Elders, Pastors, Bishops, Shepherds

On an email list of which I'm a member, abotsipatrick asked the following:

Do the terms pastor, elder, bishop and overseer refer to the same office or different offices?

and

Secondly, does Ephesians 4:11 ("and some pastors and teachers") teach that being a pastor is a gift from God that does not require the appointment or ordination of humans?

In this post, I give my response. In my next post, I will give the response of another list member.

----

Let me encourage you to think in terms of "roles", or "services", first, and then apply that to the concept of "office".

pastor - I encourage you to mentally translate this word as "shepherd". The role of a shepherd is to care for a flock of dumb sheep, making sure they get fed, watered, and are safe, occasionally helping in the process of birthing or other medical service, etc. The shepherd is not a rule-maker, or a tyrant, or a business person, except only insofar as taking care of the business of flock-care requires.

elder - I encourage you to mentally translate this word as "older person". The older people in a group tend to be those who have been wizened by life-experience, and who thus have influence on the direction the group goes. They would tend to make or at least influence the making of whatever rules are needed for the flock's personal safety.

bishop, overseer - these two words are from same word, but represent different eras of the English language. I encourage you to mentally translate this word as "overseer", or "supervisor". This is a person who directs, takes charge, assigns tasks, makes sure things work according to the mission statement. They would tend to make whatever rules are needed for the flock's communal safety.

An ideal, mature leader will have all of these characteristics, such that the roles overlap in one individual. I believe that in the New Testament, the ideal was that the local church leader[s] would fill all of these roles. However, when a leader recognizes that he's not suited to a particular task, he might delegate that task to another, such as how the leaders in the early church (Acts 6) delegated the shepherding role of physically feeding the community to specially-designated servants, while they focused on the shepherding role of spiritually feeding the community.

Likewise, a local community of believers might have a leadership body containing one person who is very good at the business aspects of running the group - this person would most likely fill the role of bishop/overseer. Another person in the leadership might excel at dispensing wisdom, and might serve as the counselor who is sought out for his answers to life. A third person in the leadership might be an awesome teacher, filling the minds and spirits of the membership with God's food. Or perhaps each of the leaders excels in all three areas, or a mixture.

So to answer your question, yes, the terms all do refer to the same "office" - that of leadership, but they do not necessarily all refer to the same officeholder, the same leader. As Romans 12:4 says:

^KJV For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:

let us focus on using whatever gift God has given each of us, and let those with the gifts of shepherding and of wisdom-dispensing and of supervisory capabilities use their gifts to care for, lead, and take care of the community. And let us recognize that it will be rare to find one person with all these characteristics, which is part of the reason a leadership body might be better composed of multiple leaders with differing strengths rather than trying to force-fit a single leader into filling all the roles.


abotsipatrick's second question:

Secondly, does Ephesians 4:11 ("and some pastors and teachers") teach that being a pastor is a gift from God that does not require the appointment or ordination of humans?

Paul writes in Galatians 1:1 that he is "an apostle—not from men or by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father". The full text of the verse you reference is:

^{HCSB Eph 4:11} And He personally gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers,

Yes, being a pastor is a gift from God that does not require the appointment or ordination of humans. Compare Romans 12:

⁶ According to the grace given to us, we have different gifts: If prophecy,
use it according to the standard of one’s faith;
⁷ if service, in service;
if teaching, in teaching;
⁸ if exhorting, in exhortation;
giving, with generosity;
leading, with diligence;
showing mercy, with cheerfulness.

and 1 Corinthians 12:

⁴ Now there are different gifts, but the same Spirit. ⁵ There are different ministries, but the same Lord. ⁶ And there are different activities, but the same God activates each gift in each person. ⁷ A demonstration of the Spirit is given to each person to produce what is beneficial:

⁸ to one is given a message of wisdom
through the Spirit,
to another, a message of knowledge
by the same Spirit,
⁹ to another, faith by the same Spirit,
to another, gifts of healing by the one Spirit,
¹⁰ to another, the performing of miracles,
to another, prophecy,
to another, distinguishing between spirits,
to another, different kinds of languages,
to another, interpretation of languages.

¹¹ But one and the same Spirit is active in all these, distributing to each person as He wills.

and

²⁷ Now you are the body of Christ, and individual members of it. ²⁸ And God has placed these in the church:

first apostles, second prophets,
third teachers, next miracles,
then gifts of healing, helping,
managing, various kinds of languages.
²⁹ Are all apostles? Are all prophets?
Are all teachers? Do all do miracles?
³⁰ Do all have gifts of healing?
Do all speak in other languages?
Do all interpret?

³¹ But desire the greater gifts.

God gives each of us one or more gifts, to be used in building up the body. Some of them are miraculous; some are not. Some are given according to what God deems best; some are given according to what we desire (v 31 above) and pursue (1 Cor 14:1) and ask for (1 Cor 14:13).

However, just because a person has a gift, that does not necessarily mean he will be appointed within a particular community to exercise that gift. Paul instructed Titus to appoint people to serve as elders in each town; but he restricted those appointments to people who were suitable for the task. God gives the gift and the overall appointment; Man gives the local appointment.

What He Did

Lost in my mind, dark and unknown, i don't know what to do, i'm just so alone. I want to be let out and set free, But I don't know who I am or where I should be. I feel empty and hollow, I feel nothing but pain and sorrow. My world is spinning and i'm on the ground, Everyone is gone and I don't hear a sound. This monster inside my soul, It's taken over and left me in an empty hole. I want out, want to see the light, But something is there, blocking my sight. I scream for help and release, In my heart all i want is peace. I feel the blood run down my throat hot and thick, I know now the clock of life would no longer tick. My life was over and i was dead, Now only darkness filled my head. He killed me and took my life, I was gone, his love, his sacrifice. The monster silenced me with all his might, No longer would I live or see the beauty of the light.

-- anonymous

Held Captive

I lay still in my bed, hearing his footsteps:
terrified creaking down teh stairs I hear, seconds later the moment I
dread. I pretend to be sleeping with my eyes closed tight, my nightmare
has come all over again.
I hear you stop at the foot of my bed -- right about now I am wishing I
was dead! You move your hands over me as I drift to a place that does
not exist, a place where I am just a child, a place with no fear, a
place with no pain.
I feel your body as it presses into mine.
My breath is taken from my chest.
I am well aware this won't be the last.
You achieve your goals, then leave.
What have I done, I'm left all alone.
The tears roll down my face.
Please, please just get me outta this place.
The years have gone by and I wanna believe the monsters will never
hurt me again, I pray, and pray, never again, yet in one moment my guard
I let down once again. This familiar stranger, I let in, with my eyes
closed my nightmare begins. I know in my heart it's not gonna end.. His
hands are on me, my clothes on the floor. I cry and cry but I'm a scared
little coward who deserves much more. I've become his whore as his body
becomes one with mine. Something in me dies, this little girl will be
the same no more.
My mind holds a pile of memories that I wish I could burn. That will not
happen; it haunts me at night. Once my eyes close my nightmares begin.
My reality becomes misery, but I give it my all. I've been imprisoned,
the voices around me preach on and on "It's over, now time to move on",
trying to convince me there is no shame. I try to forget yet once again
the nightmares begin. It'll never be over; it'll simply start over again. 

-- anonymous

Spock Talks Evolution

I watched the original series Star Trek episode "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" tonight.

In this episode, Spock said, "The actual theory is that all life-forms evolved from the lower levels to the more advanced stages."

This highlights my scientific objection to Evolution; I see lots of "change" in life forms, in the fossil record, in everyday experience, in the lab, in historical records, but that change is overwhelmingly downward, somewhat lateral, and never unambiguously upward. Cave fish lose their eyes, serpents lose their legs, bacteria lose the ability to process a chemical which makes them less fit overall but allows them to survive in a weakened state in a small niche environment of antibiotic chemicals; finch beaks lengthen one year and shrink the next, only to lengthen again the next year, as weather/environmental conditions change from year to year; robust mutt dogs "evolve" into weaker but more specialized breeds, gaining perhaps a longer body suitable for digging mice out of mice-holes, but at the cost of weaker spines and shorter lives. When it can be demonstrated that some natural process (random genetic mutations, or hereditary passing of acquired characteristics, or whatever) can generate new, never-before-seen functions and organs and capabilities, not just on a "here's a possible candidate" rare exception basis, but on a "this is the rule rather than the exception" basis, then I'll be able to consider Evolution as a more viable concept.

Simply put, the evidence is lacking.

And the inability to distinguish between upward evolution and downward or lateral evolution, using the same term to describe all three phenomena, is what makes most people believe Evolution is true. The evolutionary proponents take advantage of this inability, "moving the goalposts" so to speak, by claiming in their books, documentaries, museum displays, etc, that "Evolution" (in the sense of upward progress) is a fact supported by a wealth of evidence, and then they trot at as evidence examples of lateral and/or downward "evolution".

Doing Our Best to Do The Best

Most of us do the best we know how, we just don't know how to do the best.

-- wisdom from a friend, Sheri

Dr. Phil's Wisdom

I understand that Dr. Phil says that we teach people how to treat us.

I think that's astoundingly wise.

Making Health Care More Accessible

Health care - four basic biggies

Heart Attacks

Cancer

Other diseases

Trauma (stabs, car wrecks, falls, etc)

The problems we're having with health care are two-fold: 1) expense, and 2) lack of supply to meet the demand.

Both of these two problems can be addressed to a large extent with Do It Yourself (DIY) technology. There's no reason to wait two weeks to see a doctor, when some of the same information he can glean about your body is discernible using modern technology.

Trauma
For trauma issues, your best best is the Emergency Room; they're not called Trauma Centers for nothing.

Other Diseases
For diseases other than cancer and heart attacks, there's such a myriad of possibilities that there's not any one good solution. However, I've recently learned that for men, a quick, easy home test for prostate problems is a dollar-version of an Early Pregnancy Test (EPT) from the local Dollar Store - a positive result means you should seek medical care; a negative result means you're probably good until your next prostate exam. There are probably a host of little DIY tricks like this which could go a long way toward making the consumer of health-care more capable of being proactive in his/her own health.

There's probably not a medical professional alive who would go on-record suggesting an EPT for testing for prostate problems. If there was one case where the EPT failed to indicate prostate problems and someone developed serious complications from failure to seek professional help, that doctor would likely be ruined. So I doubt that the claim of EPT testing for prostrate problems can be verified as being a valid test. But assuming it is a valid test, how many other simple, cheap tests are available to address a lot of medical issues which are simply being buried by the current culture of medicine?

Cancer
Some cancers are detectable by blood tests; some are not. However, if we had a simple DIY blood test, available for home use, or perhaps at a $5/test kiosk at your local pharmacy or E.R., this could go a long way toward making early detection and treatment of many cancers a reality, which would save a lot of lives and lots of money.

I believe this is doable; all it would take is someone with the necessary knowledge to put it together, and then for some marketer/hospital to make it available to the masses on the cheap. This might cut into the profits of the health industry, but for those members of the industry whose mission is to provide care rather than to make money, it could be a means to fulfill their mission.

Heart Attack
One of the prime problems with heart attacks is the hesitancy to seek help. You lay in bed at 1am, wondering if this chest pain is a heart attack or just that last slice of pizza disagreeing with you. You could call an ambulance and rack up a multi-thousand dollar bill, and stay up all night in an uncomfortable trauma center room, only to find out it's just a pinched nerve, or you could lay there wondering until you die.

If we had a simple blood test to check for the markers of a heart attack, that'd go a long way toward getting people to the professionals when they're needed.

I had originally conceived of a self-serve kiosk at the local E.R. into which you put your $5 bill to pay for all the sticky-leads and etc of an EKG (ECG?) machine, but was recently told that a blood test is much more reliable than an EKG (ECG?). So how about a self-serve kiosk that lets you prick your finger like a blood-sugar test, put a few drops of blood onto a sampler, and presto, you have your results? "Yes, your blood markers indicate that you're having a heart attack. Seek medical help immediately." Or, "Your blood markers are normal. You're probably not having a heart attack, but it would be best to seek a professional's advice." If the blood test is really accurate, this would save a lot of lives, as well as money.

I wouldn't be surprised if a simple light-beam, or audio signal, etc, shone through the skin flap between one's fingers and into a receiver couldn't take the place of actual blood-letting for many blood tests, including that for blood-sugar levels. How many diabetics would appreciate that?

I think we can do this. Let's do it.

On Disturbing the Flock

Sometimes someone does something different in our church meetings, that while quite Biblical, is disturbing to the flock. For example, if a church is unaccustomed to kneeling, it might disturb some if a prayer-leader were to kneel before the congregation as he leads a public prayer, even though kneeling is one of the most common postures for prayer in the Bible.

This raises the question: Should we avoid doing things differently simply because they might disturb the brethren?

After all, disturbed brethren can stir up a lot of problems that would simply not happen if we were to simply stick with our perfectly-acceptable traditions.

Why stir the pot by doing things differently?

One of the best reasons to stir the pot is to encourage growth. One of the strongest enemies against growth is complacency, being too comfortable. Remember the Robin Williams movie, "Dead Poet's Society"? One of the things he did, as a teacher of high-school boys, was to have them stand on their desk; it gave them a different perspective of a room they thought they knew inside and out. We think we know the Bible inside-and-out; that is, until someone does something different that makes us ask, "Hmm, is that Biblical?" And before we know it, we know something we didn't even know we didn't know.

Another reason for doing things differently, even if it stirs the pot, is simply to follow the example of our great Example. Didn't Jesus stir the pot, often? (For those of you who can't answer this question, the answer is "Yes"; the habit eventually got him crucified.)

Isn't "doing things differently" the whole gist of God giving each person his own gift? Romans 12 talks about this very thing:

Now as we have many parts in one body, and all the parts do not have the same function..., According to the grace given to us, we have different gifts...".

Paul continues this thought in 1 Corinthians 7:

[E]ach has his own gift from God, one person in this way and another in that way."

And in chapter 12 of 1 Corinthians he talks about the different gifts as used in our assemblies:

Now there are different gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different ministries, but the same Lord. And there are different activities, but the same God activates each gift in each person. A demonstration of the Spirit is given to each person to produce what is beneficial.... If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But now God has placed each one of the parts in one body just as He wanted. And if they were all the same part, where would the body be? Now there are many parts, yet one body.

He continues in chapter 14:

Whenever you come together, each one has a psalm, a teaching, a revelation, another language, or an interpretation. All things must be done for edification. ... [Y]ou can all [exercise your gifts] one by one, so that everyone may learn and everyone may be encouraged. ... But everything must be done decently and in order.

God does not want our assemblies to be a one-size-fits-all meeting; he gives different gifts, and learning styles, and teaching styles, to everyone, so that everyone can reach and be reached according to the gifts they have. Some learn by listening to dry, technical lectures. Others learn by hands-on activities, such as building a scale-model of a wilderness tabernacle. Others learn by drama presentations (such as that presented by Agabus in Acts 21:10-11). Others learn by multimedia Power-Point presentations. Others learn by fill-in-the-blank paperwork. Others learn via music. Others learn via art.

We've limited our meetings to a cookie-cutter mentality, thinking that sermons are the Biblically-preferred teaching method, and defining "decently and in order" to mean "do things the way I and others like me are comfortable with".

What is decent and orderly for a loud, swaying, dancing rock-band concert (or a holy-roller Assembly of God service, or a football game) is different than what is decent and orderly for an attendee at a funeral, is different than what is decent and orderly for an audience at a stand-up comic routine. "Decently and in order" is not Biblically-defined as "sticking with the traditions we've had at our congregation for decades". It does not mean "sedate and staid and formal" (although that can certainly be decent and orderly); it simply means "appropriate for the venue". I, an old fuddy-duddy, would consider a club-scene "rave" to be chaos with its loud music and strobing lights and gyrating dancers; a cop comparing that same rave to a gunfight in the street would consider it decent and orderly. My point is that we need to be careful about defining "my" assembly as decent and orderly and "yours" as not.

If your congregation is not stirring the pot, if its members are not being disturbed and challenged, then I daresay your congregation is neither growing nor serving the needs of more than a subset of its members (or potential members). The insistence on one particular strand of traditional ways of doing things causes division; it runs off those who need a different style, to seek another congregation that provides that style. After a while, we have a bunch of congregations that don't look alike, who tend to think their way of doing things is right and Biblical and the way those other congregations do things is unBiblical, and we should therefore not fellowship with them. If each congregation had instead allowed variation within their own group, the various congregations would look alike, and be more united than they currently are. The Biblical model is for different gifts to be expressed within a congregation, so that each congregation is a melting pot (stirred), not to divide congregations into different pots, each containing a different gifting.

And perhaps the best reason for doing things differently, is to become more in line with the Biblical example. Take the previously-mentioned example of kneeling in prayer. If kneeling in prayer is the Biblical norm, then we are being Biblically abnormal to not kneel.

Or raising of hands; if Paul specifically tells the men to raise holy hands in prayer, why do we look askance at the men who take this command to heart?

I think it's time for our congregations to grow up, and stop being afraid of things simply because they're not the way Grandpa did them. What should matter more is how Jesus and his Twelve did them.

Safety in the Lion's Den

Daniel's life shows that the most righteous person may not escape being thrown into a lion's den,
but it also shows that you don't have to get out of the lion's den to be safe, as long as God is with you.

 -- the point of a sermon by "Pastor Gene Scott"

A Life Which is Right

It may be easier to choose to live a life that is not Right,
but it's easier to live a life that is Right.

-- inspired by Sheri Luckett

Kirk Credits Christianity With Saving Worlds

On Netflix tonight I watched an episode from the original series of Star Trek, "Bread and Circuses". Although I had seen this episode before, somehow I had missed an important detail.

WARNING: Spoiler Alert!

The creator of the series, Gene Roddenberry, had a vision of the future that was built on several noble ideas, such as the brotherhood of all humans, and freedom and equality for all, no matter their race or color or gender, and respect for other cultures, and peace-seeking. The series often reflects that vision. In the middle of this episode, Kirk all but makes the claim that all men are brothers, just as was claimed by a certain religion in the episode, which Kirk thought was a primitive superstitious worship of the sun.

Later, at the end of the episode, Lt. Uhura explains to the bridge crew what was in plain sight but which they had missed: it was not the sun in the sky which this religion worshiped; rather, it was the Son of God which it worshiped.

Kirk is awed at Uhura's revelation, and realizes that just as Christianity, with its message of love and brotherhood and peace, ended the Roman Empire's despotism and slavery on Earth, it was beginning to do the same thing in this parallel culture on a similar but alien planet. In contrasting Caesar and Christ, Kirk gave credit to Christianity as being the driving force at ending slavery, hatred, murder, war, and at elevating peace, brotherhood, freedom, equality -- it is the foundation of the Roddenberry vision for the future.

Kirk essentially said that Christianity is what rescues worlds.

I was surprised. But quite pleased.

A Typical Assembly of Christians in the First Century

We tend to think of "going to church" in terms of 1950's ideology: get the family together on Sunday morning in their Sunday-go-to-meetin' duds, drive (or walk) to church, where the kids go off to their Bible class and the adults meet in an adult class, followed by a sermon-dominated "worship service" after everyone comes back into the assembly hall, where the main form of participation is singing the same songs everyone else is singing, bowing your head reverently in prayer, and listening attentively and quietly to the sermon, followed by a greeting and pat-on-the-back aimed at the preacher, finished up by a big Sunday lunch back home or at the restaurant, with just the immediate family, and maybe a few friends.

But if we're truly to be Biblical in our assemblies, we need to look at the assemblies we see in the New Testament.

Four of them come to mind:

Acts 20:7ff

The saints are assembling on the first day of the week to break bread.

We don't know if this is the Jewish first day (i.e. our Saturday night) or the Greek first day (i.e. our Sunday).

We don't know if this "breaking of the bread" is the Lord's Supper, a special meal that the church decided to gather for (either just because, or because it was a going-away supper for Paul), a regular weekly assembly for eating a regular meal just because the assembly is a family, the second Passover (for those who missed the first one), or what.

There is no mention of eating prior to midnight, but there is after midnight, which means that if it is the Lord's Supper, it took place on the second day of the week (if using Greek timing), or the intent of the assembly was to meet for eating on our Saturday night (if using Jewish timing).

So to make a "law" out of this example for us to eat the Lord's Supper on Sundays is to go beyond what the Scriptures reveal to us. All we really know is that the main emphasis for the meeting is to "break bread", to eat, either a normal meal, or the Lord's Supper "ritual", or perhaps a combined Lord's Supper "ritual" within the context of a full meal, which is most like the original, first Lord's Supper, being initiated within the context of a full meal.

Another thing we notice about this meeting is that Paul lectured a long time (v. 9 -- "discoursed"-ASV; "preached"-KJV; "talked still longer"-ESV), and bored a young man to literal death. It's interesting that after the young man was revived, Paul changed his format to "conversation" (v. 11 -- "talked with"-ASV; "conversed with"-ESV). Might we heed this Biblical warning against long one-sided sermons in favor of interactive discussions? (Keep this question in mind as you read the section below on 1 Cor 14.)

James 2:2-6

The word which James uses for "assembly" here is "synagogue" -- "If a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your synagogue, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in...".

So first off, we can see that the Christian assembly has been influenced by the Jewish assembly. This should be no surprise; the church was exclusively Jewish for the first fourteen or so years, and when non-Jews started being added to the church, there was a lot of pressure by the Jews to force the Gentiles to essentially become Jewish. Acts 15 speaks of the Jerusalem conference that settled this matter, deciding that Jews should be Christians in their distinctive Jewish ways (still keeping the Law of Moses, being circumcised, etc), but that Gentiles can be Christians without adopting the Jewish ways. Nevertheless, Christianity started out Jewish, so it's not surprising to see the Christian assembly as having its roots in the Jewish synagogue.

The main point of James' mentioning of the assembly is that we should show fairness to all, rich and poor alike, that there should be no distinctions based on socio-economic class.

Jude 12

Jude mentions the "love feasts", at which blasphemers feast with his readers. It would seem these "love feasts" are regular meals of some sort, although we don't have enough information to conclude much about them, not even if they are just ritualistic meals or real fill-your-belly meals.

1 Cor 11 - 14

We've already seen that eating seems to be a significant part of Christian assemblies. We see that again here in chapter 11 of 1 Corinthians.

Paul tells the Corinthians that they're not really eating the Lord's Supper when they come together (v. 20), because of their divisions (v. 18). This Lord's Supper is obviously not just a ritualistic tidbit of cracker and a sip of grape juice/wine, but a full-blown meal, in which some people have eaten all the food and imbibed to the point of drunkenness, having no concern that they've left nothing for the late-comers who then remain hungry.

Paul scolds these people, telling them that if the only reason they're at the Lord's Supper is to satisfy their hunger, they should eat at home. He then makes it clear that the purpose of the Lord's Supper is not to fill your belly, but to remember the Lord's death until he comes, saying that if you eat the bread or drink the cup without recognizing the body, even those who arrive late, you're eating and drinking condemnation to yourself (vv. 27-29). Therefore, when you come together for the purpose of eating, wait for one another (v. 33). If you can't wait, eat at home, so that you won't come under judgment (v. 34).

In this passage, we see that, like in Acts 20, the assembly is for the purpose of eating. The eating is not a simple ritualistic snack, but a full-blown meal, incorporating the remembrance of Jesus' death. And like in Jude 12, it's a feast in which love is to be shown to one another, by recognizing the body (i.e. by recognizing that this is a group activity); it's a full-blown meal in which you are to wait and share with one another, in remembrance of Jesus.

Earlier in this chapter, we've seen that the traditions delivered by Paul (v. 2), and the customs of the assemblies (v. 16), allow for both men and women to pray and prophesy (vv 4-5), provided certain hair-covering regulations are observed. (At first glance this seems to conflict later with chapter 14.) So it would seem that if a woman were to be asked to say the thanksgiving prayer for the meal, that would be acceptable so long as she does so within the societal norms of what is proper concerning her appearance (in that culture, it was shameful for a woman to have her hair cut short or uncovered - v. 6).

In chapter 12 of 1 Corinthians, we see that within the assembly, different Christians will exhibit different God-given gifts; not everyone is an eye; not everyone is an ear. God has made us different, giving us different gifts, for the benefit of the entire body. Some might be law-observing Jews, some might be non-Law-observing Gentiles (v. 13, with Acts 15, 21, esp 21:20-25). So we can have lots of variety within the body (artsy people vs mathy people? drama performance people vs scientific data people? book-worms vs jocks?, introverts vs extroverts? holy-roller "spirit-filled" people vs text-oriented scholars?), so long as we're unified.

Chapter 13 is a side-bar concerning the value of love as a gift over other spiritual gifts.

Then in chapter 14 we get a wider view of a Christian assembly. In Acts 20 we saw that the church assembly in Troas consisted of "breaking bread" and talking/discussing late into the night. In 1 Cor 11 we saw that the church assembly in Corinth consisted of eating a big meal together in remembrance of Jesus' death. Now in chapter 14 we see what else goes on in the Corinthian assembly.

Everyone in the assembly has a gift to exercise for the benefit of the group (1 Cor 12:7) - some have a psalm to sing, some have a teaching, some have a revelation, some have a tongue, some have an interpretation (1 Cor 14:26). But all things must be done for the benefit of, the building up of, the assembly (v. 26). Things must be done decently, and in order, not a free-for-all (v. 40); people must take turns in exercising their gifts, "one by one, so that everyone may learn and everyone may be encouraged" (v. 31). And it all must be done with understanding (v. 15), which means that speaking in tongues is to be discouraged unless there is an interpreter who can translate for the benefit of everyone else (v. 28), although it is not to be forbidden (v. 39). But the expectation is that the "whole church assembles together and all are speaking" (v. 23) in song, or in tongues, as an interpreter, in prophecy, or to evaluate what others have said (vv 26-29), all providing conviction and judgment as required (v 24).

What we do not see in this assembly is a passive sitting for an hour while one person lectures for a long period. We do see the lecture format in the beginning of the meeting in Acts 20, but even that changes after the lecture results in people going to sleep, into a more interactive conversational format.

Our church assemblies are centered on being mostly passive while listening to a lecture, with just a smattering of activity done in unison, exactly like everyone else is doing, with very few individuals addressing/contributing to others within the group. The New Testament assemblies seem to have been centered on everyone contributing to others in the group, for the good of the group, in conjunction with a common meal that focuses on one-another-ness in honor of Jesus' death.

Are we doing it wrong?

What Are the Rules for Worship?

Contrary to what most of us have been taught and have believed all of our lives, we're not really given instructions as to how we're to worship, either individually, or as a group. We've taught for years that there are rules for corporate worship, but we've had to inductively reason those rules out using (fallible, I might add) human logic. Such rules include meeting on the first day of the week, to break br.., er, have the Lord's Supper, and to conduct Five Acts of Worship (and no more, so I guess immersion is not an act of worship or we wouldn't be doing it in our assemblies, or maybe we've just miscounted and there are Six Acts of Worship). Yet when you really sit down and look at these "approved Apostolic examples" or necessary inferences, you realize they're not commands given by God, but they're commands deduced by men, taught as doctrine. I suspect the Teachers of the Law in Jesus' day used similar human logic to arrive at their traditions. Jesus strongly condemned them for elevating their human-derived conclusions to the level of Command (Matt 15:1-9).

God has given us very few actual commands about how to worship; most of what we believe are God's Rules for Worship are actually rules we've derived using human logic, and poor logic at that sometimes. For example, are we 100% certain that Acts 20 implies a weekly gathering for the purpose of taking the Lord's Supper? Maybe it was just a going-away supper for Paul on the last night he planned to be there (having intended to leave on the morrow). Maybe it was the Jewish Second Passover for those who for whatever reason missed the first official one; the timing is pretty close. Maybe it was a weekly event, but not for the Lord's Supper, but just for an ordinary meal. Notice that if Luke was using Greek reckoning, if the disciples met on the first day, Paul didn't break bread until Monday, after midnight. If Luke was using Jewish reckoning, the disciples met on what we would consider Saturday night. Or maybe Paul's breaking bread after midnight wasn't the same as the breaking of bread for the purpose of the meeting. The point is we make assumptions, and then bind our conclusions as if they are God's commandments, when God has not really given us many commandments.

In fact, Paul specifically contrasts the old covenant, having many rules and regulations, with the new covenant, saying, "Why do you submit to regulations: 'Don't handle, don't taste, don't touch'? .. They are commands and doctrines of men, although they seem religiously valuable" (Col 2:20ff), adding, "Don't let anyone judge you about what you eat or drink, or what holy days you may or may not observe, including the Sabbath" (v 16).

Is it not odd that God clearly spelled out his instructions for worship under the old covenant, but then left it to the vagaries of human reasoning to figure out his instructions for worship in the new covenant based on hints and clues and a very few specifics? If how we "do" worship was so important in the old covenant that God spelled out the details, what does it say about how we "do" worship in the new covenant that he hasn't spelled out the details?

Most of us have grown up thinking we have rules for our "worship assembly", when in reality most of those rules are jigsaw-puzzled together using human logic, rather than being commands given by God.

Thus, as Paul argues in Romans 14, perhaps we should be a little less dogmatic about how "worship service" must be conducted.

So, You're Glad You're White?

"I teach a class called Blacks in the Bible. I open up all these passages people have never thought about."

"What passages do you mean?"

"Well, for starters, Ephraim and Manasseh are two of the twelve tribes of Israel, right? According to Genesis 41, they were the sons of Joseph and an Ethiopian woman. They were 50 percent black. The fathers of two tribes of Israel were black. Ever seen that in the Bible story pictures?

"Jethro was a Midianite from Southern Arabia, which was occupied by Ethiopians. He was the father of Zipporah, wife of Moses, who was a Cushite, an Ethiopian--says so in Numbers 12. Jethro's family were believers, proselytes to the Jewish faith. Moses married this black woman, and when Miriam grumbled about this interracial marriage, God gave her leprosy to teach her a lesson.

"Or how about David...[who] easily had enough black blood that if he lived in America today he'd be called black.

"Solomon was David's son by a Hamitic woman Bathsheba, whose name means 'daughter of Sheba', an African. Zephaniah the prophet was a descendant of 'Cush', a black man.

"And look at the messianic line of Jesus. In his legal genealogy, through Joseph, four women are mentioned--Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba. ... All of them were black! Jesus' mother Mary was also a descendant of Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth. There may have been other Hamitic blood in Jesus too, but as far as we know, there was no Japhetic blood, no white blood. Those who teach that having black African blood in you puts you under a curse must believe Jesus was under a curse--that the whole messianic line was cursed! By American standards, Jesus had enough African blood to be called black."

Dominion, by Randy Alcorn, p388

And that doesn't include the black governmental official who is a prime example of conversion in Acts 8:26ff, or the black church prophet/leader/teacher, Simon the Black (Niger), or his co-worker Lucius, also from a black part of the world, in Acts 13:1, or the black Libyan, Simon the Cyrenian, who was forced to carry Jesus' cross, in Luke 23:26, or the black woman who is celebrated as loved in the Song of Solomon.

It wasn't long ago that white America scorned blacks as being sub-human and otherwise not of true human value, cursed by God. We've thought that being white made us better, and we would never approve of a "mixed marriage". I bet Miriam had a change of mind when she was turned "white as snow" with leprosy.

How blind we humans can be.

The Widow's Two Coins

You know the story; the widow gave all she had to God. What a wonderful example of dedication! Here's the text from Luke 21:

¹[Jesus] looked up and saw the rich dropping their offerings into the temple treasury. ² He also saw a poor widow dropping in two tiny coins. ³ “I tell you the truth,” He said. “This poor widow has put in more than all of them. ⁴ For all these people have put in gifts out of their surplus, but she out of her poverty has put in all she had to live on.”

I read something the other day (don't remember where) which gave me a new perspective on this account of the widow's offering. I don't know that the perspective is accurate, but it's a thought that never occurred to me before.

If we include the paragraph just prior to this account in Luke 21:1ff, and the paragraph after, we have this construction:

• "Beware of the scribes, who devour widows' houses." (Luke 20:46-47)
• "This widow put everything she had to live on into the Temple treasury." (Luke 21:1-4)
• "This Temple adorned with gifts dedicated to God? The day is coming when not one stone will be left on another." (Luke 21:5-6)
  

How do scribes devour widows' houses? Are they making mortgage loans to the widows, and then foreclosing on those loans? Maybe the scribes are romancing the widows, using them for their money until the money's all gone? Or is it a more subtle, psychological method? Maybe it's that the scribes are teaching from the pulpit that if you don't contribute to the church, you're cheating God?

Looked at in this light, it's less a praising of the woman's generosity (although it is that, too), than a condemnation of the Temple authorities' pressuring everyone, including those who can't afford it, to give what they can't afford in order to build up the meeting house which is gone tomorrow.

Is this an accurate understanding of this text? I don't know. But I thought it worth sharing.

Spiritual Gifts Today?

Most of us have not experienced any supernatural activity in our lives which would lead us to believe the Spirit's miraculous workings still occur. And as we tend to be very experience-influenced (it's natural to walk by sight, "unnatural" to walk by faith), we tend to think if we don't see it happening, it must not happen.

Totally understandable viewpoint.

But the question is not, "What do we experience?"; the question is, "What do the Scriptures say?".

The "Scriptural objections" that miraculous powers have ceased comes from three lines of reasoning:

1) We see that the purpose of miracles in the New Testament was to confirm the Word, which has since been completed and confirmed, thus ending the need for that purpose any more.

2) We see that miraculous powers were given by the laying on of the apostles' hands, and since the apostles have now all died out, that source of power is no longer available to us.

3) 1 Cor 13:8-13 says that miraculous powers will cease when the perfect knowledge/prophecy has arrived, and now that the Bible has been completed, that condition is fulfilled.

Let's look more closely at those three "Scriptural objections":

1) The Purpose of Miracles Has Been Fulfilled

Reason #1 is based on the false notion that the only purpose of miracles was to confirm the message of the apostles. Confirmation of the apostles' message is indeed a purpose of "signs and wonders":

^{HCSB Heb 2:3} how will we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was first spoken by the Lord and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him. ⁴ At the same time, God also testified by signs and wonders, various miracles, and distributions of gifts from the Holy Spirit according to His will.

 and

^{1 Cor 1:4} I always thank my God for you because of God’s grace given to you in Christ Jesus, ⁵ that by Him you were enriched in everything—in all speech and all knowledge. ⁶ In this way, the testimony about Christ was confirmed among you, ⁷ so that you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

and

^{HCSB Mark 16:20} And they went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word by the accompanying signs.

In the above passages, we see that the Lord's message was established by the "mouth" of two witnesses (2 Cor 13:1):
 - that of the apostles, and
 - that of miraculous workings from God

However, confirmation of the apostles' message is not the only purpose of miraculous spiritual gifts. As is evident from the following passage, miraculous gifts were not merely for those who needed the word confirmed, but also for those who had already believed the word and no longer needed it confirmed:

^{HCSB 1 Cor 14:22} It follows that speaking in other languages is intended as a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers. But prophecy is not for unbelievers but for believers.

So we begin to see that there are other purposes for miracles other than only confirming the message of the apostles. What, then, are some of those purposes?

^{HCSB 1 Cor 14:3} But the person who prophesies speaks to people for edification, encouragement, and consolation.

In this passage above we see three additional purposes for prophecy (for a total of four, so far):
 - Building up (edification)
 - Encouragement
 - Consolation (I would think things such as healing a sick person, just for the sake of improving their life, would fit into this category)

Still another purpose for miracles is revealed by the following Scripture (bringing our total to five):

^{HCSB 1 Cor 14:24} But if all are prophesying and some unbeliever or uninformed person comes in, he is convicted by all and is judged by all. ²⁵ The secrets of his heart will be revealed, and as a result he will fall facedown and worship God, proclaiming, “God is really among you.”

Here we see that prophecy is not a sign for confirmation of the word, but for convicting and judging an unbeliever of the secrets of his heart to lead to his praise of God.

And here's a sixth purpose given by Scripture:

^{HCSB Acts 11:28} Then one of them, named Agabus, stood up and predicted by the Spirit that there would be a severe famine throughout the Roman world. This took place during the time of Claudius. ²⁹ So each of the disciples, according to his ability, determined to send relief to the brothers who lived in Judea.

and

^{HCSB Acts 21:10} While we were staying there many days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. ¹¹ He came to us, took Paul’s belt, tied his own feet and hands, and said, “This is what the Holy Spirit says: ‘In this way the Jews in Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into Gentile hands.’”

Here in these two passages we see that a purpose of prophecy is to provide practical information to the church so that the believers might then take action based on that information.

So, using these Scriptures, we see that there are at least six purposes of miraculous Spiritual gifts:

 - confirming the message of the apostles
 - building up (edification)
 - encouraging
 - consolation
 - conviction/judgment of the unbeliever
 - practical information useful to the church

Of these six purposes, only one, that of confirming the apostles' message, is no longer necessary, since we no longer have apostles giving a message needing confirmation. We still have the other five needs however, so there may be room for miracles to fill those needs.

2) The Gifts are No Longer Available Because the Apostles Can No Longer Give the Gifts

Like Reason #1, this Reason #2 is also based on a false notion, that the only way to receive such Spiritual gifts is through the laying on of the Apostle's hands. But the Scriptures demonstrate that there are at least three methods for acquiring such Spiritual gifts:

 - through the laying on of the apostles' hands:

^{HCSB Acts 8:18} When Simon saw that the Holy Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, ¹⁹ saying, “Give me this power too, so that anyone I lay hands on may receive the Holy Spirit.”

 - at God's whim:

^{HCSB Acts 10:44} While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came down on all those who heard the message. ⁴⁵ The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astounded because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. ⁴⁶ For they heard them speaking in other languages and declaring the greatness of God.

 - by eager desire and prayer

^{HCSB 1 Cor 14:1} Pursue love and desire spiritual gifts, and above all that you may prophesy.  ...  ¹³ Therefore the person who speaks in another language should pray that he can interpret.... ³⁹ Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in other languages.

3) 1 Cor 13 Says Miracles Will Cease When the Bible is Completed

As shown above, of the three purported "Scriptural objections" to miracles in the present day, the first two fail to stand up to scrutiny. This leaves 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 as the sole "Scriptural" objection to miracles in the present day.

It should be noted at the outset that this passage does not say, "Miracles will cease when the Bible is completed." That is a meaning placed upon the text which may or may not be there. I easily grant that some people understand this text to mean that, but it must be acknowledged that the text does not say that.

This passage has been interpreted as a prophecy of the end of prophecy. But looking at the context, that's not what Paul was trying to get at. What is the theme of his overall discussion in these few chapters?

His theme is Love, and it starts way back in chapter 11, when he discusses the abuses going on at their assemblies.

The Corinthians claimed to be meeting together to honor the Lord in the Lord's Supper, but Paul says that's not what they were actually doing (11:20). It seems that in the early days, the Lord's Supper was intertwined with a full meal, just as the Last Supper was an intertwining of specific parts of the Passover meal with the full meal of the Passover.

However, the Corinthians had lost sight of the fact that this meal was about honoring Jesus' death (11:23-26), and about being united (11:17-22; 33-34). They were selfishly filling up their plates and scarfing their food without concern for anyone behind them in line, which left some folks hungry while others were gorging and imbibing to the point of getting drunk (11:21).

Paul made it clear that this meal was not about satisfying your hunger; that can be done at home (11:22; 34). Instead, this meal is about honoring the death of Jesus (11:26), and recognizing that this is not an act designed for the individual, but for the whole body (11:21;33); if they eat and drink without recognizing the body, they're eating and drinking judgment to themselves (11:29). So they need to wait on one another, so that they won't come under judgment (11:33-34).

The focus here is love for each other, as opposed to selfishness.

Then we move to chapter 12, where we see hints that the same selfishness we saw in chapter 11 in regards to eating the Lord's Supper is also going on with spiritual gifts, with the members thinking "my gift is better than yours". Paul says there are different gifts, given to each person by the same Spirit according to the Spirit's will (12:4-11). Just because you're not an "eye", that doesn't mean you're not part of the body; you may be an "ear", serving just as valid of a role (12:16-21). And even the less-mentionable roles are needed (12:22-25). He starts to wind down this section by saying that God intended there to be no division in the body, but that each member would have the same concern for each other (12:25). He finalizes this section with an appeal to desire the greater gifts, but that the better way is yet to be explained (12:31).

In chapter 13, Paul explains that the better way is love. Some day, the "greater gifts" of prophecy and supernatural knowledge will cease (13:8-11), when we have all the answers (13:12), but even then, faith, hope, and love continues, with the greatest of these being love (12:13).

He then finishes up his discourse on Spiritual gifts by giving practical guidelines for how those gifts should be used (all of chapter 14), finishing up with a command to be eager for the types of gifts that better foster love such as prophecy, while not forbidding the other gifts such as speaking in tongues (14:39).

Throughout these chapters, love is Paul's overall theme.

Notice that Paul is not concerned with teaching his readers when prophecy and supernatural knowledge would cease. Instead, his concern is to say that our focus should not be on the gee-whiz special effects of Spiritual gifts like prophecy and supernatural knowledge, which will cease when they've finished their job, but rather on faith, hope, and love, which will remain, with love being the greatest.

The question is, have these special-effects gifts finished their job?

Many Christians would answer "Yes", equating the finishing of their job with the completion of the New Testament, largely based on their understanding of these gifts as only having the purpose of confirming the apostles' message which we now find in the New Testament.

But as mentioned above, that's not the only purpose for the gifts. We still have at least five other needs which would be enhanced via miraculous spiritual gifts.

Not to mention that I don't see clearly, face-to-face, knowing fully as I am fully known (1 Cor 13:12).

Conclusion

The arguments that miracles have ceased are two: 1) we don't witness them, making us think they must not happen, and 2) Scriptural objections.

Of the three recognized Scriptural objections, the first two are invalid, and the third is questionable.

In conjunction with the New Testament indicating that the Spirit gives gifts to each believer for the Spirit's purposes, it is reasonable to be cautious of using the questionable third objection to those gifts as being the final word on the matter.

On (Not) Reading the Bible

Sheri writes:

I decided that I could not say that I valued God's Word if I haven't even bothered to read it all. In church, we read the same passages over and over again, which is why we can all recite them together. Join me..."I am not ashamed of the gospel...He that believeth and is baptized...And Peter said to them, 'Repent and be baptized every one of you...study to show thyself approved..." What about the rest of it?

Excerpt from Timothy’s First Letter to Paul, and Paul's Response

Thinking about the role of women in Christianity, a friend of mine came up with the following hypothetical letter to Paul from Timothy, which letter we don't have a record of, and Paul's response.

Ephesus, where Timothy lived (1 Tim 1:3), was the headquarters of the cult of the Roman fertility goddess Diana (in Acts 19 it's the Greek "Artemis"), a town in which the women often dominated, especially in religious settings. In light of this, my friend's hypothetical letter below seems to make sense. Neither she nor I are saying that's how it was, but it's interesting enough I wanted to pass it on.

===

Excerpt from Timothy’s First Letter to Paul

Now, Paul, I need to ask you to address some problems we are having with the women in the congregation. I realize that we are all one in Christ, that there is no Jew or Gentile, no male or female, no slave or free. And I realize the Holy Spirit has given the gift of prophecy to women as well and that they are free to teach as they are being led. But we have some women in the congregation who are extremely outspoken about teachings that are contrary to Christ’s will and they refuse to submit to His truth, specifically with regards to the equality of men and women. Instead, it often becomes a screaming contest where the loudest woman “wins”. It is breaking down the congregation, not building it up. I understand the culture many of our women come out of, where temple prostitutes violently dominate men and degrade men for a living. Where the goddess is “worshiped” through sex and female domination and where children are aborted and pregnancy is a curse. This is what these women see every day in the street. Some of them even WERE temple prostitutes. But instead of turning away from this culture, some of the women are trying to bring this culture into our congregation! They not only teach violent domination of men, they also practice it, proudly and outspokenly! They try to degrade men all the time. They teach outright that Eve was formed first, then Adam and that Adam was the one who was deceived and sinned, not Eve. They also teach, as the temple prostitutes believe, that becoming pregnant and bearing and keeping your child condemns you to hell. Please help me untangle this mess. Maybe they will be more inclined to hear and submit to the truth if it comes directly from your pen.

Paul's Response, in 1  Tim 2:11-15

Dear Timothy,

Please find below my response to the issues you are dealing with.

Now, Paul, I need to ask you to address some problems we are having with the women in the congregation. I realise that we are all one in Christ, that there is no Jew or Gentile, no male or female, no slave or free. And I realise the Holy Spirit has given the gift of prophecy to women as well and that they are free to teach as they are being led. But we have some women in the congregation who are extremely outspoken about teachings that are contrary to Christ’s will and they refuse to submit to His truth, specifically with regards to the equality of men and women. Instead, it often becomes a screaming contest where the loudest woman “wins”. It is breaking down the congregation, not building it up. 

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.

I understand the culture many of our women come out of, where temple prostitutes violently dominate men and degrade men for a living. Where the goddess is “worshipped” through sex and female domination and where children are aborted and pregnancy is a curse. This is what these women see every day in the street. Some of them even WERE temple prostitutes. But instead of turning away from this culture, some of the women are trying to bring this culture into our congregation! They not only teach violent domination of men, they also practice it, proudly and outspokenly! 

I do not permit a woman to teach [violent domination] or to practice violent domination* over a man; she must be silent.

They try to degrade men all the time. They teach outright that Eve was formed first, then Adam and that Adam was the one who was deceived and sinned, not Eve. 

For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

They also teach, as the temple prostitutes believe, that becoming pregnant and bearing and keeping your child condems you to hell. Please help me untangle this mess. Maybe they will be more inclined to hear and submit to the truth if it comes directly from your pen.

But women will be saved through childbearing – if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.


*Noteworthy: the word used for “to have authority over” is “authentein” – can be translated as “domination [with a violent connotation]” as well as several other possible translations. It does not occur in any other place in the Bible.

The Promises to Abraham

There were several promises made to Abraham, made on several occasions (see "Summary of Promises" section below), but the basic promises boil down to three:

• I will make of you a great nation, kings, uncountable offspring
• I will give you the land
• I will bless the nations of the earth through you

These three promises are seen when God first starts making promises to Abram (see "Gen 12" section below), and when God confirms the covenant with Isaac (see "Gen 26" section below).

Although these promises were made at various times there were two specific covenant ceremonies:

• Genesis 15 (the cutting of animals)
• core stipulations:
• land, great reward
• uncountable offspring from his own loins
• Abram believed this promise and his faith was credited as righteousness

• Genesis 17 (the cutting of foreskins)
• core stipulations:
• land
• uncountable offspring from his own loins
• covenant to be confirmed with Isaac

Notice that although both of these ceremonies include the promise of land and of uncountable offspring, neither includes the promise to bless all nations. However, when God confirms the covenant with Isaac (see "Gen 26" section below), it includes the blessing of all nations.

Summaries of Promises:

Gen 12:1-3, 7 (the initial call of Abram)

• I will make you a great nation
• I will bless you
• I will make your name great
• You will be a blessing
• I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who treat you with contempt
• All the peoples on earth will be blessed through you
• I will give this land (Canaan) to your offspring

Gen 13:14-17 (Abram & Lot split, dividing the land)

• I will give you and your offspring all the land you can see
• I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth - uncountable

Gen 15:1-21 (faith credited as righteousness)

• Your reward will be great
• Eliezer not to be your heir, but a son of your own loins
• Uncountable offspring
• Abram believed this about his offspring, and God credited it to him as righteousness
• You will possess this land
• the animal-cutting ceremony in response to "how will I know I will possess this land?"
• Your offspring will be enslaved & oppressed in a foreign land for 400 years
• I will judge that nation; your people will go out with many possessions, returning here in the fourth generation
• You will go to your fathers in peace
• Covenant summarized in v 18 as "I will give this land to your offspring"

Gen 17:2-26 (circumcision given)

• I will establish My covenant between Me and you
• I will multiply you greatly
• You will become the father of many nations
• Name changed from "Exalted Father" (Abram) to "Father of a Multitude" (Abraham)
• I will make you extremely fruitful; nations and kings will come from you
• Covenant is everlasting throughout your offspring's generations to be yours and your offspring's God
• To you and your offspring I give this land, and I will be their God
• This is my covenant: you and all your males to be circumcised
• Your wife's name changed from Sarai (a form of "princess"?) to Sarah ("princess") (the meaning of the name seems less significant than the change itself)
• Sarah will give you a son, next year
• I will bless Sarah
• Nations and kings will come from Sarah
• Your son through Sarah will be named Isaac ("he laughs")
• I will confirm my covenant with Isaac
• Ishmael will also be blessed
• I will bless him
• I will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly
• He will father 12 tribes
• I will make him a great nation

Gen 18:9-19

• In a year, Abraham's wife will have a son
• Abraham to become a great and powerful nation
• All the nations of the earth will be blessed through Abraham

Gen 26:2-5 (Covenant confirmed with Isaac)

• I will be with you and bless you
• I will give all these lands to you and your offspring
• I will confirm the oath I swore to Abraham
• Uncountable offspring
• Land given to offspring
• all the nations of the earth will be blessed by your offspring

Gal 3:1-29 (We are children of Abraham by faith)

• those who have faith are Abraham's sons
• Scripture saw:
• that God would justify the Gentiles by faith
• God told the Gospel to Abraham, that all nations will be blessed through him
• Therefore, those who have faith are blessed with Abraham
• The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed
• That seed is Christ
• And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed

The covenant made with Moses and his people, which God "made with [them] when [He] took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt" (Jer 31:32) is separate and apart from any previous covenants/promises, including these promises to Abraham. It "came 430 years later, [and] does not revoke a covenant that was previously ratified by God" (Gal 3:17). This covenant, made with Moses, "was added because of transgressions" (Gal 3:19), and was temporary, to last only "until the Seed to whom the promise was made would come" (Gal 3:19). But the promise to Abraham still stands: "If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to the promise" (Gal 3:29).

Note, there were two laws given for circumcision: one for all of Abram's seed, given as a part of the promises/covenants with Abraham; and one for the subset of Abraham's seed known as the Jews, given as a part of the later and temporary and faulty (see below) covenant of Moses. So the Jews had two laws insisting on circumcision; their cousins, the Ishmaelites (from Hagar) and the children of Keturah (who may have intermingled to become the ancestors of today's Arabs - Book of Jubilees 20:13), only had one such law.

Regardless of whether circumcision is required of us as part of the promise (it is required, because we are now Abraham's seed; it is not required, because what's important is faith, not the letter of the law), Paul's point in Romans 4 is that Abraham's righteousness came by faith, prior to any work (i.e. circumcision) done on his part. James, in James 2, adds that "faith" is useless if it's merely an academic acceptance without a life-changing acceptance.

The faulty covenant, replaced by the more excellent ministry, was not those promises made to Abraham; the faulty covenant was the temporary one that was added because of transgressions, the covenant which God made with the ancestors of the House of Israel when He took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt. The writer of Hebrews cites Jeremiah 31, explicitly defining the faulty covenant (Heb 8:7) as "the covenant that I made with their ancestors on the day I took them by their hands to lead them out of the land of Egypt" (Heb 8:9, citing Jer 31:32).

Is Jesus Against Defensive Violence?

The easy passage to cite when addressing the question of using violence for defensive purposes is Matthew 5, wherein Jesus says:

^{HCSB Matt 5:38} “You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. ³⁹ But I tell you, don’t resist an evildoer. On the contrary, if anyone slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. ⁴⁰ As for the one who wants to sue you and take away your shirt, let him have your coat as well. ⁴¹ And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two.

And here's another popular passage:

^{HCSB Matt 26:50} ... Then they came up, took hold of Jesus, and arrested Him. ⁵¹ At that moment one of those with Jesus reached out his hand and drew his sword. He struck the high priest’s slave and cut off his ear. ⁵² Then Jesus told him, “Put your sword back in its place because all who take up a sword will perish by a sword.

Another:

^{HCSB John 18:36} “My kingdom is not of this world,” said Jesus. “If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I wouldn’t be handed over to the Jews. As it is, My kingdom does not have its origin here.”

And yet another:

^{HCSB Eph 6:12} For our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the world powers of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavens.

So at first glance, it seems pretty obvious that Jesus was all about submitting to those who might bring violence against us.

But there's another way to look at Jesus.

I think we've mistaken Paul's words in Ephesians 6 that our fight is not against flesh and blood to mean that we should never fight against flesh and blood enemies. But Paul is saying nothing more than what Jesus told Pilate: his issues, his kingdom, our core purposes, are not of this world. And they aren't. But that doesn't mean we should sit by doing nothing while innocent people are abused by others. After all, Jesus said that if his kingdom was of this world, then his disciples would take up arms and fight (John 18:36). Jesus is not against violence for earthly reasons; it's just that his concern at his trial was not about earthly concerns. And Paul is likewise saying that our core concern is not about those things on earth, but in heaven. But there is no prohibition here of taking care of earthly concerns; that's just not to be our core focus.

In fact, Paul focused quite a bit on taking care of earthly concerns, trying to make sure the poor had some financial relief, and even going so far as to make sure his crew had an accountability partner (and perhaps body-guard?) when carrying large sums of money (2 Cor 8:16-21).

Earlier, before Jesus was arrested, he did have concern for earthly matters, including self-defense, as it applied to his disciples as he was about to be arrested. Just after his last supper (Luke 22:35ff), he asked the disciples if they had lacked anything when he had earlier told them to not take normal traveling equipment (change of clothes, money, shoes) the first time he sent them out. After they replied that they lacked nothing, he then instructs them, "Now I'm sending you again, but this time you need to go prepared, with money, a suitcase, and a weapon, even if you have to have a garage-sale in order to buy that weapon" (v. 36).

Earlier he had told parables of strong men protecting their possessions with violence as examples of expected behavior (Matt 12:29; Mark 3:27; Luke 11:21).

And even before that, he had said through the prophet Jeremiah:

^{HCSB Jer 22:3} This is what the LORD says: Administer justice and righteousness. Rescue the victim of robbery from the hand of his oppressor. Don’t exploit or brutalize the foreigner, the fatherless, or the widow. Don’t shed innocent blood in this place.

(Notice the command to rescue victims from robbers; also notice that the last command is to not shed "innocent" blood.)

Further, Jesus did not "turn the other cheek" when he found God's Temple turned into a mini-mall: he took the time to collect and assemble the materials to make a whip, trudge back into the Temple, and drive the marketers out, with violence (John 2:14-16).

Nor did he humbly submit to the evils of The System when it devours widows' houses or when it makes a proselyte twice as fit for hell as the hypocrites who converted him, but rather forcefully upbraided these evils (Matt 23:14-15).

So whatever Jesus meant by the phrase, "turn the other cheek", it seems he didn't mean we should be passive in the face of evil.

So what did he mean?

I find the following to be of interest:

Jesus clarifies his meaning by three brief examples. "If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Why the right cheek? How does one strike another on the right cheek anyway? Try it. A blow by the right fist in that right-handed world would land on the left cheek of the opponent. To strike the right cheek with the fist would require using the left hand, but in that society the left hand was used only for unclean tasks. As the Dead Sea Scrolls specify, even to gesture with the left hand at Qumran carried the penalty of ten days' penance. The only way one could strike the right cheek with the right hand would be with the back of the hand.

What we are dealing with here is unmistakably an insult, not a fistfight. The intention is not to injure but to humiliate, to put someone in his or her place. One normally did not strike a peer in this way, and, if one did, the fine was exorbitant (four zuz was the fine for a blow to a peer with a fist, 400 zuz for backhanding him; but to an underling, no penalty whatever). A backhand slap was the normal way of admonishing inferiors. Masters backhanded slaves; husbands, wives; parents, children; men, women; Romans; Jews.

We have here a set of unequal relations, in each of which retaliation would be suicidal. The only normal response would be cowering submission. It is important to ask who Jesus' audience is. In every case, his listeners are not those who strike, initiate lawsuits, or impose forced labor. Rather, Jesus is speaking to their victims, people who have been subjected to these very indignities. They have been forced to stifle their inner outrage at the dehumanizing treatment meted out to them by the hierarchical system of caste and class, race and gender, age and status, and by the guardians of imperial occupation.

Why then does Jesus counsel these already humiliated people to turn the other cheek? Because this action robs the oppressor of power to humiliate them. The person who turns the other cheek is saying, in effect, "Try again. Your first blow failed to achieve its intended effect. I deny you the power to humiliate me. I am a human being just like you. Your status (gender, race, age, wealth) does not alter that. You cannot demean me." Such a response would create enormous difficulties for the striker. Purely logistically, how can he now hit the other cheek? He cannot backhand it with his right hand. If he hits with a fist, he makes himself an equal, acknowledging the other as a peer. But the whole point of the back of the hand is to reinforce the caste system and its institutionalized inequality.

The second example Jesus gives is set in a court of law. Someone is being sued for his outer garment. Who would do that and under what circumstances? Only the poorest of the poor would have nothing but an outer garment to give as collateral for a loan. Jewish law strictly required its return every evening at sunset, for that was all the poor had in which to sleep. The situation to which Jesus alludes is one with which his hearers would have been too familiar: the poor debtor has sunk ever deeper into poverty, the debt cannot be repaid, and his creditor has hauled him into court to wring out repayment.

Indebtedness was the most serious social problem in first-century Palestine. Jesus' parables are full of debtors struggling to salvage their lives. It is in this context that Jesus speaks. His hearers are the poor ("if anyone would sue you."). They share a rankling hatred for a system that subjects them to humiliation by stripping them of their lands, their goods, finally even their outer garments.

Why then does Jesus counsel them to give over their inner garment as well? This would mean stripping off all their clothing and marching out of court stark naked! Put yourself in the debtor's place; imagine the chuckles this saying must have evoked. There stands the creditor, beet-red with embarrassment, your outer garment in one hand, your underwear in the other. You have suddenly turned the tables on him. You had no hope of winning the trial; the law was entirely in his favor. But you have refused to be humiliated. At the same time you have registered a stunning protest against a system that spawns such debt. You have said, in effect, "You want my robe? Here, take everything! Now you've got all I have except my body. Is that what you'll take next?"

Nakedness was taboo in Judaism. Shame fell not on the naked party but the person viewing or causing one's nakedness (Genesis 9:20-27). By stripping you have brought the creditor under the same prohibition that led to the curse of Canaan. As you parade into the street, your friends and neighbors, startled, aghast, inquire what happened. You explain. They join your growing procession, which now resembles a victory parade. The entire system by which debtors are oppressed has been publicly unmasked. The creditor is revealed to be not a "respectable" moneylender but a party in the reduction of an entire social class to landlessness and destitution. This unmasking is not simply punitive, however; it offers the creditor a chance to see, perhaps for the first time in his life, what his practices cause--and to repent.

Jesus in effect is sponsoring clowning. In so doing he shows himself to be thoroughly Jewish. A later saying of the Talmud runs, "If your neighbor calls you an ass, put a saddle on your back."

The Powers That Be literally stand on their dignity. Nothing takes away their potency faster than deft lampooning. By refusing to be awed by their power, the powerless are emboldened to seize the initiative, even where structural change is not possible. This message, far from being a counsel of perfection unattainable in this life, is a practical, strategic measure for empowering the oppressed. It provides a hint of how to take on the entire system in a way that unmasks its essential cruelty and to burlesque its pretensions to justice, law, and order.

Walking the second mile

Jesus' third example, the one about going the second mile, is drawn from the enlightened practice of limiting the amount of forced labor that Roman soldiers could levy on subject peoples. A soldier could impress a civilian to carry his pack one mile only; to force the civilian to go further carried with it severe penalties under military law. In this way Rome tried to limit the anger of the occupied people and still keep its armies on the move. Nevertheless, this levy was a bitter reminder to the Jews that they were a subject people even in the Promised Land.

To this proud but subjugated people Jesus does not counsel revolt. One does not "befriend" the soldier, draw him aside, and drive a knife into his ribs. Jesus was keenly aware of the futility of armed revolt against Roman imperial might. He minced no words about it, though it must have cost him support from the revolutionary factions.

But why walk the second mile? Is this not to rebound to the opposite extreme: aiding and abetting the enemy? Not at all. The question here, as in the two previous instances, is how the oppressed can recover the initiative, how they can assert their human dignity in a situation that cannot for the time being be changed. The rules are Caesar's but not how one responds to the rules. The response is God's, and Caesar has no power over that.

Imagine then the soldier's surprise when, at the next mile marker, he reluctantly reaches to assume his pack (sixty-five to eighty-five pounds in full gear). You say, "Oh no, let me carry it another mile." Normally he has to coerce your kinsmen to carry his pack; now you do it cheerfully and will not stop! Is this a provocation? Are you insulting his strength? Being kind? Trying to get him disciplined for seeming to make you go farther then you should? Are you planning to file a complaint? To create trouble?

From a situation of servile impressment, you have once more seized the initiative. You have taken back the power of choice. The soldier is thrown off-balance by being deprived of the predictability of your response. Imagine the hilarious situation of a Roman infantryman pleading with a Jew, "Aw, come on, please give me back my pack!" The humor of this scene may escape those who picture it through sanctimonious eyes. It could scarcely, however, have been lost on Jesus' hearers, who must have delighted in the prospect of thus discomfiting their oppressors.

Some readers may object to the idea of discomfiting the soldier or embarrassing the creditor. But can people engaged in oppressive acts repent unless made uncomfortable with their actions? There is, admittedly, the danger of using nonviolence as a tactic of revenge and humiliation. There is also, at the opposite extreme, an equal danger of sentimentality and softness that confuses the uncompromising love of Jesus with being nice. Loving confrontation can free both the oppressed from docility and the oppressor from sin.

So Jesus is not teaching us to be passive in the face of violence; he's teaching us not to get sucked into an unwinnable escalation of conflict, an eye-for-an-eye seeking of vengeance, to use our brains to accomplish what our brawn won't or can't.

If we understand Jesus' teachings to be not that of passive non-resistance, but of wily disarmament, and if we understand his and Paul's emphasis on the next world to not exclude paying some needed attention to this world, there is no longer any conflict with Jesus' instruction to carry a self-defense weapon when traveling, or his Old Testament instruction to stand up with whatever it takes to rescue victims from robbers.

Jesus does not say "Be a door-mat"; he says, "Do what brings peace, disarm the aggressor, which requires wisdom and cunning and courage and self-sacrifice, and sometimes even physical strength".

More Scripture?

The Biblical writer and apostle, Paul, writes:

^{HCSB Col 4:15} Give my greetings to the brothers in Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her home. ¹⁶ When this letter has been read among you, have it read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea.

We consider the writings of Paul to be inspired. He considers his writings suitable to be read to the churches. He sent a letter to the Colossians, of which copies have survived to the present day. He sent a letter to Laodicea, which has been lost.

What if a copy of the letter to the Laodiceans were to be found in the buried ruins of a first-century library tomorrow? Would we consider it as scripture? Would we add it to our existing Bibles?

Just food for thought.

Pilate Replaced Herod with Jesus

You'll recall that at the time of Jesus' arrest, Herod was the reigning king over the Jews. Even though he was king, Herod was still subject to his own superior authorities, such as the local Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, and ultimately to the Roman Emperor, Caesar.

When the Jewish police and religious authorities arrested Jesus, they set up a kangaroo court and convicted him to a death sentence, but being under Roman rule which reserved the death penalty to Roman courts, they then took Jesus to Pilate to push injustice through the Roman court system.

Pilate, recognizing the affair as being of local Jewish concern, sent Jesus to the lower court of King Herod, rather than wasting the higher court's time on a minor matter.

Herod, however, couldn't get anywhere with Jesus, and sent Jesus back to the higher court of Pilate.

Pilate couldn't find any justification for the death sentence, so he tried various methods of calming down the Jewish rioters and releasing Jesus, even going so far as to beat Jesus to fatal lengths, which technically wasn't a death sentence, but was so in practical terms. Jesus was at this point a dead man walking. As such, he was presented bloodied, weak, and dying, to the rioters as "the man" (John 19:5).

But even that wasn't good enough for the rioters; they wanted him crucified, tortured, hanging from a cross for expected days. So they pressured Pilate more, and inadvertently scared him with the magic words "Son of God" (vv. 7-8).

So Pilate took Jesus back into the governor's headquarters for further questioning, becoming even more convinced that he simply must get Jesus released. But nothing he did satisfied the rioters.

His final attempt was to depose Herod, and make Jesus the king of the Jews. The next time Pilate presented the dying Jesus to the mob, he announced, "Here is your king!" (v. 14). (This can't have made Herod happy, even though Jesus' reign would be short-lived due to his almost-certain impending death from his earlier beating.)

But even that was not suitable to the mob; they wanted Jesus crucified, and they rejected Jesus as king, announcing they had no king but Caesar (v. 15), which just a few hours prior would have probably been considered by the Jews to be treasonous language.

So Pilate gave in, and had Jesus executed by crucifixion. But he still had the last word; on the cross, Pilate affixed a sign that said in three languages, "Jesus the Nazarene, The King of the Jews" (vv 19-20).

What Pilate probably did not intend, and what probably riled the Jews up even further, is that this phrase, as I understand it, in (Englicized) Hebrew, is rendered:

Yahshua Hanatzoi Wehemelech Hayuhadim

 From a distance, the first letters stand out: YHWH

Pilate has just declared Jesus to be YHWH God, King of the Jews.

When the Jews object to the sign, wanting it changed, I can just see the smirk on Pilate's face as he responds to these trouble-makers: "What I have written, I have written" (v. 22).

Same ol', same ol'

I got into a discussion the other day with a young man, 10-ish or so. He's in a Sunday morning Bible class that mixes 3rd, 4th, and 5th graders together. At one point he informed me that he doesn't like Bible class, because "they talk about stuff he already knows", because the class is oriented for the third-graders.

Hmm.

When a Doctor Turns Evil

I have a friend, Jen, who has a multitude of health issues, one of which is magnesium depletion.

Her general practitioner referred her to a specialist, a Dr. X, to look into this issue. The first thing Dr. X did was have a med-port inserted into Jen's chest, so that the bi-weekly infusions could be done without tearing up the veins in Jen's arms.

Normal mag levels are 1.5 to 2.5. Below 1.0 is critical.

After the first infusions and subsequent testing, it was determined that Jen would need weekly, rather than bi-weekly, infusions.

So one day a week, Jen would go in to have her levels measured, and then the next day she would go in for 2 to 4 hours of infusing.

After a while, Jen wondered if they were just going to keep giving her infusions or find out what was causing the depletion. Dr. X told her that he doesn't do research; that's her GP's job.

But that's why the GP referred her to Dr. X! Dr. X is supposed to be the specialist. So she gets referred to him to find out what the problem is; he just puts a port into her chest requiring a traumatic (and dangerous; they snipped a vein in the process, requiring cauterization, causing a significant amount of blood loss) operation, doesn't bother to pursue what the cause of the problem is, and then without warning or, I believe, justification, does the following.

What Jen didn't know, and what Dr. X's office didn't tell her, is that if she missed (or even rescheduled prior to the appointment!) three appointments for any reason, she would get "fired" as a patient of his.

Once, her son had a conflicting appointment with his doctor in Fort Worth, 3 hours away. She rescheduled her appointment to keep his. Strike one.

Another time, her GP insisted she come in to see him at the same time as one of her infusion appointments. Being a good patient, she rescheduled her infusion to obey her GP. Strike two.

A third time, her son again had a conflicting appointment with his doctor in Fort Worth, so she again rescheduled. Strike three.

But it's okay for them to miss appointments with Jen, without warning, and without rescheduling in a timely manner. She went in on one of her days to get her levels measured, to find that the office was closed that day, even though she had the appointment card they had given her in her hand. It was nearly another week (for a total of two weeks without a treatment) before she could get in again.

Because of her three strikes, she got fired.

Dr. X's office sent her a certified letter saying they were severing ties with her, that they would provide service to her for 30 days, and that they would help her find another doctor, suggesting at one point that it might require Jen to drive to Fort Worth or Lubbuck (both 3 hours away) twice a week. This is without any warning whatsoever. None.

They did not help her find another doctor. Her husband found one for her, and made an appointment for her for the next week. In the meantime, she had an appointment with Dr. X in the present week. She went in to have her levels checked; they were now at 0.7, sub-critical. But when she called to check on her infusion appointment the next day, Dr. X's office told her that since she now had a new doctor, they were completely severing their relationship and would not honor her appointment.

She has a level of 0.7, heart-attack levels, and has 7 days to go before her appointment with her new doctor, and Dr. X once again, without justification in my view, refused treatment to her.

I have no word for Dr. X's actions except "evil". I believe he has committed sin against Jen, numerous times. I'm reminded of several Biblical injunctions against such evil, such as:

^{HCSB Isa 5:20} Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who substitute darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who substitute bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter.
²¹ Woe to those who are wise in their own opinion
and clever in their own sight.
²² Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine,
who are fearless at mixing beer,
²³ who acquit the guilty for a bribe
and deprive the innocent of justice.

and

^{HCSB James 4:17} So it is a sin for the person who knows to do what is good and doesn’t do it.

and

^{HCSB Micah 1} Woe to those who dream up wickedness
and prepare evil plans on their beds!
At morning light they accomplish it
because the power is in their hands.
² They covet fields and seize them;
they also take houses.
They deprive a man of his home,
a person of his inheritance.
...
⁹ You force the women of My people
out of their comfortable homes,
and you take My blessing
from their children forever.
...
Aren’t you supposed to know what is just?
^3:2 You hate good and love evil.
You tear off people’s skin
and strip their flesh from their bones.
³ You eat the flesh of my people
after you strip their skin from them
and break their bones.
You chop them up
like flesh for the cooking pot,
like meat in a cauldron.”
...
 ⁵ This is what the LORD says
concerning [those]
who lead my people astray,
who proclaim peace
when they have food to sink their teeth into
but declare war against the one
who puts nothing in their mouths.
⁶ Therefore, it will be night for you—
...
you ...
who abhor justice
and pervert everything that is right....

I believe Dr. X has abhorred justice, chopping Jen up like flesh for the cooking pot, while he sits back and proclaims peace.

Evil.