Denominations and Differences – Design or Disaster?

It is not uncommon to hear Christians voicing deep concern and regret about today’s world-wide church scene. The proliferation of denominations is seen as a gross indication of the failure of Christianity to maintain her unity through the ages. One parody of a well-known hymn, which I heard in the late sixties went like this:

Like a mighty tortoise
Moves the church of God.Brothers, we are treadingWhere we’ve always trod.We are all divided,Many bodies, we,Strong in faith and doctrine,Weak in charity!




Critical and mournful statements galore abound. In the view of those who speak thus, the church has fragmented and splintered, and has moved away from the original intention of the Saviour. They cite His prayer in John17 – 

“… that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.” (John 17 vs 21)

If you heed the doomsayers, since the New Testament church, it has and is all going devastatingly wrong, with so many denominations arguing with each other and not enough emphasis being placed on ditching the differences and pitching in to evangelising the world. So what the world sees when it looks at ‘the church’ is a feuding, squabbling collection of argumentative factions, all convinced that their group is ‘most right’ and all the others are wrong. Some go further and say that this will only be remedied when ‘the church’ discovers its unity once more and stops messing about!

I don’t buy it!

And the major reason I will not accept that that is the conclusion we ought to reach is that I wholely believe that God knows what he is doing. Are we really to accept that the history of the church, through the centuries, has completely run away from Him, and become something He never intended? Or do we believe that our Lord Jesus Christ is as much the head of His body, the church, today as ever He was when He first founded her through His Apostles? Are we to think that His declared aim for His bride, which is:

"… to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless" (Ephesians 5 vs 27)

 … on the final Day, will be thwarted? Or do we trust that He is yet working towards that end with all the work, within the saints, of the Spirit He fills them with, and that the gates of hell will, indeed, not prevail? It seems to me that those who are being so negative, and are so ready to widely criticise the church in the world are actually lacking faith in the promises of Christ, however ‘non-visible’ it would appear that they are actually being fulfilled. We should yet assert, boldly, that

“ … I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him until that day.” (2 Timothy 1 vs 12)

You see that the strength of this promise lies not in the ‘entrusting’ but in the ‘keeping’. Who does that? God does; the One in whom we have believed – not us. He persuades us that HE is able. It’s His work to do that, not ours. Will He do it? Of course He will. He is God! After all, whose church are we? We are Christ’s church, from first to last, and He IS building us. And who can destroy what He builds?

If we have such a ‘down’ on the church and on our age, we are doubting God’s control of history, and the plan He has to bring everything into subjection, to place it at the feet of His Son. We may now see how He is achieving this, but we must believe that He is. At the end of time, the verdict will not be that He saved His children in spite of history. It will be that all history served Him to save them.

Of Motives and Mistakes

I am not saying that the church through the ages has not made mistakes, and has not ofttimes behaved abominably towards fellow-believers who have not held their particular viewpoint on one thing or another. I am not saying that some of the things over which there has been bitter division have not been trivial incidentals over which mature men and women of God ought to have known better and behaved in a more Christ-like manner. And we need to bear in mind that future saints of God may look at the differences we hold as majorly important, in retrospect, and judge these in the same way. But someone has said that wisdom in hindsight is as good as giving a bald man a comb! Too late, we cry! It all seems so vital when we are actually in the midst of the argument. And demonstrates our deep desire to be doing the truths of our God justice, and to be living consistently with them and by them. Let us not quickly dismiss the passion of those hearts of Christians in the past who have done what they could to defend God’s word. We bear them witness that they had a zeal for God – and Christ – however unenlightened we might now see that it was in some respects, at least.

But let us say more about that passion. Is it not precisely that desire to see the Biblical tenets vindicated that have also protected the core-church of Christ from so many heresies? Is it not true that brave souls have withstood the fiery breath of hell in its endeavour to burn out saving grace and silence the saving gospel? If there had not been men and women of that spirit, surely the great Christian truths of salvation and grace would have been buried long ago under the amassed doctrines of heresy. What of the Reformation? Even if they did not ‘get it all right’, and reformation needs to be ongoing, when they stood against the vast might of Pope and priests, nailing theses to doors, resisting scathing criticisms, political pressures, and even outright persecution, were they not displaying something as noble as the three, in Daniel’s day, who refused to bow the knee to Babylon’s king, choosing to trust God ‘even though He slay them’? Do we so easily demean such faith? Is it not by such as these that Almighty God has preserved His people for Himself through the ages? 

Surely, there is nothing wrong with this. We must not downplay it. We must look to the direction in which it is aimed. It is the target at which the arrow is pointed which must be determined properly, not the force behind it which should be weakened. Such passion, I say, is essential to the church’s ongoing existence, and it derives from hearts on fire with love for God and concern for the things of Christ. Who would want to extinguish that fire?

Branching, not Fragmentation

So let us do a little examination of the church ‘family tree’, as it has grown through the years. And this by way of some general observations, in a positive light, rather than looking at specifics. It may help us to see how we have ‘evolved’ to become so diverse, even amongst those congregations who would deem themselves ‘orthodox, conservative evangelicals’ (and I make no attempt to define what that means here). How, then, have these divisions come about?

The departure of the antichrists

“They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.” (1 John 2 vs 19)

John describes these as ‘mini antichrists’. There will be one, great Antichrist before Jesus returns. But before he comes, his like will be amongst the churches, and will reveal themselves in this way. They may begin within the church proper, but they will not remain. Unable to tolerate sound doctrine, and the Spirit of Christ, they move on. But we must ask what becomes of them? What do they ‘go out’ to? To disappear forever? To vanish into the air? Well, maybe some do. But others will form their own gatherings, collected around their errors. They will become cults and sects – even entire other religions – in their own right, pseudo-Christian and deficient, but with the appearance, to the undiscerning, of that from which they came – the true church. Their doctrine will be deadly, and they will not show forth the fruit of Christ, of His Spirit, in their lifestyle. Indeed, it is against such as these that John writes his first letter. Rapidly after the birth of the church on the Day of Pentecost, as Paul predicts at Ephesus:

“ I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard.”(Acts 20 vs 29, 30)

Two sources, then, of these disruptive influences – both from without and within. As the hymn ‘The church’s one foundation’ puts it:

“… with a scornful wonder the world see her oppressed,by schisms rent asunder, by heresies distressed,”

Their aim? To draw away disciples after them’ – to gain a following at the expense of the real church of Christ. Their method? They will ‘distort the truth’. These, then, are predicted by your Bible. They are now, in our world, fully-fledged, fully grown organisations and religions in their own right. You see them, don’t you?

The Distinctives of Difference

So we see that competing with the churches who hold to the truth – the ‘orthodox’ – we will have alongside us those so-called churches who do not. This is anticipated by God’s word – no surprises. But also, we have these distinct ‘movements’ who, for all their differences, hold to the God of the word and the word of God. The differences between them are over what are often termed ‘secondary doctrines’, that is to say aspects of faith which do not damage or destroy the Gospel. And it is these that the saints so often sigh over. ‘Would that it were not so’, say many. ‘Oh that we were combined and united in our agreement of what the Scriptures teach’. Well, I am going to argue that although ‘we’ might have done it differently, this is all in the plan of God – is necessary to that plan for the development and perfection of the bride of Christ in preparation for His coming. My reason? Just that otherwise, it would not be so, it would not be happening.

Another trait we can trace through history is that as new truth is rediscovered from God’s word (after so much was lost in the institutionalising of the faith which became the Roman Catholic church), so new movements emerge to maintain them. It works something like this:

• The ‘mainline church’ (Group A)  has a body of doctrine which it holds as valid
• Something is discovered in the Scriptures that shows that that body of doctrine is in some way deficient.
• A group is formed (Group B) of those who hold to the ‘difference’ – and they make much noise about it
• Group A disagrees and wants to maintain its assertions, its status quo
• Group B splits off in order to establish and preserve their new-found truth and awareness of the Scriptures

Let’s be clear that we are not here speaking of the emergence of error, but the emergence of truth. This ‘truth’ could be one of two types:

• A difference of doctrine – what is believed
• A difference of practice – what is done, or how it is done

So we now have two streams, one ‘old school’ and one ‘new school’. Both hold to the basic Biblical doctrines regarded as essential for salvation. But in faith and practice, perhaps both, there is now not only disagreement, but segregation between Group A and Group B. I would argue that this process is inevitable. It is also necessary in order to keep the discovered truth, else it would be ‘reabsorbed’ and buried again. And each new group has the ‘potential’ to divide again. History has demonstrated it time and time again. I suggest that this is not ‘fragmenting’ – it is ‘branching’. As long as the ‘branches’ are connected to the true vine, they are legitimate.

The Practice of Preference

Some of the differences between church and church are purely practical. If one group prefers to worship in a certain way, why should they be made to conform? Is this not just the freedom we are given? After all, it doesn’t destroy ‘oneness in Christ’, it just displays diversity. If you are more comfortable standing to pray and sitting to sing, and I the other way around, why should either of us insist on making the others do it the other way? Sometimes these differences can be accommodated without problem within the same fellowship. And it is important that we accept we must not legislate where the Bible doesn't. But with some things – the form of church leadership, for example – they are ‘structural’ and it is impossible for a single fellowship to be both. A decision has to be made. And if it is your choice that ‘my’ shape of fellowship is not to your taste, and you are happier elsewhere, so be it. The one who eats meat must not look down on the one who only eats vegetables, or vice-versa. Sometimes, it is hard to know which one IS the ‘weaker brother’.

Tim Keller is on record as saying that tolerance is not a question of not drawing lines – we all do; it is impossible not to. Rather, it is a question of how we treat those the other side of the lines we draw. That’s very useful, isn’t it? And with ‘one another’ – in whatever ’groupings’ we find ourselves, we have Christ’s direct command to that end. We are to love as He has loved us.

The Importance of Inspiration

What is important for all believers, in whatever denomination they are, is that they are persuaded to what they hold as true from Scripture. It may be more comfortable for me if everyone agrees with me and does things my way. But if their hearts are not where their professions are, what a terrible price to pay for that superficial unity. It is nothing more than uniformity. We must not dream that we will solve all our problems by painting a veneer of ‘sameness’ over the top, of simply wallpapering over cracks. The insistence of one person, or one group’s convictions, over all is nothing less than tyrannical. Our faith depends upon inner conviction, persuasion to, not imposition of, the truth. I simply do not want you to ‘believe’ what I believe because I believe it – I want you to believe it because you believe it. Else I am your authority, not God, and you have submitted to me, not to Him. That just produces plastic faith – a mere substitute for the real thing.

The Impetus of Inertia!

So, I implore you, stay in your denomination. And let us, as brothers and sisters, who will one day share eternity together, explore how to look at God’s word together, bringing our distinct views under its sound and its rule. Let us both have the openness of mind and of heart to ask the Spirit to reveal to each of us what we do not yet know, as well as what we think we know, but have not got quite right. Let us hold our ‘doctrines’ in an open hand and not grasp them tightly in unremitting fingers. That way, if God needs to add or remove anything, He doesn’t have to prise open our clenched fists in order to do so. We must remain teachable as well as fully persuaded.

In Summary

In conclusion, then:

1. Denominations are with us to stay. Nothing you or I can do is going to change that. So we have to learn to live with them, and make them do what glorifies Christ. They don’t have to be viewed as the church’s great failure. Let’s look to see what God is doing.
2. Let’s treat each other with all the love of Christ and respect.
3. Let’s be transparent and clear, not only about what we believe, but why. Exposing our hermeneutic helps others to see how we got to what we believe.
4. Let’s not take difference over doctrine personally. We don’t have to be aggressive in the assertion of ours, or defensive when others assert theirs. It’s God’s truth, not ‘mine’. It will stand if it is true. Whether I ‘defend’ it or not.
5. Let’s be prepared to change. Intractability is not a virtue, although steadfastness is. We need to know the difference.
6. Let’s get back to God’s word with absolutely everything. The Berean spirit prevails.
7. Let’s look for opportunities for unity. Fellowship. Rejoicing in our vast ‘common ground’ rather than retreating to the disputed edges.

The church’s one foundation is Jesus Christ, her Lord;
she is his new creation by water and the Word.
From heaven he came and sought her to be his holy bride;
with his own blood he bought her, and for her life he died.

Elect from every nation, yet one o’er all the earth;
her charter of salvation: one Lord, one faith, one birth.
One holy name she blesses, partakes one holy food,
and to one hope she presses, with every grace endued.

Though with a scornful wonder the world see her oppressed,
by schisms rent asunder, by heresies distressed,
yet saints their watch are keeping; their cry goes up: “How long?”
and soon the night of weeping shall be the morn of song.

Mid toil and tribulation, and tumult of her war,
she waits the consummation of peace forevermore,
till with the vision glorious her longing eyes are blest,
and the great church victorious shall be the church at rest.

Yet she on earth hath union with God the Three in One,
and mystic sweet communion with those whose rest is won:
O happy ones and holy! Lord, give us grace that we
like them, the meek and lowly, may live eternally. 

"This is That" - A quick look at Acts 2 and the 'family' gift of prophecy

Prophecy – the gift of the new covenant

It is generally stated that what happened on the day of Pentecost, as described in Acts 2, when the Holy Spirit was poured out on the first disciples, was that as an immediate result of the outpouring, they all ‘spoke in(with) tongues’. Certainly, this phenomena was what struck the gathered crowd so forcibly. But I think we need to look again at the text. I think that this first evidenced gift was not only ‘tongues’, but, more importantly, it was prophecy. And I think that prophecy today is misunderstood within the churches - that it should regain its rightful place as THE 'family' gift of all believers.  Let’s see.

“When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues[a] as the Spirit enabled them.”

The Promise

This, of course, is in fulfilment of the promise of Jesus. If we flick back one chapter, we will see that during the forty days He was with them after the resurrection, He ‘spoke to them about the kingdom of God’. And it was in one of these sessions, during a shared meal, that He commanded them to wait in Jerusalem for ‘the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about’ - which Jesus calls ‘the baptism with the Holy Spirit’. This special dispensing of the Spirit would give them power and was to be essential and fundamental in their being His witnesses ‘to the ends of the earth’. (Acts 1 vs 3 – 8). So this provision of the Spirit of God:

• Is a gift
• Is the Father’s promise, spoken of by Jesus
• Is a baptism’ ‘– and John’s baptism in water is a picture of it. They would be ‘immersed’ in Him
• Would ‘come upon’ them
• Would provide them with power to be witnesses to Jesus

And we understand this event to be the founding of Christ’s new covenant church, to be His representation on earth until He comes.

The Outpouring

On the great day of the Feast of Pentecost, seven weeks after the Passover, this astounding event takes place. Passover was two things to the Jew:

• The celebration of the new harvest – the bringing of the firstfruits of the field to the Temple, in thanksgiving
• The occasion when they celebrated the giving of the Law on Mount Sinai, 49 days (50 including the actual day of Passover). After the exodus from Egypt.

We must see the significance of this. 50 days after the death of Christ on the cross (our ‘exodus’), The Spirit of God is poured out upon ‘all flesh’. As the Law was the spine of the old covenant, so the Spirit is the ‘spine’ of the new. The whole of that former covenant was administered through the Law of Moses. So the structure and shape of the Christ-instituted new covenant, in His blood, is to be God’s own living, vital and vibrant Spirit, not laws engraved on stone. There, God gave those laws by writing them with His own finger. Here, He pours out His heart. The symbol of the former is stone. The symbol of the new is fire. Then, it was ‘dead letter’. Now it is white-hot holiness, the symbol of the very presence of God in His new Temple, the church, and its composite believers. The shadow is replaced by the substance. God brings about what the Law, great as it was, could only point to. And the lesser Law of Moses must give way to the greater glory of the Spirit of God Himself.

Tongues of Fire

• What they heard – was the sound of a mighty, rushing wind – the ‘ruach’ (breath) of God, which filled the whole house.
• What they saw – was the appearance of a great fire, with licking flames, descending, then dividing so that individual ‘tongues’ of fire separated and came to rest on each one.
• What they experienced – was this great in-filling, which prompted them to pour out their hearts in inspired praise and worship to God, and in languages they had not learned, the Spirit Himself providing the words and sentences in these unknown (to them) tongues. What are they saying? We are told a little later – they are ‘declaring the wonders of God’ (vs 11).

And this was the fulfilment of what Jesus had told them. This was what they had had to wait for. This was the beginning of the vast expansion which flows the gospel out to the waiting world, and becomes the source of salvation to all who hear. This is the fountainhead. Some of the descriptions used:

The Spirit ‘comes upon’ them (Acts 1 vs 8). He descends. He was not there (at least in this abundant, new way) before, and then, he is there. Where does He come from? From the place where the Father and the Son are. He is the gift of the Father, sent by both the Father and the Son. He is the Advocate Jesus has promised to be with them in His place – and this is now possible for a world of believers, throughout the ages. The Lamb of God has entered into the true Holy of Holies, bearing His own blood. Our great High Priest has gone where He now remains, and He has sat down – the role of atonement is finished.

"God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it. Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear." (vs 32, 33)

And so the promised Spirit is now ‘delivered’ –the postman has done his job!

And note this – He comes on them individually. He appears as a ‘fireplace’ with a burning conflagration. But the flames themselves draw apart and each believing disciple receives his own personal tongue of flame, resting upon him. Thus God indicates that this new people of His are dealt with as individuals joined in the one Spirit, but nevertheless treated and dealt with distinctly.

The Spirit comes around them. He fills the house. There is accompanying noise and sound, to convince the senses of all that He is coming – and has come. Just as on Sinai, the mighty presence of God was announced in such a way that no observer could be in any doubt – and they trembled with fear. So it is now. But oh, what a difference! What greater glory is this! Not mere angels, but the very being of God descend this ladder, and will never depart until the Sender returns. What overflowing joy He brings.

And thus, they are baptised in Him. John had baptised in water. It was the ‘medium in which his disciples had been immersed – completely submerged. Mirroring the Jewish practice of mikvah – the ceremonial bath which was a requirement for cleansing before Temple worship – every last hair of the head had to go beneath. But this deep cleansing effected now by this ‘washing in God’ did everything that immersion in water could only promise. This is reality. That was just shadow.

The Spirit comes into them. They are not only immersed, they are invaded. This baptism is internal as well as external – they are filled with Him. Every crevice of their being is in contact with Him. Nothing remains unsaturated. They are Spirit-soaked. If ever you have gotten really wet in a torrential downpour of rain, you’ll know what that is. This is internal God-saturation.

But then, not only filled, but overflowed. Flooded. God’s gift is given, pressed down, shaken together and overflowing. My picture is of an open-top jar or cup standing under a running tap, until the flowing stream of water fills – more, more, more – but then there is no more space to fill and the water streams down the outside of the cup. Now, no part of either the inside or the outside of the vessel is not in contact with water. It runs into, over and around all of the cup’s surfaces.

The Spirit remains with them – He comes to rest on them (Acts 2 vs 4). Jesus has promised this Spirit to be with them forever. He will not depart, even though Jesus has had to – and He has told them that if He had not gone, the Spirit would not come. But now He is here, He is here, in each believer’s heart, for eternity – AND YOURS!

Oh, my brothers and sisters, how little we think on this. This is what happened with YOU when you believed in Christ. This is what god did in –to – your life. Is it any wonder that in that precious moment, you were changed forever? You may not even have been aware of it. Perhaps you cannot place a date and time on it. But God’s word tells you that as sure as you are His, you are His because this happened to you.

Spirit Speech

"Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? … "

—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?” (Acts 2 vs 5 – 12)

But now, let us pause, for a while, at that phrase ‘declaring the wonders of God’. We must consider not only the phenomena – the ‘speaking with other languages – we must also look beyond and ask ‘what is actually being said here?’

First, we will see, first, that the significance of this is that whereas in those former days, God had only ever spoke, by His Spirit, through the Old Testament prophets, in the language of the Hebrews, now he speaks in all the languages of the world. Indeed, it is for this purpose that He has established Israel, Jerusalem, and the Temple in their midst. So that on this day, there would be gathered together peoples from ‘every nation under heaven’. So that, at last, here, in this God-chosen location, at last, they could hear this message – of all the wonders of God in the sending of His Son into their very midst, and all that had happened, and that he had subsequently done. This is incidence, not coincidence, His design all along has been aimed at this day, in this place – to bring the ambassadors of the nations together, to prime them all by speaking to them in their own tongues, then to send them back, like fired arrows, to their own places bearing this gospel, this news of salvation. These, then, would be the forerunners of the Apostles of the first church, taking the news of this day back and spreading it throughout the word.

What an astounding strategist is this God of ours. All the world is His, and He uses it just as He will, for His glory. At every turn it serves His purpose, and will glorify the Son and bring honour to Him – whether it likes and owns Him or not. He is unstoppable. Believer, do not doubt it – this is your God!

Second, we will note that the miracle here is in the speaking, not the hearing. This is very clear, although some have wondered. Each foreigner hears in his own language what one (at least) of these Galileeans is saying – the hearer understands the speech as he would normally. The surprise is that these are untutored Galileeans (you can almost hear the sneer behind the word). And the ‘enabling’, we are told, is of the Spirit-empowered speaker. Here is the first and primary indication to these disciples that they would indeed be Jesus’ witnesses ‘to the end of the earth’. Different tongues would be no barrier – God would overcome that in an instant, even though they had never been to language school.

Third. And then, we will see that the content of this astounding outpouring of supernatural speech is that they are declaring the wonders of God. All that he has been doing in Jerusalem and Judaea in and through the Christ. The one who had been so rejected, scorned, tortured, murdered, but who is demonstrated, in true glory, to be the image of the invisible God. Their hearts are full. So must their mouths be too.

Now, it strikes me that this is the very essence of prophecy – to be declaring the wonders of God. And we will see that this is the way this same Spirit prompts Peter to expound what is happening on this day of true glory.

Joel’s Prophecy

Peter stands to explain. How does he know what has happened in this last hour? Well, of course, the Spirit will provide that. So what does God say about this?
Peter says this is a direct fulfilment of a very old prophecy – from Joel:

“In the last days, God says,
    I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
    your young men will see visions,
    your old men will dream dreams.
Even on my servants, both men and women,
    I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
    and they will prophesy.” (Acts 2 vs 17, 18)

Let us examine that.

1. The Spirit will be poured out on all people
2. Sons and daughters will prophesy – a Spirit-succession to subsequent generations
3. Young men will see visions
4. Old men will dream dreams
5. Even the least and the lowest in society will be recipients and will also prophesy
6. There will be signs
7. There will be salvation for all who call on the name of the Lord (Christ)

So this prophecy of Joel is a promise that has heavily to do with prophecy. The great blessing of this outpouring will be that ALL will prophesy, and/or experience prophetic insight (dreams and visions). This is what these disciples are doing on the street in Jerusalem, at 9 in the morning – they are prophesying in fulfilment of god’s promise through Joel. And here is God’s wonderful promise as to who may be included in all this:

"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."

Not for Apostles alone, then. For ALL whom He will call. For generations to come. The prophetic promise of God for each believer – they will prophesy. This is the ‘norm’ for the Christian. Brother, sister, when you ‘declare the wonders of God’, that is what you are doing – you are prophesying. When you say things to other believers or to the unsaved, speaking b the Spirit who fills your heart – you are prophesying. You are ‘inspired by the Spirit’ and you are speaking forth words from Him into your world. Too often, we think of prophecy in old covenant terms. We see it as what it was, as recorded in the pages of our Old Testament. Here was this man or that, who had been called by God to bring his words to a nation who were far from Him, or even to a king who needed rebuke for his sins. Or there, a word of encouragement and promise to a destitute and desperate people. Or occasionally, some foresight as well as insight as to what God would do in the days to come. But all that ever was, all that we see there is ‘shadow’, not the reality itself.

Why should we imagine, then, that new covenant prophecy would be precisely the same? Should we not expect it to be more – much more, now that the Son is revealed? We should not ‘trim it back’ so that it looks like our expectation, with a ‘thus saith the Lord’ style announcement to waiting ears. That will be to make it less than the fullness God now gives, now that the Spirit is poured out on all flesh for all time. We should see the shadow in the substance, but not confine the substance to the shadow.

"What do these things mean?"

Here is the practical outworking of this.
First, freedom for the ‘speaker’, the ‘prophet’. When we speak to each other, we can joyfully and eagerly expect God, the Spirit, to be bringing His truth, His encouragement, His comfort through our shared words. That is ‘prophetic living’, if you like – and it is what this new life in Christ should lead us to expect. But we have no need to voice it as if God is speaking directly through our mouths. WE are doing the speaking. We can say to each other, ‘I think’, or ‘I sense the Lord wants to say to you…’ without feeling that our ‘prophecy’ loses authority because of that. Indeed, that is being honest.

Second, freedom for the ‘hearer’. This leaves the hearer with choices. They are not placed in the insidious position of thinking ‘is this God speaking to me direct? If I disobey, am I disobeying God?’ No, it is left to the hearer to ‘weigh what is said’ as Paul says to the Corinthians is the way that prophecy should be heard. We must take it back to God’s word, not be forced to decide if we ‘believe in’ and trust the authority of the speaker. We must allow that the ‘prophet’ just might have misjudged or got it wrong. And this will not then be fatal to us. We will not have to decide whether or not we ‘stone the false prophet’, as they did under Mosaic Law.

I wonder whether you might have experienced those times when something that has been said to you, in a particular time of need of some kind, or something that you said to another brother in that position has somehow ‘rang true’, or, as we say, ‘resonated’ with them. You may not have thought it them, or think it now. But I believe that’s prophecy. God using human mouths to bring His words to the hearts of His children. Jesus speaking. Mercy and grace. Strength in times of need.

You might have heard the story of the little one, who, in the course of growing up, went through a time of being afraid of the dark. So Mum said to her, as a good Christian Mum, that her Lord Jesus was looking after her, even though she could not see Him; that he was in the night with her and would not leave her. So the next night, the little one’s voice calls “Mummy, Mummy. I’m frightened.” Mum replies, “Now, you know what we said about Jesus looking after you, don’t you?” And the little girl calls back, “yes, Mummy, I believe that. But I need someone with skin on.”

That’s what you, and the Spirit’s voice in you is. Christ with skin on.

The Law of Christ debate - Part 5

A look at 1 Corinthians 9

The Law of Christ - the debate continues - a look at 1 Corinthians 9

"Free from everyone, slave to all"

"Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible."  (1 Corinthians 9 vs 19)

Introduction

One of the passages which is used by some to support their view that believers are under a new covenant 'system' of law, which they want to label 'The Law of Christ' is 1 Corinthians 9. This, even though that actual phrase does not appear in the passage, any more than the actual teaching that those in Christ are said to be 'under law' appears anywhere at all in the New Testament. Indeed, Paul's use of the phrase in Galatians 6 states boldly that believers live to FULFIL the law of Christ, rather than live 'under' it.

This passage in Paul's letter to the church at Corinth does say that he - Paul - is 'in-lawed to Christ'. We will see what he means by this strange term, used nowhere else in the New Testament, in its context. Although I greatly respect my brothers and sisters in Christ who affirm this, I must confess to a feeling of frustration. It seems to be a degree of almost desperation which takes one phrase from one verse - the only verse where it actually occurs in its 'virgin' form, marries it to a similar, though not exact, phrase from another verse, taken from a different letter entirely, and then constructs a complete view of how believers are to live in the new covenant.And it appears to me that this is done to support the presupposed assertion that 'all men are under law' in some form or other. By 'presupposed', I mean that it has been determined, somehow, before the passage is considered and thus a preconceived meaning has then been 'read back into' the text itself. I will try to explain here why I do not understand this passage to be stating that believers are 'under the law of Christ'. So my aim is not to disprove the whole idea that there IS an expansive 'Law of Christ' which believers are 'under' (I have attempted that elsewhere), but, more simply, that this verse cannot be used to support that view. Thus those who are going to assert it must look elsewhere for their Biblical warrant.

The Importance of Purpose

When we come to a portion of Scripture, the first question to be asked is, 'What is the purpose of this passage?' And the question must be asked in two time-frames:

1. What was the intention of the original author in writing this, in this way, to those he writes to (the 'then-there' purpose)?
2. What is God's purpose in placing this passage in our Bibles? What is the Holy Spirit saying to us - to me - today - in my life (the 'here-now' purpose)?

This identified purpose will determine our understanding of any sub-section and all of the content it uses. Every statement will serve the main purpose. In other words, we cannot just extract single verses, or parts of verses, and take them to mean something out of their context UNLESS that something is plainly stated elsewhere in Scripture - and then, we must understand those truths from their original context, and the way in which they are being integrated in the section we are examining. Otherwise, we end up with 'blackmail letter' style doctrine, where our statements of belief are 'patched' together with words and letters 'cut out' from anywhere we find them, irrespective of their original context. And if we do this, we can make the Bible say exactly what we want it to. My Bible College Principal used to quote a parody of a well-known hymn:

"Wonderful things in the Bible I see,
Some put there by you, and some put there by me."

This actually ends up making the Bible not God's word at all. It is no longer revelation. It has become conformed to the shape I want or expect it to be. Now, please understand that I am not accusing those who disagree with me of this. I am just trying to emphasise the vital importance of letting the Bible speak, without - and we have to make effort to do this - assuming that we know what it is going to say. I think we have to do this afresh every time we come to it anew. For it is all too easy for me to think I have my doctrine 'done and dusted', and not submit it to new light which the Holy Spirit may want to shine on it in my heart and head. Then, I become stagnant in my beliefs and unteachable, I have closed my mind to change, and if and where I am wrong, I am uncorrectable. And to that extent, I preach also to myself, and I invite comment and criticism, in love, on my understanding of God's word from my brothers and sisters in Christ. We cannot afford to be one inch above contradiction, because the Lord uses fellowship - other believers - to correct us.

Defining 'Purpose'

When we look at a letter, such as 1 Corinthians, we can follow this question of 'purpose' into finer granularity, by asking our major questions at different levels. I am grateful to a series of preaching classes at study days which were titled 'Preparing the Message', ran and attended by my then-church in Bedford many years ago - but I have never forgotten the valuable tools they equipped me with. Thank the Lord for wise, Godly preachers who are willing and very able to pass on to the next 'generation' of preachers what they have learned. Much of this approach comes from the work of Jay Adams. I would do it like this:

Level 1: What is the purpose of the whole letter?
What is Paul's primary reason for writing to the church at Corinth?

Level 2: What identifiable sections are there within the letter?
This is what Adams calls a 'preaching portion', or a 'passage', and he defines it simply as 'a section with an identifiable purpose'. These may be found by looking for key phrases, like Paul's 'now concerning ...', or 'now about ...', as some translations have it (ch7 vs 1,25; ch 8 vs 1; ch 12 vs 1 et al). Then, we ask:

a) What are the sub-purposes of these sections?

b) How do these sub-purposes serve the main purpose?

Level 3: What identifiable points are being made in 'this' section?
How do these points each serve the purpose of the passage.

The Purpose of 1 Corinthians 9

The Portion containing the Purpose

When we come to 1 Corinthians ch9, then, let us first ask, 'what whole portion of the letter does this piece come in?'
My analysis would indicate that this section starts with ch 8 vs 1 - Paul's:

"Now about food sacrificed to idols:"

And pretty quickly, Paul has identified what is behind this practical issue at Corinth. It is the question of a Christian's 'rights'.

In ch 10 vs 23, he is still on track:

“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive. No one should seek their own good, but the good of others."

... and I would suggest (others may disagree) that his argument continues all the way through ch 10 - and I would also add that ch 11 vs 1 belongs to the end of ch 10, not the beginning of a new section:

"Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ."

So the whole paragraph, at the end of the section, reads (from ch 10 vs 31, through ch11 vs 1):

"So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved. Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ."

I conclude, then, that in ch 9 vs 19 - 23, Paul is speaking about the believer and his 'rights'. And he is using himself as an example for these Corinthian Christians to follow. And I want to state emphatically here that therefore it is not Paul's purpose to teach us about the believer's relationship to 'new law', whether that be called 'the Law of Christ' or something else. It is not his primary purpose in these verses, which are an illustration of his main point. Or, for that matter, in the whole of this letter.

... And the Purpose itself

So then, what IS the purpose of this particular portion in ch 9 (within the scope of the ch 8vs1 to 11 vs 1 passage)? Well, we can look within it for key phrases which will tell us. We must read what has gone before to see how Paul has arrived at this point. Why is he saying what he is saying, and why is he saying it just here? And I would answer that he is illustrating how the believer should consider his 'rights', in the freedom Christ brings, by looking at what Paul does in this specific respect - in the preaching of the Gospel.

There are clues:

1. This is a defence.
   Look at verse 3 - he states it plainly. There were those at Corinth who wanted to judge him.
2. This is about 'rights'. If there is one key phrase in this chapter, my vote would be for verse 12:
   
   "On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ."
   
   That is his thrust. That is what he is getting at.

His argument, logically presented, can be laid out like this:

1. Paul is a God-appointed Apostle and leader of the church, generally, and specifically in a personal way to the Corinthians
2. All those, who are leaders in the church, and in Christ, have rights.
3. Paul and his 'team' have refused to use these rights (vs 12, 15).
   (Interesting, by the way, that he considers that something that is 'commanded' by the Lord - vs 14 - can be waived by him)
4. He does so so that he cannot be accused of 'making a profit' from 'peddling' the Gospel. He wants it to be offered free of charge (vs18). You see, he is saying that even in this, he is a 'recruit', not a volunteer. He is 'compelled' to preach. He is 'discharging a trust'. He does not even profit in the self-satisfaction of a willing volunteer. He has been 'sommissioned' by God to preach it, and preach it he must.
5. (Implied and 'called' into his argument later) Paul is saying 'this is how I think and act. Follow my example'

When is 'freedom' not 'freedom'?

So here, then, he makes these statements. Christ has set him free, with no obligation to anyone. But he has gone on to make himself a slave. He has decided to behave as if he is not free, in the wonderful, supreme aim of winning many to Christ. He will use all means to get alongside the lost, Jew or Gentile, so that he can sound the message of salvation in their ear, with as little controversy caused by 'lifestyle' as possible. He will not compromise his faith. But he will give up everything else for the sake of the Gospel being heard. (Lord, may that be my heart too!). And now, he explains how he does so. But note. The primary purpose of this section is to explain why believers should not always be insisting on their 'rights'. They should be looking to live out love, even where it means sacrificing those rights.

When is freedom not freedom? When it is laid down at the feet of the risen Christ.

"Love one another as I have loved you."
"Greater love has no man than this - that he lays down his life for his friends."

Paul - Who do you think you're talking too?

"To the Jews" ...

First, to his own countrymen, to the Jews:

"To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. "

Here is the logic, unpacked step by step.

1. Jews are under law (Mosaic law)
2. Paul is not under that law, but
3. He will take up the practices and the behaviour of the Jew in order to get alongside them and win them for Christ. So that the challenge of the Gospel is not a matter of 'Jewishness', but of Christ.

Then, to the Gentile:

"To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law."

The logic:

1. Gentiles do not have the law
2. Paul is not 'free from' law - he is overseen by God's law; he is 'in-lawed' ('within the jurisdiction of', as Thomas Schreiner says) to Christ, but
3. He will become as if he does not have the law in order to win those who are like this.

... and he goes on. he has become weak to win the weak etc...

So we see that this phrase 'in-lawed to Christ' comes in the midst of a passage with a purpose. The intent of that phrase is not to teach us about a law which believers are under - not in any sense. To make it say that tears it out of its context and gives it a meaning Paul never intended. To do so turns the phrase itself into its own purpose, when it is actually being used as an illustration to make another point - a point which serves the main message. Now, I am not saying that we cannot gain insights and information from these 'side-points'. Every verse of Scripture is to be 'mined' for its full content - all that it can and does reveal about Christ. But as a former college colleague of mine has put it many times, 'the main things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things'. And we do not take 'asides' and base fully-fledged doctrinal assertion on them. 

A Turn of Phrase

One of the problems with translating from one language to another is that subtlety is sometimes lost. Plays on words, which serve their purpose in the original, do not come over. Some assert that the use of the Greek 'ennomos' ('inlawed-to') instead of 'huponomos' ('under law') is a technicality, and that these are equivalent words. But it looks to me that on these statements, Paul is engaging his listeners with some interesting contrasts:

'To those UNDER the law,
I became like one UNDER the law,
though I myself am NOT UNDER the law.'

'To those OUTSIDE the law,
I became like one OUTSIDE the law,
though I am not free from God's law but am INSIDE Christ's law.'

... or more literally:
'To those UNLAWED ...
... I am INLAWED to Christ'

You get the idea.

And I think that neither Paul nor the Holy Spirit deliberately avoided using the phrase 'under law', specifically so as not to confuse the readers (or us). Paul seems to go out of his way NOT to say that believers are under law - of any kind.

Conclusions

So to take this phrase from its context, when it has been used in a subsidiary way in Paul's argument and then to twin it with a similar - though not identical - phrase in a completely different context and a completely different letter, seems strange to me. To treat God's word in this way seems odd, unnatural, not logical. And likely to arrive at misdirected conclusions. And, finally, to summarise:

1. The main purpose of 1 Corinthians 9 is to argue that Christian believers should, from a heart of love, lay aside even their 'rights' in order to serve each other in Christ and to preach the Gospel to those who are not in Christ - NOT to teach about the relationship believers now have to some form or other of law.
2. Paul does not say that believers are 'under' Christ's law, he says that they are 'inside' it.
3. I think Paul (and the Holy Spirit) can be trusted in his use of words. he is, after all, a trained lawyer. Ever dealt with lawyers?

So, at the least - the very least - the use of this particular verse as a main 'pillar' to support a doctrine of 'the Law of Christ' is a dubious use of Scripture - a bad hermeneutic practice. I know little about house building, but I do know a little! In a house, there are two types of walls - load-bearing and non-load-bearing, or 'partition' walls. if you are building upstairs extensions onto your house, it is sheer folly to place all the weight of your new room, or whatever, on a non-load-bearing wall. The clue is in the name!. To build important doctrine on the interpretation, out of context, of verses or passages from Scripture is equally foolish.

And thus, I strongly submit for your consideration, as ‘sensible people’ (1 Corinthians ch 10 vs 15 ) that this verse will not bear the weight of the interpretation some are placing upon it. This verse does not 'preach to us' that there is a 'Law of Christ' that we, and all believers, are under.

Storming the Kingdom of Heaven

The 'interface' between the old and new covenants

In the UK, our met office recently began giving storms names – similar to what the US do with hurricanes. As I write, we’ve just had Henry, Imogen and Jake. The idea, I believe, is to make the threatened public more aware of the ‘character’ – and thus the danger – these storms pose to us. This begs the question ‘what qualifies as a storm’. One dictionary definition is ‘a violent disturbance in weather’. This gave rise to another use - some soldiers or warriors who displayed great ferocity in battle being described as ‘stormers’ – Star Wars has borrowed the term from elsewhere, and it has become ‘storm troopers’. And when a city or castle was besieged in a fierce, fast onslaught designed to quickly overwhelm – that was ‘storming’.

Jesus spoke of the ‘storming’ of the kingdom of heaven.
As recorded in Matthew 11, He had just received a deputation from the imprisoned John the Baptist, asking was He really the Christ, or was it to be someone else they should look for. Whether John asks for himself, for reassurance, or whether he was seeking to establish truth for his disciples is unclear. Jesus’ response is to send them back with the witness of their own eyes – the signs of the Messiah:

“Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor. Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me.” (Matthew 11 vs 4 – 6)

Mostly referring to Isaiah 35 and 61, Jesus simply lists what the prophet said would be the indications that Messiah had come. This, they were witnessing. But, after the departure of John’s commissioned representatives, Jesus goes on to speak to the crowd about John. He appears to want to make it very clear just who John is, as well as to make it very clear to John just who he is. He begins with a challenge:

“What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed swayed by the wind? If not, what did you go out to see? A man dressed in fine clothes? No, those who wear fine clothes are in kings’ palaces. Then what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is the one about whom it is written: “‘I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.””(Matthew 11 vs 7 – 10) 

The quote is from Malachi 3. John as well as Jesus has been promised, as the forerunner sent to prepare the way for the Messiah to come. Jesus sets a challenge. When the people had heard of the preaching of John in the wilderness, why had they gone chasing out into the middle of nowhere to hear him? What had they expected? A purely natural phenomena (hardly worth a desert journey), or a regal figure (looking in the wrong place for that)? Oh, they were looking for a prophet. God had not spoken by a prophet to Israel for 400 years – Malachi had actually been the last one. So little wonder that they were excited. Jesus wants them to be certain that John was not only ‘a prophet’, he was ‘THAT’ prophet – the ‘Elijah’ who had been promised (vs14). Now, here is the distinguishing teaching. And the hardest part of this portion to understand. Jesus says:

“Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence, and violent people have been raiding it. For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come.” (vs 11 – 14) 

Jesus does not denigrate John, or look down on him in any way. The difference the Lord identifies here is one of role, not person. John’s ruthless truth ministry, and his faithfulness to his calling is unblemished. Even to the last, where he ‘beards the lion’, challenging a corrupt ruler (Herod, who had taken his own brother’s wife for himself) in his own palace, John is God’s man. And to the end, where, having been chosen all his days to surrender his heart for God, and for his Messiah, ‘the Baptist’ is then called to surrender his head, John remains constant.

The last law Prophet 

“For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John.” 

First, note that Jesus groups John with all of the forward-looking prophecy of the whole Old Testament – the Law and the Prophets. John is an anointed (with the Spirit, from before he was born) prophet from a Levitical (priestly) family. But instead of serving in the Temple, as his father did, John serves in the wilderness – where the Law came from. ‘All the Prophets and the Law prophesied … UNTIL John’. John is the last of the line. Equally inspired, equally authoritative as the bringer of God’s words, John is the last of the line. Something crucial is about to change.

The greatest of the great 

 “… for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. “ (Luke 1 vs 15) 

Second, note the Lord’s high consideration of this man – the son of His mother’s cousin. There is none greater in his ‘class’ – he excels them all. The Spirit anointed the prophets of old when they were prepared and equipped to bring His word. But He came and went. The purpose of the anointing was to empower them to prophesy. But John was filled with the Holy Spirit before birth – before he could even speak (Luke 1 vs 15). And this is testified to by his pre-natal acknowledgement of His Lord:

“When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.” (Luke 1 vs 41) 

(Share with me, for a moment, in that. Here are these two women, the one old and very pregnant, the other very young and just pregnant, having a praise party together in the light of their unborn sons, and THEIR relationship. There is something ‘weirdly wonderful’ in that, is there not?)

He(John) IS ‘the Elijah who is to come’ My bet is that Jesus’ mother, Mary, had passed on to Jesus the story of Elizabeth, John’s mother. He would have known about God’s prophecy, from the mouth of the angel, to John’s father:

“… And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” (Luke 1 vs 17) 

And of course, in any case, as the Christ, Jesus would have been fully aware of God’s purpose and intention in the ministry of John. How could the ‘forerunnee’ not know what His ‘forerunner’ was about?

The Siege of heaven 

What, then, is this talk of ‘violent people’ and the siege of heaven’s kingdom? Who is it who dares storm heaven – apparently with the blessing of Jesus Himself? What can this be about? What is Jesus saying? There is only one conclusion I can reach. But before I tell you what that is, I want to trace how I get there.

1. As the old covenant is replaced – made obsolete, the book of Hebrews tells us – by the new, there has to be an ‘interface’ between the two. By which I mean a ‘meeting point’ where the old covenant becomes the new. I believe this happens in the ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ before the cross. 
2. In John the Baptist we have the ultimate representative of the old covenant. He is both priest and prophet. He is filled with the Spirit, even more so than Elijah had been before him, in an extraordinary way. And the old covenant prophets, of course, were preachers of the Law, every one of them. 
3. Because John is appointed by God in his ministry of preaching the Law, and the due repentance it should lead to (which is as far as the Law could go before the Messiah came), yet he is ‘the end of the line’ for the old covenant, he himself is a ‘shadow’. He bodily represents what now must be replaced by promised ‘substance’ – Christ. 

Thus when he states:

"The bride belongs to the bridegroom. The friend who attends the bridegroom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom’s voice. That joy is mine, and it is now complete. He must become greater; I must become less" (John 3 vs 29, 30) 
 … John is not merely speaking of his own ministry giving way to that of Christ, he is prophetically speaking of the Law giving way to Gospel; the old covenant being surpassed by the new.

Thus we see, here, that what is taking place is a kind of on-the-spot typology, with the type and its anti-type in the frame at the same time. Thus, we are given to better understand what Jesus is talking about when He says:

“From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence, and violent people have been raiding it. For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come.” 

You will notice three time frames:

• Before John (‘the Elijah who was to come’) 
• From John to Jesus (‘until now’) 
• After Jesus (inferred) 

‘Before’, Jesus says, all the prophets and the Law prophesied. And there was the promise of ‘another Elijah’. Then John appears as that promised, special forerunner of Messiah.

‘After’, Jesus gives us no more information here.

 But in between – this is where this intriguing description is given.
What is happening in this interlude? No doubt, it is referring to the earthly ministry of both John and Jesus, and the overlap between those ministries. The ‘baptism of repentance’ is being replaced by the ‘baptism of faith for the forgiveness of sins’. Jesus’ disciples are baptising more people than John did – even John’s own disciples are following Him (John ch 4). What is happening?

 The covenant people of Israel are ‘migrating’ from the Law to the Lord; from the old to the new.

 And I think this is what Jesus describes. That this transition is a violent upheaval. That what was defended as unapproachable by the Law is now accessible.

It is as if the city has been sieged. The battering rams have been at the gates – pounding and pounding and pounding. And eventually, the gates have given way and been burst wide open. Now – ah, now – the warriors stream into the city to take possession of that which they could not before. The city is theirs, as they take it by force.

This an astounding picture, is it not? In the hearts of those who have heard the Saviour’s word, and have come to know and believe that He is the Christ, the Son of the living God, there is a boldness, a ruthless daring which lays a hold now on that which previously they could not even touch. See these ‘kingdom invaders’ flood into the kingdom, through those Christ-opened gates, which will never be closed to them again. See the former timidity, hesitance, fear .. dissolved and disappearing as they discover, in their hearts of faith, now no resistance to their approach to God Himself. And as they take up, with both hands, eagerly, joyfully, these promises of God in the very person of His own Son, they are, at the last, inside the kingdom. And not only inside, they are citizens of it.

Elsewhere, Jesus describes this termination of the ‘rule’ of the old covenant as an axe having been laid to the tree. It is in the process, even as He teaches, of being chopped down. And in its place – the True Vine. But this is upheaval, a tumultuous business. There is devastation and there is a ‘violent’ change. So this is the beginning. The refugees who have been under that crippling burden of Law for so long are coming home. As they discover the One to whom it pointed, little wonder that they flee to Him with such passion – such violent intent to secure and appropriate what the promises of God had been all about all along. The glory of Christ!

The Law of Christ – the debate continues. Part 4 – All Men NOT Under Law

This is an ‘unexpected’ addition to the previous three considerations of this subject.

 In Part 1, I looked at the logical reasons why I am persuaded that the ‘Law of Christ’ as referred to by Paul in Galatians 6 vs 2 is not a ‘collection’ of imperatives formed from as a subset of the New Testament.

 In Part 2, I examined the text of Galatians itself to see why expositionally, this view does not hold up, and how Paul quite clearly states in the passage what he considers this ‘law of Christ’ to be.

 In Parts 3a and 3b, I considered the actual words of Jesus when He instituted the new covenant, and proposed that the ‘law of Christ’ which Paul refers to is the ‘new commandment’ given by our Lord to His disciples on that night.

 Recently, there has been yet more published, in spoken and written form, concerning the ‘background’ view that believers must be under the ‘Law of Christ’ because all men, everywhere, throughout history must always be under some form of God’s law. I aim to show that this is a presupposition and is not actually Biblical thinking at all. Thus, however much I respect and love my brethren who hold this view, I believe they are mistaken. However, again, it must be emphasised that this is an ‘in-house’ discussion between believers. I am not, for one minute, doubting their salvation – or their sincerity. In contrast, I want to assert that the Bible, in fact, teaches that God ‘gave Law’ twice and twice only in human history:

• The first time through Moses, for Israel, in Canaan, on Mount Sinai
• The second, in Christ, for believers throughout the world, in the Upper Room in Jerusalem on the night before He was crucified

‘Given Law’, even in human government, has specific purpose. It is the ‘cement’ by which a people group live together. Indeed, we could define a ‘people group’ – tribe or nation – as “a collection of individuals who are in a society under single government, of some kind or other) and in submission to, and thus bound by, an accepted, common law.” It may be argued that God’s law does not need to be the same as human law. But the living God uses language to communicate to us in His word, and the basis of language is that we understand the same things by the same words. If your ‘idea’ of what ‘red’ is differs from mine, we can no longer use the description with any meaning. We must define terms in order to understand them and to understand each other. It is no different when God speaks to us in His word, the Bible. And in fact, it is quite likely that our concepts of society and government and ‘law and order’ derive from our having been made in the image of God when He created mankind. It’s the way we are ’wired’.

 And here we come to an important and fundamental rule. When we read God’s word, we must allow it, not us, to define what it means. We must not ‘import’ meaning into what God says. We must not take a little from one place, and some from another, to construct our appreciation of His truth. Not a few ‘systematic theologies’ have fallen into that trap. Systemetise we must – that is just the way the human brain works in order to make sense of things. But when it comes to God’s truth, the Bible, not our brains, must control how we read it. So, with God’s ‘given law’, I want to suggest two definitive statements which help us to understand why God gave it:

1. The purpose of God’s ‘given law’ at Sinai was to govern God’s old covenant people, Israel, through and during their living in the land He had given them – in Canaan – until He would send His Son.
2. The purpose of God’s ‘given law’ in Jerusalem is to govern God’s new covenant people, the church of Christ, until He appears again at the end of the Gospel age.

And we are told in the book of Hebrews, and elsewhere, that the former covenant, called ‘the old covenant’ or ‘the Mosaic covenant’ was a shadow, a promise unclear and not fully defined, of the new covenant in Christ, which is its ‘substance’ – its fulfilment. We go on to see more of how the giving of law at Sinai served to distinguish Jew from Gentile.

Mankind in two halves

When we read the Bible, the Old Testament records for us God’s dealings with His chosen people, Israel – the Jews. The New Testament speaks to those who are called by His gracious purpose to build His church, the body and the bridegroom of His Son, who came to live, die and rise again so that His purpose in all history might be brought to fulfilment. It is in this age, of course, that we now live. Our New Testament writings, delivered by those Apostles Jesus chose and equipped to be the church’s foundation, tell us not only what these two covenants are, but how they relate to each other – and there are parallels and there are contrasts. One of the distinct contrasts stated plainly, again and again, throughout the New Testament is this.

  The Jews have the Law of God The Gentiles do not have the Law of God

 Some verses which bear this out:

  “…when Gentiles, who do not have the law…” (Romans 2:14)

“…the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God …” (Romans 3:1)

“… the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises.” (Romans 9:4)

 … indeed the biggest challenge the first church had to contend with was the integration in Christ of both Jew and Gentile. Paul speaks of a ‘wall of hostility’ between them, with Jew hating Gentile and Gentile hating Jew:

“ For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace … “ (Eph 2:14,15)

 Note that! The way Christ sorts out this great divide is to abolish ‘the law, with its commands and regulations. It is this very law which causes the division in the first place between Jew and Gentile.

Two types of sin

In what John Piper has called ‘the greatest letter ever written’, Paul writes to the church at Rome. Acknowledging God’s call on his life as to earn him the title ‘the Apostle to the Gentiles’, he sets out, for both Jew and Gentile, a brilliant reasoned argument, at the beginning of which he wants to make it plain that both of these ‘two halves of humanity’ are accountable to God and in need of salvation – of Christ. We will follow this argument with care, so that we understand it, but for now, note his comment in chapter 5 verse 14:

“To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given” And in chapter 2 verse 12: “All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.”

 Plainly then, and distinctly clear, there are two kinds of sin – sin committed by those under the law, and sin committed by those who do not have the law. Paul insists that both are indictable and will lead to death. Both types of sinners are accountable to God. Both will be judged. Both require atonement, redemption, salvation, justification. Note that Paul does not say that Gentiles have their ‘own kind of law’. This is clear. Jews have law. Gentiles do not.

Sin – a universal definition

One of the claims of the ‘All men always under Law’ view is that without some definition of God’s law, we cannot have an adequate definition of sin. For them, sin is simply the breaking of God’s Law – whatever form of it happens to apply to the section of humanity under consideration. And they quote various verses in support of that – we will consider some of these later. But is it true that the Bible only ever defines sin in that way? I believe not. For example, consider Romans 2 again:

“To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For God does not show favoritism.” (vs 7 – 10)

 Paul is saying that God’s judgement will be irrespective of whether a person is a Jew or a Gentile. In both camps, he defines sin, not according to law at all, but like this:

“… those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil …”

 So we see three distinct components in this description of what sin actually is. It is –

a) Self-seeking
b) Rejection of the truth
c) Following evil

 In the famous verse – Romans 3 vs 22,23 – Paul has said:

“There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”

 Thus another way of describing this ‘universality of sin’ is simply ‘to fall short of the glory of God’. In fact, that is what the word ‘sin’ actually means – to fall short, or to miss the target. Law or no law, when man fails to live up to all that God has made him for, he sins.Previously, just a few verses before, he has been even more graphic. Accumulating quotes from the Psalms, he writes:

Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands;
 there is no one who seeks God.
All have turned away, they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good, not even one.” “Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit.” “The poison of vipers is on their lips.” “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.” “Their feet are swift to shed blood; ruin and misery mark their ways, and the way of peace they do not know.”  “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

We have more than enough by way of a description of sin that is comprehensive, and includes those who are and those who are not under God’s Law. So how do the distinct ‘sinnings’ differ? Paul tells us in Romans 2. There is

1. Command-breaking sin – including the ‘transgression’ of God’s given Law.
2. Not-command-breaking sin.

We will consider the second first.

Not-command-breaking sin

Back to Romans 5:
“To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.”

 So, points to consider from this:

1. There was sin in the world before there was God’s law in the world.
2. Sin was doing its death-producing business all the way along, from Adam to Moses (even if it is not ‘charged against anyone’s account’ – more on that later)
3. The nature of sin changed somehow when the Law was given through Moses
4. Sin before Moses included a ‘type’ which was not the breaking of a given command – as was Adam’s sin (but did not necessarily exclude the ‘type’ of sin that WAS the breaking of a given command – like Adam).

Question: When Cain killed his brother, Abel, was that sin?
The answer must be ‘yes’ – of course it was. But where in Scripture do we see a command, as a direct word from God, which Cain had received, that he must not kill? So when he commits murder, it is not the breaking of a direct, given command. And yet it is still sin. We see it in Moses’ summary of the state of the world which gives rise to God’s intention to wipe mankind, with the exception of Noah and his family, from the face of the earth. Why? What gives rise to such a devastating solution? Genesis 6 vs 5:

  “The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. “

 God does not say ‘they continually break my law’. His definition of sin is to do with the state of their hearts and the ‘inclination’ of their minds – this is the seat of sin.

Command-breaking sin

The other ‘kind’ of sin, then, is sin that is like Adam’s sin – disobedience to a clear command of God. Adam was instructed :

“You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” (Genesis 2 vs 16)

 He is thus commanded, by God, before the creation of Eve. So to him belongs the responsibility for bearing and upholding this command. Evidently, he communicates it to Eve, because when she is confronted by the serpent with the question, “Did God say …” she answers:

“God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”” Genesis 3 vs 3)

 Eve was deceived, we are told (1 Timothy 2 vs 14). But when she presents the forbidden fruit to Adam, all we are told is simply, “He ate”. The serpent beguiled the woman. But Adam was just blatantly and rebelliously disobedient. He had a clear command. He chose to disobey it.

Deception and command-breaking

We need to note that Eve’s deception does not excuse her sinful disobedience. She had other options. But she chose to take it upon herself to usurp her husband’s – and God’s – authority and act upon her own judgement, despite the lucid clarity of what had been commanded. We must also guard our own thinking in this respect. It is possible for Satan to use God’s word against Him, twisting it around so that we end up convinced of precisely the opposite to what he says. There is only one recourse in this – get back to the source. Eve’s deception could have been resolved had she not acted until she had referred the options back to the one who had given the disputed word to her – in her case, her husband; and in Adam’s case, God Himself.

Commands and Law

Note also that this command given to Adam is not referred to anywhere in the Bible as ‘law’.

 There is a quiz show currently on TV, which is a particular favourite of mine, called ‘Pointless’. The idea is that contestants have to find the most obscure answer to various questions, which have previously been put to 100 people. The score for each question which attracted the least number of right answers, out of the 100, is the winner. Of particular value, attracting bonuses and advantage, is a right answer which not one of the 100 got – a ‘pointless’ answer. Now, we could play ‘pointless’ with the Bible. Which questions give the least number in response? We do it already, from within New Covenant Theology, when we critique systems like Covenant Theology. For example –

• In how many verses does the Bible speak of ‘the moral law’? Pointless answer – the answer is zero. How many times does the Bible mention ‘the Ten Commandments’? Answer – only 3.

So, in our context, we may ask:

• How many times does the Bible refer to ‘the law of Adam’ (as it does ‘the Law of Moses’)? Answer – Pointless – it doesn’t.
• The ‘law of Noah’? – Zero
• The ‘law of Abraham’ – Again, zero.

We see plainly that God gives these great men of the pre-Christ order definitive commands, which are obeyed ‘in faith’. Abraham is commanded to leave Ur and go where God says He will show him. Noah is commanded to build an ark. Of course there are God’s commands. Of course they are authoritative. But the Bible does not call them ‘law’. And when we come to the New Testament, neither does the enlightened teaching of the fulfilled old covenant ever mention any ‘Law’ other than the Law of Moses – as ‘law’. And here is my contention – if the Bible doesn’t call it ‘law’, why should we? Equally, God gives us commands in the Apostolic writings. Are they authoritative? Of course they are – they are the word of God to us - Scripture. We should love and respond to them as the very food of our souls. They are communications from the God we love and serve. They bring Christ to us and us to Him. But there is no New Testament reason why we should build them into some form of new law, in the pattern of that older covenant. That’s just moving backwards. To do so makes the shadow the substance and the substance the shadow. If you do that, you stand the Bible on its head!

No law = no transgression

So we come to this verse, which those who say there always has to be some kind of law of God in operation so often misunderstand. They argue like this:

1. Sin has always been in the world since Adam
2. Without law, there is no sin
3. Therefore, there must always be law

But Paul does NOT say ‘without law, there is no sin, does he? Look carefully:

“It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. For if those who depend on the law are heirs, faith means nothing and the promise is worthless, because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.” (Romans 4 vs 13 – 15)

 "Where there is no law, there is NO TRANSGRESSION” – not ‘no sin’. 

Stand this passage side-by-side with the one from Romans 5, and we start to get the picture:

“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.” (Romans 4 vs 13 – 14)

 So following Paul’s logic, we see:

1. Sin was in the world before the Law (of Moses) was given – but it was not always the ‘command-breaking’ kind.
2. All men sin and are sinners; all deserve death – both before and after the Law was given.
3. When the Law was given, God laid down commandments to be obeyed for His people Israel. What this does is to give sin definition by ‘drawing God’s lines’, by commanding ‘you shall not’ or ‘you shall’.
4. Sin against God then becomes the crossing of His drawn lines – transgression. Which is ‘countable’ and ‘chargeable’.
5. Thus, in judgement, God can say ‘I commanded this and you disobeyed me’ to those who had received His special revelation of Law. And thus this Law brings wrath (the anger of God against unrighteousness) because of transgression.

What about the Gentiles?

We have seen that in His revelation to Adam, and to the Patriarchs, from Abraham through to Moses, the Bible does not say that God gave them His Law. There are verses which indicate His commands to them, in many and various forms. But these are not designated ‘law’ by the word of God. ‘Ah’, but someone says, ‘What about Romans 2? Doesn't Paul say in that section of his argument that the Gentiles DO have a form of God’s law?’ Well, let us now examine that passage:

“All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.” (Romans 2 vs 12 – 16)

 First, note how emphatic Paul is. These who are Gentiles do not have the law - he says it twice in one sentence. They sin apart from the law. They will perish apart from the law.

*Note: This section is actually addressed to Jews who DO have the Law in order to emphasise that it is not sufficient to merely ‘have’ the Law – one must be a perfect ‘doer’ of the Law in order to be righteous in God’s sight. What follows – his comments on the state of the Gentile is a parenthesis; an aside. Hence most translations insert brackets around it.

We will follow Paul’s argument step by step:

1. Gentiles (non-Jews) do not have the law of God - emphatically not!
2. As such, they will still be judged by God.
3. However, they do have not one, but two ‘inner witnesses’ which attest to their accountability for the way they live.
4. The first of these is indicated when they do ‘by nature’ what the law requires. We may think of this as the universal awareness of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, which ‘everybody has’. More, there is a ‘leaning towards’ wanting to do those things. Humans ‘naturally’ applaud what is considered ‘noble’ and denounce what is thought of as ‘bad behaviour’.
5. Paul’s language in this respect is careful. He re-iterates ‘even though they do not have the law’. But their actions indicate that the requirements of the law (not the law itself) are written on their hearts. They have that within them that ‘points in the same direction’ as the law. Perhaps as a residue of having been created in God’s image?
6. The second ‘inner witness’ is the conscience (see the word ‘also’?). Note that this is distinct from the sense of moral right. This is the ‘inner policeman’, which weighs and judges ones actions, either accusing of wrong or excusing it. This leads to rationalisation – the thought processes which explain all this to the individual, within the individual.
7. And all of this is not ‘God-law’ but self-law – “they are a law for themselves”. As such, it is neither absolute nor perfect; rather, it is self-determined and variable.

So, if we read the passage aright we can see that Paul is NOT saying that God has ‘given law’ to the Gentiles – where is the record of such a revelation? Rather, this is the effect of the Fall, and is the inner state caused by the fallen nature.

Conclusions

So, in conclusion, as far as Biblical revelation is concerned:

1. Adam was not ‘given law’ by God – he was given a command.
2. Noah was not given law as apart of God’s covenant with him. He was given commands concerning the repopulation of the earth, and also promises concerning the grace and faithfulness of God
3. Abraham, even taking into account his faith-filled obedience to the promises and commands of God, was not given law. Indeed, Paul states quite clearly in Galatians that the law came 430 years later.
4. The period of time from Adam to Moses is differentiated from the period from Moses to Christ as pre-law and under Mosaic Law(for Jews)
5. The Gentiles are not considered to be under God’s law, nor have they ever been

And, as previously elaborated in this series, in the new covenant, Christ gives us His single, essential ‘new commandment’ – the Law of Christ. Thus I repeat what I set out to begin with, that

In redemption history, God has only twice ‘given law’ – once on Sinai, and as a fulfilment of that ‘shadow’ in the Upper Room in Jerusalem at His Last Supper and the institution of the new covenant.

 So it is indeed true that believers are bound by a law – the ‘law of Christ’. And this is what he says is ‘My command’ – that ‘you love one another as I have loved you’. And in Galatians 6, Paul tells us that by living lives of sacrificial, serving love for our brothers and sisters in Christ, we can actually fulfill that law.

Why does it matter?

Is this just an academic question, with no real bearing on practical Christian living? Something that those who are more disposed towards ‘theology’ will delight in, but just does not touch the believer-in-the-street? Well, I do not think this is only theoretical. What is important – vital – about it is to understand who we are in Christ and how we live lives under His Lordship and in His Spirit. And it seems to me that when the coming of Jesus is set over and against the previous, Law covenant in John 1:

“Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.” (John 1 vs 16 – 18)

 … here we are being shown something fundamental to the Gospel, to the new covenant. When we are told that we are those who are NOT under law, but under grace, we have to listen. This is more, much more, than a declaration that the Law of Moses is redundant. It is saying that the very way we relate to God in Christ, is distinctively ‘fuller’ in the new covenant. We are led by the Spirit, who indwells us to do His leading – we are not ‘pushed’ by a law – any law. The worship life of Old Testament Israel revolved against the symbol of God in their midst, which was the Jerusalem Temple. But that was just a picture of the lasting, glorious truth that now the living God makes the hearts of His children His home. And although we are, and must be, cognisant of and obedient to, His revealed word, it is born, as living truth, from the page into our very souls. We are living ‘being-transformed’ lives, becoming more like Jesus, not by a rigid and dogged obedience to precepts and commands, but because when God speaks through the Bible to us, our hearts are set on fire. We find our thinking is being retrained, so that more and more, we ‘have the mind of Christ’. And ultimately, this is the way He, the risen Lord, will be exalted in who we are, what we say, and what we do.

  “For me to live IS Christ, and to die is gain.”


* Link to YouTube presentation of this material:

"For freedom Christ has set you free" - All men NOT under the law of God