life is a sacrifice to God—it’s not yours. If He wants you on earth in the heat of battle against the antichrist and the devil, well, we’ll have to all just tough it out. Get used to the idea. Don’t be afraid. Fear is not of God (II Timothy 1:7).

Secondly, on the subject of rejection: I keep seeing this mentality: “God is grandpa and doesn’t reject anybody (even those who have rejected Him for almost three thousand years). He’s mellow and forgiving; once you accept Him, He’s yours forever no matter what you do.” I’ve got several blogs on this flawed mentality showing up in other subjects as well. Let me repeat: Remember Matthew 7:13-14: Only a minority get saved. The majority are rejected and sent to hell. As I said in another blog, some people need to read more of the Old Testament and God's anger against sin, or people need to read everything Jesus said, which included some mighty tough words about heaven and hell. God is holy and can be tough. Don’t expect to hear all aspects of God from preachers. Pastors everywhere are dropping the ball on this. I don’t know why. Maybe evil doctrine has crept into seminary schools, or maybe they’re afraid if they make people feel down or anxious, they’ll go to another church. READ YOUR BIBLE YOURSELF. Ask the Holy Spirit—not “common taters”—for wisdom.