The Implications of Christmas

The word "Christmas": what would most people say it brings to mind?

Something positive, surely.

Maybe friends and family. Traditions. Goodwill. The "spirit of giving". Something along those lines.

The meaning of Christmas stirs up strong feelings, too. Especially among those that try to defend the historical and traditional Christmas from it's commercialization.

But have you ever wondered about the implications of Christmas?

What do I mean by the question? Simply this: the fact that there WAS a first Christmas should draw our attention to the 'WHY' it had to happen in the first place. Have we asked this 'why' lately?

Look at the very familiar announcement in Luke2:10-11

"But the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord."

The announcement describes the news, who it is for, how it should be received, and what it is about. How often to you see an important message where you are told about the emotional response to it? This one did. It was a message of great joy.

But it was not a private message of personal joy. This was a message of larger scope. The shepherds probably would not have known that this "all" was to include the entire world, and not the Israel only. But it was most certainly to all Israel, since it was the announcment of the awaited Saviour's arrival.

It has the 'When". Suddenly everything changed. People had waited, and watched, and prayed and hoped and longed for the promised Saviour. Families became nations, nations and empires rose and fell, and yet the promise was still always seen in the future tense: "Someday"

Suddenly, the vague and future "someday" crystallized into the force and reality of "today". God HAS been faithful. He kept his promise. It is really happening.

What is?

A Saviour was born. (More on that in a moment) He was identified by birthplace and title.

He was born in the City of David, during the census where everyone was to report to their ancestral home. This points to the Davidic line of Kings from which Jesus was descended. (Ancestry was critical to credibility as the Son of David.)

The child was also introduced as "Christ the Lord". Christ meant messiah- the annointed Saviour for whom all Israel longed. Put simply: The One. He was also called "Lord". This is a word for someone who has and exerts complete authority. A man can be lord over his property. A king can be lord over a nation, and God alone can be Lord over all Creation.

The Good news is for "all people", and therefore that Lordship is global.

Strange talk to commoners living in the days of Herod the Great, one of the most dynamic, influential and politically powerful kings in Israel in hundreds of years. Numerous of his buildings survive to this day. A baby -- a peasant, no less -- born in a village is this long-awaited king? And this baby is (not 'Will be') Lord?

But wait. He is a Saviour.

Christ did not come for a visit, to a wonderful world where everything was perfect. He came into a world chafing under its own rebellion against the very God who made it. There was a literal aspect to the "hell in a handbasket" adage.

He came not because we were wonderful, righteous people.

He came because we were broken, miserable and weak. Worse still, we were too blind and proud to know it of ourselves.

He came to bear in himself the punishment for our sin, that we might be granted eternal life.

Christmas has implications.
So does this message.

Implication One: if we enjoy and celebrate Christmas, we must acknowledge ourselves as the very purpose of His Incarnation. He took on flesh, to save a wicked and rebellious people. If we had never sinned, he would not have had to do so. It is evidence against us of our weakness, and our need of a rescuer.

If we do not accept this point, Christmas is a farce and a game. It has been emptied of any meaning and is on par with Labour day or Groundhog day. Any Christmas traditions you have without this are a testament to your own hypocrisy. Having nothing sacred to celebrate yourself, you've simply hijacked someone else's holiday, and you have no more authentic right to Christmas than you do to Hanukkah, Ramadan, or some forgotten feast for Athena.

But more than that, the Incarnation is evidence FOR God and his great love toward us, that while we were still actively his enemies, he came to seek and save us.

Second Implication: receive Jesus. If Christmas is to mean anything for us, we must receive him on His terms. Accept him as Saviour and Lord. Be the recipient of a transformed nature, heart, will and affections. Begin a new life with Him.

Third Implication: message of great joy for All people.

The Shepherds did not stay silent. If they had, we'd never know their story.

Ask yourself: do you believe that this is truly joyous news? That it matters? That it changes lives?

Then tell someone.

Every news that excites us, we tell people, whether they want to hear or not. (How many people have seen pictures of other people's grandchildren without really wanting to?)

If you are not excited about this news, ask God's help for renewing the joy of your salvation.

What was Jonah Thinking?

Jonah was the famously reluctant prophet of Israel who was sent to a pagan city, warning of Divine wrath and the danger of Judgment. Besides running away from the task of bearing that message, (with the dramatic episodes of the storm, being thrown overboard, and spending 3 days studying marine life from the inside) he pitched a tantrum when he saw that they heard the warning. At the very moment that God's wrath was turned away, Jonah's was kindled. (Text for the Biblical account of Jonah here.)

What provoked such an extreme reaction? Why was Jonah hell-bent on their destruction?

To examine this question, we need a little background.

The timeline of Jonah is not certain, but he appears to be the same Jonah spoken of in 2 Kings 14:25 this puts him between the division of Israel into two kingdoms, and the Assyrian conquest of Northern Israel. This would place him in the reign of Jeroboam II, whose reign was in the high 700's and low 800's BC.. With 721 BC the year that Assyria conquered Israel, and sent them to exile, that could place Jonah's work perhaps only 30-50 years before Shalmaneser's conquest.

Looking backward, these events would happen about 100 years after Elijah's work. The spiritual climate of Israel itself in Jonah's day can be seen by the wickedness of their king, Jeroboam II. Israel as a whole has turned to the Idols of their neighbors, and have adopted their manner of pagan worship.

Where did he Jonah go off the rails? For one thing, Jonah had obvious misgivings about God's right to exercise His authority over people.

In disobeying God, he tried to place his own will above God's. Asking to be thrown overboard was a desperate act. His conduct later does not support the notion that he said this to save the lives of others. It is more probable that even there, Jonah was trying, if he could control nothing else, to control time and place of his death. But God exercised his authority to forgive, which was just as much his authority as his authority to judge. And Jonah struggled with that. God's authority over his creation is a major -- possibly THE major-- theme of this short book.

What was the Hebrew understanding of their relationship with God? Why was it special?

For one thing, God had declared that Israel was special. God made specific promises to Abraham, Issac and Jacob. It did not even extend to all the natural offspring of Abraham and Issac, but only to the children of promise. So point one, God Himself made that distinction.

Next, the relationship to God rested on Covenant. God made a promise, there was a covenant sign (circumcision) and Israel (ideally) approached God in specifically the ways that God said one should approach him. In fact, several moments of judgment in Israel's history were directly related to people worshiping God in a way that he had not mandated. Wrong person, wrong method, wrong place, etc. The lesson they learned and re-learned through their turbulent history: God was to be treated as Holy.

David himself, in the famous standoff with Goliath directly referenced Goliath's uncircumcised status, as a deciding factor in who God would support in that battle.

Even in the New Testament, there are similar reminders that gentiles were "without God and without hope, strangers to the covenant of promise." We were outsiders, and could not hope to be reconciled to God without entering into covenant with him, and -- sadly God did not appear to be establishing new children to Abraham. (At least, not by the natural means. More on that later.)

Added to fact that they were strangers they were also idolaters. They approached gods, but not the True God. Observant Jews had witnessed God frequently chasten his own covenant people, sometimes very harshly, for turning to false gods. If God dealt that way with his children, how much more would a Hebrew have assumed that He would deal harshly with a uncircumcised nation for the same crimes?

Moses himself records God's mercy and forgiveness in the same sentence as "by no means clearing the guilty."

And let us be clear: to a Jew, who understood that the very reason the people of Canaan were given over to Israel was because of their sin, not Israel's righteousness, Nineveh was exceptionally wicked, and ripe for judgment.

But what was Nineveh? It was a bustling city on the principle East-West trade route. They would have been very cosmopolitan, bringing people (and gods) from abroad. They even officially adopted some foreign gods and added them to their pantheon. Think New York, Toronto, London, or some similar large center of commerce.

But more notably, they were very warlike. Even before Jonah, Israel was at war with what one writer called 'the bloodiest ancient civilization'. They were a very real threat to Jewish national security. Even their art was brutal:

Another work, The Battle of Til-Tuba, dates to the reign of Ashurbanipal and its depiction of bloody warfare reinforces the Assyrians’ reputation for ruthlessness. Considered the finest large-scale composition in Assyrian art, the monumental relief shows the Assyrians defeating the Elamites of southern Iran. Scenes highlight the Elamite king’s chariot crashing down, the king’s flight from the wreckage, and his capture and beheading, with the severed head being carried back as a trophy to Assyria. The story unfolds amid a backdrop of horrible carnage and the confusion of battle. (quote in full context here)

Some harrowing images of Assyrian art from that era here. It wasn't made to be beautiful, but to inspire fear of their enemies.

Jonah did not have difficulty with God exercising his right to judge the wicked. In fact, he expected that he himself would be thus judged when he was flung into the sea.

Jonah simply did not have a category in his thinking, for a Holy God forgiving sin "just because". God was not basing it on an existing covenant. Not on faithful devotion. Not on the slightest hint of godliness on the part of the Ninevites. Not on anything but God's unmerited favour.

If you want to get closer to the full force of his thought processes, imagine for a minute that you are in post WWII Germany. The Nazi War Crimes Tribunals are being held. The courtroom is filled with people whose arms bear the tattooed evidence of their time in Treblinka or another of the Death Camps. Families devastated by the War. People seeking justice. (These events were cultural equivalents of actual Assyrian practices.)

Imagine the defendant of a very high profile case. Maybe someone in Hitler's inner circle. One of the diseased minds from which the Nazi doctrine originally sprang. Evidence is presented against him. He is incontrovertibly guilty. He admits it. He says he is sorry, and it will never happen again. The judge pauses a moment, smiles, and with one swing of the gavel, declares that all charges against him have been dropped. The apology has been accepted.

How do you think the courtroom would react? The country? You?

Would you be pleased with the decision, or outraged? Disgusted maybe? Why?

The judge would be thought of as no better than the guilty man who he set free. Why? Because a judge cannot "wish" away wrong-doing. Someone 'must pay' for justice to be satisfied. Justice is not a sinful or carnal demand. It's origins are found in God's own character.

It could be that the commentaries all have it right: Jonah simply didn't think that Nineveh was worthy of God's kindness. Jonah's problem was that he objected to "who" God saved.

I wonder, though, whether it may have been not just "who" but "how" God saved that gave him trouble. Could he have wondered "how" God could do so without discrediting his own Holiness?

If so, that is a higher view of God's holiness than most people today have. And more consistent with New Testament scripture, as well.

Jonah, naturally, could not see the Cross, since it wouldn't happen for another 800 years or so. He had no context for how a foreigner could be reconciled to God. How could they "possibly" be made righteous? Well, today we have an answer that he did not have.

But that objection fits completely with the big idea in Romans 3:26:

²⁶It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

In the context of the Cross, this passage demonstrates that God was not only establishing our innocence (by propitiation) but also establishing HIS innocence as well. He is not a God who winks at sin. He cannot be wicked as the judge in the illustration would have been. God is not only merciful, but also fully Just. Mercy does not destroy Justice. It finds a way "despite" justice. Christ Jesus crucified and risen is that way.

The God who is proclaimed Holy Holy Holy by the angels cannot dismiss sin, he must punish it. That was the Cross.

Glorious Saviour who loves us so much.
Glorious God whose righteousness is forever established.

Only God could have arranged so Great a Salvation.

One Post in Three Parts -- Part 3: "Apostolic Faith and Tradition"

History is important. That was post #1.

Sound Doctrine is important. That was post #2.

Ours is an Apostolic Faith. That is, we have received it from others.

We received the written Word of God, on the authority of the First generation of Christian Disciples. They were sent by Jesus. (This would include Paul.) Jesus Himself was sent by the Father. Technically, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the first Apostles, as they are both "sent".

Why is this important?

It places boundaries on how we should believe. We were given a pattern of what true belief looks like. We see it in the life of Christ, and we see it in the gospel. This was echoed in the life and message of the apostles He sent.

We cannot be faithful to the God of the Bible without being faithful to the Original Intent of its Author.

As far back as Eden, humanity wanted to "re-imagine" God's Word. We have been tempted to make it fit what we wanted or believed the world to be.

Does "has God REALLY said..." sound familiar?
It should.
And we're still hearing it today. The pretend-professors of faith haven't stopped. They know the "Christian-ese" lingo, they draw a crowd and profit handsomely. They are often 'cutting edge' and have the 'new revelations' and the 'latest thing' from God. Maybe this-or-that-unusual -experience. Something that makes them "special". They're never drawing people back to the well-worn road of biblical orthodoxy.

What do you suppose the itching ears verse was a warning against, if not this? Trendy preachers, and flashy shows. It was the false prophets in biblical times that drew big followings, and were well-loved by the worldly. Be cautious about the top selling (supposedly) Christian books and speakers. Examine what they tell you to believe. If Paul praised the Bereans for not taking the Apostle's word for what he was saying, but called them noble for measuring it against the Bible, should we not check our "celebrity preachers" today in the same way?

The newest doctrine or exciting experience are NOT what we should be chasing. We should desire HIM, especially in His Word.

Here are just three examples of God describing his Word as being of utmost importance: Moses, Deuteronomy, and King Saul. If that list is too short, search "word" in Biblegateway, and see a long list of others.

Moses' and Saul's examples are interesting. Moses had a "small deviation" from God's instructions. He was told to speak to the rock, and water would flow from it. He spoke to the people, and struck the rock. The fact that God worked a major miracle there did not change the fact that Moses was in sin for dishonoring God's word. Result? Moses was barred from entering the promised land. Lesson? Presence of a miracle is not a divine endorsement of behaviour.

Similar story with Saul. He was given instructions relating to the battle with the Amalekites: wipe them out, give no quarter. But Saul took the possessions and the King as trophies. Did he go to war? Yes. Did he defeat the Amalekites? Yes. As Saul tried to justify himself, he argued that most of them had been destroyed. But God didn't accept the excuses. He treated Saul's partial obedience as complete disobedience. Lesson? Success in your field of work is not a divine endorsement of behaviour, either.

Result? God gave Saul's kingdom away to "someone better".

If this seems overly extreme to you, maybe you underestimate how passionately God values his Word. God esteems it as highly as he does his Own Name. (He expects we should too.)

If anyone could have been qualified to preach from subjective experience, Jesus could have. He had so much to draw from, and was Himself completely untainted by sin. So did he preach experience? Nope. He Preached the Word. In fact it was the Word (not experience or emotionalism) that was preached throughout New Testament.

This is where history and sound doctrine dovetail.

Tradition: is it good or bad?

YES -- it can be either.

When it displaces God's Word, and co-opts it into new meanings, tradition is bad. Mark 7 deals with this. But tradition is also mentioned in a positive sense: I Cor 11:2 (keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you), as well as 2 Thess 2:15, 1 Thess 3:6.

Where does this leave us? How do we proceed with seemingly conflicting messages concerning the importance of tradition?

It works like this:
1) Begin with the Word of God. It is your starting point. Study it carefully.
2) Weigh it against the WHOLE COUNSEL of scripture, for a balanced view of what you are studying.
3) Bring an attitude of humility and prayer to seek the Author's original intent.
4) Compare that with the tradition handed down.

(This is where things can get dicey.)

If there is substantial agreement with your careful, prayerful reading of scripture, and the conclusions made by God's faithful from years gone by, you have probably divided God's word rightly.

If there is a substantial disagreement, you have tension between your studies and tradition, go back to the first 3 steps, and take your time.

One of you is wrong. Maybe both. There have been great moments in Church history when someone has rediscovered the meaning of the text, where one man with the Bible stood against the World. (Athanasius and Luther come to mind.) But it is far more likely that YOU are off in left field.

Find someone with a solid and mature faith, and discuss it with them. If they are as solid as you think, they can expose gaps in your understanding, and correct them.

If your reading STILL differs from the historically dominant one, make VERY CERTAIN that the entire Word of God affirms the point you are arriving at. Because Scripture is NOT of a private interpretation.

Either way, you will have grown with respect to your faith and God's word. Rejoice!

One Post in Three Parts -- Part 2: "Sound Doctrine"

( Continued from PREVIOUS post)

In my last post, I argued for the validity and (especially) the importance of History, especially as Christians. This in turn was to prepare to address the claim that all sin except unbelief, for the redeemed and the damned alike, is Atoned for by the Cross. God willing, I will take the leap into the question itself shortly, but this post will be to discuss sound doctrine.

Whenever I am discussing Christianity with Christians, and I raise the importance of doctrine, or the study of the Word of God, or of orthodoxy, (to say nothing of Systematic Theology), there are usually two main objections. The first is that a revelation of / personal relationship with Jesus is the only thing that really matters. The next most common is a snide remark made towards either theology, or theologians. Almost on cue, both objections came up in the conversation that started this discussion off.

Both of these answers make the basic assumption that theology is like interpretive dance: all concept, no substance. -- That assumption is not shared by the authors of Scripture.

Three categories of use from the word we use as "doctrine" can help clarify how that word is to be understood.

Doctrine is used by Jesus to describe the (empty) rites and rituals that were of merely human origin that devout people were expected to observe. (Matt 15:9) It is also used to describe influence of demonic origin (James 3:15, I Tim 4:1) which is intended to deceive and corrupt us. Finally, and most importantly, it is used for the Pure doctrine of the Gospel of God. (As found in most of the examples in this search list.) What I am hoping you will notice is that in each of these, whether the authority is human, demonic, or divine, there is a connection between the belief one begins with and the resulting behaviour.

As I said, there is a prevailing belief that theology is merely theory that old men who smell like old books argue about in dusty rooms. Most people who think so got there one of two ways. They either have anti-intellectual biases: all study is inconsequential -- or secular biases: all religious study is inconsequential. Both attitudes run contrary to the Biblical pattern.

This is further exacerbated by:
(1) the Body of Christ (in the West, anyway) has drunk deeply of the worldly views and opinions of the culture we inhabit. The mistrust of authority that exploded in the Sixties is alive and well today.
(2) Subjectivism and Moral Relativism have radically altered the way that professing Christians understand their faith. Sometimes it even approaches uncomfortably close to the appeal made by the Mormons when they point to the biblical phrase: "Did not our hearts burn within us?" (They suggest that a similar subjective experience will "prove" the truth of their claims.) Too often Christians are heard echoing the secular phrase "it's true for me".

Our culture tells us to BE your personal Authority. To bring an all-you-can-eat-buffet attitude toward what is true, and to elect ourselves God and call 'true' the beliefs we like best. By contrast, the Apostles appealed to one authority only -- the Authority of God. The Authority of God specifically as revealed by the Authority of His Word.

Here's how this worked.

Look at the outline of many of the Epistles.

They address some profound points of theology. (Doctrine).
Next, they draw out the implications of that theology.
[Watch for words like "If / then", "Therefore", "But", and so on.]
Those implications are then carried forward into concrete examples of "life-lived-out".

Paul's letter to the Ephesians gives a good example.

Chapter one opens with the broad scope of Salvation, as a gracious unilateral gift from God. Chapter two moves into how that plan takes effect in the life of an individual believer... regeneration. Chapter 3 describes both Paul's and the Church's role in furthering this plan for others. Chapter 4 is how the Church is taught to conform to Christ, and immediately followed by specific concrete examples of what that looks like. Chapters 5&6 unpack the effect of the first 4 chapters on behaviour and relationships. As the Epistle closes, we are brought back to our dependency on God, so we are not left thinking we are to do these things in our own moral strength.

The Apostle Peter follows the same pattern. His Big Idea is in 1 Peter 1:3-5, God's mercy. Salvation. New Birth. Living Hope. Christ's Resurrection. Secure inheritance. Everything else in the letter draws from this starting point. The encouragements to be strong in the face of suffering and persecution, the call to humility, proper attitudes toward those in authority, relationships, and so forth.

If you are not yet convinced of the importance of Doctrine, look at Paul's instructions to Timothy.

Paul is leaving Timothy behind in Ephesus. Timothy is told: "remain in Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine." You see, for Paul, doctrine wasn't AN issue, it was THE issue.

Paul's ultimate aim was for that flock to have "love that issues from a pure heart, a good conscience and a sincere faith." Other people proclaimed themselves teachers and were leading those same people astray. Paul moves directly from there into a discussion about the Law, and how it is to be properly used. (This we may address separately, elsewhere. I know some who follow my blog have strong convictions on this point, but let's not get distracted.)

There is a laundry list of types of sin, with a really interesting phase upon which the idea transitions to the next part. After listing sins ranging from sexual sin, murder, and lying, to selling people into slavery, it broadens the net to include every sort of sin not mentioned in this list. So to condense the idea, the Law is for those who sin by doing these things "and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine in accordance with the gospel...".

The way he intended to Achieve the aim of sincere love, was by removing influences of false doctrine.

Paul drew a link between sin, and wrong teaching / belief.

Said differently -- wrong ideas lead to wrong behaviour.

I don't mean this in the way a humanist would, e.g. "if only they are properly educated, then they won't do all those horrible things."

What I mean is that any area where thinking is not yet conformed to Christ and His Word is an area where one will be prone to sin.

So Therefore:

We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. (2 Cor. 10:5)

One Post in Three parts -- Part one "History"

Does theology matter in Christianity today? Modern or ancient? Is there a place for ancient theology in the modern world, or is it all about a personal revelation of - and relationship to - Christ?

These are the sorts of questions that came up in a conversation recently. It began when someone I appreciate and admire said "God does not impute sin to the world because all sin was imputed into the body of Christ when he hung on the cross 2000 yrs ago."

We wound up discussing 3 separate ideas.
1) Heresy.
2) Orthodoxy.
3) History. (the relevance of)

I aim to link these three points together in one series as they each relate to the initial question, moving from broadest to narrowest. I was hoping to do them on one post, but it got too long. So much like Douglas Adams's 'Trilogy in Five Parts' this will be one post in 3 parts.

Part the First -- The relevance of History in the context of Christianity.

The objection goes something like this:
Why should I care what some dead guy said however long ago. (Subsets of that objection include: The only thing that matters is that I know Jesus for myself. Or the apostles were uneducated fishermen, and look what they did!)

The reason that so many people make that objection is that there is a kernel of truth in it. Ultimately, the most important thing is that one has a real relationship with Christ Jesus. Similarly, people have been led astray by placing too much emphasis on traditional teaching, and too little on the Bible itself. (Jesus made this point in Mark 7)

But here's the problem with that:
(Someone else dealt with the fishermen objection nicely here)
As Christians, we have beliefs that mark us as uniquely Christian. We believe in the Triune God. We believe that Christ is fully man AND fully God. That God is Creator. We believe in the Cross... Resurrection... Ascension... and Return of Christ. Heaven and Hell. We believe that there are no other Gods.

Someone might say "I just love Jesus" and I could ask, 'Tell me about him." Muslims claim to honor Jesus. So did Ghandi. Napoleon respected him. Mormons think he's Satan's younger brother. J.W.'s think of him as the highest created angelic being, but not divine. Many call him a "good man", or "good teacher", but not deity.

Christians reject these false Christs and the false gospels that go with them. We need precision language to lay out the differences between the counterfeits and the faithful. It is important that Jesus had both human and Divine natures. It affects Redemption. It matters that he lived a sinless life. That he rose from death and did not merely "swoon".

Hebrews 5:12 makes the connection between having a developed walk with God, and the ability to teach others. Teach them what? The gospel? Yes! Does that mean John 3:16 only? No! Or else, God would not have needed to give us more than that. Like every other aspect of our maturity, our walk with God becomes more developed. More able to take the eternal truth from Biblical patterns, and apply them to life wherever we may find ourselves. Compare Romans 12:2.

Paul didn't rely on complex arguments to win people to Christ, he preached the Gospel. BUT you can be sure that Paul (among others) DID use complex arguments (even Peter said Paul was difficult to follow) to bring those young believers to maturity. So that they would have a robust understanding of Christ's person and work. Many would, after all, be killed for what they believed. It is best that you have a firm grasp of it.

Sure, we like the Bible. It's those other guys we don't care about. Those stuffy religious types.
There is something distasteful about assuming other peoples' faith and walk with God are inferior to yours. Oh, right. It's sin. (James 4:11) There are cultural differences, differences in style and liturgy. But those are not measurements of how well a person does or doesn't know God.

You like the Bible, you said? Ok, then, what was the purpose of the gifts mentioned in Eph 4?
The gifts: apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, teacher.
They were given. By whom? By Christ.
For what purpose? That the body be built up. That we become mature. That we are solid, and not blown around by every wind and wave. There is mutual interdependence involved.
So the people that do these things are a gift by God to His Church? Because HE wants to accomplish HIS purposes?
So then, if people who were Ephesian 4 gifts to the Church write books, can we not profit from reading them? Does the same Spirit who informs me, also inform believers who lived before me? Can we not read C.S. Lewis, or Torrey, or Moody, or Spurgeon, or Luther, or Anselm, or Chrysostom, or Ignatius?

Put it another way -- do you refuse the wisdom of those in your church? Are you too "spiritual" to be instructed by those you know? How about others you admire? Do you read books, or listen to podcasts of your favorite preachers? How is that different?

TIME. That's the real objection, right? People from "back then" couldn't possibly have anything helpful to say about people today... could they? I Cor 10:13. The tricks and traps that lie in wait for the faithful today, whether sin, or deceptions are all recycled. They are adapted to new environments, but they are nothing new "under the sun". Frankly, there is safety in reading old books. Lewis said it this way:

Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books.

Since the tricks and traps the enemy uses today were already in circulation as far back as Plato's day (Atheism, Sophistry, Materialism, Relativism, etc) why not find out how they were shut down before?

Which is wisdom? To find the ways people before us successfully refuted problems that still exist today, so we don't have to reinvent the wheel. Or to stubbornly start from scratch and try to find a way to counter the work of the enemy?

Additionally, there is safety in comparing your understanding of Scripture to the historical consensus... it helps filter out a lot of loopy ideas. If your "personal revelation" is not supported by faithful students of God's Word from earlier generations, do your homework and MAKE DARNED SURE that the Bible really says what you think it does.

But I'm getting a little ahead of myself.

(Next post in the series here ---->)

Another lesson from David...

The Big Idea I want to develop here is how different sorts of people can correct us when we're wrong. People who are a better example of right living (as Nathan was to David) and even those who are a worse example of proper conduct. (like Joab)

Since I've been reading about David lately, with some helpful background from Eerdman's Handbook to the Bible, I've picked up on some things that I hadn't noticed before.

Like the fact that the soldier whose wife David stole was actually listed as one of David's "Mighty Men" (2 Sam 23:39, Uriah the Hittite), or the role different people close to him played in his life.

Much has been made of David's sin with Bathsheba. I'm not about to break down the details of it here, except to say that it says much about what someone can and will do to hide their guilt.

He brought a soldier home from the front, and sent him to his wife's waiting arms. That didn't work. Then he got Uriah drunk, and tried to have him go home to his wife. That didn't work either. Why? Because he was a faithful and loyal soldier whose comrades were on the field of battle. They were not enjoying the comforts of home, and neither would he. Beyond that, his was a pious answer:

"the ARK and Israel are staying in tents... how could I go to my house...?"

(Do you think that just maybe such a show of loyalty and integrity singed David's conscience?) So David arranged to have Uriah killed in battle, and then take the widow for himself.
He was charged of his guilt by Nathan the prophet in 2 Sam 12:9

⁹ Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites.

Uriah was one of David's Mighty men!
He was probably one of the men in Ziklag with him when he was in exile. Brothers-in-arms. Murdered by the treachery of the very king he faithfully served.

God got his attention. There was fallout for his sin. But he repented.

(Sidebar -- if "you despise the word of the Lord" sounds familiar, it should. Similar language resulted in Saul losing the kingdom. See 1 Sam 15:26.)

The second example is Joab.

Joab, if you remember, is the commander of David's armies. Two of his rivals were assassinated. David specifically instructed Solomon to use his wisdom to hold him accountable for those murders. (I Kings 2:5-6) Oh, right. He also murdered Absalom, David's renegade son, when the King specifically instructed people not to harm him. This is to say, Joab is NOT a nice guy.

But being a wretched man does not mean David should have dismissed what he said.

Look (1 Chronicles 21:1-7):

¹ Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel. ² So David said to Joab and the commanders of the troops, "Go and count the Israelites from Beersheba to Dan. Then report back to me so that I may know how many there are." ³ But Joab replied, "May the LORD multiply his troops a hundred times over. My lord the king, are they not all my lord's subjects? Why does my lord want to do this? Why should he bring guilt on Israel?" ⁴ The king's word, however, overruled Joab; so Joab left and went throughout Israel and then came back to Jerusalem. ⁵ Joab reported the number of the fighting men to David: In all Israel there were one million one hundred thousand men who could handle a sword, including four hundred and seventy thousand in Judah. ⁶ But Joab did not include Levi and Benjamin in the numbering, because the king's command was repulsive to him. ⁷ This command was also evil in the sight of God; so he punished Israel.

I'm not going to argue what prompted the census (Chronicles points to Satan, 2 Samuel points to God's wrath) or exactly why taking a census was wrong (beyond the instructions that certain things must happen when a census takes place -- Ex 30:12 ).

The fact is, that David -- the same David that is described as being a man after God's own heart, had to be reigned in from a stupid, reckless, wicked act by a serial killer.

The point is not that David lived a perfect life.
The point is that however big he blew it, he came back to God.

What does that tell us?

1) We need to be receptive to correction. And, by extension, we need to be accountable to others. We are too good at inventing reasons that our sin is "minor" to do without it.
Sin isn't minor.
Ever.

2) We take comfort that even people that are esteemed greatly in scripture have blown it, in big ways, and still were used by God. (Hebrews 11:32 had David among the significant examples of faith.)

3) We need a Redeemer. None of us is free from sin's influence. We are slaves to sin until Christ sets us free from it.

That's the whole point of the Cross.

Is there an "I" in your "we"? (Snippets of Spurgeon)

This portion of one of Spurgeon's sermons is taken from "Sermon VII, The Church of Christ".
(Spurgeon's text is Ezekiel 34:26 KJV.)

²⁶And I will make them and the places round about my hill a blessing; and I will cause the shower to come down in his season; there shall be showers of blessing. (Ezekiel 34:26, King James Version)

But notice, next, the personality of the blessing. "I will make them a blessing." "I will make each member of the church a blessing." Many people come up to the house of prayer, where the church assembles: and you say, "Well, what are you doing at such-and-such a place where you attend?" "Well, we are doing so-and-so." "How do you spell we?" "It is a plain monosyllable, " say you. "Yes, but do you put I in 'we?'" "No." There are a great many people who could easily spell "we" without an I in it ; for though they say, "We have been doing so-and-so," they do not say, "How much have I done? Did I do anything in it? Yes ; this chapel has been enlarged ; what did I subscribe? Twopence!" Of course it is done. Those who paid the money have done it. "We preach the gospel." Do we indeed? "Yes, we sit in our pew and listen a little, and do not pray for a blessing. We have got such a large Sunday School." Did you ever teach in it? "We have got a very good working society." Did you ever go to work in it? That is not the way to spell "we." It is, "I will make them a blessing." When Jerusalem was built, every man began nearest to his own house. That is where you must begin to build or do something. Do not let us tell a lie about it. If we do not have some share in the building, if we neither handle the trowel nor the spear, let us not talk about our church ; for the text says, "I will make them a blessing, " every one of them.
"But, sir, what can I do? I am nothing but a father at home ; I am so full of business, I can only see my children a little." But in your business, do you ever have any servants? "No ; I am a servant myself." You have fellow-servants? "No ' I work alone." Do you work alone, then, and live alone, like a monk in a cell? I don't believe that. But you have fellow-servants at work ' cannot you say a word to their conscience? "I don't like to intrude religion into the business." Quite right, too ' so say I ' when I am at business, let it be business; when you are at religion, let it be religion. But do you never have an opportunity? Why, you cannot go into an omnibus, or a railway carriage, but what you can say something for Jesus Christ. I have found it so, and I don't believe I am different from other people. Cannot do anything? Cannot you put a tract into your hat, and drop it where you go? Cannot yo uspeak a word to a child? Where does this man come from, that cannot do anything? There is a spider on the wall ; but he taketh hold on kings' palaces, and spinneth his web to rid the world of noxious flies. There is a nettle in the corner of the churchyard ; but the physician tells me it has its virtues. There is a tiny star in the sky ; but that is noted in the chart, and the mariner looks at it. There is an insect under water ; built it builds a rock. God made all these things for something ; but here is a man that God made and gave him nothing at all to do! I do not believe it. God never makes useless things; he has no superfluous workmanship. I care not what you are ; you have somewhat to do. And oh! may God show you what it its, and then make you do it, by the wonderous compulsion of his providence and his grace.

The passage quoted comes from Spurgeon's Sermons.