Category: Theology

All-Sufficient Portion

Christian, remember who you are:

O Christians! God is an all-sufficient portion: his power is all-sufficient to protect you; his wisdom is all-sufficient to direct you; his mercy is all-sufficient to pardon you; his goodness is all-sufficient to provide for you; his word is all-sufficient to support you and strengthen you; and his grace is all-sufficient to adorn you and enrich you; and his Spirit is all-sufficient to lead you ad comfort you; and what can you desire more?

— Thomas Brooks, An Ark for All God’s Noahs: In a Gloomy Stormy Day

Apologetics: Anatomy of Attack

Originally published on August 15, 2021, but in the interest of the sodomy being celebrated this month, I’m republishing this again. 

UPDATE: I replaced the words “gay” and “lesbian” with the word sodomites, because to use the language of these sinners, is to deny the reality of their sin, thereby suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18ff). Yes, using the word Sodomy is offensive. But the act they perform upon each other, and cover it up with the word “gay” is far more offensive to the living and true God,  than my use of the word “sodomite.” My goal is the edification of God’s people, and more importantly, to do that which honors God. If God calls something an abomination in His word, we need to do likewise. To cover it up, and make it “acceptable” is to make us guilty of the lie. For similar thoughts, read the following article about Doug Wilson. The author addresses this issue because Wilson point out the wickedness of two feminists a few years ago and called them what they justly deserved to be called. The article is here.

It all started with the simple meme on the first day of Pride Month. I figured since our country is set on celebrating something that God calls abominable, that I would respond with some truth. There were plenty of memes floating about, but it was the one below which drew some heat.

A 22-year-old woman, a member of my family, responded by saying such memes were an abuse of Scripture, and that in using it in such a manner was not Christlike.  I asked her in what way?

Thankfully, she took the conversation to messenger and I tried to reason with her. I would like to walk through that conversation with you. Not to attack her, but to show how her arguments are false. My hope for her, is that she would repent of her views, and actually trust the Christ found in Scripture, not in her own mind (which we will see.) My other hope is that my readers would understand the attack the church is under, and that we can trust what Scripture has said concerning these issues.

To begin with, let me remind you that what the Bible says about human sexuality has not changed in 6,000 years, because God does not change. He has told us that marriage is between one man and one woman. He has told us that there are only two sexes, male and female. He has told us that any other combination is an abomination to Him. And this is what many fail to see in the argument. It is not what I think, or believe, but what is honoring to the Triune and Holy God. What is honoring to God, is what He has given us in His word. What He has given us in His word is to be our first and foremost concern.

Those who oppose biblical sexuality do so based on their belief that there is some new knowledge that has finally come to light which invalidates the orthodox position held for 6,000 years. Our opponents have been doing this for a long time. The battle doesn’t change, just the way they plan to attack God’s word. But in the end, our opponents have only come to the age-old method of sowing seeds of doubt used by the serpent some 6,000 years ago: “Has God indeed said…”

Now, the point of the meme is simple: it doesn’t matter what status you have at birth,  rather real or imagined, you still must be born again to see the Kingdom of God (John 3). “You must be born again,” are the words of Christ. His words are for all who desire to be a part of His kingdom. Without this new birth, one is perishing and will perish.  There is a present reality of judgment on those who are not. God’s wrath is not just displayed at the coming judgment, but rests on all those who reject Christ. This demarcation between believers and unbelievers  is a clear line drawn by Christ. Repent and be saved, or perish. That is biblical.

So the use of the verse is quite appropriate given that many people believe Sodomites are born that way. It doesn’t matter if they are or they are not born that way, they still must repent of being “that way” and turn to Christ for salvation.

Now that you have the setting of the conversation, let’s look at it. Here is what the young woman writes:

When the Bible is put into a historical context and subsequently translated correctly, ALL of the verses commonly used to condemn homosexuality are actually speaking on pederasty and other forms of sexual ABUSE, that is sex without consent or sex that includes a power imbalance. Mistakes in translation become clear when thousands of people are ending their lives because of it. The Bible is obviously a very powerful book, and when it is misused, it will quite literally kill people. Your repetitive posts on homosexuality indicate to me that you either struggle with accepting your own sexuality or you enjoy judging and condemning others for things outside of their control, which is not under any circumstances Christ-like.

Notice, she starts out by presenting herself as the expert on biblical translation, and her premise is that that Bible hasn’t been translated properly for 2,000 years. She makes the assumption, that she fails to prove, that the translators have failed to put the Bible into the historical context. This shows she has never bothered to read a commentary on any of the books of the Bible. If you spend any time at all, and time dealing with the language itself, you can’t help but see the historical context of a passage.

Faithful pastors and translators are continually looking to understand the historical context, for in doing so, we get a deeper understanding of what the text is saying. Yet, we never come to the conclusion, as she has done, that this changes the clear teachings of Scripture.

She write: “ALL of the verses commonly used to condemn homosexuality are actually speaking on pederasty and other forms of sexual ABUSE, that is sex without consent or sex that includes a power imbalance.”

This is her bringing what she wants to the Bible, and not speaking to the historical context, for in saying this, she had imposed her 21st Century Woke views upon the text. In other words, one in power has taken advantage of a weaker and powerless victim (which is exactly how gays add to their numbers today. They are continually looking to groom their victims and persuade them to follow them in their debauchery. But those who support that community will never admit it.) Sodomy is always abusive, it is always one in power exerting will over another. It is all about power.

However, the verses she is referring to do not speak to a power imbalance. We see in Romans 1, that those who are given over to their vile passions, by God, do so willingly. There is no mention of power imbalances.

Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burning in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due (Romans 1:27).

Please note the “one another” part of the verse. There is no reference to power imbalance in the text. The same is true in the Old Testament as well.

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination (Leviticus 18:22).

Again, no reference here to power imbalances. Both text are absolute prohibitions against Sodomite relationships all together, whether they be couched in the false use of the word “love” or out-and-out abuse. They are all condemned.

She also goes on to make the case that the “mistakes in translation” become clear because thousands of people are ending their lives because of what Scripture says. In fact, she writes, this is what makes it clear that it’s mistranslated. I don’t know this, but I imagine the reasoning goes something like this: “God loves everyone unconditionally (He doesn’t), therefore, if something in His word is leading people to kill themselves, then it must be the translators fault, because God wouldn’t want anyone to kill themselves.” But that is just a guess.

Her next attack is an attempt to gaslight me. She is saying the reason I’m opposed to Sodomy is that I either struggle with it myself, or I love sitting in judgment of others.

This is a red herring. She wants me to state one way or another my personal preference. Of course, she knows I won’t say that I am, I’m only going to deny that I am, therefore she might respond: see, that proves that you are.

Let us move on to her next paragraph.

I don’t mean any disrespect by my message; apologies for the harsh words. These posts are just very harmful to a community of people that I know and love dearly. Religious trauma is a very real thing, and it can be detrimental to children’s and teens development. I know you’re a pastor, and I’m sure your statements are impactful to so many people. I just hope you can understand where I’m coming from.

Here, she actually shows some kindness. She realizes that she has been harsh in her response. But she excuses her apologies by continuing the lie that the text of Scripture, being used as Christ used them, is religious trauma.

In other words, declaring the truth of Scripture, as Christ did, and Paul, and Peter, and Stephen did, would be considered religious trauma. She is not only sitting in judgment of me, God’s people, but also Christ Himself. Remember, He called out Herod as fox, and the Pharisees as white-washed tombs, as well as a “brood of vipers,” (meaning they were the spawn of Satan).

Here was my response to her:

Thank you for your kind words. I’ve been thinking off and on about how to respond to your post. Just a couple of thoughts: a lot of people hold to the ‘mistranslation theory’ that you put forth, but textually, they don’t stand up. You noted the use of the word ALL concerning the verses dealing directly with homosexuality, and none of them are dealing with men taking advantage of boys. That could have been Paul’s focus had he wanted it to be, since Rome and Greece were saturated with the practice of men having sex with young boys during Paul’s day. But he doesn’t. He deals with men who have sex with men, in Romans 1:25-27, and 1 Corinthians 6:9 and following. He even creates a word “arsenokoitas” that is taken from the Greek translation of the OT, in Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, which means “a man who lies with a man, as one lies with a woman.” Serious scholars admit, even those who do not believe the Bible, that this is homosexual behavior between two grown men. My second concern is the one you stated, the friends (and family?) you know and love who are gay. That is a truth that hits all of us and my hopes and prayers are that those that I know who have fallen into such sinful lifestyles, would repent and embrace Christ for salvation and deliverance. That is the most loving thing we can do, is point them to Christ. This is why my original post was and is so important. It was Jesus who told us that we must be born again, and He never pulls punches when it comes to our sins. To those who held onto their sins, He proclaimed: “Woe to you scribes and Pharisees.” That was a pronouncement of doom. He even called them a “brood of vipers,” which means, sons of the serpent. He was serious about the need for repentance to the point that He said if your eye causes you to sin, cut it out. Sin destroys. Finally, and this really involves you. Out of respect for you, it was quite alarming that you said the very words of Christ, when applied to those who are flaunting their sin, was crap.

And I added:

Those words, “you must be born again,” are some of the most precious words in Scripture. Our LORD said them. He was telling us what we needed to be saved. He was not being discriminatory, but declaring to the world that everyone, including our gay family and friends, must be born again. This means we become new creations. We don’t remain what we are, but grow and mature spiritually to become more like Christ. This doesn’t happen when we identify ourselves as a particular type of sinner, and then try to claim Christ. That is having two masters, also what He condemned. This, again, is what the LGBTQ community is trying to do. They are identifying themselves with their sin, and demanding not equal rights, but exalted rights. Jesus will have none of it. We are to come to Him as a child, hands open, clinging to nothing but Him for salvation. The LGBTQ community wants nothing to do with this Christ. My hope is, that Christ will show them mercy, as He has shown me, and I hope you, and they will see the futility of their lives, repent, and turn to Him. I hope you understand.

In her final response, she played her hand. She declared that the Jesus I presented from Scripture was not who she thought Jesus to be. This is a sin that permeates the church, as well as the secular world. We don’t get to determine who Christ is. We can only declare who He is according to the word of God. If our feelings or thoughts enter the picture, we immediately begin to break the First Commandment, in having a god besides the true God of Scripture.

In other words, to portray the Triune God falsely is to break the first portion of the Law.

There are plenty of scholarly theories out there, some more rooted in cultural context than others, but my point in all of this is that my God given gift of discernment told me to listen to the people over here, because the folks over there are ripping families apart and ruining lives. That’s just not what God looks like to me.

You can also see that someone has put it in her head that she has “God given gift of discernment.” She is pulling the “authority card.” This gift of hers “told her” to listen to the people over here (instead of God’s word). The simple test of any such gift or utterance: is what being said in agreement with Scripture, or outside the bounds of Scripture? If what she says agrees with Scripture, then we can agree that she is right (and we really don’t need her utterances because we have God’s word). If what she says disagrees with Scripture, we reject her on that basis. Either way, her utterances are unnecessary and her gifting is false.

At this point, I told her that there was no more point in continuing the conversation since she was following a different god all together, and not the Triune God of Scripture. I let her have the last word: she declined, other than to block me.

Grace Covenant Presbyterian

The main reason Heidi and I have been traveling to Nacogdoches, TX lately, has been to attend Grace Covenant Presbyterian Church. You might think it odd that we would drive almost 3 hours one way to attend worship. But the need to worship God is worked into all of us, and the need to worship in excellence is a real privilege.  We are willing to make the drive every few weeks to worship.

Holy, Holy, Holy

The communion table with the Latin for “holy, holy, holy.”  Both in Isaiah 6 and Revelation 5, we see the angels before the LORD saying “holy, holy, holy,” about the LORD almighty. When we say as much in worship, we are joining the worship that is already taking place before the throne of God.

A Proper Pulpit

It is proper, because the pastor has to step up into the pulpit to preach. Many wrongly assume that such pulpits exalt the man above the people. This is not the purpose of a raised pulpit. The raised pulpit exalts the word of God over all, including the pastor. Even he has to step up to the word in order to preach it, reminding him that he is in that pulpit by God’s grace alone.

All photos are copyright © Timothy J. Hammons, 2022.

Merry Christmas Eve!

Merry Christmas Eve! For some people, this is a day of panic because they are given to the materialistic spirit of the age. Let me encourage you not to give into the spirit of the age. Nothing about the incarnation demands we spend money for gifts we probably don’t need, or cannot afford.

Please realize that Christmas is about the giving of gifts, but not gifts we give. It is about God’s gift to us in the incarnation of Jesus Christ. The Second Person of the Trinity became man. He laid aside His glory and became a babe in a manger.

To help, ponder the words of the incarnation by Samuel Rutherford:

  1. O! What a depth it is! God and dust married together!
  2. Lovely in the womb, the Ancient of Days became young for me.
  3. It was not for nothing that our Brother Jesus was an infant.
  4. His Father laid the cross on His back, and He carried it thirty-three years, and never gave it a shake to put it off.

He came to save. Salvation belongs to the LORD! We are given hope in Him. Let us repent of our sins, trusting in Him. He is a perfect Savior, the ultimate gift. Merry Christmas Eve!

And now, some joyful photos via my daughter, Jessica.

All photos are copyright © Timothy J. Hammons, 2021. 

In Defense of Blogging: In Defense of the Faith

Originally posted in July 2011, but still quite applicable for today.

In the past year or so, I have been really challenged as to why I write on the topics that I do.

The challenge by some has been: since you are a pastor, then you should only write about the gospel and the things of God. I lost a friend on Facebook because of this very argument. He was saying that since I write about politics, science, culture, sports and a host of other topics, that I am damaging the gospel of Christ.

Part of his charge is that since I’m not an expert in all these areas, I should remain silent on them and let the experts talk to us about them. His big argument was for man-made global warming. My argument against this was rooted right where his argument should have been: in the authoritative word of God.

My friend thought that since the experts have declared man-made global warming to be true, then anything that I wrote on the topic was just my own opinion. Never mind that God’s word has said that “while the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, and day and night, shall not cease” (Genesis 8:22). No matter what the experts may tell us, God has declared to us that there is no eternal summer or eternal winter before us. As Christians we must hold to God’s authoritative word even when it contradicts popular culture or science.

Far too many Christians are like my friend, thinking that our faith and views of the world should never mix. This is a major problem in the church. We want to think that we can separate our beliefs when it comes to salvation from those that we have about the world. I believe the terminology is to “compartmentalize” our faith.

However Scripture doesn’t allow for this. The Apostle Paul, writing for Christ, tells us in 2 Corinthians 10:4-6 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, 5 casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, 6 and being ready to punish all disobedience when your obedience is fulfilled. Every high thought that stand’s opposed to God’s word is to be cast down by those of us who are Christians, even when those high thoughts are put forth by scientist.

This is one of the reasons why I write as a pastor. As Christians our faith is to encompass every avenue of life, not just what we do on Sunday morning. We are to look at what the world is saying and compare that to Scripture. Where is agrees with Scripture, we can agree. But where it disagrees, we must say so. Even though we may not be scientists or experts in other areas of life, if the word of God declares something to be so, then we can trust it to be so.

I imagine that my friend, and many like him, have actually given over their beliefs of Genesis 1-11 to the secular experts. Many of the battles we are facing in culture are because the foundations of Scripture have been ripped away from the church. The moment that those in the church started giving into scientists on the age of the earth, the other doctrines found in those 11 chapters began to fall as well.

This is because the church doesn’t really believe in the authority of Scripture as much as we do the authority of the scientist. Instead of casting down every argument that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, we have tried to find ways in which we can compromise our beliefs in order to be acceptable to the scientist and the world. The moment we do this is the moment that we compromise the authority of Scripture.

If we are punting on the foundations of Scripture, then every other area of life will eventually fall as well. This is one reason the church is so weak in arguments against such as gay-marriage. If the Bible is not true concerning the days of creation, then how can it be true concerning God’s plan for marriage (even though Christ affirmed this plan in Matthew 19, and indirectly affirmed the rest of Genesis as well).

My friend would never concede on these issues. He felt is was necessary for the church to be silent on all things except faith. In other words, punt what Scripture says about creation and just believe in Jesus. He was failing to understand what I have just pointed out. We cannot punt on one area of Scripture and trust in another. It all stands or falls together.

This is why secularist have been so busy attacking it just as Satan did in the garden (another area that we shouldn’t believe according to some, after all, we are saying we believe that there were ‘talking snakes.’) They are saying “Did God really say…” We must answer this in the affirmative. God really did say and because His word is living and breathing, He is still saying it today through the 66 books of the Bible.

We must press forward declaring these truths even though the world declares us to be foolish. What is foolish to the world is the wisdom of God and this is why I write. Not only does the Bible address what we believe about creation, but also politics, work, money, sexuality, marriage and all areas of life. I write so that those who know the Lord and are known by Him will remember these truths and come back to the One who knows best of all. The arguments for science and the world continue and so should the pastors of Christ, both in and out of the pulpits. This may not be politically correct. But then God’s word never endorses such a man-made philosophy. Politically correctness must also be judged according to Scripture.

One final note. I will admit that my writing has cost me more than friendship. One search committee for a church in Kansas rejected me based on my writings. They said I was “too political.” OK, I accept that. I take comfort in knowing that such churches would have also rejected pastors during the Reformation, who spoke out against kings and popes. They would have also been opposed to pastors who spoke out during the Revolution of our country, and even those who spoke out against the slavery of fellow men, both in our country and in the United Kingdom.

If they are not willing for a pastor to be political, then can they truly allow one to speak against the heinous sins of our day, such as gay marriage, abortion, adultery, etc. I pity the man they do hire, and the congregation he is leading, for he is already being censored. As pastors, we must not be censored by our congregations or petty laws like the 501 3c tax code. Our job is to speak the truth, write the truth, declare the truth to all who will listen.

That is why I write with the view to cast down every argument that stands opposed to the knowledge of God and His word.

Wednesday Word: The Fault of Utopians

We must realize that the current trend in politics and culture is to bring about a Utopian world, often called the one-world government, or the great reset. A Utopia is essentially man’s desire to bring about heaven on earth without God. The Utopians want to believe that they are the gods of the world, and if everyone would just listen to them, fall into line, they would bring about peace and harmony in the world.

It’s been tried. Hitler tried it. Stalin tried it. The Chinese are trying their version of it. The Democrats, elites of our country, and the useful idiots in Christendom are also trying it now. But it will fail for two reasons. The first is that utopian dreams are fostered on us by sinful, fallen mankind.

Joseph Boot points this out in his monumental book, The Mission of God: A Manifesto of Hope for Society.

Men’s Utopias, the man-created and man-planned societies of the future, are always a dystopian nightmare because man is a fallen sinner in rebellion against God (Romans 5:10-21). Fallen man is in constant denial of this reality, and hates to accept that he is a creature, and a broken one at that… His demonic urge and evil desire is transparently the one seen in Genesis 3:5 ‘to be as God’ and his motive is to force the usurpation of the divine attributes, which being falsified in the hands of sinful man, produces not a paradise, but a hell on earth (p. 185).

Dystopian nightmares are the reality of Utopian dreams. Fallen sinful nature works against those who have “good intentions,” but fail to take into account that they are attempting to accomplish something well out of reach.

Even within the education system, which they are always attempting to control, they fail to produce the automatons that will make their society perfect, because of the sin nature that works in the students. The students may be in full agreement with their Utopian overlords. But they rebel against the Utopian authority, since this is really all they have been trained to do since birth. The society implodes upon itself because of sin nature.

For years, the culture has been trying to throw off God’s law, seeking to become autonomous (without law), or a law unto themselves. But under the Utopian scheme, there is a law, man’s law. The goal is to make all those in the Utopia the same, conforming to the image of the leaders of the Utopia. For Hitler that meant the quest for the perfect race of humans, white, blond hair, blue eyes, Aryan. Never mind that Hitler didn’t fit the description. First commandment of the Utopian laws is: laws for thee, not for ME.

The second reason that Utopian dreams fail is because there is a God in heaven who laughs at their rebellion.

Why do the nations rage,
And the people plot a vain thing?

The kings of the earth set themselves,
And the rulers take counsel together,
Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying,

“Let us break Their bonds in pieces

And cast away Their cords from us.”

He who sits in the heavens shall laugh;

The Lord shall hold them in derision.

Then He shall speak to them in His wrath,

And distress them in His deep displeasure.

The Utopian fails to see that his own sinfulness gets in the way of the his Utopian dreams, and also fails to see that there is a God in heaven who stands in the way of the Utopian outcomes.

God stands in the way of the Utopians dreams because He has another plan and Kingdom that will come about. That centers on Christ. He is the risen Savior, and ascended King. In the account of His ascension to the throne in Acts 1, He was placed on the throne over all creation to rule (see Daniel 9>>>). And He will continue to rule until all His enemies have been made His footstool. We see this is Psalm 110:

The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at My right hand,
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”
2 The Lord shall send the rod of Your strength out of Zion.
Rule in the midst of Your enemies!

This shows that Christ’s enemies will be defeated and that He will not return until they are defeated, as confirmed in 1 Corinthians 15:25.

But Psalm 110 also shows what the King who rules will do to His enemies.

The Lord is at Your right hand;
He shall [a]execute kings in the day of His wrath.
6 He shall judge among the nations,
He shall fill the places with dead bodies,
He shall [b]execute the heads of many countries.
7 He shall drink of the brook by the wayside;
Therefore He shall lift up the head.

 

There is no place in our understanding for Christ to be a meek, mild, feeble King. He is reigning over the leaders of the latest Utopian plans with a rod of judgment as they try to throw off His rule, which they do in so many way. How?

Through the destruction of the building blocks of society, such as the family, what it means to be male and female, what our education should be like, what our government should be like, and trying to exercise dominion over every aspect of our lives. This is actually domination, not exercising dominion. To take dominion over the earth, which is commanded by the LORD and to be carried out under the guidance of His word, is commanded for mankind. Domination is trying to carry out the command apart from God and over our fellow man.

I share this to show that the Utopians are truly the enemies of God. They have thrown off His commandments, His peace, His unity, His love, His wisdom, and all the other benefits we have in turning to our LORD to learn how we should live. Therefore God give them over to their depraved minds, which brings about more depravity to the point that the Utopians will turn against themselves and destroy one another.

OUR RESPONSE

How then should the Christian respond to those trying to bring forth Utopian disorders?

By being faithful where we have been place. We are to continue with the dominion mandate by seeking to bring order to all the spheres of control we have been given. We are also to continue with the Great Commission, seeking to make disciples for Christ and letting His word work in their lives.

This is the most effective way to combat those who throw off God’s Law for our lives and the life and health of the country. We are to trust in Him to do what He has said He would do.

We are not to give up and believe as the Dispys* believe that the world is beyond saving. It is not. It is part of the New Heavens and the New Earth, and we are to be faithful to counter the Utopians, through preaching and standing for the truth, and fulfilling our marching orders. This is not an easy task. In fact, apart from God’s Spirit, it is impossible. But we are to be faithful.

They are His enemies and He will deal with them.

*As for my comment on the Dispys, or Dispensationalist, they are part of the problem of the advance of the Utopian order, for they see the world as too far gone to be saved. Joseph Boot refers to John Stott who points this out:

… Stott notes the popular spread of dispensationalism and pre-millennial eschatology schemes (over against the historic Puritan post-millennial view), through J.N. Darby and the Scofield Bible, which presented this world as beyond redemption, sinking into darkness until the coming of Christ and his literal millennial reign on earth. This led in many cases to an evangelical withdrawal from social and cultural engagement.

Dispys are also at the center of the autonomous movement. Just bring up the use of the Ten Commandments in the life of the believer, and they will scream “we are not under the law!” For justification purposes, yes. But not for sanctification purposes and for knowing then how we should live. Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not destroy it (Matthew 5:17-19).

We cannot withdraw. The Great Commission and Dominion Mandate have not been withdrawn. The Kingdom of Christ still expands and still grows. I know for now, it seems that the Utopians are winning the day. But Christ told us that the Father would prune the vine, casting the worthless branches into the fire, and causing the faithful branches to produce more fruit. He does so through the evils of those advancing Utopian dreams.

 

 

 

 

 

Wednesday Word: Preaching the Text, Without Preaching the Text

I heard another sermon on Ephesians 5:21-33 this past weekend. Once again, the pastor preaching the sermon did a wonderful job of avoiding the text wholeheartedly. Like many others, he started with a passage about biblical marriage, and talked about all kinds of things that make a good marriage, that are not found in the text itself.

He talked about unity, saying that in a good marriage, there must be unity. This is true. But the text says nothing about unity. Ephesians 4:1-6 deals with unity. Preach that text if you want to preach about unity.

He also talked about humility. Humility is necessary for a great marriage. This is also true. But the passage isn’t dealing with humility. Philippians 2:1-11 deals with humility. Preach that text if you want to preach about humility.

He also preached about pride. The text isn’t dealing with pride. Camp out in Proverbs if you want to preach on pride.

I admit that all three of these things are necessary for a good marriage, and are worth mentioning in a sermon about marriage. But again, by preaching about these things, the pastor avoided what the text actually says. What is really sad is that no one, as far as I could tell, noticed.

My goal in this post is that my readers will understand how easy it is to not preach the Bible, and to understand what to look for in a good sermon. Let’s look at the key verse to understanding the entire passage it applies to: Ephesians 5:21.

“Submitting (subjecting) to one another in the fear of God.”

This is the verse that sets the tone for 5:21 through 6:9. It is dealing with the hierarchy God has given us in the household, and how we are to submit to one another within that hierarchy. So far, I’ve mentioned two words that the pastor above didn’t mention. First, he used the word “subject” because that is what the NIV translators used, thereby avoiding the more accurate translation: “submit.” The translators assume that no one likes the word “submit.” They think it sounds too overbearing.

When translators do such things, they are letting their fear of man dictate their translation instead of the text. The dirty little secret is, those of us who are true believers want the text translated as closely to the full meaning of the Greek and Hebrew as possible. We want the truth, as hard as it may be, as confrontational as it is with our culture, and more importantly, with our sinful flesh. We don’t want it watered down, or softened for our delicate sensibilities because we know that the most loving thing that can happen in the life of a believer, and the church, is to hear the full counsel of God. It is God’s way of feeding us spiritually, correcting us, rebuking us, and loving us.

But men… fearing men… shy away from the truth, which is the reason for this post. I’m trying to show what it looks like when men who occupy Christ’s pulpits fear men more than they fear Him.

Second, the pastor avoided using the word “hierarchy,” even though the moment he used the word “subject,” instead of “submit,” he still implied hierarchy. You can’t remove either concept from the text. Submission, which is what the Greek word means in the original, implies that there is a hierarchy being dealt with, and within that hierarchy, one person has to align themselves under the headship of another. The term is actually a military term and was used for those entering into the ranks, who had to “submit” or align themselves under those of higher rank. Those of higher rank were their “heads.”

When the Apostle Paul, by the power and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, uses the term, he doesn’t leave it alone in verse 21. He explains what he means within the hierarchy of the household and tells us how we are to submit to “one another” in that hierarchy.

And THIS is what this pastor, and thousands like him, don’t want to touch, preach, mention or imply. They will use jokes, half-thought out illustrations, moral imperatives  and weak analogies to avoid speaking about what the text is actually saying because they believe that the women in their congregations don’t want to hear what it means to “submit to your own husbands, as to the LORD.” 

The sad truth is that there are plenty of godly women who want to hear what it means. They want to be affirmed in their understanding of the text. They want the reminder of knowing that when they are submitting to their husbands, they are doing so, “as to the LORD,” the LORD whom they love and want to faithfully serve every day.

By God’s grace, there are pastors who faithfully preach the text, but not many. Those who do, do so because they love the LORD and fear Him above all else. They also love what God’s word actually says. And, not least of all, they love their flock, and want to feed them on the truth so that they become conformed more to the image of Christ, and less like the world.

Back to Sunday’s sermon.

Most pastors like the one I heard this past weekend, if they say anything at all about submission, will say something like this: “the text says to submit to one another, so men, you should be submitting to your wives as well.”

No, it doesn’t. Paul is very clear about what he means. “Wives submit to your husband, as to the LORD (5:22). Children, obey your parents in the LORD, for this is right (6:1). Bondservants (slaves), be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ (6:5).”

Notice what Paul doesn’t say: husbands, submit to your wives. Parents, submit to your children. Masters, submit to your slaves. It’s remarkable that when you put verse 21 in context with the rest of what Paul is saying about submitting to one another, how absurd it is to assume husbands are to submit to their wives. Paul eliminates this possibility when he gives the reason wives are to submit to their husbands: for the husband is the head of the wife, as also Christ is the head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.

The head doesn’t submit to the body. The body submits to the head. Paul backs his argument by using Christ as an example. Christ is the head of the church. We submit to Christ. Christ doesn’t, hasn’t and will not submit to the church. That is not His place. His place is leading, shepherding, saving, and sanctifying the church while He submits to the Father’s will in all things.

I know that there are some who say that Christ submitted to the church when He was placed on trial and died on the cross. This is not true. He submitted to the authorities, rulers, powers and principalities of darkness, of which members of the church may have belonged to at the time. But He didn’t submit to the body. He died for His body, in order to redeemed His bride. But He doesn’t submit to her.

Christ being the head of the body (see Colossians), and the husband being the head of the wife, is called headship. See also 1 Corinthians 11:1-12, Numbers 30.

All of what I’m saying here are things the pastor should have been dealing with. He should have dealt with submission, and what it means for us and our marriages. He should have spent time expanding on this so that women would have understood what their duties are in marriage.

Please note: I’m purposefully not using the word “roles” for men and women in marriage. We have duties given to us by God in the Garden of Eden and expanded upon throughout the rest of Scripture. A role is something someone can step into or out of. A duty is something placed upon us that remains until the One who placed it there, removes that duty from us. (Heads up: He doesn’t remove it from us).

The pastor should have dealt with headship, and worked to show us that it is biblical, and men are to take on the duty they have been given by God, and lead their wives and families. He should have answered the hard questions of what it means to be submissive. But he didn’t. He gave a sappy sermon on love and romance instead.

I’m sure he would say that he was preaching the “application” of the text. This excuse is often used to avoid the text. Another dirty little secret: if you preach the text faithfully, there is immediate application. You don’t have to manipulate the text to make it applicable. It’s God’s word. By preaching the text faithfully, and getting out of the way, God uses it immediately, although imperceptibly, in the lives of those who hear it. That is how God’s word works. We don’t have to jump through hoops to make it applicable for today’s society. God’s word is always applicable.

I hope you can see the real point here: far too many are preaching subjects that can be derived from the text, but not preach the text itself. Hopefully, your pastor doesn’t do the same.

When Did John Write The Revelation?

“Once you see, it hard not to see it on every page.” 

Those are the words my wife uses when she describes how it was when she came to understand the Calvinist view of Scripture, especially the doctrine of election.  The same is also true when it comes to the postmillennial position of eschatology (the study of the end times.)

We’ve been listening to and reading a lot about The Revelation of Jesus Christ to the churches. Since my change in eschatological positions, as I’ve noted before, my level of understanding has exploded. I believe this is part of the confirmation of the position. Things that amillennialist have no real answer for, suddenly fit in the broader scope of Christ’s Kingdom and His rule and authority over both heaven and earth. In other words, His sovereignty, which we already agree is absolute in men’s salvation, is also absolute in history as well.

One of those changes that came about in my understanding of The Revelation is the dating of the book. For years, I like many others, had believed the book was penned by the Apostle John on the island of Patmos in 90 AD. This would put all that it says after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

The problem with this is that the dating of The Revelation comes from a spurious quote by Irenaeus which seems to indicate one of two things: first, as many claim, it means John wrote the book of Revelation in 90 AD instead of the earlier date, before 70 AD. Second, it simply means that John was still alive during Irenaeus’ lifetime. It’s not really clear.

“Had there been any need for his name (the Antichrist) to be openly announced at the present time, it would have been stated by the one who saw the actual revelation. For it was seen not a long time back, but almost in my own lifetime, at the end of Domitian’s reign.” (Against Heresies, 5.30.3)

Irenaeus is speaking about the number 666 and name of the Antichrist. While the text dealing with the number of the beast, (Revelation 13:17-18), do not mention the antichrist, Irenaeus, being premillennial in his position, clearly links the two.

He is saying that the identity of the Antichrist could have been revealed “by the one who saw the actual revelation. For it(he) was seen not a long time back, but almost in my own lifetime, at the end of Domitian’s reign.”

Just the context alone helps us see that the “it” in the quote could have been a “he,” which is grammatically possible. I believe Irenaeus is saying he saw John back during Domitian’s reign, and had it been important, John could have revealed who the Antichrist was at that point. He is not saying that the book itself was penned in 90 AD in Domitian’s reign.

You can read both the quote and the exposition of it here, by a young pastor, Joel Griffis. He shows not only the problem with the first view, but also goes on to show that Irenaeus refers to The Revelation as an ancient manuscript, meaning much older than a mere 25 to 30 years before when he saw John.

There are actually greater arguments against the late date of The Revelation, mainly Scripture itself, both Old Testament testimony and The Revelation itself.

In the Old Testament, the best place to support an early writing is found in Daniel 9:24

“Seventy [a]weeks are determined
For your people and for your holy city,
To finish the transgression,
[b]To make an end of sins,
To make reconciliation for iniquity,
To bring in everlasting righteousness,
To seal up vision and prophecy,
And to anoint [c]the Most Holy.

Now I know that this is a controversial section of Scripture and a difficult one as well. But if we let it speak, and not bring our pre-conceived notions and gap theories to it, it is much easier to understand. This verse is a loose outline of the rest of the prophecy given. But I’m not looking at verses 25-27, just this one.

The key phrase is “to seal up vision and prophecy.”  This often overlooked verse is telling us that by the time the 70 weeks are completed, vision and prophecy will be closed. This prophecy is telling us that the canon was closed by the end of the 70th week. This is one of many verses that show us that there is no revelation today. The period of new revelation came to a close with the destruction of the temple.  To say John penned the book afterward, based on one piece of external evidence, is most unwise, since our guiding principle of understanding Scripture is always to let Scripture interpret Scripture.

I understand that Dispensationalist never have a problem letting external evidence influence their beliefs and thinking. They do it all the time when the look to world events to determine the Second Coming and make their vain attempts to determine the time of the “rapture,” even though Jesus said that no one knows the time and date.

We are not to follow suit. We are to let the Scripture determine our understandings of life and the world, not the world to determine our understanding in Scripture.

When did John write the book of Revelation? The internal data indicates that it was before the destruction of Jerusalem. There is even evidence of this in the book itself, but I will deal with this later, at least I hope to.

 

Apocalyptic Writing

Now that I have given it some thought, I think the above quote would be better if instead of saying a “behind-the-scenes” look, it said “a view from God’s perspective,” or from a “heavenly perspective.”

This is all coming about through our recent study of The Revelation of Jesus Christ. We know that the Apostle John penned the book, but it is truly a Revelation from Christ, to the people who were undergoing The Tribulation. Yes, I said that correctly.

I say this because this is what John wrote in chapter 1. He was a fellow partaker in “the tribulation.” To try and water this down, so that it means “general tribulation,” does an injustice to the text. We always ask ourselves: “what does the text say?”

It does us no good to ask that, and then say, “it doesn’t say that.”

 

 

 

Coming on the Clouds: Eye-Opening Moment

 

Heidi and I were listening to a sermon by Paul Viggiano of Branch of Hope OPC out in California when he led us to one of those ah-ha moments in Scripture. He has been preaching through The Revelation and we have been having quite a few of those moments. Me, more so, than Heidi, since Heidi sat under his ministry for 10 years before she and I met.

It has, in fact, taken a while for me to come to the optimistic eschatology that Pastor Viggiano and Heidi share. It really happened during the first Covid lockdown when I read through Kenneth Gentry’s book, He Shall Have Dominion.

The optimistic view of eschatology is based on Psalm 110:1, and other passages, (see Genesis 12:3, Psalms 22:27, 27:8, 67:7, Isaiah 11:9, John 3:17, John 12:32, Romans 4:13, and Galatians 3:8 for a few more).

The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at My right hand,
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”

This is the most quoted verse in the New Testament, and rightly so. It is speaking of Christ’s rule and reign over all things. Verse 1, when quoted in the New Testament, is actually a synecdoche (a part for the whole) that the writers in the New Testament would do in order to reference the entirety of a text. In other words, the writers expect their readers to know the context of the verse being quoted. This is why knowing the Old Testament is so important. It was the Bible for the writers of the New Testament.

The point of quoting Psalm 110 is showing Christ’s present reign on earth, and in heaven (why He tells us to pray the LORD’s prayer...)

Christ will continue to reign until the Father has made Christ’s enemies His footstool. The footstool is a metaphor for being defeated. In other words, His enemies will be defeated before He returns.

Examples of Psalm 110:1

When Peter used Psalm 110:1 in his sermon on the day of Pentecost, it led the Jews who heard, to repent. They knew, and didn’t have to have it explained to them, that Psalm 110:1 was about the Messiah and His reign over all things. They experienced a mass ah-ha moment as they realized that they were directly responsible for the death of their Messiah (as we all are spiritually speaking.) I can’t help but think there were some there on the Day of Pentecost who were shouting “Crucify Him! Crucify Him!, some 53 days prior.

Paul refers to it in describing the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15, showing that Jesus is reigning now, and will not return until the Father has put all His enemies under His feet. Paul tells us this.

Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet.

Verse 24 tells us the end must come, and verst 25 stresses that Christ is reigning now, and indicates that He won’t come until He has put all enemies under His feet. Then Paul follows that with: The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.

It’s with this understanding that optimists build their eschatology, and it is based on the natural reading of Scripture. Of the four main views of eschatology, this view does the least amount of damage to the text, and seeks to take the natural reading in context.

In this view, Jesus doesn’t come back to put His enemies under His feet, finally get to rule for 1,000 years, and then have to put His enemies under His feet all over again. He is ruling now with all authority in heaven and on earth, just as He said He was (Matthew 28:18-20). When He returns, His enemies will already be placed under His feet.

And His Kingdom is growing, just as He said it was, like a mustard tree, growing slowly until it covers the earth. Just like the leaven in the bread, slowly working, undetected, thoroughly and completely, until the job is done.

Before I go any further, two things have to be understood: first that there are many “comings of Christ” and second, when we hear Jesus say that He is coming on the clouds He means that He is coming to judge one nation using another nation. His hearers were familiar with this type of language, known as de-creation language, and understood His meaning from the Old Testament texts that used the same imagery.

Whenever you hear of the mountains melting, stars falling, moon turning blood red, the sun being darkened, this is de-creation language. It does not mean the end of the space/time continuum, but judgment upon a specific nation by the YHWH/Christ. (See Isaiah 13:10, Isaiah 34, Joel 2:28-32, Amos 8:9, and Ezekiel 32:7-8 for a sampling.)

The Comings of Christ

It is important to understand that Christ comes in many different ways, not just in the Second Coming. Once you can see this, you will not make the mistake of labeling every coming of Christ seen in Scripture as the Second Coming.

First, He comes spiritually to every believer in the Holy Spirit.

And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another [a]Helper, that He may abide with you forever—17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you (John 14:16-18).

He comes to us when we believe. We are now united with Him through the Spirit’s work in salvation. For those who believe, Christ has come to us.

Secondly, Christ comes spiritually to the believer in fellowship.

Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me (Revelation 3:20).

This is in the context of Christ rebuking the church, the people of God. It is not an evangelistic passage, but meant for believers who are off track and in need of repentance. Notice what He says is conditional. If any hears His voice—to hear His voice we need to be obedient to His word, and by doing so, He comes in to us, and dines with us. I take this meal to be that of communion and in corporate worship (which is one of the many reasons why corporate worship is essential). We are with Him spiritually, and He is feeding us by faith through the preaching of God’s word, prayer, and the sacraments of Baptism and the LORD’s Supper.

Third, His metaphorical comings. This is His coming providentially in history bringing judgment at different periods of time. We see this in Isaiah 19:1.

The burden against Egypt.

Behold, the Lord rides on a swift cloud,
And will come into Egypt;
The idols of Egypt will totter at His presence,
And the heart of Egypt will melt in its midst (Isaiah 19:1).

We also see this in Psalm 18:10-12, where He is surrounded in clouds, which passed with hailstones and coals of fire, indicating judgment. Also Psalm 104:3…He makes the clouds His chariot, also indicating judgment. And the more well-known passage Matthew 26:64

Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Most will agree, that when this language is used, it is used in judgment. The passages with Christ (YHWH) in the clouds always indicate God’s judgment on one nation, by using another nation to bring it about.

This is no less true for Christ’s words in Matthew 26:64.

Now we are getting into hotly debated territory, which is over the timing of this prophecy.

In the verse above, Jesus is being questioned by the high priest Caiaphas, who asks Him if He is the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus answers in the affirmative, and declares to Caiaphas that he will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power (Psalm 110:1), and coming on the clouds of heaven.

We like to debate what this “coming on the clouds of heaven” means. But there was no debating with Caiaphas. He knew exactly what Jesus was saying, which was two things.

First, Jesus was telling Caiaphas that He was the Messiah, and equating Himself with God.

Secondly, that Jesus, as the Messiah, would bring judgment on Caiaphas and the Jewish nation, just as He did on Egypt, Assyria, and other nations during the Old Covenant period. This too points to His deity, because only God can bring judgment.

We know Jesus was clear in what He was saying by Caiaphas’ reaction:

“He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy!”

The point is that Jesus would come on the clouds before Caiaphas and the rest of the Jews died, in that generation, since this is the very generation He said would experience God’s judgment.

Which Generation?

What I’ve just alluded to is that Jesus would come on the clouds to Caiaphas and the rest of the Jewish nation, which means He will bring judgment upon them. But we don’t have to infer this. He says so directly in the Olivet Discourse found in Matthew 24.  In telling His disciples of the coming of the Son of Man on the clouds of heaven (bringing judgment), and warning them to look for the signs, Jesus tells them generally when those things will occur.

Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place (Matthew 24:34).

Jesus is telling the disciples it will happen in their lifetime. He is being specific, using the near demonstrative this to make the point. Had He wanted to indicate any other generation, He could have used the far demonstrative, that. A natural reading cannot lead us to any other conclusion about which generation He is speaking about.

When Jesus tells Caiaphas, the high priest, of His coming on the clouds, He is speaking directly to the representative head of that generation. He is telling Caiaphas He is going to bring judgment by one nation, the Romans, over and against the Jews for their covenantal unfaithfulness.

This coming on the clouds in judgment was accomplished in 70 A.D. and is not the Second Coming.

Christ’s Exaltation Coming

At this point, what I’m trying to make clear is that Jesus has many types of comings, the most famous is the Second Coming. But there is one more “coming” that we have not discussed. And this is where my ah-ha, eye-opening moment came. It actually revolves around His ascension as recorded by Luke in Acts  1:9

Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.

Now this is where we have a use of the term “cloud” that is not referring to judgment.

Here is the key exaltation passage which comes in the Old Testament through the prophet Daniel:

“I was watching in the night visions,
And behold, One like the Son of Man,
Coming with the clouds of heaven!
He came to the Ancient of Days,
And they brought Him near before Him.
14 Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom,
That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion,
Which shall not pass away,
And His kingdom the one
Which shall not be destroyed (Daniel 7:13-14). 

Immediately, the futurist will say that this passage is pointing to the Second Coming. But it isn’t. The natural reading is that He is coming to the Ancient of Days. He is not departing the Ancient of Days. He is coming to the Ancient of Days to receive power, honor, glory, and dominion over all the earth.

Ephesians 1:20-21 shows us that He has power now.

…which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all principality[a] and [b]power and [c]might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age (the Old Covenant and the New Covenant) but also in that which is to come…

If the futurist were correct, Jesus would be leaving the Ancient of Days, descending to earth for the final judgment, and the destruction of death.

According to 1 Corinthians 15:24, see above, when He comes the last time, in the Second Coming, He gives it all back to the Father. So it doesn’t make sense that Daniel is speaking of the Second Coming since it shows Him going to the Father, receiving the power, and ruling from heaven.

Now for the moment that caught me by surprise. Pastor Viggiano humbly made it clear, that what we are seeing in Daniel 7:13-14 is the the opposite side of the clouds from what the disciples were seeing in Acts 1:9.

The two passages are recording the same event from two different perspectives. The view from Acts is man’s view of the ascension, the view in Daniel 7 is God’s perspective of Christ’s ascension and exaltation. It is the same event.  I had never seen that before because my previous eschatological position was still imposing the Second Coming motif on Daniel 7:13-14, instead of allowing the passage to say what it was saying. With the new understanding of Scripture, taking the natural reading, I could see it. Ah-ha!

Once I saw it, I can’t unsee it.

As for my ah-ha moment, I’ve had quite a few of these since becoming an optimist in my my eschatology. For instance, while working on a recent sermon in 1 Corinthians 2:6-9, I kept seeing the phrase “this age.” Suddenly, that made sense. I realized the “this age” Paul is speaking of, is the end of the Old Covenant age that comes to a conclusion in 70 AD with the destruction of Jerusalem, particularly the temple. This is because God is bringing the Old Covenant, the worship, the priesthood, the sacrifice, to an end and removing it from mankind. He replaces it with a better Sacrifice, Christ, a better temple, the church, a better priesthood, the royal priesthood.

Paul, even in the Ephesian passage above points to this reality when he writes not only this age, but the age which is to come. He is assuring all his readers of what they know already because of Christ’s words in the Olivet Discourse, Jerusalem and the temple will be destroyed. That will be the end of “this age” and beginning of the the age which is to come. 

This is why those Christians in Corinth, and throughout the First Century church, needed to know that age was coming to an end. In fact, the entire book of Hebrews was written to those who were being tempted to go back to the Old Covenant worship. The writer is making it clear that there will be nothing to go back to.

But you get the idea. The flow of Scripture is much more cohesive with an optimist view. With this new understanding, I do have hope for Christ’s Kingdom. It will grow, until every knee bows, and every tongue confesses, that Jesus is LORD. …let God be true but every man a liar (Romans 3:4).

Unlike the pessimistic eschatologies, that let the doom and gloom of current events inform their hermeneutics and their eschatology, the eschatology of hope trusts in what Christ has said: “…I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18).

Indeed He will. Indeed He is. So let us fix our eyes upon Jesus, who is not only the author and finisher of our faith, but the King supreme ruling on earth now. Is the world in chaos? Yes, that is Christ’s judgment being poured out on the wickedness of the nations (see Isaiah 34, and all of Psalm 110).  Please note that there is always salvation accompanying His judgment. Since this is true, we are to continue faithfully proclaiming the kingdom, being obedient to His Word, and making disciples in the spheres of influence He has given us.

Leave the rest to our sovereign King.

This post, and the photos, are copyright © Timothy J. Hammons 2021.

Colonization: Good or Evil? Or Both?

I have been thinking of writing about colonization from a biblical perspective ever since I read the quote below in Andrew Roberts’ superb biography on Winston Church, Churchill: Walking with Destiny. More about that quote in a moment.

As I was perusing through FB, drinking my coffee on a refreshing Sunday morning, I came across the following meme and enjoyed some of the comments that followed, which prompted me to write this post.

(The meme reads: Christians feeling guilty for colonizing helpless pagan nations: Why do I fix everything I touch? It has a picture of Fix-it Felix from the movie Wreck-it Ralph).

Now, I know it is just a meme, not without flaws.

One of those flaws is that it posits the idea that Christians are the ones who colonized. Therefore colonization is often used as an attack on Christians, since Christians often used the expansion of a nation for missionary purposes. I think it’s worthy of pointing out that it was governments influenced by Christianity that were mostly colonizing in these conversation. However, not all expanding governments are influenced by Christianity that colonized.

In a sense, those nations were carrying out the dominion mandate found in Genesis 1:26. All men everywhere have been given this mandate by God when we were created.

Then God said, “Let us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” (Genesis 1:26)

This mandate was given to Adam when he was created by God, and given to us since we are Adam’s natural descendants. The problem is that shortly after Adam was placed in the Garden of Eden to tend and guard the garden, his wife, Eve, was deceived by the serpent and led to believe that she and Adam could become like God if they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The irony is that they were already made in God’s image. They were already like God in their knowledge, righteousness, and holiness. They already had all that they needed.

Yet, Adam, not being deceived, chose to believe the lie of Satan (who was the serpent), instead of trusting God for all things. They sinned. They were banished from the garden. Yet, the creation mandate remained. The image of God remained. What changed was that the image was now tainted with sin and mankind lost original knowledge, righteousness, and holiness.

How does this play into our article?

It plays into the subject because we are given the dominion mandate to subdue the earth, but we do so sinfully. Look back up at the command given above. It says we are to take dominion over all the creatures and the earth. It does not say we are to take dominion over one another.  Yet, in our sinfulness, this is exactly what happens.

Just look throughout history.

The Mongols, Japanese, Babylonians, Egyptians, Assyrians, Greeks, Romans, Spaniards, Aztecs, Germans under Hitler, the Soviet Union, and currently China are just some of the kingdoms that sought to fulfill the dominion mandate. Notice, these kingdoms did not know the God of the Bible (excluding Germany, although Hitler did not). It wasn’t like they were looking to Genesis 1 saying, “we need to take dominion as God has commanded us to do.” They didn’t have to. It’s a part of who we are as humans.

Our ability to carry out the creation mandate is warped by sin, but it’s still very much alive and well. The command, coupled with sin, manifests itself in the desire for power, authority, and riches. That is what we see in most nations when they expand. This is why we still have oppressive governments today. They seek to take dominion over our lives. In seeking control, they try to fulfill the command and establish their own knowledge, righteousness, and holiness. Unbeknown to them, they are carrying out the command, though sinfully, and trying to restore what was lost in the fall. This is what all false religions do, and these governments are false religions, or false gods, seeking to take God’s place in their own lives and the lives of their subjects.

So how are we to proceed?

Fortunately, the Triune God didn’t leave us to ourselves. After all, He has purposes for creation that most people are quite unaware of. He is actually establishing His Kingdom for His Son, Jesus Christ and rules over all other kingdoms. However, the Kingdom of God does not go forth via the physical sword, as the kingdoms of man do (think current-day Islam and their advancement through force). It goes forth through the proclamation of the gospel, which is the message of the Cross of Christ.

And, the gospel goes forth with the expansion of those kingdoms who are heavily influenced by God’s word, although not living up to the standards of Scripture. Only the Kingdom of God will meet those standards, through the ministry and work of Christ, the King.

One way to put it is,  worldly kingdoms advance their own causes through expansion, rightly or wrongly. God uses those means to take His message to the areas that are conquered or colonized. The gospel, being only partly present in the members of those colonizing kingdoms, still has a salt-like effect on those colonizing and those being colonized. While mankind’s kingdoms expand and fall, the Kingdom of God continues to grow. Christ, in His sovereign good pleasure, uses both expanding kingdoms and failing kingdoms to grow His Kingdom. His Kingdom grows almost imperceptibly, like Jesus illustrates for us in The Parable of the Leaven (Luke 13:20-21). The leaven works slowly, steadily, and will eventually work thoroughly.

We get a glimpse of the salt-effect working through the United Kingdom’s colonization of India, which brought both good and evil with it. This is where Andrew Roberts’ book on Winston Churchill comes on the scene. Roberts notes that when Churchill was in India, he couldn’t help but be pleased with all that the UK had brought to India since its colonization. What Churchill saw, were the fruits of Christianity, the good in the United Kingdom’s rule.

Roberts writes:

Today, of course, we know imperialism and colonialism to be evil and exploitative concepts, but Churchill’s first-hand experience of the British Raj did not strike him that way. He admired the way the British had brought internal peace for the first time in Indian history, as well as railways, vast irrigation projects, mass education, newspapers, the possibilities for extensive international trade, standardized units of exchange, bridges, roads, aqueducts, docks, universities, an uncorrupt legal system, medical advances, anti-famine coordination, the English language as the first national lingua franca, telegraphic communications and military protection from the Russian, French, Afghan, Afridi and other outside threats, while also abolishing ‘suttee’ (the practice of burning widows on funeral pyres), ‘thugee’ (the ritualized murder of travelers) and other abuses. For Churchill this was not the sinister and paternalist oppression that we now know it to have been.

The first time I read that quote, it angered me and set me off thinking about colonialism. As I mentioned above, both good and evil are advanced through colonialism. You can see that in the Roberts quote (and I wonder if Roberts was speaking tongue-in-cheek about colonization being completely evil).  What he doesn’t mention is that the gospel went forth to India as well, and Christ’s kingdom advanced. This is the greatest good that can come about through colonization, the advancement of the gospel and the redemption of the lost in those countries.

That brings us back to the dominion mandate again, which is still in play. Christ actually added to and clarified the mandate just before His ascension to the throne:

And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen. (Matthew 28:18-20).

This command shows we are to take dominion over the earth, not with the sword of war, but with God’s word and the gospel. This is the greater purpose of God, expanding His Kingdom until all His enemies and our enemies are made a footstool for Christ (Psalm 110). God is still working to expand His Kingdom, and does so through both the good and evil of the nations.

Let me be clear: this is Christ’s purpose as the Second Adam,  doing what the first Adam failed to do: take dominion over all the earth. As the gospel spreads, this is exactly what happens. The enemies of Christ are either converted, becoming children of God and members of the Kingdom, or they are condemned. Either way, they have been ultimately subdued under Christ.

Some might decry the fact that Christians are trying to advance Christianity over and against all other religions, and have an influence over all the earth.  It’s true. We are. Some would accuse us of thinking Christianity is far superior to all other religions, both secular and spiritual. It’s true, we do. We do so with good reason. Our King did what no other religious leader, thought guru or political despot ever did: died on the cross and was risen up from the grave, dealing with man’s greatest problem: sin and death.

Colonizing/conquering is going to continue until every nation, every tribe, every king, is finally subdued or destroyed by Christ Himself. He does this through the gospel, which brings life to those called, and condemnation to those who are not. The point is that the influence of Christ’s reign will continue to expand over the earth until every knee will bow, and tongue will confess that Jesus is LORD.

All photos are copyright © Timothy J. Hammons 2021. 

As for Roberts’ book, I highly recommend it.

 

Longsuffering

And the Lord passed before him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children to the third and the fourth generation.” — Exodus 34:6-7

Struggling with disappointment and depression is not rare among the people of God. We forget the God we worship. We forget the God who redeemed us. We forget His attributes, and confuse our lowly, sinful attributes with His.

This is why it is so important to remember His attributes. He is longsuffering to mankind in general. Justice is served upon the wicked, but it is slow in coming because God is merciful. Just think of the sinfulness in our own hearts. If He were swift and quick, our days would be short and we would never know the grace of old age. But He does’t give us what we deserve. We deserve that swift justice. Yet, He waits.

Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? — Romans 2:4

Had He been quick in His justice, I would never have known His mercy. Yet, He is patient with me and all those who belong to Him. His mercy is new every morning, especially to those who know Him through His Son. We have been shown His special mercy in bringing us to our need of salvation through Jesus Christ.

The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. — 2 Peter 3:9

The problem arises when we forget His mercy and misery of this life crashes in upon us. We begin to doubt His goodness. We forget what He did in redeeming us. We forget His longsuffering with us, and get angry with Him when we have to actually suffer for but a little while. How is this possible? Are we so ungrateful toward our LORD, toward Christ, who ultimately suffered the greatest injustice on our behalf, that we fail to wait on the LORD to deliver us from our suffering?

Sadly, that is often the case, at least it is for me. We need the reminders that in the midst of suffering, God’s goodness has not changed. In our trials, His mercy is still abundant. When we face ailments of all sorts, He is still longsuffering with us.

Wilhelmus á Brakel reminds us of our need to be careful.

And believers, how you do injustice towards the LORD when you view Him as cruel, merciless, pitiless, and always angry, because He neither immediately delivers you from your threatening and pressing circumstances, nor grants you your desire, nor answers your prayers. You dishonor God with such thoughts. You imagine things about God that are unbecoming of Him. Humble yourself for entertaining such sinful and God-dishonoring conceptions. Refrain yourself from and be fearful of such thoughts. How detrimental it is to you when you dwell upon such thoughts…

Please conduct yourself no longer thus, but condition yourself to view God always in such a fashion as we have described Him to be on the basis of His word (The Christian’s Reasonable Service, Volume 1, The Essence of God, p. 126-127)

Remember His goodness. Remember that His Son suffered on our behalf, so that we could be redeemed from the ultimate price for sin and death. There is no crown of Christ, without the cross of Christ. In this life, we will suffer, but in Christ, we have the hope of glory.

 

Actually written August 13, 2019. I changed the date that it was published to protect the innocent.

Organized Religion

From Christopher Neiswonger:

This morning in the sermon we’re going over the dreaded “organized religion”! and why as much as people might shy from the pitfalls of the organized church, the worse thing is ‘disorganized religion’ – where people get hurt, chaos reigns, bad people have the opportunity to do harm, and there is no probability that the message and manner of Jesus will be meaningfully preserved.

Like it or not, the Church is a thing, ordained by God, led by Christ, and upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles. It already has a form, content and character. What people are usually reacting to when they fear or disdain the church is that the churches they’ve tried reject or disdain the biblical form and content, but they don’t know enough to tell the difference.

Here are some key characteristic: if love and mercy do not reign, but judgment and anger set the tone, the beauty of the kingdom has been passed by.

If holiness of life is not taken to be the expression of a true and lively faith that religion is likely worthless.

And if salvation is works and slavish fear and not the gift of God by grace through faith that Gospel is a shipwreck for souls.

You can find his blog here.

“If you believe the Bible, then why do you eat shrimp?”

If you believe the Bible, then why do you eat shrimp?

Gotcha! That is usually the response of most atheists when they ask the above question because most Christians are hard pressed to answer it biblically. I confess, on the spot, I struggle answering it as well.

The implied accusation is that Christians don’t really believe the Bible because they eat shell fish, or shrimp, which the Old Testament dietary Laws prohibit.

Atheists love playing off our ignorance. Don’t get me wrong. They are ignorant too. But their ignorance is damnable. Ours is just sad and we need to work to clarify our understanding of the Law.

Please don’t think that I want you debating the atheists on this issues. That may not be your calling. But as a brother or sister in the LORD, I do want you to understand that that the dietary Laws have been set aside, by both Christ and the Apostles.

The Argument

Now, the argument with the atheist usually goes as follows: They ask if you believe in the Bible. Once you say yes, then they will say, “do you eat shellfish?” The implication is that if you do believe in the Bible, why do you eat shell fish? The command they are referring to is in Leviticus 11:10

‘These you may eat of all that are in the water: whatever in the water has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers—that you may eat. But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you. They shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination. …

Please note that the food itself wasn’t an abomination. But it was an abomination for the Jews to eat the food. The LORD was telling them that the food was off limits, just as He told Adam that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was off limits. The Jewish people are a type of Adam.

Separation

There is more to it than that. The laws were intended to separate the Jews from the Gentiles, reminding them that they were holy unto the LORD. This really helped keep the young Jewish boys from going after young Gentile girls. The laws were so drilled into their culture that when the young Gentile girl invited the young Jewish boy over for diner, the Jewish boy was suddenly faced with the reality that by eating the food of the Gentile, he would become unclean, and be cut off from the covenant-keeping community (also known as excommunication). This was a serious consequence for his disobedience.

The goal behind this was to help keep the covenant-keeping people inside the covenant, with God. When the young man goes after the Gentile woman, he will not only be tempted to eat that which has been declared an abomination for him, but also to worship the gods of the Gentiles, which is idolatry. The dietary laws were given to help prevent idolatry.

Just to be clear: idolatry is having a god other than the living and true God. We see this mostly today in people who don’t really worship the Triune God of Scripture, but a god of their own making.

The point to the dietary, or separation laws was to help the Jews remain true to YHWH. The laws were guard rails to keep them on the narrow path.

You may not like that reality, but it drives home the point: those who are of God’s covenant-keeping community are to be holy, they are to be clean, they are to be set apart. They are not to look or live like the world.

One might ask: what about the Gentile girl? Was she forever doomed? No, she and her family were to join the Israelites in their faith and practice, not the other way around.

That is the background for the dietary codes of the Mosaic covenant.

The Change

So what has changed?

The coming of Christ brought about the institution of the New Covenant, a more glorious covenant than the Mosaic covenant. Under the New Covenant, the signs and seals of the holy people of God have changed. For example, both the bloody signs of the covenant, known as Passover and circumcision, have been replaced by bloodless signs: the sacraments of baptism (replacing circumcision) and communion (replacing the Passover). Both the new signs are bloodless in that they point back to Christ’s fulfillment of the earlier signs showing that there is no longer a need for shed blood. The new signs signify the same as the old, but show forth a better covenant in Christ.

I hope you see that things have changed under the New Covenant. This doesn’t mean that God has set aside the Law, especially the moral component summarized in the Ten Commandments. Christ speaks to this issue of setting aside and shows us that the Law will not pass away.

And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than it is for one tittle of the law to fail, Luke 16:17.

The Law is still in play and still useful in three ways. First, it is used as a mirror in our own lives to show us our sinfulness before a holy and just God, driving us to Christ. Secondly, it is used as a restraint in society, warning mankind of a day of justice ahead. (This is why the removal of the Ten Commandments from the public square has been so pursued by the godless. They want no reminder of the coming day of judgment). Third, the Law is the Christians guide on how we are to live. The Law is a pleasing thing to the LORD, so we do not set it aside simply because we are in Christ.

With this we see the Law’s usefulness. But where exactly do we see the laying aside of the dietary codes? Or a better question might be: why do we have to know all this to answer the question about shellfish?

This is why so many Christians struggle with the answer to the question. It is complicated. It is meant to be. We are to work to give our full attention to understanding God’s word. It’s not easy to do so (and impossible without the Spirit opening our eyes to the truth).

Christ Changes the Law

That said, let’s get back to the setting aside of the dietary/separation laws.

We get the first glimpse that something might change when Christ declares that it’s not what a man puts in his mouth that defiles a man. He does this in Matthew 15, when the Pharisees confront Him about the disciples not washing their hands before they eat.

Jesus introduces a paradigm shift to the topic. He declares that what we eat, doesn’t defile us. NEWS FLASH: it’s not the pork that makes us unclean (bacon lovers everywhere are rejoicing).

In fact, He makes it clear that defilement comes from the heart, our hearts.

Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? 18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. 19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies (Matthew 15:17-19).

This was a paradigm shift for the Jews because so much of their religion was outward and observable. The problem with that is that it allows one to go through the motions of the sacrifices, the festivals, keeping the dietary/separation laws, but still not believe any of it.

Just before His statement above, He also declared:

‘These people [a]draw near to Me with their mouth,
And honor Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
9 And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ ” Matthew 15:8-9

Jesus is removing much of what had become performance-based religion. Anyone can go through the motions of religion without actually dealing with the real issues of wicked desires found in the heart. This is where the focus of the Law was to be. It wasn’t just a guard rail to help us stay on the narrow path, but meant to be used to help us see how far we come from having any righteousness of our own.

If I boast in not eating shellfish, and keeping the Levitical law, I may seem pious and righteous. But I’m not. In keeping any of the Law, we cannot boast, for then we are doing only as we should have done.

For example, the famous golfer Bobby Jones reported tapping the ball during a major tournament, adding another stroke to his game and costing him the victory. No one else saw him tap the ball, and officials were reluctant to accept the penalty shot. But Jones insisted.

“You’re to be congratulated Mr. Jones,” the official said. Jones responded saying, “Sir, that is like congratulating a man for not robbing a bank. I don’t know how else to play the game.”

Whenever we keep God’s Law, we are simply doing as we should and there is no reason for boasting.

But given that the Laws cannot convert the heart, many of the Jews became proud in the areas of their obedience.

Christ Instructs Peter

We see this pride with Peter in Acts 10. There, Cornelius, who is a believing Gentile, has been told to seek out Peter for better understanding. Therefore, the LORD gives Peter a vision from heaven while in a trance.

(Peter) saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. 13 And a voice came to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.”

The list of animals clearly indicate those that are called “unclean.” The LORD is telling him to rise, kill and eat, even those things which are not considered clean. Peter’s response is one of pride.

“Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.”

His pride causes him to argue with the LORD. Instead of responding in humility, being obedient to the commands given, he declares his own righteousness. So the LORD tells him three times, in order to stress the point.

“What God has cleansed you must not call common.”

The main point of the passage is that Peter needed to learn that the gospel was going to the Gentiles. God was making them clean. But for this to take place, God needed to make it clear to the disciples that He was setting aside the dietary/separation Laws of the Old Testament, so that the disciples could take the gospel to the Gentiles in good conscience.

The LORD put the separation Laws in place so that the Jews would not mix with the Gentiles, and under the New Covenant, removes those same Laws so that they would mix with the Gentiles.

This was a monumental revelation to the first generation Christians. God was bringing about a mystery, which Paul tells us about in Ephesians 2-3. In that letter, he declares this mystery to us: Jews and Gentiles are made one new man in Christ.

For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation (this includes the dietary laws), 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. 17 And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near. 18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.

But again, for this to happen, the dietary laws needed to be set aside. The LORD was no longer seeking to keep the people of God bound by such Laws, but was bringing them together through a much greater covenant, the New Covenant, through the gospel of Christ.

After all, where the Law was weak, the gospel was not. It is the power unto salvation for both the Jew and the Greek (Romans 1:16-17).

When We Shouldn’t Eat

But there is more to this. Paul does acknowledge that there are things we should not eat, not in conjunction with the dietary laws, which he could very well have restated in making his case, but he chooses not to. The reason that Paul gives that we should abstain from eating meat is if that meat has been dedicated to an idol, and by eating it we will cause another Christian to fall away from the faith and follow the idol. So the issue isn’t separation, as it was in the Old Testament, but a matter of conscience.

But if anyone says to you, “This was offered to idols,” do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience’ sake; for “the earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness.” 29 “Conscience,” I say, not your own, but that of the other. For why is my liberty judged by another man’s conscience? (1 Corinthians 10:28-29).

The point here is that we do not eat if someone else might stumble and leave the faith. However, it does not apply to those who are merely offended that we eat meat. Abstaining from eating meat is only a gospel issue if the person might fall away because of it.

Paul has already given permission to eat meat freely from the market.

Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions for conscience’ sake; 26 for “the earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness.” (1 Corinthians 10:25-26).

So he isn’t giving the warning about eating meat to appease our modern vegans/vegetarians, etc. He is doing so for the sake of the Christian who might be tempted to return to idolatry over the use of meat that was sacrificed to that idol.

Paul even shows that we have the freedom to dine with those who are unbelievers, and eat what they eat. This too was a reversal of the dietary Laws, which prevented faithful Jews from eating with Gentiles at all.

If any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience’ sake (1 Corinthians 10:27).

Notice the focus is the non-believer in this verse. We are to go to their homes if invited, and if we desire to do so, and we are to eat whatever is set before us. The dietary Laws, if they were still to be kept, would prevent this freedom, a freedom we are to have in reaching the lost.

When We Can Eat

Finally, in a direct statement, Paul shows that every creature is good, and is not to be refused if we receive it with thanksgiving (bacon lovers everywhere are again rejoicing).

4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; 5 for it is [b]sanctified by the word of God and prayer (1 Timothy 4:4-5).

This is in the context of dealing with deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons… (who) were forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

So those who do call for us to abstain outside of what Paul has given us are actually under the influence of demons, not the Spirit of God. This should not surprise us. The Devil is always taking God’s word and applying it in the exact opposite way that it was intended to be applied. Both marriage and food have been given to us by the LORD to enjoy. For someone to claim that we should abstain as matters of religion are not following God’s word.

Conclusion

Hopefully you can see that when the atheists asks us the above question, that he does so out of ignorance. What it takes for us to have a proper understanding of our freedoms in Christ, is a continual study of God’s word. The atheist will not do so. They are merely looking for ways to attack believers and belittle them.

Don’t be fooled. The dietary Laws of the Old Testament have been set aside and we have perfect freedom to enjoy a good steak with some shrimp on the side. These things are a blessing from the LORD, given to us to enjoy. I don’t expect those who read this article to be able to reproduce it on the spot when an atheist attacks. But you can remember one or two of the above verses to go over with the atheist while you have him over for steak and shrimp. Better yet, let him invite you over for steak and shrimp and you provide the spiritual food.

This article and photos are copyright © Timothy J. Hammons 2021.