Is the God of the Old Testament the Same as the God of the New Testament?

Is The God of the Old Testament Different From the God of the 

New Testament?

If we were to take a poll on this question, even among people who claim to be Christian, I suspect they would answer “yes.”  The reason, I think, is emotional.  They think God in the Old Testament is mean-spirited and bloody, and they don’t want that kind of God judging them in the last day.  They would prefer Jesus doing the judging, since He was a healer, wasn’t afraid to be with sinners, and defended the common people against the evil Pharisees.  The good guy, right?  

But we’re here to study Scripture, not just emotional response.  Scripture is God’s voice of unchanging truth to us.  It contains the rules.  Listen to it.  We begin with the truth that God doesn’t change, James 1:17:

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.

So, God doesn’t change, or “evolve,” from Old to New Testaments.

Yes, it is true that He has covenants by which He deals with different people in different promises.  But it is an oversimplification to argue that the Covenant of Law in the Old Testament means He dealt harshly with sin, while the Covenant of Grace in the New Testament "says" that He ignores sin if you accept Jesus.  Life is not that simple; as I have argued in another series of blogs (Escaping Hell—Faith or Works, or Both?).  It is necessary to obey Christ’s commands (which go well beyond the Ten Commandments) to continue as saved.  You must abide in Christ, as was presented in John 15:1-10.  So God doesn’t ignore sin like some might hope, in the New Testament.  On the other hand, He can be forgiving in the Old Testament—and in the New.  He can send you to Hell for unrepented sin—in the New Testament as in the Old.  As Paul argues (Romans 4), Abraham, an obviously Old Testament guy, was saved by staying close to God through faith in His commands through trials.  Same rule as the New Testament. 

Many people have these countervailing feelings, I’ll call them “biases,” about the Old and New Testament.  Let me try to balance both of them out.  We'll see the forgiving, loving God in the Old Testament, and the harshness toward people with unrepentant sin in the New Testament.  We’ll start by looking at God’s mercy in the Old Testament.  Let’s begin with Numbers 14:18-19, where Moses is interceding for the sinful people of Israel: 

‘The Lord is longsuffering and abundant in mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression; but He by no means clears the guilty…¹⁹ Pardon the iniquity of this people, I pray, according to the greatness of Your mercy, just as You have forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now.”

If you read the Pentateuch (first 5 books of the Old Testament) carefully, the children of Israel traveling in the desert had one miracle after another shown to them (the plagues, the Passover, Pharaoh’s army washed out, manna, etc  etc).  Yet they still didn’t trust God or Moses for leadership.   God redeemed them, even though they didn’t deserve it. But they had to do their part of the work; they had to rely on Him--and Isn’t that the same story in the New Testament?  Jesus was completely innocent, yet He was killed by Gentiles and Jews.  Yet His redemption, and heaven, are available!  Yet there are conditions--which most people have missed.

Consider Ezekiel 18:20-24, another Old Testament passage:

The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son….²¹ “But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. ²² None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live. ²³ Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord God, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live? ²⁴ “But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die.

These verses explain, first of all, that God does not carry a grudge against a sinful man’s son or his grandson.  The sins that the father unfortunately taught his son, the son tends to copy. But God holds against them individually.  Secondly, God loves repentance (v. 21:  “turns from”).  If you repent, and live righteously, He will forgive you and forget your earlier sin.  This theme of repentance is repeated in the New Testament.  But if you were first righteous, then became set in sin, He forgets the earlier days too--that means Hell for that person.  (Keep in mind when you read:  “live” means heaven, “die” is Hell.)  And this theme is repeated in the New Testament, where we are urged to continue abiding in Him and not fall away.  Falling away, failing to abide, means Hell (John 15:1-10).  The words from this Old Testament passage that I want to inspire you with are in v. 23:  “Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord God.  God does not love to send people to hell.  But the majority go there because they are disobedient or care nothing for God or His commandments (Matthew 7:13-14).

You must read this self-description of God.  You can see that He is merciful in Exodus 34:5-10, the Old Testament:

Now the Lord descended in the cloud and stood with him (ed., Moses) there, and proclaimed the name of the Lord. ⁶ And the Lord passed before him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, ⁷ keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children to the third and the fourth generation.” ⁸ So Moses made haste and bowed his head toward the earth, and worshiped.⁹ Then he said, “If now I have found grace in Your sight, O Lord, let my Lord, I pray, go among us, even though we are a stiff-necked people; and pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us as Your inheritance.”  And He said: “Behold, I make a covenant. Before all your people I will do marvels such as have not been done in all the earth

Isn’t it great that God calls Himself “merciful, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness?”  Thank you God!  Now keep in mind, these blessed words happened immediately after their sin of Israel making a golden calf idol.  Yet God here proclaimed His longsuffering mercy.  Don’t get the idea that God ignored their sin; notice the phrase, "by no means clearing the guilty."  Soon after this, He set a plague against the guilty ones--but He also set up a tabernacle of meeting where He showed Himself to Moses, and renewed His Covenant with the Jews.  

So….I hope I balanced out your image of God that you may have felt was a  “Grudge God” in the Old Testament. 

So let’s balance things out in the New Testament now.  Was Jesus all-forgiving in the New Testament?  Was He as nonjudgmental as it seems, since we like to remember when He forgave the woman in adultery, and entertained sinners?  And when He scoffed at the law, as defined by the Pharisees?  Here I would like to quote David Limbaugh, author of Jesus on Trial, about the Gospel of Mark:

Jesus tells people to repent.  He tells people to quit their jobs and follow him.  He tells a demon to shut up.  After He heals a leper, He swears him to silence, too.  Then He picks a fight with Sunday School teachers, He tells His mom He’s busy, He rebukes the wind, He kills two thousand pigs, “he offends people but doesn’t go to sensitivity training.”  He calls people hypocrites (ed, this is spoken to regular people, not just the scribes or Pharisees), and seems to call Peter Satan.  He curses and kills a tree, He tells people they’re going to hell, and He rebukes the disciples for falling asleep on Him.  

Not exactly the view of Him in your mind, I suspect.  Upon careful reading of all the Gospels, you’ll see that Jesus had a lot to say about hell--a subject we avoid.  In Matthew 6:15, He told people God would not forgive them if they didn’t forgive people.  In Luke 16, He tells of a man is on his way to hell, with no reason explicitly given for it.  One can only surmise it was because he, a rich man, repeatedly ignored a poor man in his daily path, begging for bread (for further proof of that idea, see James 2:15-17). In Matthew 11:23, He pronounces judgment on an entire city (Capernaum) because they did not believe in Him.  He predicts their judgment will be worse than Sodom (which reeked of rapist homosexuals).  In Matthew 5:30, He recommends that we take extreme measures to prevent sinning, lest we go to hell.  In Matthew 23 He calls scribes and Pharisees hypocrites, a brood of vipers, and sons of hell.   He asks them, “How can you escape the condemnation of hell?” 

Lest you think His harsh judgmental words were for the scribes and Pharisees only, He has an extensive argument stretching over three chapters (John 6-8) that begins by telling all the Jewish people they must eat his flesh and drink His blood.  He tells his brothers that the world hated Him because “I testify of it that its works are evil.”  A rather cynical view of people.   He tells all those listening that “none of you keeps the law.”  He tells them that “He who sent Me is true, whom you do not know.”  He tells them “I go to Him who sent me…and where I am you cannot come.”  He tells all of them “you do not know where I come from and where I am going….You know neither Me nor My Father….you will seek me, and will die in your sin….You are from beneath…you are of this world..you do not believe that I am He…you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you.  …you do not hear, because you are not of God…you have not known Him…And if I say, ‘I do not know Him,’ I shall be a liar like you…you are not able to listen to My word.  I speak what I have seen with My Father, and you do what you have seen with your father… You are of your father the devil.

I hope you’re as surprised as I was, when I first really read those words.  Jesus the bare-knuckler.

I’m not being sarcastic when I say, in faith, that He is The Master Teacher, and knew the right evangelistic skills. He wasn’t just blowing them off, out of anger.  His approach, I suspect, is:  He forces them to make a decision about Him—do you believe I am God, no matter what I say?  Do you believe that I hate sin so much that I am willing to use harsh language to wake people up?  Or am I going to make you so angry that you’ll rage within, “I hate you!”-- and reveal your own condemnation to yourself?  No lukewarm preaching here.  No one skids blissfully to hell on ignorance (such as is happening in today's "preaching").  If you were for Him, you were a hated lunatic, just like He was made to be.  He was killed because He was too radical for them. Yet He and His followers evangelized thousands and turned the world upside down--so His "tough love" method worked.  What does that say for us, and our evangelistic methods?  His method of talking about sin and hell definitely would not work in seeker-friendly churches.

These three chapters in John 6-8 also have His discussion with the adulterous woman.  The woman was repentant, so Jesus forgave her.  But, a lot of people forget, He also said, “Go, and sin no more.”  And He scoffed at the Pharisee “laws” because they were not God’s laws, but man’s laws--“supplements” to God’s law—often a burden.  Such as their not wanting Jesus to heal people on the Sabbath.

Thus, Jesus is no milquetoast, and He doesn’t display the PC words for today—“tolerant and nonjudgmental.”  

Now I hope I balanced the New Testament like I did with the Old.  Thus, since the "rough" Jesus is also God, this is the same God, with the same qualities—love and a hatred of sin—occupying both Testaments.  Judgment and hell hang over each of us from the day of our accountability.  God provided a way of redemption for you, to get rid of the penalty and power of sin.  In careful Scripture reading, especially the Master Teacher in the Gospels, with an eye to getting a comprehensive view, you can find your way to heaven.  Good luck—keep in mind, few people are interested.  They just assume they’re “good enough.”  Let Matthew 7:13-14 ring in your ears, and try to make it ring in their ears:

  “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.  

Yes, the New Testament tells us that few find their way to heaven.  Be one of the few.

Acknowledgement:  David Limbaugh, Jesus on Trial

Refugees Are Not the Bad Guys

JAN 26, 2017 AND UPDATED

REFUGEES, EVANGELICALS

Dear Fellow Christians: It's Time to Speak Up for Refugees

If we are pro-life, we are pro-refugee. |

Ed Stetzer

Ben White / CAFOD

On September 28, 2017, an announcement was made for the upcoming fiscal year (Oct.1, 2017-Sept 30, 2018).  President Donald Trump plans to admit no more than 45,000 refugees from around the world in fiscal year 2018, a significant drop from the cap of 110,000 set for 2017 by predecessor Barack Obama.  We think this is a tragic decision.

“Most refugees from the Middle East are women and children who have suffered the assaults of ISIS terrorists and civil war,” said National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) president Leith Anderson, in a statement opposing Trump’s impending order. “We have the opportunity to rescue, help, and bless some of the world’s most oppressed and vulnerable families.”

It is not wrong to be wise and cautious. And part of President Trump’s plan is, I think, wise. But...too much of the policy is driven by unfounded fear of refugees.  Yes, it is to be expected that terrorist attacks around the world and in our country, including the Orlando and San Bernardino shootings, would cause all of us to pause long enough to consider what kind of world we live in and how best to ensure safety for ourselves and our families.

But those were not refugees.

Real Facts about Refugees

There is a 1 in 3.64 billion per year chance that you will be killed by a refugee-turned-terrorist in a given year. If those odds concern you, please do not get in a bathtub, car, or even go outside, which have equal odds of harm. For contrast, there were 762 tragic murders in Chicago alone last year compared to 0 people who were killed last year (or ever since the mid-70s) by a refugee-perpetrated terrorist attack.

But as I say in my article in the Washington Post:

Fear is a real emotion, and it can cause us to make decisions we wouldn’t have otherwise made. Fear leads us to fix our eyes inward instead of on the ‘other.’ But, as I’ve written before, at the core of who we are as followers of Christ is a commitment to care for the vulnerable, the marginalized, the abused, the wanderer. And fear cannot replace that core—as a matter of fact, we are the ones who proclaim that we have hope rather than fear.

Today, millions of people have had to flee home, safety, family, and livelihood due to threats of violence. In fact, according to the UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, 1 in every 113 people in our world today has been forcibly displaced from their homes. And each of these have names and faces and lives and stories.

I go into lengthier detail if you read the full article in the Washington Post as to how we are to respond to this recent ban on refugees. I deeply believe that this is propitious moment for action in which God is calling us to be the people He has called us to be in hard, but life-changing ways.

Banning is the Wrong Decision

If America bans refugees, it makes a statement to the world that we don’t want to make. It is the picture of someone who sits, arms crossed and turned away, with a raised eyebrow and a ready attack on the helpless, the homeless, the broken.

We must do better.

My friend Scott Arbeiter, President of World Relief, says this about the impact of the proposed Executive Order: “Most refugees are women and children.  This kind of order keeps families separated, and punishes people who are themselves fleeing the terror we as a nation are rightly fighting to end.”

Scott and I are not alone. Last year, more than 100 evangelical leaders, including Rich Stearns, Stephan Bauman, Jo Anne Lyon, Frank Page, Alton Garrison, Jamie Aten, and Sue Elworth, signed a statement which says, in part, “We will not be motivated by fear but by love for God and others.”

Let’s Speak Up, Fellow Christians

There is no more critical time than now for God’s people to instead turn towards the helpless, the homeless, the broken, with open arms and hearts, ready to pour out every ounce of love we can muster.

Sure, conversations with our neighbors are sometimes hard as we express our solidarity with the refugee and those who are broken and in need of safety and dignity, but we must pursue what is right anyway. We are pro-life, but we must remember all that entails, from conception to death and each moment in between.

I am pro-life—and that includes for refugees. Recently, many of us focused on the unborn, and rightly so, but I’m also here to stand up for the born, made-in-God’s-image, refugee as well.

God help us be the people He’s called us to be in this generation, in this moment.  In the meantime, #WeWelcomeRefugees.

Acknowledgement:  Christianity Today

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.” This says the man is the head of the home.  This is affirmed by v. 7, where the man does not cover his head, but she does, since covering is a sign of an umbrella of protection--from him. V. 5 says that women could lead in a prayer, or prophesy in church, in their weekly meetings.  The earliest church had services which encouraged 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.”  Prophecy 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. Vv 5-7  says that a woman should have her head covered in service.  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; they seem weird when first looked upon. 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.  They realized that head coverings were a symbol of women's acknowledgement of this truth.  So the way they avoided controversy was by assuming that women obeyed the truth of this Scripture and did not need a head covering to show that fact. But many women, even in this Plymouth Brethren church, refused to cover, perhaps had no idea what the covering was for, and "followed" their man like the average woman in secular society.

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.

          V. 34 gives the women’s role: “they are to be submissive,”  as 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

V. 34-35  “Let your women keep silent in the churches…”  Yet we saw above that women could pray or prophesy in church.  What this verse means, then is that in accordance with submissiveness, women were not to be teachers or take on any speaking sermons, or leadership role.  Again, there’s that word “shame” if she disrespects that.  

    V. 36-37  Paul’s tough words here suggests that the Corinthian church was in violation of this; he considers it a challenge to his getting inspiration from God.  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. 

Now, 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?  Don't ask me to be around if anyone is 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.

V. 9-10 The women are urged to be “modest” in their apparel, with “propriety” (another version reads “discreetness”).  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. So the men hopefully could look at them for their spiritual beauty, instead of being attracted by worldly lust. Unfortunately, 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 keening and whining would be big and the youth group would be small.  You’ve got to be “sexy,” says the modern young women. Youth group leaders should do everything they can to disabuse that thought and train the opposite. 

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. 

V. 14 The fact that Adam was not deceived doesn’t actually speak well of him, I think. By the way, I'm not suggesting that his being un-deceived means he didn't sin; future verses make heavy consequences on him for his sin.  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.  Keep in mind that all this was brand new, and she didn't know what capabilities God had created each creature with--maybe some creatures He created could talk.  Satan might have looked like an elegant upraised shining light when speaking with her.  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).  

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.

V. 1-2  One side 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.

V 1-2 Wives are to “be submissive,” be in “chaste conduct,” (no flirting) and “accompanied by fear.” This is NOT fear of the husband; it is a fear of God's judgment on sin, enough to cause her to submit herself to His commands.  I have a blog on “Fear of God” that point out that this attitude is beneficial to the possessor. 

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 the beauty you show because you are gentle, was an adornment to God.

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, emphasizes submissiveness, being under his headship—that quality is stressed every single time. Thus it is a crystal clear commandment of God.  But, in all honesty, it is never stressed in sermons, or else watered down beyond all efficacy.  This subject 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 at home.  This results in fights over leadership, and marriage is stressful.  A family with two heads (especially working heads) doesn’t work in a situation, let's say,  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.   Divorce is never the best solution; it is 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 verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible?  That phrase means, every and all words 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, un-damaging 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 meaning 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.   Would you reject that intense love?  You say 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, in this subject.

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 that are "culturally relevant," that means you are judging God.  You are a better judge of what’s moral than God?  

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, since this one is important, and the solution seems obvious--never mind what Scripture commands.  But this is sin; this is doing the same thing Eve did, doubting the goodness of God.    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.

The role of women outlined here is clear--and it is a commandment of God.  So does I John 2:4 apply to you? But are you aware what the Scripture says about the eternal destination of those who continually live a lie, and do not embrace the truth?

To get back to the question I posed at the very beginning:  Why don’t pastors preach on this?  Why do pastors refuse to stand with Scripture—and don't encourage men to step up and act like leaders at home?  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 walked away from their main job, supporting and bonding with the kids, 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, “I have money!  Now, let’s buy, buy!  Yes, enjoy life more, and we'll give the little ones toys and entertainment, not empathy or closeness when they need us.  Yes, Possessions are more important."

If you’re thinking, well, since there are unemployment males, the women have to pitch in to support the family--but that doesn't explain this huge move.  The unemployment rate is a roller coaster, up and down, for the 1950-2006 period—between 3% and 7.5%.  That certainly does not explain why the women-with-small children chart is straight up, no pauses or backing up.  It's not like women are supporting the men, getting jobs when they're off, then dropping that gig when husbands get back to the grindstone.  If that were the case, both charts would be acting like a roller coaster—but no, it's straight up.  They get caught in the greed of wanting the extra money all the time, and the kids are left behind.

For another slice of data, please observe the chart below.  What do we draw from it?  Women are contributing more to family income.  But is this good?  Consider: The wives have more "skin in the game;" so, they could simply feel that that entitles them to make their desires known on important decisions, whether conflicting with their husband or not--again, ignoring Scripture.

If you’re thinking, that chart does not represent 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; that's not "pin money," that's a significant percentage—and a significant sacrifice to family time and their well-being.  As of 2012, the wives contribute 37% of family income. Yet a greater sacrifice to family support.   Scripturally, in the interest of real family, this is going the wrong way.

Do the husbands want to fight this upward trend ?  Apparently not.  Look on the following chart.  The yellow bars (the men's participation) are in a steady drop. The women rose, then flattened--almost like they're re-thinking whether this was a good idea. Now, it looks like both charts are down.  It looks like the men are willing to stop fighting with the women, give up and drop out of the rat race and let the wives be the primary breadwinner, and she's not sure if she likes how all this is turning out.. 

   

Of course, the reason for this trade-off from men to women might be talent.  I have no problem giving the women that.  But that great talent should be used at home.  Maybe we could get more home-schooling.  It's getting downright dangerous to be in school.  Home schooling wouldn't be so bad, considering how bulliness, rebellion, and anti-learning kids are becoming socially.  They're so poorly trained in school, that they fail in college and lose their Christian faith among all the immorality.  

Or, it could be “men dropouts.”  The weed.  Shame on them. 

If you ask me, either possible reason for this trade-off is not God's plan.  If the women were to go home, we’d have better kids.  Secondly, if they went home, then jobs would suddenly be screaming for people, so more men could work, and the lack of men in the labor force means they could demand a raise in 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 do a lot more things around the house as a family, like dinners together.  What’s wrong with family talks at dinner,  family games, reading the Bible together?  It’s certainly less expensive.  Throw out the multiple phone pads, 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, and  train everybody to endure the peer pressure for an upstanding lifestyle. 

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.  Oh--and righteous men.

May God help us to obey ALL His commandments.

Let's Re-Introduce Proper Church Discipline

In the area of church discipline, here’s where we are now: If your church is evangelistic, they're probably too careful about not offending people, they want them to hang around and get saved--so they won't exercise any church discipline, even for a divisive troublemaker, unless it’s to quietly reprimand the offender to make them uncomfortable, and hopefully they leave the church.  Let's present a situation: a guy is known as living with a woman, and they show up together Sunday morning, week after week; fact is, they need to be spoken with on the subject of adultery or fornication.  Many churches won’t do a thing, on the grounds of not offending them.   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 indeed get the left foot of fellowship.  Disputing the all-knowledge of the pastor; that'll get you down.

A few churches take an opposite approach. If they do exercise serious discipline, like even to the point of 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 whose purpose is to 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 doing something to harm 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 their sin hurts them and you and possibly 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 should be 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, being spelled out in church bylaws.  Of course, they might not be members, which changes the rules).  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 people 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 first telling the senior pastor or counseling person. They will need to check out your story by asking you, and him, and 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--or the rebel—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 chatter with his church friends, make everything “your side vs my side,” and if these people have power, it may even split the church. Whether all this goes in a godly direction depends on whether most church members choose to follow Scripture--or do they follow charming 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. Even if the troublemaker refuses to talk with them, they shouldn’t shirk from following through this verse, since God may want to “prune” His disobedient church member (John 15:1-6) to make him better. This verse means 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 (God).” (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 of this rebuke, 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 quality of the reprimand, there will be fewer rumors and lies that fester and grow into division later.

Most church members 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 beforehand. Some of the regular attendees will leave the church as soon as they hear about the public rebuke, and some will leave 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.  God made the church for accountability--just look up the many verses with the words "exhort," "entreat," "implore" or "admonish." 

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 chapters 2 through 5 church, the most powerful, Spirit-infused church in history—so the public rebuke wasn’t harmful to church evangelism of the Gospel.  In fact, I believe it was part of the reason why they were the most effective church in history. So, you may lose some rebellious 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.  You don't want to be a church which spends most of its time trying to put out fires caused by the "baby" Christians.

Well, the disobedient one may not show up for “the rebuke,” 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, that would be the meaning in the Old Testament, and where the Pharisees ruled.  But, why do we care about how the Pharisees thought, since Jesus condemned them? 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 explanation of the phrase "I did not come to call the righteous," Jesus is not saying the Pharisees are righteous to God; 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 socially 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 had offended. So Jesus' visit 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.

To fully understand what we're saying, we're not suggesting shunning these people.  To give you 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, and even if the 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.

Temporary ex-communication could also be advised for a lesser sin, after public rebuke has failed to work.  An unrepentant sinner might be denied Communion for that week, until he repents.  Considering the stubbornness of some, he may be denied, week after week, never have Communion again.

Ex-communication doesn't have the effect on people that it once did, but it still should be used.  Again, with explanation. 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 is also not a “member in good standing,” either-- which means he can go to meetings, listen to the sermon, but gets escorted out or ignored in the passing of the Lord's supper. He certainly cannot be a speaker, or voter.

But despite all these negatives, 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, your purpose is to leave yourself honest and open.  You should still carry a good testimony; the real goal is that your godliness might gently nudge them to reconciliation.  And this could mean his salvation.  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 out loud that 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, and study it, is not a friend of the flock. After all, if he backs off, 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--but to no effect.  Now we're talking a person who is probably not a Christian, but broadcasts that he is.  He is still public about grievous sin.  He is hurting Christ by claiming to be a "brother" while sinning like this.  So we break 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, and won't repent, 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).  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, 10-15:

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... 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, where one can work, but has 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 and confession. God loves us enough to clean us from sin and give 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 God 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.  But it advises that we don't even speak to this person.  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. Which has already happened, weakening even many denominations.  Let’s stay Scriptural, with lots of love and firmness to go around.

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