Founders of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture

 

 A disastrous worldwide tribulation of seven years is coming; the Bible says so, particularly in Matthew 24, Daniel 9, and in Revelation. (Preterist followers take note: The happenings predicted in those and other chapters did not already occur by AD 70.) The tribulation may be in the distant future—or it may be soon. You may not be in it--or you may. So we need to prepare, just in case. It would be nice if we could figure out what will happen when.  There is, after all, a Second Coming of Jesus as Judge of each of us spoken in the Bible chapters above, as well as elsewhere. Will it be heaven or hell for you? Matthew 7:13-14 say the majority will end up in hell. We all deserve hell, either ignoring God or in rebellion against God by repeating sin, and not feeling like stopping—or not able to stop. Scripture elsewhere will tell you how to avoid hell. We must learn to really study Scripture and find out His requirements to gain heaven.

Unfortunately, the chapters above also say that those that are His disciples will suffer persecution in the last half of the tribulation. Many will become martyrs.

Could Christians be raptured before those terrible events, called the pre-tribulation rapture theory, or do they have to suffer through it, and only get raptured toward the end of it (the post-tribulation theory)?  The two opposite theories have been under hot debate for over a century. I would like to share this thought, which may shake you of your fondness for thinking you’ll escape all the trouble of the tribulation and don’t want to read anything else. The pre-tribulation rapture theory of that seven years has a severe weakness: it requires a “two stage” Second Coming by the Lord; the first, in “secret,” to rapture Christians for heaven before the tribulation; then, 7 years later, after the tribulation, the second “stage” of His return would basically be His coming in Judgment. But this really makes the Second Coming into the Second and Third Coming. That’s how the pre-trib would actually be. You simply can’t make the “secret coming” a secret event. But Scripture talks only of a one-event Second Coming. Having this gigantic doctrinal problem, “pre-trib” should have been a dead theory on arrival. But such has not been the case.  It is popular—but only, I suspect, because (1) People don’t read their Bible with some detail; or (2) People want the future to be rosy, not like ending up as a martyr or, as Jesus also said, carrying a cross for Him (Luke 9:23).

 

Consider the earliest church fathers, like Polycarp and Irenaeus--those who were close to the Lord’s apostles, who knew Greek and who, as their own writings show, knew their Bible like nobody’s business. (We’re talking from 50 AD to 200 AD, so we’re not talking Catholics.) Most of those early scholars believed His Second Coming would be one event, at the end of tribulation, to rescue His saints from God’s wrath, which happens in Revelation 8 and 9. (The tribulation and God’s wrath are not the same thing, Scriptures show.) So they believed in a post-tribulation rapture. That adds to the credibility of the “post” view, due to the advantages these church fathers had over us. Christians would, under that theory, have to suffer through almost all of the 7-year tribulation.  Then Christ would come to save Christians from the worst disaster, called God’s wrath. God’s wrath, once Christians are removed, would then be poured out.

 

Thus, the post-tribulation view held the sway among those who believed that there would actually be such a future event.  It was the most widely taught for almost 1800 years. (In fairness, there are large Christian groups that have taught that there are NO future rapture events laid out in the Book of Revelation—maintaining that those Scriptures are just “spiritualizing.”) 

 

 Scripture teaches the post-tribulation view.  II Thessalonians 2:1, 3, and 4 says:

 

Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you…³ Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, ⁴ who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

 

The “man of sin,” as Scripture elsewhere confirms, is the Antichrist-- unfortunately the main character in the worldwide tribulation.  Particularly note vv. 3-4, where it says the Antichrist will be revealed when he “sits as God in the temple of God.” That particular detail happens in the middle of the tribulation, according to Daniel 9:27:

 

He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him. ”

 

What is the ‘covenant?’ The Antichrist (most likely the person spoken here) makes a covenant, most likely with the Jews, probably an effort of peace to stop a Mideast war. As Scripture shows, he “revealed” who he really was. By demanding that he be worshipped. He knew that the Jews and the Christians would never do that, so he would have to declare war on them. That happens after one-half of the tribulation has passed. You may also question, what is ‘seven?’ Since in diplomacy, you don’t have something as serious as a covenant for seven weeks, or seven months, it has to be for years—seven years—the time of the tribulation. Halfway through he “sits as God in the Temple” by sitting in the holy of holies place in the Jewish new Temple, and he discontinues the sacrifices and offerings to God—because he wants to be worshipped as God. This is desolation to the eyes of God, and what he does will be an abomination. Perhaps setting up an image of himself would qualify as an abomination. His sitting in the holy of holies definitely was.

 

That’s when he begins persecuting Jews and Christians all the way to the end of the tribulation. So you may feel that I have too many “likelies” and “probablies” in my theory, and you are not convinced that Christians have to go through the tribulation. So you maybe still like the “pre-tribulation” theory. Well, I have another approach to prove it:  Let’s look at the men who created this theory of the pre-tribulation rapture.

 

Scripture warns us repeatedly not to be deceived on this important subject, and to dismiss the words of a false prophet who would tell you otherwise. Look at Matthew 24:4: Take heed that no one deceives you…and at II Peter 2:1:

 

 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you

 

Next, Scripture insists that it is confident that with unbiased study, it is possible to ascertain the important chronology of events about rapture in Revelation, since in Rev. 1:3 it says:

 

Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it…

 

How is it possible to “keep those things written in it” if the meaning is totally unclear and can’t be determined? Why would God urge us to read Revelation and promises a blessing if we do, if in fact it is incomprehensible?  I believe God has His truth in there, able to be found. We just have to keep our emotions out of it—like making the mistake of choosing a theology that promises we won’t suffer in those days.  Truth is, though, Jesus promises that His people have to suffer.  See John 16:33:

 

…in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.”

 

Now I’m getting to the point of this paper: one way to find out which tribulation theory is correct, let’s see if a founder of that theory is a false prophet.  The way to do that, it is necessary to look at their fruits—i.e, the outward manifestation of whether this kind of person was of godly behavior and doctrine that agrees with Scripture. If a man’s life doesn’t bear fruit, that demeans the credibility for his rapture theory. Therefore, to find out, there is nothing wrong with looking up a serious biography of a theory’s founder.  God would not put His truth into the mind of a worldly man, or a false prophet.  So, this week and next week, let’s “check the fruit” of the “pre-trib” theory’s founders.  Let’s see if the theory’s founders are godly men.  The founders of the pre-tribulation rapture are John Nelson Darby and C.I. Scofield.  This week we check the fruit of Mr. Darby; next week, Mr. Scofield.  I dug into the past, as the acknowledgements below indicate.

 

As far as calling him a “founder,” John Darby was the first to broadcast the “pre-trib” theory, beginning around 1833, for almost 50 years--but he got the idea from others. But he was the first to be a persuasive speaker on the subject--and he had connections.

 

His theory is really claiming a lot: he is really saying that the church (speaking of ALL believers here), despite many Scriptures and many scholars on this important subject, was in the dark for 1800 years.  And Mr. Darby gave us the light.  Seems presumptuous, especially since he never took a theology class. I have several blogs elsewhere on this—on one blog, we took 3 weeks to carefully give Scriptural proof behind the post-tribulation theory.

 

Mr. Darby lived from 1800-1882. He was outwardly holy, even as a young man in his 20s; he met with other Christians frequently to discuss principles and ideas and for prayer.  Fate turned in his direction when, in a prayer meeting in England, he met Edward Irving. Irving has been called “the father of modern pentecostalism.” Irving led or was involved with many charismatic revivals that were breaking out in England, Scotland, and Ireland—and these included tongues and prophesying.  As a result, he was kicked out of his Presbyterian bishopric, so he ended up founding a group, and called it the Catholic Apostolic Church. His strong arm of leadership caused it to also be called the “Irvingite” group.  Most of Irving’s small groups would try to get “in the Spirit” and worship and prophesy.  People would rush and travel the country when they would hear that “the Lord is speaking” somewhere, or people are laying forth new prophecy.  The End of Times was a big subject in that day.  As it turned out, in one group there were many followers of Mary MacDonald, a 15-year-old waif who was often sick (she died in her mid-30s). She spent much of her life seemingly in an altered state of consciousness, speaking, sometimes in tongues, sometimes loudly, about visions that she saw, or about what the future holds. In a fateful March 30, 1830 session, a writer who kept a journal about everything MacDonald said, wrote about one of her visions, and she quoted this: “here we first see the distinction between that final stage of the Lord’s coming, when every eye shall see him, and His prior appearing in glory to them that look for Him.”  Thus the two-stage second advent was born.  Placing the first stage, the “prior appearing,” before the tribulation was a brilliant choice, as it became popular as Irving and Darby interpreted it.  So, then, the pre-tribulation theory was born from the mouth of a sickly 15-year old charismatic.  So, was this based on Scripture?  No--it was created from her vision.

 

Mr. Darby was also at that session, and didn’t take to the theory at first, but grew to like it, and was busy by 1833 spreading the idea around in his speeches, which he did frequently.  Britain liked it.  He also visited America at least five times, and got the friendship of Dwight L. Moody, who passed it on in America. Mr. C.I. Scofield later took the ball on this one by inserting it in his Bible (next week on him). 

 

Darby was also the leader of several prayer groups himself, and named them the “Brethren,” or “Plymouth Brethren.”  (I was a member of one of them). But while he got a lot of followers, he had trouble within his groups.  It seems that he was a bit of a tyrant, wanting the groups to accept his doctrines, and not consider anything else.  For many, the “pre-trib” doctrine had a lot of holes that he couldn't satisfactorily explain.  But they could see that Darby chafed under authority or accountability.  One of his 24-page papers has the title of Episcopacy (this means church structure, teamwork, and leadership): What Ground is there in Scripture or History for Calling it an Institution of God?  He concludes there wasn’t supposed to be any hierarchy, despite Scripture which confirmed otherwise (I Timothy 3 and elsewhere). Here’s a quote of his from Wikipedia: the very notion of a clergyman was a sin against the Holy Spirit. He liked the laity (regular members) preaching.  But this seems to be an effort to reduce Scriptural competence. That way he got to meet with the lay preacher, and tell him what was good, and what was missing the mark.

 

This “no hierarchy” ecclesiology is heretical, though a milder one. But he continued this tendency, being a determined skeptic of tradition and criticism.  In this, as in many others, his new ideas disagreed with the Bible.  Who is correct?  The inspired Word of God, of course. Not Mr. Darby.

 

He seemed to lack the compassion that we would expect from a godly leader.  Jesus taught leaders to be servants at heart (Luke 22:25-26). Darby liked to rule over men. Here is a rebuke from a letter he got from his friend, Anthony Norris: “they (ie, some people in the groups) felt that though you are only a brother in an Elder's house, you exercised more than a Father’s power, without a Father’s heart of mercy.”

 

For the adept among my readers, he also taught an ultra-dispensationalism.  This was about God’s covenants with different groups of Jews over different periods of time. There were problems with how he took it to extremes—some of his doctrine just came out of his head, without a clear Scripture basis; and it forced him, when backed into a corner, to chase things into many odd rabbit-holes.  For instance, he believed the Book of James does not belong in the New Testament. Here’s his original Introduction to the Book (not in later editions): “The Epistle of James is not addressed to the “assembly” (or churches), and does not take the ground of apostolic authority.”  You see, he first makes the outlandish statement that James is not addressed to the church (thus saying, we would get no benefit from reading this important Book). Then he beats that by saying the Book does not have “apostolic authority.”  That’s saying it’s not inspired.  Such a statement is heretical, and it tries to throw out II Timothy 3:16:

 

ALL Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness. 

 

What was in the Bible was decided in 325 AD.  Darby, as usual, decided we have it wrong, and he is smarter than that.  Darby felt that James was addressed to Israelites, not the church.  Darby has this thing about separating Jews from Gentiles when it’s convenient.  His notes from his book include the following for Matthew 5‑7, the Sermon on the Mount: “The multitudes (ed., note that that includes Gentiles) were present, but the discourse (i.e, the Sermon on the Mount) was addressed to His disciples” (who were Jewish)—so he claimed.  It's like Jesus said, "OK, Jews on this side of me, Gentiles on the other.  Now, I've got a few words for the Jews, here, so you Gentiles ignore us right now, I'll address you shortly.”  I’ve always felt that all the Word was for everyone, as II Timothy (above) says. All of us get a benefit from every word.  Jesus’ New Testament (or New Covenant) was for all who wanted to follow Him.  There is One Gospel, One faith now.   

 

Darby's comments said, basically, that most of Matthew is critical reading for everyone, but we Gentiles should just skip the Sermon on the Mount, they only apply to Jews.  Darby does the same thing in Matthew 24-25, about the end times, claiming that those particular verses only apply to Jews.  But there is no Scripture that backs that kind of dividing people. He created it out of speculation.

 

Getting back to Matthew 5-7, here is another note Darby made: “… moral principles and precepts, not redemption, are the subject of the (Sermon on the Mount) discourse.” But, I argue, what about Matthew 5:22?  It emphasizes that hate is like murder, and says: “whoever says ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.” Who gets an eternity in hell, is definitely talking about redemption, or lack of it.

 

And what about 5:29?  It emphasizes that we need to control our sin (if we don’t, we love sin more than God, and that’s idolatry).  The verse, a hyperbole (exaggeration to prove a point) says:

 

“And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and. not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

 

That last phrase certainly has a lot to do with redemption.  But, not to worry, supposedly, about this verse: I'm a Gentile.  In the same vein, see Matthew 6:14-15 and 6:19-21.  The point is, to dismiss the Sermon on the Mount as not having redemptive power is seriously heretical.  If we get saved, and repent, we must live a holy life.  These verses are relevant to all His saved--they tell us what a holy life consists of. They emphasize that thought should be holy as well as action.  They therefore have redemption as their goal.

Mr. Darby got so high-minded that he said, and wrote, that all the Christian churches of his day were apostate (ie, fell away from Jesus’ doctrine).  This is from his written papers:  "The actings (sic) of Satan...in corrupting the church, must be familiar to anyone acquainted with the word of God."  So, Mr. Darby must school us with the Truth--as he sees it.

 

He also had some issues with the humanity of Christ. He taught that when Christ became incarnate, He fully assumed sinful human nature so that His sinless life depended on the power of the Holy Spirit.  This was considered heretical, since orthodoxy taught that Jesus had an innately sinless human nature (PS: He got his own idea from Irving).

 

He also got in trouble, on another very important issue. This is from a tract he wrote called “Remarks on a tract, circulated by the Irvingites.” In it Darby says: “if they taught that God was not manifest in the flesh at all, a Christian ought' not to look to the scriptures to see if it was right, and that if he did, he would get no good out of it” You can see how wishy-washy he was on whether Jesus was in the flesh—he’s suggesting that Jesus’ presence on earth, it’s possible that He was like a ghost. This is bordering on an extremely important heresy. Here is what II John 1:7 has to say about being uncertain about Jesus appearing in the flesh:

 

"For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist." 

 

 

I am not saying he was The Antichrist. The word is used in the above verse as a high condemnation of heresy, the kind that destroys the beliefs of Christians and deceives them into following a demonic vein about Jesus. This by itself should mean that whatever he comes up with is not from God, but from the devil. Not a light thing to pass over. This in itself would be an effective reason to disavow any of his theories. He was a false prophet.

 

Well, all this was too much for scholars like George Muller (a godly man who later built orphanages and Christian schooling for over 100,000 children), who refused to accept many of his ideas or his questionable Scriptural backing.  Muller, who originally was a follower of Darby, split and formed a separate group, called the “Open Brethren.”  Darby was miffed at that, since he was losing complete control, and he was angered enough to not allow ANY of his own group (now called the Exclusive Brethren) to take communion with ANYone from the Open groups. But this is divisive:  these are saved brothers!  These are all Brethren!  This punitiveness became an ongoing trait of his: for instance, he also made a rule where if one of their branches had excluded a person from Christian fellowship, that person remained excluded from all other of his branches, who must then treat the excluded person as a leper (a violation of Matthew 18’s rules on church discipline). He also took the liberty of attacking church “enemies” in public.  It should have been dealt with in private, as Matthew 18 commands.  These behaviors of divisiveness and punishment are totally anti-Spiritual.  Christ counseled us in His last prayer to be one, not divided by argumentation (John 17:21). Granted, with the denominations, we have the same sin of not being in unity, but he carried divisiveness to new lengths. Paul definitely would call Darby “controlled by his sinful nature” when he says in 1 Corinthians 3:3: 

 

You are jealous of one another and quarrel with each other. Doesn’t that prove you are controlled by your sinful nature? Aren’t you living like people of the world? 

 

In fact, he took his exclusivism so far as to also ban any member of a group called the Bethesda Brethren as well, since they harbored a man named Newton, who, he felt, tried to take over his group while he was gone.  All this was way past petty--it was plain mean-spirited, and grudging as well, not something a Christian person would do. Darby’s childish tyranny of always wanting HIS ecclesiology and HIS eschatology was coming forth too loud and strong.  Paul in the book of Romans urges us to avoid people like Darby:

 

Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. ¹⁸ For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ

 

Jude tells us in verse 19 that people like Darby are people of the world, “devoid of the Spirit.”  Note that that phrase means Darby might not be saved:

 

It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit.

 

While he was leader of his groups, many other splits occurred.  The whole Plymouth Brethren’s growth was stunted by these rules. The Gospel didn’t go out like it should have. Even after his death, some of the Exclusive groups of Plymouth Brethren divided more, and some groups delved into even more strange behaviors, and were even considered cults.  They had many people assessing their doctrines as heretical.  One of the best Christian orators and scholars of that day, Charles H. Spurgeon, pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle, actually was so concerned that he published criticism of Darby and Brethrenism.  And he accused them that they “rejected the vicarious purpose of Christ's obedience as well as imputed righteousness.” Accusing him of denying the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believers is a serious heresy. Darby’s quote on the matter in an 1865 tract confirms this:

“My adversaries insist that Christ kept the law for us, and that that constitutes our positive righteousness before God. This I deny: Scripture teaches no such doctrine; but it teaches the contrary…I affirm that those who teach it are in this respect false teachers.”

One Scripture alone makes Mr. Darby mistaken: Romans 4:6:

Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works…

 Spurgeon viewed these heresies of such importance and so central to the Gospel that it led him to publish a statement about the rest of their belief in his magazine, the Sword and Trowel.  This kind of direct criticism was seldom seen in that day.

There can be no final word about Mr. Darby better than a prophetic word to him spoken by a German group that he conferenced with.  It was written rather early in 1836, but predictive of his worsened behavior later:

your union (is) daily becoming one of doctrine and opinion more than life and love, your government will become – unseen, perhaps, and unexpressed, yet – one wherein, overwhelmingly, is felt the authority of men; you will be known more by what you witness against than what you witness for…

 

Acknowledgements:  Wikipedia, Stem Publishing, Bible Truth Publishers, Plymouth Brethren Archives, and a book:  The Incredible Cover-Up, by Dave MacPherson. YouTube: The Church Impotent: Dispensationalism

 

 Thank God for the internet

 

 

 

Are the Passover, or Easter, or Foot-Washing Taught by Jesus for Christians?

The chants of the crowd in the Roman theater at Smyrna (in western Turkey) grew louder, demanding the deaths of more Christians. “Away with the atheists!” they cried, in reference to these deniers of the Roman gods. Many Christians had already been killed in the arena throughout this period of violent games. It was 155 AD. Christians were again under intense persecution.

“Let search be made for Polycarp!” they shouted, this man being, as they later called him, “the puller down of our gods, who teaches many not to sacrifice nor worship.”

After a few days, Polycarp was found and brought before the Roman magistrate in the theater. With the crowd calling for his blood, the proconsul pressed him to swear by Caesar’s spirit and curse Christ, effectively telling him, “Deny your faith, and I will set you free.”

Polycarp refused, saying: “Eighty-six years have I been His servant, and He has done me no wrong. How then can I blaspheme my King who saved me?”

The pressuring intensified, the magistrate threatening death by wild beasts or fire and again promising release if Polycarp would recant his faith.

Here was a moment of supreme testing for this aged man, who was a presiding elder in western Turkey. His home church was Smyrna, in the eastern extreme of where Christianity had penetrated.  This area was initially taught by the apostle John. Now, after John’s death, Polycarp held the post, keeping the faith of most of his disciples he was charged with. His leadership stood firm at a time when others were compromising. Most of other eastern elders followed him. Polycarp had known this moment of trial and testing of faith would come.

Let’s take a further look at this man and his setting, then return to what happened on that day—considering his final answer and what our own resolve must be. Polycarp lived in the period after the age of the original apostles—so now, without the giants of the faith, the Apostles, there were false prophets creeping in, distorting the teachings and practices Jesus delivered to the original Church. Some groups were changing, even falling into apostasy. It was a time of great internal stress for the Church.

It was also an age of martyrs, with severe pressure from outside the Church as well. Roman authorities were clamping down on any subversives who refused even token participation in emperor worship, a symbol of state loyalty.

The first disciples of Christ were Jews, but their belief in the resurrected Christ brought a clash with the mainstream Jewish faith. Christians encountered increased animosity from unbelieving Jews who felt that Christian Jews were betrayers. The addition of Gentiles to the Church made relations worse. Many of the unbelieving Jews hounded the Christians, following them around to find fault, just as they did with Jesus. Plus there was heat from the Roman authorities.  Even some of the Jews of Smyrna were among those calling for Polycarp’s death.

As a result of things like this, a growing number among the Christians were beginning to abandon all things “Jewish.” The Church began blaming Jews for killing Jesus, not focusing on how God had that as part of His plan to offer salvation to all the world through Jesus’ death. The earliest Church, even though persecuted in their day, still avoided this hatred of the Jews. They still observed the Passover and other festivals God gave to Israel, and Jesus’ Words confirmed that it was given to Gentile Christians too. Yet heretical teachings were gaining ground, being embraced by more and more nominal Christians in the Roman world—including Jewish “Christians.” Some of these were the cause of true Christians’ persecution, even martyrdom. In other words, it wasn’t just the Romans who persecuted Christians.

One of the great controversies among Christians around 150 AD was the continuing observance by Polycarp and others of the Passover, which they properly insisted keeping it on the Jewish date of the 14th of the Hebrew month of Nisan (or Abib) see Exodus 12:3, 5-8, 13-14 for an explanation of the orinal Passover:

Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house: ⁵ Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats: And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening. ⁷ And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it. ⁸ And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it…For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord.

¹³ And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt. ¹⁴ And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance forever.

Exodus tells the story of how Egypt put the Jews under slavery. God in return put plagues on them, but the pharaoh refused to free them. It ended with God sending the angel of death to Egypt’s first born. To get the angel of death to pass over the Jews, they had to slay a lamb, and put the sacrificed lamb’s blood on their doorpost, top crossbar and sides (a crude cross). They finally obtained their freedom from slavery on the 14^th of Nisan, a Jewish month (this corresponds with part of March and part of April on our calendar.) They were to celebrate their freedom every year on that date by sacrificing a lamb. The Passover meal included unleavened bread, symbolic that when pharaoh finally said “Begone!” they were to act fast, before he changed his mind. They could not take time to put in leaven and bake it and wait for it to yeast up. The blood was symbolic of the lamb that they would slay and apply the blood on the doorposts for the angel of death to pass over them when he killed the firstborn.

But now, with Jesus, Passover had many symbolisms of Christ. For instance, John the Baptist called Jesus “the Lamb of God.”  The Jews did not know it, but the Passover in Exodus foreshadowed His future death on the cross to free us from the slavery of sin. In fact, His death and shed blood by crucifixion happened exactly on a Passover day. He was crucified and giving His blood at the same time that the Jews were slaying the lamb, and offering its blood on the altar. God arranged that very date for the sacrifice of His Son. This happened in 33 AD. The Jews could see the connection, and realize, especially on His resurrection, that He was God in the flesh. But most of them never got it.

Going back to 150 AD. The church of Rome and other western congregations, because of their distaste for the Jews, abandoned Passover, and shifted to the observance of what would later be called Easter. Polycarp traveled to Rome to discuss the matter with the Roman bishop Anicetus, but the contention remained unresolved. To quote a historian at the time:

“For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp to forego the observance {in his own way}, inasmuch as these things had been always {so} observed by John the disciple of our Lord, and by other apostles with whom he had been conversant; nor, on the other hand could Polycarp succeed in persuading Anicetus to change back to Scripture, for he maintained that he was bound to adhere to the usage of the presbyters [or elders] who preceded him [in Rome]”

The matter became more heated a few decades later, when a Roman bishop suggested to excommunicate (send to hell) the eastern churches over this. (And Smyrna was in the east). But the eastern churches still kept the 14^th of Nisan date annually, to celebrate the crucifixion of Jesus. The important Council of Nicaea in 325 AD did in fact do that in writing. They exccommunicated those churches who still held to the 14th of Nisan Passover, and refused to celebrate Easter. It amounted to the Western churches excommunicating many Eastern churches. Constantine favored that, since he was a Roman emperor. He also was Pontifex Maximus, or High Priest, of the official state religion—namely, Christianity. So now the Roman church would become political. Seven hundred years later the East Church would split from the West. (These became the Orthodox Churches). Now many of their lands are overrun by Islamists or Communists. But the Eastern churches, called Orthodox, still cling to Christianity and tradition. 

History labels those who kept the Passover observance and Festival of Unleavened Bread according to the teaching handed down from the apostolic era as Quartodecimans (or “Fourteeners,” for the 14th of Nisan). Church historian Henry Chadwick writes: “There can be little doubt that the Quartodecimans were right in thinking that they had preserved the most ancient and apostolic custom. They had become heretics simply by being behind the change in culture” (The Early Church, 1967, p. 85). But that change of culture was because of the hatred of the Jews. Christians who keep a New Testament Passover today can be assured that they are holding firm to observances God instructed through the Apostles.

With that background, we return to Polycarp before the Roman proconsul. If he hadn’t been singled out because his churches observed Christ’s Passover, he might never had been put on Roman trial. Rome was not concerned with the Jews’ religious observances, but they were sensitive to insurrection. If Christians are getting riotous with themselves or Rome’s pagans (such as what happened to Polycarp), they might trump up a charge that a man might even be executed, just to get trouble out of the way. So the Romans pressed Polycarp to renounce his Christian faith under threats of execution.

This story of faith is recorded for us in greater detail in an early letter from the Smyrna congregation known as “The Martyrdom of Polycarp” (also reproduced in Eusebius’ History of the Church, both of which you can find online).

Faced with being burned alive, Polycarp said: “You threaten with fire that burns for a bit and after a little while is quenched, for you are ignorant of the fire of the future judgment and eternal punishment, which is reserved for the ungodly. But why do you delay? Come, do what you will.”

He thus stood firm in his convictions. Wood was quickly gathered, and Polycarp was tied up on the pyre. With his final prayer looking ahead to his resurrection, the fire was lit. But remarkably it billowed up around him without burning him. So an order was given to stab him through the flames, whereupon he bled to death, the fire strangely ceasing. At some agitators’ insistence, his dead body was then burned, successfully this time.

And there are lessons for us today. Faith in the Bible is under attack from many quarters. A rising tide of secular hostility to the Bible continues to mount. And it’s even harder for those who seek authentic, biblical Christianity in churches.

Would you stand up for your faith against attack, to the point of death, as Polycarp and others did? It was not just the pagan Romans who stood against them, but the misguided “Christians.” They persecuted the few who persisted in the truth about the proper Passover doctrine, and kept false doctrines instead.

Many believing Christians, and churches, celebrate “Easter” as a way to honor Jesus Christ's resurrection. But “Easter” is a day with very un-Christian roots—stretching long ago into pre-Christian paganism. (It comes from Ishtar, a fertility goddess celebrated among pagans. Rome, as typical, renamed her as Aphrodite, then later Venus). Why did the Church do this, besides getting apart from the Jews? Because, again as typical, Rome mixed pagan practices with Christian practices (called syncretism) to increase its acceptance among the pagans in the area. A bad evangelistic idea, though. We should stick with the Bible alone. It alone has the truth of Jesus' life, death and resurrection, and it shows a different set of celebrations that Jesus commanded—one of which is the Passover—that give us the real story that Easter doesn't tell us.

Most Christians are not aware that Jesus made a series of commands when He celebrated His last Passover with His disciples--commands that He directed to us, as we are His disciples too, if we want to follow His commands, to please God. Let’s learn of them, and seek a group to worship that follows this Passover command along with all the other Gospel commands—the purpose of all this is to seek to please God and to end up in heaven.

Here are the rules Jesus commanded and followed by the Apostles and the early New Testament Church (before 325 AD). These are the rules that we should follow as well.

First, there was a foot-washing of another member's feet. No, I know, you’re ready to forget this already. But this is a symbol of your willingness (a) to live counterculture and to be an evangelist, to be willing to say, “yes, I am different, because I will do whatever my Lord tells me, since He saved me from eternal death, no matter how the culture changes.” THAT testimony will gender some great questions—you can become an instant evangelist.

It is also proof that you are willing (b) to be a servant, to live humbly before the Lord. Micah 6:8 says it well:

 He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

Sure, that’s an Old Testament quote, but we should still follow the moral principles of the Old Testament. Those principles are more than just the Ten Commandments. Just not the dietary, religious rituals, mixing linens in clothing, etc.

Here is proof that foot-washing is a command for us, His continuing disciples.  After the Old Testament Passover supper was completed, He set forth new rules for His disciples, including Us. From John 13:2-5a,13-15:

And supper being ended… ³ Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God; ⁴ He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself. ⁵ After that he poureth water into a basin, began to wash the disciples' feet…

Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. ¹⁴ If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet. ¹⁵ For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.

The Greek word translated “example” is indicated in Strong’s as “copy of the thing to be imitated.” This is more than an example; it is a command, to copy what He just did. See the words ye should do as I have done to you.

 It has been argued that the other three Gospels say nothing about foot-washing, so maybe it was just for the Jews, or maybe we should ignore it for its inconsistency. But this is just an effort to hide what’s happening in context. True, the foot-washing was only in John, but that casts no aspersions on the truth of it. There are events in this Passover supper that are recorded in Luke only, such as He changes the rules about their traveling from town to town evangelizing (Luke 22:35-38). No one has questioned the truthfulness of that. Also, when you look at the four Gospels regarding Jesus' resurrection day, they tell different things. But it was a day of excitement, when there was more emotion. But they each told what they remembered. Experts have proven no inconsistencies, and when you put it all together, the day’s events can be figured out. That’s why there were four Gospels—different people telling what they remembered. As long as there are no inconsistencies, no one is lying. God made sure that, together, they remembered everything that He wanted heard. In putting doctrines, or history, or even science together, the Bible has all the facts there to make a decision in context. Nothing is left out. No one’s memory fuzzed out. It is truly God’s infallible Word.

Secondly, and this is what our paper is mainly about, we should forget Easter for reasons that I gave before, and follow Jesus’ commands on Passover. This means three things:

• We should celebrate it annually, on the day the Crucifixion happened, namely Nisan 14. We look for that date on a Jewish calendar. Then we do what Jesus did:
• Have a foot-washing ceremony; and
• We take what is called Jesus' Lord’s Supper, the unleavened bread and the wine (or juice, if you have a problem with alcohol). Scripture has it this way. From Matthew 26:25-30:

Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said. ²⁶ And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. ²⁷ And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; ²⁸ For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. ²⁹ But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom. ³⁰ And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.

Note His reference to the “new testament” in v. 28. This certified that the rules about Passover changed for us. No lamb or hyssop. Secondly, I emphasize that Jesus was not giving the disciples pieces of His body; so when He said “this is my body,” we must assume its symbolic significance. It still has great meaning, though. Unleavened bread, His body in symbolism, is stress-striped, as was Jesus’ body when the Roman guards hacked up His back with their famous flayed whip. The nails in the wrists and the feet, and the spear that He was stabbed with, and the mocking crown of thorns on His forehead, tell of His blood that was shed. Sadly, He knew in advance what would be done to Him, but He never lodged a complaint, nor suggest we were not “worth it.” He loves His followers. More than any family member or wife can. More even than our mothers. The wine was symbolic of His blood shed or us.

There is a second symbolism of unleavened bread for Christians. Leaven is a type of sin. See I Corinthians 5:7, substituting “sin” each time you read “leaven”:

Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? ⁷ Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us.

As he says, a little sin makes us sin more. Purge sin out. Do not practice a sin. All because One who knew no sin was sacrificed for us. His gifts to us are, and can be, so vast that we want to please Him. Practicing holiness will get that. With the Holy Spirit’s help we can be closer to His likeness each year. Christ’s death was a “Passover” for His believers. Believers’ sin and penalty in hell has been passed over. But we still need to confess our sins frequently to Him, and we will get better at cleaning them up.

Another advantage for this radical change in tradition—you have identified yourselves with Jews. It is an effective evangelism to them, when you take a day off work for the 14th and explain what is significant about it. The Jews will take notice. There are many of them that feel persecuted every day. They respect an ally. They may tease you for it, but if hard days come, they will come to you for advice.

There is something else that should go on in this celebration of His crucifixion: It was recorded in I Corinthians 11:23-31:

For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: ²⁴ And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do proclaim the Lord's death till he come. ²⁷ Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. ²⁸ But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. ²⁹ For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. ³⁰ For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

We are to be sober and introspective, not only because it is the suffering of Christ as our subject, but we are to “examine” ourselves. That means thinking about our sins, and how we have kept ourselves not in the perfect will of God’s commandments, and how we have grieved Him. How can we, with the help of the Holy Spirit, become holier and make God happier? Not thinking about becoming holy will make us take the Lord’s supper “unworthily,” and possibly even bring damnation to ourselves if we ignore this command regularly.

In this passage by Paul in the New Testament, by the way, echoing Jesus’ Words just before He gave His life, please note that he was speaking to Gentile Christians. This is again definite proof that the Lord’s Supper command was to be done on the anniversary of Jesus’ crucifixion for the Gentiles too.

Now I know that many of you celebrate the Lord’s Supper weekly, or monthly. Some churches only at night (they are trying for it just to be taken by the “true” Christians. Those who come at night must be the true Christians.) But these verses seem to suggest it should only be once a year, on the exact anniversary of His death. Note verse 26—as often as you do this “you proclaim the Lord’s death til’ He comes.” In your church that serve it several times each year, are you reminded of crucifixion each time? My experience doesn’t indicate that with multiple-Lord’s Supper churches. Most who quote I Corinthians 11, will only quote verses 23-25—most never make it to verse 26.

Do it on the right day, the 14th, no matter what day of the week it is. Don’t forget, He was not crucified on this day this year, and another day, another year, like we do for "Easter." For those married, how would you wives like it if your husband played games with what day he came with anniversary gifts? You would ask, “Does he not respect the day we were married? Is that day important to him or not?” Isn’t an anniversary a treasured day, that’s only once a year? Is July 4 important, that we can play with the dates? I mean, Jefferson drew it up on July 4, it’s in the heading of the Declaration—not several dates. Our Congress respects the date enough not to mess with it. 

Besides, the fact is, there is seemingly nowhere in Scripture where we are bound to a commandment to celebrate the Resurrection. I’m not saying it’s not important. But God chose the crucifixion over the resurrection for commanding us for various reasons. First, since God does not have His family in heaven yet (us), He can say the resurrection is not ready to be celebrated, with only the Trinity there. He wants to do it with all of us present, too.

Related to that, we should think longingly for that day to come, not think of it as it already is a done deal. The crucifixion is a done deal; that is what we celebrate. Romans 6:9-10 proves that:

9 For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10 The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God

Doing the right kind of Lord’s Supper cannot be a frequent thing. Since He died once, we should celebrate it once—on its anniversary. The frequency reminds me too much of the Mass. There they symbolically crucify Christ—or a vicar does--repeatedly.

That brings up another issue in the resurrection, which we are supposedly “celebrating” now.  People feel that to celebrate the crucifixion, not the resurrection, seems a wrong emphasis. Well, let me set this straight. Messing with the resurrection dates, and emphasizing sweets, like chocolate Easter bunnies and colorful eggs, is that a proper celebration of Easter as resurrection? No, I think not. Those things betray the pagan fertility rites it came from. Simply, Jesus made no command on celebrating His resurrection,

Actually, a lot of things have crept into the church sermons to get away with the “downers:” Like never talking about the fear of God, the depravity of sin that we all have, or hell, the need for holiness, or judgment. Every funeral is bidding the dead adieu to heaven—it doesn’t matter if he or she may be a liar, a fornicator, or an adulterer. We think hell is just for Hitler, or Stalin, or Pol Pot (I’m showing my age.) But those “negative” things about sin are facts too. We need to be reminded about the dangers of hell. It seems that in many churches (especially in the megachurches), all we get preached is the love of God, the unconditional “just say a prayer like this, and you’re saved forever.”

But we need to focus in on the crucifixion, to remind ourselves why it happened—our sin made it necessary. We are to examine our lives. All are worthy subjects for a true celebration: that Jesus freed us from the penalty of sin, if we believe in Him, and follow up with a loving relationship with Him. That shoildn't be too hard, for One that loves us like that.

So, in summary, after this long paper, I’m suggesting three things that are major changes that you should do:

• Celebrate the crucifixion, as commanded, on the proper day: Nisan 14 on the Jewish calendar.
• Do a foot-washing;
• And, after a self-examination quiet time, give the Lord’s Supper, unleavened bread (sorry, the Styrofoam stuff doesn’t fly) and wine (or juice, for the forbearing), once a year.
• Forget Easter. Your kids should, of course, be taught about the Lord's resurrection.

Got that? Now, you influential people and elders: Urge your church to betray tradition in honor of Scripture. Study up to be an effective apologetic, because there will be much moaning and groaning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Raising Christian Children

 Training our children in godliness is perhaps the most important job we parents have. Churches offer little real help, actually, nor are they meant to—it’s the parents’ job.  Caution:  The application of God’s rules below are not meant to be formulaic, but the speaker has found it to work surprisingly well on his own children.  Some of these instructions appear harsh, but he cites Scriptural reasons for each.  So I plead with you to obey God and trust that He will give you and your children growth into godliness as we obey His Word—as exactly as we can.  God’s Word is being ignored by both Christian and non-Christian today.  It’s too easy to “go with the flow,” but God urges us to be separate from the world.  Just because they’re too often raising sons of the devil is no excuse for you to follow their example.

Let’s start with Ephesians 6:1-4:

Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. ² “Honor your father and mother,” which is the first commandment with promise: ³ “that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth.”  ⁴ And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord.

The discipleship of our children involves three phases:

First, the discipline training phase—crucial in the first few years of a child’s life.  In this phase, we are saying, “Child, give me your attention.”  Of course, when the baby first comes home, we are giving that baby much more attention.  But at some point, that must change.  We have ways of telling that child, “Your survival has been secured; so from this point on, you must pay a lot more attention to us.”  If we don’t do that, we raise egocentric, narcissistic, spoiled beasts—and that’s not what we’re after here.  God is serious about this, as we read in I Samuel 3:11-14 about Eli, a Levite, or priestly official who performed worship services associated with public worship, including assisting priests, guarding the temple, playing music, and serving as temple officials. But--his sons were lazy gluttons who mistreated the food and people who supplied the  animals brought for sacrifice. To scorn God this way ultimately led them to an early death:

Then the Lord said to Samuel: “Behold, I will do something in Israel at which both ears of everyone who hears it will tingle. ¹² In that day I will perform against Eli all that I have spoken concerning his house, from beginning to end. ¹³ For I have told him that I will judge his house forever for the iniquity which he knows, because his sons made themselves vile, and he did not restrain them. ¹⁴ And therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever.”

God has given parents authority and responsibility about raising your children by His Word.  Remember, think of you training your child between the ages of nine months to three years as you read below.

John Wesley’s comment on these verses point to the parents: “…they who can and do not restrain others from sin make themselves share in the guilt.  Those in authority will have a great deal to answer for if that sword they bear be not a terror to evildoers.”

Our natural tendency in this culture is to never spank: “Well, they’re just kids and they have their own minds.”  But we’re talking about sin here. It’s like if a crime is committed but the policeman does nothing-- our response is to place some blame on the police officer.  We would think, “You had the badge, you had the charge to stop the sin from happening, and you did nothing.”  That’s why God is holding up Eli to a fearful judgment: “he did not restrain them.”  And that is what God can hold us parents accountable to.  Are we supposed to halt all the sin of our children? No; but we have the call to restrain the sin we see.  The policeman is guilty if he wipes his hands and says, “Eh, just crooks acting as they were raised.”  That’s the point. And we are guilty if we say, “Eh, toddlers.”  Or, “Eh, teens.”

Here is a word from Jonathan Edwards: (not restraining your children) “is a sign that you have brought up your children without government, that your children regard not your authority…this is the fountain of so much later debauchery and of such corrupt practices among young people.”

Family government in our country is in a great measure extinct, by neglect of Scripture and ignoring the judgment of God.  We must proclaim “Thus saith the Lord” to our child to avoid guilt.  Without it, the untrained children grow up with more sin which they will be accountable for in judgment; and so will parents as well.

God made the command that “Children obey your parents in the Lord,” so we should consider disobedience (not doing what we say) as sin.  The child may learn nuances of disobedience, too, and we should expose them and flush them out.  We’re speaking of two more areas.  First, if they delay in doing what we ask till doing it when they feel like it (which can be a passive aggressive rebellion), OR if they are not respectful—you must force them to be accountable to Scripture that says “honor your father and your mother.”  So if they do it with wailing, or, later, head-wagging, stomping feet, slamming door, they have still violated the 5^thcommandment.  These expressions are wrong, and unacceptable. Come down on the child with punishment if they break any of the three of what “obedience” really is.

This may be hard in the first three years of a child’s life—he/she seems so innocent.  But the very young child learns to test you in many way.  Remember, you’re not the child’s friend—you’re his parent, with God-given responsibilities. The real meaning of love is: showing him what God expects.  It’s not as important to develop your child’s reading, or creativity, as it is to teach them to obey, when to obey, and with respect.

Once the child is learning this, then we are really ready for the second phase, teaching.  We will call this “catechism,” not because we’re Catholic, but because the word has a broader meaning—it’s teaching, by means of questions and answers that the child learns.  This begins when the child is verbal—between the ages of 3 to 4—and continues on past adolescence Keep in mind your goal, for them to respond to God’s Word. BUT it’s tough to catechize a disobedient child.

Continuing on, two things to avoid in the first phase: Inconsistency between parents—i.e. mom has one standard of obedience, dad has another.  They send mixed messages to the child, confusing him.  Or, the child learns to play off one against another to get what he wants—he manipulates them.  That builds up his ego in a sinful way. Inconsistency also is, when we’re at home we have one standard, but when we’re out, where we don’t want to be embarrassed, we have another.  The child learns when to act up and be more successful in getting what he wants—another sinful thing to learn. Then, you remove the child from public display. Then you take the child to a private place, and give him the same treatment that you would at home.

The second thing to avoid: Anger.  Well, you might ask,” doesn’t it produce a fear of being disobedient in the child?  Not a good result.”

Well, what about James 1:20:

…the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God.

I want my children to obey me because they honor me, and honor the position that God has placed me in.  There’s also the problem that if the husband yells, and the child responds, what will the child do with the wife’s lighter voice, who isn’t scary?  They might ignore her; but children need to respect and respond to both in the same way.  In this phase, we want to win our children’s hearts; anger doesn’t do that. Using anger doesn’t trust God.

Thirdly, avoid contradiction.  Like yelling “YOU BE KIND TO YOUR BROTHER!”  Or like saying, “Johnny, put down that toy.  I’ll give you to three; 1…2…”  Or, by repeating yourself ten times.  The point is, Johnny knows when you’re on your last nerve, and won’t obey you till he hears that special frustrated tone.  See, by doing these, you’re teaching that child delayed obedience, one of the three aspects of disobedience.  So we’re really coaching Johnny to sin. Doing that means I’m flexing his sin-muscle.

By the way, Johnny might not have heard me right, so the way I test that is, when he doesn’t do what I ask, I approach him with my spanking tool (the rod of correction), and if he jumps up, Busted!  He was, indeed, disobedient.  But instead he might look quizzical, and say, “What did I do?”  Then you can repeat the part he didn’t hear.

If you’re wary of spanking, remember that the child is resilient, and will get over it quickly.  (If they wail that you’ve almost killed them, that’s just another technique they have to change your mind.  If you stick by your standards, and ignore them when they wail-- that will fade away.  Their standard is, “whatever works.”)  Think of this, too:  we thank God for the beautiful grace He gives to our child—namely, they have a great desire to please us.  You put something on the refrigerator that they did, or just say, “y-a-a-ay” when they do it right, and with plenty of hugs all around, that child will light up and smile so big that it looks like it will break their face.  God gives them that.  Build that up too.

You should show and teach your children. Too few parents actually show the child how to do something.  Some say, it’s too frustrating, they make too many mistakes.  Well, take your time, be patient, they can learn one thing at a time.  So you’ll sit down for several sessions. Even something you think they automatically know, like “sharing”—don’t assume. You can’t just sit your child down next to another child, and then ask them to “share.” You need to teach the child how to share, that it’s a “win-win” situation.  You sit down, tell them “We’re going to play the sharing game,” and then give one child a toy, then comment favorably when the child smiles, or uses the toy. Then show how the child gives the toy to another.  But you comment unfavorably if another child tries to take it away, or hogs it.

Or, say a child is too shy to greet people (these are people you know, of course).  They hide behind mama’s leg. So you teach “greeting.”  Show them how: we stand up, we look them in the eye, we extend our hand and shake firmly. We encourage our kids, we repeat the steps over and over.

Now you have to assume rebellion, so then it’s time to apply correction.  I mean, please spank your children—early and often.  For those who say, “I only had to spank her maybe twice her whole life.”  Really?  Are you raising Jesus?  No, I suspect that’s not very active parenting.  For those who say, “Just reprove them.  Spanking is not necessary.”  Go ahead and lay that rule down—so you are wiser than King Solomon—or, actually, wiser than God.  Because HE best knows and loves His creatures, and His commandment is in Prov. 13:24:

He who spares his rod hates his son,
But he who loves him disciplines him promptly.

And Prov. 19:18:

Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying

Do you really think you love your child more than God?  No. Follow His rules to truly love your child.  We mistakenly believe that our children will love us more if we don’t spank.  Well, that’s a selfish motive to begin with.  Truth is, and studies agree, that if you don’t spank your children, they will even get to where they despise you. They will not respect you.  You may believe Dr. Spock or Dr. Oprah or Dr. Phil, but you refuse to believe God.  That’s called idolatry.  There are many Old Testament views on where that leads you. Do you ever let your child be vaccinated (I’m not talking about the untested Covid vaccine)?  Well, that hurts too, right?  If your child could get one of these horrible bacteria, you’re willing to allow your child to be temporarily hurt to forego that.  But you know, too, don’t you, that because of the Fall, every child already has a venom, called sin. Sin is poison. The rod of correction is part of the anti-venom. Remember Eli.

You may not believe Proverbs 22:15:

Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child;
The rod of correction will drive it far from him

But you are perhaps are denying that Solomon was writing under the influence of the Holy Spirit.  Denying God’s Words, as a regular thing, will get you a lot of places at the Judgment Seat—just not heaven.  So if you regularly follow the culture, or follow the majority… beware the destination (Matthew 7:13, 14).

Another reason we don’t spank is because we think it “child abuse.”  Yes, the world is getting closer to the day that if your child is spanked, and reports it to authorities, let’s say at school, you will be hauled off to jail. Then the child gets the ultimate payback for thwarting his narcissism. Let’s pray that doesn’t happen.  Until that day, we should be in the business of following God, not the perverted culture.  Did you know that when some parent is put away for child abuse, it’s more likely that they’re paying a price for NOT following God’s commandments?  How’s that, you say.  Sometimes, a parent who doesn’t spank has a wild child on their hands, and the child has taken the parent to the very last nerve with constant disobedience.  When the parent snaps, and whales on the child, leaving bruises on the arms or legs, that’s abuse…because the parent was NOT following God’s plan.  Spanking should be done without anger.  The child is first quietly told what his sin was, that Christ had to die because of sins like the one he had committed, that God loves him, and gave him parents that love and correct him.  Then after the spanking (which should hurt), the parent embraces the child, and the child is reconciled—and the parent should not bring it up again—because that’s a sign that reconciliation didn’t happen.  The parent would be a liar.  The child will recognize that what he is hitting his head against is a rock, called God’s Truth.  This is not about my relationship with the child—I have clearly let him know that I love him.  It’s not personal; I’m doing this because it’s my duty as a parent under God.  I want the best for you—and that’s following His instruction. What happens if my child resists reconciliation? (Holding a grudge is another attempt at getting his way—another act of rebellion). Then you have to spank him again.

Don’t miss the spankings just because you’re tired, or feel that the child (or you) is getting worse with these methods, or the child is uncorrectable. You may have to use “tag-team” with the other spouse administering correction if the child is not getting it. (If the child seems to have other issues that cause a spate of uncharacteristic unruliness, try to get them to bring it up—but if they don’t, you must proceed with correction). It is seen that as long as we deal with disobedience regularly, the less likely that we’ll have those frustrating moments. These are all phase one of lifting your child to God.

May God lead us in our most important job.

Acknowledgement: Voddie Baucham, Sermon on “The Importance of Biblically Disciplining Children”

 

Note: There can be no greater model for child-rearing than Susanna Wesley, mother of John Wesley, the great founder of Methodism. Through his perseverance (he traveled an estimated 250,000 miles on horseback), there was a great Revival in England that turned people to the Lord, and that in turn birthed social reforms as well. Susanna was the youngest daughter and the twenty-fifth child of the distinguished Puritan minister, Dr. Samuel Annesley. Her methodical and renowned approach can be seen in these words she penned about raising her ten children (nine more did not survive infancy—typical mortality of the day). Keep in mind, she home-schooled all her children. She also lived in poverty (but never regretted it), since her husband, Samuel, had contracted income of only 60 pounds a year, but he had time to be a rector (the head clergyman of a parish; he led religious services, delivered sermons, and oversaw parish affairs, while also playing a role in the social and civil life of the community, including overseeing births, deaths, and marriages). She did have one to two servants, usually white children whose parents lent approval, who were trustworthy and reliable (except one, which accidently smothered her child). They cost very little, since their earnings were mostly food and a roof over their heads.  Here are her words:

The children were always placed in a structured routine from birth in all things suitable to their age, such as dressing and undressing. The first three months generally passed in sleep; after that, they were, if possible, laid into their cradle awake, and rocked to sleep—remaining so until it was time for them to wake. This method was used to establish regular sleeping patterns--which initially were three hours in the mornings, and three in the afternoon, then reduced to two, until no naps were needed, by the age of one, or sooner. They were taught to fear the rod, and to cry softly; thus avoiding much correction, and that dreadful noise of crying, which was rarely heard in the house. The family usually lived in as much quietness as if no child were among them. As soon as they were reasonably strong, they were limited to three meals a day. At dinner, their small table and chairs were placed beside ours where they could be supervised. They were allowed to eat and drink as much as they wanted, but were not permitted to ask for anything. They were never allowed to choose their food, but were made to eat whatever was served to the family. At 6:00, following family prayer, they had their supper by 7. Then they were bathed, starting with the youngest, then dressed them, and got them all to bed in their nightshirts by 8. They were left in their respective rooms awake; as it was not allowed in our house to sit by a child, until it fell asleep. They were so accustomed to taking what was given to them that if any of them were ill, there was no trouble in getting them to take unpleasant medicine. They dared not refuse it. They quickly learned that they could not have anything they cried for, and were taught to ask politely for what they wanted. They were not permitted to ask even the lowest servant for anything without saying “please give me such-a-thing.” And the servant was reproved if she allowed them to omit that word.

There were several additional rules we observed which I believed to be useful. First, we noticed that fear of punishment often leads children to lie; eventually forming a habit that is difficult to break. To prevent this, a rule was made: if a child confessed a fault honestly, and promised to amend, they would not be punished. This rule reduced lying considerably. Second, no sinful action, such as lying, stealing, playing at church on the Lord’s day, or disobedience, or quarreling--was ever allowed to go unpunished. Third, no child was to be scolded or beaten twice for the same fault; and if they amended, they would not be reproached for it afterward. If any child performed an act of obedience, or did something to please, even if it were imperfectly done, the intention was kindly received, and the child was gently guided on how to do better in the future. That promise was to be strictly observed, and a gift once given was to be not taken back.

As I said, a great model to use today. It clearly worked then, with John—and let’s not forget, his musician brother, Charles (my favorite was “And Can It Be?”)—being the proven results of godly child-rearing. I can’t tell you how strongly I feel about home-schooling as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Modern Culture Has New Ways to Persecute the Church

  

(This was written in 2022—update follows)

 Most people don't scroll through their Twitter feed thinking a few simple clicks will change their life. But for Birmingham Pastor Chris Hodges, a handful of "likes" were all it took to make the biggest church in Alabama disappear from there.

 

A little explanation is in order here:  You can lose your lease a lot of ways -- if you fall behind on payments, abuse the property, or follow conservative media. Like most people Chris Hodges probably didn't think a quick tap of support for posts on Donald Trump or China's role in the coronavirus would amount to much of anything.

 

Turns out, he was wrong. A local English teacher decided to catalogue Hodges's "likes" and share them with the press (how did she get access to that? Hmm.) Little did anyone know, it would be the beginning of the end of the church's services at two local high schools.

"I do not attend Church of the Highlands," teacher Jasmine Clisby said openly. And, she insisted, "I can't see into Pastor Chris Hodges's heart." But his support for what she considered "culturally insensitive" views is "troubling." "I would be upset if it comes off as me judging him," she said without a hint of irony. "I'm not saying he's a racist." But thanks to her smear campaign, the Birmingham Board of Education, effectively, is saying that.

On Tuesday night, members voted to abruptly terminate the church's lease -- ending a six-year relationship that brought the city almost a million dollars in revenue. Thanks to this ridiculous complaint, Parker and Woodlawn High Schools will no longer be home to a diverse congregation of 60,000.

 

But unfortunately for the needy people of Alabama, that's just the beginning. Because of this manufactured controversy, the church's Christ Health Clinic will also be banned from operating, according to the Birmingham Housing Authority, who also decided Monday to ban volunteer workers.

 

"Commissioners agreed," their statement said, "that Pastor Hodges's views do not reflect those of [the Housing authority] and its residents... HABD and Campus of Hope staff will continue to work with other faith-based organizations in the community to identify resources that will replace the services that were provided."

Starting immediately, the church is banned from the city's public housing communities. That means the church will not be able to give out free COVID testing, no more free mentoring, health, or social service ministry -- all because Pastor Chris dared to do what millions of Americans do every day: engage on social media.

Even more incredibly, both councils went ahead with these tactics despite the pastor's sincere apologies -- which, in most people's opinion, weren't even necessary! And yet, Pastor Hodges did the humble and gracious thing, telling his congregation -- and the community -- that he was sorry for any hurt he'd caused. He called it a mistake. He said he owned it. He pledged to never mindlessly scroll again and explained how he was trying to use his influence to heal the hurts of these difficult times.

 

None of that mattered to the opposition, who not only ignored Pastor Chris' work in their neighborhoods but the church's standing in the minority community. At least a third of the Highlands' congregations are black and Hispanic.

If anything, Hodges was respected for fighting for the disenfranchised, for preaching about healing and reconciliation. As recently as last Sunday, he called the city to mutual understanding, peace, and prayer. But in this "cancel culture," those 20 years of bridge-building don't matter to those bent on burning down any platform but their own.

And unfortunately for Birmingham, their intolerance doesn't just affect the Church of the Highlands. It affects many hurting neighborhoods, who leaned on Church of the Highlands for help it couldn't get anywhere else.

These are the same people the opposition wants us to believe they care about: the children, minorities, and poor. But in the end, we know -- they'll always care about punishing Christians more. We've seen it in the adoption debate, the foster care debate, even the virus outreach. Now, to no one's surprise, they're willing to let Birmingham families suffer over a handful of "likes."

 

Imagine if we held everyone by that standard. If we combed through these public servants' accounts, what would we find? Political objectivity, or the bias and bitterness that's led to these baseless attacks? "I would love for you," Pastor Hodges urged, "to not just look at a microscopic zoom-in but look at the totality of 37 years of ministry and 19 years as a church. If you look at that, it will be abundantly clear that we value every person."

 

Unfortunately for Birmingham and so many others, the persecutors cannot say the same.

 

Acknowledgements:  The Family Research Council, and Prophecy News Watch

 

Update: Church of the Highlands is still around, but in five other campuses in or around Birmingham, including its gigantic auditorium (which, in seating capacity, is tied with Joel Osteen’s Lakewood auditorium in Houston, TX). Chris Hodges has stepped down from lead pastor, but is still an Elder along with several others. They also have Highlands College, a ministry training school, along with local ministries, such as AA and NA, etc.

 

There is still controversy: Robert Morris, a Texas megachurch pastor who was also an overseer (and part-time speaker) at Church of the Highlands, was accused of sexual misconduct with a child for years in Texas in 2024. He resigned his position as overseer at Church of the Highlands, and they are instituting a due diligence process on him.

 

So parties on both for, and against Christianity, have proven what we all knew--we are all sinners, and need to avoid hell, the just place for our sins. Jesus talked about hell quite a bit, including the statement (Matthew 7:13ff) that the majority of people would go there. People have deceived themselves. I have many blogs on this obviously important subject.