Affirming the Goodness of Manhood and Womanhood in All of Life

Posted: April 2, 2013 in disciples life, Kingdom Teaching, teaching, wilderness
0

1 Timothy 2:13–14

I promised last Sunday that I would pick up today where we left off in 1 Timothy 2:13. You recall that in verses 11–12 Paul said, “Let a woman learn in quietness with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; but to be in quietness.” After studying the words “quietness” and “teach” and “authority,” we came to the conclusion that the kind of teaching which is inappropriate for women is the teaching that is part of expressing the authority spoken of here in verse 12.

What authority is being spoken of here? The clue was found in this: the two things that are mentioned here as inappropriate for women (teaching and exercising authority over men) are the very two things that define the job of an elder in the church—to govern and to teach. This is most easily seen in 1 Timothy 5:17. Elders (=pastors, overseers) are charged with two spheres of responsibility: governance and the guardianship (or stewardship) of doctrine.

Therefore the authority of 1 Timothy 2:12 is most probably the governing authority of the eldership, and the simplest way to describe what is inappropriate for women from this verse is to say that Paul did not think it was appropriate for women to be elders in the local church.

God’s Gracious Design for Women and Men

We summed it up with two definitions: of authority (v. 12) and submission (v. 11).

“Authority” refers to the divine calling of spiritual, gifted men to take primary responsibility as elders for Christ-like servant leadership and teaching in the church.
“Submission” refers to the divine calling of the rest of the church, both men and women, to honor and affirm the leadership and teaching of the elders and to be equipped by them for the hundreds of various ministries available to men and women in the service of Christ.
These definitions are intentionally parallel to the definitions of headship and submission and marriage which we learned from Ephesians 5:

Headship is the divine calling of a husband to take primary responsibility for Christ-like servant leadership, protection, and provision in the home.
Submission is the divine calling of a wife to honor and affirm her husband’s leadership and help carry it through according to her gifts.

The reason this is important to see is that both in the case of church order and family order Paul is basing his teaching on God’s original order in creation. Paul is not arbitrarily choosing roles for men and women, nor is he simply adapting to the cultural expectations of the day. He is saying that there is something about the way God set things up in the beginning that makes this kind of order good. In other words true manhood and true womanhood mesh more effectively in ministry—they are better preserved and better nurtured and more fulfilled and more fruitful—in this pattern of home and church than in any other pattern—because God made it to be this way. It is part of his gracious design for the good of men and women.

Two Reasons for Affirming This Design

Now that brings us to verses 13 and 14 of 1 Timothy 2. In these verses Paul gives two reasons for saying that men, and not women, should bear the primary responsibility for leading and teaching the church.

For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

“Adam Was Formed First, Then Eve”

There are two reasons given here. Let’s take them one at a time. First in verse 13, “Adam was formed first, then Eve.” The point here is very simple, and we dealt with it already in the message from Genesis 2 and 3 (and handled objections there). Paul sees in God’s order of creation a teaching concerning the responsibility of man to be a leader in relationship to woman. God created man first, put him in the garden, gave him the responsibility over the garden and the moral pattern for life in the garden, and then created woman as his partner and assistant to help him carry that responsibility into action.

In other words when Paul teaches that men should bear the primary responsibility for governance and teaching in the church, he is basing it not on any culturally temporary situation at Ephesus but on something woven into the fabric of manhood and womanhood by virtue of our creation. Not on the basis of sin, but on the basis of how God wanted it to be before there was any sin—for the good of his people, both women and men.

“Adam Was Not Deceived, but the Woman Was”

The second point from verse 14 is this: “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” Now most commentators in the history of the church have taken this very simply to mean that women are more vulnerable to deception, and therefore should not be given the responsibility of leading and teaching the church. My guess is, from what I have read and experienced, that women are more vulnerable to deception in some kinds of situations and men are more vulnerable to deception in other kinds of situations.

A Parenthesis About So-Called “Weaknesses”

Let me insert a parenthesis here that I think will really help us in talking about the differences of manhood and womanhood. Whenever anyone asks me if I think women are, say, weaker than men, or smarter than men, or more easily frightened than men, or something like that, I almost always answer like this: I think women are weaker in some ways and men are weaker in some ways; and women are smarter in some ways and men are smarter in some ways; and women are more easily frightened in some kinds of circumstances and men are more easily frightened in other kinds of circumstances.

It’s real dangerous to put negative values on the so-called weaknesses that each of us has. Because God intends for all the “weaknesses” that characteristically belong to man to call forth and highlight woman’s strengths. And God intends for all the “weaknesses” that characteristically belong to woman to call forth and highlight man’s strengths.

So even if this verse means that in some situations women are characteristically more vulnerable to deception, that would not settle anything about the quality or worth of manhood and womanhood.

Statistics I just read say that six times more men than women are arrested for drug abuse. Ten times more men than women are arrested for drunkenness. Eighty-three percent of serious crimes in America are committed by men. Twenty-five times more men than women are in jail. Virtually all rape is committed by men.

I point that out to show that boasting in either sex as superior to the other is a folly. Men and women as God created them are different in hundreds of ways. And I believe that being created equally in the image of God means this: that when the so-called weakness and strength columns for manhood and for womanhood are added up, the value at the bottom is going to be the same for each. And when you take those two columns from each side and lay them on top of each other, God intends them to be the perfect complement to each other, so that when life together is considered (and I don’t just mean married life), the so-called weaknesses of manhood and the so-called weaknesses of womanhood don’t make the whole weaker but stronger.

Is the eye of a needle really nothing but air? Or is it the indispensable “nothing” that makes the needle work? Is hunger nothing but a pitiful need and an empty stomach? Or is it the messenger of health and the seasoning of our food? If you believe that manhood and womanhood are to complement rather than duplicate each other, and if you believe that the way God made us is good, then you will be very slow to gather a list of typical male weaknesses or a list of typical female weaknesses and draw a conclusion that either is of less value than the other.

End parenthesis.

Three Things to Notice About Genesis 3

Now having said all of that, let me take you back to Genesis 3 to show you what I think 1 Timothy 2:14 means when it says, “Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.”

1. Satan Spoke to the Woman, Not the Man

The first thing to notice in Genesis 3:1 is that Satan in the form of a serpent spoke to the woman and not the man. “Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman . . . ” Paul saw this, and believed it had significance.

2. Adam Is Evidently with Eve at the Time

The second thing to notice is that Adam is evidently with Eve while Satan is talking to her. When we come to verse 6 and the woman is about to eat of the forbidden fruit, the verse says (most literally from the NASB), “When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her [NIV: who was with her] and he ate.” It does not say that she went to get him. It does not say that he arrived on the scene after the serpent was gone. It moves directly from the words of temptation to the act of eating and says that the man was with her.

3. God’s Disapproval

The third thing to notice is that God disapproves not only of the eating of the fruit but of the way the man and woman related to each other here. In Genesis 3:17 God reprimands man like this: “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you.” The words, “You listened to the voice of your wife,” are very significant. There is no record in chapter 3 that she said anything to Adam directly. But there is good reason to believe that Adam was there listening to her interchange with the serpent, and falling into line with her.

So what we saw several weeks ago was that God’s reprimand is not merely a reprimand that Adam ate the forbidden fruit but also that he forsook his responsibility to be the leader and the moral guardian of the home. Satan’s subtlety is that he knew the created order God had ordained for the good of the family, and he deliberately defied it by ignoring the man and taking up his dealings with the woman. Satan put her in the position of spokesman and leader and defender. And at that moment both the man and the woman slipped from their innocence and let themselves be drawn into a pattern of relating that to this day is destructive.

What Paul Means in 1 Timothy 2:14

I think this is what Paul means in 1 Timothy 2:14. Let me try to paraphrase it to bring this out. “Adam was not deceived [that is, Adam was not approached by the deceiver and did not carry on direct dealings with the deceiver] but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor [that is, she was the one who took up dealings with the deceiver and was led through her direct interaction with him into deception and transgression].”

If this is right, then the main point is not that the man is undeceivable or that the woman is more deceivable; the point is that when God’s order of leadership is repudiated, it brings damage and ruin. Men and women are both more vulnerable to error and sin when they forsake the order that God has intended.

So Paul’s argumentation in 1 Timothy 2:11–14 is that men ought to bear primary responsibility for leadership and teaching in the church (that is, be the elders):

because in creating man first, God taught that men should take responsibility for leadership in relation to woman; and
because the fall of Adam and Eve shows that the neglect of this divine pattern puts men and women in a more vulnerable position and leads to transgression.
The Relationship Between Men and Women in General

Let me close by saying a few words about the relationships between men and women in general apart from marriage and church order. The fact that the meaning of manhood and womanhood is rooted in creation shows that it is relevant in all of life, not just marriage and church. Books could be written on this. So I am taking a big risk in a few minutes of very selective application.

1. To Single Men Relating to Single Women

A word to single men in personal relationships with single women. First, let’s not pity ourselves too much over the fact that most young men grew up in homes where dad was not a great model for how to be a strong spiritual servant-leader. Let’s grow up and stop shifting responsibility. Here we are with all our male weaknesses and insecurities and we have some things to learn and they can be learned. We can do what God expects of us, if we trust him.

Namely, he expects that single men in relationship to single women will bear primary responsibility for a pattern of initiative. I say pattern because a man’s responsibility is not compromised by occasional initiatives of women, for example, to get some guys together. But I can say with complete confidence that almost no women want that to be the pattern. And God doesn’t.

I think the reason many guys do not take this kind of initiative is that they are afraid of rejection. That certainly was true for me. Things haven’t changed much. I think the only reason I am married today is because of an accident that God made happen. Noël and I found ourselves in a fine arts room in the basement of Fischer Hall with several common friends and accidentally talked for two hours. And that was that.

From nine years of watching the single scene at Bethlehem I’ll tell you what I see and what I hear: there are a lot of intelligent, attractive, spiritual single women in this church who are not church-hopping to find husbands and who trust God enough to be a happy single person if that is God’s will. But 99% of these women would not mind it if a group of guys in this church took the initiative to get together with a group of them. (Twins game. Picnic in the park. Rent a good video and have pizza. Visit an old-folks’ home. Take some inner city kids to the zoo.)

I stress the group approach just because the emotional stakes of being rejected are so much higher when you go it alone. It seems far more natural and helpful to me to let individual relationships grow out of a lot of group gatherings. And in both kinds of relationships it is the men who bear the responsibility for the pattern of initiative.

(And don’t let your fears and inadequacies hinder you. The first time I ever tried to put my arm on the seat behind Noël I elbowed her in the eye. And look at us! Twenty years of marriage and I can hardly wait for her to get back from Guatemala.)

2. Women in the Workplace

The one other thing I have time to say is something very brief about the issue of women in the workplace. What about leadership of men there?

My answer is probably going to be dissatisfyingly general rather than specific. But that’s because the Bible does not address this as clearly as marriage and the church and because the nature of leadership in many jobs is so fuzzy.

I give my answer in the form of a principle. Leadership can be measured on two scales or continuums: on a scale of directive to non-directive and on a scale of personal to impersonal. Let me illustrate.

Personal-Impersonal:

A woman who designs the traffic patterns of city streets exerts remarkable leadership over all the drivers in that she determines how they drive. But this leadership is very impersonal. On the other hand the relationship between a husband and a wife is very personal. All leadership falls somewhere on the scale between very impersonal (little personal contact) and very personal (a lot of personal contact).

Directive-Nondirective:

A drill sergeant is the essence of directive leadership. On the other hand non-directive leadership is much closer to entreaty and suggestion. A good example of non-directive leadership is when Abigail talked David out of killing Nabal (1 Samuel 25:23–35). She was totally successful in guiding David’s behavior but did it in a very non-directive way.

My principle, then, is this: To the degree that a woman’s leadership of man is personal it needs to be non-directive. And to the degree that it is directive it needs to be impersonal. To the degree that a woman consistently offers directive, personal leadership to a man, to that degree will his God-given manhood—his sense of responsibility in the relationship—be compromised. What’s at stake every time a man and a woman relate to each other is not merely competence (that is very naïve), but also whether God-given manhood and womanhood are affirmed in the dynamics of the relationship.

Closing Challenge

I feel like what I have done in this series is simply show you that there is a beautiful ballet to learn and an exciting drama to be a part of. It’s more beautiful and more exciting because we are so different as male and female. My challenge to you is that you now take up the script of God’s Word and ask him to help you learn your personal part. The world is in desperate need to see what the true drama of manhood and womanhood really looks like.

By John Piper, DesiringGod

Audio Link

Manhood, Womanhood, and the Freedom to Minister

Posted: April 1, 2013 in disciples life, Kingdom Teaching, teaching, wilderness
0

1 Timothy 2:8–15

I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; also that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire but by good deeds, as befits women who profess religion. Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

What we saw last week from Ephesians 5:32 was that marriage is a mystery. God gave it a meaning at the beginning of creation that was not fully revealed for a long time. But now it’s made plain in the New Testament. And the mystery is this: marriage is an image or picture of Christ’s relationship to his bride the church. A husband and a wife are meant by God to be living images of Christ and the church in relationship to each other.

Before Sin Ever Entered into the World

So when God created man and woman, he made us the way we are—with the differences of manhood and womanhood—so that we would be suited for these complementary roles (and for the other expressions of complementarity outside marriage). In this drama man was meant to play the role of Christ, and the woman was meant to play the role of his bride the church.

And we have stressed for five weeks now that these differences are not the result of sin. Sin didn’t create manhood and womanhood. God did. And sin did not bring diversified, complementary roles into existence. God did. Before sin ever entered the world, God ordained and fitted Adam to be a loving, caring, strong leader for his wife Eve. And before sin entered the world, God ordained and fitted Eve to be a partner who supports and honors that leadership and helps carry it through. Both in the image of God. Both equal in their God-like personhood. But also different in their manhood and womanhood. The pattern was beautiful. They respected each other and served each other and complemented each other and enjoyed each other.

What Sin Ruined and Christ Recovered

What sin did was ruin this harmony. Sin made men abandon servant-leadership and become passive or harsh and insensitive and uncaring, or some other distortion of biblical headship. And sin distorted the woman’s support and honor into manipulation or defiance or helplessness or some other distortion of true biblical submission.

So what Paul did in Ephesians 5 (as we saw last week) is call for a recovery of God’s original idea. He doesn’t abolish what God created at the beginning. He wants to get back to it: true biblical headship and true biblical submission. Here’s the way we defined these two realities from our study last week:

Headship is the divine calling of a husband to take primary responsibility for Christ-like servant leadership, protection, and provision in the home.
Submission is the divine calling of a wife to honor and affirm her husband’s leadership and help carry it through according to her gifts.
When a husband leads like Christ and a wife responds like the bride of Christ, there is a harmony and mutuality that is more beautiful and more satisfying and more fruitful than any pattern of marriage created by man. God loves his people and he loves his glory. And therefore when we follow his idea of marriage, we are most satisfied and he is most glorified.

The Real Test of Whether We’ve Grasped This

Now the real test I think of whether we have grasped the biblical essence of manhood and womanhood and affirm it as true and beautiful—the real test is whether Paul’s application of it to the life of the church surprises and offends us or not. If the New Testament roles for man and woman in marriage are rooted not in sinful pride and not in cultural expectations, but in God’s original design for creation, then how would you expect this original design to express itself in the life of the church? That’s what we have before us today in 1 Timothy 2:11–14.

Let’s seat ourselves before these unpopular verses and listen for a few minutes, and see if the story they tell is really as unattractive as so many think it is.

Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

I think what we need to do in order to understand the submissiveness in this text is patiently think through the meaning of “silence” (“Let a woman learn in silence”) and the meaning of “teaching” (“I do not permit a woman to teach”) and the meaning of “authority” (“or to have authority over men”). So let’s take these one at time.

1. “Silence”

First, “silence.” Verse 11: “Let a woman learn in silence.” Notice that the word “silence” is used two other times in nearby verses.

The word for silence here (hesuchia) is used earlier in verse 2 of this chapter (hesuchion). But there it refers to the “quiet” life which all godly people should lead. “Pray . . . that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way.” This gives you the tone and the extent of the word. It doesn’t refer to absolute silence: a “quiet” and peaceable life is not a life of total silence. It’s a life untroubled and serene and content. So the silence doesn’t seem to be total. It’s more like what we would call “quietness.”

You can see this especially at the end of verse 12. The same word is used again. But this time you can tell what Paul has in mind by its opposite. He says, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over men, [literally:] but to be silent.” “Not to have authority over men, but to be silent.” In other words this quietness is the opposite of exercising authority over men. “Don’t exercise authority over men, instead be silent.”

So what sort of quietness does Paul have in mind? It’s the kind of quietness that respects and honors the leadership of the men God has called to oversee the church. Verse 11 says that the quietness is “in all submissiveness,” and verse 12 says the quietness is the opposite of “authority over men,” and so the point is not whether a woman says nothing, but whether she is submissive and whether she supports the authority of the men God has called to oversee the church. Quietness means not speaking in a way that compromises that authority.

We’ll come back in a minute and be more specific about just what this submission is.

2. “Teaching”
The second thing we need to look at is the reference to teaching in verse 12. How extensive is Paul’s prohibition when he says, “I permit no woman to teach”?

To answer this, one thing we can do is look at other places where Paul and others talk about women teaching. For example in Titus 2:3 he says that the older women are to teach the younger women (at the end of the verse): “they are to teach what is good, and so train the younger women to love their husbands and children.”

Another example is 2 Timothy 3:14 where Paul tells Timothy to remember from whom he learned the Scriptures. And the persons he has in mind (we can tell from 2 Timothy 1:5) are Eunice and Lois, Timothy’s mother and grandmother. (His father was not a believer or even a Jew, Acts 16:3.)

One other example is Priscilla. It says in Acts 18:26, “When Priscilla and Aquila heard Apollos, they took him and expounded to him the way of God more accurately.”

So, it’s not likely that Paul is saying in 1 Timothy 2:12 that every kind of teaching is forbidden to women. There are examples of them teaching younger women, teaching children, and in some way teaming up with their husbands to give private instruction when someone is confused or uninformed like Apollos. Those are just some examples. Is it possible to generalize, then, about what Paul does have in mind here when he says, “I do not permit a woman to teach”? I think the safest thing to do is let the next phrase guide us. The next phrase is, ” . . . or exercise authority over men.” “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over men.”

Instead of letting the word “teach” mean anything we want it to mean or think it might mean, it’s safer to say, it probably means a kind of teaching that somehow relates to authority. Teach and exercise authority go together. So at least one general thing we can say about women teaching is that Paul forbids it when it is part of the exercise of authority over men.

That leads us to the third question, namely, what is this “authority” referred to in verse 12?

3. “Authority”

The key that unlocks this door is a very interesting observation. When you read the rest of 1 Timothy about the role of elders in the church, what you find is that the elders had two basic responsibilities: they were to govern and they were to teach. You can see this in the qualifications of 3:1–7, but the easiest place to see it is in 5:17, “Let the elders who rule [or govern] well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.”

Elders rule or govern, and elders teach or preach. Back in Acts 20:28, you may recall, the elders in the church at Ephesus were called by the Holy Spirit and made “overseers” and charged with “pasturing” or feeding the flock, that is, teaching the whole counsel of God.

I don’t think it’s coincidental that what Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:12 is that he does not permit a woman to teach and exercise authority over men. He is saying in essence: I do not permit women to fill the office of elder in the church. The elders are charged with the leadership and instruction of the church. That’s a summary of their job. So when Paul puts those two things together and says, “I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority,” the most natural sense is, “I do not permit a woman to assume the office of elder in the church.”

So the authority Paul has in mind in 1 Timothy 2:12 is the authority of elders. And what is that supposed to look like? Well we saw already from Jesus in Luke 22:26 what it’s supposed to look like: “Let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves.” Paul said in 2 Corinthians 10:8 and 13:10 that God gave him authority in the church not for tearing down or destroying but for building up. And Peter said to the elders of the churches (1 Peter 5:3), “Do not domineer over those in your charge, but be examples to the flock.”

In other words, elder-authority is servant-authority. Elder-leadership is servant-leadership. That’s why teaching is at the heart of this calling. Elder-authority leads by persuasion—by teaching—not by coercion or political maneuvering. Elder-authority is always subordinate to biblical texts. It can always be called to account by Scripture. Therefore teaching is the primary instrument of leadership in the church.

Defining Authority and Submission

I think it would be helpful to step back here and try to do for the concepts of authority and submission in the church what we did for the concepts of headship and submission in the home, namely, give a crisp definition of each.

“Authority” refers to the divine calling of spiritual, gifted men to take primary responsibility as elders for Christ-like servant-leadership and teaching in the church.

“Submission” refers to the divine calling of the rest of the church, both men and women, to honor and affirm the leadership of the elders and to be equipped by it for the hundreds and hundreds of various ministries available to men and women in the service of Christ.

And that last point is very important. For men and women who have a heart to minister—to save souls and heal broken lives and resist evil and meet needs—there are fields of opportunity that are simply endless. God intends for the entire church to be mobilized in ministry, male and female. Nobody is to be at home watching soaps and reruns while the world burns. And God intends to equip and mobilize the saints through a company of spiritual men who take primary responsibility for leadership and teaching in the church.

Closing Appeal

There are many voices today who claim to know a better way to equip and mobilize the men and women of the church for ministry. But I commend to you this morning with all my heart the plain meaning of these verses:

That manhood and womanhood mesh better in ministry when men take primary responsibility for leadership and teaching in the church.

That manhood and womanhood are better preserved and better nurtured and more fulfilled and more fruitful in this church order than in any other. I commend this to you for your belief and for your behavior, because this is the way the Scriptures teach us to order the church,
and God inspired the Scriptures, and God is good.

My hope next Sunday, in the last of this series, is to pick up verses 13 and 14, and then paint the big picture of what it means to be man and woman in all of life.

By~ John Piper

Audio link

Eating and making disciples

Posted: March 24, 2013 in disciples life, teaching, Uncategorized, wilderness
Tags: , ,
0

Eating and making disciples
by Tone Benedict
Last week at the Well I talked about the Rhythm of EATing. Everybody eats, not just Christians, But for the person who believes in God and loves God eating is meant to be a form of Worship. You see God created us in such a way that we smell, we See and we taste food, some of us like it crunchy, and all of our senses can enjoy food, and God made it that way! God made it so eating food could be an act of worship! Problem is too many of us worship the food instead of the God who gave us the food and the ability to enjoy it.

Meals are a big deal in the bible, it was a piece of Fruit that Eve saw and it looked good and she worshipped it and gave some to Adam and Sin entered the world. God provided Manna in the dessert, Jesus fed the 5000. But here are a few reasons, I have the Word EAT in the name of the Well. (not all these are original with me, just stuff I have learned.)

Meals remind daily Of our common need for God and his faithfulness to provide both physically and spiritually. Our hunger and thirst remind us that we are not self-sufficient or self sustaining. We have a need for food and water that must be met outside of ourselves. This physical need points our hearts to a deeper spiritual needs, Jesus pointed to it a lot. We have a hunger for intimacy, satisfaction, reconciliation, and more! These desires can only truly be met by Jesus, He called himself both the Bread of Life and the Living Water-consuming him, taking him into you, means there’s a sense in which we will never be hungry or thirsty again if we have Jesus. (some insights from Jeff Vandersteldt)

Community – We all have a need for community, Iron sharpens Iron, in they early church they were together eating meals and loving on each other. God created us to have community. All of us have this desire to be fully known and accepted and I just don’t see how you can get that in one hour on Sunday. Ultimately only Jesus can know you fully, be as Christ followers we are called to encourage one another, that means we need community with each other. But how bout this! Community is that Jesus EATS with Sinners! You cant make disciples if you don’t eat with people. When God comes, he is going to be having a party, it is about communion and Jesus by eating with Sinners he was communing with them. When you eat with people you commune with them you have unity with them. Whoever we eat with, we give a chance to be changed and that maybe some more sinners would show up here if our churches were a place where people they felt loved and welcomed into community.

Communion – Amazing that originally the Passover, was the way God saved the Israelites. They had to kill a lamb and take its blood and put it over their door and the Angel would Passover their house, the lamb had to be perfect. There was to be no yeast in the house. In the bible Yeast represents Sin. So no yeast in the bread, and then Jesus shows up. So listen to what Jesus does. They never understood why no yeast in this bread, Jesus teaches them why. Because His sinless body was going to broken for them.

Now as they were eating,(eating a meal) Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” (see the disciples would have all of a sudden understood why the bread couldn’t have yeast, we have always wondered why no yeast, now they understood, it was because it represents the sinless body of Jesus). And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Jesus is the better meal. I have a story that I tell about the first real communion I had where God me in the meal. He told me he wanted to die for me, he opened my eyes and for the first time I saw blood in the cup. I never knew a man that would die for me and seeing that blood was God’s way of expressing his love toward me. Oh how much love he has for us. And Jesus said we should do this “every time we get together, we break open the bread and we would think about his body being broken for us, we would drink the wine and by his blood we are forgiven. Every time, we get together we can celebrate his life and his death and his resurrection.

And Jesus promised that In the Kingdom we will get to eat with Jesus. ”I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” (Matt 26:26-29) What a promise we will eat with Jesus, we will spend time communing and talking and celebrating with Jesus, what we do now should not be a ceremony, it should be a party, I can’t wait to party with Jesus!

A picture of the Kingdom. “On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined. And he will swallow up on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death forever; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth, for the LORD has spoken. It will be said on that day, “Behold, this is our God; we have waited for him, that he might save us. This is the LORD; we have waited for him; let us be glad and rejoice in his salvation.” (Isaiah 25:6-9 ESV)

I can’t wait!

Pastor Tone is the pastor of “The Well“ located in Jacksonville Florida.

“I personally know Pastor Tone and he is one who lives what he preaches” Russ Welch, owner Radicaldisciples.me Blog

You can read more of Pastor Tone’s writings at Tone Benedict’s Blog

Posted: March 23, 2013 in Uncategorized
0

radicaldisciples's avatarRadical Disciples - A Remnant Revolution

Again the kingdom of heaven is like a man who is a dealer in search of fine and precious pearls, Who, on finding a single pearl of great price, went and sold all he had and bought it. (Matt 45-46 AMP)

Here are a few of the crucial question’s every believer of Jesus Christ must answer:

• Do you really believe He is worth abandoning everything for?

• Do you really believe that Jesus is so good, and so rewarding that you will leave all you have and all you own and all you are in order to find your fullness in Him?

• Do you believe Him enough to obey Him and follow Him wherever He leads, even when the crowds in your culture – and maybe in your church – turn the other way?

These are questions every believer of Jesus Christ must answer – those who…

View original post 671 more words

Where have the giants gone?

Posted: March 22, 2013 in disciples life, Kingdom Teaching, teaching, wilderness
Tags: , , ,
0

When I read the stories of movements and people of the Church from years past I read of a people who were totally sold out to Christ, and His signs and wonders followed them. Of men and women who seemed giants in faith and willing to face what ever this world and hell had to throw at them. Men who would face even the gallows with heads towards heaven. Even praising the name of Jesus as their bodies melted, tied to a pole with fire consuming them.

They put Jesus and His Gospel above all other things and even though they faced death for their belief they never shirked at their calling. What has happened to the Bride in this generation? So many can not even make a commitment one to another leave alone a Body of believers – hopping from one church to another – never planting their feet and making a committed stand. We wonder why our children are tossed about in emotions and other actions yet we need but look at the example that has been set before them.

Did the disciples scatter? Yes – and they gathered together in fear of the men outside the upper room – yet when the Spirit came upon them their fear melted away and a holy boldness was birthed in them. Now we have the promised One as did they post Pentecost. Could it be that we have yet to surrender the reigns of control to Him and we choose to live according to our own desire and will rather than living according to “as the Spirit leads us”? Or are we merely a people grasped in the throngs of selfishness and fear of the opinions of men daring not to make a stand when times get tough? Or is it that we lack the one thing that is most important – LOVE – finding it easier to tear down those who disagree over minute matters with us rather than living out the example that Christ set before us – That the world would indeed know we are His disciples for our Love one for another!!!

A Conversation with Francis Chan

Posted: March 18, 2013 in disciples life, Kingdom Teaching, teaching, wilderness
Tags: , , ,
0

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.

The Radical Christian

Posted: February 22, 2013 in disciples life, Kingdom Teaching, teaching, wilderness
Tags: , , , , ,
0

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

Who Should Run the Church? A Case for the Plurality of Elders

Posted: February 21, 2013 in disciples life, Kingdom Teaching, Prophetic, teaching
2

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)

Key doctrine which must be the foundation of all others

Posted: February 4, 2013 in disciples life, Kingdom Teaching, Prophetic, teaching, wilderness
Tags: , , , , ,
0

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.

They were Radical Disciples

Posted: February 1, 2013 in disciples life, Kingdom Teaching, teaching
Tags: , ,
0

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

Older Entries
Newer Entries