Saturday 6 March 2010

Three Points of Law and the Manner in Which We as New-Testament Believers Fulfill Them

Just a further comment about the way in which we DO fulfill all of the particular points of Law singled-out in the above article. We don't, as the article says, accept only part of the Law as inspired and authoritative while shrugging off another part of it. That's not what God's grace taught us to do. As we walk in the Spirit - walk in love - we fulfill the ethics that formed the basis of every single point of the Law. We may express some of those ethics through a different vehicle now that we are under a New Covenant - but the underlying moral ethic is unchangeable, and by God's grace we as New Testament believers have been graciously enabled to fulfill all of those ethics to the full.

The article cited the death penalty for male homosexuality. It's not that we shrug-off the Law's punishment for homosexuality as being "uninspired" or outdated - rather, we see mercy as having triumphed over judgment - the righteousness of the Law was fulfilled without altering the demand of the Law, through Christ's substitutionary death on the cross. We still consider homosexuality to be a sin ethically worthy of death, but we see the punishment of the Law as having been carried for us substitutionally by Christ. Thus, the whole ethic of the Law - including its punishment - is completely fulfilled by us. Our sins are forgiven. (That doesn't necessarily mean however that the crime of homosexuality, or any other crime, should no longer be punishable by a civil court.)

The article also cited the Law's death penalty for juvenile rebellion, as another alleged example of our inconsistency. First of all, that point of Law actually prevented the very thing which it is often misconstrued as condoning. Prior to Moses' day, honour-killings by family members were taking place in almost pandemic proportions across the Gentile nations - and it still occurs even today in some cultures. That particular point of Law prevented incidences of honour-killings from ever taking place in Israel. The parents were instead restricted to presenting the juvenile to the Elders, and a public statement had to be made. Obviously the statement included the inference that attempts at rehabilitation had failed. They would bring their son to the Elders knowing full well what the ramifications would be for their son. Obviously no parent would go to all that trouble lightly. It therefore prevented sudden, irrational, angry, proud killings by family members against their own. It guaranteed that only the most serious, worthy cases ever made it to the Courts. In fact, there is no recorded case in the Old Testament of this procedure ever being carried-out. It encouraged family-members to work it out at home. The intent of the Law was therefore merciful, rather than harsh. As for the death penalty - again, it's not that we as New Testament believers now see that particular point of Law as an injustice. We still see it as justtice - however we consider the ethic of punishment to have been fulfilled through Christ's substitutionary death on Calvary. We therefore uphold the ethic and the moral of the Law. Thus our sins are forgiven, without having to pick-and-choose which part of the Law we want to keep. (But again, that doesn't necessarily mean that juvenile crime, and other crimes, should no longer be punishable by a Civil court.) ... See More

Finally, the article mentions the Law's prohibition against wearing mixed-fabrics, and states that since modern Christians don't abide by that particular point of Law, homosexuality also is therefore justifiable. But actually, we do fulfill the ethic that was behind that point of Law also. There are many points in the Law which were not in themselves a moral ethic, but which served to illustrate a deeper, unchanging moral ethic.

(For example, circumcision. There was nothing moral or immoral about circumcision itself. It's significance, under the Old Testament, was COVENANTAL and symbolic. Under the New Covenant, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision makes any covenantal difference. The ethic that was symbolized through the Old Covenant practice of circumcision is fulfilled in us through baptism and through sanctification of the flesh and spirit.

Another example of this is the point of Law which said, "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth the corn". Paul's comment about this verse was that God didn't give Israel that point of Law because He cared for oxen alone. Moses wrote it to illustrate their ethical responsibility to pay their labourers. Paul then applied this Law which seemed to be about oxen to a New Testament setting and used it in support of his assertion that preachers of the Gospel have the right to earn a living from the ministry.

The Laws of blood-sacrifices are in the same category. We fulfill the true intent of those Law, not through continuing to bring blood-offerings, but through our acknowledgment of that one great sacrifice which they were meant to foreshadow.)

The Law against mixed-fabrics is probably in the same category. It isn't morally wrong that we now wear mixed fabrics, that we do or don't get circumcized, and that we don't bring blood-sacrifiices - because we fulfill the true ethic that was inherent in each of those Laws, in another way. The point behind prohibiting mixed-fabrics in Israel was to serve as an illustration of moral and ethical DISTINCTION, similar to the way in which circumcision did. There was an unchanging distinction between right and wrong. There was an unchanging distinction between holy and profane. Through the prohibitions against wearing mixed-fabrics, God gave them a symbol of the importance of that truth.

Wearing mixed-fabrics was not as simple in those days as going down to the shop and buying an item of clothing as we do, often without taking too much notice about the makeup of the fabric. In those days, the effort it took to manufacture mixed fabrics very often would have in itself been loaded with other intent. Like cutting the corners of one's beard, it was in itself, in those days, somewhat symbolic of an ethical statement. It spoke of mixed-allegiances; of twisted, mixed morals. That's the type of social and religious disorder which Moses was giving Israel a symbolic reminder of through this particular point of Law.

Now that we are under a New Covenant, we embrace that same truth - but through a different vehicle. We express it through our appreciation of the cross, where God made a distinction by judging sin on the cross in the body of His Son so that we could be justified by His resurrection from the dead by the spirit of holiness. We fulfill this Law by praising God for having sanctified us as a peculiar, distinct people, as a holy, distinct priesthood. We fulfill it through doing good, holy works and by not practising, teaching or condoning sin as if it wasn't distinguished from holiness. In this way, we as New Testament believers do fulfill the ethic, the moral, of that particular point of Law (against mixed-fabrics). In fact - we ARE the fulfillment of that particular point of Law. (But that doesn't mean there might not also be some physical advantages of one fabric over another's).

By God's grace, through the efficacy of the cross, we DO fulfill all of the Law in every way. The above article is therefore wrong in its conclusion that the Laws prohibiting homosexuality are either uninspired, unauthoritative, or non-applicable in modern society. Like every part of the Law, Jesus didn't come to destroy it, but to fulfill it. The ethic of heterosexuality carries through into the writings of the New Testament. Adultery, fornication, homosexuality, and all uncleanness are taught in the New Testament as being sins.

God's grace didn't change the definition of sin - God's grace gave us power over sin, freely through Jesus Christ.

Natural Disasters - a Judgment of God?

Are natural disasters a judgment of God? A friend of mine said, "If it looks like judgment, feels like judgment, and acts like judgment - then it is judgment". Something I'll keep in the back of my mind for future thought.

Wednesday 3 March 2010

The Meaning of Grace

I think it means that nothing Jesus ever said or did was intended to be construed as Him putting-aside the requirement of the Law. The religious leaders of the day deliberately misapplied the Law to suit their own lusts. But Jesus brought-out the true spirit of the Law and always fulfilled it perfectly on every point. And He expected no ... See Moreless of His disciples! Jesus didn't want anyone to think that He came to destroy the Law. He said He came to fulfill it. And the message of the Gospel is that through the indwelling Spirit of God, believers too are empowered to fulfill the righteousness of the Law. The Gospel didn't teach us to be licentious towards immorality. God's grace teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts. The Prophets also foresaw the day when God would take out the heart of stone and replace it with a heart of flesh and write His Laws in our hearts and cause us to walk according to the spirit of His precepts and His ordinances. That's the power of the new birth, without which no-one can see the Kingdom of heaven. The Gospel didn't lower the benchmark - it raised us up to the benchmark. Hallelujah! Every point of Moses' Law can be summed-up in one word: love. Therefore love is the fulfilling of the Law. Every point of Law taught Israel something about love. Now that we are under a New Covenant, we may not express all of the points of Law in the same manner that was appropriate under the Old Covenant. We will however express the principle that was illustrated by the Law, in its true meaning - on every point. The Law gave people only a shadow of what it means to walk in love. But the indwelling Spirit does more than that - He actually shed abroad God's love into our very own hearts, enabling us to now walk in love as He walked. Through His exceeding great and precious promises, we have actually been made partakers of the Divine nature. To truly be called His children therefore, we ought to walk as He walked. In the Book of Revelation, we read that Jesus was not happy with any church-member who practised or taught sexual immorality, or who condoned it in others. The message of the Gospel is not a licence to the flesh or a diminutive of the spirit of the Law on any point. In the Book of Revelation the believers were warned not to add to nor diminish anything that was written. Since we live in the Spirit, we can also walk in the Spirit - and the nine fruits of the Spirit will keep us from breaking any principle that was underneath any point of the Law. Grace isn't antinomian - it is Divine empowerment to fulfill the Law in its true, fulfilled spirit. And if we sin - if we confess our sin, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sin and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. How wonderful, how pure, is God's message of love and holiness!

How We Fulfill the Law

Just a further comment about the way in which we DO fulfill all of the particular points of Law singled-out in the above article. We don't, as the article says, accept only part of the Law as inspired and authoritative while shrugging off another part of it. That's not what God's grace taught us to do. As we walk in the Spirit - walk in love - we fulfill the ethics that formed the basis of every single point of the Law. We may express some of those ethics through a different vehicle now that we are under a New Covenant - but the underlying moral ethic is unchangeable, and by God's grace we as New Testament believers have been graciously enabled to fulfill all of those ethics to the full.

The article cited the death penalty for male homosexuality. It's not that we shrug-off the Law's punishment for homosexuality as being "uninspired" or outdated - rather, we see mercy as having triumphed over judgment - the righteousness of the Law was fulfilled without altering the demand of the Law, through Christ's substitutionary death on the cross. We still consider homosexuality to be a sin ethically worthy of death, but we see the punishment of the Law as having been carried for us substitutionally by Christ. Thus, the whole ethic of the Law - including its punishment - is completely fulfilled by us. Our sins are forgiven. (That doesn't necessarily mean however that the crime of homosexuality, or any other crime, should no longer be punishable by a civil court.)

The article also cited the Law's death penalty for juvenile rebellion, as another alleged example of our inconsistency. First of all, that point of Law actually prevented the very thing which it is often misconstrued as condoning. Prior to Moses' day, honour-killings by family members were taking place in almost pandemic proportions across the Gentile nations - and it still occurs even today in some cultures. That particular point of Law prevented incidences of honour-killings from ever taking place in Israel. The parents were instead restricted to presenting the juvenile to the Elders, and a public statement had to be made. Obviously the statement included the inference that attempts at rehabilitation had failed. They would bring their son to the Elders knowing full well what the ramifications would be for their son. Obviously no parent would go to all that trouble lightly. It therefore prevented sudden, irrational, angry, proud killings by family members against their own. It guaranteed that only the most serious, worthy cases ever made it to the Courts. In fact, there is no recorded case in the Old Testament of this procedure ever being carried-out. It encouraged family-members to work it out at home. The intent of the Law was therefore merciful, rather than harsh. As for the death penalty - again, it's not that we as New Testament believers now see that particular point of Law as an injustice. We still see it as justtice - however we consider the ethic of punishment to have been fulfilled through Christ's substitutionary death on Calvary. We therefore uphold the ethic and the moral of the Law. Thus our sins are forgiven, without having to pick-and-choose which part of the Law we want to keep. (But again, that doesn't necessarily mean that juvenile crime, and other crimes, should no longer be punishable by a Civil court.) ... See More

Finally, the article mentions the Law's prohibition against wearing mixed-fabrics, and states that since modern Christians don't abide by that particular point of Law, homosexuality also is therefore justifiable. But actually, we do fulfill the ethic that was behind that point of Law also. There are many points in the Law which were not in themselves a moral ethic, but which served to illustrate a deeper, unchanging moral ethic.

(For example, circumcision. There was nothing moral or immoral about circumcision itself. It's significance, under the Old Testament, was COVENANTAL and symbolic. Under the New Covenant, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision makes any covenantal difference. The ethic that was symbolized through the Old Covenant practice of circumcision is fulfilled in us through baptism and through sanctification of the flesh and spirit.

Another example of this is the point of Law which said, "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth the corn". Paul's comment about this verse was that God didn't give Israel that point of Law because He cared for oxen alone. Moses wrote it to illustrate their ethical responsibility to pay their labourers. Paul then applied this Law which seemed to be about oxen to a New Testament setting and used it in support of his assertion that preachers of the Gospel have the right to earn a living from the ministry.

The Laws of blood-sacrifices are in the same category. We fulfill the true intent of those Law, not through continuing to bring blood-offerings, but through our acknowledgment of that one great sacrifice which they were meant to foreshadow.)

The Law against mixed-fabrics is probably in the same category. It isn't morally wrong that we now wear mixed fabrics, that we do or don't get circumcized, and that we don't bring blood-sacrifiices - because we fulfill the true ethic that was inherent in each of those Laws, in another way. The point behind prohibiting mixed-fabrics in Israel was to serve as an illustration of moral and ethical DISTINCTION, similar to the way in which circumcision did. There was an unchanging distinction between right and wrong. There was an unchanging distinction between holy and profane. Through the prohibitions against wearing mixed-fabrics, God gave them a symbol of the importance of that truth.

Wearing mixed-fabrics was not as simple in those days as going down to the shop and buying an item of clothing as we do, often without taking too much notice about the makeup of the fabric. In those days, the effort it took to manufacture mixed fabrics very often would have in itself been loaded with other intent. Like cutting the corners of one's beard, it was in itself, in those days, somewhat symbolic of an ethical statement. It spoke of mixed-allegiances; of twisted, mixed morals. That's the type of social and religious disorder which Moses was giving Israel a symbolic reminder of through this particular point of Law.

Now that we are under a New Covenant, we embrace that same truth - but through a different vehicle. We express it through our appreciation of the cross, where God made a distinction by judging sin on the cross in the body of His Son so that we could be justified by His resurrection from the dead by the spirit of holiness. We fulfill this Law by praising God for having sanctified us as a peculiar, distinct people, as a holy, distinct priesthood. We fulfill it through doing good, holy works and by not practising, teaching or condoning sin as if it wasn't distinguished from holiness. In this way, we as New Testament believers do fulfill the ethic, the moral, of that particular point of Law (against mixed-fabrics). In fact - we ARE the fulfillment of that particular point of Law. (But that doesn't mean there might not also be some physical advantages of one fabric over another's).

By God's grace, through the efficacy of the cross, we DO fulfill all of the Law in every way. The above article is therefore wrong in its conclusion that the Laws prohibiting homosexuality are either uninspired, unauthoritative, or non-applicable in modern society. Like every part of the Law, Jesus didn't come to destroy it, but to fulfill it. The ethic of heterosexuality carries through into the writings of the New Testament. Adultery, fornication, homosexuality, and all uncleanness are taught in the New Testament as being sins.

God's grace didn't change the definition of sin - God's grace gave us power over sin, freely through Jesus Christ.

Monday 1 March 2010

Christian Communism?

There was certainly a large-scale redistribution of wealth that took place in the early Church in Jerusalem.

We could certainly lift our game! What an exciting way to live - when it's called-for in the same way that it was called for at Jerusalem during those few years.

But I don't see what happened in Acts 4 & 5 as a mandate for the LEGISLATED redistribution of wealth, like what takes place under Communism and Socialism. Neither do I see it as a mandate for Christian communalism.

In my mind, Acts 5:4 eliminates that possibility:

"WHILES IT REMAINED, WAS IT NOT THINE OWN? AND AFTER IT WAS SOLD, WAS IT NOT IN THINE OWN POWER?"

I see the giving in Jerusalem more as voluntary, generous, necessary, extraordinary, limited, and unique.

It was voluntary. And the means of production remained privately owned.

It wasn't demanded. It wasn't taught. It wasn't repeated elsewhere in the Book of Acts. Or taught in the Epistles.

But no doubt there may be circumstances in which that kind of extravagent giving will again be temporarily called-for in response to some immediate emergency.

Ananias and Sapphira were rebuked because they had agreed together to lie to the Holy Spirit - they were never under any compulsion to give. From start to finish, their giving was voluntary. The means of production always remained privately-owned.

The Apostles hadn't demanded it nor did they later make a doctrine out of it. It wasn't repeated by other Churches elsewhere. This didn't become the expected lifestyle for all believers of all times in all places in all circumstances. This wasn't the charter of a new economic system. And there was no taxation involved.

So I guess I don't mind anyone repeating that program of redistribution, so long as they also follow the same example of private ownership and free-will! Anyone should be allowed to opt-out. But that's not usually the case under Communism and Socialism.

Here is a quote from the People's New Testament Commentary:

"It does not describe a community of goods, but a miraculous benevolence: (1) the goods were not a common fund, but each one had goods that he possessed; (2) he did not say that his goods were his own; (3) they used all as if it belonged to all; (4) there were none that lacked, for (5) those that had houses and lands sold them and brought the proceeds to the apostles. It was a time when a great liberality was called for. Thousands of Jews from abroad had become Christians and must remain at Jerusalem until instructed in the gospel. It was a great emergency, and the church was equal to it, for they brought money, goods, and the proceeds of houses and lands to sustain those who lacked. This continued until God was ready to send them forth, and when the persecution arose about Stephen they went everywhere preaching the word (Ac 8:4)."

Another reason why I'm personally reluctant to take this as a basis for LEGISLATED redistributionism (as an economic strategy or model) is that I don't think DOCTRINE should be founded on historical and poetical books of the Bible alone: I think doctrines ought to be able to be substantiated by clear statements made in the teaching books of the Bible - especially for something as major as a new economic system!

This was an isolated incident in a historical, not doctrinal, book of the Bible, the Book of Acts. Furthermore, even the story itself tells us that this was not compulsory. It wasn't the introduction of a new set of economic rules. It was pure generosity.

The redistribution that took place in Jerusalem was never demanded, taught, repeated, nor mentioned again, not in practice nor in precept.

None of the Gentile churches were mentioned in the Book of Acts as having ever adopted the practice. The Apostles in Jerusalem hadn't demanded it - so neither was it taught in the Epistles to any of the Gentile churches.

Other activities which happened at Jerusalem (such as their habit of continuing in the apostles' teaching; and fellowship; and breaking of bread; and prayers) were later formalized into doctrine by the Episltes and were always repeated by the Churches universally.

But the level of liquidation and sharing of property that took place in Jerusalem did not find an ongoing place in Apostolic doctrine or practice.

This was an extraordinary response to a unique need. Jerusalem was a politically and economically disadvantaged outpost of the Roman Empire.

(It was so poor that even many years after when churches became established among the Gentiles, it was still necessary that the Gentile churches continued the practice of financially supporting the poor in Judaea.)

And to make the need even greater, thousand of visitors from all over the world had just been added to the Church. None of them owned anything in Jerusalem and all of them needed to be housed and fed.

And everyone could sense persecution was brewing. A short time later all the believers except the Apostles fled the city, leaving everything behind. Those who hadn't sold houses would have lost them anyway. The Holy Spirit knew this in advance.

And then a few decades later, the entire city of Jerusalem was destroyed by Rome. Jesus had forewarned them that this event would take place within their generation.

Liquidating, therefore, was a good strategy. In fact it was their only option.

I know of a time when this happend in Sri Lanka. Believers started feeling led to sell their houses and live in extended-family groups and share their resources. Two years later, the war intensified, people had to flee their lands - and everyone who hadn't sold their houses lost them anyway.

But even so, not every believer in Jerusalem sold everything - or else none of them would have had houses in which to meet. It says they "met daily from house to house". Obviously it means that people sold their spare houses. Voluntarily.

Phillip was one of those who was present in the early Church at Jerusalem, but later in the Book of Acts we are told that the apostles stayed in Phillip's house where he lived with his four daughters. Evidently then Phillip the Evangelist didn't think Peter had instituted Christian Communism! He maintained ownership of his house.

Paul didn't instruct the Gentile churches to do as the Jerusalem Church had done. Instead he encouraged them to take advantage of their economic freedom, to "work" with their own hands (something the believers in Jerusalem had little opportunity to do) so they would "have" (i.e., own) so they could then "give" (i.e. voluntarily give) to others.

While he was in Rome he rented his own house. Notice he didn't instruct the church-members that they should be communally sharing all their accommodation with him. He rented his own place - for two full years.

Christian communes usually fizzle out. The Holy Spirit has historically led believers to form temporary communes during emergencies - but not as a blueprint forever.

Wherever Christians have tried to stay in communes beyond their use-by date, problems arose. I think it breaks with Biblical principle - except during emergencies.

For example, after an earthquake and a tsunami, it may be necessary for temporary tent-cities to be set-up and for wealth to be voluntarily redistributed. But that doesn't mean the victims should stay living together and dependant on others for the rest of their lives!

A good example of the problems that can arise was the Plymouth Colony in North America. They tried to base their new society on shared farming-land, on shared produce. That may have been okay during the first season of the colony. But eventually it caused all sorts of problems - including near starvation of the colony. Men lacked motivation to labour to produce food for other men's wives and children. After they reverted to a free-enterprise system, productivity soared - and human inter-relationships improved too. The colony was saved.

Here in Australia where we haven't felt earthquakes, where tsunamis are only 20cm high, where circumstances aren't as bad as those faced by the early Church in Jerusalem - it may be appropriate to use other strategies besides liquidating and redistributing wealth.

Give someone employment. Or train him. Or, help him deal with whatever issues prevent him from staying in a job.

It might require that we give something in the beginning. But eventually the goal should be to help the person become self-sufficient.

Meanwhile there will always be emergencies somewhere, especially overseas. In those circumstances. Acts 2 & 4 will serve as a great example to us.

Actually, the spirit of Acts 2 and 4 can filter through everything we do - even in circumstances when being that radical isn't called-for.

May that faith infiltrate everything we do.