Archive for the ‘disciples life’ Category


A Conversation with Francis Chan

We’ve reached the end of the Crazy Love newsletter! We hope you’ve found it challenging and inspiring. Today, in the final installment of Crazy Love, we feature a follow-up conversation with author Francis Chan in which he discusses his book and the message behind it.

Q: Tell us about the title Crazy Love.

A: The idea of Crazy Love has to do with our relationship with God. All my life I’ve heard people say, “God loves you.” It’s probably the most insane statement you could make to say that the eternal Creator of this universe is in love with me. There is a response that ought to take place in believers, a crazy reaction to that love. Do you really understand what God has done for you? If so, why is your response so lukewarm?

Q: Why do you think so many Christians blame the church for their failures?

A: We all need to justify our actions. The easiest thing to do when we’re not living how God wants us to is to blame someone or something else. It’s not unique to the church. You see it everywhere, people blaming their parents, a chemical imbalance, whatever, rather than looking to themselves and changing who they are through the Holy Spirit. The same thing happens in the church. All of us who have the Holy Spirit have the potential to live a “crazy love” type of life, but it’s easier to not live it and blame someone for that.

Q: You talk about believing in God without having a clue what He’s like. As a Christian, how is that possible?

A: Because we’re taught so little about God, most people just want to know what God can do for them rather than desiring to know Him. When we present the gospel, we try to answer one question: How do I keep from going to hell? After that question is answered, we stop asking questions about God. With the American church being so concerned about converts, we don’t take the time to present the God-centered universe to people. We don’t try to dig deep into the truth of God. We need to learn the attributes of God before we know what He is like.

Q: There is urgency in your message. Where does this come from?

A: I think from two things. One, as a pastor I was doing funerals just about every week. A lot of these funerals were for people younger than I am, and so many of them are unexpected. Seeing the shock of their loved ones and realizing God can take your life at any time gives me a sense of urgency.

The other is my upbringing. My mom died giving birth to me; my stepmom died when I was nine; my dad died when I was twelve. I learned that there might not be a tomorrow. I always want this to be the greatest message I’ll preach in case I’m not here to give another one.

I have a sense of urgency built into me from my upbringing and going to so many funerals and seeing friends pass away. I can’t help but be urgent in my message.

Q: You talk about what it means to be a lukewarm Christian. You make a bold statement that “churchgoers who are ‘lukewarm’ are not Christians.” We will not see them in heaven? How do you explain this? How does grace play into this statement?

A: I explain it through the passage of Revelation 3 and look at the passage objectively. God says that the lukewarm will be spit out of His mouth, and that is drastically different than God embracing you and welcoming you into heaven. The lukewarm still need to be saved. How can we say a lukewarm Christian is saved?

Salvation has nothing to do with my performance. If I’m truly saved, then my actions are going to show. All through the New Testament a person’s faith is shown through his actions. New Testament teachings are clear that someone who loves God and doesn’t obey God is a liar, and the truth is not in Him.

It’s not popular to question someone’s actions and salvation, and Scripture tells us to test ourselves and see if we’re really in the faith. I believe 100 percent in grace, that I did nothing, and I’m completely saved by the cross. By the grace of God we believe and are saved. If someone has the Holy Spirit in them, there will be fruit, and there will not be a lukewarm life.

Q: In one chapter you state, “Dare to imagine what it would mean for you to take the words of Jesus seriously.” What does this mean? Why do you think so many Christians would turn down this dare?

A: We’ve conditioned ourselves to hear messages without responding. Sermons have become Christian entertainment. We go to church to hear a well-developed sermon and a convicting thought. We’ve trained ourselves to believe that if we’re convicted, our job is done. If you’re just hearing the Word and not actually doing something with it, you’re deceiving yourself.

I remember preaching on Luke 6, and I brought up the passage that says, “Do good to those who hate you? I told the congregation to think of someone who hated them, and I asked, “Are you willing to go do something good for them? Will you do that? Yes or no?” I said, “Tell God right now, ‘No I will not do that.'” We’re not willing to make that statement because we don’t want to say that to God, but we’re doing that every day.

We don’t think it through because we’ve developed a habit of listening to the Word of God and not obeying it. If we take Scripture literally and if we actually apply it, we won’t have what our flesh desires, so we walk away sad or we run to the church where no one else is doing it, but they seem okay with that.

Q: How does the American dream play into a lukewarm faith?

A: It’s interesting when we talk about the American dream. In Luke 12, Jesus tells the parable of the rich fool. There’s this guy who is rich and has an abundance of crops. He builds bigger barns so that he can store it up. He says, “[I] have plenty of good things laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink, and be merry.” Basically, he’ll retire and enjoy himself, the American dream. God says, “You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you.”

We shouldn’t worry about our lives, what we’ll eat, buy, or wear. God says the American dream is absolute foolishness. It’s exactly what Christians are doing and defending. God could take your life at any time. Don’t conform to the patterns of this world.

Q: Do you think God calls you to live a radical, crazy life?

A: It’s not that this lifestyle should be crazy to us. It should be the only thing that makes sense. Giving up everything and sacrificing everything we can for the afterlife is logical. “Crazy” is living a safe life and storing up things while trying to enjoy our time on earth, knowing that any millisecond God could take your life. To me that is crazy, and that is radical. The crazy ones are the ones who live life like there is no God. To me that is insanity.

That’s it! Thanks for reading the Crazy Love newsletter. If you enjoyed it and want to dig more deeply into the subject matter, check out the book, ebook, and group study materials at the Bible Gateway store.


1. What is a radical?

“Radical” is one of those words that’s thrown around so casually now that it’s lost nearly all of its force and its distinctive meaning. In general use, it is close to a synonym of “good”. But its true meaning is to do with the concept of a root. A radical change is one that comes from the root; a radical politician is one who wants to change the roots of the political system; and a radical Christian is one whose roots are in Christ.

So the key question for us is this: what is the root of our lives? What does everything else grow from?

Paul draws out the importance of our root in the letter to the Colossians:

So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him, rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness
— Colossians 2:6-7

And Jesus describes it in the parable of the sower:

[Jesus] told them many things in parables, saying: “A farmer went out to sow his seed. […] Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root.”
[…]

“Listen then to what the parable of the sower means […] The one who received the seed that fell on rocky places is the man who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away.”
— Matthew 13:3, 5-6, 18, 20-21

For us, as for plants, every aspect of our health and growth is determined by the nourishment we get from our root. A plant with no root will die, and a Christian whose root is not in Christ will find his faith dying. It is as simple as that.

A radical Christ hears the radical call of Jesus and obeys, not because he manages to persuade himself that it’s the best thing, or out of a sense of duty, but because his root is in Christ and so following the call is the obvious, natural thing to do.

The call of Jesus is as demanding to us to today as it was to his first disciples two thousand years ago:

Jesus said to his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.”
— Matthew 16:24

I want to be clear that being radical, in this biblical sense, is very different from being weird. Christians come across as weird when they’re trying too hard to be something they’re not, to force themselves into a spiritual or cultural mold that doesn’t fit their real identity. But being radical means nothing more or less that being true to the identity that God has given us.

2. How radical does God expect us to be?

In the opening section of his classic 1981 book The Radical Christian, Arthur Wallis writes:

If any man professes to call himself a child of God, a disciple of Christ, or a citizen of the kingdom, and yet is bereft of this radicalism, he would be well advised to take a long hard look at his Christian profession. Can it be real gold without this hallmark?
[…]

The radical Christian […] is not a special Christian. He simply qualifies for New Testament normality.
— Arthur Wallis, The Radical Christian, p15

The bible doesn’t envisage any other kind of Christian than what we’re calling “radical”. In the New Testament, radical Christians would not be called radical, they’d just be called Christians!

Being a radical Christian is not a special, high call that’s just reserved for a few special people. It is what God desires for each of us, expects from each of us, and has equipped each of us for. There is no real alternative.

When Dave Nunn (leader of the Bermondsey NFI church and helping with this plant) was a new and enthusiastic Christian, someone suggested that he should read Watchman Nee’s book The Normal Christian Life. He didn’t bother, because his attitude was that he wasn’t interested in just being a mundane, ordinary Christian; he wanted more than that from God. But years later, when he finally read the book, he found that that was precisely the book’s point:

What is the normal Christian life? We do well at the outset to ponder this question. The object of these studies is to show that it is something very different from the life of the average Christian.
[…]

The Apostle Paul gives us his own definition of the Christian life in Galatians 2:20. It is “no longer I, but Christ”. Here he is not stating something special or peculiar – a high level of Christianity. He is, we believe, presenting God’s normal for a Christian, which can be summarised in the words: I live no longer, but Christ lives His life in me.
— Watchman Nee, The Normal Christian Life, opening words.

2 Corinthians 5:17 says “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!” We are new people – God has given us a new root. Now he expects us to live from that new root instead of continuing to live our old lives from an old root. Doing this is nothing more than being true to what we are. It is holiness in its sense of wholeness.

3. How important is it to be radical?

In the first letter to the Corinthians, Paul spells out how important the way we live our lives is:

Each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.
— 1 Corinthians 3:10-15

This is a stern warning. The message here is that it is not enough just to cruise through a Christianised life on autopilot. Comfortable, middle-class church-attendance is not going to impress God. The warning to the Laodicean church in Revelation is even more thought-provoking:

I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm – neither hot nor cold – I am about to spit you out of my mouth. You say, “I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.” But you do not realise that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.
— Revelation 3:15-17

We must not sing “Jesus be the centre” and then make him peripheral, one ingredient among many in our lifestyle. If we inventory our lives and find that we’re going: family, job, God, football, then something is desperately wrong.

Treating Jesus as an optional extra, a “lifestyle accessory” may be the single greatest hindrance to our evangelism. Although there are many styles of evangelism, there are ultimately only two basic approaches. The first can be characterised by the phrase “ask Jesus into your life”, and is all about adding him in to whatever else our lives already consist of. The is completely unbiblical. Jesus never offered anyone anything like that. The second approach can be characterised by the phrase “give your life to Jesus”, and is an accurate representation of the offer that he made then and still makes now.

We must be ever vigilant against the tendency to drift from the second of these approaches, which can be perceived as threatening and confrontational, to the first, which is much less demanding for the people we’re talking to. When we present the gospel in terms of “here’s something nice you should add to your lifestyle”, we offend God, deceive our hearers and waste our time. The gospel of Jesus is much more stark: “Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand!”

4. What is a radical Christian like?

The number one characteristic of a radical Christian is that he or she loves God more than anyone or anything else. In Paul’s case, his passion for God was so great that he actively looked forward to his own death:

To me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labour for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body.
— Philippians 1:21-24

The second characteristic is that a radical Christian works hard at the work God has given him or her to do. That’s not the same as burning out on meeting other people’s needs, but a recognition of God’s call and a response to it. Again, Paul is an excellent example:

By the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of [the apostles] – yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me.

— 1 Corinthians 15:10
We see both of these attributes together in a single, paradoxical verse from the letter to the Philippians, in which Paul tells them:

Work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you.
— Philippians 2:12-13

Here, the motivation to work hard is that God is already at work in us, and has already worked in us; but our response to that is not laziness but a determination to respond to God’s work in us by working at what he has given us to do. Again, please understand, this emphatically does not mean that we work to earn God’s approval. Quite the converse: we work hard as a response to the fact that God has already given us his approval. We’re not trying to earn love, but to please someone who already loves us.

These are quite abstract descriptions of what a radical Christian is like. That’s how it has to be: there is no “badge of office”. I knew four people in the church at Bermondsey who were (and still are) radical Christians.

One is a full-time worker for the church and an outstanding preacher and worship leader.

Another is less visibly involved in public ministry but does a lot of work behind the scenes with groups like homeless people.
A third has, so far as I’m aware, no formal role within the church at all except as a member.

The fourth went alone to Africa to be a missionary in a Muslim country.

In each of them, the radical Christianity that God called them to is expressed differently. That’s because God deals with each person individually. Not everyone is called to be a missionary in Africa; but everyone is called to live a radical Christian life with Jesus at the very center of it.

5. How can we be radical?

When Nick asked me to preach this week, he wanted me to be much more practical than I usually am, and asked me to include “top tips for holiness”. I’ve thought about this, and the fact is I just can’t do it. The kind of radicalism I’m talking about here must by its very nature start at the root and work its way upwards and outwards. We can’t get there by imposing rules on our behavior.

So what can we do? It’s very, very simple. God says:

You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.
— Jeremiah 29:13

That’s all.

Remember that in the passage from Revelation earlier, God says to the Laodicean church, “You do not realise that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.” To realise that, and to hunger and thirst for more, is Step One towards biblical, Jesus-centred radicalism – just as in Alcoholics Anonymous’s twelve-step program, step one is to admit that you have a problem. That’s why Jesus says:

Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
— Matthew 5:3, 6

If we want to be radical, if we want Jesus to be the root of our lives, then all that is required is that we make him the centre. It’s not necessarily easy, but it’s simple. And it all comes from the hunger for God that Jesus described in the sermon on the mount.

Where does that hunger come from? Well, hopefully from sermons like this one! Also from reading the bible, from anointed Christian music (which does not mean all Christian music), from time spent in prayer. My number one hope for this session is that people will go away from it hungrier for God than before.

Finally, to anyone who became a Christian in response to an invitation of the “ask Jesus into your heart” variety, I was to say this: sorry, you were misled. The call of Jesus to you now is the same it was then, but it wasn’t explained to you. That call is to turn your whole life over to him. Please do.

~Mike Taylor


Many churches today have a pastor and several deacons. This is based on a model of ecclesiology in which it is assumed that there was one elder in the ancient church. But even those churches that have more than one elder (the pastor being one of them) usually regard the pastor as the de facto head of the church. This is due to two basic reasons: (1) he is the one with biblical training, and (2) he is the one who speaks before the entire congregation every Sunday.

It seems to me that this model (either the philosophical single-elder model or the pragmatic single-leader model) misses the mark of the New Testament teaching on this topic. The early church had, I believe, multiple elders. The pastor would have been counted among them, but was not over them. Indeed, all would have taught, not just one. If we can get back to this model, I think that churches will be stronger in many ways. They will be less idiosyncratic, less dependent on one person,1 more accountable.

The case for plurality of elders can be argued along four lines: biblical, historical, theological, and pragmatic. At bottom, I would say that the reason the scriptures teach multiple eldership is at least twofold: (1) mutual accountability is necessary if leaders are to avoid falling into sin; and (2) a church takes on the personality of its leader/s: if there is just one leader, the church will inevitably take on that man’s personality, including his quirks and faults. But if more than one person leads the church, there is the greater chance that the church will be balanced.2

I. Biblical Arguments
A. For Multiple Elders
The argument from scripture is in fact so strong that most commentators today assume it. But it is well-articulated in G. W. Knight, Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (New International Greek New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992) 175-77 (the section called “Excursus: Bishops/Presbyters and Deacons: 3:1-13”).

The following points are relevant for our discussion:

(1) Presbyters (also translated “elders”) and bishops (also translated “overseers”) were apparently the same individuals. That is to say, the two terms were synonymous.

Note, for example, Titus 1:5 (“appoint elders”), followed by v. 7 (“for a bishop must be blameless”). The very fact that the sentence in v. 7 begins with a “for” shows a connection: bishops are elders.

Otherwise, why would Paul mention the qualifications of a group that were not whom Titus should appoint? In Acts 20:17 Paul calls the “elders of the church” of Ephesus together for a final meeting. Then, in v. 28 he addresses them as “overseers” (or bishops). Thus, any passage that deals with bishop is equally applicable to elders.

(2) The leadership of the church from the earliest period always had elders, even if it did not have deacons. Young churches only had elders; more mature churches had both elders and deacons.

This can be seen by a comparison of Titus 1:5-9 and 1 Tim 3:1-13: the Christians in Crete (where Titus was ministering) were relatively new. The qualifications for deacons is not mentioned because only the top level of leadership needed to be established in such a situation. But in Ephesus the church was well established (where Timothy was ministering).

Consequently, Paul not only gives instruction to Timothy about both elders and deacons, but also says that the leaders should not be recent converts (cf. 1 Tim 3:6 [for elders] and perhaps implied in 3:10 for deacons). But no instruction is given to Titus about new converts because that was the only pool from which he could draw.3 Thus, for young (and presumably small) churches, the leaders would do the work of both elders and deacons.4

In sum, a church must have elders, but not necessarily deacons (at least at first).

(3) Elder and pastor are not the same thing in the NT. “Elder” refers to the office one holds by virtue of appointment or election; “pastor” is a spiritual gift that one is given by the Holy Spirit (cf. Eph 4:11; 1 Cor 12:7-11). One can have the gift of pastor without being an elder; and one can hold the office of elder without having the gift of pastor.

(4) For elders, the one qualification that is other than moral is the ability to teach. Note 1 Tim 3:2 (“able to teach” [didavktiko”, didaktikos]). Titus 1:9 expands on this: “he must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it.”

There is much confusion about what this means.

This does not mean that an elder must have the gift of teaching, for the NT is very clear that all believers should be able to teach. Cf. Heb 5:12 (the definition of a spiritual meat-eater is one who is able to teach [5:11-14]; the author indicts his entire audience for not yet being able to do this); Col 3:16; Titus 2:3.5

“Able to teach” does not mean seminary-trained or one skilled in the biblical languages. This is evident from the fact that Gentile Christians were among the first elders (cf. Titus 1:5-9). These men would not have known Hebrew.

It is recognized that some elders would be gifted as teachers and would especially exercise this gift (1 Tim 5:17). Thus, the implication is that not all would teach equally. (Personally, I see in this text justification for some of the elders to be pastor-teachers. Further, those especially gifted in this area would want to hone such a gift by learning the scriptures as diligently and rigorously as they could. Hence, there is justification for having seminary-trained teachers. But, at the same time, it is evident that not all elders had this gift.)

The basic thrust of this qualification is that elders would hold to pure doctrine in guiding the church. In other words, they would be mature men who could sniff out heresy and steer the church in the direction it needs to go. Certainly in some especially delicate matters these leaders would defer to others who had the gift. But the elders needed to make the final decisions about the direction of the church.

Pragmatically, one of the ways in which such teaching could be accomplished would be for the elders to oversee different home Bible studies. Nowadays “mini-churches” are very popular. Such mini-churches are actually very biblical. The early church met in homes during the week. Each home would presumably have its own elder. Thus, at least in the context of a small gathering, the elders should be prepared to teach.

Teaching also occurs in another, less visible context. When the elders and pastor meet together, the elders should have the freedom to state their opinions freely. To be sure, the pastor is usually better trained in the scriptures, but this in no way gives him the right to demand allegiance to his viewpoints. He must demonstrate that his views are biblical and submit them to the leadership. At times, his case will not convince. (Each one of us is responsible to know the scriptures and to examine the evidence for our beliefs.) Further, many if not most issues to be decided by an elder board allow for a great deal of flexibility. Two positions could equally be in line with scripture. At that point, the collective wisdom of the leadership needs to reign supreme.6

(5) The consistent pattern in the NT is that every church had several elders.

Note the following texts (where either elder or bishop is used):

Acts 11:30–elders at the church of Antioch
Acts 14:23–Paul and Barnabas appoint “elders in every church”
Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 16:4–elders at the church in Jerusalem
Acts 20:17, 28–elders/bishops at the church of Ephesus (v. 17–“elders of the church”)

Acts 21:18–elders at the church in Jerusalem
Phil 1:1–the church at Philippi has bishops and deacons
1 Tim 5:17–elders at the church of Ephesus
Titus 1:5–Titus is to appoint elders in every town7
Jas 5:14–“the elders of the church”
1 Pet 5:1-2–“the elders among you”

In every one of these texts the plain implication is that each church had several elders.

Note also that other more generic terms are also used of church leaders. The pattern once again is that there are several leaders for each church:

1 Thess 5:12, 13–the congregation is to respect its leaders9
Heb 13:7, 17–heed the leaders of the church, “for they are keeping watch over your souls” (v. 17)10

The evidence is overwhelming. So strong is it that Knight, after carefully evaluating the evidence, can argue:

An analysis of the data seems, therefore, to indicate the existence of oversight by a plurality of church leaders throughout the NT church in virtually every known area and acknowledged or commended by virtually every NT writer who writes about church leadership. . . . [For example,] Every church in which leadership is referred to in Asia Minor either under Paul and his associates or under Peter’s ministry has a plurality of leadership . . .11

B. For Single Elders
If the case is this strong, why then do some argue for a single elder? The basic argument for this position is theological and historical, rather than biblical. But biblically, there are five texts which seem to suggest a single elder. We will look at these not in canonical order but from the weakest arguments to the strongest.

(1) Revelation 2-3–there is one “angel” over each church. The word angel (a[ggelo”, anggelos) is sometimes translated “messenger” in scripture. Hence, perhaps the single “angel” over each church is the single elder (pastor), rather than an angel.

The problem with this view is manifold: (1) a[ggelo” (anggelos) is used 67 times in Revelation. If we exclude the references in chapters 2 and 3 for the sake of argument, we see a remarkable thing: every instance of a[ggelo” [anggelos] refers to an angel. (Unless of course pastors can fly! cf. Rev 14:6). (2) Even if Rev 2-3 were an exception, “messenger” is hardly an appropriate term for a pastor.

Pastors were, in NT times, restricted to a certain locale geographically. But a messenger is one who moves about. (3) The genre of the Revelation fits what is called “apocalyptic.” In apocalyptic literature there is a strong emphasis on angels. Among other duties, they are responsible before heaven for groups of godly people. Thus, when the Lord says, “to the angel of the church at _______, write” we have apocalyptic symbolism and imagery occurring. Angels are evidently in view, not pastors.

(2) 2 John 1, 3 John 1–the “elder” writes to the elect lady and to Gaius. Some argue that John describes himself in these two little letters as “the elder” because he is the lone elder at the church. There are a few problems with this view, however.

First, the author is writing to two different people at apparently two different churches. Would he be their elder? If so, then we have an anomalous situation unparalleled in the rest of the NT: a single elder for at least two churches. If not, would he perhaps be the elder at the church of Ephesus writing to Christians at other churches? That too is doubtful, because (a) why would he not mention which church he was elder over? and (b) if he were the elder at the church of Ephesus, what business does he have meddling in other churches’ affairs?12

Second, suppose that John is actually writing to one and the same church in 2 John and 3 John. If so, couldn’t he be their elder? Not only is there, at best, a very slim chance that only one church is being addressed,13 but such a hypothesis produces a very large problem for itself: this lone elder apparently is an absentee elder who gives no certain evidence that he will even visit the church, let alone teach there! (Although this is clearly his desire, he refrains from absolute certitude.) Notice 2 John 12: “Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete.” Likewise, 3 John 10 says “if I come [to the church]” and v. 14 says “I hope to see you.”

Third, the apparent meaning of “the elder” in these two little letters seems to be the equivalent of “the old man.” The term used, in fact, can only be given a technical nuance in contexts that seem to demand it. Presbuvtero” (presbuteros) is a word which frequently meant simply “old man” (cf. Acts 2:17; 1 Tim 5:1). This fits well with the probable authorship of these letters (namely, John the apostle). By the time he had settled in Asia Minor as the last living apostle, it would be quite appropriate for him to take on a term of endearment and affection: “This letter is from the old man.”

(3) 1 Tim 3:2 (cf. Titus 1:7)–“bishop” is singular, while “deacons” (1 Tim 3:8) is plural. This would seem to argue that there was but one bishop/elder per church, while there would have been several deacons.

Again, such an argument has very little substance. First, it is unlikely that only one bishop is in view because otherwise it is difficult to explain 1 Tim 5:17 (“let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor”) and Titus 1:5 “appoint elders in every town”).14

Second, it is likely that the “bishop” in 1 Tim 3:2 is generic. The article is used this way in Greek very frequently. That is, the singular is used to specify a class as opposed to an individual. J. W. Roberts, a Greek grammarian, pointed out along these lines: “A case in point where wrong use has been made of the generic article is in reference to ‘bishop’ in 1 Timothy 3:2. This has often been used to prove the existence of the monarchal bishop at the time of the writing of the Pastorals. A majority of the commentators, however, agree that the usage is generic.” Cf. also Matt 12:35; 15:11; 18:17; Luke 10:7; John 2:25. The generic article is actually used thousands of times in the NT.

Third, further evidence that “bishop” is generic in 1 Tim 3:2 is found in the overall context. (Keep in mind that the NT had no chapter or verse divisions originally. These were inventions of later centuries.) Notice the context in which behavior in the church occurs: 1 Tim 2:8-3:13. In 2:8 Paul addresses “the men.” In 2:9-10 he addresses “the women.” Then, in 2:11-12 he says that “a woman should learn quietly . . . I do not permit a woman to teach . . . a man.”

Paul is not here speaking of a particular woman (otherwise he would surely have mentioned her by name), but women as a class. In 2:15 he says “but she shall be saved . . . if they continue.” Thus, there is a free exchange of the singular and the plural here. Immediately after this Paul speaks of “the bishop.” Then, in 3:8 he addresses “the deacons.” The overall context is very clearly dealing with classes of individuals. The only time it is not, in fact, is when Paul speaks of Adam and Eve (2:13-14), yet even here he quickly gets into the relevance for his readers in v. 15 (“she . . . they”).

C. Summary
The biblical evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of multiple elders. The few passages which might otherwise be interpreted certainly do not have to be so interpreted and, in fact, most likely should not be. This fact illustrates a fundamental principle of biblical interpretation: do not follow an interpretation which is only possible; instead, base your convictions on what is probable.

The rest of our arguments are presented here very briefly since the basic one, the biblical argument, has been addressed at some length.

II. Historical Arguments
In Ignatius (an early Christian writer who died in c. AD 117), at the beginning of the second century, already a monarchical episcopate exists. It is interesting that Roman Catholics especially appeal to this as a model for their practices (since they rely on the tradition found in patristic writers like Ignatius far more than on divine revelation). Those who deny the Pauline authorship of the pastoral epistles (i.e., 1-2 Timothy and Titus) also see the pastorals as reflecting a one-elder situation (=monarchical episcopate) because they regard the pastorals as having been written during the time of Ignatius. But evangelicals should not consider arguments from either camp as weighty. In particular, if we equate either what the early church fathers practiced or believed as totally in line with the New Testament, then we have some significant retooling to do in our churches today. Some examples:

Didache (c. AD 100-150)–gives several regulations about baptism and fasting, much of which is pure legalism. (For example, in one place he says, “Let us not fast as the Jews do, who fast on Mondays and Thursdays. Instead, let us fast on Wednesdays and Fridays.” In his discussions of baptism, he argues that cold water is better than warm, etc.–all arguments that have nothing whatever to do with the biblical revelation).

Most early church fathers (i.e., 2nd-3rd century AD) didn’t have a clue about grace, eternal security, the gospel. The church very quickly degenerated into basic legalism. It was not until Augustine that the church recovered some of this. But then it fell into the dark ages, waiting for a young monk from Germany to nail his protests on the door of the Wittenberg Church. Dr. Ted Deibler (former chairman of Church History at Dallas Seminary) used to say, “the one thing we can be certain of learning from church history is that we learn nothing from church history.” He meant by this that we are on very dangerous ground if we assume uniformly correct theology from the church fathers.

Allegorical interpretation and eschatology: Origen and his school in particular promoted a view of scripture which was quite fanciful.
In sum, the argument for a single leader of each church is especially persuasive to Roman Catholics because it did occur throughout church history. Yet, such traditions can never replace the Word of God. In fact, with the birth of the Reformation came a renewed understanding of the priesthood of the believer which, in turn, moved away from the notion of a single leader at the top.

III. Theological Arguments
The quirks of personality: a church becomes like its leader (a student becomes like his teacher [cf. Luke 6:40]).

The emphasis in scripture on doing the work of the ministry in company with other believers: e.g., Paul never went on a missionary journey by himself (Barnabas, Silvanus, Sosthenes, Timothy, Luke were especially his traveling companions). Paul even included his companions’ names in the greetings to various churches. In fact, he regarded them unofficially as apostles (not holding the office, but certainly functioning in that capacity). Jesus sent his disciples out two-by-two. (This is not to say that individuals are paralyzed and can’t do anything–cf. Philip ministering to the Ethiopian eunuch, Paul in prison ministering to Caesar’s household, etc. But the ideal is ministry by community.)

This same principle is taught in John 13:35. (Knowledge of Jesus comes through his disciples in a community effort, that is, in their love for one another.)

Accountability and our sin natures (see opening paragraph at the start of this position paper). Each leader knows that he lacks complete balance, that there are things he continues to struggle with. Further, even beyond the sin nature factor is the personality factor. Some pastors are detail men; others are big picture men. Some love music, others have gotten little from music (C. S. Lewis was one such man). All of us together contribute to the way the body of Christ works. But a church that follows in lock-step with the personality and foibles of one man will always be imbalanced.

IV. Pragmatic Arguments
Even if there were no decisive arguments for plurality of elders, the preponderance of evidence is decidely on the side of this view. Further, in consultation with others (especially church historian, M. James Sawyer at Western Conservative Baptist Seminary), the following principle seems to be true: Churches that have a pastor as an authority above others (thus, in function, a monarchical episcopate) have a disproportionately high number of moral failures at the top level of leadership. In other words, it is less likely for a pastor to fall into sin if he is primus inter parus (“first among equals” in the sense of his visibility and training, not spirituality) than if he is elevated above the rest of the church leadership.

Thus, the case of multiple elders in the local church is solidly based on biblical, historical, and pragmatic reasons. By having several leaders, the church is more able to take on the personality of Christ rather than the idiosyncracies of any one man.

1 One of the measures of how mature a church is is what happens to it when the pastor leaves. If it continues to grow, there is an underlying network of mature leadership. If it shrinks, this may well suggest that much of the size of the church originally was due to the magnetism of a single person.

2 This is actually quite similar to the “checks and balances” in the U.S. Constitution. This document was written with a heavy input from Christians who understood depravity. They recognized, I think, that the best form of government was a benevolent dictatorship, and the worst was a malevolent dictatorship. With dictators, there is no guarantee. Hence, the second best form of government is one in which no single branch of government and no individual is given too much power. This Constitution was written after the Articles of Confederation (inspired especially by Deists who believed in the inherent goodness of humanity)–which were very weak on checks and balances–failed.

3 That these lists were a bit different on this point (and some others) indicates an extremely important point: Much of the instruction given about church order is ad hoc rather than of universal principle. It is our duty to discern which is which. For example, I have no strong opinion about how the leaders of a church are to be appointed, because the NT seems to be flexible in this regard (e.g., some churches did it by congregational vote, others had appointments from apostolic delegates). The NT is flexible on areas that are not consequential.

4 The normal understanding of the difference in function of the two groups is this: elders are primarily concerned with the spiritual welfare of the congregation, while deacons are primarily concerned with the physical welfare of the congregation. Thus, elders would oversee the direction of the church, work with the pastor (or pastors) on the spiritual needs of the church (what they should be fed, etc.).

5 The fundamental principle of discipleship is the passing on of truth in the context of love to faithful individuals, who in turn would do the same thing (2 Tim 2:2). The ideal is for every member of the church to carry on this task. It is obvious (from 2 Tim 2:2) that discipleship and a teaching ministry were not to be restricted to just pastors or those with the gift of teaching.

6 One of the first churches I was in that was run by a plurality of elders had a rather mature pastor. He was one of the brightest and godliest men I’ve ever known, thoroughly saturated in the Word of God. Yet, he did not even have a vote on the elder board. The elders frequently asked his opinion. But he also respected their leadership.

He told me once that having the elders run the show gave him a
greater measure of freedom, for it allowed him more time to work on his messages. He didn’t have to wear several hats and therefore did not get burned out in the ministry. Further, he noted that the elders had maturity of years over him and collective wisdom that he wanted to learn from. The man had a Th.M. degree and a Th.D. degree from a leading seminary, yet he eagerly bowed to the leadership and wisdom of the elder board! That was humility! In fact, every year he submitted to a rigorous personal evaluation of his life by the elders. They asked him the tough questions, such as faithfulness to his wife, what he read, saw, participated in, and what he did with his money and his spare time. This was not a ‘big brother is watching you’ lynching; it was something this pastor volunteered for. The church grew quickly and profoundly because of such accountability at the top levels.

7 The early church had but one church in each city or town. Hence, Paul’s instruction to Titus is to appoint multiple elders in every church.

8 That each church to which Peter is writing had multiple elders is likely from vv. 2-3–“Tend [poimavnete, poimanete–a plural verb; thus, “you elders”] the flock [singular] of God that is your charge . . . by being examples [plural] to the flock.” Thus, multiple elders are linked to a single flock each time.

9 It is most likely that only elders are in view. The reason for this is that, as we have argued above, young churches did not have deacons but did have elders. Paul had spent only about three weeks with the Thessalonians. But he appointed leaders before his departure. Thus, it is likely that he appointed only elders. In the least, there is not even a hint in this text that only one elder and several deacons were appointed.

10 Since the duties of the leaders are described in this manner, it is obvious that multiple elders are in view (since deacons were not responsible primarily to keep watch over the souls).

11 Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 177.

12 Some denominations have a bishop over several churches and an elder at an individual church. But John is called an elder, not a bishop. Thus, these denominations have a difficult time basing their view on scripture.

13 In fact, many today see three churches addressed: 2 John has one in view; 3 John seems to have Gaius’ church and Diotrephes’ church in view. I am presently undecided on this issue (that is, whether two or three churches are envisioned). One of the fundamental arguments against 2 John and 3 John being addressed to the same church is that the situations are radically different: 2 John addresses the problem of heretics outside the church attempting to get in; 3 John addresses the sin of pride already within the church by an orthodox leader.

Thus, 2 John has to do with doctrine and 3 John is about ethics and holiness. Hence, in the least two churches are in view in the Johannine letters, and perhaps three. Is John the elder of all of them?

14 Recall that “elder” = “bishop” and that each town had but one church.

written By Daniel B. Wallace

(Note: The author of this website agrees that the Modern Church is out of order in regard to “Senior Pastors” mindset and that the Church is in great need to return to the order that is established in the New Testament)


There are many disputes about doctrine in the Christian body – in fact doctrines have caused Church splits. Some say that doctrines are not important and in some ways I agree yet in a very foundational way I must disagree for when we look at the meaning of the word “doctrine” we see that it is something that is taught or a teaching.

And if the body were to fully engage in the doctrines (teachings) of Christ, they would see that each believer at the very core of who they are must walk in this one doctrine (teaching) of Christ that is broadly exposed throughout not only the New Testament, but the whole of the Bible, the “DOCTRINE OF LOVE”

For without it we can honestly not even begin to contend that we are a follower of the Lord. And if we were to walk in, in the very power of this Doctrine sent from Heaven, we would put down our fleshly argument and pride and begin walking in the unity that such a doctrine births.

“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned,[a] but have not love, it profits me nothing”.(1 Cor 13:1-3)

We must understand that God’s glory is wrapped up in His attributes. His love, mercy, grace, wisdom, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence–all the attributes of God–reflect and declare His glory. We glorify God when we in any way praise or acknowledge or experience or display His attributes. When we are examples of His love, for instance, we glorify Him. When we acknowledge and yield to His sovereignty, we glorify Him. That is what it means to glorify God.

This is a fundamental teaching that the committed disciple must be not only preoccupied with his Lord’s glory, but he also must be filled with His love. Perhaps this distinguishing mark of the committed disciple of Christ is the most significant of all in terms of practical living.

What kind of love marks a true disciple? Jesus said, “Love one another, even as I have loved you.” That sets the standard high, doesn’t it? Jesus’ love is selfless, sacrificial, indiscriminate, understanding, and forgiving. Unless your love is like that, you have not fulfilled the new commandment.

The enemy has been very successful in distorting this truth, for if the church existed in that kind of love, it would absolutely overwhelm the world. Unfortunately, that isn’t the way the professing church operates. There are factions, little groups, splits, and cliques. People gossip, backbite, talk, and criticize. The world looks, and they don’t see much love. So there is no way for them to know whether those who call themselves Christians are real or not.

Do you really want to maintain a testimony of love in this world? Then accept whatever comes your way, praise the Lord, and let His love flow through you to the one who wronged you. That kind of love would confound this world.

Real love is costly, and the one who truly loves will have to sacrifice, but while you sacrifice in this world you’re gaining immeasurably in the spiritual realm. And you are displaying the most visible, practical, obvious mark of a true disciple.

Praise God brothers & sisters for at this moment you may lack the marks of a committed disciple of Christ, but God can transform you into a true disciple if you simply surrender and let Him have your will. The life of a committed Christian may be costly, but it is the only kind of life that really counts for eternity.

Let us all adhere to and agree to walk in this one doctrine if non other – “The Doctrine of Love” In fact let us walk in the Radical Love that Christ teaches us to walk in. For then shall all of the world see the Glory of our God.


And now I want you to open your Bible to Mark 9, verses 42 to 50, the last section in this ninth chapter…Mark chapter 9 and we’ll pick up the account in verse 42.

This is a very fascinating portion of Scripture. It has some features in it that are somewhat challenging to the interpreter and therefore highly challenging to me. It has been tampered with through the years, since the original revelation came from God. We know that because the early manuscripts that we have are consistent. Later manuscripts add things or change things. So we have additions in later manuscripts and we have alterations in later manuscripts. And that usually happens because there are scribes who want to increase the potency of a passage and so they add something to it, not something different, but they kind of double up on an emphasis. Or if they feel something is unclear, they might try to clarify it.

Well this passage has both of those kinds of additions. There are things here that are so firm, so strong, so threatening, so severe that somewhere along the line people thought they needed to ramp up the message because of its severity. And there are things in this passage that are cryptic and challenging to interpret and so through the years there have been some alterations, maybe by scribes who wanted to clarify a little bit. Not a good thing to do, change the text. But fortunately we have as close to the original as we’re going to get and we’re going to take the passage at its purest form.

One of the great realities of Scripture is the preservation of the original which God has overseen so that we have a true reflection of the original Greek and Hebrew text. Let me read this to you and if you’ll notice it, I’m going to skip verses 44 and 46 when I read. It may be if you have an NAS or one of the newer translations, you see brackets around them. That is because in the earlier manuscripts, these two statements do not occur. However, the statement in verse 44 & 46 is in verse 48. So we assume that some scribe saw the urgency of this and just wanted to pile it on a little bit. So we’ll leave them out as we read it.

Verse 42, “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him, if with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea. If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled than having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire,” then verse 45, “If your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame than having your two feet to be cast in to hell.” Then verse 47, “If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out; it is better for you to enter the Kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched. For everyone will be salted with fire. Salt is good; but if the salt becomes unsalty, with what will you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another.”

This is a very unique portion of Scripture. It is full of graphic terminology, dramatic acts, severe warnings and rather violent threats. It really is a passage about radical discipleship and the language bears testimony to that. It calls for radical behaviors. And it shows us just how radical it is to be a true disciple of Jesus Christ.

Our Lord here, in these verses, is calling for radical discipleship. I think this is a message that is highly necessary for the day in which we live when under the name of Christianity and even evangelical Christianity, there is so much superficiality. The language here is severe, extreme, fanatical and radical language. And that fits the radical nature of our Lord’s invitation to true discipleship.

Let me talk about the word “radical.” It’s a word you hear, it’s a word you know, it’s a word we experience in our world commonly. If you look in the dictionary, you’ll find two meanings for the word “radical.” Number one, probably will be, this word means basic or fundamental, or foundational, something primary, intrinsic or essential.

The second meaning, which may be the one that is more popular today, is that it also means something that deviates by its extreme. When we think of something radical, we think of something revolutionary, or something severe, or as I mentioned, something fanatical. But really the word is both. It is a word that refers to something that is fundamental and fanatical, that is intrinsic and intensive, that is essential and extreme. Therefore, it is a great word to use as an adjective for a discipleship because discipleship is something fundamental fanatical, something intrinsic and intensive, something essential and something extreme. The basics of being a disciple are really radical.

Now such a call to radical discipleship, as we have just read in this passage, is not new to the ministry of our Lord. It is consistent with the ministry of our Lord. Our Lord has had an evangelistic ministry. He has been calling people, inviting people into the Kingdom of heaven, into the realm of salvation, to come, repent of their sins, believe in Him, receive forgiveness and eternal life and become His disciples, His true follower. But His calls have been very radical. He has told people they need to repent of their sins. They need to turn from their sins. He has told them they have to deny themselves. They have to be willing to forsake all family ties, all earthly relationships, hate your father, your mother, your sister, your brother and hate even your own life. He has told them that it may be the forfeiture of their money, the forfeiture of their earthly future, certainly the control of their life. They are to be willing to die, maybe even be crucified and then to follow Him in total submission. This is radical discipleship and this is radical salvation. The text then is not an anomaly, it is not a deviation, it is not a turning up, heating up the invitation of Christ, it is rather consistent with everything that He has said.

Now when I look at this passage after long hours of pouring over it and trying to distill it down into manageable bites, I find here that there are calls for four aspects of radical discipleship: radical love, radical purity, radical sacrifice and radical obedience. Now remember, this is a lesson that our Lord is giving to His Apostles and other disciples. We are now in the period of His ministry in the book of Mark where He is in training with the Twelve. We have already been to school on prayer and faith. Last week we went to school with them on the subject of humility. And now we’re going to get a lesson on radical discipleship.

The first thing we’re going to see here is a call for radical love…radical love. Verse 42, “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him, if with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea.” Matthew adds, “Into the depths of the sea.”

What the Lord is calling for here is love, believe it or not. Love for other believers so that we do not lead them into sin. He is zealous for the corporate righteousness of His beloved children, His family, His Kingdom, His church. He warns in this very severe statement that before you would lead another believer to sin, you would be better off to die a horrible death.

It is not new for the Lord to have this kind of protective attitude toward His own. In fact, you can find this in Genesis chapter 12 where God tells Abraham that out of his loins is going to come a great nation, namely the nation of Israel. And at that very inaugural point, the Lord says to Abraham, “Whoever blesses you will be blessed, and whoever curses you will be cursed.” And that sets down a principle that if you harm God’s people, harm will come to you. If you bless God’s people, blessing will come to you. In the Old Testament, God calls Israel the apple of His eye. I think some people think that’s an apple you hold out here and look at. No, the apple of your eye is the center of your eyeball and God says if you touch Israel, you touch the apple of My eye, meaning that if you touch Israel, you poke your finger in My eye, and that irritates me.

In Psalm 105, again you have this protective attitude that God has toward those who are His. In verse 10 He speaks about Israel and His covenant with them as an everlasting covenant. He talks about giving them the land of Canaan as a portion of their inheritance. Then down in verse 15 He says, “Do not touch My anointed ones and do my prophets no harm.” This is a threat…this is a threat, and so is verse 42.

This is parallel to a more extensive record of our Lord’s teaching on this. Turn to Matthew 18…Matthew 18, verse 6. The same threat is given here, then I want to point you to verse 7. Verse 6, “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” Then verse 7, “Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks.” Look, you expect stumbling blocks from the world. You expect the world to cause people to sin. You expect the world to solicit and seduce because the world is in the power of Satan. You expect it from the world. “It is inevitable,” verse 7 says, “that stumbling blocks come but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes.” Woe is a denunciation that, in effect, is a curse. We expect it from the world. We expect the world to seduce believers because that’s what the world does all the time. But judgment is pronounced on the world and extended to anyone, even in the household of God, who solicits another believer into sin.

This, by the way, is a favorite emphasis of our Lord. This is like a primary foundational truth about how we deal with one another, and it’s built on a principle we saw back earlier in Mark chapter 9. If you will go with me back to verse 37, you will read this, “Whoever receives one child like this in My name, receives Me. And whoever receives Me does not receive Me but Him who sent Me.” Here’s the point. Christ lives in every believer. How you treat a believer is how you treat Christ, and how you treat Christ is how you treat God. You can’t isolate the believer from Christ. You cannot isolate the believer from God the Father because they dwell in that believer. John 13 verse 20, “Truly, truly I say to you, he who receives whomever I send, receives Me and he who receives Me, receives Him who sent Me.” How you treat another believer is how you treat Christ.

1st Corinthians 6:17 says, “He that is joined to the Lord is one spirit.” That passage also says, “If you go and join yourself to a harlot, you join Christ to the harlot.” The believer becomes inseparable from the Lord. Galatians 2:20, “Nevertheless I live,” Paul says, “yet not I but Christ lives in Me.”

This is the foundation of that. The Apostle Paul is on his way to the persecution of Christians headed for Damascus. The Lord strikes him down, makes him blind. He falls into the dirt and he hears this from the Lord, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” Saul, who was Paul, is Paul to us, was breathing out threatening and slaughter against believers and Jesus said, “You’re persecuting Me.” This is so foundational in the life of the church as to be the first instruction the Lord gives the church in the New Testament, in Matthew 18, just to make sure you treat other believers with the knowledge that they are inseparable from both the Son and the Father and I might add, the Spirit who dwells in them. In Matthew 25:34, at the time of the establishing of the great Millennial Kingdom, the King will say to those on His right, the believers, “Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world, for I was hungry and you gave Me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave Me something to drink. I was a stranger and you invited Me in, naked and you clothed Me. I was sick and you visited Me. I was in prison and you came to Me.” And then the righteous will answer, “Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You something to drink? And when did we see You a stranger, invite You in, or naked and clothe You? When did we see You sick or in prison and come to You?” The King will answer and say to them, “Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least, you did it to Me.” This is the essential controlling reality at the very foundation of how we treat one another in the church. That’s the positive aspect that leads to this negative threat.

Go back then to Mark chapter 9, the threat is unmistakable. “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe, not children but believers who are considered His children, His precious ones, to stumble…to stumble.” What do we mean by stumble? Skandalizomi, to be caught in sin, to be trapped in sin, entrapped, “Whoever causes one…not a group, one, and one is emphatic…it would be better to have a mulos onikos tied around your neck. Mulos is mule, onikos is stone. They used to grind grain using a mule. There would be a fixed stone and on top of that a round stone that would roll around and crush the grain and be pulled by a mule. It would weigh tons…tons. You would be better off to have one of those tied around your neck and have you thrown to the bottom of the ocean than to cause another Christian to be trapped in sin. Drowning is a very unforgettable threat to Jewish people. They are not seafaring people, the ocean is a great barrier to them, they are agrarian people, they fish in the lake. They don’t like the depths of the sea. This is a horrifying threat.

What our Lord is calling for here is radical love, the kind of love that works very hard never to be a source of sinful solicitation to another person. To solicit them toward the lust of the flesh, toward the lust of the eyes, materialism, toward the love of the world, toward pride, we’re talking here about the other believers in your life, children, spouses, friends, acquaintances. Love doesn’t do that. Love doesn’t solicit to sin. Love does the very opposite of that. According to 1 Corinthians chapter 13, love doesn’t enjoy someone falling into sin. According to 1 Peter 4, Peter says, “Love one another with a stretched love, ektenes, fervent love. It’s a word used of stretching a muscle to its absolute maximum. It’s an all-encompassing love that reaches as far as it can possibly go and this kind of love doesn’t solicit sin, it covers sin. It does the very opposite. Fervent love helps others toward holiness. Philippians 2 would define it as the kind of love, the kind of affection that thinks more highly of others than of oneself. It’s the kind of love that elevates, that uplifts toward righteousness.

How is it that we can lead others into sin? I can give you four simple, general answers to that question. Number one, by direct temptation. You all understand that. You tempt somebody to sin, you invite someone to sin, you invite them to sin morally against the laws of God, against the commandments of our Lord by direct solicitation. You invite people to lie, to gossip, to cheat. You invite people to love the world, you draw them in to ungodly enterprise as activities, entertainment, whatever. You understand that.

But there’s a second way, and that’s by indirect temptation. You provoke them to jealousy by flaunting what you have. You…you provoke them to anger by indifference or unkindness, like your children, you know, Ephesians 6:4, “Provoke not your children to wrath,” by inattention, lack of affection, lack of forgiveness, lack of kindness, overbearing expectations. You can do it directly or indirectly.

Thirdly, another way that you can cause people to stumble is by setting a sinful example, simply by doing things that people see that are sinful which path they perhaps will follow. Romans 14, it can be flaunting your liberty which will then lead someone else to do the same but because that conscience has not yet been liberated to understand the full freedoms in Christ, Paul says, it’s destructive because this is training a person to violate conscience and that has a very bad outcome. You have to be careful of the example that you set. Just when you don’t think people are watching, the truth is, they are.

So either by direct temptation, indirect temptation, by setting a sinful example, or maybe, fourthly, by just failing to stimulate righteousness. Failing to encourage godliness, what does the church do when it comes together? Stimulating one another to love and good works, Hebrews 10:24 and 25, “and much the more to see the day approaching.”

So in any of these ways, overlapping, intertwined ways, we can lead others to sin. And our Lord says, “You’d be better off to die a horrible death than to do that.” This is…this is the strongest threat that ever came out of the mouth of Jesus to His own people and it calls for radical love and love seeks someone’s best, love seeks to elevate, love seeks to purify, love seeks to bless.

But not just radical love is called for in radical discipleship, secondly is radical purity…radical purity. And that’s what is laid out in verses 43, 45, and 47. And, of course, they go together because you’re never going to be able to lead someone else into righteousness if you’re not righteous yourself. You’re not going to be a purifying influence on others unless your own heart is pure. Just the reverse is true. If your own heart is impure, you will lead others into sin. You will be the means of other people’s entrapment.

So, the danger of leading others to sin is eliminated when you deal with sin in your own heart. And what this text calls for is a radical severe dealing with that sin. Verse 43, “If your hand causes you to stumble,” and as you stumble, you obviously will lead others to stumble, if your hand causes you to stumble, cut if off; better for you to enter life crippled than having your two hands go into hell into the unquenchable fire.” Verse 45, “If your foot causes you to stumble, to be entrapped, same verb, in sin, cut it off. It’s better for you to enter life lame than having your two feet to be cast into hell.” Then verse 47, “If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out. It is better for you to enter the Kingdom of God with one eye than having two eyes to be cast into hell.”

The language here is just so strong. The first thing that strikes me is the severity with which we are to deal with sin. This is extreme behavior. This reminds me of the illustration of the Old Testament of hacking Agag to pieces, as a king of a symbol of how we have to deal with sin. This is the language that’s similar to Romans where Paul talks about killing sin, mortifying it. This is aggressive, severe treatment of sin, and it’s in metaphoric hyperbole, it’s in metaphoric hyperbole.

The language calls for radical, severe action against any and all sin. Body parts are mentioned here, the hands, the feet and the eyes. And I think the sum of those is simply to say everything you see, everything you do, everywhere you go…everything that relates to your life, all behaviors, these three separate parts are symbolic of the overall general emphasis and the verbs are all in the present tense, which means you keep on doing it. It’s not once and for all we would like to think of that, but that’s not the way it is. Present tense verbs emphasize the continual struggle with temptation and with sin.

And what our Lord is saying is that salvation and the Kingdom of God, mentioned in verse 47, which you want to enter, or life as it’s referred to in verse 43 and 44 which means eternal life, spiritual life, salvation on the positive side and escape from hell on the negative side is so important that you need to get rid of anything that is a barrier to that. That’s the point. Amputation is what’s in view, amputation, radical, severe action against anything that stands in the way of the pursuit of holiness, righteousness and purity.

Obviously our Lord is not calling for physical mutilation, not at all. I promise you, a person with one eye and a person with one hand, and a person with one leg or for that matter, a person with no hands, no legs and no eyes does not thereby conquer sin. That kind of folly developed in the history of the church, even from the second century on, that somehow if you emasculated yourself or if you mutilated yourself physically in some way, you can defeat sin. That kind of view in those early years gained enough traction to have developed into a kind of full-fledged cult in the Middle Ages, a false view developed by Monks and Ascetics who took passages like these and Matthew 19:12 where it refers to those who have been made eunuchs as if somehow in an action like that they could thereby conquer sin. The testimony from people who did that is that it had no real effect on their hearts, although it may have seriously altered their behavior. The issue is on the inside.

Go back to chapter 7, for a moment.In verse 14 He calls together the crowd and He says, “Listen to Me, all of you, and understand…” Verse 15, “There’s nothing outside the man that can defile him if it goes into him, but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man.” There’s nothing outside the man, including his physical attributes. “Are you so lacking,” verse 18 says, “in understanding also because the disciples asked Him a question, do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him because it doesn’t go into his heart, but into his stomach and is eliminated? That which proceeds,” verse 10, “out of the man, that is what defiles the man, for from within, out of the heart of men proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting and wickedness as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man.” You can’t do anything to fix the problem by working on the outside. James 1:14 and 15, says, “Sin is the product of lust conceiving in the heart and bringing forth sin.” It is, as John says, the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh and the pride of life, inner attitudes that lead to sin.

The call here then is metaphoric. Concentrate on your own purity. In Matthew 5 the Lord used this same kind of language with reference to sexual sins. He said, verse 27, in the Sermon on the Mount, “You shall not commit adultery but I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Now what He is saying is, you’re going to have to deal with this problem not just on the outside, you’re going to have to deal with it on the inside. And then He uses the same illustration. “If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you. It’s better for you to lose one of the parts of your body than your whole body be thrown into hell. If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off, throw it from you, for it’s better for you to lose one of the parts of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.”

Obviously He just said, the problem is on the inside, your lusting on the outside, and then He uses an illustration of hacking off a limb on the outside which proves to you that this is only a metaphor. Deal seriously with sin. Sexual sin in that illustration, but any kind and all kinds of sin…deal drastically with it.

Now please notice. You say, “Well, we’re talking about discipleship here.” Right. But please notice that not to do this doesn’t end up in you being a carnal Christian, some kind of second-class believer. Not to do this ends up with you being in hell. Okay? In hell, and that’s why hell is mentioned in verse 43 and verse 45, and verse 47 because hell is at stake here. The references to hell as the disastrous alternative indicate that these statements are calls to an initial, genuine repentance and faith in Jesus Christ that accompanies salvation. We’re talking about deliverance from eternal hell. Do this or go to hell.

That’s what he’s saying, language that sounds a lot like Jeremiah. Jeremiah 4:14, “Wash your heart from evil, O Jerusalem, that you may be saved. How long will your wicked thoughts lodge within you?” How long are you going to go along and not deal with the wickedness that’s in you? Be saved. This is a call to salvation. Choose holiness or hell. Choose the eternal Kingdom of salvation, or the eternal punishment of hell. Because, you see, no real salvation comes unless there is a heart that seeks after righteousness. “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for…what?…for righteousness,” the beatitude.

This then is the initial commitment of a believer to purity that then becomes the pattern of that believer’s entire life. The pursuit of that holiness starts at salvation. Our Lord is simply saying, “Purify your hearts,” as James says, “Purify your hearts, you sinners, cleanse yourselves.” That’s the initial call to salvation that then becomes the sanctifying pattern of life. But the threat is hell.

The word “hell,” by the way, is Gehenna…Gehenna. It is a very interesting term. It is always the term that refers to the Lake of Fire, not just the place of the dead like Hades, but the actual burning Lake of Fire. That is why verse 43 describes hell as the place of unquenchable fire. And verse 48, “Where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.”

Gehenna, where did that word come from? The root of that word comes from the Valley of Hinnom…the Valley of Hinnom, mentioned in Joshua 15:8. It is a steep ravine down to a valley, south of the city of Jerusalem, very severe. That was a place where Ahaz and Manasseh, two kings, offered human sacrifices to Molech. You can read about it in 2 Kings 16 and 21, 2 Chronicles 28 and 33. Human sacrifices in the land of Israel, in the Valley of Hinnom, to pacify this vicious, false deity named Molech…an unthinkable practice that Jewish people would sacrifice their babies to Molech. It was denounced, of course, by the prophets, particularly Jeremiah, Jeremiah 7:31, Jeremiah 32:35. In fact, Jeremiah renames it in Jeremiah 19:6, he calls it “the Valley of Slaughter…the Valley of Slaughter.” And he also calls it the Valley of Topeth. Topeth comes from a Hebrew word that means drum.

Why would it be called the Valley of the Drum? Because some historians tell us that drums were beaten there regularly to drown out the screams of the burning babies. A horrendous place.

Josiah, the good king according to 2 Kings 23:10, shut that down, stopped all that and turned it in to Jerusalem’s garbage dump. I mean real garbage, no plastic, no paper. Rancid food, sewage, maggots and a 24/7 fire consuming it. And it was easily adapted as the word to describe eternal hell…unquenchable fire.

This is the emphasis of Scripture. All the way from the beginning, Matthew 25 to the end, Revelation 20, hell is a reality about which we are warned. Hell is mentioned twelve times in the New Testament, eleven of them by Jesus, the other one by James…James 3:6. And in this place, the fire is not quenched and the worm never die…that’s verse 48.

By the way, verse 48 is a direct quote from Isaiah 66:24 and if you remember Isaiah, that’s the last verse in Isaiah. Isaiah ends with a horrible, horrible pronunciation of judgment. “They will go forth and look on the corpses of the men who have transgressed against Me, for their worm will not die and their fire will not be quenched, and they will be an abhorrence to all mankind.” Looking at the judgment when the Lord comes as final judge.

This is the strongest call to discipleship, maybe the strongest our Lord ever gave. You either deal radically with issues of sin in your life, or you end up in the eternal dump, the garbage pit punished forever where there will be darkness, weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth in isolation, according to what we read in so many places in Matthew.

And once we run from sin toward righteousness and embrace the Savior, the only one who can save us from sin, and grant us that righteousness, and then sanctify us and then one day glorify us, until we do that, we haven’t even begun to be disciples. And once we have come to be disciples, that continues to be the pursuit, doesn’t it? Paul says, “I beat my body to bring it into subjection so that I don’t become disqualified for ministry.” I have to subdue my flesh.

In 2 Corinthians 7:1 he says, “Perfecting holiness.” That’s what we need to be doing. We need to be pursuing it and getting as close to perfecting it as possible. This is a wonderful verse, “Let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” We want to pursue the things that are right. Listen to Philippians 4:8, “Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good report, if there’s any excellence, if anything is worthy of praise, think on these things, dwell on these things.” Pursue a clear conscience. Radical love, radical purity, thirdly, radical sacrifice…radical sacrifice. I’m going to go over about five minutes, so don’t worry. Radical sacrifice. You’ll see.

Verse 49, very cryptic, “For everyone will be salted with fire.” For everyone will be salted with fire. What does that mean? That is so cryptic as to be very difficult to understand. I ask a simple question, where in Scripture is the place where fire and salt come together? In Ezra 6:9 it says that salt has to be stored up to be used in sacrifices. And in Ezekiel 43:23 and 24, we have salt also used with sacrifices. And that’s the answer to the question…where do salt and fire come together? Because sacrifices are burned. Salt was added to sacrifices as a symbol of God’s enduring covenant. Salt is a preservative.

But there’s one particular sacrifice that really fits perfectly here, Leviticus 2. In the opening five chapters of Leviticus, you have Scripture instruction on the five offerings…five offerings. In chapter 2 you have the grain offering…the grain offering. And it describes that offering. But I want you to go down to verse 13, “Every grain offering of yours moreover you shall season with salt so that the salt of the covenant of your God should not be lacking from your grain offering. With all your offerings, you shall offer salt. Salt symbolizes God’s promise, God’s covenant, God’s enduring faithfulness as you make the offering.

Now what is the grain offering? Well there were five offerings. There were four of them that were animal sacrifices…burnt offering, peace offering, sin offering, guilt offering, you see them in the first five chapters there. Those are all animal sacrifices and they all represent the need for atonement for sin. This is not an animal offering. This is not a sin offering. This is an offering of consecration. This is an offering of devotion and dedication. It symbolizes total devotion to the Lord. You gather up the grain, you gather up and you make a sacrifice of your grain on the altar. This then is covered with salt which speaks of the durability, the endurance and the permanence of this offering to God. God will keep His part and by sprinkling salt on it God we know will be faithful. His covenant, His lasting enduring faithfulness is symbolized in the salt and so should ours be as well. We are making a total sacrifice, a long-term, enduring, permanent offering. This is consecration, total consecration. So I call this radical sacrifice…radical sacrifice.

The New Testament equivalent of this, or explanation would be, “I beseech you, therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God that you present your bodies a…what…living sacrifice, holy and acceptable unto God which is your spiritual act of service.” That’s what we see in the grain offering. This is denying yourself, take up your cross, follow Me. This is giving yourself wholly, totally to Christ in the language of sacrifice, an enduring sacrifice. You’re not going to crawl off the altar at the first whim. You’re salting that, it’s a permanent sacrifice. That, I think, is the best explanation of that, that brings the two together.

What is radical discipleship require? A radical love for one another, radical purity in our own lives and a radical sacrifice to God. And there’s a fourth…radical obedience. Verse 50, salt is good. That we understand, kalos, useful, profitable, beneficial, of course, especially in a world with no refrigeration, no ice. Preservation required salting. Salt is good unless it becomes unsalty. “But if the salt becomes unsalty, with what will you make it salty again?” Or another way to say that, “When the salt isn’t salty, what do you salt the salt with?” That’s what He’s saying.

By the way, Jesus made frequent reference to this matter of salt, this same thing, Matthew 5:13, we’ll look at in a minute, Luke 14:34-35. Salt is good unless it loses its saltiness. Now if any of you are in to chemicals out there, chemistry, you know that sodium chloride is stable. Just sitting around it doesn’t lose its saltiness. So the question comes up, “What can this mean, since salt is stable and doesn’t lose its property, even over a long period of time? What can it refer to?”

We’re helped by some historians. Some of them may be ancient like Pliny who recorded the fact that there were several kinds of salts in Israel and many of them had properties that made them impure and they were basically worthless. One kind that seemed to be in some abundant supply with salt that was imperceptibly mixed with gypsum and it was worse than useless.

So our Lord says, while we’re talking about salt and dedication, let me just pick My salt illustration and move it up to another point. Salt is good but it’s only good if its unmixed…if it’s unmixed. And then comes His statement, “Have salt in yourselves. Be salt, don’t be salt mixed with gypsum or anything else, be undiluted, unmixed.” And that’s a command and I think it’s a command to radical obedience, a life that is unmixed.Why do you say that? Because He then gives them a direct practical application, “And be at peace with one another.” Why does He say that? Because that’s what they needed to hear. Back in verse 33 they were…Jesus says, “What were you discussing on the way down here to Capernaum? They kept silent. On the way they had discussed with one another which of them was the greatest.” Wow! They were basically proud, self-serving, competitive. They were guilty of leading each other into sin. There was anger. Anything but humility.

I think our Lord simply says, “You need to be unmixed in your obedience, and here’s your command for today. Stop fighting. Stop elevating yourselves. Stop the competition. Stop being the cause of temptation such as the essence of radical discipleship then, to love extremely, to deal with sin severely, to sacrifice one’s life wholly and to obey fanatically.

And what is the outcome of this? What is the result of this? Turn to Matthew 5…Matthew 5, “You are the salt of the earth.” You’re the only hope the planet has for a spiritual influence. So what you have as a result is radical witness. “And if you become tasteless, you’re not good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men.” Might as well remove you. Hum…maybe that’s what happened to the people at the Lord’s Table in the Corinthian church who died, or the sin unto death that John talks about. The Lord is saying, “Look, have salt in yourselves,” in Mark. Here He says, “You’re the salt of the earth, there is no other salt.” There are no other spiritual influences in this world than the true disciples of Christ who are known by the radical nature of their discipleship.

Then He changes metaphors, “You’re the light of the world. A city set on a hill can’t be hidden, nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, it gives light to all who are in the house. So let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven.” The end of all is that God would be glorified, right? And what is going to attract people to glorifying God is going to be the witness you give because you are salt and light by virtue of your radical discipleship. Well, now, folks, I have a practical application for you. Really radical, radical membership at Grace Church…good place to start. Let’s pray. It’s really not that radical, is it? I mean, the rest of this stuff is radical, this is easy. Get with the program. All right, let’s pray.

Father, thank You for this. Your Word is so fresh, so rich and, Lord, I only can offer this interpretation and understanding as consistent with everything else that New Testament truth would say. Nothing outside what the Word of God says. It is consistent with everything we know that is written in this holy book, Old and New, that we be radical in our love, our purity, our sacrifice, and our obedience in order that we might have a fanatical and radical and revolutionary effect on the world around us. May we be those people that You and the Father may be glorified. That’s the end of all things. Thank You for giving us this incalculable privilege to bear the name of Christ, may we bear it well, to His honor and in His name. Amen. ~John MacArthur


Sorry this isn’t an intro to a wild action movie – it is however a message about maturing as saints!!! Did you know that the Bible proclaims that we are called to be “Vessels of Peace” and warns us “Not to be seated with the scornful”.

I was thinking about the message that was discussed Friday night (01/11/13) at the believers Acts 2 meeting hosted by Presence Church.

The message was about the peace of God – not only about how in 2013 we are entering into a season of seeking the Peace of the Lord but also that we are to allow Holy Ghost to position us that our own lives maybe filled and that along with this we allow Him to position our lives as surrendered vessels in which the Fathers peace finds no resistance in flowing through to impact others live for His Glory.

I think back of the the lessons Holy Ghost taught me ending out this last season. In all truth I see that He had spent much of the last 2 months of 2012 twelve scolding me and correcting me to be a vessel of peace rather than one of scorn. I remember that time as it was a massive blow to my inflated ego of thinking I was the Lords person Don Quixote sent to expose all that is evil in the Church.

How could I have been so blinded by the strings Hell had attached to my spiritual life?

I believe we are in a season when it is very important that we don’t find ourselves focusing on the Devil. We must seek to Glorify none but God and we don’t want to give the enemy any glory.

As I look out with a broken heart I see many who are operating under the same strings of Hell that I had been. filled bitterness blindly believing they are bringing freedom (the light of Truth) when in reality that are but bringing division (The veil of darkness). Unknowingly they are attempting shred what God has called Holy. Now whether it is right now or not is not the question.

Often times they have been so blinded by Hell that one finds them failing to heed even to the very warnings of Scripture such as how the devil actually “prowls around like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour” (1 Peter 5:8).

I write this with the hopes that those who are trapped and operating under this spiritual delusion hear my warning for if they are not cautious they will find them selves in the very pit Holy Ghost pulled me. If they heed it not they may well find themselves consumed (devoured!) by all kinds of irritations in one another and in the church and become vessels of the enemy’s destruction rather than the “Vessels of Light” they blindly believe they are.

Such a person will be found wasting much time taring down rather than building up, They will be found scornfully scowling at how new programs run, personalities of the leaders, worship styles that they allow to become the focus and the quarrel. They will become bitter and unknowingly become a tool of Satan’s religious elite and in error tare down any person or people who “just don’t get it” spiritually the way they do. They will be found walking in false humility with down cast spirits of gloom they begin to rob the joy and peace out of everyone they come in contact. And then turn on them and call them their accusers and tormentors.

They can be found, having their hearts filled with pride, idly wondering why no one has recognized their “Leadership Quality” and then they become bitter that others are stealing their effectiveness in the body of believers.

Again, sadly they are blind to what is happening to them, they close off all who would bring correction into their lives, believing the lie that anyone or anything having associated with the modern day Church is false and they spend their time rejecting all leadership under the guise that they need none save Holy Spirit.

They often become oblivious to what is really going on in the spiritual realm around them. You often hear them saying “The Lord told me this, and the Lord told me that” Even when what they are saying the Lord told them contradicts His own Word.

We ourselves must not be drawn into a personality battle with them either – above all else we must peaceably hold to scriptures such as, “We wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers…” (Ephesians 6:12)

The question is “How to we respond to such”?

Called to be Peace Makers – Not vessels of destruction

We are called to be peace makers not judges or ministers of discipline.

Now, God has sent Holy Ghost for the purpose of bringing correction and He does so through those who have been proven mature and faithful as vessels of His truth. Such not only bring Godly counsel to the table, they are a witness of His calling as elders for they walk in the authority of His Word.

We must avoid allowing bitterness to open the door to pride, for they are like twin sisters who seek but to destroy. The Word tells us that we are to be at peace, to walk in peace and to proclaim the gospel of peace. The same Bible warns us against being found in the seat of the scornful. You will learn to discern the scornful, for though they cunningly proclaim to come in Love their true spiritual nature is a coat of anger and hatred.

The Gospel of peace will give you peace if you follow the things that make for peace. Being prepared to go where God ask you to go, When you do go where God wants, you will have peace, no matter what the situation.

Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense. (Rom 14:19-20)

Destruction and misery are in their ways; And the way of peace they have not known. (Rom 3:16)

Preserve peace run away from these things that rob us of peace. When you are being disobedient you have no peace. Make a stand for the things of God by faith, draw a line in the sand and do not cross it.

The wicked flee when no one pursues, But the righteous are bold as a lion.(Prov 28:1)

When you have done something wrong, you always feel like you’re going to get caught. You’re always looking over your shoulder.

Their throat is an open tomb; With their tongues they have practiced deceit; The poison of asps is under their lips; Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; Destruction and misery are in their ways; And the way of peace they have not known. (Rom 3:13-17)

We can be strong in the Lord and the power of His might. As always it’s by faith that we wear our shoes of the Gospel of peace.

Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. And not only that, but we also glory in tribulations, knowing that tribulation produces perseverance; and perseverance, character; and character, hope. (Rom 5:1-4)

Even as I thought I was bringing Glory to the Lord in pointing out what I thought was false in other people, ministries and Churches – Holy Ghost showed me that I was but bringing division – open the door wide for the enemy to enter in and bring death & destruction.

Even as the Lord has sent me into a deeper understanding of true discipleship, along the way He has pruned me of thorns I had picked up and opened my eyes to the hurt I was bringing when I thought I was bringing liberation.

So yes Father, I have heard Your message that we must not only seek to be grounded in Your peace but we are also to hunger and thirst to become vessels of Your peace and Your very wells from which You can flow Your peace through.


John Wesley said: “What one generation tolerates, the next generation will embrace.” Sadly we have tolerated a hell-less, eternity-less, sin-less gospel and this next generation is aimed at accepting this as the genuine apostolic original. The true Christian witness seems to be almost overshadowed by false doctrines, false cults, and false prophets. It is time for a holy desperation for revival to arise in God’s people! – Greg Gordon

HOLY DESPERATION
The prophet Isaiah declared the woeful state of Israel over three thousand years ago: ”Except the Lord of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah.” How much different are we? Churches are failing, leaders are fumbling, and truth is fallen in the streets.

The prophet Isaiah continues with this divine reprimand:“they declare their sin as Sodom, they hid it not.” And what shall the end of a people be that “hid not their sins”? I have seen a strange thing under the sun: professors preaching “continue in sin” from the pulpit. The Apostle Paul in contrast preached “God forbid” which is one of the strongest emphatic statements in Scripture used to convey the ceasing of sin in the life of the believer. John Wesley said: “What one generation tolerates the next generation will embrace.”

Sadly we have tolerated a hell-less, eternity-less, sin-less gospel and this next generation is aimed at accepting this as the genuine apostolic original. The true Christian witness seems to be almost overshadowed by false doctrines, false cults, and false prophets.

It is time for a holy desperation for revival to arise in God’s people! Mary Warburton Booth said this when the Salvation Army movement was waning: ”How we have prayed for a Revival – we did not care whether it was old-fashioned or not – what we asked for was that it should be such that would cleanse and revive His children and set them on fire to win others.”

We need a fury of passionate pleading, desperate crying, fervent praying for a heaven-sent revival in our day. Chuck Smith gave this searing statement to a church that does not realize its hour: “Today, we are living in desperate times. Yet, the Church is not desperate before God in prayer.”

Leonard Ravenhill said that “Revival only comes by birth.” With birth comes: laborious gestation,travailing birth-pains, and conceptional agony, shall the birthing of of revival be any different? Revival prayer is born out of a holy and healthy desperation for the presence and power of Christ in His church.

We need not shrink back from emotions and displays of desperation for revival, read this old report from one hundred years ago with the Irish Presbyterian Church:

“Perhaps you say it’s a sort of religious hysteria. So did some of us when we first heard of the Revival. But here we are, about sixty Scottish and Irish Presbyterians who have seen it-all shades of temperament-and, much as many of us shrank from it at first, everyone who has seen and heard what we have, every day last week, it is certain there is only one explanation-that it is God’s Holy Spirit manifesting Himself in a way we never dreamed of.

We have no right to criticize; we dare not. One clause of the Creed that lives before us now in all its inevitable, awful solemnity is ‘I believe in the Holy Ghost.’”

God is desiring to manifest Himself in ways that we “never dreamed of ” which is reminiscent of the Scripture in Psalms that says: “When the Lord turned again the captivity of Zion, we were like them that dream.” Oh Lord! turn back our captivity and grant us revival.

REVIVAL OR DEATH
“For decades sincere believers have asked, “Why don’t we have revival?” And for decades the answer has always been the same: We don’t have revival because we’re willing to live without it! It really is that simple. Do we really want to hear the truth? God responds to hunger and thirst. He fills those who recognize their need, who are empty and broken, who are at the point of desperation, who are panting for Him the way a deer pants for water in the desert. He answers dependent prayers. Sure, we want revival. But we don’t need revival. That’s the difference. God will meet us at our point of need, not our point of preference.

Revival is God’s radical measure to get the church in a given area or at a given time back to normal before it falls into spiritual oblivion and cultural irrelevance. Revival comes when we realize that it’s either revival or death, revival or continued backsliding, revival or the world around us goes to hell.”

In this above quote from Michael Brown, he really speaks to the high requirement for revival namely in one word: Everything!

Oh Brethren we must realize that this has always been so, there are no shortcuts with God, we will never see a revival until this is realized and acted upon. In light of eternity let us have tears for our lack of desire and desperation for God. John Knox was a Great Man of God and this was his prayer, ” God give me Scotland or I die!” Again, John Hyde who was a missionary, prayed, ” God give me souls or I die” Again, Whitefield prayed, ” God give me souls or take my soul!”

May we take it further dear reader, can you pray: “Give me revival or I die?”

Where are those that have a burdened heart like Evan Roberts, he prayed for revival night and day for twelve years. At the end of these twelve years he prayed with such intensity, agony and urgency that his landlord asked him to vacate his living quarters.

Is there a burning in your soul? a building desire in your heart? Let us not fool ourselves the prayer meeting is “dead” and so are multitudes in their trespasses and sins. We need a holy desperation to fill our prayer meetings, a holy zeal that will not relent until revival comes. The “Lord comes suddenly” to his temple, let us not be found sleeping or great will be our shame. Mario Murillo in his article: ‘Vital insights into God’s preparations for revival’ states: “now is the time to pull out all the stops. No program is sacred, no worthy project is worth enough. None of the ointment can be spared. It is revival or death!”

William Seymour the father of the modern day pentecostal movement prayed for five to seven hours a day for over a year for revival. And what resulted? a glorious powerful sweeping pentecost swept the world. Winkie Pratney told why there was no revival in the church over twenty years ago: “We do not have men and women who are prepared to pay the same price to preach the same message and have the same power as those revivalists of the past. Without these firm believers, the community can never be changed. Our concern is conciliatory, our obedience optional, our lack theologically and culturally justified. Quite simply, it costs too much!”

S.B. Shaw who wrote on the welsh revival shares the results of a true heaven-sent revival: “A revival that like a tornado will sweep away all the old dried-up sermons, and all the cold formal prayers, and all the lifeless singing, and like a whirlwind will carry everyone that comes in its path heavenward.

A revival that will fill the hearts of saints with holy love, and so burden the hearts of God’s ministers that the word of God will be like fire shut up in their bones. For such a revival our heart cries out to God! For such a revival we are ready to watch and toil and pray.” May we take it further dear reader, for such a revival are you willing to die?

IF NO REVIVAL
In the writings of Isaiah we see three clear consequences for the result of the nation of Israel not having repentance towards God. May I say that these three consequences will also be ours if we do not have a renewed repentance in the Church and a revolutionary revival from Heaven. If no revival then we will see these three judgments come on the earth and surely anyone that has been awakened to the hour will realize these monstrous consequences are already have fallen upon us.

If no revival then, hell will be enlarged. “Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure.” Oh the horror of it, hell yawning and swallowing multiplied millions of souls that will be damned forever. To just see a glimpse of this reality will shake any soul to ask what can be done?

George Whitefield said: “At the day of judgement we shall all meet again.” How will you feel when you meet all of the millions of souls that could have been saved if you prayed and sought God for a revival of religion? When the Church does not have revival hell enlarges what a frightful thought.If no revival then, sin will abound. Men will begin to draw sin “with a cart” speaking of the enormous amounts of sin that abounds in a season when the Church is not being the salt of the earth. We see that evidently today where people call good evil and evil good and to such God says “Woe unto them.” As Richard Baxter said of sin, “it is the murderer of the whole world.” The only hope for lost captive sinners is Christ! yet the Church and Christians keep multitudes from Christ. Lamentable fact! When the church is not the “light of the world” the world falls into outer darkness. When the Church does not have revival sin abounds on the earth.

If no revival then, the Word will be despised. In a season where there is no revival in the church the world will begin to disregard the law of God as the Scripture says “they have cast away the law of the Lord.”

And they begin to “despise” not only the Word of God but the “Holy One of Israel.” This is a doublesmart; the church is ineffective and God is mocked. Martyn-Lloyd Jones wrote to this fact: “Does it grieve you my friends, that the name of God is being taken in vain and desecrated? Does it grieve you that we are living in a godless age. The main reason we should be praying about revival is that we are
anxious to see God’s name vindicated and His glory manifested.” When the Church does not have revival God’s name is despised.

Leonard Ravenhill wrote: “this generation of Christians is responsible for this generation of sinners.”

This responsibility is of eternal consequence dear reader, being a Christian is a somber thing.

Over a hundred years ago Andrew Bonar wrote: “Revivals begin with God’s own people; the Holy Spirit touches their heart anew, and gives them new fervor and compassion, and zeal, new light and life, and when He has thus come to you, He next goes forth to the valley of dry bones…Oh, what responsibility this lays on the Church of God! If you grieve Him away from yourselves, or hinder His visit, then the poor perishing world suffers sorely!”

Evan Roberts wrote: “Prayer is buried, and lost and Heaven weeps. If all prayed the wicked would flee from our midst or to the refuge.”

LOSS OF REPUTATION
Perhaps one reason why there is no revival is because the minister’s are not willing to pay the cost, namely the loss of reputation.

Gilbert Tennet was used mightily of God in the second great awakening, hear him give account of the popular preaching in his day: “They often strengthened the hands of the wicked by promising them life. They comfort people before they convince them; sow before they plow: and are busy in raising a fabric before they lay a foundation.

These foolish builders strengthen men’s carnal security by their soft, selfish, cowardly discourses. They have not the courage or honesty to thrust the nail of terror into the sleeping souls!”

Preaching without unction, Praying without fervor, are two reasons why revival tarries in our day. We need a moratorium on reputation to see revival. May God rouse this generation to a passionate pursuit for revival and a determined ardor to see it come to pass.


Luke 14: 25-33: “And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned, and said unto them, 26 ‘If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever does not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple. 28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first, and count the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? 29 Lest perhaps, after he has laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, 30 Saying, ‘This man began to build, and was not able to finish.’ 31 Or what king, going to make war against another king, does not sit down first, and consider whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him who is coming against him with twenty thousand? 32 Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends delegation and asks conditions of peace. 33 So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be my disciple.”

Now I don’t see how anyone can read this saying of Jesus a not ask himself, “Am I really a disciple of Jesus?” These words challenge the most earnest Christian to examine himself and to feel a certain fear. How much more should it cause to tremble any so-called Christian who is careless, lukewarm, and not deadly serious about his obedience to Christ!

At this point in Jesus’s ministry a great crowd was following Him. Among then were people He knew were not serious, who were only superficially interested. He had enemies in the crowd as well as friends, some caught up in the excitement of this strange new teacher, some who thought they were serious, but Jesus knew they were not true disciple material. So He uttered these words of challenge, with a design to reduce the crowd, to send away those who were not willing to go all the way to the cross with Him. So He said:

“If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple…whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be my disciple.”

Was Jesus speaking only to the crowd, or is He speaking to us today? Most certainly He was speaking to us today. He said, “if any man,” “whosoever,” and “whoever.” That’s universal and applies to every believer. Jesus wants to admonish us today, to warn us that He will not tolerate a half-hearted service.

Before we look at this passage more closely I want to explain a couple of things. First of all, the word “hate” in the Bible does not always have the same negative force that our word has today. It sometimes merely means to love one thing less than another. For example, God says, “Jacob I loved; Esau I hated.” It’s obvious that God did not hate Esau in our sense of the word. He blessed him and made a great nation from his seed. But God chose Jacob over Esau to carry on the promised birthright. In Genesis chapter 29 we read: “Now God saw that Leah was hated, and He opened her womb, but Rachel was barren.” The NAS & the NIV translate is “unloved,” and “not loved.” Jacob did not hate Leah in the sense of having malice towards her. But he thought less of her than of Rachel, with whom he was in love. You cannot serve two masters; rather you will hate the one and love the other. Again this seems to be the weaker meaning of hate. You will serve the one and disregard the other. You have to choose. So you see when Jesus says that we are to hate “father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters,” He is saying that we must make a clear choice between Jesus and our family. The Bible teaches us that we are not to hate anyone in the sense of holding malice towards them, or wishing them ill. This would be especially true of our family. But the Christian life involves clear separation and radical choices.

When He says that we must hate our own lives, what does He mean? Are we to have self-hatred? Then how could He tell us to love our neighbor as we love ourselves? Paul says, “no one hates his own body.” No. What Jesus means is that we must choose Christ over our on life, our interests, our ambition, our safety, EVERYTHING.

And of course, Jesus was not inviting his disciples to carry a literal cross made of wood. He was speaking figuratively. We have a cross to carry, so what is our cross? What did He mean when He said: “Whoever does not take up his cross and follow Me cannot be my disciple”? Well, there are two crosses in the Christian’s life: Christ’s and his own. The Cross of Jesus is the cross by which we are saved; our own cross is the cross on which our own wills are crucified. I believe that our cross speaks of those moment—and they come to us daily—when our will crosses the will of God. God’s vertical, heavenly Will meets our horizontal, fleshly will. The two cross. And when that happens, our wills must give way to God’s.

And when Jesus said to forsake all, did He mean that we must sell all that we have, give it to the poor, and make ourselves homeless or enter a monastery? No, of course not. But He did mean something quite radical. He meant that we must let nothing, nothing—no material possession, no relationship, no profession, NOTHING come before Him in our lives!

Even after we have softened them somewhat, these are very strong words, aren’t they? These, and some of the other hard sayings of our Lord, would (as I said) challenge the most committed and faithful Christian. They would call the most serious and saintly believer to examine himself. How much more are they a reproach to the half-hearted, lukewarm, Sunday-only, part-time Christian! Jesus makes it plain in another place that He would rather a person be cold and indifferent towards Him than to be lukewarm. Where is the place, then, for the half-hearted, off-and-on Christian here? In this saying of Jesus, He lays to rest once and for all any notion that He will tolerate a half-hearted service.

When I speak of a Sunday-only Christian, I’m not referring so much to Church attendance as to the quality of our Christian lives throughout the week. I’m not talking about people who only come to Church on Sunday morning. For all I know they may have a deep, rich devotional life throughout the week. They may read the Bible and pray more than people who come to Church every time the doors open. Church attendance is significant, and it often indicates how serious a person is in his or her faith. But what I’m calling a Sunday-only Christian is a person whose only real contact with God and with other Christians is Sunday morning. The rest of the week they are pretty much like everyone else. They never open their Bibles.

They seldom pray, and when they do it’s to say grace at table or to send themselves off to sleep. Their neighbors, co-workers, and friends hardly know they are Christians, so little do they differ from their unsaved associates. Grace is wonderful; thank God for grace. But grace does not cover a lax, off-and-on, half-hearted service to Christ.

Based on these, and some other hard sayings of the Lord, I don’t think I have the right to present the Gospel in a soft, seductive way. Some of the hugely popular, seeker-friendly churches today never preach on these hard saying of the Lord. They preach only positive messages. They don’t want sinners to feel uncomfortable in their services. I’m afraid they may be swelling their rosters with unsaved (or at the very least) immature Christians. I see little resemblance between the way these churches make “disciple” and the way Jesus and the Apostles did. Jesus sought to warn off the unserious from following Him. These churches seem to want as members the same people that Jesus sent away.

When I was going to the jail to teach and preach, I noticed that the other minister would offer the invitation very gently, so as not to scare the potential convert off. “Every eye close, no one looking around. Now if you want to follow Christ, just slip your hand up. Don’t be shy. No one is looking. Yes, I see that hand. Anyone else? Praise God. Now if you raised your hand just come to the front.” Then he would quietly lead those who came forward in his version of the “sinner’s prayer,” with usually no mention made of repentance. So ineffective was this method that some prayed “the Sinner’s Prayer” every time we met. One man raised his hand when asked who was a Christian, then came forward at the invitation and prayed to be saved again. Bless their hearts, some of them prayed to be saved a dozen times.
Based on these and other hard sayings of Christ, I took a very different approach. I told them not to come forward unless they were deadly serious. I told them not to play games with God, not to pray for salvation unless they really meant to live for Him. When they did come forward, I had them repent of their sins, to ask out loud for God to forgive them, and to declare their intention to follow Christ with their whole hearts. When they went back to their seats, I said, “Now turn around and look at those around you. Look them in the eye and tell them this: “With God’s help I intend to follow Christ with all of my heart.” Then they sat down. I instructed them to study the Bible and pray, and when they got out to find a Bible-believing Church and to be baptized as soon as possible

Jesus Emphasized the Cost

Jesus didn’t emphasize the advantages of discipleship, although we know there are many and great; no, He emphasized the cost of discipleship. And He urged anyone who would follow Him to count the cost. In another place He said, “Whoever puts his hand to the plow and looks back is not worthy to be my disciple.” He is saying, in effect, “If you’re not determined to go all the way with Me, turn back now.”

There is a time to count the cost, to calculate just how far we will go with Jesus. There’s a time to ask, “How much of the world am I willing to give up?” How much do I really love the Lord? Am I willing to give up all sin? Can I get to heaven without being a fanatic for Jesus? Am I content to be a lukewarm Christian? But the time to ask these questions is before professing to “follow Jesus.” We need to settle that before we commit to follow Christ. These scriptures, if they mean anything, mean that following Christ can’t be a halfway thing. It’s worse to follow Him with half a heart than not to follow Him at all. After we have taken the measure of our commitment, then there’s no turning back, no lukewarm service, no compromise with the world.

In the strongest possible words Jesus says that He will not endure lukewarm Christianity.

Rev. 3:14-16: “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. 15 I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16 So, because you are lukewarm — neither hot nor cold — I am about to spit you out of my mouth.”

Pretty clear, isn’t it? Pretty clear, and pretty scary. People are lax and careless in their Christian walk for two reasons. They don’t fear God as they should, and they don’t love Him as they should. No devout, earnest Christian should be afraid of God’s punishment. But even the most sincere Christian walks in a kind of reverent, godly fear. And a person who isn’t trying his hardest to obey God in all things has every reason to fear. Even the Law commands us to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength. Should not a Christian who is only half-heartedly serving God have fear? If we love Him we keep His commandments. If we do not love Him enough to obey Him, we should fear.

I John 4:18: “There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.”

If you are not serving God with all your heart, I want you to be afraid. Only perfect, obedient love drives out fear. I want your fear to spur you to action, to repentance, to a fierce determination to be all out for Christ.

I see nothing in all of God’s word to offer comfort to any man, woman, or young person, who is not on fire for the Lord, who is not willing to forsake all for Him, who does not put Him before family, friends, and future. On the contrary, lukewarm Christians are nauseating to Christ, and He is going to spit them out.

Discipleship is a serious business, a life-or-death matter. You must decide whether or not you will surrender the rest of your heart to Him if it is still in anyway divided. If you are holding back any aspect of your life from Him, you are not truly His disciple.

Let meditate on the words of this song:

Have Thine Own Way, Lord

Have Thine own way, Lord, have Thine own way.
Thou art the Potter; I am the clay.
Mold me and make me, after Thy will,
While I am waiting, yielded and still.

Have Thine own way, Lord, have Thine own way.
Search me and try me, Master, today.
Whiter than snow, Lord, wash me just now,
As in Thy presence, humbly I bow.

Have Thine own way, Lord, have Thine own way.
Hold o’er my being absolute sway.
Fill with Thy Spirit, till all can see
Christ only, always, living in me.

Amen

This article was shared from http://www.pearlofgreatvalue.com/CostofDiscipleship.php


This is where we come face to face with a dangerous reality. We do have to give up everything we have to follow Jesus. We do have to love him in a way that makes our closest relationships in this world look like hate. And it is entirely possible that he will tell us to sell everything we have and give it to the poor.

… You know that in the end you are not really giving away anything at all. Instead you are gaining. Yes, you are abandoning everything you have, but you are also gaining more than you could have in any other way. … Why? Because you have found something worth losing everything else for.

This is the picture of Jesus in the gospel. He is something — someone — worth losing everything for. And if we walk away from the Jesus of the gospel, we walk away from eternal riches. The cost of nondiscipleship is profoundly greater for us than the cost of discipleship. For when we abandon the trinkets of this world and respond to the radical invitation of Jesus, we discover the infinite treasure of knowing and experiencing him.

– David Platt


A Message from Peter to future radical Disciples;

• So be done with every trace of wickedness (depravity, malignity) and all deceit and insincerity (pretense, hypocrisy) and grudges (envy, jealousy) and slander and evil speaking of every kind.

• Like newborn babies you should crave (thirst for, earnestly desire) the pure (unadulterated) spiritual milk, that by it you may be nurtured and grow unto [completed] salvation,

• Since you have [already] tasted the goodness and kindness of the Lord.

• Come to Him [then, to that] Living Stone which men [a]tried and threw away, but which is chosen [and] precious in God’s sight.

• [Come] and, like living stones, be yourselves built [into] a spiritual house, for a holy (dedicated, consecrated) priesthood, to offer up [those] spiritual sacrifices [that are] acceptable and pleasing to God through Jesus Christ.

• For thus it stands in Scripture: Behold, I am laying in Zion a chosen ([b]honored), precious chief Cornerstone, and he who believes in Him [who adheres to, trusts in, and relies on Him] shall never be [c]disappointed or put to shame.

• To you then who believe (who adhere to, trust in, and rely on Him) is the preciousness; but for those who disbelieve [it is true], The [very] Stone which the builders rejected has become the main Cornerstone,

• And, A Stone that will cause stumbling and a Rock that will give [men] offense; they stumble because they disobey and disbelieve [God’s] Word, as those [who reject Him] were destined (appointed) to do.

• But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a dedicated nation, [God’s] own [d]purchased, special people, that you may set forth the wonderful deeds and display the virtues and perfections of Him Who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.

• Once you were not a people [at all], but now you are God’s people; once you were unpitied, but now you are pitied and have received mercy.

• Beloved, I implore you as aliens and strangers and exiles [in this world] to abstain from the sensual urges (the evil desires, the passions of the flesh, your lower nature) that wage war against the soul.

• Conduct yourselves properly (honorably, righteously) among the Gentiles, so that, although they may slander you as evildoers, [yet] they may by witnessing your good deeds [come to] glorify God in the day of inspection [[e]when God shall look upon you wanderers as a pastor or shepherd looks over his flock].

• Be submissive to every human institution and authority for the sake of the Lord, whether it be to the emperor as supreme,

• Or to governors as sent by him to bring vengeance (punishment, justice) to those who do wrong and to encourage those who do good service.

• For it is God’s will and intention that by doing right [your good and honest lives] should silence (muzzle, gag) the ignorant charges and ill-informed criticisms of foolish persons.

• [Live] as free people, [yet] without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but [live at all times] as servants of God.

• Show respect for all men [treat them honorably]. Love the brotherhood (the Christian fraternity of which Christ is the Head). Reverence God. Honor the emperor.

(1 Peter 2:1-17)