The Three Dimensions of Sin

What is sin? It is doing wrong. A simple biblical definition is "lawlessness" (1 John 3:4), which reminds us that sin is measured against a standard: God's law. (There are also more technical meanings of the word, such as original sin or imputed sin, or sin as a power, which we aren't dealing with here).

My impression is that in Western society today, morality is increasingly measured in terms of respect for the rights of other people, and immorality as the violation of those rights. Thus, for an action to be considered "wrong" it must be in direct violation of the rights of another person or group. Individual freedom is so highly regarded that it must not be restricted unless its abuse demonstrably harms someone else.

This shift in thinking is evident not only at a social level but also in the legal system. We hear of lawyers protesting that their clients stand accused of a "victimless crime" and thus do not deserve any penalty. Criminal acts which have been described as victimless (according to Wikipedia) include individual consumption of recreational drugs (especially cannabis), prostitution and solicitation of a prostitute, public indecency, depiction of cartoon child pornography, and not wearing a seatbelt. The victimless nature of consensual sex acts has apparently been a major factor in the overturning of sodomy laws in many jurisdictions.

While our secular, individualistic society increasingly recognizes only wrongdoing with an external victim (human or animal), the biblical concept of sin has three "dimensions." Sin can be vertical (committed against God), horizontal (committed against another person or group of people), or circular (committed against oneself).

The dimension most commonly referred to in scripture is the vertical dimension. There are dozens of references to sinning against God. These include sins of a "religious" nature, such as idolatry (Ex. 32:31-33; Judges 10:10), but also sins which only involve people (Gen. 39:9; 2 Sam. 12:13). There are also a number of references to 'horizontal' sin, i.e. sinning against other people (Gen. 42:22; Matt. 18:15). The circular dimension of sin is less frequently mentioned, but is emphatically stated by Paul in 1 Cor. 6:18-20: 

"18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body."

Other references to sin against self include Prov. 6:32 and Rom. 1:24. It is noteworthy that all three of these texts refer to (apparently consensual) sexual sin, since many of the alleged 'victimless crimes' mentioned above are of a sexual nature. Why are these sins against oneself? Partly, as Paul explains, because we are not our own. God, the Creator and Redeemer of our bodies, has called us to set them aside for a higher purpose. As such, he has given us commandments on how we may or may not use our bodies. When we ignore these in the interests of individual freedom, we actually remove ourselves from God's presence and blessing. We rob ourselves of peace and joy.

It is important to realize that there is overlap between the different dimensions of sin. David's adultery and murder were described as sins against God, even though they directed involved only human beings. There are a number of cases where a sin is explicitly described as being both against another person and against God. Pharaoh sinned against God, as well as Moses and Aaron (Ex. 10:16). The prodigal son confessed that he had sinned against heaven and his father (Luke 15:21). Paul declares that a sin against one's brother is a sin against Christ (1 Cor. 8:12).

In fact, every single sinful act encompasses all three dimensions! First, every sin is an act of rebellion against God, the righteous Creator, Lawgiver and Judge to whom all are accountable. Second, any sin, even an apparently "victimless" one, violates our fellow humans. We set a bad example for others, causing them to stumble; and we defile our consciences, making us more harmful to others. Finally, every sin is against oneself because it is self-destructive and separates us from our loving Father in heaven. As Wisdom declares in Prov. 8:36, "He who fails to find me injures himself; all who hate me love death."

Just as society increasingly discounts the seriousness of 'victimless crime', so the church increasingly discounts the seriousness of 'victimless sin' - particularly sexual sin. It is claimed that sexual sin was very low on Jesus' priority list compared to sins such as self-righteousness and pride. However, this is an argument from silence, and Jesus' apostle Paul made it clear that sexual sin has a victim (oneself) and is inconsistent with our calling to glorify God in our bodies.

The Kingdom of God is both Now and Not Yet

Virtually any person who has read the New Testament would agree that the kingdom of God was at the center of the message preached by Jesus and the apostles. In Matthew, Jesus' sayings refer to the kingdom no less than 45 times, and all four Gospels contain important mentions of this notion of the kingdom of God.

Both Mark and Matthew summarize Jesus' message along the lines, "The kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe" (Mark 1:15; Matthew 4:17). In Luke 4:43, Jesus declares that the purpose for which he was sent was to "preach the good news of the kingdom of God". Acts records the kingdom of God as the primary focus of Jesus' discussions with the apostles after his resurrection and prior to his ascension (Acts 1:3). The kingdom of God also features prominently in summary statements about apostolic preaching in Acts (e.g. 8:12; 28:31). It is also mentioned over 20 times in the rest of the New Testament.

While most are agreed on the centrality of the kingdom of God in Jesus' and the apostles' teaching, there is no such agreement on what the kingdom of God actually means. Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology mentions four different interpretations. These are (1) the Political Kingdom (in which Jesus made a failed attempt to establish a political kingdom in rebellion against Rome), (2) the Spiritual Kingdom (in which the kingdom refers to God's rule in the individual's heart), (3) the Consistent or Future Kingdom (in which a supernatural kingdom which does not yet exist will be established after the Second Coming of Christ), and (4) the Realized or Present Kingdom (in which Jesus brought the kingdom at his first coming and fully established it through the church).

While interpretations (1) and (2) no longer have a following among any but the most liberal of Bible scholars, today's Evangelical Christianity is, in some instances, polarized between (3) and (4). Christadelphians (if I may be permitted to lump them in with Evangelical Christianity) have traditionally been firmly at the (3) end of the pole. The kingdom of God is yet future, and any insinuation that it may exist presently is taken as false doctrine, full stop. For instance, the 1877 Christadelphian Statement of Faith contained eight clauses describing the kingdom of God, all of which referred strictly to the future (although it is stated that this future kingdom will be a recapitulation of the past Davidic kingdom). Meanwhile, among the Doctrines to be Rejected is the idea that the kingdom of God is the church.

At the other extreme, in some Evangelical churches, there is an extreme at the (4) end. One could attend such churches for months and only hear references to the kingdom as a present reality. Talk of a future kingdom, for such believers, suggests a detachment from the Lord's powerful present work among his people. Besides, if such a kingdom was going to come, surely it would have come by now!

As is often the case, both extremes are wrong. A comprehensive biblical doctrine of the kingdom of God must incorporate both (3) and (4). There are passages which refer to the kingdom of God as a future reality only to be accomplished at the end of the age (Matt. 8:11; Matt. 25:34; Luke 19:11ff; Luke 22:18; Gal. 5:21; 2 Tim. 4:1; 2 Pet. 1:11), and there are passages which refer to the kingdom of God as having already arrived in the first century (Matt. 4:17; Matt. 13:41; Matt. 21:43; Luke 10:9-11; Luke 17:20-21; Col. 1:13; Rev. 1:9).

This balanced approach, in which the kingdom has been inaugurated but not consummated, is sometimes referred to as inaugurated eschatology. It is necessary to hold in tension the paradox that the kingdom of God is both now and not yet. Only then can we avoid the extremes of the one whose anticipation of future events distracts him from the Lord's presence and power in the church today, and the one whose focus on present spiritual realities has left him with no sense of the approaching conclusion of history.

"Your" Gospel and Paul's

Paul referred to the gospel (Greek euangelion, good news) several times in his epistles in the first person possessive; that is, he referred to it as "my gospel" (Rom. 2:16; Rom. 16:25; 2 Tim. 2:8). Probably this was partly to distinguish it from false gospels (see Gal. 1:6-9; 2 Cor. 11:4), but it also demonstrates that he had a sense of ownership of the message he proclaimed. True, it was ultimately the gospel of Jesus Christ (Mark 1:1), because it was about Jesus Christ, and the gospel of God (Rom. 1:1), because it came from God. Nevertheless, as Paul was the earthly messenger by which that gospel was delivered, there was a valid sense in which it could be described as Paul's gospel - that is, the good news which had become known across the Roman world through the preaching of Paul.

For me, one of the striking characteristics of Paul's gospel is the paradox that it was at once both very simple and very complex. As to the gospel's simplicity, Paul proclaimed to the Corinthians:

"1 And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. 2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, 4 and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God." (1 Cor. 2:1-5)

Notice that Paul decided to know nothing except Jesus Christ and him crucified. It was an active choice. Paul had been educated at the feet of a leading Jewish scholar, Gamaliel; he was a learned man and had seemingly been something of a theological prodigy in his youth (Acts 22:3; Gal. 1:14). He understood the Hebrew Scriptures very well and was well placed to marvel, "Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!" (Rom. 11:33).

Paul's epistles are masterpieces with great theological complexity, even from a purely human standpoint. However, for the sake of the Corinthians he emphasized the gospel in its simplicity, possibly because he wanted them to focus less on knowledge and more on love (1 Cor. 8:1-3; 1 Cor. 13:2).

In the final analysis, what mattered to Paul was the gospel through which his flock could be saved: "that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:1-4; cf. Rom. 10:9).

If you are preaching the gospel, it is good for you to know and understand the Scriptures in as much depth as possible. Further, there is a need to contextualize the message for your audience, as Paul did in Athens (Acts 17:16-32). However, when preaching your gospel to those with little biblical background knowledge (i.e. most people), resist the urge to appear wise by presenting the gospel in all its theological depth. Don't judge the unchurched for having little interest in the history of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, the precise mechanism of the atonement, or the details of the millennial age. To the weak (in knowledge, or desire for such knowledge) become as weak, in order to win them (1 Cor. 9:22).

In short, when preaching your gospel, refrain from any level of complexity that will take your hearers' focus away from "Jesus Christ, and him crucified!"

Is an understanding of the promises to Abraham necessary for salvation?

In my own estimation, the greatest contribution that Christadelphians have made to biblical theology has been their understanding of the close relationship between the promises God made to the patriarchs of Israel (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and David) and the gospel or good news preached by Jesus and the apostles.

Christadelphians have correctly highlighted how much the New Testament writers emphasize the patriarchs and the covenants of promise that they received. This is particularly evident in the teaching of Paul. For instance, preaching in the synagogue at Antioch, Paul addressed the congregation as "sons of Abraham's family" (Acts 13:26 NASB). Having described the events of the death and resurrection of Jesus, he then declared, "And we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers" (Acts 13:32 NASB). Later, explaining his relationship to Judaism as he stood on trial before Agrippa, Paul declared, "And now I am standing trial for the hope of the promise made by God to our fathers" (Acts 26:6 NASB).

 

In Paul's epistles, the same emphasis comes across. After a lengthy analysis of the promises to Abraham in Galatians 3, Paul concludes, "And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise" (Gal. 3:29 NASB). And again, in Romans 4, Paul emphasises that the promise to Abraham "will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all" (Rom. 4:16 NASB).

 

Now, it is not only Christadelphians who have grasped the importance of the promises. One only needs to pick up a book such as The Promise-Plan of God by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. to see that there are also Evangelical scholars who have understood that the promises are the unifying thread that runs throughout Scripture. Where Christadelphians have differed, however, is in their insistence that comprehending the promises to the fathers is a prerequisite for salvation in Christ. The Christadelphian argument goes something like this:

 

C1. Salvation is by faith in the gospel of Christ.

C2. The gospel of Christ is none other than the fulfillment of the promises to Abraham.

C3. Therefore, one cannot understand the gospel of Christ without understanding the promises to Abraham.

C4. Therefore, one who does not understand the promises to Abraham does not have saving faith.

 

This, I believe, is a flawed argument with a thrust that is very different than Paul's. I would express Paul's argument as follows:

 

P1. Salvation is by faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

P2. The gospel of Christ is none other than the fulfillment of the promises to Abraham.

P3. Therefore, whoever puts their faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ becomes an heir of the promises to Abraham.

P4. Therefore, Gentile believers are heirs of the promises to Abraham, regardless of whether they keep the Law of Moses.

 

Observe that the first two premises are the same in both arguments. The difference is in the implications of these two premises. I would assert that premise C3 is nowhere in the New Testament, and consequently the conclusion C4 cannot be inferred.

 

By contrast, premise P3 is central to Paul's argument. In Galatians 3, Paul's central concern is not with the promises to Abraham per se, but rather with basis on which Gentile believers receive the Holy Spirit (Gal. 3:2 NASB). Paul uses Abraham as a vehicle in his argument. He emphasises that the gospel was preached to Abraham in the words, "All the nations will be blessed in you" (3:8), inasmuch as all those who have faith are blessed just like Abraham was (3:9). Thus in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham comes on the Gentiles, so that they can receive the promise of the Spirit through faith (3:14). This promise is contingent on faith in Jesus Christ (3:22). Whoever has faith in Christ Jesus is a child of God (3:26) and consequently becomes a descendant of Abraham and an heir of the promises (3:29).

 

A similar line of argument appears in Romans 4. As we read earlier, Paul writes there that the promises to Abraham's descendants are for those who have the faith of Abraham. The faith of Abraham does not refer to an explicit understanding of who Abraham was or what he believed. Abraham had an embryonic understanding of what has now been revealed more plainly through Jesus Christ. The key element of Abraham's faith was his belief that "what God had promised, He was able also to perform" (Rom. 4:21). This faith was credited to him as righteousness. Paul's conclusion is then unmistakable: righteousness will in like manner be credited to all those who "believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification" (4:24-25). This is none other than premise P3: whoever believes in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ effectively has the faith of Abraham and is a joint-heir of the promises made to him.

 

Space does not allow us to proceed much further, but it is worth mentioning that most discussion of the promises to Abraham in the New Testament occurs when speaking or writing to Jews or concerning Judaism. There is no mention of the promises to the fathers, for instance, in the message Peter preached to Cornelius (Acts 10:34-43), or Paul's speech to the Athenians (Acts 17:22-31). Although an argument from silence, this is contrary to what one would expect if the author of Acts sought to convey that understanding these promises was a prerequisite for Gentiles to be saved.

 

Now, all of this does not mean that the promises to the fathers are irrelevant or unimportant to Gentile Christians. An understanding of the covenants of promise in Genesis, and indeed of the whole Old Testament, is highly profitable for any servant of Christ (2 Timothy 3:16). One who is ignorant of these things is weak in his or her knowledge of the Word, and Christadelphians have done well to emphasize the promises in their teaching. However, there is a world of difference between saying a person's knowledge is limited and saying that such a person's faith is void.

 

What is wrong with the Christadelphian stance that a person cannot be saved without understanding the promises to Abraham? Firstly, it creates an unnecessary fellowship barrier. Secondly, and more seriously, it imposes a requirement for salvation the apostles did not impose. It comes dangerously close to violating the principle of Acts 4:12, by adding a second name (Abraham's) by which we must be saved.

 

Mercifully, God does not refuse to justify us due to flaws or limitations in our understanding of his Word:

"Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us, to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen." (Eph. 3:19-20 NASB)

A Canadian's Reflections on Five Years in South Africa

Most of my blog entries are theological in nature and I don't often get personal. However, as this weekend marks five years of residence in South Africa for me, I thought I would share some personal reflections. I am turning 30 in a few weeks' time. I spent the first 25 years of my life in Canada (Grimsby, Ontario, to be precise), and the last five in South Africa (4 1/2 in Durban and the last six months in Cape Town).

Canada and South Africa are very different worlds. One can start with the weather, which isn't as different as  one might think. The heat of summer is fairly similar in the two countries, although of course it occurs at opposite times of year due to being in different hemispheres. Durban can be unbearably humid but the temperature highs in Jan-Feb (30-35 degrees) are similar to what one can get in southern Ontario. As to winter, Canadian winter temperatures are significantly colder: -5 to -10 is typical compared to 15ish in Cape Town, getting down to single digits at night. However, the South African winter can actually feel colder because buildings (including our apartment) are not insulated or heated. Thus in Canada, it can be -20 outside and 20 inside, but in South Africa, if it is 13 outside, it's probably 15 inside.

A more fundamental difference between the countries is economic. Canada is a developed country, usually voted as one of the best places to live in the world. South Africa is a developing country. It is classified as a middle income country but this is misleading because of its high GINI index. This statistic measures the economic inequality in a country - the gap between rich and poor - and South Africa had the highest value in the world as of 2009. Thus in Cape Town, for instance, you have suburbs that resemble upscale Canadian neighbourhoods, only a few kilometres away from slums where people eke out a living in squalor. Unfortunately, after a few months of living here it ceases to be shocking and becomes just part of the scenery.

Of course this inequality, which is very much along racial lines, is the enduring legacy of the country's apartheid history. Many whites have emigrated to the developed world over the past 25 years, and most white South Africans I meet tell me they have family in Canada. Many people are surprised that I, as a white Canadian, would go against the flow and choose to make my home here. Sure, many affluent people from  Western countries come as tourists, or to volunteer for a few months, but to settle down here? Why? This country which, according to some, will quickly degenerate into anarchic chaos once the ailing Nelson Mandela passes away?

The question of why I settled in South Africa is a complex one, but I think the shortest answer I can give is that I believe God called me to come here. My experiences have given me a great appreciation for the story of Abraham. No, I don't have any delusions of grandeur that I've come here to start a great nation. What I mean is that I believe God called me out of my comfort zone so that I could grow as a person, and perhaps be a force for good in this existing great nation of South Africa.

This brings me to the greatest difference between Canada and South Africa. As our pastor mentioned a few weeks back, for all of South Africa's problems, one thing it has going for it is that this is a nation which is spiritually alive and where the Spirit of God is very active. In this country it is acceptable to express one's Christian faith openly without being called a bigot or a violator of human rights. The president can make reference to the Second Coming in a speech, prayer is offered in public schools, and churches are full of people of all ages and cultures. The forces of secularization have not succeeded in pouring cold water on the Spirit's fire in South Africa as they have, to a great extent, in Canada and other Western countries.

The work of the 19th century missionaries from Europe and North America has borne great fruit. While their natural descendants back home have largely rejected the gospel of Christ, the people of Africa and other newly evangelized parts of the world have become their spiritual heirs, much the way that the Gentiles of the Roman Empire became the spiritual heirs of the Jewish apostles. The locus of global Christianity has shifted from North to South. God's purpose has not been and cannot be thwarted.

For this reason I feel grateful to be in South Africa, in spite of uncertainties about the country's political and economic stability. While I miss my family and friends in Canada and the USA very much, God has given me a family here, and many rich experiences and relationships that have helped me to grow in a way I never could have had I stayed put in the land of my birth. 

I do not know what the next five years hold, but the past five have given me many reasons to praise God and His Son Jesus Christ, and great hope that no matter what happens, He is in control.

The Second Coming of Christ: Peaceful or Violent?

I was recently involved in an online discussion in the Christadelphians Worldwide Facebook group on the topic of the end-times conflict that will occur at the Second Coming of Christ.

This is a very unpopular topic in postmodern Western culture, so I wasn't surprised that some sharp disagreement arose. However, I was unprepared for the claim that when Christ returns he will win the nations over with the greatest outpouring of love the world has ever seen, rather than using force.

The person who made this point insisted that it would be a contradiction for the same Jesus who preached the virtues of love and peace to use violence to impose his rule on the nations.

This position is attractive to our sensibilities in the postmodern age, where the rights of the individual are paramount. Sinful humans are practically entitled to God's mercy, and God's sovereign right to judge his creatures is belittled if not rejected entirely.

 The problem with this view of Christ's return is that no scripture - including the words of Jesus - makes any such point when describing Christ's return. Jesus himself compared his coming to two past situations recounted in Genesis: the days of Noah and the days of Lot (Luke 17:26-30). In both cases, as Jesus described it, people were going about their business when judgment came from God and "destroyed them all." He concludes, "So will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed."

Short of rejecting Jesus' words there is no way to revise this historical message to bring it in line with postmodern values. Many other scriptures could be brought to bear on this matter, but the point is clear. Any view of Christ's return which ignores judgment and destruction is unscriptural. It is true that Christ's return will be a joyous occasion for those who are expecting it, and that it will be the first of a series of events leading to world peace. However, this does not change the fact that Christ will bring judgment and will crush resistance to his rule.

Judgment and destruction are compatible with the love of Jesus. For anyone who thinks otherwise, I recommend D.A. Carson's book, "The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God."

Chris Broussard, the Church, and Homosexuality

I was already planning to write about homosexuality and the church this week, but the topic has now taken on even greater poignancy. On Monday, professional basketball player Jason Collins became the first athlete in one of the USA's four major professional sports to announce he is gay.  Asked for his opinion of this announcement, TV sportscaster Chris Broussard, a born-again Christian, caused a national uproar by stating that living as an unrepentant homosexual is open rebellion against Jesus Christ. Jason Collins noted in a subsequent interview that he too is a Christian, but denies that homosexuality is sinful. Which position is aligned with the will of God?

Before turning to this question I want to make a couple of disclaimers. First, I realize that the church has often treated homosexuals very badly. The heterosexual majority know we haven't committed homosexual sins, which makes homosexuals a great scapegoat, a way of turning the focus away from our own failings.

On that point, I myself am a sinner, and one who has lost battles against my own sexual desires. However, God's forgiveness is available to me on the basis of my faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 3:22-23). The same forgiveness is available to any sinner, but is conditional on repenting and confessing our sins (Luke 24:47; 1 John 1:9-10). We cannot confess our sins if we don't think they are sins; hence the need to seek God's will concerning homosexuality. We cannot simply err on the side of approval, because justifying evil is just as wrong as condemning good in God's sight (Prov. 17:15).

Thirdly, I realize this is an extremely sensitive subject, and I regret any offense it may cause (but cf. 2 Cor. 7:8-10).

My previous blog concluded that Leviticus 18:22 was a general prohibition of homosexual acts. However, does this commandment apply in the church age? Several issues arise in answering this question. First, does the Bible convey the will of God concerning sexual morality? Non-Christians would answer no, and some Christians (such as Bishop John Shelby Spong) would too. However, since this issue is beyond our scope, it will be assumed that the answer is yes.

Second, are Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 moral laws or ritual laws? Some Old Testament scholars claim that these texts reflect the cultural circumstances at the time, where homosexual acts were part of foreign worship rituals. Since homosexuality has no idolatrous connotations today, the commandment no longer applies. However, there is no indication of such nuances in Lev. 18:22 and 20:13. Furthermore, this view incorrectly assumes that ritual and moral laws are wholly distinct. Adultery and child sacrifice are also prohibited in Lev. 18 but, while these may have been associated with idolatrous worship, their prohibition is also moral in nature (cf. Matt. 19:18).

Other scholars claim that the Levitical laws were done away with by Christ, so the law against homosexual acts is no more applicable for the church than the dietary laws (Lev. 11) or the prohibition of mixing fabrics (Lev. 19:19). However, while these symbolic laws were fulfilled and done away with by Christ, there is no symbolic fulfillment of homosexuality in Christ. And, as will be seen, Levitical laws concerning sexual morality are upheld in the New Testament.

The best explanation of the sexual morality laws in Lev. 18 and 20 is that they are simply an elaboration of the Seventh Commandment ("You shall not commit adultery") and are thus moral absolutes for all time, preserving the family in the way God designed it as the core social unit.

The New Testament confirms that these commandments are still in effect. As recorded in Acts 15, there was a great controversy in the apostolic church about whether the Law of Moses was binding on Gentile Christians. In the end, it was decided that it was not, but they were required to "abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality" (Acts 15:29). The first three prohibitions come from Leviticus 17, and so the fourth must refer to the sexual morality laws in Leviticus 18. Thus we have it on apostolic authority that these laws (including the prohibition on homosexual acts) do apply in the church age.

The same idea can be found in Paul's writings. In 1 Cor. 5:1, Paul writes, "It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife." Paul has taken the description of incest from Lev. 18:8 and Lev. 20:11. He orders the Corinthian church "not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality" (1 Cor. 5:11). Based on the prior allusion to Leviticus (and the quotation from the Law in 1 Cor. 5:13), we can only conclude that Paul is taking his definition of "sexual immorality" from the Law of Moses.

Paul then mentions homosexuality directly in the following chapter:

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Cor. 6:9-10 NASB)

The two bold words here are translated from the Greek words malakos and arsenokoites. This is the earliest known use of the Greek word arsenokoites, and scholars believe that Paul either coined it himself or borrowed it from Hellenistic Jewish contemporaries. Some have conjectured that the word means something more specific than homosexuality, such as pederasty or homosexual prostitution. However, the most likely source of the word is again Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, where the Greek Septuagint translation used by Hellenistic Jews uses the words arsenos (male) and koite (bed). The highly respected lexicon of New Testament Greek, BDAG, defines arsenokoites as the active partner in a homosexual relationship. Malakos (which literally means 'soft'), is defined by BDAG in this case as the passive partner.

In view of the reference to the sexual morality laws of Leviticus 18 in the previous chapter, and the Greek translation of Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 as the likely source of the word arsenokoites, it is difficult to dispute that Paul is upholding the Levitical prohibition on homosexual acts.

Space prevents us from looking at other significant texts such as Romans 1:26-27. However, the evidence we have looked at demands the conclusion that the Levitical prohibition on homosexual acts represents the will of God for all times and cultures (note that I have emphasized "acts": it is the behaviour and not the orientation that is sin).

Chris Broussard spoke the truth. It is a very inconvenient truth in 21st century Western society. However, it is my hope that some will realize that Jesus does not want to condemn anyone (John 3:17). The Lord desperately hopes (2 Peter 3:9) that practicing homosexuals will recognize the error of their ways as the all-important first step on the road to redemption. This is the same response required of a heterosexual sinner, and the church should be equally emphatic in reaching out to all people with the message of repentance unto salvation.

Leviticus 18:22 and Homosexuality

I recently read with interest an open letter to the church from a young American on behalf of his generation, which basically presented an ultimatum: embrace homosexuality or alienate the youth. I also read a response from Dr. Michael L. Brown, a leading voice of opposition to gay marriage.

The socio-cultural issues here are complex, and I've generally refrained from commenting on them. However, as a theology student there is one issue in the letter (and ensuing comments) that I think needs to be addressed. The author of the open letter says that while he has long been told that Christianity and homosexuality are incompatible, he has lately become aware of "evidence that the Bible could be saying something completely different about love and equality."

He doesn't say what evidence he is referring to, but one of the comments gives a take on Leviticus 18:22 which, if it is making the rounds as a legitimate interpretation, needs to be corrected. This verse reads: "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination" (NASB). Referring to the Hebrew word tow'ebah, here translated "abomination", the respondent gives an alternate rendering as: "Not shall you lie with man [in the] bed of woman, [it is] against custom." He goes on to say that the word tow'ebah "essentially means frowned upon", and he reaches the following conclusion: "It appears more that it was saying not to fool around with your boyfriend in your wife’s bed."

It should be noted that, while the comment begins with a quotation mark, it doesn't cite any source. This is unsurprising, because this interpretation is completely untenable and without scholarly support. The respondent considers it "odd" that the commandment refers specifically to the bed. But it hardly needs to be said that "bed" here is a euphemism for intercourse; the issue is the act and not its location (cp. Num. 31:17-18; Judg. 21:11-12). Furthermore, it is preposterous to think that this text, contained in what is commonly referred to as the "Holiness Code" of the Law of Moses (Rooker 2004, 4) should presuppose that a married man might also have a male lover!

In support of his view that tow'ebah means "frowned upon", the respondent points out that the word is also used with reference to dietary restrictions, menstruation, mixing of fabrics, and other "minor things." However, this definition lacks lexical support. Moreover, the respondent has drawn our attention to certain uses of tow'ebah while ignoring many others. The word is used, for instance, in Prov. 6:16: "There are six things which the LORD hates, Yes, seven which are an abomination (tow'ebah) to Him". Here, the parallelism suggests that tow'ebah is anything but minor. Elsewhere in the Pentateuch, the word is used with reference to child sacrifice (Deut. 12:31), injustice (Deut. 25:16) and idolatry (Deut. 27:15). And it was because of the tow'ebah of Israel that Ezekiel prophesied that they would fall by sword, famine and plague (Ezek. 6:11). Thus the word tow'ebah does not lend support to taking Lev. 18:22 as a minor thing.

Even more problematic for the view that the conduct described in Lev. 18:22 was merely "frowned upon" is the fact that it was a capital offence (Lev. 20:13, where tow'ebah is also used).

There are biblical scholars who argue that the commandment in Lev. 18:22 is not binding on the church today. However, these scholars do not dispute that the commandment (together with Lev. 20:13) prohibited homosexual intercourse in the strongest terms. The interpretation of this text in its original setting is broadly agreed upon. What is controversial is whether or not the commandment applies to the church today. It is this question that I plan to address in the next blog post.

References:

Rooker, Mark F. 2004. The Best Known Verse in Leviticus. Faith and Mission 21(2): 3-14.

1 Cor. 8:6: A Swing Verse

When it comes to hotly disputed doctrines such as the Trinity, the two sides typically each have certain Bible texts that they claim in support of their position.

For example, in a debate on the Trinity one might expect the Trinitarians to use texts such as Matt. 28:19, John 1:1 and Heb. 1:10-12 in their argument, while the unitarians might use texts such as Mark 12:29, John 14:28 and 1 Tim. 2:5. Each side would go on the offensive with their own texts, and attempt to defend their position against the challenge posed by the other side's texts. (Of course, one would hope that the arguments were more substantial and systematic than simply quoting 'proof texts').

We could draw an analogy with the so-called "swing states" in U.S. presidential elections. Democratic candidates don't bother campaigning in Texas, and Republican hopefuls steer clear of New York, because they know they can't win those states, despite their importance to the electoral vote tally. Instead, they focus on states that could go either way, such as Ohio. Similarly, Trinitarians know that they can't make their case from Mark 12:29, and unitarians know they can't make theirs from John 1:1, so they try to provide a plausible counter-proposal to their opponents' claims and then re-focus the debate on their own biblical "territory."

I would suggest that 1 Cor. 8:6 is one of the Ohio's of the Bible -- a veritable "swing verse" -- because both Trinitarians and unitarians use it to argue positively for their position. On the unitarian side, for instance, the 1877 Christadelphian Statement of Faith cited this verse as a reason for rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity. Moreover, one of the most comprehensive books written in defense of biblical unitarianism is entitled One God and One Lord, presumably taken from this verse. On the other hand, Trinitarians have also used this text to make positive arguments for their position; indeed, this text has become one of the most important in claiming that Paul's theology was a prototype for Trinitarian theology.

The text reads thus: "⁴ Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. ⁵ For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, ⁶ yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him." (1 Cor. 8:4-6 NASB)

Unitarians point out that v. 6 says, "For us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things" while mentioning Christ separately. Jesus is explicitly excluded from the "one God" and therefore cannot be a person in the Godhead. Jesus is given a subordinate, intermediary role, while the Father is the source of all things. New Testament scholars such as James D.G. Dunn see Ps. 110:1 (a pivotal Christological text for the early church) as the main background to the use of the word "Lord" here. Thus the title emphasizes how the Father has exalted the human Jesus to a heavenly position.

Trinitarians, on the other hand, claim that the text includes the Father and Christ together on the heavenly side of the Creator-creature divide that was all-important in Jewish monotheism. Scholars such as Tom Wright and Richard Bauckham see Deut. 6:4, the Shema, as main background to the language Paul uses here. Indeed, they argue that Paul has rearranged the words of the Shema, "the Lord our God is one Lord," to include Jesus within the identity of the one God.

So which interpretation of this pivotal text is more convincing? For me it is undoubtedly the latter. Firstly, if 1 Cor. 8:6 excludes Jesus from being God, it also excludes the Father from being Lord. But Paul is not using these titles for the Father and Son to the exclusion of one another, but to the exclusion of all other claimants to these titles. What should strike us in 1 Cor. 8:6 is not that Jesus is excluded from being God, but that Paul included Jesus in his argument that "there is no God but one." Surely a mere creature has no place in such discourse!

Secondly, 1 Cor. 8:5 appears to be an allusion to Deut. 10:17: "the LORD your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords." This is the only place in the Old Testament where "gods" and "lords" occur in the same sentence (Ciampa and Rosner in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, p. 718). Thus it is reasonable that Paul expected his readers to interpret v. 6 with reference to Deuteronomy as well.

Thirdly, as I have argued elsewhere, the use of the Greek preposition dia followed by a genitive requires that we see Christ as participating in creation: "through whom are all things and through whom we exist." The very same language is used of God in Rom. 11:36 (by Paul) and Heb. 2:10. Paul is writing on the nature and existence of gods; there is no indication in the immediate context that he is limiting the scope of his statements to the new creation. Thus, the "all things" should be taken as absolute, or qualified only with "in heaven or on earth" (v. 5).

It is not wrong to say that the man Jesus was exalted to the status of Lord by God  (Acts 2:36). However, for early Christians, this exaltation was an impetus for questions about Christ's identity rather than the answer to those questions. 1 Cor. 8:6 shows that for Paul, Jesus' Lordship ties into the very definition of Christian monotheism.

Having neither beginning of days nor end of life (Hebrews 7:3)

One aspect of the doctrine of the Trinity is the concept of the eternal Sonship of Christ. This is the idea that Christ is, always has been, and always will be the Son of God.

When they hear about the eternal Sonship, unitarians tend to roll their eyes and think, "There they go again with their unscriptural jargon." At least, that's what I did when I was a unitarian. However, my studies of the Word of God have led me to the conclusion that the eternal Sonship is a biblical idea. One of the strongest pieces of evidence for this is found in Hebrews 7:1-3:

"1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2 to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth part of all the spoils, was first of all, by the translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then also king of Salem, which is king of peace. 3 Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually." (NASB)

This text doesn't come up a lot in Christological debates or discussions because the argument the writer of Hebrews is making is rather cryptic. Once the idea is unpacked, however, the implications for our understanding of Christ are unmistakable. One recent commentary on Hebrews explains the point very well:

"In Genesis 14, Melchizedek is introduced out of the blue and disappears as quickly, his brief appearance interrupting a narrative that deals with the king of Sodom (vv. 17, 21-24). We know his name and office but nothing of his family or his previous or subsequent history. In terms of the biblical narrative, he is thus ‘without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life.’ His literary persona therefore suggests to our author a parallel with the Son of God, who is in very fact ‘without beginning of days or end of life,’ and the psalm, which speaks of ‘a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek,’ reinforces this thought. It is not a historical argument – nothing in the OT suggests Melchizedek historically had no parents, was not born, and did not die, and our author’s argument does not necessarily show that he thought this to be the case (though v. 8 may point that way). It is rather an argument from literary silence, setting Melchizedek up as a literary model for the eternal Son of God. In his very rootlessness and timelessness, he forms a suitable model for the one who was to come, the Son (not of any man but) of God, who shares God’s eternal existence and can thus uniquely exercise that eternal priesthood Psalm 110:4 has claimed to be the prerogative of ‘the order of Melchizedek.’ To our historically tuned minds, this may seem a bizarre conclusion to draw from silence, but it is an argument from the text, not from history, following the well-attested Jewish hermeneutical principle (found both in rabbinic and in Alexandrian writings) that what is not mentioned in the Torah does not exist. The comparison serves to underline the eternity of our true high priest in contrast with the transience of the OT priests, a theme that will be developed in vv. 23-25." (R. T. France, Hebrews, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Hebrews - Revelation, ed. Longman and Garland, p. 92)

The comparison made by the writer of Hebrews cannot merely refer to the Son of God in his humanity, because as a human being Christ did have a genealogy, a beginning of days and a mother. It is also worth noting that the writer likens Melchizedek to the Son of God, and not the other way around. This would be anachronistic unless the Son pre-existed (cf. John 1:30; 8:58).

Nor can this argument from Heb. 7:3 be dismissed as case of "proof texting." It must be seen in the fullness of the message of the writer to the Hebrews, who describes Christ as actively existing in the (distant) past, present and future. Past: the world was made through him (Heb. 1:2). Present: he upholds all things by the word of his power (Heb. 1:3). Future: he is the heir of all things (Heb. 1:2).

Past: He laid the foundations of the earth (Heb. 1:10). Present: he remains (Heb. 1:11). Future: his years will have no end (Heb. 1:12). Past, present and future: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and forever" (Heb. 13:8).

Thus we should not be surprised to see that Heb. 7:3 implicitly teaches the eternal Sonship of Christ. It is hardly an anomaly; it fits right into the picture of Christ painted throughout the epistle.

Was Peter's first epistle written to deported Roman colonists?

The First Epistle of Peter opens with these words: "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia," (1 Pet. 1:1 NASB). These areas spanned several provinces of the Roman Empire within the region known as Asia Minor which forms part of modern Turkey (see map here).

Just who were these people to whom Peter wrote his epistle? Were they Jews, Gentiles or a mixture of both? And what particular relationship did they have with Peter that caused him to write them a letter?

New Testament scholars have proposed a number of different theories. A tradition dating back to antiquity has it that Peter wrote the letter to Jewish Christians. In support of this is Paul's statement that Peter was the apostle to the circumcised (Gal. 2:8), as well as the use of the Greek word diaspora in 1 Pet. 1:1, which was (and still is) used of the dispersion of Jews throughout the world.

Recent commentators have proposed that the letter was written to mixed Jewish-Gentile congregations (so Grudem) or even primarily Gentile congregations (so Schreiner). Schreiner points out that phrases such as "the futile ways inherited from your forefathers" (1 Pet. 1:18) and "Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people" (1 Pet. 2:10) are easily applicable to Gentile converts but not to Jews. Under this theory, the reference to "scattered exiles" in 1 Pet. 1:1 refers figuratively to the spiritual status of Christians as God's people living in a pagan world rather than their literal political status.

However, even if we resolve the issue of ethnicity we still need to explain how these congregations of Christians were known to Peter. It has been suggested that Peter made a missionary journey through these areas, and indeed that the reason the Spirit prevented Paul from preaching in Asia and Bithynia (Acts 16:6-7) is that Peter was already at work there. However, there is no direct evidence that Peter ever preached in these areas. In light of this, other suggestions have been proposed.

One suggestion has it that Jewish pilgrims in the audience at Peter's Pentecost sermon (which was attended by people from Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia - Acts 2:9) believed in Jesus Christ, then returned home and planted churches. These churches would have seen Peter as their spiritual father and thus he wrote the letter to encourage them. This idea is interesting but again, there is little evidence to support it.

A very intriguing suggestion, argued in great detail by Jobes, has it that the audience of the epistle consisted of Christians who had been under Peter's guidance in Rome but were subsequently expelled from Rome and resettled in new colonies within Asia Minor. Jobes summarizes her argument as follows:

"The theory is based on several points of historical evidence: (1) Claudius, and perhaps only Claudius, established colonies in every one of the five regions to which 1 Peter is addressed. (2) Colonies were typically populated by deportations from Rome and other urban centers. (3) There is the historical evidence of Roman writers of the first and second centuries that Claudius did expel people associated in some way with 'Chrestus' [thought to be a corruption of Christus, i.e. Christ]. (4) Peter is the stated author of 1 Peter. (5) The ancient tradition that places Peter in Rome during the reign of Claudius continues to be cogently argued...Even if Peter wrote in the 60s, the colonization of Roman Christians still provides a motivation for a letter to these remote regions" (Jobes, p. 39).

While the New Testament does not explicitly describe a trip to Rome by Peter, the reference to "Babylon" in 1 Pet. 5:13 is taken by most commentators (ancient and modern) to mean Peter wrote the letter from Rome. Jobes further notes that the word parepedimos (translated 'exiles' in 1 Pet. 1:1) is equivalent to the Latin word peregrinos, which was used to refer to non-citizens of the Roman Empire. This class of free non-citizens were frequently the target of expulsions from Rome.

It is impossible to know with any certainty whether Jobes' theory is correct (and, unless you have a keen interest in early Christian history, it probably doesn't matter to you!) However, while there is no direct biblical evidence for this theory, there is historical evidence to support it, and it has good explanatory power. It provides a clear reason why Christians in these remote areas of the empire - not known to have been evangelized by Peter - should receive a letter from the apostle encouraging them in the midst of very trying circumstances. It also explains why Peter shows no evidence of familiarity with the areas to which he is writing, or the specific situations faced by the readers. 

Finally, if this theory is true we can see God's providential hand at work in these events. If Christians expelled from Rome by Claudius resettled in Asia Minor, not only would they have evangelized these areas, but their expulsion likely saved them from the persecution of Roman Christians that occurred in the 60s under Claudius' successor, Nero.

References:

Grudem, Wayne. 1988. 1 Peter, Tyndale New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Jobes, Karen H. 2005. 1 Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Baker Academic.

Schreiner, Thomas. 2003. 1, 2 Peter and Jude, New American Commentary. Nashville:

Broadman & Holman.

Theology vs. Bible Reading

One of the starkest differences between the Christadelphian community and many older Christian denominations is the attitude within the groups toward theology and Bible reading.

Christadelphians have historically placed a lot of value on personal Bible reading, but no value (or even a negative value) on a formal theological education. Many follow a daily reading plan that takes them through the entire Bible each year. However, the group's founder, Dr. John Thomas, had a very cynical view of theological studies, as seen in the following quotation:

"The same thing is styled in our day 'theological science,' 'divinity,' 'ethics,' 'hermeneutics,' and so forth; terms invented to amaze the ignorant, and to impress them with the necessity of schools and colleges for the indoctrination of pious youth in the mysteries they learnedly conceal." (Eureka, Vol. 1, 6th ed., p. 198)

This negative view of theology as a discipline of study persists among some Christadelphians today; and while no longer unheard of, it is still very rare for a Christadelphian to study theology at an institution of higher learning.

Contrast this with the attitude prevalent in some mainline church denominations. There, it is accepted that it is the priest or pastor's job to understand the Word and teach it to the congregation. That is why he (or she) goes to seminary and gets a degree in theology. Regular Bible reading by the lay members of the congregation may not be discouraged, but neither is it expected.

In my opinion, both of these opposite attitudes are flawed and a balance needs to be struck between theology and Bible reading. In the case of mainline churches, a biblically illiterate congregation will stagnate spiritually, and be vulnerable to deception by false teaching, whether inside or outside the church. Even among those with a theological education, regular reading of the Bible helps one to be grounded and see the "big picture" of God's revealed purpose rather than getting "tunnel vision" for one's area of specialization.

On the other hand, regular Bible reading with a complete absence of theological knowledge in the church is also a recipe for error. For instance, as Grant R. Osborne explains:

"The Bible was not revealed via ‘the tongues of angels.’ Though inspired of God...the absolute truths of Scripture were encased in the human languages and cultures of the ancient Hebrews and Greeks, and we must understand those cultures in order to interpret the biblical texts properly. Therefore Scripture does not automatically cross cultural barriers to impart its meaning." (The Hermeneutical Spiral, pp. 23-24)

One who follows a daily Bible reading schedule may easily forget that the Bible is not one book, but many books written over a long period of time in diverse historical, socio-cultural and linguistic settings. Without some understanding of this background we simply view the Scriptures through the lens of our modern Western mindset, which inevitably leads to misinterpretation and misapplication of the Word. 

There are limits in how rightly one can divide the Word of truth armed only with a Bible, a concordance and one or two other study aids. At some point, one needs a greater knowledge of biblical languages, cultures, history, etc. And while one must think for oneself, one should also become familiar with the volumes upon volumes of previous Bible scholarship rather than pretend one is wiser than all who have gone before.

As someone who has some experience on both sides of the "Theology vs. Bible Reading" fence, I encourage Christadelphians and mainline churches to learn this from each other: theology and Bible reading are not enemies. They are both vital for God's people.

My Lord and my God (John 20:28)

One biblical text that has long fascinated me is John 20:28. Perhaps this is because it was spoken by my namesake, the apostle Thomas.

Over a decade ago, when I maintained a (now defunct) website entitled 'In Defence of Christadelphian Doctrine,' I wrote an article explaining what I thought this verse means. Some time after that, I developed a more elaborate explanation of the verse, which had Thomas acknowledging the truth of Jesus' claim in John 14:9 (a dialogue in which Thomas actively participated - see John 14:5). One can find another Christadelphian explanation of this text on the Wrested Scripture website.

All of these explanations propose that Thomas was not actually addressing Jesus as his God, but rather as a representative of his God; someone who manifests God's attributes but is not himself God.

Upon further reflection, I now find the above explanations completely unsatisfactory. I believe that in John 20:28, Thomas was actually addressing Jesus as his Lord and God. There are three reasons for this:

1) This interpretation follows a straightforward reading of the text; no verbal gymnastics required!

2) Thomas' emphatic confession functions as the climax of the Fourth Gospel, placed as it is just prior to the summary statement in John 20:30-31. It is the crowning moment in the writer's effort to prove the theological statement made in the Prologue (John 1:1-18). The Word made flesh, who was God, was finally received as God by men. To give the statement an elaborate, cryptic interpretation is to rob the Gospel of its climax.

3) It is absolutely unthinkable that a monotheistic Jew such as Thomas was, cautious as they were about misusing divine names, would address a fellow human being as "my God." It is true that there was some flexibility in the use of the word 'god' (theos in Greek; elohim in Hebrew) so that it could be applied to humans in certain rare circumstances (Ex. 7:1; Ps. 82:6 cf. John 10:34). However, we must not gloss over the vast difference between quoting scriptures in which God refers to humans as gods, and a man addressing another man as "My God!" Thomas would by no means have uttered such rash words, which could easily be mistaken for blasphemy, if he only meant that Jesus represented God. Nor would John have written them down without qualification.

Taking Thomas' words at face value, and interpreting them in light of their historical and literary context, we come inevitably to the conclusion that Thomas confessed Jesus to be his Lord and God because that is who he believed him to be.

A Warning on Spiritual Entitlement

I have recently been studying the Book of Jeremiah. I have gained a new appreciation for the relevance of God's pleas and warnings to Judah in this book for our generation. I think the attitude of the Judeans at this time could be described as "spiritual entitlement." One Old Testament scholar summarized their attitude thus:

The Jerusalem establishment believed God had committed himself through a series of irrevocable promises to the temple and the monarchy. Thus the city and temple were inviolable and Judah’s future was secure, no matter how she sinned and no matter how threatening the international scene appeared. This misguided and unfounded confidence created in Judah a false sense of immunity from judgement and subtly became the official religion of Jerusalem. (Arnold, Bill T. Recent Trends in the Study of Jeremiah, Ashland Theological Journal 25:0, 1993, p. 91).

The Judeans thought that since God had promised David that his dynasty would continue forever (1 Kings 2:4), and that he would dwell in Solomon's temple forever (1 Kings 9:3). Although continued obedience was made a condition of both promises, the Judeans of Jeremiah's day believed God would not let his name to be dishonoured among the nations by allowing Jerusalem to be destroyed.

Jeremiah was a lonely voice speaking against the complacent attitudes of his day: "Do not trust in these deceptive words: 'This is the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD'" (Jeremiah 7:4). If they did not heed the call to repentance, Yahweh would destroy the house called by his name (v. 14) and uproot the kingdom of Judah. Unfortunately, that is exactly what happened.

In Jesus' day, a similar attitude prevailed among the religious leaders in Jerusalem. Indeed, Jesus' accusation that they had turned God's house into a den of thieves (Matthew 21:13) is borrowed from Jeremiah 7. The temple and the people of that generation suffered a similar fate.

Today, Christians follow Paul's teaching that the church itself is God's temple (2 Corinthians 6:16) and (provisionally at least) his kingdom (Colossians 1:13). We feel our future is secure because of the abundance of God's grace. This is all true, but must be held in tension with the truth that God will bring terrible judgment on the world, beginning with his household (Hebrews 12:26; 1 Peter 4:17).

Messages of judgment are rare and unpopular in the 21st century church, being seen as out of touch with God's love and grace. God has given us great and precious promises (2 Peter 1:4) and made us his dwelling place (Ephesians 2:22) but let us be wary lest we too fall into disobedience due to a sense of entitlement. We need to hear afresh the words of the prophet Jeremiah:

"Have you not just now called to me, 'My father, you are the friend of my youth-- will he be angry forever, will he be indignant to the end?' Behold, you have spoken, but you have done all the evil that you could." (Jeremiah 3:4-5) 

"Will you...come and stand before me...and say, 'We are delivered!'--only to go on doing all these abominations?" (Jeremiah 7:9-10)

And finally, a rhetorical question posed thrice by God in the book: "Shall I not punish them for these things? declares the LORD; and shall I not avenge myself on a nation such as this?" (Jeremiah 5:9; cp. 5:29, 9:9).

The Accuser of our Brethren, Part 12: Answering Objections

Here is the final installment of this series. I hope you have found it enlightening. Remember, the full study can be downloaded in written form from www.dianoigo.com