Category Archives: Old Testament

Blog entries having to do with the Old Testament

Don’t Bat an Eye at 40 Lashes

Posted on by

So in the Old Testament Law of Moses, given to the Jews while they were in the “Promised Land” God says in Deuteronomy 25:3 that you may give a man up to 40 stripes [lashes].  Just to be safe the Jews made it a tradition to only lash someone 39 times in case someone counted wrong.  This sort of thing amuses me greatly.  Let’s obey the Law for righteousness, unless we can make a new, and improved Law.

I prefer the New Testament doctrine of grace, but often this gets screwed up to create new and improved grace, too.  If you’re adding or subtracting from the Bible to help it where God needed some clarification that you happen to have the perfection to offer, you’re probably a bit over-confident.

Grace, it’s what’s for breakfast, lunch & dinner.

Issues in Dispensationalism: Was Jesus in the Old Testament or in the New Testament

Posted on by

My buddy Trint privately messaged me and asked for my take on this particular blog post: I’m Possessed.  The author of the post wrestles with how he should apply the content of the post and looks for an out so that he doesn’t have to wrestle with the guilt of not fulfilling Christ’s command.  The good news is that I think that there is a very simple and low-guilt out: hermeneutics (AKA Proper Bible Interpretation).  There is also another out: Grace (AKA the fact that you’re not under the Law any more, as you have died to this world and its systems with Christ if you are a believer).

While on the surface it looks like this post may be about money and possessions, its really a about the issue of which dispensation Christ was in and how we deal with the life of Christ before His death, burial, resurrection and ascension.  How do we as believers address the complexities of what Jesus did and said verses what we’re called to do as His possession?  I believe that fundamentally the question that was asked by the author of the aforementioned blog post is flawed because it presupposes that everything that Christ spoke was directed towards the disciples, the New Testament church, and the believer today.

I’m co-teaching a class on Bible Interpretation at church (Link to Series for download) and rather than start in the middle of why this is a poor approach to interpreting this passage I’m going to go through the processes we’re teaching and attempt to see if I come to the same application that the author of the post comes to.  Join me as we look at observations, interpretations, applications and appropriations.  For the record I don’t for some second think that the author of the other post is attempting to misrepresent the passage, I just want to challenge myself and all believers to be consistent in our interpretation and theological calling to be noble minded like the Bereans (Acts 17:11).

Observation of the passage calls for evaluating language, culture, history, context and as many pertinent facts as we can observe objectively about the passage and its contents.  Lets go through those systematically and see what objective elements pop out.  We’ll also want to ask who, what, where, when, why, and how to make sure we’ve got the right focus of the passage.  I’ll be using the resources publicly availabe at blueletterbible.org for you to follow along with if you want to check my references.

Context

The context of the passage appears to be Christ speaking to his disciples and in verse 13 one disciple asks Christ to speak to his brother so as to instruct the brother toward equality in dividing the inheritance that the man was to receive.  Christ then launches on a series of principles that seem to outline first that Christ was not interested in making that call about the inheritance (v. 14).  Instead Christ was interested in motive and source of life (coveting v. 15).  Christ’s parables subsequent to motive point out God’s provision (vs. 16-31).  Seeking the things of God will show God’s provision for the needs of the believer.

Language

The language of the Luke passage is Greek.  I’m not going to delve into each Greek word, but I will highlight the bits and pieces that seem to carry the most weight in the selected verses.

Fear Not:  The Greek here is two words: phobeō mē.  We’re all familiar with the English transliteration and adaptation phobia, and the Greek carries with it just such a context [BLB].  The verb tense is present, middle, imperative, which means that the person listening to Christ is to take the command to heart.  The negation of the fear indicates that we should not for any reason let fear rule in the context of this passage.

little flock: The Lord uses a metric indicator to reflect the size of the disciples despite the first verse of the chapter reflecting that a general throng had gathered around the smaller circle of the disciples.  Flock was used analogously of the group of disciples and is apparently common figurative language as all five times that it is translated that way in the KJV the figurative subject is a body of saints (vs. Luke 12:32, Acts 20:28, Acts 20:29, 1Peter 5:2-3).

your Father: interestingly we see Christ identifying the disciples as being sons of the Father.

good pleasure: The Father’s pleasure is is aorist, active, indicative which indicates to us that it is a past action with ongoing results, it is being done by the father to the disciples and it is spoken factually.

the Kingdom: if you want to see theologians argue bring up the kingdom.  However, the disciples, as best as we can tell, would have recognized the kingdom as the coming kingdom of the Messiah [Grk reference].  A rulership that would entail political power, peace, and a fulfillment of the New Covenant (See Jeremiah 31:31).

Sell: The Greek here is imperative and active.  You sell your stuff as soon as is expedient.

alms:  Alms would be a gift.  A benevolent and generous gift that was not earned by the recipient.

a treasure: A storage place for valuables, or the valuables in the storage place.

in the heavens: The dwelling place of God above all of creation.

where your treasure is: is is present, indicative.  It reflects the fact of where your treasure is now.

Culture

The Jewish culture generally operated with the mindset that material blessing was a sign of spiritual right relationship.  God promised material blessing to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and to the Hebrews if they followed Him and made Him their God.  Christ’s apparent countering of this by saying sell this sign of blessing would have had some sort of shock value.

History

Historically wages were earned with hard labor.  There were not normal cases of overnight millionaires (figuratively speaking) and an inheritance was a valuable thing to receive because it may allow you to break free of debt, help establish a stronger business through investment capital, or could be used in various trading businesses to increase overall wealth.  Many households had very simple possessions and were not lavish.  Tax collectors like Matthew would have come into the house and evaluated the apparent wealth based on the possessions and then demanded a payment for Rome.

5 W’s and an H

Who: Christ is speaking to the disciples about God’s character

What: earthly possessions, heavenly possessions, faith

When: every day life

Where: wherever the disciple is

Why: because the disciple was concerned over the inheritence

How: God’s provisions

Interpretation

The interpretation is a summary or re-statement of the passage or verses that attempts to collect the observations into a coherent statement.

My close disciples and followers, you should have no fear over earthly provisions because the Father in heaven will give you the food and clothing and shelter that you need as He brings about the fulfillment of the kingdom.  Take the worldly things that are of value and sell them in faith because those things rust, fade, and lose value.  Instead look forward to the treasures that are in heaven by walking in an abiding relationship with the Father because where you treasure is, and that should be in heaven, there your heart is.

Application

Application looks at the passage at hand and looks for a subjective principle, a fact that can be relied upon, a truth that can be enacted, or an appropriation.  There are two kinds of applications: direct and indirect.  You will need to determine if there is a direct application for you by looking at the intended audience of the interpretation!  If you are not the intended audience (and in this passage you are not)  then there may be an indirect application of principles or truths to rely on.  I’ll list a few applications based on the interpretation and you can meditate on this as well and bring up other suggestions.

Direct application

  • The disciples could rely on the Father for provision
  • The disciples could abide in the Father (see John 15) and that intimacy would build up or store treasures in heaven that would be rust free
  • The disciple who had asked the question about his inheritance could relax about equal distribution because the earthly blessing would eventually lose value even if it had short term value

Indirect Application or Principles

  • The believer can rely on God for provision
  • This passage confirms our need to be heavenly minded just like Paul instructs the believers in Colossians 3:1-3
  • We need to rely on the Lord for our value and not on our stuff

Conclusion

You can see that while these two lists are not exhaustive, the New Testament saint, because he is not the specific recipient of the instructions from Christ has nothing to fear about not fulfilling this passage’s imperative commands.  We can look at other New Testament passages such as Acts 2:44-45, Romans 12:13, Philippians 4:18-19 and evaluate God’s commands regarding provisions in the body of Christ.  There are plenty of opportunities to serve the Lord as we abide in Christ and walk by the Spirit, but we don’t need to worry about commands for Old Testament Saints (and even though the gospels are under the New Testament moniker, they are not directed towards New Testament Saints).

By carefully applying hermeneutics and by making sure that you understand the context of the passage you’re studying you can walk in confidence that you are under grace, you can walk confidently in your position in Christ, and you can boldly assert your Christian liberty.  This doesn’t liberate you from righteousness empowered by the Holy Spirit (see: Romans 6), but it liberates you to be motivated by grace, which is the only true motivation in the life of the believer.

Oh, and I do lift up before our Lord the provision of the autistic son of the author of that post.  We come before you Lord in confidence that you have brought us all together as believers to seek out opportunities to server one another.  We pray (even via the Internet) for your provision for the autistic child, Your peace in the life of the parents, and we pray for the doctrine of agency to be manifest in the lives of your flock.  Amen.

Tithing – An Old, Temporary Law? You Betcha!

Posted on by

It is true that I think that 10% is an awfully small amount of money to do the Lord’s work. On the scale from 0% to 100% you’ll find me racing with a passion to the 100% side of the scale. You see I don’t think that ten percent is enough because of a desire to see people give more to God’s work, but instead I view that all of what the Lord has in your life is His. My friend and brother in Christ, Tony, once called me and told me that, “Someone ran into God’s car.” I chuckled because it was a great way for him to express his understanding that the car, which has monetary value, is God’s. The house that he and his bride are raising their three children in is God’s. Even the three children are God’s. There is no question on his mind that all things are God’s.

This brings us to the question of whether the tithe should be grasped as a New Testament concept. I’ll grant other Christians hold to a reformed view of theology which says that the church is the Old Testament’s Israel brought into a new covenant and therefore the things which aren’t done away with in the New Covenant are still valid for New Testament saints. I disagree with this view as a dispensationalist and I don’t want that to be confused so I’m going to just state it plainly: None of the Old Testament Law is for the New Testament believer. Lets take a look at why the tithe is also not acceptable in the eyes of the New Testament authors.

Pre-New Testament Passages and Thoughts to Consider

Adam never paid a tithe. Not one bit of what Adam had went to a tithe. Adam’s relationship with God was personal and there were no priests to go between he and the Lord. The sacrifices portrayed in the early chapters of Genesis show a relationship with God that clarify a respect for God’s ownership of all things that man worked for (as a result of the fall). By the time of the flood and God’s provision of Noah God still owned everything and even though it was Noah and the other seven on the boat as well as many, many animals they were all God’s. God had brought them all to the boat and when they got off of the boat it was at God’s direction. Noah sacrificed animals to God in recognition of God’s protection and provision for all that God owned. No tithe there. Surely Abraham must have tithed. Nope. There was no tithe in Abraham’s time, just sacrifices of praise and obedience. In fact Abraham had no written Law to observe, he merely had his conscience! There was no tenth offering, he knew God had provided all that he owned.

When the tithe was finally instituted it was for the nation of Israel it was given as a percentage to support the Levites and for the fatherless & the widow. Go ahead and read Deuteronomy 14:22-29. There you will see that the tithe was:

  1. Ten percent of their yearly gain
  2. For the nation of Israel (and not surrounding nations) which was initially a theocracy
  3. It was a gift of agricultural things and livestock. Other material possessions were not involved.
  4. It is not the same as first fruits (see: Exodus 23:19, Leviticus 19:23-25)
  5. The tithe was to be administered by the people and not the priests.

I think that its clear by now that the often cited tithe is not what we often call an offering or tithe by New Testament practices. With that in mind, lets look at what the New Testament shows us.

New Testament Giving Principles

The book of Acts starts out the church age with an amazing display of generosity between believers in acts 2:42-47 being the slightly greater context. Specifically verse 45 says that they began selling things to provide for one another’s needs. That’s not a ten percent offering. Its a whatever percent provision of grace. The recognition that all things were God’s things helped the believers get past any sense of possession that we often face as New Testament saints. From that point forward you’ll find other instances of giving as needed including Romans 12:13 further encouraging the believer to give as other saints have need and to be hospitable (hospitality will need to be a post of its own).

Philippians 4:18-19 covers the use of sacrifice in a New Testament metaphor, but it is merely a reference to the gifts of the New Testament saints being sent to the apostle Paul. It is not encouraging a literal sacrifice of animals or grains as previously used in Old Testament times. Instead verse 19 goes on to outline the fact that God has used the Philippian saints to provide for Paul’s needs. If we look for the application from this passage we see that

  1. God has given Paul a need
  2. God has the abundance and ability to fulfill that need
  3. God has blessed the Philippians with their resources
  4. God has given the Philippians a desire to give to Paul’s ministry
  5. God is glorified by the Philippians’ generocity
  6. God is glorified by Paul for His work through the Philippians

None of those things involves a set ten percent or a monetary percentage, but instead comes from the heart of an abiding believer. One who is resting in his or her relationship with Christ in the heavenlies (Col. 3:1-3). Because the saint is aware of the need the saint seeks out a way to fulfill it. This leads me to believe that the church is to focus more on getting to know one another than they are to focus on financial things!

One scenario that I read about just today discussed tithing in the context of debt. Since the debt is a prior obligation it should be noted that the believer should first pay the debt and with whatever is left over seek the Lord’s direction for the money to be given. Debt should be avoided in the life of the believer so that this problem goes away (while this is something I know I am currently attempting to get out of debt. I have walked in the flesh, too, and understand the need to abide in my stewardship of God’s money. Lesson learned). Giving during debt isn’t a required Law, but instead we should see that we have relationships within the body where we can see needs, both financial and physical, and give to those needs rather than believers being put into debt due to lack of resources. In this particular case I would recommend the believer give only what the Lord has provided in excess beyond the needs of paying creditors. Right now I am currently giving less than I would like, but instead of feeling guilt I rejoice that the Lord has given what He has and I look forward to the day when I can give even more to various needs in the body of Christ.
Conclusion

In conclusion the Tithe is an outdated Law that has been done away with and instead the New Testament saint is to focus on relationship and fellowship and looking for ways that the Lord may use them to provide for the needs of others. There is nothing in the New Testament that calls us to support a ten percent giving command, but likewise nothing says not to do it. Giving falls under Christian liberty (See Romans 14 and 15) where we are to give what our conscience feels is right. If that is fifteen, ten or one percent for you, then give what the Lord has put on your heart.

Whatever percentage you give, let it be with a heart of gratitude and thanks! May you give graciously because God graciously gave His mercy and love to you. Don’t tithe out of compliance with the Law, but instead walk in His grace and give as He provides.

The Semitic Totality Concept and the New Testament

Posted on by

More than once in my life as I was growing up did I read the New Testament book of James and walk away wondering how on earth salvation wasn’t some how tied to works. I finally just reconciled it with a passive answer that really did not deal with the problem. Recently, under the tutelage of my dad, I was introduced to the Semitic Totality Concept. This is the idea that was held by the Jews (thus the term ‘Semitic’) that if something was spiritually true, it was to be lived out without question. The Western concept of having something as true not meaning you lived it was absolutely foreign to the Hebrew way of thinking. Thus when God inspired the Law of Moses the Jews lived it out actively. The Western idea of a dichotomy was a foreign concept both culturally and philosophically.

To put it into perspective the Gentile mind could not conceive of a God that was moral and had truth because their gods were completely immoral and were often prayed to for things like the ability to steal better. So when Paul writes in the New Testament about various things needing to be done on a moral level it is having to do with the logical conclusion of what Christ has done in the believer’s life positionally and not assumed that the Greco-Roman mind would automatically take truth and apply it. To a Gentile (non-Jew) truth was not directly related to application. They lived in a world of hypothetical philosophy wherein actually proving out the philosophical assumptions to prove them was considered below the intellectual. Thus, Gentiles would pursue philosophy and knowledge but never stoop to prove their principles due to their arogance. The Jews could not relate to this given their view that all that was true should be applied and worked out.

So, when James writes in chapter 2, verse17, “Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.” he is speaking to Jews (as is evident in Chapter 1, verse 2) and it would seem that the Semitic Totality Concept is in play. This is surely not a scapegoat in that we need to apply proper hermeneutics to all passages when we read them, but it helps us apply proper hermeneutics knowing historically what the culture knew to be normative for Jewish Christians. We can look at the context of whom is being written to about what and understand their cultural tendency and grasp the depth of the content in context rather than trying to mash it into a modern 21 century context.

In short the Semitic Totality Concept is something that was cultural that helps us understand the author’s perspective. It does not necessarily represent a doctrine, but explains why the doctrines are represented the way they are.

The 10 Commandments: A Response

Posted on by

From my 10 Commandments post from a while ago I got a comment that was disagreeing. Below I am going to reply to that comment and hopefully clear up my position. The comment is in line in marked segments. I believe that Shane, the author of the quote, and myself approach scripture from different perspectives. I hold a dispensational view, and I’m not getting the impression that he uses the same method of scriptural interpretation. I don’t think that Shane and I will see eye to eye on this, but he offered genuine questions and didn’t do it in a nasty way, so I’m honored to give him my best, short replies.

Paul said the Law is holy and just and good. (does [sic] he contradict himself?) Yeshua (Jesus) said if you love me keep my commandments.

First, Paul writes about the Law and its character due to it being perfect revelation from God to the Jews. The Law perfectly reveals man’s need for a relationship with a gracious God [Romans 3]. As Shane relays later in his comment you cannot separate the Ten Commandments from the whole law. I wrote this because many Christians try to do this very thing but still want the Ten Commandments of the Old Testament to apply to believers. Later in the New Testament the 10 commandments are reiterated, but not as part of the 613 laws. These ten of the 613 are partially and firstly for an uninterrupted relationship with God and partially and secondly moral standards given to the children of Israel. Paul writes in Romans 7:4 that we are dead to the Law in Christ. Paul further writes in Romans 7:6 that instead of obeying the law we should abide in the Holy Spirit.

I assume that you are referring to Romans 7:12 where Paul writes, “So that the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and righteous, and good.,” when you refer to Paul’s saying that. You’ve pulled that out of context. Romans 7 talks about how the Law brings about something that the flesh wants to fight… but the flesh was crucified with Christ. The Holy Spirit trumps the law because instead of limited rules via lists we get the unlimited, imputed righteousness of Christ and the power to live out His righteousness.

You quote Matthew 5:17 where Christ says that he came to fulfill the law. Then, in the end of the book Christ does fulfill the law and when we accept Christ’s gift of salvation we are died, buried and resurrected with Him. We ascend into the heavenlies with Him (positionally, though conditionally, until death or the rapture we are still tied to these mortal coils in our condition) where we are hidden in Christ (Colossians 3:3). We are one with the very one who fulfilled all of the laws. We no longer have to perform those laws because we are imbued with the His righteousness. Works are not part of the Christian Faith for salvation, but instead are part of our sanctification.

Sanctification is a process [Philippians 1:6] and consists of our working out the logical conclusions of our position in Christ and our identification with Christ on this earth. Logically if you’ve been indwelled with the Holy Spirit you will do good works – those works are planned by God [Ephesians 2:10].

1 John 5:3 says:
For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.
1 John 2:4-6 states:
Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.
If commandments are not for “New Testament Saints” then either they are liars or His Word is. (insidently, you realize that all the disciples were Jews and so was the Messiah and they kept Jewish festivals after the cross (see Acts 2 and 20:16)) No covenant was ever made with Gentiles only “the house of Israel and Judah” (Jer 31:31), Gentiles are grafted into the same covenant (Romans 11) and become Abraham’s seed (Gal 3:29, Eph 3:6).

I never said that commandments were not for New Testament Saints, there are New Testament instructions, I did imply (and should have stated more clearly) that the 613 laws are not given to New Testament Saints. I would again site that a Christian, who is clearly said in scripture to be indwelled by the Holy Spirit, is capable of obeying God’s commandments… the question is what are those commandments? I don’t think that you can state that those are the 613 laws in the Old Testament. A believer now is completely unable to live up to some of the commands because the physical temple is destroyed. I wonder how you propose we deal with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph? None of them had the Law but all had relationships with God. Clearly none of them lived pure and spotless lives but clearly all of them had faith in God. They were saved by faith and the Law was not given to them. Is it possible for generations of Saints (people set aside unto God) to not be under the law given to the Jews? Yes.

As for the Jewishness of the disciples that has nothing to do with the Church, which is made up of Jews and Gentiles alike. Their application of those festivals was cultural and in no way intended to be normative for the Church. Acts is a book of transition between the Old Testament Saint and the New Testament Saint. Both saved by faith, one saved by Faith in God and the messiah who was to come, and one saved by faith in Christ, who was the Messiah. I support Sojourner Ministries [I redesigned their site, in fact], lead by Steven Ger who teaches about the Jewish Heart of Christianity. He meets as a member of a Messianic Jewish congregation on Friday nights because of his Jewish Heritage but at no time in the last 5 years that I have known him has he ever suggested that I meet on Friday night. The reason for this is that we are, in the Grace of Christ, allowed to celebrate our ‘sabbath’ any day of the week – even if it was on Wednesday night. The seasons and festivals were set aside as times to worship God – but they were in no way communicated to the New Testament where Paul writes in Colossians 2:16 that no one should judge others for their festivals or food choices. This commandment from Paul is because of Grace. If a person wants to live out parts of the Jewish tradition because they are Jewish (and possibly otherwise) but are not doing those things out of religious conviction but rather culture or tradition, that is fine.

Noah was not of Israel and even Abraham was not a of Israel, but Israel was of Abraham. The Jeremiah Passage does not say that Israel was the only one through whom covenants came.

The Church is not grafted into Israel in Romans 11… I don’t see your point here.

You referred to Colossians 2:14. Do you realize that the word for law (nomos) is never used in that chapter? The Greek word used means “certificate of debt”. In other words your penalty was nailed to the cross, not God’s eternal Law! Remember the charge placed over His head on the cross? That was done for you an I.

I’m going to refer you to Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum, whom I have studied under at Tyndale Theological Seminary when he was a guest lecturer. Specifically I find he disagrees with you at least in this Q&A on Pants (strangely enough). The whole section is highly informative.

“elementary principles of the world” – It should be obvious, that this could never mean God’s Law! Are you saying that what God gave was elementary and of the world? Would you want to worship a God like that?

I never said that the elementary principles of the world were the law. Those are in reference to the flesh and its nastiness, sinfulness of mankind if you will.

If you think that it(Col 2) was the Law, then you are saying that God’s Law was evil and legalism. Would you want to worship that God? God did not give leglism [sic]. No one was ever saved by Law. Grace is an “Old Testament” teaching. It did not start in the New Testament but continued into it.

The law, which applied without heart or brain is legalism. Take for the example a German in World War Two who happened to be hosting a Jewish Refugee. When the SS comes to his door and asks, “Do you have any Jews here?” Does he lie to save a life, or tell the truth to comply with the ‘false witness’ statement, but be involved with murder? Which of those non-compliances of the law is better? Christ brings up similar examples to the Pharisees and Saducees in the gospels.

I never once stated that mankind was saved by the law, in fact you can see my other post about this here. Grace is a concept in scripture as early as Genesis 3. In fact, it could be argued that since God predestined believers that Grace is a characteristic of God like Love, Justice and Righteousness. Our definition of those words comes from Him, we don’t use those words to define Him.

Yeshua told those that He healed and the adulteress to go and sin no more.
You may ask why I am telling you all of this. It is very important to understand what you are teaching others because:
Sin is transgression of the Law

OK, but the Law was not set for those before Moses and Israel. Jacob/Israel did not have the Law, nor did Abraham or Noah. Adam had a very simple law: Don’t eat of the trees of the Knowledge of Good and Evil [Genesis 2:17]. I am not encouraging anyone to sin, but to instead abide in the Holy Spirit so that they may obey God and bear fruit. Romans 6 is clear about the benefits of Grace to believers so that they will stop focusing on the Law, but instead focus on Christ. Colossians 3 states that we should set our minds on things above where Christ is seated in the heavenlies. By having our minds focused on those things we will not be thinking of the Law, the desires of the Flesh (which is dead), or any list of things but instead we’ll be looking at life from God’s perspective, which is Holy, Righteous and Just.

Luke 17:2 It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin.
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Heaven and earth are still here, so all is not fulfilled. Many of the prophecies pertain to after the cross, so all is not fulfilled. Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) for isntance [sic] is a Holy Day not fulfilled. That will be fulfilled with His triumphant return!

I’m not sure what you are referring to in the Luke Passage… please clarify what you are after so that I can more properly respond to this in the comments section of this post. The Matthew passage I addressed above. As I don’t believe that you apply the same dispensational timeline I do I don’t think we’ll be able to simply resolve this issue until we can discuss hermeneutics, which was not in the scope of this post. I recommend that you check out the Sojourner Ministries site and the Ariel Ministries sites to gather information on Yom Kippur in a New Testament time frame. I strongly recommend you get, borrow or steal [not really on the stealing for obvious reasons, sorry, I couldn’t help myself. I love a good joke as much as the next guy. Get it? ‘Good’ Joke? Nevermind.] a copy of Arnold Fruchtenbaum’s book Israelology [Amazon.com link].

I hope your recieve this [sic] words with the love intended.
Shalom (peace)

I don’t take what you have written in a negative way, but instead looked at it as a challenge for me to dig deeper into the Scriptures and to know my Lord Jesus better through His word. I look forward to your reply. Peace to you as well.

Resting in Him,
Randy Peterman

Post Script: I used [sic] in some places, which is a way of indicating a copied typo or misspelling in quoted text. I’m not trying to mock Shane, wanting to indicate that I’m not trying to hack his text up and reflect upon his spelling. My mom corrected my spelling all of the time as I grew up. She’s probably spotted several mistakes in my grammar already 🙂

Top Ten Reasons Why the Ten Commandments Are Not for New Testament Saints

Posted on by

This is partially taken from Lectures in Systematic Theology by Henry C. Thiessen. It is a work in progress. What other ideas/verses would you add? I need to cite everything here so please be patient with me 🙂

  1. The believer is delivered from the curse of the law (Gal. 3:10).
  2. The believer is delivered from the penalty of the law.
  3. The believer is delivered from the law itself (Romans 7:4, Ephesians 2:14-15; Colossians 2:14,20).
  4. The ten commandments have faded away (II Corinthians 3:7-11).
  5. The believer is seated in the heavenlies [the law is for the earth] (Colossians 3:1-3).
  6. The law is not just the ten commandments, there are 613 commands.
  7. The law was given to the Jews to set them apart from the rest of the world.
  8. Noah, Abraham, Moses and David were all saved by faith and not the law.
  9. The Temple no longer exists which makes fulfilling the law impossible.
  10. Jesus fulfilled the law and we are hidden in Him (Colossians 3:1-3).

Why Eldership is for Men

Posted on by

A reader of my I Timothy 1:3-7 post asked:

In reading this I do not see the interpretation that only men may lead the church and hold positions of leadership/elders.
This is a stumbling block in many churches, and in many cases [is] the reason some [choose] to leave the church. Not their faith but the church. How can it be explained that within the word of the Bible the intent of our Lord is as you describe here. I understand you to say that it is actions, faith and purity that makes a leader and gender isn’t specific in the teachings of the Holy Spirit. Can you help explain?

Gender is clear for the leadership of the church. However, teaching and growth are not gender specific in certain contexts. There are several parts to your question and I intend to address them seperately so that the issues don’t get blurred together. I would break them up as follows:

  1. Is this interpretation the only interpretation, and if not, is it the correct interpretation?
  2. Male only eldership causes people to leave the church [not meaning leaving the faith]. Does this make the doctrine wrong?
  3. Is this doctrine only derived from this passage or do other passages teach this? [What is the whole teaching of the word of God?]

Is this interpretation the only interpretation? If not, is it the correct interpretation?
No, the interpretation I hold to is not the only interpretation. However, using a consistent hermeneutic (interpretation process) as generally outlined in my article on hermeneutics I believe it is the most scripturally consistent view of the passage. I believe the most common views are

  1. That there should be plural elders when possible, these elders should be men [the view I hold]
  2. That there should be one elder, he is to be a man. This man is usually called the pastor or bishop
  3. That there are to be no elders, this is just something Paul was writing to Timothy about, but is not a doctrine applicable to the church today.
  4. Men or women can be leaders of the church and it is a good idea if they meet most of the requirements of this passage
  5. If the men don’t step up the women should step up to lead the church

This is hardly an exhaustive list of the various types of church leadership. Some of these ideas are based on this passage and some of these ideas don’t have any scriptural backing whatsoever. Alister Begg once shared in a message I heard that he visited a Baptist church in the south where the pastor was doing verse by verse exposition and then got to that section and declaired to his congregation that since they didn’t have elders there that this passage was not for them and so they’d skip it. I think that skipping a passage based on the ecclesiology (doctrines of the order of the church) of the church is really problematic because that passage may point out an area where your ecclesiology needs to change!

I am going to use some of the details that will be in the section about the whole teaching of scripture and these two sections will overlap some. I believe that since doctrine should be rooted in the clear teaching of scripture and that doctrines that are presented in multiple places should (generally) take importance to believers in comparison to doctrines that are more vague. This doctrine is clear throughout scripture. Being a dispensationalist, that is a believer who interprets the Bible literally but understanding that the scriptures written to the Jews are for the Jews and do not have a direct baring on Christians in the current time frame of scripture, I am going to quote heavily from the New Testament and only reference the Old Testament where Apostolic precedence does so. To put it simply: I don’t think that I can justify male eldership based primarily on Old Testament passages.

Passages that teach male leadership within the church or give a clear precedence

Acts Chapters 1 and 2
These two chapters show the beginning of the church. Prior to this time the Jewish system and Law were in place for all of those portrayed in these passages (estimates are that Gentiles were rather foreign to the church until about 15 yeas into the church age). Christ gathers the men (disciples) together and instructs them in what they should do: wait. Then the Holy Spirit elected a new disciple to take the place of Judas Iscariot. One of the requirements was that it be a man who had been with them the whole time.
I do understand that these are disciples and not elders, so this is taken as a weaker reference. However, it does set a precendence and hold as a principle that leadership for the church was to be male at its inception.
Acts 14:21-34
This passage shows the apostles at work and before they left they set up elders. It would seem hypocritical for Paul to set up elders that did not meet the requirements of his letters to Timothy. Again, this is not a direct statement that men should be the elders but works in concert with later verses.
Acts 15:22
This passage clearly says that from the group of elders (presumably men), men were chosen to go. I recognize that this one is slightly more direct than previous passages, but is still not saying, “Men Only.”
I Timothy 3:1-7
This is probably one of the foundational passages that outlines the male requirements for being an elder.

It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.
An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money.
He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity
(but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?),
and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil.
And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

“If a man…” seems like a clear statement of gender in contrast to the roles of deacons (verse 8) and deaconesses (verse 11). The male elders shepherd the church while the deacons (male) and deaconesses (female) serve the church. The requirements for an elder are stringent and are too clear for all of the other details to ignore the masculine gender they start out with.

Titus 1:5-9
This passage too clarifies the male nature of the role of elder. The clarity in these verses is hard to ignore. Chapter 2 clarifies that in general older men are to instruct the younger men in godliness and that older women are to instruct younger women in godliness. The leadership of the body as a whole, however, remains to the men as set before in the earlier verses.

Other verses beyond this talk about elders, but like some of the verses in the list above do not specify gender.

I cannot find one instance of a female leader of the church body in all of the New Testament. It seems consistent with the Timothy and Titus passages to have male elders only.

What about culture? If the culture of that time allowed for only men, but todays culture allows for women, shouldn’t we just attribute this male only doctrine to being cultural?
The cultural argument is a toughy because there are things like women wearing make-up that are common in todays churches. Other issues like women wearing head coverings (see I Corinthians 11) and greeting each other with a Holy Kiss (I Peter 5) have gone to the wayside. I Timothy 2:9-15 points out that Paul recognizes an order for things within the genders. This gender order does not mean doormat, second rate citizen or inferiority. A difference here does not have to create bitterness and to that end Paul wrote Colossians 3:18-25. Specifically that women are to submit to their husbands, but that husbands are not to provoke their wives (or children). The order of the church should be already working in their homes: the men should be heads of their households.

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Salvation Throughout the Scripture

Posted on by

It can be confusing when we first study God’s word trying to understand the requirements of salvation in each time period of scripture. I picked up a handy acronym in an intensive that should be useful. The acronym is COMB came from Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum and it stands for Content, Object, Means and Basis. It is important to understand that salvation was always by faith [and not by works], but the elements of faith varied throughout the dispensations (or time periods associated with covenants in scripture).

Content
This element of faith changes, this involves what you have to believe to be saved.
Object
Always God.
Means
Always by grace through faith.
Basis
Basis of salvation was always the substitutionary work of Christ.

Continue reading →

Matthew 23:1-4

Posted on by

Matthew 23:1-4 (NASB)

  1. Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples,
  2. Saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses;
  3. therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.
  4. They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unvilling to move them with so much as a finger.”

What a picture this passage paints in my mind. Imagine a group of hungry listeners gathered around Jesus waiting for his direction. The authority with which Christ spoke makes it clear that when he made a statement, people were listening, even if they didn’t understand all that He said.

The short passage points out that the Jewish leaders of the day had usurped God’s authority (through the prophet Moses) and had made more laws! More rules for the Jewish believers to follow. As if 613 laws were not enough, the made more to help keep people from getting near the 613. This is somewhat like airport security in the United States after September 11th, 2001. Weapons like box cutters, guns and explosives were dangerous. Therefore toenail clippers were banned as well. If a 4 inch bumper on your car is good, a 4 foot bumper is better 🙂

What is so precious about this passage to me is that Christ still respects their authority! “What?!,” you migh ask. Christ instructs those listening to obey the authority God has allowed over them, but he doesn’t tell them to become drones. He instructs them to obey God’s law so that they don’t become bound up in the heavy bondage of the Pharisees’ law.

As a New Testament Saint, I rejoice that we’re not under the law at all! In fact the Holy Spirit is given to us to allow us to be free from the bondage of sin and the law. Instead, as we abide in the Holy Spirit we will be doing God’s will, walking in righteousness
and loving one another as God has directed.

Grace is good, especially in the light of this law that was once heaped on the Old Testament Saints.