MERCY SEAT [1st Cor. 11-16]
https://youtu.be/vGiCG0w-0is Mercy Seat
ON VIDEO-
.Love feast
.Charismatic movement
.Eucharist
.God’s discipline
.Chief Torres
PAST POSTS [verses below]
(980)1ST
CORINTHIANS 11: 1-16 at first I was just going to skip this section and say ‘I
know you didn’t get your moneys worth, but wait, you guys didn’t give me any
money!’ But this would be a cheap shot. So what do we do with portions of
scripture that are difficult? I have heard this taught in a way that says
‘Christ is the head of the church [both men and women- true] and any
distinction between a man being ‘the head’ of the woman only applies to natural
families’. The problem is Paul mixes the analogies ‘Christ is the head of a
man, a man [husband] is the head of the woman [wife], and God is the head of
Christ’. To dissect these verses into a ‘secular/religious’ division is next to
impossible! So what do they mean? I believe the New Testament does teach a type
of functional difference between men and woman. Now, Paul teaches that women
‘can prophesy’ in ‘the church’. He says so in these verses! In Romans 16 Paul
refers to Junia as an apostle and Phoebe as a deaconess. In the Old Testament
Deborah was a mighty judge. Peter says that both sons and daughters will
prophesy [Acts 2, quoting Joel]. I could go on. Then why make a distinction?
Paul gives his rationale in this section. Believers show the order and
submission of the Godhead when they willingly take their God ordained positions
in society. When husbands love their wives as Christ loves the church, God is
glorified. When wives submit [oh no, I can’t believe I said it!] to their
‘loving’ husbands they show the role of Christ’s willful submission to the
Father. And yes, Paul also teaches we all submit to each other in love as well.
Those who see all of Paul’s teaching on women as a cultural thing will have a
problem with the inspiration of scripture. But on the other hand the strong
fundamentalist/literalist also has a problem here. Should we mandate the
wearing of ‘coverings’ [hats] when women prophesy? I don't think so [some do
think so!]. But most fundamentalists have no problem chalking up the ‘hat
wearing’ portion to culture. Also in this debate, one of the obvious questions
is ‘can a woman be a Pastor over a church’? Or Bishop or whatever. Remember, no
one was a ‘Pastor over a church’ like we think until around the 4th
century. So before we judge whether or not it is fair to restrict women from
certain roles ‘in the church’ we need to understand what roles there are ‘in
the church’. Did you ever wonder who was marrying and burying the people for
the first few hundred years of Christian history? It is quite obvious that Paul
and the first century Apostles/Elders were not doing it. So when did the
‘clergy’ pick the practice up? During Constantine ’s
legalization of Christianity in the 4th century, the church took
over the rites and ceremonies from Rome .
The Roman ‘philosopher/speakers’ could be hired to speak a eulogy when someone
died, they could conduct wedding ceremonies. They for the most part were ‘the
Pastors’ of the day! Now we simply took the job from them. Does this mean all
Pastors are pagan funeral directors? No. It simply shows us that when we ask
the question ‘why can’t women be pastors like men’. Maybe the question should
be ‘were men ever supposed to be pastors either?’ [in the contemporary use of
the term] So in this little excursion into history I think we all have some
lessons to learn. The people of God are made up of men and women and Jew and
Gentile, scripture says in Christ there are no more distinctions like this. We
are all considered the Body of Christ equally. Yet this does not mean [in my
view] that everyone does the same job as everyone else. The New Testament
clearly says ‘are all Apostles, all Prophets’. God has distinctions in this
Body. Do these distinctions carry over to the woman/man issue in functionality?
It seems so to me to a degree. Those who are striving for more equality in
function for women, I think the best way to approach it is not to by- pass all
these difficult portions of scripture. But to take the approach that as the
church grows she allows the greater overriding truths of scripture to over
shadow any personal advice given by Paul to a specific church in the first
century. Now I don’t fully take this approach myself, but to a degree many of
us do accept this approach when dealing with the ‘hat/covering issue’. So
instead of just showing you my view, I wanted to paint a little broader
picture. Ultimately how you come down on this is between you and God. Women
most certainly can and do function in Christ’s church today, they always have
and always will.
(983)1ST
CORINTHIANS 11:16-34 ‘When you come together IN THE CHURCH’ [king James
version] ‘when you come together AS THE CHURCH’ [new king James version]. In
this section of scripture we see a real good definition of ‘church’ and also a
bad one. The word for church is found over 100 times in the New Testament [114?
- if I remember right] in every occasion, bar none, it refers to the people of
God. Sometimes it refers to them as ‘coming together’ or simply as ‘the called
out people of God’ [that is they are all spiritually gathered as a community in
Christ]. The word never refers to a ‘church building’ [there is one reference
in James that can seem to indicate a place to meet. James is speaking to Jews,
the synagogue [or Jerusalem
temple] as a building is different from the term for church in Paul’s
letters!]. In the example I just gave you from the king James versions, it
shows you how Gods people viewed this term for church [Ecclesia/Ekklesia] as
time rolled along. The original translators of the King James saw it as ‘a
place you meet in’ the new version saw it ‘as when Gods people come together’.
You say ‘what’s the big difference’? Well I am sure the original translators
meant well, but in actuality there is a big difference between ‘being an
organic family’ or ‘being a building’! As Paul addresses the Corinthians he
says ‘your coming together is not for the better, but for the worse’. They were
using the gathering as a means of self gratification. ‘What can I get out of
this’ type thing. I do see a parallel in much of today’s ‘church meeting’. Do
we see Christianity thru the lens of ‘what am I going to hear this Sunday that
I can implement in my own personal life for self improvement’? This mindset
prevails in today’s church environment. The ethos of Jesus was contrary to
this. He challenged his followers to lay down their rights and desires and seek
another kingdom, one that was not measured by the standards of this world. Paul
rebuked the Corinthians for seeking ‘their own wealth [benefit] and not the
other’s’. He also told them to examine their hearts before coming together so
they would not be judged. I have heard the new generation of church thinkers
[which I am one myself!] kind of mock the old time churches by saying ‘Oh they
tell you communion is some dangerous thing that you must approach with a holier
than thou attitude’. Most mean well when they level this charge, but the ‘old
time churches’ are not without scriptural support for this approach. Paul did
say ‘you guys are too flippant in your attitude towards the Lords table, you
need to straighten up and take more seriously your corporate call to those
around you’. Understand, the celebration of this ‘love feast’ was to ‘show the
Lords death till he come’. Who were they ‘showing it to’? The entire
‘unchurched’ community around them! Their selfless lives of being the community
of God, loving and sharing of themselves as a spiritual family, was for the
intent of having an effective community wide witness. They reminded not only
themselves, but those around them ‘of the Lords death’. It was truly a
corporate witness! Our Catholic brothers might not be as wrong as most
Protestants seem to think. The Catholic Church sees the Eucharist as the
central witness and part of their meetings. The Protestants see the preaching
of the word from the pulpit. Though the Protestants are sincere in their
efforts to teach the word of God, there is a tendency to become ‘pastor/pulpit’
centered, as opposed to being ‘Christ centered’. All in all Paul rebukes and
corrects them based on their self centered actions when meeting together. He
also sees ‘the gathering’ as ‘the church’. Not the place their meeting at! It’s
easy to confuse this when reading ‘when you come together in the church- in one
place’ it sure seems like he can be referring to a church building. Take my
word for it, he’s not.
(984)1ST
CORINTHIANS 12:1-6 ‘There are different gifts, ministries and out workings of
the Spirit’ [my paraphrase]. In this section we see an idea that I feel gets
lost in the current paradigm of ‘doing church’. When Paul addresses a church
[community of believers] he is speaking to all the believers in the city. When
we think ‘church’ we assume it means ‘church’ as ‘going to the church
[building] on Sunday’. Therefore we tend to read these types of verses as
‘there are different gifts and functions in ‘the church’- the Sunday school
teacher, nursery worker, door greeter’ well you get it. The better reading
would be ‘there are various expressions and ways the Spirit works and
administers thru/in the community’. For instance, those who labor in
‘Para-church’ ministries are often considered noble, but not ‘a church’. But
according to this passage, they would be just as much ‘church’, a legitimate
part of the local body, as the home meeting [of course we know in Paul’s day
there were no church buildings]. So the broader view of church as community
would see these verses saying ‘where you live there are a variety of gifted
ones whom the Spirit of God lives and operates thru. These saints all express
the community of the Spirit in various ways. All these expressions are just as
legitimate as the other, it is one Spirit manifesting himself in diverse ways
for the overall benefit of all the believers in your city’. When we label what
the Spirit is doing thru other ‘administrations’ as ‘Para-church’ we violate
this passage of scripture. When we limit the various expressions and gifts to
‘the Sunday church meeting’ we actually are violating the intent of these
verses. In your city you have doctors, lawyers, and all types of trades. While
it is fine for them to operate out of a building and to keep regular business
hours. Yet you wouldn’t describe them as separate, individual little ‘cities’
who all operate out of your town. You would see all of them as various gifted
people who ‘operate out of your city’. So this is the broader view of what I
think Paul is saying. Now he will also give directions on how these various
gifts work in the meeting, this of course is part of it. But we need to see the
broader view of what the Spirit is saying. Jesus expected his disciples to go
out into the highways and hedges and ‘compel them to come in’ [not into the
church building for heavens sake! But into the Kingdom] Paul taught that the
Spirit accomplishes this in many different ways thru ‘the church’ [people of
God].
(985)1ST
CORINTHIANS 12:7 ‘But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to EVERY MAN to
profit EVERY BODY’. I want to share a criticism that sometimes gets made
against me. I know ‘the critics’ mean well, and are actually sincere men. It’s
just they have been ‘shaped’ by the present system of ‘church’. The criticism
goes like this ‘sure John has an effective teaching ministry [blog/radio] but
if you need someone to come pray for you, lets see if he will come’. The idea
is that the true legitimate ‘elders’ are those you can ‘call for’. James says
‘if any one is sick among you, let him call for the elders of ‘the church’.
They see ‘the church’ as the actual 501c3, building, Sunday meeting
[storehouse] type thing - they are simply seeing thru their ‘lens’. What James
is simply saying is ‘if someone is sick in your community/local body of
believers, call for the elders [more spiritually mature ones] and let them pray
for you and anoint you with oil’. Now, I have personally spent many thousands
[yes thousands!] of actual man hours on the streets helping people. I have
helped and given to some of the local homeless population who attend some of
these ‘churches’, out of my own pocket. Yet these same homeless brothers are
encouraged to give ten percent of their money to ‘their church’. What am I
saying here? I know the men who level this type of accusation are often
intimidated by peer pressure and stuff. But the verse above says ‘the
manifestation of the Spirit is given to every believer to profit every one
around them’. The biblical view of ‘church’ would simply require all believers
to ‘administer the gift’ in a way that would profit all those around them.
There is no need to make these types of distinctions between ‘the elders of our
church’ or ‘the spiritual leaders in our region’. They mean the same thing. So
see your gift as a freely received charism that should be used unselfishly for
the benefit of others. Also some Pastors do seem to come around to ‘my view’
after many years of hearing us. They might then try and do some city wide
ministry, open to all the body. Then if the results are not good, they can
become discouraged also. Understand, many of these men took many years before
they could really see what we were saying, don’t expect a majority of local
believers to see things that took you years to see! The paradigms don’t come
down that easily.
(986)CORINTHIANS
12: 8-10 this section deals with the various gifts of the Spirit. The list is
not exhaustive, Paul speaks in Romans and Ephesians about other ones as well.
Instead of diving into a definition for each gift, lets look a little at the
various ‘modes’ and characteristics of the Spirit of God. In revelation we have
a scripture that many seem to stumble over, it says ‘the 7 spirits of God that
are before his throne’. Some associate Isaiah 11 with this. In Isaiah 11 you
can find 6 distinct characteristics of the Spirit of God, some see 7. Or you
could say ‘God has 7 actual Spirits’. Does God have 7 spirits? Or 25 or 10,000?
God is the creator of all spirits. He is the Father of lights! In revelation
you have Jesus holding the ‘7 stars’ in his hand, which are said to be angels.
Then you have the ‘7 angels of the 7 churches’. I showed you before why these
angels are not ‘Pastors’ they are angels! [You can find the post somewhere
under END TIMES STUFF]. Revelation has 7 seals, bowls, candlesticks. The book
is a prophetic book that has angels revealing and operating and functioning.
The 7 spirits before God’s throne are probably the 7 angels spoken about in the
book. Hebrews says the angels are ‘ministering spirits’. Well let’s get off the
rabbit trail. In Isaiah 61 we have the famous verses that Jesus read and
applied to himself in the New Testament [Luke 4]. Jesus opens the scroll and
reads about the Spirit of God upon him, the eyes of everyone in that place were
fixated on him. Notice how both in Isaiah 11 and 61, one of the main purposes of
the anointing was to administer justice to the poor and oppressed. Much of
Evangelicalism has opted out of this responsibility. There was an overreaction
to the social gospel of the late 19th, early 20th
century. The social gospel had a tendency to overemphasize good deeds, without
focusing on conversion. But the Fundamentalist movement of the 20th
century neglected the social justice aspect of the kingdom, thank God for the
Catholics who picked up the torch. The point today is the purpose of the gifts,
which we will get into tomorrow, is not simply for self glory and edification.
Or should I say the purpose of the anointing. Jesus made it very clear that his
mission involved justice for the poor and oppressed, he did not limit his
ministry to ‘the church’.
(991)1ST
CORINTHIANS 12: 8-11 Instead of giving you my definition for each one of the
gifts of the Spirit, let me just give you a sense of where I’m coming from.
Over the years I have learned the normal Pentecostal understanding of these
gifts. I also have learned the ‘anti-Pentecostal’ view. I take a little from
each camp. The strong Pentecostal view usually sees all the gifts as
‘supernatural’ I do too! But to them this means the gifts of Wisdom and
Knowledge can’t be ‘regular wisdom or knowledge’. Okay, so what are they? Some
teach that the ‘word of wisdom’ is simply a prophetic word about future stuff.
The ‘word of knowledge’ is simply prophetic insight into ‘past stuff’. To be
honest I have no idea how people come up with stuff like this [well, actually I
do have an idea]. I see Paul as operating in a strong gift of knowledge, though
Paul was trained and had a good education, the Spirit took all of his ‘head
knowledge’ and quickened it. I see James as having a strong gift of wisdom, his
epistle is the only New Testament work considered to be part of the corpus of
wisdom literature. Of course the gifts of healing[s] and prophecy are
supernatural, but wisdom and knowledge can be ‘supernatural’ without having to
fall into some prophetic type category. If it’s wisdom and knowledge from God,
then it is supernatural! I have known Pastors who had the gift of wisdom,
sometimes they would come to the same conclusions as me, but they took a
different route to get there! They might not have ‘seen’ all the knowledge
portions of scripture that I saw, but the wisdom they operated in caused them
to arrive at the same place. Some teach that after the Spirit fell on the
church at Pentecost [Acts 2] that you no loner had miracles, dreams and visions
or angelic visitations. Why is this wrong? The book that records more miracles
and angels and visions than any other book [except for the gospels] is the book
of Acts. In essence, one of the major New Testament books on these
manifestations shows them to be a result of the Spirits outpouring! The point
being these things didn’t end after Pentecost. I realize both camps
[Pentecostal- non Pentecostal] have had their wars over this stuff. I find that
both sides can be just as legalistic and judgmental in their views. I think one
of the major ‘signs’ of being ‘Spirit filled’ is a life based on free grace.
When people grasp the gospel and are filled with the Spirit, they should be
free from living their lives out of a state of condemnation and guilt. Many
‘Spirit filled’ churches operate in the gifts [their view of them] but are just
as legalistic as the non Pentecostals. To me this is not what it means to be
‘Spirit filled’. Overall we should be open to the working of the Spirit in
supernatural ways. We should avoid making this the goal or identity of our
Christian walk, but we should not reject or despise prophetic/supernatural
things. They are available and necessary at times for completion of the
mission.
(994)1ST
CORINTHIANS 12: 12-26 Paul uses the analogy of a body to describe the church.
Keep in mind that the ‘church’ in Paul’s writings mean ‘all Gods people in the
region/city’. Not just the gathered assembly! It’s important to make this
distinction because much of the talk on the restoration of the organic church
versus the institutional church focuses too much on the way believers meet.
Here Paul is saying ‘you are all individual distinct members in the local
community, you express Christ in various ways, though you have unique gifts you
also are part of one corporate expression of Christ in your city’. The distinct
gifts function in your community, not just in the meeting! [Whether it be the
Sunday building type thing or the living room!] Paul also tells them to be on
the guard for the ‘one member dominating the group’ expression of church. If
everyone is centered on one particular gift then the corporate expression of
the Body of Christ is diminished. Or if everyone saw ‘full time ministry’ as
being a modern Pastor then you would have too many sincere believers all
seeking to serve God in a limited way ‘if all were an eye, ear, mouth [speaking
gift]’ then where would the Body be? I find this chapter to be a key chapter in
the current reformation of modern church practices. As Gods people strive for a
more scriptural expression of ‘being the church’ we need to keep this chapter
in mind. Now, a word for the strong organic church brothers. The fact that Paul
encourages a corporate expression in the church does not mean the gatherings of
Gods people must be leaderless. Paul includes the concept of Elders in his
writings. To be sure these men were not to dominate the meetings, or be the
weekly speaker on an ongoing basis. But some hold to a type of idea that the
way the church is supposed to testify of the ‘headship of Christ’ is by demonstrating
a human leaderless church. That is God ordained the local bodies of believers
to have no functioning human leaders in order to show forth Christ’s headship.
To be honest I don’t see this in scripture. I see leaders in plurality [never a
one man show] and Paul was not afraid to tell Titus and Timothy to ‘ordain’
[recognize!] Elders in the church. But the overall instruction in this chapter
is God wants all of his people to function on a regular basis in the Body of
Christ. This of course includes the gatherings, but it is not limited to them.
The primary way we ‘show’ the world the Lordship of Jesus is by the selfless
love we have one for another. When we daily live charitable, sacrificial lives,
this demonstrates the ‘headship of Jesus’ over the church. The way believers
meet has some effect on this, but most of Jesus instructions to the disciples
was on how they would go out into the world and bring the great message of the
kingdom to society. The primary ‘battlefield’ of the church militant is the
world, not the meeting place!
(996)1ST
CORINTHIANS 12:27-31 Lets talk about ‘the fivefold ministry’ [some say four].
In the 90’s there was a real interest in this subject. It comes from this
portion of scripture [and Ephesians 4]. The basic teaching is/was that God was
restoring all these ministries [Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors and
Teachers- some see this as one combined gift] and that this restoration was one
of the final things to happen before Christ’s return. I read and bought lots of
books on church planting and how Apostles are gifted to ‘plant churches’. This
teaching really wasn’t a new thing. Back in the 1800’s you had Edward Irving
head up an apostolic movement called ‘the apostolic catholic church’
[Irvingites]. You had interesting folk like John Alexander Dowie who would
start a modern city of God called ‘Zion ’ in Illinois .
Brother Dowie saw himself as an apostle and felt the Lord led him to start an
apostolic city. You can still visit the city today. It was also common for many
‘up and coming’ preachers to begin seeing themselves as ‘apostles/prophets’ and
actually advertise their callings in this way. Well of course the old time
brothers who reject the gifts all together, saw this as another sign of the end
time apostasy. You also had a strange phenomenon take place. It was common for
‘apostolic/prophetic’ people to be taught ‘the missing ingredient is covering
and authority’- the churches are weak because they are under pastoral
authority, they don’t have apostles ‘covering them’ [ouch!]. So it was not
uncommon to have respected men kind of stepping over the normal boundaries of
relating to churches and to say things like ‘you need to do this’ ‘you over
there, be quiet. I don’t give you permission to speak’ and stuff like this. These
sincere men thought it their responsibility to act this way. They felt this was
a part of the restoration of apostles. Now, do apostles exist today [and
prophets]? To be honest with you, yes. If you read this section along with
Ephesians chapter 4, it is next to impossible to teach that they passed away in
the first century. These scriptures make it clear that after Jesus ascended he
gave ‘some apostles, others prophets’ they are included in the list of
evangelists, pastors and teachers. If you lose one gift, then you lose them
all. Also the timing of their ministries is given ‘till we all come to the
unity of the faith unto a perfect man’. These gifts are all given to build Gods
people up until we come to fall maturity. We aint there yet! So it’s pretty
obvious that these gifts exist. Those who believe they don’t exist usually
refer to the fact that the apostles of the Lamb [a category unto itself] did
pass away. They will show you the truth of these apostles having to have been
witnesses of Jesus actual resurrection. But these are a different category of
apostles. The ones in this chapter were not even ‘made’ until after Jesus
ascended on high. The same for the prophets. So, what do these strange fellows
do? In all the books and stuff I have read on these movements, I feel some have
been too limited in their definitions. Some taught that they were primarily
itinerant men [traveling church planters]. Of course Paul was the master at
this. But you find James as a stable pillar of the church at Jerusalem . Peter did travel, but he was no
Gentile church planter like Paul! And Timothy in the New Testament had an
apostolic type gifting, yet he was a protégée under Paul. So for the most part
apostles do carry a special ability to ground Gods people in truth. Those who
are called to ‘plant churches’ need to be more in tune with the example of
Paul. Many modern day ‘apostles’ see church planting as going to a region and
organizing Christians to meet in certain ways. I have heard it said ‘I have
planted an organic church’ ‘I have planted a home group’ or of course the
standard ‘I have planted a building based church’. The main ‘church planting’
of Paul was bringing the gospel to UNREACHED PEOPLE GROUPS and evangelizing
those groups. Now of course he did give instructions to them on ‘how to meet’
[like in this book we are reading!] But don’t confuse ‘church planting’ with
organizing believers around a new way to meet. All in all God gave us these
gifts to build each other up and bring us to maturity, a place where we are no
longer dependent on these gifts to function. I feel one of the greatest dangers
was the strong authoritarian mindset that some of the apostolic brothers had,
they meant well, but they stepped over their boundaries at times.
(998)CORINTHIANS
‘DO ALL SPEAK WITH TONGUES’? - Before we leave chapter 12, let me overview a
little. Paul mentions ‘do all speak with tongues’ and the presumed answer is
‘no’. I love my Pentecostal brothers, but some have developed an interesting
doctrine that says ‘God wants all to speak with tongues’ though here it is
obvious that all don’t! I am familiar with the classic defense of this. It says
that in the beginning of the chapter the gifts are individual gifts that all
believers can have [true enough] but that later in the chapter the ‘tongues’
that all don’t operate in is speaking of some sort of ministry gift of tongues.
That Paul is basically saying ‘you can all prophesy, speak with tongues, etc..’
but you are not all going to have public ‘ministry gifts’ in these things. Okay,
I got it. What’s the problem with this defense? Simply that when your done
making the case, the brothers usually wind up saying ‘therefore, we should all
speak with tongues’! Any argument [case] made from scripture, needs to use the
plain language/thought flow to interpret that which is not plain. I believe all
the gifts are for today [though I would disagree on certain Pentecostal
definitions of them] but I also believe we violate the New Testament when we
teach that certain gifts are supposed to operate in every person. Sure, you can
find tongues and other gifts as signs in the book of Acts that believers were
filled with the Spirit. But this doesn’t mean that those who don’t speak in
tongues are not filled with the Spirit. Paul’s teaching here is that we are all
baptized into Christ by the Spirit and we are all ‘drinking in the one Spirit’
but yet he empathically says ‘you all will not have the same gifts operating’.
I think it is a violation of scripture to develop a doctrine that says ‘unless
you function in a certain gift, you are not Spirit filled’. I do not see the
classic Pentecostal division between ‘public tongues’ [that everyone doesn’t
do] and ‘private tongues’ that you must have in order to have proof of being
baptized in the Spirit. I do see the division to a degree, but I feel the
Pentecostal brothers are being legalistic when they make this case.
(999)1ST
CORINTHIANS 13:1 ‘THOUGH I SPEAK WITH THE TONGUES OF MEN AND OF ANGELS, AND
HAVE NOT LOVE, I AM BECOME AS SOUNDING BRASS OR A TINKLING SYMBOL’ Over the
years I have seen how the church can ‘have a voice-make noise’ without actually
effecting change. Last night I watched some Martin Luther King stuff. Without
‘sucking up for political purposes’ I must admit that Martin is at the top of
my list of personal heroes. Martin spoke with a revolutionary purpose in mind,
he was not ‘delivering sermons’. One time I spoke at a friends church, I only
spoke for around 15 minutes [much like my radio show] and the pastor said ‘no
wonder John doesn’t have a church/ preach regularly, you have to at least speak
for 45 minutes’ [something like that]. Though after the message I had good
comments from the people, the sincere pastor felt like we didn’t ‘put the time
in’ in order to fulfill the Sunday morning practice of ‘church’. Were did we
get our modern sermon from? [The actual format]. If you go to Bible College
you can take a course called ‘homiletics’ this course will teach you the
structure of speaking and putting a message together. If you study Greek rhetoric
you will find that this science existed in the Greek intellectual world before
Christians embraced it [the actual format and structure taught in homiletics
comes right out of the Greek system of rhetoric, to the tee!]. I find it funny
how many modern pastors seem to measure a persons degree of ‘being scriptural’
by this measuring rod. ‘Well brother, didn’t they preach in scripture’ you bet
they did. We see Jesus reading from the scroll in the synagogue. Paul and Peter
were master ‘preachers’ if you will [though Paul himself was no ‘golden
tongue’] basically the biblical concept of preaching/teaching was more of a
spontaneous thing. It’s certainly not wrong to borrow the sermon from the
Greeks [which we did do] but we don’t want to fall into some mindset that sees
modern ministry [pastoral] as being a professional speaker. Here Paul says
there is a danger of believers becoming like ‘sounding brass and tinkling
symbols’ we can lose the reality of simple communication. We also can lose the
prophetic edge of speaking into society over issues of justice. If we become
too mundane and ‘professional’ then the world simply views us as another
program to simply pass over when clicking the remote. Both Martin Luther King
and Charles Finney were known for their social activism. One of the charges
[actually true] made against them was that they held to liberal theological
positions. Finney was effected by the higher criticism of his day [the trend in
the universities to deny the supernatural elements of scripture] he embraced
certain doctrines that could be viewed as heretical [things on the atonement
and mans sinful nature]. King’s critics make note of the fact that he also
accepted certain types of bible interpretation that viewed some of the
miraculous stories as ‘myth’ [not fake, but simple allegorical stories that
were not literal but simply meant to convey a spiritual theme]. Things like
Jonah and the whale, or Ballams talking donkey [or the talking snake in the
garden!] Some intellectual brothers view these stories this way. Is there any
validity to these views? Actually yes. I personally hold the ‘literal’ view
with stuff like this, but ‘literal’ does not mean the bible does not contain
different styles of writing. You do have poetry, allegory, symbol and other types
or forms of grammar in scripture. Even the strong literal brothers will
contradict themselves when they fully accept the ‘Lamb on the throne’ as not
being a literal Lamb! [or when they interpret the scorpion like demons in
Revelation as Black Hawk helicopters] So scripture does use allegory and
symbol. But why did Luther and Finney associate with the more liberal trends in
theology? I feel it was because of the strong anti social gospel that the
fundamentalists embraced. The more conservative thinkers who rejected the
liberal trends in teaching, would also reject social activism. Luther and
Finney simply gravitated towards those who were like minded in their concern to
speak into society. Basically they didn’t just want to be theologically correct
[though they might have been in some of there views] but they wanted to be able
to effect change in society. They wanted to be more than just a tinkling symbol
that could tickle your ears.
(1002)1ST
CORINTHIANS 13: 2-3 ‘and though I have the gift of prophecy [Pentecostal,
prophetic expressions] and understand all mysteries and all knowledge
[Orthodox, Reformed, intellectual creedal churches] and though I have all faith
that I could remove mountains [the Faith camp] and have not charity [Agape-
love] I am nothing’. Whew! Thank God us mission/outreach type guys are not in
there. ‘And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor [ouch] and have not
love it profits nothing’. I love the various expressions of the church, I feed
from the Reformed brothers teaching, Love reading and studying Orthodoxy and
Catholicism. I of course favor the outreach/hands on type ministries, but
according to this text we can have all these things and still be missing the
mark. Our intellectual type brothers are engaging the culture and defending the
faith, but without love we don’t even put a dent in the culture. The apologists
are great at refuting the new atheists, to be honest about it the Christian
intellectuals are head and shoulders above the atheists [Craig Lane and men
like him] but I have noticed that we don’t really change that many minds even
when all the proof is on our side. And I cant tell you how many well meaning
missions and soup kitchens I have been too, but often times there is a
disconnect between the people being served and the ‘servers’. You get the
feeling sometimes that the well meaning helpers are simply punching a time
card. We all need to reevaluate our motives. People can tell when we are in
‘ministry’ for the love of the business. Or for the self glory and adulation
that comes with our service. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees because they truly
were in it for the recognition of men. They wanted others to see that they were
‘successful in the ministry’ so they could receive recognition in public. Paul
tells the Romans ‘he that shows mercy, let him do it with love [cheerfully]’.
It’s easy to fall into a rut and simply be functioning out of a sense of duty.
Now duty can be a good thing, there are times where we just need people to
report for duty! [The harvest is plenteous, but the workers are few] but we
need to examine ourselves and make sure we are functioning out of the Love of
God. Often times the various ministries and expressions of the church are
simply God ordained ‘places’ where we can connect with people. As we interact
with the lost world, lets do our best to win the arguments, give proof for the
legitimacy of Christianity. Combat false ideas and mindsets that are imbedded
in our culture, but lets leave room for the other side to get in with us.
Understand that they have a ‘missing piece’ [Augustine’s hole in the heart] and
we are the only ones that can show them how to fill it.
(1003)CORINTHIANS
13:4-10 Okay, what exactly is this love that we need? Paul has told us that all
religious activity apart from it is vain. Paul here simply gives us a picture
of the way it acts. You can read this section and substitute your name for the
word love ‘love puts up with stuff and is kind’ ‘John puts up with stuff and is
kind’ [ouch] ‘It does not boast or show off’. ‘It does not seek its own
benefit’ a ‘what’s in it for me’ type mentality. Love is being just like Jesus.
James tells us ‘if you fulfill the royal law of scripture, you do well’. The
law is to love thy neighbor as yourself. Paul also shows us why love outshines
the other gifts of tongues and prophesy and knowledge. He says ‘we know in
part, prophesy in part. But when we are made perfect and mature at the
appearing of Christ the partial gifts will no longer be distinguishable. Only
love will rule’ [my paraphrase] I find it interesting that Paul says knowledge
itself will cease. Will actual knowledge cease? What exactly is ‘knowledge’?
When we use this term in society what we usually mean is the degree of ones
learning/education compared to someone else. If you have a masters and I have a
high school diploma, we see a difference. We measure knowledge by the amount we
have as compared to others. Now, at Christ’s appearing when we all ‘shall know,
even as we are known’ this fine distinction will ‘pass away’. We still will
have knowledge, but as a tool that we use to measure one another, it will
cease. It wont make a difference how much of the ‘knowledge pie’ [know in part]
you possess, at that time everyone one will have ‘all pie’. Knowledge is a
funny thing, our understanding of it has developed thru the centuries. During
the enlightenment era the concept of ‘what does it even mean to know’ was
tackled. One of the famous sayings was ‘I know/think, therefore I am’
[Descartes? Hey, I forget sometimes] the study of ‘how we learn/know things’ is
called epistemology. The enlightenment produced a way to approach knowledge
that can be called ‘modernism’ mans modern way of knowing stuff. In essence,
there exists real truth that a person can know and learn. There is/was a
challenge to this mode of thought. Many in the Emergent church movement would
grasp on to another theory of ‘knowing’ loosely defined as being in the
category of ‘post modernism’. Some challenged the actual ability to know a
thing. The emphasis is on who is actually viewing/learning the thing. The terms
‘metta- narrative’ are sometimes used to describe this dynamic. There is some
truth to the fact that our context, who we are and where we are coming from,
can shape the actual stuff learned. But the question is ‘does our perspective
actually change the thing, make it real or not’. Some in the field of Cosmology
have grasped on to this post modern theory and have surmised that the very act
of human beings studying and examining a thing can in and of itself cause the thing
‘to be’. You can see how this theory would be helpful to the atheist. ‘Where
did every thing come from?’ ‘it is a result of human kind’s thoughts and
inquiry’ [Ouch]. This sounds a lot like the metaphysical cults that espouse
that reality is a product of what you think, confess. That man has the power to
create reality simply by the act of studying a thing. Well this is of course a
challenge to the truth of God. Jesus and the Cross aren’t ‘real’ because men
‘put their mind to them’. They are real whether or not man ever thought about
them. ‘Let God be true, but every man a liar’ Romans. Paul tells us that all
these varying degrees of knowledge will some day ‘pass away’. We will all stand
before a self existent God and give an account of our lives. This day is coming
whether you ‘think about it or not’.
(1004)CORINTHIANS
13:11-13 WHEN I WAS A CHILD I UNDERSTOOD AND THOUGHT AND SPOKE LIKE A CHILD,
BUT WHEN I GREW UP I PUT THOSE THINGS BEHIND ME- Paul shows us that we presently see and
understand things thru ‘a glass’. God gives us insight and glimpses into Divine
truth, but we need mercy because we all have limited sight. Over the years I
know I have ruffled some feathers. Whether it be our teaching on what the
church is, tithing, end times stuff. How New Testament believers should view
the nationalistic promises made to Israel under the Old Covenant. I have found
that the problem usually isn’t solved by simply proving something from
scripture. For instance someone might become convinced by an ‘avalanche’ of
information, they might actually see what I am saying. They can even articulate
it to a degree [sometimes better than me!] but at the end of the day the answer
to the problem is we all need to ‘grow up’. We need an overall change in the
way we view things thru a legalistic lens. For instance, the tithe issue. Over
the years I have taught the concept that believers are not under this law.
Those of you who have read this site for any length of time know this. But I
have also taught that it is fine to put 10% of your money into the offering on
Sunday. It’s okay to support those who ‘labor among us’. But there are also
many examples in the New Testament warning Gods leaders to not be in it for the
money. Now, if we took seriously the mandate in Malachi to tithe. If we want to
actually bind the believer’s conscience in this way ‘how are you robbing God?
By not bringing in the tithes!’ Then we need to also look at the context.
Israel as a nation was mandated to ‘tithe’ of their goods [not money] in three
ways. They gave to support the Levites, also for the poor, and then they gave a
tithe for religious feasts. In essence this ‘tithe’ was a total of around 30 %
of their annual income, not 10%! [This by the way is right around what I spend
on a monthly basis for the ministry stuff I do]. So, if we were telling people
‘you are going to be cursed if you don’t pay 10%’ we are actually misreading
this verse. Also, how many believers think they are going to be cursed if they
don’t ‘tithe to the poor’? Most modern preaching on the tithe simply puts it in
the category of the Sunday offering. Most of this type of giving goes to
support salaries, building upkeep, light bills, insurance for staff. I could go
on and on. A very minute portion of this money [in general] goes to the poor.
Certainly not a third! Also the portion that went to the Levites could not be
used to purchase anything that would be owned by the Levite. They were
forbidden to own any type of personal inheritance as Levitical priests. How
often does the modern concept of tithing include this? The whole point is if we
are going to bind peoples consciences in this way [which we shouldn’t] then we
need to make sure we are at least teaching it right! Why bring this up? This is
simply a good example of what Paul is saying. ‘When I understood in a limited
way, I spoke and acted in a limited way’. The answer to the problem is simply
‘becoming mature in our thinking and speaking’. Recently I read an article from
a U.S. congressman, he was speaking about the situation between Israel and
Palestine. He sided with a military interpretation of the Old Testament promise
to Abraham to ‘posses the land’ and used that to influence his political
activism for war. How ‘mature’ is this type of thinking? Did any of the JEWISH
apostles do this? No. So instead of trying to ‘crisis manage’ every single
doctrinal problem, we really need to mature on an overall basis and view these
doctrines thru the paradigm of Jesus and his life and work. Are we imitating
his ethos when we do these things? Was this the primary message and life of
Jesus when he walked the earth? How did he respond to Roman oppression and
unjust govt.? Did he advocate military action in defense of the promises of God
made to the nation of Israel? If we as the 21st century church do not ‘rightly
divide’ these things, then we are of all men ‘most miserable’ [1st
Corinthians 15].
(1006)CORINTHIANS
14:1-20 Lets deal a little with ‘Tongues’. I have written before on the various
ways believers view this gift. Much has been taught over the years that can be
seen as extreme from both camps [the Pentecostals and the non charismatics]. Is
Paul speaking about the same gift as seen in Acts 2? If not, then does that
mean the only legitimate ‘tongues’ are the Acts 2 expression? If a distinction
is made, then Paul obviously put his stamp of approval on the second type of
tongues by actually writing about it here! Ecstatic utterance was not exclusive
to the early church. Paul earlier taught that the pagans engaged in this type
of speech when worshipping false idols. This does not mean that true spiritual
worship has no ecstatic type elements to it. The gifts themselves are seen as
divinely inspired speech [the speaking ones]. Isaiah 8:1 says ‘TAKE A LARGE
SCROLL AND WRITE ON IT WITH THE PEN OF A MAN’. God was telling Isaiah that he
would use his actual writings as inspired instruments from him. Scripture also
speaks of ‘the tongue of a ready writer’ we are called ‘living letters’ by Paul
himself. Paul doesn’t challenge the legitimacy of this type of gift, but he
does stress the importance of approaching all the gifts from a standpoint of
unselfishness. If when the believers are gathered, they are all functioning in
self edifying gifts, then they are making the same mistake that Paul rebuked
earlier with the Lords table. The purpose of the gathering and gifts are for
the building up of others and not for self gain. So Paul warns them of the
selfish use of the gifts. He says it’s better to use Prophecy or Teaching
because others can learn and grow. Some Pentecostal groups make a distinction
between the prayer time and the ministry time. They practice tongues during
corporate prayer and then treat ‘a tongue uttered’ during the service as
something that needs interpretation. I see some merit to his, but it should be
noted that here Paul does say ‘when you bless with the Spirit’ [prayer over a
meal or something like it] that your prayer is fine, but still the other person
doesn’t benefit. So Paul actually includes both ‘prayer tongues’ and ‘a word in
tongues’ as needing to be tamped down during the public gathering. Of course we
will see the teaching on private tongues as being fine, the point I am making
is Paul includes ‘prayer tongues’ along with the other type. The main thrust of
Paul’s teaching on Tongues is that the gift itself is legitimate [definitions
of the gift vary!] but that all the gifts of the Spirit should be used
unselfishly. ‘Well brother, Paul himself says it’s fine to pray in tongues to
build yourself up! Got you now!’ well actually you don’t! ‘Building ones self
up’ in a private setting can be considered beneficial to the overall corporate
group. I just prayed/mediated for around an hour before writing, this was
personal ‘self building’ for the purpose of corporate teaching. No matter where
you personally come down on the various gifts of the Spirit, it is important to
do all things with the benefit of others in mind. I hate to stick this example
in here, but heck I just came up with it! Last night I was watching the news. I
channel surf from CNN, MSNBC, FOX and even hit the PBS station every now and
again [plus the big 3 networks]. Its still the first week of President Obama’s
presidency and I couldn’t help but notice the unbelievable amount of
‘slobbering’ [yes, I borrowed it from Bernie Goldberg] that was taking place. I
actually clicked the channel from Hannity to CNN. Hannity just finished talking
about the embarrassing amount of gushing that the media were doing over Obama.
As I clicked to Anderson Cooper, they were showing clips from the first media
interview that Obama has given since being in office. It was a very good
interview to an Arab language station. As Cooper was asking the reporters on
their first thoughts of the interview, one actually said ‘it is so unbelievably
outstanding that I am actually ‘giddy’. Now, I don’t subscribe to the
Hannity/Limbaugh stuff 100%, but this really was too much. The media are
putting such a high expectation on the poor man that no human being could
possibly fulfill their image of the man. It was also reported that George
[Stephanopoulos-?] actually cried during the inauguration. Of course Chris
Matthews will go down in history for describing a ‘feeling going up his leg’
during coverage of an Obama speech. What’s wrong with this picture? I understand
that the average white man feels self affirmed when he engages in public displays of support for Black
advancement. I too like our President and do pray regularly for him. Not too
long ago I met a black homeless friend, he actually has a little apartment but
he was at the free mission so I sometimes refer to all these brothers as
homeless. He was under the impression that I ran some type of ministry that
took in money [I never take any offerings, for radio or anything else] so as I
offered to by him some groceries and stuff, he kinda went a little overboard. I
really didn’t have any ‘extra money’ but I bought it any way. I didn’t get mad
or feel bad about it. I still see the brother every now and then and am still
willing to help him. Now, is it better to show your love for the black man by
publicly crying and gushing and describing sexual type feelings when listening
to the new president speak, or to actually go out and find some black person in
need and meet the need? I don’t want to get into the whole political scene at
all, sometimes it gets me mad. I have actually ‘cussed’ [yes, I admit it] at
the screen at times. [Little curse words, not the big ones!] The point being we
all need to heed the admonition in scripture to show our love by our deeds and
actions. To simply put on a public display for the world means very little.
(1007)CORINTHIANS
14:20-33 Paul instructs the church that when they are gathered together they
should do things ‘decently and in order’. God is not the author of confusion.
Notice the ‘order’ of the early church meeting. It is participatory in nature,
those who give a word should take turns, those who give ‘a tongue’ need to let
someone interpret. But there is no sense of ‘a pastoral speaking gift’ in this
mix. Some teach that here Paul was giving directions to ‘the home group’ but
they still had a regular ‘church service at the building’. This of course has
no support at all from scripture or 1st century church history. Paul
was simply telling ‘the church’ how to act when they met. I don’t see any hard
and fast rules in which Paul is dictating some type of mandatory liturgy to the
people. He is giving them some basic guidelines that are in keeping with the
idea that God’s people are ‘a body’. He encourages open participation in the group.
He shows how someone could be sharing and another who is ‘sitting by’ can also
have a revelation. The idea is people grow and mature when they function.
People become co-dependant when they simply observe. The modern church service
for the most part has believers as spectators while one person speaks. While
there are times where one person speaking/teaching is fine, what we have done
is exalted this very limited format of ‘church’ and made it the criteria of
what church is supposed to be. Note how Paul does allow for the gift of tongues
to be used in the gathering, but only when there is an interpreter. He even
‘lifts’ an obscure verse from Isaiah that says God used ‘the languages of
foreigners’ as a sign of judgment against unbelief. This verse has been used by
the strong anti charismatic crowd to kind of say that the whole tongues thing
is ‘of the devil’. Basically Paul was applying this Old Testament verse to show
that when languages are spoken that people don’t understand, then unbelievers
and judgment can be present. In Acts 2 there were those who said ‘what is this
strange thing [tongues] are they drunk or what’. Yet others heard the
‘wonderful works of God’ in their native tongue. The lack of spiritual
discernment among those who thought they were drunk was a sign showing their
ignorance of Gods Spirit at work. Grant it, you could hardly blame them for
thinking this, but the point Paul is making is that unknown languages being
used in a setting where unbelievers can walk in does act as a sign of judgment.
Paul wasn’t teaching that the gift of tongues was itself a false gift. I think
this chapter is important for the present day because very few places in
scripture actually deal with the way believers should meet. This chapter gives
some of the basic guidelines of what our meetings should look like. I think we
could all learn from the Corinthian experience.
(1008)CORINTHIANS
14:34-40 ‘Let your women keep silent in the gathering, for it is not permitted
for them to speak. If they have any questions let them ask their husbands at
home’. As a practical matter, when me and my wife attend church, I bring one of
those little note pads with me. You never know when your wife has a question!
[This is a Joke! But now you can see why I don’t take offerings]. What is Paul
saying here? In chapter 11, verse 5, he also told the women not to ‘prophesy’
with uncovered heads. Some think Paul is forbidding women to operate in the
speaking gifts, specifically tongues. Here he seems to be addressing a specific
issue at Corinth. He says ‘if they have questions let them ask their husbands’.
It’s possible that the wives were interrupting the meetings, or taking an
authoritative role that was beyond their calling. I already discussed how
Corinth had a form of idolatry that incorporated ‘temple prostitution’. Paul
did not want the churches to go the way of the culture at Corinth! Paul is not
forbidding women in general to never ‘talk in church’. He closes this chapter
with the admonition to do all things decently and in order. Paul has a special
relationship with these believers. He spent quite a long time in their city [18
months] he launched another very effective ministry while at Corinth. Do you
know what that was? He began his ‘writing ministry’ while at Corinth. He wrote
his first 2 letters to the Thessalonians from the city. Paul was very hard on
this church, but he did not yet challenge their basic identity as believers
because of all their misgivings, he still treated them as Gods holy people. In
the next chapter he will question whether or not ‘they are in the faith’. He
will challenge them on their unbelief in the resurrection of Christ.
(1010)CORINTHIANS
15:1-19 Paul will deal with the greatest threat yet to the Corinthian church,
their doubt over the physical resurrection of the body. Various ‘Christian’
groups over the years have doubted the physical resurrection. Now, some have
done this out of a sincere attempt at trying to defend the faith! [their view
of it] In the 1900’s you had one of the most popular theologians by the name of
Rudolf Bultman [most of his career was spent at the University of Marburg,
Germany. Much of the higher criticism of the day originated from Germany] He
wrote a book called ‘Kerygma and Myth’. What he tried to say was that any
modern man living in the 20th century, with all the breakthroughs in
science and knowledge, could not ‘literally’ believe the miraculous stories in
scripture. Or even the way scripture spoke of heaven and hell and used limited
terms to describe spiritual truths. He used the bibles terminology on Cosmology
as an example. How could man believe in a Cosmos where ‘heaven is up there,
with the stars and all’ and he felt that enlightened man needed to ‘re-tool’
the bible and cleanse it from all these mythical images, but yet keep the
spiritual aspects of it. The moral teachings of Christ and stuff like that. So
you have had sincere men doubt the truth claims of scripture. The problem with
this attempt [higher criticism] is it throws out the baby with the bathwater.
The resurrection of Jesus is presented by the apostles as a real event. The
fact of this resurrection can also be attested to by examining the historical
events of the day. Simply put, there is a ton of proof for the real
resurrection of Christ. Bultman and others meant well, but some of the ‘facts’
that they were using were later proven
to be false. Bultman used a model of cosmology that would later be rejected by
science. Yet the testimony from scripture would remain sure. Paul told the
Corinthian's that they needed to reject any attempts at spiritualizing the
resurrection of Christ. Sometimes believers grasp hold of limited proof’s for
certain doctrines. For instance, the New Testament does speak of a spiritual
resurrection. In Ephesians Paul says we are presently raised with Christ. In
Romans chapter 6 we have all ready been raised with Jesus. This reality does
not mean there will be no future resurrection of the saints. In Johns gospel
Jesus speaks of the resurrection as being a future real event, as well as a present
reality. Those in the graves will hear his voice and be raised from the dead.
And those who were presently ‘dead in sins’ would ‘come alive’ [spiritually]
when they heard and believed the testimony of Jesus. It is important for the
believer to be familiar with the various theories and ideas that theologians
and believers have grasped over the years. It is a mistake to simply see all
higher learning as ‘liberalism’. There are some very important things that we
have learned thru the great intellectuals of the church. But we also need to
stick with the ancient traditions as seen in the creeds, as well as the plain
testimony of scripture. If Christ ‘be not raised from the dead, then we are of
all men most miserable’.
(1011)CORINTHIANS
15:20-28 here we see the guarantee of mans resurrection based on Christ's
resurrection. ‘As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall ALL be made alive’. Is
Paul teaching a form of universalism [all being saved]? He is showing us that
all men will someday be raised from the dead. Now, does Paul leave room here
for a type of Pre-millennial resurrection? A ‘raising’ of the dead prior to a
thousand year literal reign of Jesus. Then another resurrection at the end? Yes
he does. If you read Revelation you will see this type of scenario play out.
Also Jesus speaks of the resurrection of the just and the unjust. Historically
the church has held 3 basic views on this. Pre-millennialism says Jesus returns
first [pre] before the literal thousand year rule occurs. ‘Post’ says the
thousand year rule is literal, and after that Jesus comes back. Those who held
to this view were excited at the turn of the first millennium [1000 ad] they
thought it possible for Jesus to have returned after the first thousand years
since his death and resurrection. And then you have A-millennial, they
spiritualize the thousand year reign spoken of in the book of Revelation as
being a symbol of Christ’s present rule and kingdom. Now, today’s most popular
form of Pre-millennialism is not historic, it dates back to the 19th
century. Today’s form is called ‘Pre-tribulational, Pre-millennial’ this
teaching [dispensationalism] says Jesus comes back 2 more times. One is called
‘the rapture’ the other is the second coming [revealing]. The proponents of
this form find little [or no] early Christians who believed this. There is one
early writing by a Syrian brother who speaks very clearly about a rapture type
event. Some think he speaks a little too clearly! The writing is believed to
have been a fake. Either way we do have Paul teaching stages involved with the
coming of the Lord and the kingdom. It is possible to have 2 future
resurrections, this would not mean you need two future ‘second comings’. The
first resurrection takes place at Christ’s return. He rules a literal thousand
years and ‘the dead are raised again’ at the end of the literal rule on earth [
a literal reading of Revelation]. Also Paul does use the language of Jesus
submitting to the Father at the end so ‘God will be all in all’. I feel
believers have been confused and at times contradictory while trying to explain
the nature of God and the Trinity. I recently read a teaching on the Trinity
that tried to compare the Trinity to the nature of the organic church. It
seemed confusing to me, they tried to say that just like in the Trinity you
have no one ‘being’ having authority over the other, but instead you see all
three persons equally submitting to one another [Father, Son and Spirit] so in
the church you have equality. Now, I do believe that there is equality in the church,
but I felt the example was way off. The New Testament clearly teaches the
willful ‘submission’ of the Son to the Father. God [the father] is clearly the
one ‘in charge’. Now, I admit it’s difficult and brothers have spent years
trying to explain all the ins and outs of this. Here Paul shows us that the Son
has willingly submitted to the Father so the father can put all things under
him. Then once again at the culmination of the kingdom the Son submits to the
father and God receives the glory. We will praise and worship Jesus thru out
all eternity, it is his willful submission to the father’s plan that makes this
happen. NOTE- Some believers spiritualize the first resurrection spoken of in
Revelation, they relate it to those who have been ‘born again’ spiritually.
Modern ‘Preterism’ holds to this view.
(1013)CORINTHIANS
15:29-49 the resurrection body is a real ‘spiritual’ body. Paul describes the
natural body [us now] as fleshly and like Adams
body. He then describes the promised resurrection body as being like Jesus in
his raised state. These verses can be a little confusing. When Paul says the
resurrection body is ‘spiritual’ as compared to earthy, is he saying it is not
real? No. But you can see how some early sects could use these verses and teach
a ‘phantom’ type resurrection [Gnostic, Docetist type groups]. I was once asked
by a Catholic believer if the church taught the physical resurrection. I
assured the person that both Catholic and Protestant [and Orthodox] expressions
of Christianity embrace the real future resurrection of the body. Now, is it
the same body? Well, the way Paul describes it is by comparing the planting of
seeds. When you plant a seed you don’t simply get a bigger seed! But you get
various types of growth, whether it’s a tree or plant or whatever. So Paul says
our future bodies will be new and glorious in this way, but if it weren’t
really you, then it wouldn’t be a resurrection! So you will come back, but it
will be a ‘new you’. Over the years I have studied various theologians [Christian
ones] and I have seen the penchant for various groups to focus in on a certain
doctrine and to stray somewhat from the faith. Now, they aren’t always cults,
some of them are highly knowledgeable Christians who seem to be testing the
boundaries of orthodoxy. I like N.T. Wright, the famous Bishop of Durham
[Church of England] but you need to be grounded in what you believe before you
can really read him. I feel at times he is helpful in bringing new perspectives
to things, I have seen some of the things he teaches myself. But there is also
a danger of ‘re-thinking’ stuff a little too much. By the way Wright has
written on the resurrection and has done a great job at defending the historic
churches position. He’s in somewhat of a theological controversy at the moment,
some of the strong reformed brothers have come out and challenged his view on
Justification. Wright teaches that the historic reformers kind of missed what
Paul was saying. Wright ‘extends’ the doctrine to mean ‘a sign/badge of those who
are already in Gods covenant community’. The historic reformers taught a more
forensic meaning of the doctrine. That justification is primarily saying that
God imputes the righteousness of Jesus to the believer. That Jesus took our
sins, and we get his righteousness. Now, I feel there is some truth to Wrights
view. But I would be careful to throw out the reformed view all together. There
certainly is much truth to the reformed view. John Piper [a reformed Baptist]
just released a book on the reformed view, Wright has one coming out pretty
soon [Wrights is already published overseas, but the states wont get it for a
few months]. So, the point is I believe the historic church and the ancient
creeds ‘got it right’ on the resurrection. It is real, it will happen to all
people some day. Those who have ‘done good’ [wow- these are Jesus actual words
when describing the final judgment!] will be ‘raised to life’. Those who have
done evil will be raised to face judgment. We can all escape the coming
judgment, Jesus died for us. If we believe and accept his death, burial and
resurrection, then we will be raised to a new life some day. 378- (I stuck this
entry in here because it deals with the ‘baptism for the dead’, I didn’t want
you to think that I just skipped over the verse) Let me give a little example
of the ‘overriding act of redemption’ trumping any little verse or experience.
Paul actually tells the Corinthians ‘if the dead are not raised, then why are
you baptizing people in ‘proxy’ for the dead?’ This is tough stuff. Let me give
you one way to see this. The ‘baptism for the dead’ seems to have been a real
cultural thing that took place in a specific time and setting [like the slavery
verses I mentioned earlier]. There seems to have been a concern specifically to
the 1st century church that said ‘this new doctrine of Jesus is
great, but being its only been around a few years, and you are telling us
[Paul] that you must embrace it to be saved. Then we have a problem. A lot of
our loved ones never got a chance to hear. How do you expect us to quell these
concerns?’ And it’s possible that the ‘baptism’ by proxy [like a father or son
getting baptized in the place of the loved one who died] was a 1st
century cultural thing that grew out of this. The fact that they were doing
this does not mean that Paul the Apostle was condoning it. Paul was simply
saying ‘if you guys really don’t believe in life after death, then why are you
bothering with this rite?’ Its like Paul was using their own cultural thing to
show them the inconsistency of their thinking. He wasn’t really teaching the
baptism for the dead. [This is my view, Mormons believe different. They do
practice this today and they use this verse as justification].
(1014)CORINTHIANS
15:50-58 Okay, let’s wrap up this chapter. ‘Flesh and blood will not inherit
the kingdom’ Paul speaks a little on the nature of the resurrected body. It is
real, but not mortal [flesh and blood] without getting lost in the technical
aspects of the actual body, Paul does make a distinction between the natural
life of man [blood gives life to the mortal man] and the supernatural life of
the resurrected body [spiritual life]. Then Paul shows us a mystery [something
that was hidden up until the time God reveals it- here thru Paul!] that ‘we
shall not all experience death, but we shall all get new bodies’. Paul teaches
that some believers will not face natural death, they will be the generation
that is alive at Christ’s coming. Paul says this happens at the ‘last trumpet’.
For those of you not familiar with some of the silly stuff that passes under
the heading of ‘theology’, let me explain some stuff. In the world of
‘dispensationalism’ there is an entire body of teaching that deals with the
trumpets in scripture. Basically if Paul is teaching that this event, getting
raised from the dead and being transformed, if this takes place at ‘the last
trump’ then it is pretty clear that this event is not some type of rapture that
takes place 7 years prior to Gods ‘last trump’ [last day, when God wraps things
up]. But if you read the portions of scripture that speak about Christ’s return
and the resurrection [Thessalonians 4, John 14, Matthew 25] you will see that
all these scriptures teach that the resurrection takes place at the end, when
Christ returns. So anyway a whole lotta time is spent by the rapture guys to
explain that when you are in school, you might say ‘hey, that’s the last bell
[trump] before class starts’ and that ‘last bell’ doesn’t mean ‘last bell’, but
it means the ‘last bell for now’. It’s kind of silly stuff that preachers do in
order to back up their theories. If scriptures ‘last trump’ isn’t really the
‘last trump’ then you can fit the rapture in as a separate event from the
second coming. I think doing doctrine like this is silly and hairsplitting. The
first century believers who were reading these letters [not all at once, but as
they were slowly being penned and sent] simply saw all of the references on the
second coming as one event. It’s silly to try and make two separate lists of
the New testament verses on Christ’s coming and then place some verses under a
rapture heading, and others under a ‘second coming’ heading, especially when
the rapture brothers themselves cant agree on which ones belong to which list!
Well any way we have a glorious promise of a future resurrection body, the last
enemy that Jesus destroys is death. Revelation says ‘death and hell are cast
into the lake of fire’ Jesus has power over death, hell and the grave. He will
totally eradicate all death some day, Jesus tasted death for every man
[Hebrews] so that man does not have to be in bondage under its fear any more.
(1019)CORINTHIANS
16:1-4 ‘When you come together on the first day of the week, let every one of
you put some money aside as God has provided for you. So when I come we won’t
have to waste any time taking offerings. And we will use this money for the
purpose of meeting the needs of the poor saints at Jerusalem . Whoever you approve to take the
money to Jerusalem
can do it, I might also go with them if the Lord permits. I gave this same
order to all the churches in the Galatian province’ [my own paraphrase].
These verses are usually used to justify
the Sunday morning offering. They are also used to teach ‘Sunday as the Lords
special day’. Let’s talk a little. Paul gave these instructions to at least
this church and all the churches of Galatia . We have no idea if all the
first century churches actually did this. But let’s say they did. What exactly
are they doing? They are taking a Sunday offering and using it 100 percent for
charitable purposes. Remember how I have taught in the past that the main
teaching from Jesus on giving dealt with the poor? So if we want to use this
text to command believers to give on Sunday, then we need to use ALL THE MONEY
for helping poor people. Paul also says ‘do it before I arrive, I don’t want to
have to spend time messing around with collections’. I find it interesting that
it is common today to spend a good portion of the Sunday service [any church U.S.A. ] to kind
of do a celebratory offering thing. Lots of time to stop and emphasize the
importance of worshiping God with our money. The point I would make is Paul did
none of this. He actually said he did not want to have to set aside time for
the collecting of money when he arrived, and for this very reason he said take
up the offering on Sunday! One more thing; it is obvious that the early
believers began a tradition of meeting on Sunday. Jesus appeared to the
disciples after his resurrection on 2 consecutive Sundays. Acts 20 has believers
meeting on Sunday. Jesus of course rose from the dead on Sunday. But there is
no indication from scripture that believers are under some type of New
Testament Sabbath law. Sort of like Sunday is now the ‘special day’ just like
Saturday for Judaism. Various groups argue over this issue, I have taught on it
before. In the New Covenant we have tremendous freedom to meet or not meet on
Sunday. Or to meet or not meet on Saturday for that matter! But doctrinally we
are free from the law and all of its observances. I appreciate the work that
has been done by various scholars [Especially some catholic ones] on showing
how Sunday became the special day of observance for believers. But we need to
be careful when we read what the believers did in the New Testament and then
proclaim it as law. I believe its fine to meet on Sunday, to take offerings and
to do all of these types of things. But when we grasp hold of limited ideas,
and then exalt them to a place of law, we err. Paul was simply telling this
church to collect some money on the first day of the week for the sole purpose
of charity. If modern day believers want to apply these scriptures literally,
then we should use all of the Sunday offering for charity. If we apply them
literally, then there is absolutely no sense of a tithe system to pay for
salaries, building upkeep, insurance, on and on. For modern day believers to
engage in such things is fine. If these expenses seem needed for the overall
purpose of Gods work, then fine. But to use these verses and actually tell
believers they are robbing God if they don’t tithe on Sunday is absolutely not
true. I have written a lot about these things over the years [you can find
stuff on my ‘statement of faith’ section and ‘what in the world is the church’
section] I do not condemn all the churches who practice these things, it’s just
we need to be careful when we take examples from scripture, lift them out of
context, add a few verses from Malachi and then teach some air tight system
that if not obeyed brings the curse of God on someone. Do all things in grace,
remember THE POOR, and you will do well.
(1020)CORINTHIANS
CONCLUSION- Paul concludes this long letter with a bunch of personal notes. He
tells them that the Lord has opened up a great effective door for him at Ephesus and there are
many adversaries. He wanted Apollos to make a visit but he did not want to at
this time. He told them to go easy on Timothy because he was a fellow worker in
the Lord. Overall Paul’s message to this church was one of true grace. I want
to emphasize again [like we did when studying Romans and the other epistles so
far] that one of the main themes of the first century apostles was belief in
the gospel. Paul told these believers that it was believing in the message of
the Cross that saves them. He defined the gospel as Jesus death, burial and
resurrection. He encouraged them to live free as Gods community and to help
each other out. Paul did not lay on them some type of guilt trip to become some
high powered institution in order to ‘change their world’. He believed that the
simple lifestyle of love and purity would be able to do the job. I see a
contrast from the first century church and its simple gospel and today’s idea
of church. Also notice how Paul was ‘planting’ these churches. He visited them,
spent time with them, LEFT THEM, and continued corresponding with them thru
letters and friends. In essence, first century church planting was simply
establishing groups of people on the foundation of Christ. They were not
organizing under some type of 501c3 model [I do realize they didn’t have this
back then!] they didn’t see ‘church’ as some type of social group that you
joined [Elks lodge type thing]. They actually were the church! I want to stress
this theme as we continue teaching thru out the New Testament. Many times
believers hold on to and embrace ideas that seem to be biblical [you can find a
verse here and there type thing- proof texting] but when you see the whole
story you get a better picture of what’s going on. Well I hope you guys got
something out of this brief study, try and keep in mind the things that
challenged you as we read thru this book. Did you see some things differently
than before? Did some stuff get you mad? Did we challenge your belief system in
some way? My goal is to encourage reformation in the church, not disorder! Take
the new things you might have seen and implement them in Gods time. Those of
your starting from scratch [first time church planters] can start with a clean
slate and implement many of these ideas from day one, others who are already in
ministry will have to take a more measured approach. Do all things as God leads
and in his time. To all you ‘church members’ don’t take the stuff that you
learned and use it to come against your ‘church’. Let God lead you on your
journey and reform as God directs. It’s easy for some young rebels [or old!] to
take the stuff on tithing and use it against your current church, that’s not
our goal. Be patient with your pastors and leaders and allow God to use you as
a force for change, not destruction. Well that's it for now; I am not sure what
study we will jump into next. Recently got some good emails and phone calls
from some of our friends laboring in other towns, people I did not even know
of, but who follow the ministry. Those of you out there who are following
along, send me an email every now and then so I can see what type of growth we
are having, the different regions we are impacting. Those of you who have
launched home groups, let me know how things are going. God bless till next
time, John.
(1192) ARE WE
SUPPOSED TO BE DUMMIES? Still in Luke 18, the disciples forbid the young
children from coming to Jesus; Jesus rebukes the disciples and tells them that
the Kingdom of God is made up of little children. There
is a theme in the New Testament that goes like this ‘become childlike in your
faith and trust in me, but be mature in your thinking and understanding’. Often
times these two things are confused. Why? In the letter to the Corinthians Paul
will rebuke the wisdom of the world, he states that when he was among them he
did not use men’s wisdom to convince them of the message of the Cross. Paul
also encourages believers to be ‘child like’ as well. Many confuse Paul’s
teaching with an idea that says Christians should not be engaged in the
development of the mind. Paul was not rebuking all wisdom and forms of
knowledge, but a specific kind of wisdom. In Acts 17 we read of Paul at Athens , the Greek intellectual city of his day [Alexandria was the philosophical center in Egypt ].
As Paul disputes with the philosophers of his day he actually quotes their own
poets/philosophers in his sermon, he does not quote from the Old Testament, but
uses the sources that they are familiar with. Right after Athens Paul goes to Corinth , the cites are
very close geographically. There was a form of philosophy at Corinth
that was very popular, you had the
Sophists and the professional speakers [Rhetoric] operating out of Corinth . The Sophists were
the philosophers that came right before Socrates in the Greek cultural world,
around 6 centuries or so before Christ. Their form of philosophy was what you
would describe as the first Relativists [or post modern thinkers who appeal to
subjective knowledge as opposed to objective] they taught that philosophy and
arguing were simply things you do ‘just for the heck of it’. Sort of like a
hobby of simply disputing things while never being able to arrive at truth,
something Paul will rebuke in the New Testament by saying some people were
‘always learning and never being able to come to the knowledge of the truth’
Paul himself tells the Corinthians ‘where is the disputer of this world’. So
the Sophists were famous for this type of thing. Now the great philosopher
Socrates disagreed with the Sophists, Socrates taught that thru the practice of
thorough debate and the art of constantly asking questions, that you could
arrive at truth [seek and ye shall find type of a system]. He believed real
knowledge could be found thru seeking after it. Socrates stirred the waters too
much, he was put to death by being made to drink the famous hemlock, the city
where this happened was Athens .
So Paul more than likely is disputing the system of thought that said you could
not arrive at objective truth. It’s no secret that his letter to the
Corinthians has one of the strongest statements of factual [objective] belief
found in the New Testament. The great chapter 15 reads like an early creed to
the church ‘Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures…’ It’s very
probable that this chapter was used as a sort of creed in the early Pauline
churches. So, what exactly was Paul saying [and Jesus] when they taught us to
be like children, to reject the wisdom of the world for the wisdom of Christ?
Simply that our approach to God and the things of God should be done in a
humble manner, being childlike and open to God all throughout our lives. Paul
was not teaching us that the following ages of great Christian thinkers was
wrong; men like Anselm, Aquinas, C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton. It is
perfectly acceptable for the believer to become well versed in the field of
philosophy, to argue the Christian worldview from a biblical perspective. While
it is true that no church was founded by Paul after his Athens visit, and some
feel he abandoned his use of ‘worldly wisdom’ at Corinth because of this
failure, but I think Paul continued to appeal to the intellectual world thru
his great wisdom [God given] thru out his life [read Galatians and Romans!].
Ultimately it is the wisdom of the Cross that saves people, a wisdom that Paul
said he communicated not in the words of mans intellect, but in the direct
ability of the Spirit to speak. Sometimes that ability came thru a sermon that
quoted the philosophers of old [Athens ]
sometimes thru the simple sharing of the message of Christ. Jesus grew in
wisdom and stature with God and man, he knew the ideas of his day, so did Paul.
Do you?
VERSES-
3 This is
a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A
bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of
good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not
given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a
brawler, not covetous;
1st Tim.
See now that I,
even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver
out of my hand.
Dt. 32:39
The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to
destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
Jn. 10:10
But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye:
and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;
For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God
endure grief, suffering
wrongfully.
For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your
faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is
acceptable with God.
For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ alsosuffered
for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye:
and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;
For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.
Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh,
arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath
ceased from sin;
But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ'ssufferings;
that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.
Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit
the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.
But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal
glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you
perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you.
Peter
facebook.com/john.chiarello.5
Note- Please do me a favor, those who read/like the posts-
re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read them on. Thanks-
John.#
No comments:
Post a Comment