Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; 24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. (Romans 4:23-25)
When the Bible states that Abraham was given righteousness by God, Paul's readers could have been under the impression that it was only so that Abraham would know it. Does that mean that this portion of scripture existed in some form during the life of Abraham, four centuries before Moses?
Many scholars today claim to discredit the Bible by ascribing its authorship to people other than the traditional author. But what if the book of Genesis is a compilation of texts that were written by eye witnesses and edited and published by Moses? But anyway, Abraham seems to have benefited from righteousness being ascribed to him in the scripture, but Paul's point is that it is not only of benefit to him.
Knowing that Abraham's willingness to trust God in what God told him, allowed God to give him righteousness gives us a precedent and a principle that we can count on. God has told us that he restored Jesus from death and that he died in the first place in our place. If we believe this and act on the requirements that come with this belief, the scripture could say of me in the same way: Daniel believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Saturday, 2 August 2014
Thursday, 31 July 2014
New Jerusalem
In the visions of God brought he me into the land of Israel, and set me upon a very high mountain, by which was as the frame of a city on the south. (Ezekiel 40:2)
I've been skimming through Ezekiel 40-43 this morning. I've never noticed it before, strangely enough. It is not a description of ancient Jerusalem as I thought, but definitely seems to be a description of the New Jerusalem that will come down from heaven. I'm sure I could give a lot of study to it, maybe I should.
I've been skimming through Ezekiel 40-43 this morning. I've never noticed it before, strangely enough. It is not a description of ancient Jerusalem as I thought, but definitely seems to be a description of the New Jerusalem that will come down from heaven. I'm sure I could give a lot of study to it, maybe I should.
Wednesday, 30 July 2014
Romans 4:17-22 // Saving Faith
(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. 18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. 19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb: 20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; 21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. 22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. (Romans 4:17-22)
Verse 16 describes how the promise to Abraham was not about his physical descendants only but about those who shared his faith. It goes on to say that Abraham is the father of us all (every Christian I take it). Verse 17 offers evidence for the universality of the promise to Abraham from Genesis 17:5: ...a father of many nations have I made thee.
So perhaps I stopped last time a little bit early. Because I cut off in the middle of a sentence. In my defence, Paul writes incredibly long sentences.
Anyway, verse 17 carries on the idea of verse 16: We all receive the benefits of the promise made to Abraham if we have his faith, because he is the father of all of us because the God he believed in is beyond our human limitations. God can restore life to the man who has died and turned to dust or ashes, if he can do that he can make me to be a son of Abraham. God can speak in a vacuum and stars and planets come into existence, if he can do that he can make me to be a son of Abraham.
So because of his belief in God's infinite power and reliability, Abraham hoped that he would have a son with Sarah, even though perhaps he sometimes thought he was crazy. God had specifically promised him physical descendants, and he took God at his word and although he and his wife were very old he did the necessary thing to make it come true, the part that was possible for him to act. This is the faith of Abraham, a belief that leads to action, and an action that requires belief. He gave glory to God in this, which must surely mean that well before there was any evidence of it, he told people that Jehovah was going to give him a child with Sarah. People would have laughed at him, and perhaps at God, but when the thing came true, people would give God the glory rather than Abraham.
The art of giving God the glory is an important and difficult one. But when you have a promise from God (a real promise that applies to you) then speak and act as if you are certain it is true, even if you have doubts. When it comes true, God will be glorified.
Verse 16 describes how the promise to Abraham was not about his physical descendants only but about those who shared his faith. It goes on to say that Abraham is the father of us all (every Christian I take it). Verse 17 offers evidence for the universality of the promise to Abraham from Genesis 17:5: ...a father of many nations have I made thee.
So perhaps I stopped last time a little bit early. Because I cut off in the middle of a sentence. In my defence, Paul writes incredibly long sentences.
Anyway, verse 17 carries on the idea of verse 16: We all receive the benefits of the promise made to Abraham if we have his faith, because he is the father of all of us because the God he believed in is beyond our human limitations. God can restore life to the man who has died and turned to dust or ashes, if he can do that he can make me to be a son of Abraham. God can speak in a vacuum and stars and planets come into existence, if he can do that he can make me to be a son of Abraham.
So because of his belief in God's infinite power and reliability, Abraham hoped that he would have a son with Sarah, even though perhaps he sometimes thought he was crazy. God had specifically promised him physical descendants, and he took God at his word and although he and his wife were very old he did the necessary thing to make it come true, the part that was possible for him to act. This is the faith of Abraham, a belief that leads to action, and an action that requires belief. He gave glory to God in this, which must surely mean that well before there was any evidence of it, he told people that Jehovah was going to give him a child with Sarah. People would have laughed at him, and perhaps at God, but when the thing came true, people would give God the glory rather than Abraham.
The art of giving God the glory is an important and difficult one. But when you have a promise from God (a real promise that applies to you) then speak and act as if you are certain it is true, even if you have doubts. When it comes true, God will be glorified.
Tuesday, 29 July 2014
Romans 4:16 // Father Abraham
Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all (Romans 4:16)
For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him. (Genesis 18:19)
Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. (Luke 3:8)
They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. (John 8:39)
Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. (Galatians 3:7)
We used to sing a light-hearted song in Sunday School: "Father Abraham has many sons… I am one of them and so are you…" I remember distinctly liking this song because the actions we were supposed to do were like a workout for a little boy. I'd be waving my arms and hopping from foot to foot and nodding my head and spinning around all at once and it felt good because I knew it was difficult and I could do it. Sometimes I think the church loses boys because it refuses to challenge them.
I always wondered though, how are we all children of Abraham? I was pretty sure I did not have any Jewish or Arab ancestry, and I didn't know anyone else in the whole Sunday School that did. So why did the song make this false claim? It troubled me a bit.
But when we look at what the scriptures say about Abraham, we learn that those who are children of Abraham are those who have faith like Abraham (Gal 3:7) and therefore do the right thing like Abraham (Jn 8:39). That is why Jesus claimed that God could create new children of Abraham from rocks. Abraham would not, could not, literally be their ancestor, but they could be like him in these two qualities. Regarding these two qualities: the faith of Abraham (as Paul says) is the essential quality. Everyone who has the faith of Abraham is therefore a child of Abraham, but faith is invisible. The actions of Abraham on the other hand are the result of the faith, and all the children of Abraham will therefore do good things like Abraham. So the first of these traits is the cause and the latter trait is the effect.
Why does God use this metaphor of fathers and children? In Genesis 18:19 Jehovah gives the one reason that I know of why Abraham was chosen and not someone else (like Job for example?). Abraham was a man that God knew would teach his children his faith in such a way that they would teach their children and so on. The children of Abraham are those who have learned faith from Abraham, and we do so by reading about him in the Scriptures.
What are my words and actions teaching other people about faith?
For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him. (Genesis 18:19)
Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. (Luke 3:8)
They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. (John 8:39)
Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. (Galatians 3:7)
We used to sing a light-hearted song in Sunday School: "Father Abraham has many sons… I am one of them and so are you…" I remember distinctly liking this song because the actions we were supposed to do were like a workout for a little boy. I'd be waving my arms and hopping from foot to foot and nodding my head and spinning around all at once and it felt good because I knew it was difficult and I could do it. Sometimes I think the church loses boys because it refuses to challenge them.
I always wondered though, how are we all children of Abraham? I was pretty sure I did not have any Jewish or Arab ancestry, and I didn't know anyone else in the whole Sunday School that did. So why did the song make this false claim? It troubled me a bit.
But when we look at what the scriptures say about Abraham, we learn that those who are children of Abraham are those who have faith like Abraham (Gal 3:7) and therefore do the right thing like Abraham (Jn 8:39). That is why Jesus claimed that God could create new children of Abraham from rocks. Abraham would not, could not, literally be their ancestor, but they could be like him in these two qualities. Regarding these two qualities: the faith of Abraham (as Paul says) is the essential quality. Everyone who has the faith of Abraham is therefore a child of Abraham, but faith is invisible. The actions of Abraham on the other hand are the result of the faith, and all the children of Abraham will therefore do good things like Abraham. So the first of these traits is the cause and the latter trait is the effect.
Why does God use this metaphor of fathers and children? In Genesis 18:19 Jehovah gives the one reason that I know of why Abraham was chosen and not someone else (like Job for example?). Abraham was a man that God knew would teach his children his faith in such a way that they would teach their children and so on. The children of Abraham are those who have learned faith from Abraham, and we do so by reading about him in the Scriptures.
What are my words and actions teaching other people about faith?
Sunday, 27 July 2014
Grace and Circumcision in Romans 4:6-15
Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, 7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. 8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: 12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: 15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. (Romans 4:6-15)
I have been astounded to hear certain Christians say with certainty, yea, with conviction, that those who died before the cross were lost or saved on the grounds of their keeping of the law and those after the cross can only be saved by grace and ought to disregard the law. I think there are probably many Christians who love Jesus that share this belief, though they may not be so sure of it. Nobody could come to this conclusion by reading the Bible with a desire to learn. Somebody must have made this belief up and found some Bible texts to support it and then taught others likewise. If you are one of these false teachers, Jesus has a special message just for you: Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven... (Matthew 5:19) I suggest you rethink your doctrine.
So is Paul contradicting the rest of the Bible in this section of Romans? ...and the scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35) No he cannot be, unless he is a false prophet, so either the rest of the Bible is right and Paul is wrong or they are both right and they do not contradict each other.
Paul has been speaking of how Abraham was declared a good man by God, not because he was especially good, but because he loved and trusted God enough to be willing to learn from him and obey him. He continues:
King David taught the idea of salvation by grace as well, for example saying: Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. 2 Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile. (Psalm 32:1-2) This holiness is a blessing from God, not hard earnings. So was this blessing available to circumcised men only or also to uncircumcised men? [Note: It seems that women are not the subject of discussion here, since Paul is addressing a specific issue in the early church that was only relevant to men.] Well, as we saw earlier, Abraham received this blessing of salvation by faith and not by his own deeds, and when did he receive it? It was at a time when he had not yet been circumcised, and he received the sign of circumcision afterwards as a symbol of his justifying faith (faith in God that freed him from guilt). The fact that God declared Abraham righteous before he was circumcised makes him the spiritual father of all who have faith in the true God, whether circumcised or uncircumcised.
After all, the promise that Abraham would bring blessing to all nations (Genesis 22:18) can't be fulfilled by him personally, or by only those who are genetically descended from him, but by everyone that inherits his faith. If God made a rule that all Abraham's legal descendants must be saved then they could say anything, do anything, think anything; they could be totally evil and still be guaranteed heaven. That doesn't make any sense at all, especially since such an unrestrained posterity would be unlikely to bless the world. That is, a group of people who could do anything and still be guaranteed blissful eternal life would be very dangerous to have living next door. The moral law is there to show the difference between right and wrong, and if someone does wrong and never repents he will be punished.
Those of us who are of faith are here to fulfil the promise to Abraham which can be fulfilled in us through Jesus. Let's be a blessing to the world today, giving other people priority and speaking the truth even when it costs us something.
I could apply this matter of preferring others to my driving. Let others get to their destination before you.
9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: 12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: 15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. (Romans 4:6-15)
I have been astounded to hear certain Christians say with certainty, yea, with conviction, that those who died before the cross were lost or saved on the grounds of their keeping of the law and those after the cross can only be saved by grace and ought to disregard the law. I think there are probably many Christians who love Jesus that share this belief, though they may not be so sure of it. Nobody could come to this conclusion by reading the Bible with a desire to learn. Somebody must have made this belief up and found some Bible texts to support it and then taught others likewise. If you are one of these false teachers, Jesus has a special message just for you: Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven... (Matthew 5:19) I suggest you rethink your doctrine.
So is Paul contradicting the rest of the Bible in this section of Romans? ...and the scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35) No he cannot be, unless he is a false prophet, so either the rest of the Bible is right and Paul is wrong or they are both right and they do not contradict each other.
Paul has been speaking of how Abraham was declared a good man by God, not because he was especially good, but because he loved and trusted God enough to be willing to learn from him and obey him. He continues:
King David taught the idea of salvation by grace as well, for example saying: Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. 2 Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile. (Psalm 32:1-2) This holiness is a blessing from God, not hard earnings. So was this blessing available to circumcised men only or also to uncircumcised men? [Note: It seems that women are not the subject of discussion here, since Paul is addressing a specific issue in the early church that was only relevant to men.] Well, as we saw earlier, Abraham received this blessing of salvation by faith and not by his own deeds, and when did he receive it? It was at a time when he had not yet been circumcised, and he received the sign of circumcision afterwards as a symbol of his justifying faith (faith in God that freed him from guilt). The fact that God declared Abraham righteous before he was circumcised makes him the spiritual father of all who have faith in the true God, whether circumcised or uncircumcised.
After all, the promise that Abraham would bring blessing to all nations (Genesis 22:18) can't be fulfilled by him personally, or by only those who are genetically descended from him, but by everyone that inherits his faith. If God made a rule that all Abraham's legal descendants must be saved then they could say anything, do anything, think anything; they could be totally evil and still be guaranteed heaven. That doesn't make any sense at all, especially since such an unrestrained posterity would be unlikely to bless the world. That is, a group of people who could do anything and still be guaranteed blissful eternal life would be very dangerous to have living next door. The moral law is there to show the difference between right and wrong, and if someone does wrong and never repents he will be punished.
Those of us who are of faith are here to fulfil the promise to Abraham which can be fulfilled in us through Jesus. Let's be a blessing to the world today, giving other people priority and speaking the truth even when it costs us something.
I could apply this matter of preferring others to my driving. Let others get to their destination before you.
Saturday, 26 July 2014
Romans 4:1-5 // Romans Continued: Salvation of Abraham.
So a few days ago I finished my series on Isaiah 58, I was able to reflect on so many practical aspects of Christianity how how to have direction from God and how to treat those in need. But I think it was early last year that I interrupted a series on Romans for a series on the Psalms and I never got back to it. I just looked through my posts and I think I found the last one on Romans.
It was called "Faith Establishes the Law" and was based on Romans 3:27-31
I would like to resume it. Although it was very theological in nature and therefore may seem unsuitable for a devotion, I found that by having to engage my mind to understand the basic meaning of these passages, I was more easily able to apply this basic meaning to my life.
There were a couple of differences in the style I used in Romans compared to Isaiah. In Isaiah I used The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge Online Concordance to refer to an "exhaustive" (?) list of cross-references for each verse. In Romans I did a few verses at a time and focussed on nutting out the wording by using various translations and referring to the Greek if necessary. This is kind of necessary because the book of Romans is much longer than a single chapter of Isaiah. But I will still refer to other passages if I need them.
This is where we left off:
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. 29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: 30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. (Romans 3:27-31)
From earlier: "Does the fact that faith is the source of our law-keeping make the law itself useless? That is a ridiculous proposition; the law tells us right and wrong but does not empower us to do it. Knowing right and wrong is not enough; we must do right and reject wrong. Only by faith will we be able to keep the law; faith establishes the law in our souls. That does not change the law itself; but our way of striving to keep it."
We now continue.
What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? 2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. 3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. (Romans 4:1-5)
What was the experience of Abraham, our ancestor? What were his actions like? After all, everyone would need to give credit to Abraham if his actions had all been right and just. But although some people might think Abraham was good enough for heaven, God knows better.
As the Bible says: And he (Abram) believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness. (Genesis 15:6) If Abraham did enough good things to get into heaven. If his good deeds outweighed his bad deeds or if he attainted to some benchmark of holiness for heaven. Then God would have owed him eternal life, it would not have been a gift. But Abraham did not deserve eternal life by what he did, the reason he was saved was that he had a trusting relationship with Jehovah, who offers mercy to the man who has been wicked.
This trusting relationship with Jehovah was the reason that God said "Abraham is righteous" not the mediocre deeds that Abraham actually did.
The same applies to you and me: even if, like the thief on the cross, I am not able to do (hardly) any good thing after my conversion, if I acknowledge my wickedness and throw myself on the mercy of Jesus he will save me. It took faith for the thief on the cross to ask salvation from a man being crucified next to him. It takes faith to trust Jesus for my salvation, there are so many different things that can lead me away from that belief.
But it is true, there is plenty of evidence for those who are willing to find it.
It was called "Faith Establishes the Law" and was based on Romans 3:27-31
I would like to resume it. Although it was very theological in nature and therefore may seem unsuitable for a devotion, I found that by having to engage my mind to understand the basic meaning of these passages, I was more easily able to apply this basic meaning to my life.
There were a couple of differences in the style I used in Romans compared to Isaiah. In Isaiah I used The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge Online Concordance to refer to an "exhaustive" (?) list of cross-references for each verse. In Romans I did a few verses at a time and focussed on nutting out the wording by using various translations and referring to the Greek if necessary. This is kind of necessary because the book of Romans is much longer than a single chapter of Isaiah. But I will still refer to other passages if I need them.
This is where we left off:
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. 29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: 30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. (Romans 3:27-31)
From earlier: "Does the fact that faith is the source of our law-keeping make the law itself useless? That is a ridiculous proposition; the law tells us right and wrong but does not empower us to do it. Knowing right and wrong is not enough; we must do right and reject wrong. Only by faith will we be able to keep the law; faith establishes the law in our souls. That does not change the law itself; but our way of striving to keep it."
We now continue.
What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? 2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. 3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. (Romans 4:1-5)
What was the experience of Abraham, our ancestor? What were his actions like? After all, everyone would need to give credit to Abraham if his actions had all been right and just. But although some people might think Abraham was good enough for heaven, God knows better.
As the Bible says: And he (Abram) believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness. (Genesis 15:6) If Abraham did enough good things to get into heaven. If his good deeds outweighed his bad deeds or if he attainted to some benchmark of holiness for heaven. Then God would have owed him eternal life, it would not have been a gift. But Abraham did not deserve eternal life by what he did, the reason he was saved was that he had a trusting relationship with Jehovah, who offers mercy to the man who has been wicked.
This trusting relationship with Jehovah was the reason that God said "Abraham is righteous" not the mediocre deeds that Abraham actually did.
The same applies to you and me: even if, like the thief on the cross, I am not able to do (hardly) any good thing after my conversion, if I acknowledge my wickedness and throw myself on the mercy of Jesus he will save me. It took faith for the thief on the cross to ask salvation from a man being crucified next to him. It takes faith to trust Jesus for my salvation, there are so many different things that can lead me away from that belief.
But it is true, there is plenty of evidence for those who are willing to find it.
Friday, 25 July 2014
The Successful Christian
Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content. (Philippians 4:11)
But godliness with contentment is great gain. (1 Timothy 6:6)
These are relevant passages to my Sabbath School lesson this morning, the first one is our memory verse.
The context of the first passage is Paul's situation and how God can provide for him, there's a famous verse not long after that means that although learning to enjoy miserable conditions seems impossible, Paul (we also) can do it because of the power of Jesus Christ.
The context of the second passage is more general, it is speaking of the importance of contentment. This is the theme of my Numbers 12 Sabbath School lesson. But I want to draw attention to the previous verse:
Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. (1 Timothy 6:5)
"Supposing that gain is godliness" this phrase troubled me for years. I don't mean it convicted me. The problem was I couldn't understand how anyone could think such an absurd thing. What makes it worse is that condemnation of people who make a similar equation between gain and godliness is found in other places in the New Testament. Is Paul boxing shadows or jousting windmills? I couldn't think of anyone that would seriously suggest that rich people were all good, here is Australia we tend to condemn the rich until they prove themselves generous, and we don't make it easy for them to prove it.
These were my thoughts, and I wondered if this small part of the Bible had to be simply relegated to insignificance. But I did not want to conclude this, and I did not. We need to believe the scriptures in 2 Timothy 3:16 where we are told that all Scripture is useful for something.
Then as I grew older and began to see more of the world and began to think more critically and began to be on the receiving end of more meaningful prejudice than simply getting teased for this or that; I realised that this false doctrine of prosperity is so alive and so widespread that I had not been able to see it. I had held this false belief, so of course I could not see it for what it was.
In ancient times, the rich were also the most powerful. Governments as we understand them did not exist until perhaps Rome or at a pinch the Delian League (Athens). Society was built on simple principles of buying power and brute force. Maybe I'm being a bit unfair on ancient society, the ancients had many virtues as well, but I am so glad to be living in the twenty-first century. So military success and financial success were the two avenues of power in the ancient world. For Christians in the first century, military success was completely out of the question. Jews and Christians shared the Sabbath, and what good is a soldier that won't do anything one day in seven? Also, unlike the Jews, the early Christians are thought by some scholars to have been conscientious objectors in general. That is, they were not pacifists in the modern sense of refusing to be involved in war even indirectly (such as manufacturing steel), but they felt it was against their purpose and values to do violence to any man. Idolatry was also an integral part of the Roman Army.
So for a first century Christian, the only avenue for prestige and power in the world (success) was through money. So many Christians must have worked very hard to gain a lot of money. Interestingly, Paul seems to be criticising a teaching that the ability to gain a lot of money is not merely evidence of godliness but that it is (in and of itself) godliness. So the rich church members in the early church would be liked, and elected to the church board (if they had one, they may have had something similar) because clearly this is a good man or woman that God has blessed to become so successful. Well, Paul said it was a trait of the false teachers he was condemning to make this argument, and Paul said the virtuous thing was to be happy to stay poor but be hospitable and do things for people and so on.
But what am I going on about? How is this relevant? Unfortunately, I think it is all too relevant. I think we have an almost identical problem in the church today.
But today the world has moved on, and we have followed it. The world today, instead of fawning over those who have a lot of money, is a bit more divided, but most people assume that rich people got that way by luck or dishonesty. It is the old reverse snobbery, where those of us who are not from wealthy families think we're better than the rest and that the rich are oppressing us. For the record, my parents grew up working class and I grew up middle class.
What is success today? Being a medical doctor is success, at least to the middle classes. I have been counselling my little sister who's a brilliant student on her career choices and although I keep telling her the disadvantages of being a doctor I can't help saying she should still apply for medicine. Why? Mostly because there is a glory in being a doctor. You get instant respect. We all admire doctors, all of them, even the average ones. It is the pinnacle of virtue. They help people, they are smart and knowledgable, they are scientists of sorts, they experience drama and excitement, they hold our lives in their hands. Medical doctors sum up the ideals of our society and anyone involved in medicine has a similar aura of righteousness. Except maybe cosmetic surgeons and dentists!
I almost wrote this just now: "Doctors are wonderful people" but if I had stated that as fact I would have been making the exact mistake I am talking about. Some doctors are wonderful, some are not, as any nurse could tell you no doubt. Just because someone is a doctor or any other profession that our society has labelled "aspirational" does not make him a good person. But there is that respect for doctors in the church, they are given positions of authority that have no relevance to medicine over others who are equally spiritual and are able and willing to give it a lot more of their time. We need more handymen in the leadership of the local church, more construction workers and cleaners. Not because they have these roles, but because spirituality is not confined to those who are successful in the world.
Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? 6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? (James 2:5-6)
Those men who are humble in the world's eyes can go and study theology and become a pastor, and that elevates them a bit. But why should they need to do this? Every role in the church should be given to the one who has the aptitude, the spiritual stability and the time to do it well.
One of my sisters is in a leadership role in a Christian denomination that pays none of its pastors. The pastors work as cleaners and so on, to make a living while they minister. I don't think this is a good idea, but the point is this: Why can that church be led by cleaners and gardeners and in our churches these people are so often only seen as fit to take up the offering at best?
Many of us in the church today worship what we call "success". We think that any man who is successful in the world's eyes is the best candidate for leadership in our church. This is a dangerous delusion.
I don't think I ought to complain about this to church leaders, partly because the problem is probably not as widespread as I think. But I need to remind myself of this a lot, because I am as bad as anyone when it comes to thinking this way.
But godliness with contentment is great gain. (1 Timothy 6:6)
These are relevant passages to my Sabbath School lesson this morning, the first one is our memory verse.
The context of the first passage is Paul's situation and how God can provide for him, there's a famous verse not long after that means that although learning to enjoy miserable conditions seems impossible, Paul (we also) can do it because of the power of Jesus Christ.
The context of the second passage is more general, it is speaking of the importance of contentment. This is the theme of my Numbers 12 Sabbath School lesson. But I want to draw attention to the previous verse:
Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. (1 Timothy 6:5)
"Supposing that gain is godliness" this phrase troubled me for years. I don't mean it convicted me. The problem was I couldn't understand how anyone could think such an absurd thing. What makes it worse is that condemnation of people who make a similar equation between gain and godliness is found in other places in the New Testament. Is Paul boxing shadows or jousting windmills? I couldn't think of anyone that would seriously suggest that rich people were all good, here is Australia we tend to condemn the rich until they prove themselves generous, and we don't make it easy for them to prove it.
These were my thoughts, and I wondered if this small part of the Bible had to be simply relegated to insignificance. But I did not want to conclude this, and I did not. We need to believe the scriptures in 2 Timothy 3:16 where we are told that all Scripture is useful for something.
Then as I grew older and began to see more of the world and began to think more critically and began to be on the receiving end of more meaningful prejudice than simply getting teased for this or that; I realised that this false doctrine of prosperity is so alive and so widespread that I had not been able to see it. I had held this false belief, so of course I could not see it for what it was.
In ancient times, the rich were also the most powerful. Governments as we understand them did not exist until perhaps Rome or at a pinch the Delian League (Athens). Society was built on simple principles of buying power and brute force. Maybe I'm being a bit unfair on ancient society, the ancients had many virtues as well, but I am so glad to be living in the twenty-first century. So military success and financial success were the two avenues of power in the ancient world. For Christians in the first century, military success was completely out of the question. Jews and Christians shared the Sabbath, and what good is a soldier that won't do anything one day in seven? Also, unlike the Jews, the early Christians are thought by some scholars to have been conscientious objectors in general. That is, they were not pacifists in the modern sense of refusing to be involved in war even indirectly (such as manufacturing steel), but they felt it was against their purpose and values to do violence to any man. Idolatry was also an integral part of the Roman Army.
So for a first century Christian, the only avenue for prestige and power in the world (success) was through money. So many Christians must have worked very hard to gain a lot of money. Interestingly, Paul seems to be criticising a teaching that the ability to gain a lot of money is not merely evidence of godliness but that it is (in and of itself) godliness. So the rich church members in the early church would be liked, and elected to the church board (if they had one, they may have had something similar) because clearly this is a good man or woman that God has blessed to become so successful. Well, Paul said it was a trait of the false teachers he was condemning to make this argument, and Paul said the virtuous thing was to be happy to stay poor but be hospitable and do things for people and so on.
But what am I going on about? How is this relevant? Unfortunately, I think it is all too relevant. I think we have an almost identical problem in the church today.
But today the world has moved on, and we have followed it. The world today, instead of fawning over those who have a lot of money, is a bit more divided, but most people assume that rich people got that way by luck or dishonesty. It is the old reverse snobbery, where those of us who are not from wealthy families think we're better than the rest and that the rich are oppressing us. For the record, my parents grew up working class and I grew up middle class.
What is success today? Being a medical doctor is success, at least to the middle classes. I have been counselling my little sister who's a brilliant student on her career choices and although I keep telling her the disadvantages of being a doctor I can't help saying she should still apply for medicine. Why? Mostly because there is a glory in being a doctor. You get instant respect. We all admire doctors, all of them, even the average ones. It is the pinnacle of virtue. They help people, they are smart and knowledgable, they are scientists of sorts, they experience drama and excitement, they hold our lives in their hands. Medical doctors sum up the ideals of our society and anyone involved in medicine has a similar aura of righteousness. Except maybe cosmetic surgeons and dentists!
I almost wrote this just now: "Doctors are wonderful people" but if I had stated that as fact I would have been making the exact mistake I am talking about. Some doctors are wonderful, some are not, as any nurse could tell you no doubt. Just because someone is a doctor or any other profession that our society has labelled "aspirational" does not make him a good person. But there is that respect for doctors in the church, they are given positions of authority that have no relevance to medicine over others who are equally spiritual and are able and willing to give it a lot more of their time. We need more handymen in the leadership of the local church, more construction workers and cleaners. Not because they have these roles, but because spirituality is not confined to those who are successful in the world.
Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? 6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? (James 2:5-6)
Those men who are humble in the world's eyes can go and study theology and become a pastor, and that elevates them a bit. But why should they need to do this? Every role in the church should be given to the one who has the aptitude, the spiritual stability and the time to do it well.
One of my sisters is in a leadership role in a Christian denomination that pays none of its pastors. The pastors work as cleaners and so on, to make a living while they minister. I don't think this is a good idea, but the point is this: Why can that church be led by cleaners and gardeners and in our churches these people are so often only seen as fit to take up the offering at best?
Many of us in the church today worship what we call "success". We think that any man who is successful in the world's eyes is the best candidate for leadership in our church. This is a dangerous delusion.
I don't think I ought to complain about this to church leaders, partly because the problem is probably not as widespread as I think. But I need to remind myself of this a lot, because I am as bad as anyone when it comes to thinking this way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)