What I Believe

[09/21/20]

I will turn briefly to the subject of those commandments first passed down to Moses by God.  This will no doubt be far less attention than they deserve, as I consider how much of the confessions of the Church focus on them.  But it should suffice for my purpose here.  I’ll start from a basic statement, and that is that these laws, in all their wide application, are assuredly still binding upon the people of God.  God, after all, has not changed, and these laws concern His expectations of man in his relation to God and in relation to his fellow man.  These have not changed either.

That is not the sole reason for believing the Law remains actively applicable to the Christian.  Jesus reinforces the Law and insists that whatever His ministry is about, it is assuredly not about abolishing the Law, but rather fulfilling it (Mt 5:17).  Indeed, that thought introduces His message on the true meaning of the Law, and also bears the assurance that no least part of this Law will pass away until all is accomplished (Mt 5:18).

So perhaps, in this brief overview of the Law, we had best consider His teaching alongside the bare commandment, where His teaching speaks to the commandments.  I note that most of His focus on that Law sticks with the portion concerning our relationships with our fellow man.  That might seem strange for One who taught us to remain focused heavenward, but then we must realize that these more earthbound relationships are the training ground for our heavenward progress.

1) No Other Gods and No Idolatry

But let us start where God starts:  “You shall have no other gods before Me” (Ex 20:3).  There, I think we must all acknowledge, is a lifelong battle all itself, for we are assuredly idol makers by habit.  The command is extensive, compared to later matters, which is as it should be, for it is establishing the primacy, even the unique position of God as God of all.  He being the only God, there can be no basis for acting in worship of any other.  To make images of other things, whether things in heaven or things on the earth or things beneath the waves, is to suggest their heightened value.  Whether or not we then come to worship those things or not is an open question.  Or is it?  Honestly, what are our various art museums, but temples to the idolized artist?  What is the average concert but an uplifting of the worth of the performer?  We could go on.  Our whole way of life is largely wrapped around promoting and worshiping those we construe as somehow famous or important.

At some level, I have to think such exalting of the honorable may even be acceptable and right.  But we are, it seems, incapable of holding things at the appropriate level, and ever seem to overstep, lifting mere people and mere things to such levels of importance to us that they occlude our God and King.  We seem incapable of pursuing much of anything, and here, I would include pursuing our conception of church worship, without rendering it an idol.  Yesterday’s sermon touched on the passage of Isaiah 64, with its reference to all our attempts at righteousness being about as pure as a filthy rag in God’s sight (Isa 64:6).  I think it a worthwhile question to ask whether we, in our pursuit of Christian living, are indeed serving God, Who is per His declaration a jealous God (Ex 20:5), or serving our own tastes and interests.  As we saw with the development of the temple, there is indeed a place for artistry, and even for depiction of tings in heaven and on the earth in His house.  It is not the artistry or the image that is declared out of bounds, but the treatment of it, the exalting of the artistry above the God the artistry serves.

I suppose as a musician who has served so long with various and sundry worship ministries, it is natural that I should feel this rather keenly.  What happens when the music becomes about the musicians rather than about God?  What happens when it becomes manipulative performance (even when such manipulation is couched in phrases like, ‘creating an atmosphere’)?  What happens when our service of worship draws the eye away from God and back down upon man?  I dare say it ceases to be worship, and becomes just another concert.  I do not say that there is anything particularly wrong with concerts, nor even with talented musicianship.  Nor would I suggest we should mute our talents in service to God lest they become a distraction.  But we who serve must first and foremost keep close check on ourselves, that we are not making worship about us, but rather making an offering to God of our own gifts.  Only then can we have hope of leading others into a place of truly worshiping God in participatory fashion.  Certainly, our efforts must be fully clothed in personal worship of God.  But they must also consciously be shaped so as to encourage – I would say all but demand – participation by all who have come to God’s house in the active and earnest worship of our great God.

[09/22/20]

So, this morning I have decided this part needs further sub-dividing, and as I set out the sections, I find a theme arising concerning God’s emphasis on what is holy.  Thus, I choose to identify each section to follow as ‘Sanctity of’.  You may note as well that I have effectively combined the first two commandments under one head here, which seems fitting to me, as they are largely the same point from a different angle.  If there is one God, then the only idols one could possibly consider making would be to depict Him, but if He doesn’t like them, then the only thing an idol can represent is disregard for God’s right of rule, which is to say sin.  It cannot be an idol made to Him, even if we convince ourselves that is what we were striving to make.

There is no other God except the God Who Is, and He Is, by declaration elsewhere Spirit, invisible.  There can be no depicting Him by the arts of man, for no man has ever seen Him that he might thereafter make the attempt.  Therefore, any attempt to depict God, however earnest in its motivation, must result in an effort to make God after our own image, or our own imaginations.  It is sin.

Again, as we have seen from observing the instructions for the tabernacle and the temple, this is not an outright, iconoclastic rejection of all artful depiction of the things of nature, nor even of the things of heaven.  God, after all, commands depictions of cherubim and pomegranates and the like as adornment to His holy place.  But they are not for worshiping.  They are for beauty.

What distinguishes an idol from art is that it is purposefully made, or comes to be used as an object of worship in itself.  It becomes, if you will, a fetish.  I choose to de-emphasize original intent as to the production of the object, because we find examples from Scripture of things whose original intent was not merely God-honoring, but God-ordained, which became, in the hands and usage of sinful man, idols.  The temple itself could be said to fall into this category, but I think more of that serpent pole which Moses was told to fashion in the desert, which image continues to be an emblem for the medical community to this day.  But it became an idol to the people of Israel, who came to elevate the object to a place of worship, neglecting that it was not the object, but God which had the power.  Let this inform our views of baptism and communion when we come to those topics!

As to depictions of God that we might look upon Him even at such remove, consider that Jesus, the Incarnate God, admonished His disciples when they sought to be shown the Father – an urge that we must observe goes back to Moses if not earlier.  “Have I been so long with you, and you have not come to know Me, Philip?  He who has seen Me has seen the Father; ho do you say, ‘Show us the Father’?  Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me?” (Jn 14:9).  Here is the One Who has fulfilled what any vaguely appropriate idol must be seeking to achieve.  There is much more that could be said in regard to that passage and its significance for the shape of faith, but not here.

2) Sanctity of the Name

The next piece of the Law comes to us with the words, “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain” (Ex 20:7a).  There are many things made of this passage as to its implications for the believer.  It can be taken as setting all foul language aside as inappropriate to the man of God, and I don’t know as I should say otherwise.  But it strikes me that the more direct application is, as Jesus brings forth in His Sermon on the Mount, a matter of false uses of God’s name.  Let me expand on that.  “Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the LORD.’  But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.  Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black.  But let your statement be, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’; and anything beyond these is of evil” (Mt 5:33-37).

Okay, so we must recognize right away that Jesus does not indicate, “It is written,” and then countermand the writing.  He points to what they have been told this meant for them.  Oaths are, by their very nature, established on the witness of God.  They are taken or required because the word of man is not sufficiently reliable.  Why else do we expend so much energy on contracts and the like?  The word of a man is not enough.  It may rankle us, and we may feel that in our own case, such an assessment is ill-founded, but in the end, it’s not the assessment of that one who finds it needful to have stronger backing than our mere say-so.  It’s God’s assessment.  We are wholly unreliable.  He, on the other hand, is utterly and entirely faithful.  He said it, He will do it.  You will not find one among man of whom that can be said without fail.  So, oaths become needful.  I might note, why else the very idea of covenant?  God doesn’t need reminding to abide by His word.  But we do.

So, what’s going on here?  The moderns of Israel had determined that an oath taken by something other than explicit reference to God could be just that little bit less binding.  It might be a sin to swear an oath on God’s name and then fail to fulfill your promise, but on the temple?  That’s different.  And you see the lessening value of the assurance by the lessening value of the surety given.  By my head?  What’s that worth?  And what is the power to impose justice here?  You don’t have any, else we wouldn’t be talking about oaths in the first place.  The sum of it is that every word we speak, every promise we make, is a vow undertaken in God’s sight, with God as witness.  That is what Jesus drives home with His message:  Say what you mean.  Don’t promise lightly, nor promise falsely.  Any false promise is an affront to God, and as it is given by one who claims to be a child of God, it is a direct assault on His own holiness.

For us, His name is to be sanctified.  That may, as I said, speak to matters of our choice of words, and our insistent rejection of expletives.  To which I would say, good luck with that.  On the other hand, we do have clear teaching in regard to such things.  “Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification, according to the need of the moment, that it may give grace to those who hear” (Eph 4:29).  That’s a tall order, but it remains the order of the day, every day, in every situation, for the believer.

But I would maintain the greater significance remains an honoring of God’s name, His reputation, His fame, His utter supremacy over life.  And this applies to more than just our promises and commitments.  It applies to all we do.  It’s not the verse I had in mind, but this one will serve to make the point, I think.  “Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may on account of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation” (1Pe 2:12). 

[09/23/20]

Okay, my intended reference has once more been brought to recollection.  It comes in the course of addressing the Jews in regard to their standing under the Law, as Paul makes his case for faith.  “You who preach that one shall not steal, do you steal?  You who say that one should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery?  You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?  You who boast in the Law, through your breaking the Law, do you dishonor God? For ‘The name of God is blasphemed among the gentiles because of you,’ just as it is written” (Ro 2:21b-24).  What Paul is addressing specifically is the inability of the Law to save.  Knowing the Law won’t help except we obey the Law we know.  And, as no man apart from Christ our Lord has managed said obedience, the only thing the Law can achieve in us is condemnation for our failures.

But observe the wider impact.  The name of God is blasphemed because of you.  There is, I think, a threefold application here.  The most direct application concerns hypocrisy, the age-old problem of, “Do as I say, not as I do.”  That is clear from the questions that lead up to Paul’s conclusion.  You insist that we must do X, but you don’t do X.  Where this is acknowledged, one will also have to acknowledge that due to breach of the Law, you stand condemned by the Law.  On that basis, Paul moves to a somewhat larger point.  The overarching message of their preaching was and is that salvation is to be found by strict adherence to this Law, but it neglects to notice that such adherence is beyond us in our fallen state.  It preaches, then, an unattainable salvation, which is really no salvation at all.

My concern here, however, is with that third aspect.  Your hypocrisy, your hopeless approach to holiness, your abject failure all the while insisting everybody else must work harder at succeeding leads not to the glorifying of God’s name, but to its blaspheming.  Here is a root issue with sin.  If our chief purpose is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever, then any way in which our actions tend instead toward the reviling of His name must be great offense indeed.

We shall have need to carefully hold Peter and Paul together.  Face it.  Fallen, unredeemed man will slander you and slander God with wild abandon.  It was true then.  It’s assuredly true now.  We’re seeing it on the increase and increasingly in the news, as Christians become once again a useful target for unreasoning anger and assault.  This should hardly surprise.  A society bent on throwing off all the bonds that have allowed civil society to flourish must surely seek out and destroy the source of those bonding forces, and that requires denouncing and destroying any sense of God, any sense of right and wrong. 

What are we to do?  Let me try and combine the three main threads here.  First and foremost, do not take the name of the Lord in vain.  Be true to your word.  I will add to that, let your words be True.  We dare not shift the Word of God and its plain, clear teaching to satisfy the ravings of the opposing crowd.  Second, beware legalism.  Beware of demanding from others what you could in no wise manage yourself.  This does not require that we lower our standards or let go our ideals.  Far from it!  Neither Paul nor Jesus would advocate simply ignoring the Law of God.  How could they?  The one is God, and hardly likely to toss His own law, and the other recognizes his unchanging Lord, and can hardly be supposed to advocate lawlessness in the name of that God Who authored the Law.  So, preach the ideal, uphold the standard, but acknowledge the impossibility.

What do I mean by that?  Look, there’s this whole combative mindset out there that the way to beat your opponent in the world of ideas is to force him to live up to his ideals.  Of course, that will only work so long as he doesn’t simply require the same of you, assuming you also have some ideals.  And if you don’t, I should suppose one ought to ask most forcefully why anybody should listen to you at all.  The Christian cannot present the Law in such a fashion.  Yes, these are the unbending, unchanging demands of God.  But more, they express the underlying, essential holiness of God, a holiness we cannot attain to unaided.  To preach the Law without the Gospel, without the Good News of God’s purchase of our forgiveness by His own blood, of His providential working out of our sanctification as a loving Father raises a child, is to condemn those to whom you preach.

Meanwhile, we must simultaneously abide with the advice of Peter.  They will slander you.  They will accuse you of all manner of baseless charges simply because they have discovered you are a Christian.  Your simple presence brings offense because it brings awareness of sin.  They will hunt out your every imperfection.  They will fabricate imperfections.  They will hit you with every accusation they can imagine.  How are you to respond?  Do you start a defense fund?  Do you go to court and sue for libel?  I don’t necessarily think there’s anything wrong with taking such a course where it can reasonably be pursued.  But the key factor here is as Peter states:  Behave so as to require of them good testimony when it comes time to stand before the true Judge.  Let your behavior be excellent amongst the Gentiles, amongst the unbelieving world.  Don’t give them cause to level charges.  They will do so anyway, but seek to live in such a way that their worst charges must be shown baseless when all is brought to light.

This remains a tall order.  But I’ll circle back round to the commandment to offer encouragement.  Don’t take the name of the Lord in vain.  You, Christian, have by your coming to faith taken His name.  You are declared the bride of Christ, and as such have taken His name as your own.  You are His ambassadors to a fallen world, and as such exercise His authority such as He has deemed it good to delegate said authority to you.  You represent Him.  Represent Him well.  Don’t be a social Christian, or as we might borrow from current culture, a Christian in name only.  Seek to act and to speak always as will indeed magnify His name, proclaim and demonstrate His glory.  Revere His name, remembering always that His name represents more than the mere word God or the mere word Jesus, or even Yeshua.  It’s not about the words by which we speak of Him, it’s about Him of whom we speak.  It’s about His essential being, all that He is, and all that He means to us.  Don’t take that lightly.  Don’t become a cause for blasphemy.

3) Sanctity of the Sabbath

We can turn now to the next commandment, to keep the sabbath day holy.  What does this mean?  Much has been and can be made of the insistence that “you shall not do any work” (Ex 20:10).  Yet, it is quite clear, as noted in various passages of the New Testament, that certainly the priests and Levites work the Sabbath.  There are numerous vocations that require working on the Sabbath.  We would not wish our hospitals or fire fighting agencies to observe a Sabbath, and that leads us to consider one general exception to this rule:  The Law of Sabbath rest does not preclude such activities as are supportive of life, and particularly those which are in fact life-saving.  That degree of rigidity as to the observance of a Sabbath rest brought not praise from Jesus but anger, that they would fail to recognize that doing the work of the Lord on the Sabbath, which would assuredly include such things as preserve life, cannot violate the Sabbath.

So, what is this all about, then?  God reminds His people of His own example.  He worked for six days in creating Creation, and then rested on the seventh day.  He blessed that day, made it holy.  It is a sacred time.  Is it specifically Saturday, as per Jewish accounting, or Sunday as per most Christian accounting?  There are reasons for each.  The Jews took Saturday as the last day of the week, and therefore representing most clearly the seventh day rest of God.  The Christians, seeing a new life, a new covenant in Christ, and in particularly observing that His own restoration into eternal life came on a Sunday, determined that this first day of the week ought instead to be observed as the Sabbath day.

Now, I recognize that all was not purity of impulse in this decision.  There was simultaneously a desire to make Christianity more clearly distinct from and more fully divorced from Judaism.  I have to say on this point that if impure motive in part rendered the entirety invalid, then we may just as well give up on religion entirely, and anything else that we might suppose offers some ideal or moral value.  It is hardly an argument for rejecting any particular development in the course of the Church, and that assuredly includes the shifting from Saturday to Sunday Sabbath.

Frankly, I can see, particularly for those who are constrained by vocation to labor on a Sunday to select some other day of the week to observe as a Sabbath.  Pastors, for example, can hardly observe Sunday as a Sabbath when it is the day of performing what must be seen as their chief duties.  Nurses and doctors, firemen and police, farmers, and even certain factory laborers really have little choice but to work of a Sunday.  For the farmer, quite honestly, I’m not entirely clear how one arrives at a Sabbath of any sort.  The animals will need tending to, and have no care for calendars.  The cow will not cease to give milk because you are determined to do no work today.  But the general sense is:  If you can’t observe the Sabbath on the generally accepted day, observe it on one which you can. 

There is precedent for this, I should say, in the arrangements made for observing Passover.  It’s not that the specified time and location were not important.  If they weren’t important, God wouldn’t have specified them.  But God is not an unreasoning tyrant.  He recognizes in His perfect wisdom that there will be circumstances of life which preclude being in the right place at the right time, and so alternatives were provided.  We might see it as, “make every effort, but if you can’t do it here and now, do it there and then.”

[09/24/20]

It remains to consider what it means to observe a Sabbath, and I would add, for those whose Sabbath of necessity shifts from the day normally observed, why that particular day is selected.  Perhaps I should start there.  Neither Jew nor Christian simply picked one day as being convenient.  The Sabbath, whatever it may signify for us, is not a signifier of our convenience, certainly, nor would I say it is representing God’s convenience.  As observed earlier, the Jews observed the seventh day of the week as Sabbath, following God’s example, as expressed in the giving of the commandment.  “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy” (Ex 20:11).  The early Christians, not at the outset, but in due course of time, shifted their observance of the Sabbath to Sunday, demarking the day on which our Lord Jesus rose from death, which may be said to be the day our own entrance into the rest of God became possible.

My point is this:  The observance of this Law of the Sabbath was established by both so as to have more significance than simply a pause in the action of day to day life.  It was established so as to remind us of God’s plan and purpose, by its very timing as well as by our observance of the day.  That being the case, I would suggest that those who must shift their observance of the Sabbath from Sunday consider how their choice of alternate day serves to remind of God’s primacy and rule, His plan and His purpose.  Let it not be a mere matter of convenience, but rather, a matter of holy symbolism. 

As to those amongst Christendom who feel called to return to the Jewish Sabbath observance on Saturday, I don’t suppose I would join with the many who would suggest this is a path to heresy and idolatry.  On the latter, we hardly need a path.  As observed earlier, we are forever making idols of whatever we can, and I would suggest the same can, and indeed must be said of the insistence on Sunday as the only proper day for Sabbath observance.  At the same time, I do question the thought process that leads to such return.  For some, it is an over-valuing of the human involvement in shifting to Sunday (without properly recognizing the same sort of human involvement in deciding to shift back).  It must, of necessity, simultaneously undervalue God’s management of affairs on earth, and in particular, those affairs pertaining to His Church.  It fails to see that God truly is in control, and supposes His chosen order is all too readily overthrown by mere mortals and their whims.

Granted, we observe plenty of denominations have gone far astray from the Scriptural model, and in some cases, have seemingly lost sight of Christ entirely.  Whether they can still be accounted a church or Christian in any meaningful sense must first be established before we find them to be evidence that God allows man to pervert the course of His true Church.  That seems to me a rather hopeless battle to join, for any argument you may muster could as readily be laid against you.  Even accepting that one charge is valid and the other specious, there is no appeal one may make to prove the validity of the one, if agreement cannot be reached on the Scriptures as the binding rule, or on the correct understanding of certain of its tenets, if that much has been agreed.  The point remains:  God is in charge.  He is the true Overseer of the Church as He is its true Head.  Where the Church is truly church, this holds, and its development through the centuries can in fact be trusted, not as equal to Scripture, but as a reasonably certain guide.  That is to say, it may prove necessary to disagree with the historical trend in order to restore the True order, but that should never be a thing undertaken lightly, nor without clear support from the firm foundation of Scripture, surrounded by much prayerful seeking of God’s will.

[09/25/20]

Now, perhaps, we can consider the nature of observing the day, whether on the usual day or any other we may consider.  Again, we need to look to the reason given.  On the seventh day God rested.  It must be recognized, I think, that this does not mean God ceased entirely from doing anything we might construe as work.  Bearing in mind that if He turns aside for but a moment, all Creation would cease, certainly He continues the work of supporting the life He has created.  His throne does not suddenly become unavailable, nor His ears unwilling to hear the prayers of His people on this seventh day, such that we must wait for the morrow before seeking Him.  Indeed, I think we must consider carefully whether day in this creation-related sense indicates a twenty-four-hour period or a period of some other scale.  We might even find it useful to question whether, for God, that seventh day ever stops.  It depends, rather, on how one defines day and how one defines rest.

The first thing I think we must conclude, then, is that our observance of this day is something far different than merely a cessation of labors.  That may be a piece of it, and given Jesus’ recognition that Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath (Mk 2:27), there is something, certainly, to making it a day for something less strenuous than our daily labors, such as they may be.  Everybody appreciates a break, certainly, and God in His wisdom has provided one for man.  But it seems to me if it’s a break from activities that we have in view, we are generally thought of as having two such days in the course of the weekend.  Of course, we tend to pack them with attending to all the myriad details of home life that were deferred through the week in favor of our paid labors.  But I don’t think this break from labors is quite the thing that marks the day as holy.  It might render it welcome, if we saw it thus, but it doesn’t say much to holiness.

How, then, shall we keep the day holy?  Well, what does holy mean?  It means sacred, set apart for the Lord’s exclusive use.  In that sense alone is anything truly holy.  It is devoted to God, given over entirely to Him.  I addressed this idea in considering the physical plant of that place we call church.  There is to be an exclusivity to its use.  It is a sacred place.  It should, I think, pain us to see churches decommissioned and turned over to secular uses, or stranger still, to be made something of a community center even while continuing to be a church.  We saw a show last night that made much of this English country church that had been made a shop during the week, like this was somehow a good thing.  I have trouble seeing it that way.  If it is a church, it is for God’s exclusive use.  I don’t find a place in that for this commercial venture.  A charitable shop of some sort, perhaps I could concede, but a general store?  Surely one could find another location for such things, and let God’s house remain God’s house.

This same mindset, I think, should inform our observance of the Sabbath.  It is to be a day given over to God.  Now, I think we must grant that every day belongs to the Lord by very definition, as He made it.  And we, His people, belong to Him as He has chosen us.  But here, there is call for personal action, personal devotion.  It is difficult for us to even carve out an hour that we might call exclusively God’s to use.  These morning studies of mine are an attempt at just such a thing, and even after years of relatively consistent pursuit of such a schedule, it’s amazingly easy for circumstances and events to dislodge that hour.  On the other hand, it’s not unusual for that hour to stretch long.

But a whole day?  Can you imagine yourself giving over a whole day for nothing but prayer and contemplation of God’s Word and being?  The very stillness of such a thing is somehow off-putting in our modern-day mindset.  But isn’t that the point here?  Give the day over to God.  Well, it may be.  That may be the use God desires to make of such a day.  It may also be that He is pleased to see us pursue pleasurable, creative activities that bring beauty and joy to life.  It certainly would not preclude the efforts of those who serve in the church in the course of regular worship.  It should prove unthinkable to us that the pastor, or the usher, or the others who minister to us on Sunday violate the Sabbath in doing so.  It wasn’t true of the priests and Levites of old, and it’s no more true now.  Those who minister may find it needful to carve out another day on which to rest from their labors, but they do not need another day to declare holy. 

Perhaps I change my mind in regard to yesterday’s musings.  The Sabbath is not rendered holy by our choice of doing nothing, or doing nothing laborious on that day.  It is rendered holy by being devoted to God, and to His desired purpose in the day’s use.  If He is pleased to see His community gathered together for worship on that day, the day is no less holy to the one who ministers than to the one seated in the pew.  Neither, I should have to say, does the hour or two given over to that community service of worship constitute devoting the day.  It is a part of the picture, but hardly the whole.  How could it be?  It is barely the tithe of the day.

Let us then break our concept of this Sabbath day in two.  If one needs a day for cessation from labors, (and we do, regardless what we may think), fine:  Enjoy a day off.  Recharge.  If it pleases you to go sight-seeing, or to read a book, or to dabble in the arts, or putter in the garden, or what have you, do your thing.  But don’t suppose that has rendered the day holy.  That was for you.  The day you would construe as the Sabbath is for God.  The goal in the setup that God put forward was not simply that commerce would come to a halt, nor even that His people would be spared sweating for that one day.  It was that the distractions of life might be tamped down in order that His people could in fact focus on Him for this one day in the week.

It might be tempting to think we could perhaps maintain the proportion timewise, but divvy it up over the course of the week, so that our ‘day’ consisted of, say two or three hours of religious activities each physical day, and we could somehow account that our Sabbath observance.  But the Sabbath observance was in addition to daily contemplation of God’s word, daily times of prayer, and I would suggest, daily times of praise and worship.  These are not things to pile up in store for the next Sabbath observance, but ought rightly to be as regular as breathing for us.  I should like to think they may aid us in preparing ourselves for a proper Sabbath observance, as we seek wisdom in God’s Word, seek particular guidance for the day in prayer, inform our spirits as we give our praises to God.  But the day itself is in addition to, not in place of.

Let me circle back to this idea that God’s day of rest is something that, having entered into it, has never ceased.  After all, God has not had need to constantly repeat those first six days of creation.  Why would we suppose He cycles through the seventh?  This, it seems to me, is an eternal week, if you can allow such a conception.  On the seventh day, God rested.  Nothing is said of day eight, or even of there being a day eight.  It seems to me, that God’s rest continues, and much of that rest consists in enjoying the results of His work on the first six days.  We might well ask how much enjoyment He can be getting out of the mess that is the world after the Fall.  But then, we must recall that the Fall was in fact part of the plan of Creation from the outset, giving place for the Advent of Christ, and thereby serving as a setting for the gem of God’s glory manifested and magnified in Christ.  The unfolding of history from that point to the eventual consummation of the kingdom is likewise part of the plan, however messy it may be here in the unfolding.  It, too, serves to magnify His glory, even in its mess.

Now, as I said before, God did not cease utterly from exerting His will in Creation, not for a twenty-four-hour day, and not for the duration of this day of His rest however long it may be.  And I am indeed contending that it is eternal, at least in its future facing extent.  It has a beginning, I suppose at the end of the sixth day, so it cannot be truly eternal, but it has no end.  So, what is our story?  Our day of rest awaits in one sense, but it is already ours in another.  The author of Hebrews brings out this idea.  “For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said, ‘As I swore in My wrath, they shall not enter My rest,’ although His works were finished from the foundation of the world. […]  Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly had the good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience, He again fixes a certain day, ‘Today,’ saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before, ‘Today if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts.’  For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that.  There remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God.  For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His” (Heb 4:3-10).

This entrance into His rest rather presupposes what I have been saying, doesn’t it?  His rest has never ceased.  We are invited to enter into that rest, and how do we enter into it?  By ceasing from our works.  Okay.  Let me try this out:  Can it be that the author here is making much the same point as Paul would make?  If we are trying to work our way into heaven, we must necessarily fail.  This Law by which we would be made righteous remains beyond us.  Indeed, we have long since failed before ever it occurs to us to try.  But the one who has entered into God’s rest has ceased from working, rested from his works.  He has, one might suggest, observed the futility of those works, which achieve no more than to bedraggle the worker in filthy rags.  He has rested on Christ and His righteousness.   Here is the Sabbath rest of God’s people.  They are no longer stressed and labored over how to please God, or at least appease Him that they be not destroyed.  They have discovered God’s love for them, God’s provision for them, God’s choice of them.  They have discovered there is nothing to be earned as concerns His favor.  He cannot love us more, and He will not love us less.  There is only response to His love, and that is no work at all.  That is joy.

With that in mind, I should think our goal ought to be that every day is as a Sabbath to us, not in that we cease from our labors and just hope for God to provide in spite of our sloth.  That would go entirely against the message of Scripture, and against the example of God Himself.  No, it’s not the activity or lack thereof.  It’s the focus.  It’s the matter of letting God lead.  That doesn’t mean we need to get all supernatural about it, and spend long agonizing hours seeking direction before we can even make breakfast (because maybe He doesn’t want us to have breakfast just now).  It does, however, mean that our devotion to God informs all that we do.  It means we live life as servants of God Most High, keenly aware of His rightful rule over us, keenly desirous of pursuing our duties in such a fashion as will please Him and bring glory to His name.

If I think on that song from some years back, there’s the chorus of, “Every day will be Sunday on the other side.”  But our call is not to wait for that other side.  We make every day a Sunday here and now by how we set ourselves to live out our faith in practice, whether that be in the immediate context of community worship, or personal devotions, or the mundane duties of vocation.  In every setting; in every relationship; in every leisurely moment, we have opportunity to enter into God’s rest in observing that setting as holy unto the Lord as we are to be holy unto the Lord.

4) Sanctity of Age

[09/26/20]

We begin now to consider those commandments which pertain to our treatment of our fellow man, and that begins in the home.  Honor your parents (Ex 20:12).  And as Paul observed, not only is this the first commandment concerning our fellow man, it is the first with a promise (Eph 6:2).  On this basis, Paul extends the matter to note the obligations set upon the parents, fathers particularly, by this same commandment:  Don’t provoke your children.  Discipline and instruct them (Eph 6:4).  If one is to be honored, he must be honorable.

It would be easy to take this particular commandment at simple face value.  Heed your parents, and give them your respect.  But we see already that it has been expanded, in that it does require honorable parents for them to be thus honored.  In no way would God bind us to obey an ungodly parent in their ungodliness.  The commandment may color how we respond in such a case, but in the end, we must answer to our Father, and honor Him above all else.

I could try and make this primarily about that latter relationship, and move the commandment back into the first table of the Law, concerning man’s relationship with God.  Consider, for example, that part of Jesus’ sermon which refers to the Pharisaic interpretations of law.  “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy.’  But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you in order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Mt 5:43-45).  Here we have, if not a direct application of this commandment to our relationship with the Father, a very clear modeling of what is required by the commandment.

To honor your parents is more than simply speaking well of them, or respecting their wishes and heeding their commands.  Look at the reasoning Jesus uses here:  You, as sons of your Father in heaven, should act and think as He acts and thinks.  He does not operate as one who loves His neighbor but hates His enemy.  He blesses both.  You must do likewise.  That doesn’t preclude, I should note, favoring the righteous.  There are blessings to be reserved for the obedient son, but there is a general treatment here, what we speak of as common grace, and that is for all.

So, how are we to honor our parents?  By modeling ourselves after them.  You can see rather immediately that this requires an honorable model.  And you can see that it must necessarily limit the commandment to that which is honorable.  God is hardly going to make this commandment an excuse for disobedience to His own commandments.  “I was only following orders” is not an acceptable excuse for those who committed war crimes, and neither will it serve to excuse sin.

But I have labeled this section ‘Sanctity of Age’, and I have done so with some cause, I trust.  Parents are, by definition, older than their children, and there is, by God’s design, a wisdom that comes with age.  Experience has been their teacher far longer than you.  It is the folly of youth to suppose fresh insights, to presume their new discoveries are indeed new.  But the wisdom of God observes that there is in fact nothing new under the sun.  “That which has been is that which will be, and that which has been done is that which will be done.  So there is nothing new under the sun.  Is there anything of which one might say, ‘See this, it is new’?  Already it has existed for ages which were before us.  There is no remembrance of earlier things; and also of the later things which will occur, there will be for them no remembrance among those who will come later still” (Ecc 1:9-11).

What’s going on there?  We could call it a failure of the elders to pass on that which is known, to pass on a remembrance of earlier things.  But we could just as readily call it a failure of the youths to value what has been passed on.  There is something about newness that appeals.  We see something for the first time, or arrive at a realization that is new to us, and in our arrogance we suppose that nobody before us has ever seen, has ever realized what has occurred to us.  Or perhaps we take the new information of a friend and peer, although he is no further advanced in age and wisdom than ourselves, as clearly more thoroughly aware and accurate than what our parents taught us.  It’s new.  That’s old.  Surely the newer is better.  Surely knowledge has advanced and mankind improved.  But it seems we are constantly brought up against the validity of Solomon’s observation.  Nothing new here.  People are still people, and sin is still sin.

Why then this call to hold age sacred?  “A gray head is a crown of glory; it is found in the way of righteousness” (Pr 16:31).  “The glory of young men is their strength, and the honor of old men is their gray hair” (Pr 20:29).  There is something to be said for having survived to a greater age.  It suggests, at least, that wisdom has outweighed folly.  There is a connection to be had between gray hair and wisdom.  The wise young lad will seek out that wisdom that he, too, may be wise and attain to an age of gray hair.  The foolish young lad, which was once my own lot, supposes it wiser to die young, to finish in the virility of youth, such as it is.  But with age comes appreciation for God and Truth.  With age comes a tempering of the fiery strength of youth, a channeling of passion and power to better, wiser purposes.

There is much reference made in the current times to G. K. Chesterton’s fence, a bit of wisdom put down on paper back around 1929 or so.  It speaks to the reformer’s mindset, and particularly the ‘modern’ reformer, as he phrases it.  I could shift it to ‘young’ reformer.  He looks upon the old and established and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.”  But the ‘intelligent’ reformer, which we might see as the wisdom of age, responds, “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away.  Go away and think.  Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”  The short-form version of this is more often found in the wild:  “Do not remove a fence until you know why it was put up in the first place.”  In short, don’t mistake your ignorance for wisdom.

Those who came before were not fools.  They were not unenlightened primitives scrabbling about in the dark where you have great light.  Indeed, wisdom would suggest that if you have great light it is precisely because those who preceded you have supplied the means for light to shine.  But this is ever our way, isn’t it?  We come across something we don’t understand, and rather than seek understanding, we seek change.  The child looks upon the constraints and discipline of parents as unnecessary, pointless limiting of his liberty, and seeks to shake off those bonds rather than learn by the discipline.  No surprise there, nor anything new.  “All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness” (Heb 12:11).

Parents don’t discipline, as a rule, out of perversity, but out of desire for the child’s development.  They discipline in hope of training, of better preparing that child for the future, of increasing the likelihood of that child to attain to an old age of wisdom in his own turn.

Honor your parents.  Learn what they seek to teach you of righteousness and wisdom.  To be sure, in this fallen world, our learning may at times be by negative example, and we may find it necessary to learn to reject their way in favor of our Father Who is in heaven.  But if that is the case, we may find those who have taken on a new parental role with us in our earthly relationships.

Paul speaks of himself as the spiritual father – the only spiritual father – of those who composed the Corinthian church.  “For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel” (1Co 4:15).  And observe where that leads.  “I exhort you therefore, be imitators of me” (1Co 4:16).  Honor your father.  Learn from him.  Live as he lives.  Gain from his knowledge and wisdom that it may go well with you, and you may live long in the land.

Here is the sanctity of age.  It has gained wisdom and knowledge.  It has gained, too, in care for those who come after.  Wisdom desires that it may be shared, imparted to others.  This is the whole matter of ministry isn’t it?  “And the things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also” (2Ti 2:2).  This is what’s going on.  Timothy may have been young in years, but he was old in wisdom.  He had learned well of his elder, Paul, and now, Paul urged him to be an imitator of himself by passing along that same wisdom to those who would in turn pass it along again.  And so it has been passed, age to age, even to this present day.  And so it shall continue to be passed along in each generation so long as our Lord chooses to tarry.

But it requires both an elder teacher and a willing student.  The commandment, then, informs both our governance and our response, if you will.  Elders are to be those who are able to teach.  I could go so far as to say they are teachers, like it or not.  By their position their lives become lessons taught.  It remains to take care what lesson it is.  The congregant is called to learn from the wisdom of these elders, which of course includes the pastors.  It can be difficult.  We are inclined to weigh words and assess by our own lights, and I don’t think that is wrong.  But it can become wrong when we become so enamored of our own views, so convinced of our own wisdom, that we can no longer hear any wise word that doesn’t fully accord with our now prefabricated views.

It is something of a predicament for the one who has become a student of God’s Word.  There is a place for firmness of belief and faith, and for confident insistence upon the truth of His Word.  But there is simultaneously a place for humility and the recognition that as a finite being, God’s Word likely exceeds our capacity to perfectly comprehend.  It should.  God remains infinitely beyond us in wisdom and knowledge, perfect where we are quite plainly imperfect.  There is a reason we avail ourselves of the commentaries and other works of those saints who have preceded us.  They have had a lifetime of gaining wisdom in Christ.  They have also withstood the test of time.  That is not to say that they have achieved perfect knowledge and understanding, and become infallible in their writings.  No.  That place is reserved to Scripture alone.  But there is cause to seek out such understanding rather than simply entrusting ourselves to ourselves. 

The same must be said of those whom God in His wisdom has set over us as pastors and elders and teachers.  They are not fools, it is devoutly to be hoped, and if they are, then we are fools to abide their teaching.  They are godly men with godly insights, godly wisdom to impart, if we will be godly students and receive that which God is saying through them.  This does not require an unquestioning acceptance of every point as divine truth passed down from on high.  They are men such as ourselves, and just as capable of getting things wrong as are we.  But they are serving in a capacity that constitutes a gift of the Spirit, and we might do well to trust that the Spirit has His reasons for giving them to preach as they do.  It may not necessarily be the message but our own response and character that is more at issue.  It’s worth considering, at any rate.

So, I am arrived, I think, at the more general sense of this commandment, which is that we are to honor those whom God has been pleased to set over us as authorities and teachers.  That honor should be in the form of emulation, where those over us are indeed honorable, but even where we must disagree, I think we should find it a call to disagree honorably, respectfully, not by way of noxious rebellion.  Me may be constrained to act against their orders as those answerable to a higher Authority, but in doing so, we must then emulate our Father Who is in heaven.  And that is a tall order indeed.

5) Sanctity of Life

[09/27/20]

Next, we arrive at a very concise declaration of ordinance:  “You shall not murder” (Ex 20:13).  But it seems that our propensity to discover compliance in ourselves and within our own capacities has led us to take this command perhaps a tad to literally, or woodenly so.  Finally!  Here is a commandment I can keep.  I have not killed anybody.  I’m good here.  Jesus, however, pulls this false sense of ability from us, lest we be blinded to our sin.  “You have heard the ancients were told, ‘You shall not commit murder’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’  But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, ‘Raca,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever shall say, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell” (Mt 5:21-23).

At first glance, it might seem that for once what they had been told aligned with what was written, but in fact it does not.  Like Eve, they have altered the law ever so slightly; in this case, inserting the word, ‘commit’.  There’s a subtle shift of meaning with that insertion.  What they have been told reduces the crime to the act alone.  But the original did not so constrain its application.  “You shall not murder,” leaves all those petty assaults with which we attack one another covered as well.  Even calling your fellow man a fool counts, as Jesus observes.  I note that no conditioning is put on that expansion.  No allowance is made for the possible validity of that statement.  The sin remains.

Here, I find it beneficial to observe the practice of the Reformers and the writers of the early catechisms and confessions.  Where they see the Law stated in the negative, they observe a necessary consequence, which is the implicit support for the opposing positive.  If it is prohibited to murder, or to in anyway act in such a way as tends towards the destruction of life, then it is positively supported and even urged to at in such a way as tends towards the support of life.  This gave rise to Jesus’ deep offense at the Pharisaic tendency to set law against law, as they did in refusing the validity of such acts as served to preserve life on the basis of such work violating the Sabbath ordinance.  But of course, God upholds life even on the Sabbath, else there could be no life to honor it.  The medical staff who labor of a Sunday do not violate the Sabbath, for they serve to preserve life.  The same can be said for police and military service which requires Sunday effort.  These are vocations that seek to preserve life.  I suppose some would quibble as to whether the military should be accounted life preservers when so much of their mission falls to use of deadly force, and even the police are presently under scrutiny for similar cause.

It is needful to distinguish between those casualties which are the necessary, or at least unavoidable consequence of preserving peace in a fallen world, and that which we would constitute murder.  We should also have to acknowledge that it is quite possible for acts which properly constitute murder to be undertaken by sundry individuals under the guise of law enforcement actions or war.  We cannot simply give blanket immunity to the warrior or the police officer, for they are fallen individuals as well as ourselves.  They are as much in need of policing as the general populace.  But not every act of lethal force in lawful pursuit of upholding just law can be accounted murder.

War, by its nature, necessitates lethal force.  We can argue that the whole prospect of war is an exercise in murder, but we shall have to find room in our argument to explain how it is that God could then promote war on various occasions without violating this expression of His essential being.  The doctrine of just war seeks to find the bounds of what is acceptable and what is not.  Certainly, war fought in defense of one’s property, one’s nation, is acceptable in this light.  Israel, as the nation of God’s people, was never told to remain defenseless.  There were injunctions against certain entangling alliances, but not because they would have provided greater lethality in battle.  The issue was the entanglement, the inviting of foreign influence over civil society, and also the issue of relying on human strength rather than godly might.  But that latter could as readily apply even without such alliances, couldn’t it?  Perhaps not for Israel, but what of our own day?  If we are inclined to suppose the might of our military, or the advancements of our technology of war are such as provide security sufficient to our need, then we lose sight of God, and lose sight of the very real fact that, apart from God, all that might and technology will in the end amount to nothing.

This tendency must be observed, I should think, in all those nations which have sought empire.  Empire, by its nature, is imposed by force upon those who never desired the rule of emperors.  Rome did not expand by invitation, nor did Britain and France in their turn, nor Germany and Japan, nor China and Russia.  Nor, I suppose we must say, was the whole of America’s expansion a matter of invitation.  Here, it must be accepted that at least one side in the wars that ensued was necessarily in the wrong.  And it will certainly, I should hope, be accepted that actions such as were undertaken in the prison camps of Hitler’s Germany were well beyond the pale of what could be accepted as the inevitable lethal actions of war, just or otherwise.  These were actions that amount to murder, regardless of the circumstance in which they were pursued.

Here is the basis for our rejection of things which amount to cruel and unusual punishment.  This does not preclude imposing the death sentence for certain crimes, particularly those which constitute willful murder.  God’s Law certainly establishes a standard for such action.  After all, this commandment against murder could also be spoken of as a distinct promotion of the sanctity of life.  Indeed, I think it must be seen in that light.  Of man, God said at the creation, “Let us make man in Our image, according to our likeness” (Ge 1:26).  This was something special.  Man was made the image-bearer, God’s representative on earth.  He was to fill and subdue, to rule over all else that lives (Ge 1:28).  That command was never rescinded, near as I can tell.

In point of fact, God made it absolutely explicit.  “He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death.  But if he did not lie in wait for him but God let him fall into his hand, then I will appoint you a place to which he may flee.  If, however, a man acts presumptuously toward his neighbor, so as to kill him craftily, you are to take him even from My altar, that he may die” (Ex 21:12-14).  Do you wonder that we have categories of murder in our civil law?  It has ever been the case that there was need for distinction.  But there are also bounds on that distinction.  Even the accidental causing of death does in fact count as murder, and shall be punishable by death in return, for even the accidental death is an assault in the image of God.  But where the intentionality is lacking, the imposing of death sentence is somewhat mitigated.  That one’s old life will have to be abandoned if the perpetrator is to live.  He may flee to a place of sanctuary and take up life there such as he may, but it’s still something of a death sentence.

Consider what this meant for the sort of society that was being established amongst the Israelites.  Each man had his property, generally by inheritance, in that region apportioned to his tribe.  The accidental murderer might flee to a sanctuary city, and that city might well remain within the bounds of his tribal territory, but he would still be leaving behind that property that was his birthright.  This was in some way a small death in itself.  I don’t know, and at this juncture don’t care to pursue, just what disposition would have been made of the property of such a one, but there is significant loss imposed here for what is effectively a stay of execution.  But then, too, this process is in place largely to reduce the tendency for vendetta and retaliation.

Where the crime is more fully criminal, retaliation shall be taken, but not by the relatives of the victim; rather by the authorities put in place for such occasions.  “Vengeance is Mine,” says the Lord (Dt 32:35).  Paul gently leads us to see the connection between this truth and the rule of civil authority.  “For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God” (Ro 13:1).  “It is a minister of God to you for good.  But if you do evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minster of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil” (Ro 13:4).  In other words, vengeance is God’s, but He is certainly willing and able to use men as His instruments of just vengeance.

As long as I’m here in Romans 13, I might as well note the connection of this Law to the higher law of Love which defines the Law under Gospel.  “Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.  For this, ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not covet,’ and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’  Love does no wrong to a neighbor; love therefor is the fulfillment of the law” (Ro 13:8-10).  The law of Love is the upholding of life.  It is the positive to this negatively stated commandment, and, as Paul observes, to those others which follow.

[09/28/20]

As Jesus expanded on what it means to murder, perhaps we have need to expand on what it means to love.  We must begin by recognizing that love, in this usage, is not mere sentiment, nor even an expressed preference.  It may be imbued with those feelings, but the feelings aren’t the point.  The point is doing good by your neighbor.  But then we must take the measure of goodness.  Goodness is not the same as satisfying wants, or even perceived needs.  It is supplying true needs, which may be far different than what is perceived.  The addict feels his need for the next fix, whatever it may be that he is addicted to.  Yet it can hardly be accounted a loving act towards him to satisfy that felt need.  Far more loving is the attempt to free him from his addiction, to provide him with counseling, with treatment, with something better to live for.

Take that nearer to root level and you have a clear message for dealing with sin.  We are all of us addicted to sin, and it can hardly be accounted loving to encourage one another to continue in this addiction.  Far better, far more loving, is the attempt to free one another from this addiction to sin, to provide the godly counsel of the Gospel, which is also the sure treatment for sin, and which offers the certain hope of a better life.  So, we could start here:  Love proclaims the good news of the Gospel to the lost.  It does not allow the likelihood of rejection to prevent speech.  It does not allow even the threat of death to prevent speech, for love ever desires to do what is truly needful for the sake of the loved one.  That does not always jibe with what the loved one desires.  In reality, it likely never does so.  But we have our Savior as model.  “While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us”, which Paul observes is how “God demonstrates His own love toward us” (Ro 5:8).

He didn’t wait for our desire to turn toward Him.  If He had, He’d still be waiting, wouldn’t He, for there is nothing in us that is sensible enough to seek Him.  “He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him” (Jn 1:11).  We tend to read that as pertaining to the Jews of first century Israel, but the same could as readily be said of us today.

Observe the case with Paul at his calling.  What was he about at that time?  He had set forth from Jerusalem to persecute the Church in Damascus.  Hardly a friend of Christ, then.  And as he made his way, he was struck blind by an unimaginably bright light, and heard a voice probing him as to his actions.  Why are you doing this?  “And I said, ‘Who art Thou, Lord?’ and the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.  But arise, and stand on your feet; for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a minister and a witness not only to the things which you have seen but also to the things in which I will appear to you; delivering you from the Jewish people and from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending you, to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, in order that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me” (Ac 26:15-18).

Look:  Paul could understand.  He’d been in their shoes, as it were.  He wanted nothing to do with this Jesus, and in fact, was doing his level best to eradicate memory of Him from the earth.  But Jesus had different plans.  While Paul was quite actively His enemy, He saved him, drew him out of darkness, that temporary blindness on the road reflecting his real spiritual condition at the time, and into the light of true seeing.  Who better to go to ‘those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death’ (Lk 1:79)?  Who better to understand their resistance and love them enough to continue anyway?

But this is our story, too.  It is certainly mine.  I’ve related it often enough.  I was not seeking, yet I was found.  I was not interested in God, but He was interested in me.  I had not given Him any great deal of thought one way or the other, but in retrospect, it became clear that He had often thought of me, and had acted in truly loving fashion towards me, saving me even from myself.  Oh, the life that would have unfolded had I been able to act successfully on my desires!  It is unlikely, I should think, that I would be around today to contemplate the stunning reversal of circumstance by which He has made me who I am.  But I was, like Paul, still His enemy.  Yet He came.  He saved.  He began the work which He will surely finish.  He loved me as He would have me love others as I go through life, and truth be told, it’s something at which I fail miserably.  There remains with me too much of the old man to successfully emulate my Savior.  I say this not as excuse, for there can be no excuse.  I say this primarily to remind myself, for it seems unlikely much of anybody else reads these words I write, of due humility.  I have little enough to complain of in the progress of my brother or sister when I cannot even love them as I ought.

So, let me try and circle this back round toward some sort of point.  Though shalt not murder.  Thou shalt not denigrate your fellow man, speaking of him as fool.  Though shalt not, in any way, undertake an action, nor even a private thought, that tends toward his death rather than toward his life.  More, though shalt undertake, by such means and opportunities as are laid at your disposal, to uphold, promote, and improve his life.  Thou shalt take active – not prying, not interfering, but active – interest in the real life, the significant, valuable, real, zoe life of your fellow man, believer and non-believer alike.  Thou shalt seek to spread this good news of the Gospel as the chiefest means of breathing life into these walking corpses of humanity, not as some crusader mission, but as emissary of God Who is most compassionate, and desires that none might perish.

What will that look like day by day?  It may be as simple as lending a helping hand where help is needed.  It may be acts of charity toward those who are tossed into a state of need by the storms of life.  That shall need care in the doing, for we do not, as noted above, wish to feed the addiction to sin by removing its cost.  But where one is in need not through neglect or willful wantonness, surely the child of God is called to aid in such fashion as he is able.  Even where there is neglect and willful wantonness, there is a degree of aid we may find ourselves called to provide.  “For [God] causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.  For if you love those who love you, what reward have you?  Do not even the tax-gatherers do the same?  And if you greet your brothers only, what do you do more than others?  Do not even the Gentiles do the same?  Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Mt 5:45-48).  Pray for those who persecute you, love your enemies.  After all, they are not really your enemies, but rather those powers of darkness who move them to act as enemies.  Our battle is not with our fellow man, but with spiritual powers of darkness (Eph 6:12).  Our defense is faith, and our weapon prayer.  And our communities our not our battle ground, but our fields for harvest.  Love them enough to see them saved rather than crushed.  Promote life, and curse not.

6) Sanctity of Marriage

[09/29/20]

Next comes the call to fidelity in marriage, or even in pre-marriage as the case may be.  “You shall not commit adultery” (Ex 20:14).  This command speaks at once to our own relationships and to the relationships of our fellow man.  The immediate application is obvious.  Don’t mess around with another’s spouse.  Looking back to the origins of mankind in the Garden, we see that this commandment stands in continuity with the covenant of Adam.  In Genesis 2:24, God points us to the significance of what has been done in the union of Adam and Eve.  “For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.”

God has, through this matter of marriage, created a wholeness of life where there once was something lacking.  “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him” (Ge 2:18).  Do you notice that this is the first, in fact the only thing about creation that God does not declare good, and even very good?  Here is a first negative note on the whole matter.  “It is not good.”  Of course, He does not leave it in that state, but undertakes to complete the work, and being as it’s God doing the work, we know the end result is perfect.  Adam knew it as well.  “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh” (Ge 2:23a).  It seems that he had an immediate sense of that one-flesh relationship which is marriage.  Of course, he had the benefit of recognizing that Eve had in fact been taken out of his own flesh to come into being.

It must also be immediately clear to us the value God places on the sanctity of marriage, even if it is not as immediately clear why that is so.  But the sheer volume of comment throughout Scripture on the evils of adultery, of immorality, which is a gentle word for sexual sins, and on pornea, pornography in all its forms and practices, must surely make it clear that this is a matter of significance to God.  When His people clamor for a right to divorce, it is a personal affront to Him.  After all, marriage properly pursued is pursued in covenant with God.  It is undertaken as fulfilling His promise and reflecting His will.  This one was created for me by God to be my helper, my partner throughout life.

Jesus addressed the issue of divorce repeatedly during His brief ministry, primarily because man took the matter so lightly, and found most anything to be justifiable cause to divorce.  But He points us back to Adam and Eve.  “Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh’?  Consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh.  What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” (Mt 19:4-6).  There is the key factor:  God has joined them together, made them one flesh.  Yes, provision was made, a concession of sorts, for divorce to be pursued on this one cause:  That there has been immorality (Mt 19:9), but this was a necessary response to man’s hardness of heart, not the prefect ideal of design.

Now, if immorality is the sole acceptable cause for divorce, it ought to render this matter of adultery more clearly sinful, for it is impossible by definition that adultery can be pursued without there being immorality on the part of one whom God has joined together with another.  Adultery is, then, of necessity a violation, a violent rejection of God’s work.  It is seeking to give cause for divorce, a tearing apart of that which He has made one.  Is it any wonder He so hates this sin?

If I return to the idea of marriage as reflecting the nature of the Trinity in some small way, as marriage creates one united, one-flesh entity of what remain quite clearly two distinct persons, we have at least a limited reflection of the nature of the Trinity.  God is One.  The married couple is one.  But God is three in person, and the married couple is similarly two in person.  Husband and wife remain unique.  They have different physical bodies, of course, but also distinct personalities and roles.  Yet they are one.  The decisions of the married are to be decisions made together, not the conflict that must ensue when two individuals pursue their separate agendas without regard for any other.

Here, too, is the model of Christ and His Church, which He causes to be described as His bride.  He has gone to make a home for His bride in His Father’s house, a task familiar to every betrothed couple in that era.  The marriage would not be consummated until the groom had made sure his provision for the bride.  There must be a house in which they may dwell, and there must be means for their provision.  The groom must show himself ready for the duties of married life.  The father of the ride would know his child well cared for as she leaves his charge.  God is, in this case, Father to the bride and the Groom as well.  “In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you.  And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also” (Jn 14:2-3).

There it is.  You are betrothed; spoken for.  To pursue another, then, would constitute adultery.  That was the message God kept relaying to Israel as she wandered into idolatry and chasing the world.  It is the message He continues to broadcast to His Church today.  “I have called you by name; you are Mine!” (Isa 43:1b).  You are married to your Lord and God.  There can be no thought of giving yourself to any other.

Paul makes much of this as he addresses the immoralities of the Corinthian church; sexual sins being tolerated amongst its ‘fine, upstanding members’ such as would have caused the pagans to blush.  “Flee immorality.  Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body.  Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?  For you have been bought with a price:  therefore glorify God in your body” (1Co 6:18-20).  This conflates several images of the Christian.  There is that aspect of having been redeemed, or ransomed from our captivity to slavery.  But there is also something of the bride-price or dowery here.  Ample evidence has been given of our Lord’s ability to provide.  It remains only for that house to be built that He may bring us home.

[10/03/20]

[You may note a brief gap in the dates.  This has transpired because I felt the need to get some of this section on ordinances out to the website.  It has grown far larger than anticipated, which really ought not to surprise anybody; least of all, me.]

Of course, Jesus points us to far wider-reaching application of this particular law.  “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; but I say to you, that everyone who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Mt 5:27-28).  This time, I must note, what Jesus notes they have heard said actually does reflect what is written exactly.  I suppose we must conclude that the issue was not with quoting Scripture correctly so much as with failing to apply it correctly.  Mind you, the first is necessary to the second.  If we play fast and loose with what is written, we shall never arrive at sound application.  But, as was demonstrated amply by the devil in his temptation of Christ, it’s entirely possible to have verbatim recitation down pat and still entirely miss the point.  How many, for example, recite the Lord’s Prayer of a Sunday without so much as a thought to the implications of what they are uttering?  How many enter into marriage without ever having really considered the nature of the commitment they have made?

But returning to what Jesus has to say here, there is a general principle laid down:  Thought life matters.  As a man thinks so he is, whatever his actions may say to the contrary when he knows himself observed.  There is the secondary aspect of that, which is that what a man is in private is what he truly is.  But even there, we may find ourselves attempting to put on better form; perhaps because due to awareness that we are not in fact unobserved, but ever under the eye of God, perhaps simply because conscience is pricked by reminders that we really ought to do better.  The more general reality here is that in many cases, the only thing that restrains us from greater evil is fear of the potential consequences.  Many a man and woman would happily pursue a course of wild debauchery if only they could be sure there would be no repercussions.  It is, by and large, that sort of fear, properly channeled, that allows society to persist at all.  And that ought to leave us all the more concerned for the present day, when the constraint of repercussions seems largely to be removed.

So, what are we to do?  We might try the path that Job undertook.  There is certainly something to recommend it.  “I have made a covenant with my eyes; How then could I gaze at a virgin?” (Job 31:1).  On the other hand, try living that out.  I don’t say that to discourage one from even trying, but rather because our tendency is to fall back into thinking salvation depends on us, on our effort to comply.  However much we proclaim that the righteous shall live by faith, our actions indicate that we’re still pretty sure he shall live by the Law.  Don’t misunderstand.  “The Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good” (Ro 7:12).  That hasn’t changed.  God hasn’t changed.  But then, to quite a large degree, neither have we.  Oh, we have changed, we who have believed, in one, most significant fashion.  We have been purchased out of death into life.  Hard to get a bigger change than that.  However, “that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, ‘The righteous man shall live by faith.’  However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, ‘He who practices them shall live by them’”  (Gal 3:11-12).  The Law, Paul proceeds to remind, does not invalidate prior covenant.  The promise stands (Gal 3:17).  That refers us back to the promised Seed, now come, though the immediate reference is to the covenant made with Abraham.  Our inheritance, which is this life, is not by the Law, but by the promise (Gal 3:18).  The Law, Paul says, was a mediator until the Seed had come.  But now He has come.  Where Scripture shut up all men under sin, Christ was given.  And here’s the capstone of the argument.  “The Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith” (Gal 3:24).

Where am I going with this?  There remains a place for the Law in the life of the believer, and that is as a clear demarcation of God’s expectations.  I say clear, and yet we see how readily we can reduce them to achievable goals.  But achievable goals don’t guide us to Christ, don’t reveal our need for Christ.  Achievable goals leave us feeling self-sufficient, and while I’m not sure I could join our pastor in declaring that self-sufficiency is a sin, it certainly is a danger when it comes to matters of righteousness.  There is no place in Christianity for self-righteousness because there is no place in mankind for true self-achieved righteousness.  “There is none righteous.  No, not one.”  That verdict has never altered.

Back to matters of marriage.  This is difficult for us to lay hold of in the modern age, I think, but it is utterly critical that we do so.  Adultery begins with the eye.  The eye sees and the lustful mind considers.  Comparisons are perhaps made – the spouse one has as compared to what has been seen, and given that what has been seen has largely been designed to entice and excite, the spouse one has will tend to come up wanting.  It’s really an unfair contest.  It’s also a lie.  It is sin knocking loudly for entrance.  It is the invitation of the harlot.  Let me clarify that I do not suggest that every man or woman that strikes a pose, dresses so as to accentuate their beauty, or what have you is automatically a harlot.  I might ask what their purpose in doing so was otherwise, but for some it’s a living.  For some it’s perhaps a true desire to express what is truly beautiful, but exercised from the understanding of a fallen nature.  It is possible even for innocence to entice.  In the end, the sin is not necessarily in the one observed, however enticing the view.  It may be, but it is not necessarily so.  On the other hand, sin is ever in the viewer.  “I have made covenant with my eyes.  How could I look?”

In our day and age, one might well have to ask how one could ever hope not to look.  No matter what your task or your intention, odds are that images of finely formed men and women are going to be plastered across your field of vision.  Newscasters are, by and large, more fashion model than journalist anymore.  Likewise, many a meteorologist is chosen for eye appeal more than for knowledge.  Politics offers much the same.  Granted, there are plenty of pols who still seek to profit by their longevity in office rather than their looks, but looks certainly help when it’s time to vote, don’t they?

This is the society in which we dwell.  “Woe is me, for I sojourn in Meshech, for I dwell among the tents of Kedar!” (Ps 120:5).  Those place and people names may not mean much to us, but the sentiment is clear.  I’m stuck in a mass of godless sinners.  How am I supposed to manage peace with God?  Well, it may help to recognize yet again that it’s not like you’re an angel amidst the plague of demons.  You’re a sinner among sinners.  Perhaps it would be well to stop whining about them and start considering your own case.  Yes, the temptations are greater.  But then, so is the exercise obtained thereby.  “You have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood in your striving against sin” (Heb 12:4).  Chances are, you’ve barely broken a sweat, let alone sweating blood.

But we have to start!  We must improve!  True, but why?  If we seek to improve in order that we might be accepted by God, or in order to move God to action, how horribly wrong our motives!  Do we really think God a being to be bargained with?  Do we still so terribly undervalue the depths of His steadfast love for us?  This does not excuse us from effort.  Sanctification is hard work.  But it is hard work undertaken with the assurance that it is God Himself Who is at work in us both to will and to work (Php 2:12-13).

Sexual purity, which lies at the root of this commandment as its fundamental purpose, is not going to be achieved without significant effort.  At one level, we are told that marriage is established by God to give us an outlet for our sexuality which will not be construed as sinful.  It is, in fact, an exceptional gift of the Spirit, a grace given by God, and not necessarily for the duration of life, to live a celibate life without falling frequently into sexual sin.  It really oughtn’t to come as any great shock that so many a Roman Catholic priest has fallen to sin in this regard.  The demand for celibacy where the gift has not been given was bound to cause problems.  Far more shocking, I should think, are the failures of Protestant pastors in this regard, given that they have access to the valid outlet of sex within the confines of marriage.  But even there, were we honest, I suspect we would discover ourselves more sympathetic if we were to imagine ourselves in the same situation. 

Pastors are, by the necessity of their office, thrust into close, personal relationships with many a parishioner, becoming intimately aware of their sins and their needs.  Pastors are not without their own sins and needs, but parishioners tend, I think, to lose sight of that reality.  And so, there is risk.  The counseling duties of the pastorate make privacy and intimacy necessary.  The expression of compassionate care can easily be misinterpreted as something more.  The wise pastor makes every provision to ensure that no sinful urge can take root either in themselves or in those they counsel, yet our best precautions cannot ensure the desired end.

I circle around.  What are we to do?  Fundamentally, we are to rest wholly upon the finished work of Jesus Christ to establish our justification.  We are not to shortchange the value of our Father’s love for us by supposing it depends on our advancement in compliance to His Law.  Neither can we fall into the slothful view that this being the case, we can summarily dismiss His Law as no longer of any interest to us.  We don’t give into sin and just decide nothing matters anymore because God’s already got us covered.  Rather, we do our uttermost to abide by His Law in response to His love.

I would like to think that it is possible to enjoy the beauty of what He has created in our fellow human beings without falling into sexual temptation, but I’m not sure experience would bear that out.  Here’s something for us.  Within the bonds of marriage, think about what those bonds mean, what the represent.  Here is an opportunity to demonstrate before a watchful world just how devoted the Church is to her God.  Here is an opportunity to model in microcosm that fellowship which pertains in the Godhead.  This is an enormous honor!  Your fidelity to your marriage is in fact a witness to the fidelity of the Godhead.  Here is intimacy properly explored.  Here is what God has declared to be a one-flesh relationship – two very distinct personalities so closely united as to function as one.

This can be, I suppose can’t help but be shockingly difficult to achieve and maintain.  It is unimaginably difficult where one has faith and the other does not.  Yet we are called to persist even in such a setting so far as it depends on us.  Marriage is that important to God.  But I have to say it is also painfully difficult where both have faith but differ as to beliefs within that faith.  Here, I would say, is a reflection of the challenges of Church life generally.  It is the basis for denominations, I think, that a marriage with such radical differences in worldview can be a trial.  Indeed, such radical differences in worldview render it all but impossible to function as one, according to God’s intentions.  If one is pulled in this direction, and the other in that, harmony is effectively impossible, as is any real progress in either direction, or any direction for all that.  I fall back upon the advice Jesus gave His disciples when they learned that the rich were at such great risk when it comes to entering the kingdom of God.  “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” (Mt 19:26).  It’s the same in this situation, I should think.  I don’t say with God it’s going to be easy-peasy.  But with God it’s possible.  The one-flesh relationship can survive the strains, and the individuals grow.  Far better, though, to be of like faith.  That said, there is a certain sharpening to be had where views differ.

7) Sanctity of Property

[10/04/20]

This commandment could readily be viewed as a continuation of the previous, for what is adultery but the theft of someone’s spouse?  In fairness it could be suggested that the last five commandments are all variations on the theme set in the first of them:  “You shall not murder.”  If you are to support your neighbor’s life, you shall not steal your neighbor’s wife.  Nor, as it extends here, shall you steal at all (Ex 20:15).

Bearing in mind the that these commandments tend to state by the worst case what is meant in the general case, how shall we extend this one?  You shall not do anything that would improperly reduce the possessions of your neighbor, bearing in mind that your neighbor includes every man in its scope.  It’s more than just treatment of those nearby, or those we might account as friends.  It’s everybody you encounter, and as we saw previously, if memory serves, that most assuredly includes those you may account enemies.

So, what is it to steal?  At base, it is a taking of what is not properly your own and acting as if it were.  That includes physical property, certainly.  Thou shalt not move borders, or become squatter on another’s land.  What must that say of the habits of the willfully homeless?  It’s easy enough to feel compassion for their plight, and I should think in many cases, it’s even right to do so.  But in many other cases, the lifestyle is a function of choice, not circumstance. 

I think of that man at the well of Bethesda whom Jesus encountered (Jn 5:2-14).  On the surface, he looked much like any other unfortunate gathered in that place hoping against hope that perhaps they might be healed by the rumored powers of that place.  But this one?  He had been some thirty-eight years in his condition, and Jesus’ first reaction to him is interesting.  “Do you wish to get well?” As usual, Jesus probes right to the heart of the issue.  This is not simply Jesus making a sales pitch for healing or some such.  I suspect the emphasis was more on the word wish than on well.  The man’s response somewhat confirms the assessment.  It’s an excuse, a deflection of responsibility onto society at large, if you will.  Nobody comes to move me to the water, so somebody else always beats me to the healing.  But Jesus heals him anyway – which would seem rather an argument against the idea that lack of faith somehow prevents Jesus from acting because He cannot function in a faith-free environment.  There’s a vast difference between cannot and will not!

But note also that having been healed, and having been questioned as to who it was did this to him (because it was done on the Sabbath), Jesus looks him up at temple later and gives him a bit of a warning.  “Behold, you have become well; do not sin anymore, so that nothing worse may befall you” (Jn 5:14).  How does this recipient of extreme welfare react?  He shoots straight to the authorities to act the informant (Jn 5:15)!  That’s not gratitude you’re seeing!  That’s offense.  It’s offense at being given that warning which was, in fact, a rather accurate diagnosis.  It’s offense as well, one suspects, at having been stripped of his excuse for idleness.

In sum, it would seem his initial issue was largely a violation of “You shall not steal.”  So, too, was his greater sin at the end.  Look, there are plenty of folks who are legitimately destitute and would gladly pursue any avenue offered to escape that condition, and such as they ought surely to have our glad assistance in light of this same commandment.  Remember that the negative implies its positive counterpart.  You shall seek your fellow man’s prospering.  To aid the poor is indeed a matter dear to our Lord’s heart.  You see, in the letter of the Jerusalem Council to those in Antioch, that nothing has changed there.  But one cannot aid them by abetting them.  One aids them by giving them a leg up, not a hand out.  One must also have discerning wisdom to recognize those that are stealing a living by choice from those who are cast into a condition they would gladly be done with.

So, then:  You shall not steal encompasses every taking of what is not rightly yours to take.  It covers property and material goods.  It also covers matters of reputation and honor, as is developed further in the next commandment.  For false-witness is theft, depriving a man of his true esteem, and quite possibly of his liberty as well.  There is a reason our laws take libel so seriously, and here is its basis.

Let’s look at the obverse of the coin a bit further, though.  Thou shalt promote prospering.  I think that would capture it well.  I will not say prosperity in this regard, for that too readily slips into the mindset of the corrupt prosperity gospel, and ‘best life now’ thinking.  That’s not the point at all.  Your neighbor’s prospering may come about, as suggested above, by teaching them or providing them the means to earn their way once more.  We hear of such things often enough.  I think of the account in the news last week of a younger man who had been traveling distances in his car, mower within, to do a service to the elderly who could not mow their own lawns, giving them his services free of charge.  This in itself is already an exercise in keeping with the commandment before us.  But the time comes when such efforts have led to the accumulation of a few too many miles on the vehicle and it must needs be replaced.  So, this gentleman finds himself at the local dealership to seek that replacement.  But word got out, apparently, or perhaps he had told the tale of his efforts by way of explaining the high mileage on his current vehicle.  At any rate, the dealership gave him the car gratis.  I think this likewise reflects the nature of this commandment.  Were they promoting his prospering?  Yes, I think they were, but not merely the prospering that comes of possessing some relatively expensive personal property.  No, they were promoting his prospering by helping him to continue his own pursuit of this commandment by his actions.

I think one could come to view the whole matter of charity as a pursuit of the positive side of this commandment; it’s a promoting of prospering, of promoting the well-being of our fellow man.  So, too, could evangelism come under this heading, for what shall prosper the man more than the saving of his soul?  What more could be done for him that would improve upon granting him to hear the good news, the Gospel?  Come what may in the circumstances in this life, here is access to life eternal, to life worthy of being called living.

You know, that’s a popular sentiment these days, isn’t it?  That we ought to cut through the junk of working a regular job just to make ends meet, or whatever, and go enjoy a life worth living.  Oh!  Why work when one could just book a ticket, pack a backpack, and travel the world for a year or two?  Surely there will be those along the way who will grace us with a meal here and there, or lend us a hand should things get tight for one reason or another.  But live your best life now!  There it is again, but without the pseudo-Christian trappings.  And with that, one sees, that indeed, that’s all the prosperity gospel turns out to be:  Modern, self-centered, pleasure-focused sentiment painted with a thing coat of religiosity to lend it some undeserved credence.  I have to say that this, in turn, seems to be a violation of the very commandment we are looking at, for it does in fact steal.  It steals from the life-giving property of the true Gospel, and in so doing, it steals from the glory of our Lord God, who offers a Gospel far superior to the tripe on offer in the prosperity gospel, with its wholly earthbound focus.

Do you want to live a life worth living?  Well, step one:  Come to Christ should He call.  Step two:  Give out of yourself to promote such a worthwhile life in each one you have cause to be around day to day.  Seek to never detract from the well-being of spouse, of co-worker, of merchant, of civil servant, of rich or poor.  Better still, seek actively ways in which you can promote their prospering.  Fair dealings in matters of business and commerce contribute here.  Lending a hand when momentary needs or setbacks transpire would count.  A positive word, where appropriate, would do no harm, would it?  Perhaps, instead of subtly deriding your coworkers in hopes of looking better by comparison, a well-earned recognition of their skillful contributions would serve as compliance to this commandment.  I don’t suggest flattery, which is sin.  But to remind the boss of another’s job well done?  That is valid and in keeping with the sense of this ordinance of law.

8) Sanctity of Truth

[10/05/20]

Here we arrive at an extension of sorts to the prior command:  “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Ex 20:16).  And again, I would insist neighbor is near to universal in its extent.  I say ‘near to’ because it is clear from Scripture that there are occasions where a false witness is not only acceptable but even commendable.  Think, for example, of Rahab, who spoke falsely in regard to the presence of Joshua and company in her house.  This certainly was not true witness, but it was an approved dissembling insomuch as it was in service of the promotion of life, or perhaps simply because it was in support of God’s purpose in Israel.  I would not wish to test the limits of the exception but the simple point is made, that there are rare occasions when false witness is a function of protecting the righteous, and therefore acceptable.

Let us turn, though, to the greater point:  Witness truly.  This, too, is a support of life, a refusal to steal your neighbor’s reputation by slanderous accusation.  One can readily devise all manner of reasons why one might do so; whether sheer spite, or possibility of profiting by another’s misfortune, or eliminating the competition.  But it could also be fear for one’s own wellbeing, fear of reprisals for not supporting the claims of the powerful against the powerless.

In that light, and given some of the current trends in our present-day society, I would suggest that, along the lines of properly managing forgiveness, the proper upholding of this commandment must include ourselves as neighbor to ourselves.  That is to say, the pressure to bear false witness to yourself, to confess to crimes you have in no wise committed, or otherwise denigrate your own good name under threat of duress must be rejected as thoroughly as any urge to falsely accuse your fellow man of the same charges.  This whole trend of late that requires the employed Caucasian male to confess to crimes of racism or sexism or what have you, regardless of the validity of those charges is precisely the point where obedience to this commandment must mean we refuse such confession.

Let me also suggest that in the setting of the ancient Church, to confess Caesar as some sort of deity would violate not only the first commandment in setting other gods before God, but also this commandment, for this, too, is false witness.  My point here is that false witness cuts both ways.  We tend to think of it in its habit of tearing down and defaming.  But it has an equal application in flattery and boosterism.  Here, I could suggest our societal tendency toward participation awards for everybody falls foul of the commandment before us.  That may well be a heavily contributing factor to the issues we see unfolding around us.  A generation that has always been told they were better than they really were, more worthy than they really were, is unlikely to take criticism well nor to heed the corrective pressure of outside influences.  Such an upbringing is bound to bring about a heightened and nigh to unassailable sense of privilege.  If you’ve always been told how wonderful you are, even when you’re barely making an effort, what possible motive will you have to make an effort?

So, what’s the positive side of this commandment?  Let me turn to Paul, as I so often do.  “Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.  Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law” (Ro 13:7-8).  Tellingly, Paul immediately turns to this second table of the Law as example of his point.  If you love your neighbor, you won’t transgress these rules.  But observe:  Fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.  Fear, in this case, is not some form of fight or flight instinct kicking in.  It’s more along the lines that fear applies in our relation to God:  It’s a matter of, let us not say reverence, for that will get us off on the wrong foot, but perhaps veneration would be acceptable.  It’s recognition, something quite near to honor, but perhaps just a bit different.  In fairness, the two terms are so close-coupled as to be nearly inseparable.  I’m not sure you could properly honor one whom you would not venerate, not in honestly at any rate.  Nor, I should hope, would you venerate one who is not honorable.

But uphold the honor of your fellow man.  Look, however far fallen they may be, this much remains:  They bear the image of God.  We may also be able to recall to mind that there was a time when we were every bit as fallen as they.  Yet, God called us.  God changed us.  God adopted us as sons.  Consider the reminder to Corinth, and see that it applies just as readily to you and me.  “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?  Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.  And such were some of you!  But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God” (1Co 6:9-11).  Don’t get all hoity-toity.  You were right there with them.  Recall your past enough to have compassion upon those for whom your past remains their present.  Revile not, but pray.  Honor them with your godly desire that they, too, might be discovered amongst the people called by Christ, and justified in His name.

Here, perhaps, is our balance point.  Do not bear false witness:  Don’t hide the sin and pretend it’s okay.  It’s not, as Paul has just made abundantly clear.  But, at the same time, don’t withhold hope, as if their sins somehow put them beyond possibility of redemption.  There is, as John, and the author of Hebrews make plain enough, a point beyond which redemption is in fact no longer possible, but the sorts of sins we’re looking at in our fellow man rarely if ever rise to that level.  If they did, I rather suspect God would not urge us to seek their salvation of Him.  “There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this” (1Jn 5:16b).  We may have question as to just what it was John had in mind as the dividing line beyond which prayer for restoration is no longer appropriate, but that there is a line is clear.  “For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries.  Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.  How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?” (Heb 10:26-29).

Notice, in the midst of that:  The Law of Moses is still present.  “Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.”  While it is true that Jesus, having died an innocent death on the cursed cross, has removed the curse of the Law from us, yet the commandment remains extent.  The rules haven’t changed.  God hasn’t changed.  We are still answerable to the covenant.  It’s just that we have been given an answer in Christ.

But pursuant to this present commandment, you can see just how serious a matter false witness becomes.  On the testimony of two or three witnesses, the man may be put to death for ostensible violations of the Law.  Consider.  That’s exactly what happened in the case of our Lord Jesus.  Those witnesses were false, and highly contradictory, yet the false priesthood contrived from that thin pseudo-evidence sufficient cause to call for the death of God.  That’s something, I think, that should concern us to the core of our being.  For we are every bit as capable of just so great a treachery, if we’re honest with ourselves.  We are every bit as willing to connive and violate every rule of conscience if it seems to us that we can manage it without consequence.

Look.  If Caiaphas and company had felt any threat of retribution, they would not have acted.  That’s clear enough by their approach to the arrest of Jesus in the first place.  Don’t take Him while He’s right there in public, preaching.  He’s too popular, and the crowd might turn on us.  Take Him in private, by night.  Wait to punish Him until we can turn public opinion against Him.  Wait until the risk of retribution for our treachery is done away.  Then, we can act with impunity.

This is the poison of power, and it shows perhaps first in this propensity to bend the truth to our purpose.  I’ll speak truly so long as there’s no harm to myself.  I’ll also lie with abandon if that seems necessary to preserving my hide.  That is, sadly, human nature.  It requires divine nature, the indwelling Spirit of a perfectly holy God, to bring us to a point where we will witness truly whatever the cost to ourselves.

I suppose I must address the propensity to take this mindset to such extreme as to become unbearable and offensive.  We may think of it as a form of unfiltered speech.  We all know people like this:  People who will blurt out whatever bit of noise the random synapses firing in their heads may produce.  They will speak their mind, whatever it is that comes to mind.  And they will, quite possibly, defend the rather hurtful results as merely being the truth.  If they are fellow Christians, they will quite likely toss in, ‘the truth will set you free,’ (Jn 8:32) as an attempt to lend biblical support to their rudeness.  But somehow, that fails to take note of the counterpoint:  Love covers a multitude of sins (1Pe 4:8).  If anybody knew the power of that statement, I suppose Peter would.  He had sinned greatly in denying his Lord in that darkest hour, and not once, but repeatedly – and that, having been forewarned.  But pride had kept him from recognizing his weakness.  Yet, how does our rejected Lord respond to this?  For He assuredly knew.  He had foretold it.  He had watched the whole thing unfolding, even from the midst of His own trial.  How did He respond?  Did He bring this to the attention of Peter’s fellow Apostles when once more they were gathered?  No.  Did He call for Peter’s punishment, or turn him out of the nascent Church for his failure?  No.  Rather, He made personal effort to reconcile, all the while never so much as bringing up the offense.

I shall take a side trip into the topic of forgiveness here.  I already have, I suppose, but let’s see it in our own practice.  Many feel the need to go confront the offender in the course of forgiving them, and there may be occasions where this is truly needful.  But I suspect the need there is less to do with the offender than with the offended, and it has less to do with forgiveness than with vengeance.  Oh, it sounds so polite and loving to have gone to your offender and made known to him that you have forgiven him.  But I observe this in practice:  As often as not, your offender had no clue there had even been an offense, and frankly, the nature of the offense is often a matter of perception on the part of the offended, and has no real basis in the facts of the event.  But now he has made known his feeling of offense, and made show of his forgiveness.  I find that in such behavior there is great risk of simply causing new offense.  It comes back to false witness.  The claimed offender, having had no intention of causing offense, now stands falsely accused.  To accept forgiveness in this case is rather like that earlier example of the calls to stand and proclaim your guilt of racism when you have done no racist act.  How is this making anything right?

Let us now consider the one who knows he’s wronged you and is in fact repentant of that deed.  This brings us nearer the case of Peter and Jesus.  We see from Peter’s demeaner that he is only too aware of the enormity of his actions.  He knew it the moment the deed was done, and it was tearing him up.  By God’s grace, unlike Judas, this sense of guilt did not drive him to self-destruction.  But neither could he just brush it off as if the presence of clearly living Jesus made everything all right.  Jesus saw the need for restoration here.  His approach, as I noted, did not say one word about the offense.  He didn’t need to.  Let me suggest to you that where the offense is real and the repentance is real, we have no need to make mention of it, either.  The guilty party knows their guilt, and feels it all to well.  What they need to know is restoration.  They don’t need pious pronouncements of, “I forgive you.”  Jesus never said this to Peter.  He did something far more wonderful.  He made it clear that fellowship was intact, that Peter still had a place in His heart and His kingdom, and a significant part, at that.

Look at the course of that conversation.   Peter, do you love Me?  That’s as near to touching on that sin as it ever got, and it wasn’t by way of rebuke.  It was by way of allowing Peter’s own confession of the truth as to his relationship to Jesus, to counteract the condemning voice of guilt.  And to this Jesus adds affirmation.  “Feed My sheep.”  Peter, you are still Mine.  That hasn’t changed.  You have much to do, and condemning yourself won’t leave you energy to do it.  Look at that!  The whole matter of forgiveness has been pursued majestically without ever once mentioning either offense or forgiveness of offense. 

There’s something for us to put into practice!  Forgiveness has far more to do with your heart attitude towards the one who caused offense than with any words that may pass between you.  Forgiveness can be achieved without so much as a word spoken, because it’s not about the words.  It’s about the heart.  By the same token, bold pronouncements of forgiveness may in fact be a thin veil over a heart of unforgiveness.  I’m saying this because I know I should, but in truth, I’m not feeling it at all.  I don’t in fact forgive you at all, but I want you to feel your shame and see my piety.  I don’t know that this is even a conscious understanding to the one who acts so, but I do think it is, as often as not, the underlying reality of events.  And again, it becomes violation of this commandment, for in claiming to have forgiven when you in fact have not, you bear false witness against your neighbor.

It’s difficult, this commandment, isn’t it?

9) Sanctity of Contentment

[10/06/20]

Finally, we arrive at the capstone of the second table.  “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor” (Ex 20:17).  This is a root that leads to those things which have previously been disallowed.  It is coveting that leads to adultery, as thought ever precedes action.  It is coveting that leads to theft, and to destroying one’s neighbor in order to lay hold of his goods.

It is coveting, as well, that speaks in the mindset of, “I deserve.”  It may be what we used to term keeping up with the Jones’.  It may be the childish complaint that, “it’s not fair.”  How come he gets these things and all I get is this meager lot?  Here’s the thing.  Coveting at base denies the providence of God.  If God is your Provider, and James is correct that, “Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation, or shifting shadow” (Jas 1:17), then what He has determined you ought to have as your lot is the best thing for you.  What He has determined as the lot for your neighbor is, frankly, between Him and your neighbor.

It is tempting to limit coveting to matters of physical blessing, whether that be wealth, companionship, health, or what have you.  Certainly, coveting tends to keep us rooted in worldly concerns.  But I don’t think we can rightly say that coveting is limited to this realm.  We can be guilty of spiritual coveting as well.  This comes of comparing ourselves to other believers and competing as to gifts.  See the Corinthian church, for example.  We’re not here to compete with one another, to prove our spiritual prowess.  Indeed, in the instruction to the Church, we find the positive counterpoint to this negative commandment.  I’ll take the summation for the whole point here.  “Let all things be done for edification” (1Co 14:26b).  This comes in the discussion or proper use of gifts, and really defines their proper use.  It also defines our proper attitude towards our fellow believer, and indeed, our fellow man in general.

Can you imagine with me a world in which this was truly the operative guidance in every relationship?  “Let all things be done for edification.”  In every arena of life, in every relationship, in every interaction, from simplest conversation to most complex business deal, from exchanges over the fence to mediation between nations, be done with this one goal in mind:  To build the other party up.  What must such a world be like?  Every individual is outwardly focused, looking for opportunity to promote and improve the welfare of those with whom he deals.  Every nation looks to see the peace and security of its neighbors increased.

Taking it into the realm of the Church, every denomination seeks to see such other denominations as can still be called churches growing in their own faith.  Every individual believer is looking to see his fellow believer increase in faith and knowledge, arriving at fullness of wisdom.  Every believer is looking to his unbelieving neighbors with an eye to the harvest, seeking to establish such relationship with his neighbors as will permit of bringing the gospel to their attention.  Every believer is seeking every opportunity to address this most critical matter of their neighbor’s welfare, in hope that the whole world might indeed be brought to faith in Christ.

If we are consumed with covetousness, this evangelistic mindset will not be our guide.  We will be too concerned for our own welfare and contentment to be bothered much what happens to those around us.  We will be satisfied with boasting of our piousness, and leave the lost to perish as they will.  This is, sadly, a very real danger.  It’s so much easier to remain concerned with personal piety, and let the world run its course.  I’ve got my ticket out of here, and God being sovereign, let Him look to the rest.  That’s a mindset often attributed to those who accept the doctrine of predestination, and it is certainly a risk when this underlines our perception of God’s work.  But, then, this sovereign God Who predestines has also given us the commandment to go forth and multiply, to make disciples of all nations, to do everything for edification.  If He has commanded action, then whatever we may understand as to how that action shall come to fruition, we may not shirk our part in the effort.  If it is no longer I that liveth, but Christ Who liveth in me (Gal 2:20a), then surely, He has right of command over what is done with this life.  Surely, if He is Lord, when He says go, we don’t argue about efficacy, nor complain about the difficulty.  We go.  If He says speak, we speak.  If He says pray, we pray.

I say all this, and I know that at least for my own part, this is an ideal to which I have nowhere near attained.  I covet too much this present life, and my personal comfort and ease, to be properly attentive to what my Lord is saying to do.  This, more than anything else, is cause for repentance.  This is the root sin of covetousness in me.  I want, I want, I want.  I’ve been long enough waiting, serving other needs and not my own desires.  And so, I grow possessive, insensitive, unwilling to be bothered.  This must be corrected.  I don’t believe this is some unique failing in me.  It is the common ailment of the Church today, that we have become, for all our attentiveness to sound doctrine, become very self-centered in practice.

[10/07/20]

There is another counterpoint to this commandment – not such as would question the validity of the commandment, but such as provides us a positive by which to heed the negative.  That counterpoint I have in mind is contentment.  Paul expresses the idea most beautifully.  “I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity; in any and every circumstance I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance and suffering need.  I can do all things through Him to strengthens me” (Php 4:12-13).  This is a lesson I fear we have need of learning repeatedly.  Our contentment is often a most swiftly passing thing.  That is all the more the case in our consumerist culture.  But the culture is not, in this case, our issue.  The issue is how we respond.

Look at that message closely.  There is nothing said against the idea of prosperity.  There is no particular holiness assigned to poverty nor sinfulness to prosperity.  They aren’t the point.  The point is in the first few words.  “I know how to get along.”   God strengthens me.  I can do all things.  There is something in Paul’s expression of this great truth that captivates.  He speaks of a secret, and that secret, he says, is knowing how to be filled and go hungry, to have abundance while suffering need.  You see, he is not, as I read it, simply saying that he can deal with either extreme in the strength of God, although that is contained within his capacity.  But rather, it seems to me he is indicating that he holds both of these extremes in tension within himself regardless of outward circumstance.  If circumstance is a season of little, and huger is the natural response, he knows how to be filled even in that circumstance.  If circumstance is a season of plenty when every need and desire is able to be satisfied, he knows how to maintain a hunger.

The great danger of wealth is that it becomes one’s master.  It becomes the goal instead of a tool towards pursuing one’s goals.  The same, in a way, can be said of poverty.  Rather than being recognized as a circumstance to be learned from for a season, it becomes one’s goal or one’s lot.  It may seem a bit much to speak of poverty as becoming a goal, but there are assuredly those, even in the historical Church, who have seen it as a goal.  Think of those monkish orders that have taken vows of poverty.  It reflects something of a misunderstanding, I think, of Jesus’ point regarding the difficulties of wealth.  But it does not somehow prompt a greater holiness, or reflect such.

Outside the Church, I think one can readily find those who have made poverty a goal, and it has become particularly the case in a society that is willing to do so much to support the apparently downtrodden.  It can be observed that the decades old war on poverty has done little more than to increase the numbers of those willing to live in poverty because it requires so little of them.  Why work if you can be paid for idleness?  Why put in the effort when income can be made effortlessly?  But then, the lack of contentment in that setting is as much an issue as for the wealthy.  It leads to criminality and all manner of abuses of one’s fellow man.

Again, it may seem strange to suggest the wealthy know not contentment, yet it is quite often the case that this is so.  It may show up in little ways, such as an acquisitive nature, always seeking to increase one’s holdings and never really stopping to enjoy them.  It may show up in more insidious ways, as a propensity for taking advantage of others, particularly those in one’s employ.  But that’s not contentment, and that’s hardly a satisfaction of this commandment or any other.  If the commandment against covetousness insists that we ought to seek the prospering of our fellow man, then a reasonable wage for services rendered is only proper.  That doesn’t require that we demand a minimum wage that far exceeds the value of those services, but it does require just terms of employment, and just treatment of the employed.  It also requires just effort by the employee.  Funny how that turns out to be a two-way street.

But contentment.  Does this mean we simply accept our fate?  We are born into our lot in life, and we had best simply accept that?  Are those born into poverty doomed to remain poor?  The clear answer to these questions is a resounding no.  That is not, I have to immediately stress, permit for rebellion or violent opposition to circumstance.  It is, however, clear permission to avail oneself of every legitimate opportunity to improve one’s circumstances.  Paul did not advise those who were slaves in Roman culture to take to uprisings and throw off the manacles of their suppression.  But neither did he advise them to just accept that this was all that God had for them in this life.  If opportunity comes to become free, take it!  “Were you called while a slave?  Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that.  For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord’s freedman; likewise he who was called while free is Christ’s slave.  You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men” (1Co 7:21-22).

We may need to unpack that just a bit.  First off, there is a key element to Paul’s message here.  There are no second-class citizens in heaven.  The slave is no less a Christian for his situation, nor is he of less worth in the kingdom.  It’s not an issue should he remain so, but if the opportunity comes to be free, by all means take it!  As to that instruction at the end not to become slaves of men, that of course assumes one has some say in the matter.  This should inform our understanding of slavery as we see it in Scripture.  It is not always the involuntary subjugation known in the degrading practices of slavery as practices in earlier centuries in our country, and still practiced to sadly shocking degree in other nations to this day.  It could be a voluntary arrangement, a way of making ends meet during times of particular duress.  In earliest days of the settling of America, it might take the form of indentured servitude – a willingness to act the slave or servant for a season as a means of repaying the cost of transport to this new land of opportunity.

We can find plentiful modern-day equivalents, which we no longer speak of as slavery but which amount to the same thing.  Consider those business models that subsist on unpaid internships.  There is a sort of promise in that practice that your efforts as an intern will eventually lead to an honest job, but I don’t know that it’s a promise one can count on in every case.  Apprenticeships are similar, although I think a bit more reliable in that they are periods of training in a skill one can take away from the exercise regardless of the master craftsman’s preferences.  But one could as readily posit that every form of employment is a form of slavery after this model.  We sell a portion of our lives to be controlled by another.  That, however, is probably trying to push the analogy a bit too hard.

What I want to see in that message from Paul is this:  “Do not become slaves of men” speaks to a voluntary dispensing with liberty, a willing putting oneself under the control of potentially, even likely unscrupulous, irreligious masters.  In the society of that time, it would not be unusual to find oneself enslaved simply because one had been on the losing side of one war or another.  In such cases, it’s not like you had any say in the disposition of your person.  You’re not in any position to refuse, really, except as a sort of suicidal pursuit.  But in that case, to go into slavery is not violating Paul’s instruction.  It is a circumstance.  Seek freedom if opportunity affords, but in the meantime, serve Christ, and do so by serving your master.  It’s another curious tension.

I had thought perhaps to comment on the matter of Onesimus in this regard, for it does demonstrate Paul’s own handling of matters of slavery, which are, we might say, nuanced, but in a truly lovely fashion.  But I think I have probably pursued this line of thought far enough as it connects to the matter of covetousness and contentment.  Let us leave it here:  Whatever God’s Providence has found best suited to your development in this season of life, pursue it with vigor and with righteousness.  Whatever it is you do, do it as unto the Lord.  If opportunity comes to improve your lot, and that opportunity does not require sinful means, by all means pursue it!  God is not against you having joy in this life.  He is concerned that you not become mastered by this life; that you not lose sight of where your true treasure is.  That is the great danger of wealth, but it is also the great danger of poverty.  Both can tend to drag our eyes and our thoughts earthward.  Both can be overcome in the strength of our God, in Whom we can do all things, and do all things well.  We can rest amidst our labors knowing that He has us well in hand.  “I have been young, and now I am old; yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken, or his descendants begging bread” (Ps 37:25).  No, and you never shall see the righteous forsaken.  Is this some assurance of wealth?  No.  It is a promise of provision. 

The Jews in the Wilderness of Sin could hardly be accounted wealthy.  Granted, they had gold and such carried away from Egypt, but gold is only valuable where there can be trade.  I was reminded, this week, of an old adage of the hippies back in the day to the effect that dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope.  It’s a darned stupid sentiment, really, but a similar point could be made in regard to that gold in the desert.  Food will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no food.  Wealth is of no value when the means of life are absent, and where the means of life are abundant, wealth is of no consequence.  God provides.  What want could you possibly suffer in light of that?  “He who believes in Me shall live even if he dies” (Jn 11:25b).  That’s going to be hard to beat so far as provision is concerned.  Be content.  Covet not.  God is giving you what is best for you, and should it turn out that something more would be good for you, that, too, will come.  It’s not that you become passive and wait for things to fall out of the sky.  But it tempers your efforts, it tunes your pursuits; that you may pursue them in holiness, knowing that what you do, you do in God and for God.  Therein lies great satisfaction.