"But thanks be to God, who always leads us in His triumph in Christ, and manifests through us the sweet aroma of the knowledge of Him in every place. For we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; to the one an aroma from death to death, to the other an aroma of life to life. And who is adequate for these things."
This is a wonderful passage for people like me who feel at times we have really made a huge mistake. Paul had written a strong letter to the Corinthians, and he was really struggling with how it would be received (see v. 13). He was no doubt second-guessing himself and probably feeling like a loser. Then he remembered that in Christ he was a winner. He was reminded by God's Spirit that all of us who are in Christ are a part of an enormous victory parade.
When Paul says that God "always leads us in His triumph in Christ", he is alluding to the victory parades sanctioned by the Romans emperors whenever there was a significant victory by the legionaries or navy. Some people think that we Christians are the captives in the parade, and there is some merit to the proposal (see I Corinthians 4:9), but I believe the best understanding in the context, and when one examines the historical date, is that we are in fact the victorious soldiers.
The Roman victory parade was a magnificent affair that lasted a day or more. It began with the Roman magistrates leading the procession, followed closely by Romans senators. Then came the trumpeters in front of slaves carrying all the wonderful spoils of the battle. White oxen proceeded the king of the defeated country, if he was captured as a result of the victory. Behind him walked all the dejected soldiers, ashamed and vanquished. Immediately after these captured troops were the victorious Roman officers followed by musicians and dancers celebrating the victory. The Roman general rode in a chariot with a slave who kept whispering in his ear (according to General Patton) "all fame is fleeting". Finally, the soldiers who had actually fought and won the battle brought up the rear, soaking up the cheers and accolades of the massive crowds who turned out to greet them.
This is the picture Paul was given, and he in turn gives it us to encourage us that even if we sin, even if we really blow it on a particular occasion, we are still victors in Christ. We may not be the best soldier and we may not have fought the hardest. We may have even failed at key moments in the battle, but we are all still a part of the victory celebration.What a glorious encouragement!
Oh yes, to those who reject our Lord we smell like "death" (v. 16). But to those "who are being saved" we smell like "life". And to God "we are a fragrance of Christ" because we as Christians are clothed with His righteousness (see Galatians 3:27). This passage is always a great encouragement to me. I hope it is for you as well. Remember, even if we fail at times, even if we lose some battles, we are still on the winning side with the Lord Jesus Christ!
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
The Ultimate Issue in the Universe -- The Book of Job
A lot of people think that the book of Job is about suffering. That is surely a major theme. Others say it is the sovereignty of God. Again, no doubt, a major theme of the book. But I believe that the overall subject of the book of Job is God's wisdom and integrity.
Job was almost certainly the first book of the Bible written. Genesis goes back to the beginning of creation, but Moses wrote it long after Job was here and gone. In the orthodox Hebrews scriptures, Job is rightly placed first. In my opinion, not just because of its ancient roots, but because it addresses the most important issue in the universe: Was God's plan to create a race of people in His own image to voluntarily love and serve Him a sham or a success? And more specifically, was this plan wise and honest or foolish and manipulative?
In the beginning of the book we see that Satan is briefly allowed into God's presence and God points to Job as Exhibit A of how well His plan is working. Satan immediately responds by questioning the very foundation of God's plan. Satan's thesis is that Job only respects God because God is good to him. Satan claims that if God would take everything away from Job, he would no longer love and trust Him. God allows Satan to take away Job's wealth and children, which Satan did. Still Job respected God. Then Satan came back to God and said that if God took away Job's health, he would turn on Him. Again God allowed Satan to carry this out. But Job responded righteously once again. God's wisdom and integrity was upheld and Satan's accusation was crushed. But then beginning in chapter three, we have the account of Job's struggle to come to grips with why all this has happened to him. Job's friends are initially a comfort to him, but then they begin to accuse him of sinful behavior. He protests and claims that he is innocent of any serious wrongdoing. Along the way, they press their accusations more strongly, and Job defends himself and openly wishes that he, or someone else, could make his case before God. After all the parties have had their say, God finally speaks up in chapters 38-41, and asks Job over seventy questions. All of which are designed to demonstrate that Job does not have sufficient experience and knowledge about God's creative work to question God about anything. Job responds by saying "I repent" (42:6), but he is not admitting to sins that he was accused of, but rather the sin of thinking he had the right or wherewithal to question God's actions toward him. He relinquishes all rights to question what God has done or to insist on an answer from God about his situation.
In the end, God restored Job's health, wealth and family (42:7-17), although He was under no obligation to do so. What's more, God never explained to Job, according to this account, why Job had to go through such horrific trials. And that's the point, God created us to love and trust Him. God being God does not have to explain Himself. He may, as He has done in this book, explain things to a certain extent. He has given us general insight as to why bad things may happen to us. It could be temporal discipline for our sin. But it could also be that in the on-going contest between Himself and Satan, He is using us as an example of someone who will trust, love and obey Him no matter what. God may point to us as more proof that His creative plan was wise and legitimate. Hopefully we can pass the test as Job did. So help us, Lord!
Job was almost certainly the first book of the Bible written. Genesis goes back to the beginning of creation, but Moses wrote it long after Job was here and gone. In the orthodox Hebrews scriptures, Job is rightly placed first. In my opinion, not just because of its ancient roots, but because it addresses the most important issue in the universe: Was God's plan to create a race of people in His own image to voluntarily love and serve Him a sham or a success? And more specifically, was this plan wise and honest or foolish and manipulative?
In the beginning of the book we see that Satan is briefly allowed into God's presence and God points to Job as Exhibit A of how well His plan is working. Satan immediately responds by questioning the very foundation of God's plan. Satan's thesis is that Job only respects God because God is good to him. Satan claims that if God would take everything away from Job, he would no longer love and trust Him. God allows Satan to take away Job's wealth and children, which Satan did. Still Job respected God. Then Satan came back to God and said that if God took away Job's health, he would turn on Him. Again God allowed Satan to carry this out. But Job responded righteously once again. God's wisdom and integrity was upheld and Satan's accusation was crushed. But then beginning in chapter three, we have the account of Job's struggle to come to grips with why all this has happened to him. Job's friends are initially a comfort to him, but then they begin to accuse him of sinful behavior. He protests and claims that he is innocent of any serious wrongdoing. Along the way, they press their accusations more strongly, and Job defends himself and openly wishes that he, or someone else, could make his case before God. After all the parties have had their say, God finally speaks up in chapters 38-41, and asks Job over seventy questions. All of which are designed to demonstrate that Job does not have sufficient experience and knowledge about God's creative work to question God about anything. Job responds by saying "I repent" (42:6), but he is not admitting to sins that he was accused of, but rather the sin of thinking he had the right or wherewithal to question God's actions toward him. He relinquishes all rights to question what God has done or to insist on an answer from God about his situation.
In the end, God restored Job's health, wealth and family (42:7-17), although He was under no obligation to do so. What's more, God never explained to Job, according to this account, why Job had to go through such horrific trials. And that's the point, God created us to love and trust Him. God being God does not have to explain Himself. He may, as He has done in this book, explain things to a certain extent. He has given us general insight as to why bad things may happen to us. It could be temporal discipline for our sin. But it could also be that in the on-going contest between Himself and Satan, He is using us as an example of someone who will trust, love and obey Him no matter what. God may point to us as more proof that His creative plan was wise and legitimate. Hopefully we can pass the test as Job did. So help us, Lord!
Monday, March 21, 2011
The Evidence for Joseph - Genesis 37:3
"Now Israel (Jacob) loved Joseph more than all his sons, because he was the son of his old age, and he made him a coat of many colors." Genesis 37:3
Over a dozen years ago I was introduced to an amazing book, Pharaoh of the Kings, by Keith Small, a fellow graduate of Dallas Seminary, and an evangelical scholar in regard to the Quran. The book was actually written by a British Egyptologist named David Rohl. Rohl discovered that the accepted scholarly chronology for Egyptian history was fatally flawed. He figured out, quite unintentionally, that the biblical record of Egyptian history was complete accurate, and the conventional dating of Egyptian history was seriously wrong. This is not the first time that the Bible has been vindicated by archeology and unbiased historical research, and it won't be the last. But Rohl's story of how he discovered the truth and found the Bible to be entirely true is breathtaking. I have read the account more than once, and every time I do, I lapse into praise for God's sovereign preservation of the truth through His Word. But what I want to focus on in this post is how the person of Joseph is confirmed by Rohl's research.
A lot of scholars and researchers in the last couple of centuries have doubted the existence of biblical figures like Abraham, David and Joseph. The discovery of the Ebla tablets confirmed the life of Abraham. Several years ago a royal artifact was found in Israel referring to the "house of David", and then Rohl comes along to discover the tomb of Joseph in exactly the area of Egypt we would expect it to be.
The Bible tells us that Joseph was initially buried in Egypt (Genesis 50:25-26), but his bones were carried to the Promised Land per his instructions (Exodus 13:19). So, if the tomb of Joseph was found, it should not contain any bodies or coffins, but it should give evidence of his life and success, and that is exactly what Rohl found.
Rohl discovered a tomb with a statue of a man sitting on a regal perch with a non-Egyptian haircut, a "throw stick" in his hand (a symbol that he was a foreigner), skin color different from Egyptians, and best of all, a coat of many colors. The statue had been vandalized, not surprisingly, but all the evidence points decisively to it being the tomb of Joseph.
I am not doing justice to the overwhelming body of evidence that Rohl uncovers and lays out in his book. But suffice it to say, there is no doubt that Joseph lived and was as wildly successful as the Bible says. There is also no doubt that once again we should trust the Bible no matter what men propose or say differently. God's Word is truly magnificent in its accuracy, even in the details of a man's garment. The lesson is this, don't doubt God's Word! As Paul says, "...let God be found true, though every man be found a liar..." (Romans 3:4). Amen!
Over a dozen years ago I was introduced to an amazing book, Pharaoh of the Kings, by Keith Small, a fellow graduate of Dallas Seminary, and an evangelical scholar in regard to the Quran. The book was actually written by a British Egyptologist named David Rohl. Rohl discovered that the accepted scholarly chronology for Egyptian history was fatally flawed. He figured out, quite unintentionally, that the biblical record of Egyptian history was complete accurate, and the conventional dating of Egyptian history was seriously wrong. This is not the first time that the Bible has been vindicated by archeology and unbiased historical research, and it won't be the last. But Rohl's story of how he discovered the truth and found the Bible to be entirely true is breathtaking. I have read the account more than once, and every time I do, I lapse into praise for God's sovereign preservation of the truth through His Word. But what I want to focus on in this post is how the person of Joseph is confirmed by Rohl's research.
A lot of scholars and researchers in the last couple of centuries have doubted the existence of biblical figures like Abraham, David and Joseph. The discovery of the Ebla tablets confirmed the life of Abraham. Several years ago a royal artifact was found in Israel referring to the "house of David", and then Rohl comes along to discover the tomb of Joseph in exactly the area of Egypt we would expect it to be.
The Bible tells us that Joseph was initially buried in Egypt (Genesis 50:25-26), but his bones were carried to the Promised Land per his instructions (Exodus 13:19). So, if the tomb of Joseph was found, it should not contain any bodies or coffins, but it should give evidence of his life and success, and that is exactly what Rohl found.
Rohl discovered a tomb with a statue of a man sitting on a regal perch with a non-Egyptian haircut, a "throw stick" in his hand (a symbol that he was a foreigner), skin color different from Egyptians, and best of all, a coat of many colors. The statue had been vandalized, not surprisingly, but all the evidence points decisively to it being the tomb of Joseph.
I am not doing justice to the overwhelming body of evidence that Rohl uncovers and lays out in his book. But suffice it to say, there is no doubt that Joseph lived and was as wildly successful as the Bible says. There is also no doubt that once again we should trust the Bible no matter what men propose or say differently. God's Word is truly magnificent in its accuracy, even in the details of a man's garment. The lesson is this, don't doubt God's Word! As Paul says, "...let God be found true, though every man be found a liar..." (Romans 3:4). Amen!
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Jesus Defines Hypocrisy - Matthew 23:27
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like white-washed tombs, which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness."
A lot of people today like to define hypocrisy this way: saying one thing but doing another. Which does sound hypocritical. But the problem with that definition is that it makes all of us hypocrites. All of us have moral ideals and aspirations. None of us live up perfectly to even the standards we set for ourselves, and of course, no one lives up to God's standard which is sinless perfection (see Romans 3:23). All of us fail on a regular basis to live completely up to the moral and ethical standards we proclaim, if we are honest with ourselves. So by the current, popular definition, we're all hypocrites! But Jesus has a different definition.
In Matthew chapter twenty-three, Christ speaks out against the hypocrisy of the "scribes and Pharisees" (v. 2). These were two of the established religious leadership groups in Christ's day. The scribes were in charge of copying and maintaining the sacred scrolls of the Old Testament, while the Pharisees ruled over the synagogues and taught the masses about strict adherence to the Law. Jesus says that "...they say things and do not do them" (v. 3), which seems to support the popular definition today of hypocrisy. But as one studies this chapter more, it becomes clear that their problem was not just an occasional, unintentional moral lapse, but a continual, intentional desire to cover up who they really were. These religious leaders wanted to appear to be something they were not.
The reference to "whitewashed tombs" would be very familiar to the Jewish people in Christ's day. Before the major feast day of Passover, the tombs along the road to Jerusalem were painted white so that pilgrims coming to the holy city could easily avoid them. Touching or even coming too close to a tomb would render them ceremonially unclean, and thus, unfit to participate in the Passover. The white tombs looked beautiful, but on the inside was death and decay.
Jesus is saying that the scribes and Pharisees deliberately painted themselves as "righteous", but inside they were full of "lawlessness" (v. 28), and they knew it. So Christ's definition of hypocrisy is someone pretending to be righteous, when they know they are not, and they have no intention of doing what is right. This goes along with the meaning of the word "hypocrite" as "one who pretends" or "puts on a mask".
All of us as Christians are going to fail to completely live up to the standards of God's Word on a regular basis. This does not make us a hypocrite. It means we are still in the flesh, and an unfinished product. This is not an excuse for us to sin, but when we do, and we will, we should admit it and strive to do better with God's help. Pretending that we don't sin or have it all together spiritually-speaking when we don't is hypocrisy. Some Christians are guilty of this, but many are not. If you are in the latter category, do not get down on yourself or let people call you a hypocrite. But humbly keep striving to live for your Lord!
A lot of people today like to define hypocrisy this way: saying one thing but doing another. Which does sound hypocritical. But the problem with that definition is that it makes all of us hypocrites. All of us have moral ideals and aspirations. None of us live up perfectly to even the standards we set for ourselves, and of course, no one lives up to God's standard which is sinless perfection (see Romans 3:23). All of us fail on a regular basis to live completely up to the moral and ethical standards we proclaim, if we are honest with ourselves. So by the current, popular definition, we're all hypocrites! But Jesus has a different definition.
In Matthew chapter twenty-three, Christ speaks out against the hypocrisy of the "scribes and Pharisees" (v. 2). These were two of the established religious leadership groups in Christ's day. The scribes were in charge of copying and maintaining the sacred scrolls of the Old Testament, while the Pharisees ruled over the synagogues and taught the masses about strict adherence to the Law. Jesus says that "...they say things and do not do them" (v. 3), which seems to support the popular definition today of hypocrisy. But as one studies this chapter more, it becomes clear that their problem was not just an occasional, unintentional moral lapse, but a continual, intentional desire to cover up who they really were. These religious leaders wanted to appear to be something they were not.
The reference to "whitewashed tombs" would be very familiar to the Jewish people in Christ's day. Before the major feast day of Passover, the tombs along the road to Jerusalem were painted white so that pilgrims coming to the holy city could easily avoid them. Touching or even coming too close to a tomb would render them ceremonially unclean, and thus, unfit to participate in the Passover. The white tombs looked beautiful, but on the inside was death and decay.
Jesus is saying that the scribes and Pharisees deliberately painted themselves as "righteous", but inside they were full of "lawlessness" (v. 28), and they knew it. So Christ's definition of hypocrisy is someone pretending to be righteous, when they know they are not, and they have no intention of doing what is right. This goes along with the meaning of the word "hypocrite" as "one who pretends" or "puts on a mask".
All of us as Christians are going to fail to completely live up to the standards of God's Word on a regular basis. This does not make us a hypocrite. It means we are still in the flesh, and an unfinished product. This is not an excuse for us to sin, but when we do, and we will, we should admit it and strive to do better with God's help. Pretending that we don't sin or have it all together spiritually-speaking when we don't is hypocrisy. Some Christians are guilty of this, but many are not. If you are in the latter category, do not get down on yourself or let people call you a hypocrite. But humbly keep striving to live for your Lord!
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Overcome Evil with Good - Romans 12:21
By now you have probably heard that the lawsuit against the Westboro Baptist Church has failed at the Supreme Court. Amazingly eight justices supported the right of this church to picket funerals and other events with outrageously hateful and offensive signs. I wasn't totally surprised they won, but the Supreme Court rarely is in this much agreement about anything.
Of course, a lot of people are disappointed and are expressing some very strong emotional responses online and on the air. Some of the responses to this decision and to this church are as hateful as anything they have ever done or said. I expect that from people who do not know Christ, but I hope we as Christians can be more careful and measured in our response. Romans 12:21 comes to mind:
"Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."
Christians are not supposed to be haters. We are lovers, not by nature, but because we have been loved. God is not a hater (see this post) and He teaches us not to respond to hate with hate, but with love (see Matthew 5:44). There is a genuine temptation for us to join the chorus of hate against a group that claims to speak for our God, but does so in a manner that grossly distorts His message (where is the "good news"?), and puts all of us Christians in a terrible light. What I am saying is, don't hate them! That puts you on their level and makes you as guilty of misrepresenting our God as them.
Having said that, there is a positive aspect to all this. I am not excusing the hateful behavior in any way. Nor am I saying that I want it to continue under the guise of free speech. But the truth is that if the Supreme Court can allow this kind of hateful speech to be protected, that is good for pastors like me and churches like mine.
I have been concerned for some time that publicly saying, "Jesus is the only way to God", will at some point be considered "hate speech". Of course, I don't believe that it is. It is in fact the most loving thing we can do. We are helping people to understand and come to grips with the exclusive claim of Christ (see John 14:6). Until people realize that Jesus is not just another path to God, they cannot make an informed decision about who he is and what they are going to do in regard to Him. Many churches and pastors are either waffling on this or have become entirely silent about it. But I believe it is the most important issue of the twenty-first century. I intend to keep talking about it, and I am pleased that I will be protected in doing so, at least for a while longer. For that I am thankful, in spite of the other extremely negative aspects of the court's decision.
In case you are wondering, this is the essential Christian message for today and every day until the Lord returns:
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3:16-18).
This is our message of God's love, and it is genuinely one of love. But it is also a message that Jesus, the Son of God, is the only way for every man, woman and child to experience that love forever. I will continue to proclaim this message of love as long as I live, protection or not, but I am thankful that at least for today, I am free to proclaim it! Thank you, Jesus!
Of course, a lot of people are disappointed and are expressing some very strong emotional responses online and on the air. Some of the responses to this decision and to this church are as hateful as anything they have ever done or said. I expect that from people who do not know Christ, but I hope we as Christians can be more careful and measured in our response. Romans 12:21 comes to mind:
"Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."
Christians are not supposed to be haters. We are lovers, not by nature, but because we have been loved. God is not a hater (see this post) and He teaches us not to respond to hate with hate, but with love (see Matthew 5:44). There is a genuine temptation for us to join the chorus of hate against a group that claims to speak for our God, but does so in a manner that grossly distorts His message (where is the "good news"?), and puts all of us Christians in a terrible light. What I am saying is, don't hate them! That puts you on their level and makes you as guilty of misrepresenting our God as them.
Having said that, there is a positive aspect to all this. I am not excusing the hateful behavior in any way. Nor am I saying that I want it to continue under the guise of free speech. But the truth is that if the Supreme Court can allow this kind of hateful speech to be protected, that is good for pastors like me and churches like mine.
I have been concerned for some time that publicly saying, "Jesus is the only way to God", will at some point be considered "hate speech". Of course, I don't believe that it is. It is in fact the most loving thing we can do. We are helping people to understand and come to grips with the exclusive claim of Christ (see John 14:6). Until people realize that Jesus is not just another path to God, they cannot make an informed decision about who he is and what they are going to do in regard to Him. Many churches and pastors are either waffling on this or have become entirely silent about it. But I believe it is the most important issue of the twenty-first century. I intend to keep talking about it, and I am pleased that I will be protected in doing so, at least for a while longer. For that I am thankful, in spite of the other extremely negative aspects of the court's decision.
In case you are wondering, this is the essential Christian message for today and every day until the Lord returns:
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3:16-18).
This is our message of God's love, and it is genuinely one of love. But it is also a message that Jesus, the Son of God, is the only way for every man, woman and child to experience that love forever. I will continue to proclaim this message of love as long as I live, protection or not, but I am thankful that at least for today, I am free to proclaim it! Thank you, Jesus!
Sunday, March 6, 2011
For Israel or For Me? Jeremiah 29:11
"For I know the plans that I have for you", declares the Lord, "plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope." Jeremiah 29:11
A lot of Christians today claim this verse as a direct promise from God that He has good intentions towards them, and that no matter how bad things are at the moment, God is going to help and/or materially prosper them at some point in this life.
Other Christians say that this verse has little or no application to believers today. They say it is a promise to ethnic Israel that was fulfilled when their seventy years of captivity in Babylon was over and they were returned by God to their land. This verse they say has historical value for contemporary believers to show us how God was faithful to Israel in the past, which should encourage us to trust God, but this promise is in no way directed toward Christians in the twenty-first century.
I believe there is truth and error in both of these positions. Interpreting and applying the Old Testament continues to be problematic for many believers today. They struggle to understand what applies to them in the Old Testament and how it applies to them. This verse is a good test case and example for us of how to apply the Old Testament scriptures.
First of all, in the context, the ethnic nation of Israel is clearly being addressed (v. 10). This is also a specific promise that the nation would be returned to its native land, and that God would prosper them materially after seventy years of captivity.It is an unconditional promise, but God also predicts that Israel as a nation will pray and seek Him at that time (vs. 12-13). So this verse cannot be taken as a direct promise to believers today, nor can the specifics be applied directly to contemporary believers, i.e., that God promises to prosper us materially. This promise is first and directly in all details to the nation of Israel. But that does not mean it has little or no application to Christians today.
Sometimes promises in the Old Testament are repeated in the New Testament but with different applications. Romans 8:28 says that "we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God and are called according to His purpose." This verse is similar to Jeremiah 29:11 in that it is addressed to God's people, which today is the Church, Jews and Gentiles together in one body (see Ephesians chapters 2 and 3). It is also a promise that God has a plan and purpose for good for believers, and that He will ultimately make everything that happens to us work out for our good (and, of course, His glory). So when certain promises are repeated in the New Testament we can rightly apply the Old Testament promise but only with the New Testament application.
But even without a specific repeat of an Old Testament promise, there is always an application for us today. Paul told Timothy that "all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness." (I Timothy 3:16). The New Testament was not yet finished or readily available for most believers when Paul wrote this. For sure Paul is speaking in large part about the Old Testament scriptures when he said "all Scripture is...profitable for teaching." This means that all scripture is spiritually beneficial to teach us what to believe about God and how He deals with His children. The point is that there is application for us in every Old Testament scripture. There is a timeless principle of truth for us that we need to discover in every Old Testament verse or passage. I'm not saying it is always obvious. Usually it will take some study and prayer to discern it, but it is there for us if we are willing to do the spiritual work.
I would say that the timeless, spiritual, applicational principle of Jeremiah 29:11 is this: God always has a good and loving plan for His people so that we can be sure that we have a wonderful future ahead of us, no matter what is happening to us at this moment.
A lot of Christians today claim this verse as a direct promise from God that He has good intentions towards them, and that no matter how bad things are at the moment, God is going to help and/or materially prosper them at some point in this life.
Other Christians say that this verse has little or no application to believers today. They say it is a promise to ethnic Israel that was fulfilled when their seventy years of captivity in Babylon was over and they were returned by God to their land. This verse they say has historical value for contemporary believers to show us how God was faithful to Israel in the past, which should encourage us to trust God, but this promise is in no way directed toward Christians in the twenty-first century.
I believe there is truth and error in both of these positions. Interpreting and applying the Old Testament continues to be problematic for many believers today. They struggle to understand what applies to them in the Old Testament and how it applies to them. This verse is a good test case and example for us of how to apply the Old Testament scriptures.
First of all, in the context, the ethnic nation of Israel is clearly being addressed (v. 10). This is also a specific promise that the nation would be returned to its native land, and that God would prosper them materially after seventy years of captivity.It is an unconditional promise, but God also predicts that Israel as a nation will pray and seek Him at that time (vs. 12-13). So this verse cannot be taken as a direct promise to believers today, nor can the specifics be applied directly to contemporary believers, i.e., that God promises to prosper us materially. This promise is first and directly in all details to the nation of Israel. But that does not mean it has little or no application to Christians today.
Sometimes promises in the Old Testament are repeated in the New Testament but with different applications. Romans 8:28 says that "we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God and are called according to His purpose." This verse is similar to Jeremiah 29:11 in that it is addressed to God's people, which today is the Church, Jews and Gentiles together in one body (see Ephesians chapters 2 and 3). It is also a promise that God has a plan and purpose for good for believers, and that He will ultimately make everything that happens to us work out for our good (and, of course, His glory). So when certain promises are repeated in the New Testament we can rightly apply the Old Testament promise but only with the New Testament application.
But even without a specific repeat of an Old Testament promise, there is always an application for us today. Paul told Timothy that "all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness." (I Timothy 3:16). The New Testament was not yet finished or readily available for most believers when Paul wrote this. For sure Paul is speaking in large part about the Old Testament scriptures when he said "all Scripture is...profitable for teaching." This means that all scripture is spiritually beneficial to teach us what to believe about God and how He deals with His children. The point is that there is application for us in every Old Testament scripture. There is a timeless principle of truth for us that we need to discover in every Old Testament verse or passage. I'm not saying it is always obvious. Usually it will take some study and prayer to discern it, but it is there for us if we are willing to do the spiritual work.
I would say that the timeless, spiritual, applicational principle of Jeremiah 29:11 is this: God always has a good and loving plan for His people so that we can be sure that we have a wonderful future ahead of us, no matter what is happening to us at this moment.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Can Women Speak in Church? - I Corinthians 14:34-35
"The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church." I Corinthians 14:34-35
This passage is very problematic to say the least. But if one holds to a high view of Scripture one cannot dismiss it out of hand as simply wrong or a product of Paul's rabbinical training, as many people do today. It also will not do to understand it as prohibiting women from prophesying as Paul has already allowed for this provided their heads are covered (see I Corinthians 11:5). It could be an absolute prohibition against women saying anything, at anytime, during the worship of the church, which is undeniably the context. But if this is the case, it would be the only place an absolute prohibition of this kind occurs in the New Testament, and it would be contrary to I Corinthians 11:5 which appears to allow women to speak in the service if their heads are covered. Is there another possibility that connects this with something also prohibited by Paul in another place in scripture? The answer I believe is yes! But this answer was not discovered by me, but by a woman (gasp!) named Susan Foh.
Susan Foh in her book entitled, Woman and the Word of God, correctly states, that in the first century Jews and Greeks used the Socratic method to teach in synagogues and churches. The Socratic method involved a person leading the teaching part of the service by fielding questions from those in the congregation. This was not the only method used in the early church services, but it may have been the main one, and in Corinth, it may have been the primary teaching method. In Acts 20:7 the word "dialogue" is used for Paul's teaching on that occasion. This term is used in other places in Acts in regard to teaching or speaking the truth as well.
The point is that Paul clearly prohibited women from teaching during the worship of the church (see I Timothy 2:12). If the Socratic method of dialogue was being used regularly in the Corinthian church services, then Paul is explaining in I Corinthians 14:34-35 that women were not to participate in this. Not only were they not to lead it, but if they had questions, they were to ask their husbands at home who could either answer the questions themselves or bring them up in the next teaching time at church.
As I see it, this explanation fits well with the other things that Paul says about women and worship, and it also fits well with what we know was historically true in the early church, and finally, it makes perfect sense of the actual words of I Corinthians 14:34-35.
Paul is not prohibiting women from giving a testimony, reading Scripture, prophesying (if properly covered) singing, praying aloud (if properly covered), speaking in tongues or quietly correcting her children, if necessary, during the worship of the church. But he is saying what he says elsewhere that women are not to teach when the local church is gathered for worship. Outside the worship service of the church women are not prohibited from teaching that I know of; and in this case, I believe that a woman taught me what the Scriptures are truly saying in I Corinthians 14:34,35.
This passage is very problematic to say the least. But if one holds to a high view of Scripture one cannot dismiss it out of hand as simply wrong or a product of Paul's rabbinical training, as many people do today. It also will not do to understand it as prohibiting women from prophesying as Paul has already allowed for this provided their heads are covered (see I Corinthians 11:5). It could be an absolute prohibition against women saying anything, at anytime, during the worship of the church, which is undeniably the context. But if this is the case, it would be the only place an absolute prohibition of this kind occurs in the New Testament, and it would be contrary to I Corinthians 11:5 which appears to allow women to speak in the service if their heads are covered. Is there another possibility that connects this with something also prohibited by Paul in another place in scripture? The answer I believe is yes! But this answer was not discovered by me, but by a woman (gasp!) named Susan Foh.
Susan Foh in her book entitled, Woman and the Word of God, correctly states, that in the first century Jews and Greeks used the Socratic method to teach in synagogues and churches. The Socratic method involved a person leading the teaching part of the service by fielding questions from those in the congregation. This was not the only method used in the early church services, but it may have been the main one, and in Corinth, it may have been the primary teaching method. In Acts 20:7 the word "dialogue" is used for Paul's teaching on that occasion. This term is used in other places in Acts in regard to teaching or speaking the truth as well.
The point is that Paul clearly prohibited women from teaching during the worship of the church (see I Timothy 2:12). If the Socratic method of dialogue was being used regularly in the Corinthian church services, then Paul is explaining in I Corinthians 14:34-35 that women were not to participate in this. Not only were they not to lead it, but if they had questions, they were to ask their husbands at home who could either answer the questions themselves or bring them up in the next teaching time at church.
As I see it, this explanation fits well with the other things that Paul says about women and worship, and it also fits well with what we know was historically true in the early church, and finally, it makes perfect sense of the actual words of I Corinthians 14:34-35.
Paul is not prohibiting women from giving a testimony, reading Scripture, prophesying (if properly covered) singing, praying aloud (if properly covered), speaking in tongues or quietly correcting her children, if necessary, during the worship of the church. But he is saying what he says elsewhere that women are not to teach when the local church is gathered for worship. Outside the worship service of the church women are not prohibited from teaching that I know of; and in this case, I believe that a woman taught me what the Scriptures are truly saying in I Corinthians 14:34,35.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)