Encouraging the Saints

It is a joyful thing that God has given me when He allows me the opportunity to talk with a fellow saint in need of encouragement. It is a wonderful gift to have a fellow saint encourage me when it is I who is weak. I find that encouraging one another should be a supreme concern of the brethren. We as man are weak and in great need of grace, from both God and His church. Not that God is insufficient in the grace that He gives, but that He chooses to administer much of His grace through the church.

I love grace. One of my favorite theologians and authors is Augustine of Hippo. He either understood grace better than most men understand it, or just had an amazing style to articulate it. Augustine loved grace. He realized the depths of his wickedness and need of God’s grace. I try to emulate Augustine’s love of grace. Augustine also believed that one of the church’s faculties was to extend that grace to His church, from one believer to the other.

What is it to extend grace? Does it mean that we allow all things to go and forgive without rebuke? No. May it never be. The definition of grace I am using is a gift of love unmerited by the receiver. We are to love our one another. We are to place each other above ourselves and be willing to surrender all for good of others. Why, be because they have merited it? No. We do it because we have received grace. We receive the benefits of grace in our justification and sanctification. No only has Christ spared us from the wrath to come at judgment but He transforms us into His likeness until it is finished at our glorification.

There are times when encouragement must come from a rebuke. A rebuke should not be a stand of self-righteousness. It should not resemble the attitude that the one rebuking is better than the one rebuked. Both are fallen sinners redeemed by God’s mercy. A rebuke should be a correction of an act that does not bring glory to Christ and an encouragement to do something else that will. Encouraging does not always mean making the other feel better. Some times, it means pushing them toward righteousness; encouraging them in their sanctification and encouraging them in their relationship with Christ.

On a personal note, I am an extremely prideful person. I try to be humble, but I fail horribly. If our salvation was based on whether or not we could be “good” Christians, I would have given up long ago. Those who know me best know that I am prideful, arrogant, and boastful. Many in their hope to encourage me tell me of my good qualities, which I contend are simply outpourings of the grace bestowed upon me. In these times, I must flee or I grow in love with their flattering words. Yes, it is good to be complimented at times, but to a wretchedly prideful heart, it is like the quake of the earth that causes lava to rise to the surface. The pride of my flesh still richly persuades the indwelling sin of my old man.

Therefore, I am most encouraged when I am rebuked for my pride. One of my closest friends, Lance, who I hold very dear to my heart, is very quick to rebuke me. My pride I fear is most evident on the playing surface of any sport I participate. It is a sinful act for me to walk onto the football field or basketball court without a moment of sincere prayer asking my God and Savior to be with me that I might not sin against Him by the overrunning of my pride. History will go to tell that I still fall into sin and have been in need of serious rebuke on multiple occasions. Sadly, I have to not entertain myself with athletic competition to often to help with the ego that I have.

However, I love Lance because he is quick to encourage me. He come to me in love and says, “Naak, stop acting like that.” At times, he says other words; most of the time he does not have to. He could quote to me Scripture, but I know them. So what happens? I see what he is saying and I repent and become the most humble person on the field. No, that never happens. Usually, I get mad at him for calling my actions into question. I finish the game with an angry attitude and empty of any joy. I go home and think how I was right and they were wrong, especially Lance who dared to say anything to me about it.

Few people I know are willing to give me the grace Lance has given so many times. Lance was willing to come to me and rebuke me. He corrected me and encouraged me to act in a manner worthy of my calling. That is grace and that is love. What has resulted from that? I hope that I am a little better at holding in my pride while playing sports. I hope that I am less prideful in my day-to-day life, though I know I am still far too prideful. This I know for sure. One, I am able to spot my pride easier and correct it to some degree before some one has to say something to me about it. Two, I do not defile the name of God and diminish His glory as bad as before because I do not allow myself to go as far as I once did. Note that I did say, “as bad”, because I still sin and hurt the Name above all names.

How does the story end when Lance showed grace in rebuking me? I would eventually see that I was wrong. I have always been a little slow. I do finally repent and ask forgiveness from my Father. Prayerfully ask that He will help me get better at not being such a prideful man. I go to Lance and apologize for my actions. What I love is finding that I am forgiven. Just like asking for forgiveness from my Father, I do so knowing that I am forgiven. My sin has already been wiped away. It has been removed from my debt. The same is true with Lance. Not once have I gone to him and him act angry toward me. I would not blame him if he did, but he never does. He tells me not to worry about it. He knows I learned my lesson. He probably even knows it will happen again. Nevertheless, what does he do? He shows grace. And by grace I am encouraged. This I know for sure also, Lance’s and my friendship has grown stronger because of his willingness to rebuke me. Now, the friendship that we have is mutual. We both encourage each other the like manners. Because of that, we are very close friends and when we need to be encouraged in our weakness we feel that we can go to each other because we loved each other enough to show grace when we needed to rebuke one another.

The only man who might have better-articulated grace better than Augustine was the Apostle Paul. There was another man who loved grace. Paul who calls himself the chief of sinners knew what it was to need grace. He was dependent on grace. If Augustine or any of us know what grace is, it is because Paul told us. Just to demonstrate how much Paul loved grace he wished grace on all of those who received his letter: from the immoral Corinthians to the self-righteous Galatians.[1] In those letters, Paul heavily rebukes them for their sin. He tells the Corinthians that they are doing things that even sinners do not do.[2] He comes before the Galatians and tells them that he is amazed that they have so quickly deserted Him who called them by the grace of Christ[3] and then finds it necessary to defend his calling[4] and message[5]. Even among these breather who are defiling the name of Christ Paul extends to them grace.

What is Paul’s hope in the extension of grace? Notice what follows Paul’s extension of grace in every one of his greetings. Not only grace to you, grace and peace. Where God’s grace is, there is also peace. Peace is the product of God’s grace. Where peace is lacking God’s grace is not evident. We must do all things out of God’s grace in the hope that it will bring peace. This understanding attacks the very core of self-righteousness, which wants to stir up strife so that one is seen as greater than the other one. The self-righteous heart wants nothing to do with peace. It has no understanding of grace. Everything we do should be judged by this: is it done out of grace in order to bring peace? This does not mean that truth is abandoned to keep peace, because God is truth and grace is of God and therefore peace is only found in truth.

Therefore, “Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted. Bear one another’s burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ. For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. But, each one must examine his own work, and then he will have reason for boasting in regard to himself alone, and not in regard to another. For each one will bear his own load.”[6]

[1] Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:3; 2 Corinthians 1:2; Galatians 1:3; Ephesians 1:2; Philippians 1:2; Colossians 1:2; 1 Thessalonians 1:1, 2 Thessalonians 1:2; 1 Timothy 1:2, 2 Timothy 1:2, Titus 1:4
[2] 1 Corinthians 5:1
[3] Galatians 1:6
[4] Galatians 1:11-24
[5] Galatians 2:1-6:16
[6] Galatians 6:1-5

God’s Joy In His Glory: a sinner’s prayer

O God, my God, comfort me in my unbelief.[1] I am weak and I cry out to you, O God.[2] Father, place me beneath your wings and hold me close.[3] Let your presence be real to me, my Lord.

Father, great are You.[4] You are holy and amazing.[5] Father, You are glorious.[6] I stand dead[7] and fearful.[8] You alone are worthy of glory and honor and power.[9] Your ways confuse me at times. I do not always perceive Your will; for your ways are higher than mine.[10] But this I know—Your will is Your glory.[11] It is Your chief end. There is no greater desire in You than Your own glory, which brings you joy. Your Word proclaims that You have made a new covenant with Your people.[12]

Yes Lord, a covenant of water and Spirit.[13] You cleanse us with water. You sprinkle it over me and I am cleansed by it. All of my filth and idols are removed from me.[14] You reach down into my very soul and remove my heart. It is a heart of stone.[15]

I am unable to love You. I hide from you when I hear Your steps in the garden. I
tremble at Your voice and flee from you, never seeking to find You.[16]

Some how you found me though, as if I were truly hid. You slammed me down and crushed me. You are too great, O God. You tore from my flesh my heart. It was hard and cold. I was amazed and fearful. But You were merciful to me a sinner. Love and compassion You found on me. You gave me a new heart. It was not hard like my last. It was a heart of flesh.[17] Then You put Your Spirit in me.[18]

Your Spirit dwells in my flesh.[19] I am a living sacrifice.[20] Your Spirit enables me to treasure Your Word[21] and I walk in Your statutes.[22] In Your grace, You bless me. I am not worthy, Lord. I remember by evil and I loathe myself.[23] Grateful am I, Father, for my new birth. I have been born into Your family.[24] You drew me to Your Son[25] and He keeps me in His grasp.[26] To You be the glory.

Father, You found love and compassion on me, but it was not for my good. You did not do this for my sake; You did this for Your glory.[27] I could have just as easily been a vessel or Your wrath.[28] You would have been glorified in this. I am so thankful, Lord. I do not understand Your ways. They are far too great.

Awesome is God—Him I trust.

[1] Mark 9:24
[2] Psalm 102:1
[3] Psalm 17:8
[4] Psalm 95:3
[5] Revelation 4:8, Psalm 99:3
[6] Nehemiah 9:5
[7] Revelation 1:17
[8] Psalm 19:9
[9] Revelation 4:11
[10] Isaiah 55:9
[11] Ezekiel 36:22
[12] Jeremiah 31:31
[13] John 3:5
[14] Ezekiel 36:25
[15] Ezekiel 36:26
[16] Genesis 3:8-10, Psalm 53:1-3
[17] Ezekiel 36:26
[18] Ezekiel 36:27
[19] 1 Corinthians 3:16
[20] Romans 12:1, 1 Peter 2:5
[21] Psalm 119:11
[22] Ezekiel 36:27
[23] Ezekiel 36:31
[24] Ephesians 1:5
[25] John 6:44
[26] John 6:37
[27] Ezekiel 36:32-38
[28] Romans 9:22

TEN OBSERVATIONS THAT HIGHLIGHT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A MAN AND WOMAN!

1. A man will pay $10 for a $5 item he wants.
A woman will pay $5 dollars for a $10 item that she doesn’t want (or need).
2. A woman worries about the future until she gets a husband.
A man never worries about the future until he gets a wife.
3. A successful man is one who makes more money than his wife can spend.
A successful woman is one who can find such a man.
4. To be happy with a man you must understand him a lot and love him a little.
To be happy with a woman you must lover her a lot and not try to understand her at all.
5. Married men live longer than single men, but married men are a lot more willing to die.
6. Any married man should forget his mistakes; there’s no reason for two people to
remember the same thing.
7. Men wake up as good-lucking as they went to bed.
Women somehow deteriorate during the night.
8. A woman marries a man expecting he will change, but he doesn’t.
A man marries a woman expecting that she won’t change, but she does.
9. A woman has the last word in any argument.
Anything a man says after that is the beginning of a new argument.
10. There are two times when a man doesn’t understand a woman—before and
aftermarriage.

Akin, Daniel. God on Sex. Broadman &Holman Publishers. 2003.

Good Debate: Did Jesus Rise from the Dead

Now this is kind of old and many of you might have already seen it, but I found it worth watching. Dr. Gary Habermas has a debate with Dr. Antony Flew over whether or not the resurrection of Jesus really happened. It is pretty long and broken down into ten parts, but it gives an angle on how to show that the resurrection was real on a philosophical level.

Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four, Part Five, Part Six, Part Seven, Part Eight, Part Nine, Part Ten

Dr. Gary R. Habermas

Theodicy Revised

Theodicy: Augustine’s Answer and What It Means

Why is there evil in the world? What is the cause of this evil? Does this evil support the claim that there is no God? Does it mean that God is not wholly good? Could it mean that God is not all-powerful? People have these troubling questions when they come to the question of evil. Theologians and philosophers alike have tried to answer these difficult questions, some using them as arguments against the existence of God. Therefore, we have this difficult question: if God is good and all-powerful why does He let bad things happen?

This was a troubling question for the young Augustine. He struggled with the ideas of evil and suffering and how could they exist in relation to a righteous and holy God.

But again I said: ‘Who made me? Is not my God not only good but the supreme Good? Why then have I the power to will evil and to reject good? It is to provide a reason why it is just for me to undergo punishments. Who put this power in me and implanted in me this seed of bitterness (Heb 12:15), when all of me was created by my very kind God? If the devil was responsible, where did the devil come from? And if even he began as a good angle and became the devil by a perversion of the will, how does the evil will by which he became devil originate in him, when an angle is wholly made by a Creator who is pure goodness?’[1][i]

If God created everything, and He is a good God, wherefore did evil, pain, sin, and suffering come from?

The first thing we must learn from Augustine and Scripture is this: God did not, will not, and cannot create evil; “Since piety…forbade me to believe that the good God had created an evil nature”[2] “For everything created by God is good.”[3][ii] The problem came when Augustine tried to find away to resolve the matter. He followed the Manichean thought of dualism and concluded that there were two forces, one evil and one good, with the evil being much smaller than the good. However, he came to understand that this was wrong. Nothing exists outside of God, apart from which He created, and He could not create something evil. There weren’t two forces out there, so how do you explain for evil?

In a wonderful paragraph, Augustine says this,

It was obvious to me that things which are liable to corruption are good. If they were supreme goods, or if they were not good at all, they could not be corrupted. For if they were supreme goods, they would be incorruptible. If there were not good in them, there would be nothing capable of being corrupted. Corruption does harm and unless it diminishes the good, no harm would be done. Therefore either corruption does not harm, which cannot be the case, or (which is wholly certain) all things that are corrupted suffer privation of some good. If they were to be deprived of all good, they would not exist at all. If they were to exist and to be immune from corruption, they would be superior because they would be permanently incorruptible. What could be more absurd then to say that by losing all good, things are made better? So then, if they are deprived of all good, they will be nothing at all. Therefore as long as they exist, they are good. Accordingly, whatever things exist are good, and the evil into whose origins I was inquiring is not a substance, for if it were a substance, it would be good. Either it would be an incorruptible substance, a great good indeed, or a corruptible substance, which could be corrupted only if it were good. Hence I saw and it was made clear to me that you made all things good, and there are absolutelyno substances which you did not make. As you did not make all things equal, all things are good in the sense that taken individually they are good, and all things taken together are very good. For our God has made ‘all things very good’ (Gen 1:31).[4]

Now understanding that God did not create evil we need to look at what He did create. First, He created things that were incorruptible and corruptible. Incorruptible things are superior to corruptible things because they cannot be corrupted. However, it would be foolish to say that corruptible things are evil, because for them to be corruptible they must be good. If good no longer existed, they would fail to exist—because all things created are good.

Is evil created? No. Evil is not created. For something to be created it must be either an incorruptible or a corruptible thing. It does not make sense to say that evil is incorruptible because we all understand it to be what brings corruption. No one would say that evil and good are the same things. If evil and good are not the same, then evil cannot be a corruptible thing either. If evil was corruptible then it must have had some good in it form the beginning, but even if it did and the good failed to exist then it would altogether fail to exist because nothing without good can exist. So evil is not a created thing, because it is not a thing—therefore evil, as many understand it, does not exist.

What is evil then? Augustine says that it is the “privation of some good.”[5] It is not a creation, because if it was it could not be without good. If not a creation, then it is not a thing. Therefore, evil is the privation and perversion of good. This is a difficult statement to understand, so let me try to simplify it. We know that evil was not created because for it to be so it would have to be good. Evil, by definition is the opposite of good. When we think about good and evil, it is best to compare them to light and darkness. A question, is darkness a thing? No. Darkness isn't a thing. Rather, it is the absence of something—light. Now light is something that has been created.[6] Was darkness created? No. Darkness war there before the light in creation.[7] When we talk about darkness, we are not talking about something, but the absence of something. So is true with evil. Evil is not something, but the lack of and perversion of good.

Example: A mighty king oppressed his people. He killed the innocent, raped the women, taxed the poor, and freed the wrongdoers. We would say that this was an evil man. However, the truth is, the man is good. In the fact that he is a creation of God, he is good. If he were not good then he would not exist. So how do we explain for his evilness? Well, though he is good, the good is perverted and there is a privation of the good, which results in us thinking him to be evil. But this evil, is not physically in him, because it does not exist. What we would say is that the good in him being so perverted and deprived to such a great level means that the man’s will is evil. The will, not being something physical, but the disposition of a man, has become evil, resulting in his actions being evil, though his physical nature is still good. So there is this idea of evil in the world, but it is not something physical or substance, because if it was it would be good.

That, however, does not help us when it comes to understanding why this evil is present. Though it isn’t created, as darkness isn’t created, it still exists. Why did God allow the privation of good? This is a much more difficult question to grasp. To do so we will begin with a look at the origin of sin. In doing so, we will not look at the origin of sin in the creative order of earth and man, but at His higher creation in the angles. Augustine ask this,

Why then do I have the power to will evil and reject good? Is it to provide reason why it is just for me to undergo punishments? Who put this power in me andimplanted in me this seed of bitterness (Heb. 12:15), when all of me was created by my very kind God? If the devil was responsible, where did the devil himself come from? And if even he began as a good angle and became devil by a perversion of the will, how does the evil will by which he became devil originate in him, when an angel is wholly made by a Creator who is pure goodness?[8]

At some time in creation, God created the heavenly host (that is the angels). Some time between their creation and the fall of Adam, a third of them fell, including the red dragon, which is Satan.[9] So why did Satan fall?

Ezekiel says, “You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created until unrighteousness was found in you.”[10] Scripture, thus, supports that God’s creation, even the devil, was perfect in the beginning. Isaiah says that he desired to make himself like the Most High[11], and that he desired to raise his throne above the stars of God.[12] The fall, the reason the devil is the enemy of God, was that he had pride and desired to be greater than his Creator. How interesting is it that pride was the root of his unrighteousness? So we see that God is not the author of evil, pain, suffering, and sin. Rather, the wickedness came out of the will of the devil. His good nature, holy and blameless in the sight of the Lord, was defiled, perverted, and deprived making him evil in nature. Therefore, evil that we speak of comes not out of creation, but from the will; and it was allowed to come forth out of the devil’s free will.

God created angels differently than us, having the ability to know good and evil. Good being that they knew what was right, and evil being that they knew that they could do differently. Man and woman, as seen in Genesis, appear to have not known the difference apart from the only call of obedience they had—not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.[13] Therefore, out of the free will, the devil chose to try to elevate himself higher than God, causing himself to become evil in nature and the enemy of God. In the third chapter of Genesis, we see him wage war against God and His creation leading Adam and Eve into sin[14], which came out of their free will.

Now, we understand that evil isn't a thing, but rather the privation of good, as Augustine said, and that it originated out of the free will of the devil. When we sin it is because we have a free will to do so, and thus we choose to sin. We are therefore to blame for the pain and suffering of the world. Because of our privation of good, sin is in the world; and with sin came death.[15]

Why did a loving, gracious, and kind God allow the devil to fall? It was the best way for God to accomplish His will in allowing choice. It appears evident that God wanted His creation to choose Him freely. Out His love for them, He makes creation able to choose Him out of there free will. It is possible, maybe more than possible, that if God wanted the earth to remain perfect, He could have given us no choice, not allowing us to fall. Does this mean that God willed sin? No. It does not mean that God willed sin, but that He willed that it could happen, to accomplish His plan. Both angels and man had freedom to choose prior to their fall and this was pleasing to God because that is how He created it. At least for some time, they lived in perfection, holy and blameless, and fulfilled the will of God. It was not until the privation of good that they sinned. It would not have pleased God for them to live without a choice.

It was the best way for God to accomplish His will for out benefit. We know from Revelation, that written were the names of the elect in the Lamb’s Book of Life, from the foundation of the world. John Piper says, “This is God’s universal purpose for all Christian suffering: more contentment in God and less satisfaction in self and the world.”[16] There has been much pain and suffering in this evil world. God, having predestined those He loves to suffer this brief time, allowed sin and death to enter the world so that in the end or this age we might be like His Son? “Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is”[17] and “although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered.”[18]

It was the best way for God to accomplish His will in revealing His glory. It seems odd to us to think that God might have designed things with the knowledge of their corruption. Many have taken the idea of open-theism to resolve this matter (He does not know the future). Others have taken up the idea that God isn’t all-powerful and does not have the power to control all events. Some have even gone so far as to say that God is not perfect.[19][iii] God, loving and kind, created all things to display His glory and created them knowing what would happen to fulfill that purpose. God created some things as vessels for dishonorable use, as vessels of wrath, and others as vessels for honorable use, as vessels of mercy, for the purpose of His glory?[20] Does this make God cruel and unjust? No. God created everything perfect in His good will. It was because of our freedom that we choose to go against His good nature. Therefore, God is just to bring some into His mercy to bring glory to Him and others into His wrath to bring glory to Him. His ways are higher than our ways[21] and He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy.[22]

Thus, God has allowed us to have a free will so that we could freely choose Him so that we would be like His Son and He would receive the glory. By allowing us a free will, though we fell into sin and became evil in nature, God’s chosen have benefited. God has allowed man to suffer pain and sorrow so that he might understand the gravity of his sin, and so that he might repent and turn to Him. If God had not given us this option in our freedom we would have never known His righteousness and holiness, mercifulness and justice. What is clear is that God is a God of love who has power to do as He wills. Sin does not display a weakness in Him, but the glory of His mercy for allowing any of us salvation in His Son.

[1]Augustine Confessions 7.5. (pg. 114)

[2]Augustine Confessions 5.20. (pg. 85)

[3]1 Timothy 4:4 (NASB)

[4]Augustine Confessions 7.18. (pgs. 124-125)

[5]Augustine Confessions 7.18. (pg. 124)

[6]Genesis 1:3 (NASB)

[7]Genesis 1:2 (NASB)

[8]Augustine Confessions 7.5. 114

[9]Revelation 12:4 (NASB)

[10]Ezekiel 28:15 (NASB)

[11]Isaiah 14:14 (NASB)

[12]Isaiah 14:13 (NASB)

[13]Genesis 2:16,17 (NASB)

[14]Genesis 3:6 (NASB)

[15]Romans 5:12 (NASB)

[16]John Piper Desiring God http://www.desiringgod.org/dg/id179.htm

[17]1 John 3:2 italics mine (NASB)

[18]Hebrews 5:8 (NASB)

[19]Kushner When Bad Things Happen to Good People “Are you capable of forgiving and loving God even when you found out that He is not perfect, even when He has let you down and disappointed you by permitting bad luck and sickness and cruelty in His world, and permitting some of those things to happen to you? Can you learn to love and forgive Him despite His limitations, as Job does, and as you once learned to forgive and love your parents even though they were not as wise, as strong, or as perfect as you needed them to be?” (pg. 148)

[20]Romans 9:21-23 (NASB)

[21]Isaiah 55:9 (NASB)

[22]Romans 9:15 (NASB)

[i]Oxford New York 1998: Translation, Introduction, and Notes © Henry Chadwick 1991

[ii]Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE ®, Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation.

[iii]Schocken Books New York ©1985

Sorrowful Day in the Naaktgeboren Family

Today marks a day of much sorrow for the Naaktgeboren family. My great grandmother of the age of 94 passed away today in the early hours of the morning. She has been ill for some time and she was ready to go. I ask for your prayer for my family, as many are struggling with her passing--though we saw that it was near for some time.

Exegesis of Jesus' Temptation (Matthew 4:1-17)

Temptation of Jesus

Examining and Contrasting the Narratives: Source Criticism

To begin our study of the temptation narratives found in Matthew, Mark, and Luke we will try to uncover their similarities and difference. We will look at possible reasons for differences, and how this relates to source criticism. Did one author use another author's writings and why did differences come into play.

To begin the study we will look at the narrative of Matthew, whom most scholars agree gives the best chronological order.

Matthew 4:1-17 The Temptation of Jesus

Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. And after He had fasted forty days and forty nights, He then became hungry. And the tempter came and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread." But He answered and said, "It is written, 'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.'"

Then the devil took Him into the holy city and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for it is written,
'HE WILL COMMAND HIS ANGELS CONCERNING YOU';
and
'ON their HANDS THEY WILL BEAR YOU UP,
SO THAT YOU WILL NOT STRIKE YOUR FOOT AGAINST A STONE.'"

Jesus said to him, "On the other hand, it is written, 'YOU SHALL NOT PUT THE LORD YOUR GOD TO THE TEST.'"

Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory; and he said to Him, "All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me." Then Jesus said to him, "Go, Satan! For it is written, 'YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD, AND SERVE HIM ONLY.'" Then the devil left Him; and behold, angels came and began to minister to Him.

Matthew begins with showing that (1) the Spirit led Jesus to the wilderness to be tempted by the devil, (2) then after forty days and nights of fasting, (3) He became hungry, then Satan begins his tempting (testing) of Jesus. The first temptation is to (4)turn stones into bread, (5)then to throw Himself of the pinnacle of the temple, and finally to (6)bow and worship Satan. On the last temptation Jesus displayed His obedience to the Father resulting in (7) Satan leaving and then (8) angles came to minister to Him.

The next narrative we will look at is from the Gospel of Luke, which has some differences.

Luke 4:13 The Temptation of Jesus

Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led around by the Spirit in the wilderness for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And He ate nothing during those days, and when they had ended, He became hungry. And the devil said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, tell this stone to become bread." And Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE.'"

And he led Him up and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said to Him, "I will give You all this domain and its glory; for it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. "Therefore if You worship before me, it shall all be Yours." Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD AND SERVE HIM ONLY.'"

And he led Him to Jerusalem and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down from here; for it is written,
'HE WILL COMMAND HIS ANGELS CONCERNING YOU TO GUARD YOU,'
and,
'ON their HANDS THEY WILL BEAR YOU UP,
SO THAT YOU WILL NOT STRIKE YOUR FOOT AGAINST A STONE.'"

And Jesus answered and said to him, "It is said, 'YOU SHALL NOT PUT THE LORD YOUR GOD TO THE TEST.'"

When the devil had finished every temptation, he left Him until an opportune time.

Luke begins with showing that Jesus was (1) led by the Spirit to the wilderness for forty days, (2) being tempted by the devil. We are then told that (3) Jesus ate nothing during that time and at the end (4) became hungry. Then the devil begins his last three temptations. One of them is (5) bread to stones, (6) showing Jesus the world and promising to give it to Him if He will worship him, and (7) casting Himself off the temple. When the devil had finished his temptations and (8) left (9) until the next opportune time.

Out last narrative to look at is by the author of the Gospel of Mark. It is the shortest of all the narratives and doesn�t really go into any detail about what happened.

Mark 1:12-13 The Temptation of Jesus

Immediately the Spirit impelled Him to go out into the wilderness. And He was in the wilderness forty days being tempted by Satan; and He was with the wild beasts, and the angels were ministering to Him.

Mark simply says that Jesus was (1) impelled to go to the wilderness. He was there being (2) tempted for 40 days by Satan, while being around (3)wild animals and had (4) angles minister to Him. Now let us take these narratives and contrast them to see what is revealed.

From this chart, we can see that there are some differences. How do these differences affect the narrative and what can they show us about possible use of other documents. Many modern scholars have accepted the idea of the two source hypothesis (Class Notes; Word, 62). The problem with this is that none of the authors of the gospels speak of some second source (known as Q), and no such source has ever been located. This does not mean that such a source does not exist though. We have found many manuscripts that are now available to us that were not available to the early church. Another problem with this idea is that it suggests that Mark was written first, but the early church was unanimous that Matthew was written first.

To evaluate this we will approach it from three points of view: the two source hypothesis, Matthew was the first written source and other authors used his writings or had direct contact with him, or the work of the co-authoring Holy Spirit. Let us begin to look at the two source hypothesis.

Two Source Hypothesis

It is thought, by many scholars, that Mark was written some time between A.D. 65-70. Then the later synoptic authors who wrote Matthew and Luke used Mark and Q. This would explain why so much of Matthew and Luke are the same, even word for word. Now using the system of thought brought by the two source hypothesis, lets look at the temptation of Jesus.

All three agree that Jesus was lead by the Spirit to the wilderness for temping. A slight difference comes in regard to the forty day period. Mark and Luke seem to suggest that testing was taking place for the entire forty days, but Matthew states that the tempting didn�t happen until after the forty days of fasting. How can these views, by the different authors, be found in agreement? It appears that Jesus was fasting in the wilderness for a forty day period and was being tempted the entire time. At the end of the forty day period, because of fasting, He was very hungry and that is when the final three temptations would take place as recorded by Matthew and Luke. These extensions would have come out of Q.

Without having Q it is difficult to know what was in it. So in the first temptation of Jesus, Matthew adds to what Luke has, "BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD." Now this doesn't affect the meaning of the passage, instead it appears that Matthew was trying to add a positive end to something that was lacking in Q (Word, 62). We could be wrong though and it could be that Luke shortened Q for some reason.

The next major difference comes in the arrangement of the last two tests. Matthew says that Jesus was taken to the temple where Luke jumps to the mountain. Why the difference? It appears that Matthew tried to keep a chronological order where Luke tries to keep a rational order. When reading the text it makes since. Matthew uses the word "then" to suggest a chain of events; where Luke uses "and" to suggest that these events took place, but doesn't suggest in any certain order. In the book of Luke, the temple holds a high importance and that might be why he ended with the temple, showing that Jesus' messiahship didn't come though a miraculous event, but through His suffering.

With that change being made Luke does away with Jesus' command for Satan to leave and simply states that he left till the next opportune time. Then both Matthew and Mark state that angles minister to Jesus, which is excluded from Luke. So how does Q state it? Which order is correct? Again, without having this document it is impossible to know for sure.

Matthew Came First

Another answer to this source criticism is that the church fathers were right and Matthew was the first written. This next idea of source criticism isn't new, but I have never seen it before and have not been able to do any study on it. Matthew appears too have been written by a very devout Jew who knew the Scriptures well. The church fathers believed that he was the companion of Jesus and his understanding of the Law and Old Testament Scriptures might have come from Him. They believed that Matthew was the first document and this was unchallenged from almost 1700 years. Could it have been that Matthew was the first document to be written and that the other authors of Mark and Luke used Matthew for their writings? It was common for people to take long documents and shorten them for the purpose of teaching. Now Mark and Luke seem to have been written for a Gentile/Greek audience were as Matthew was more for Jews. Could have Mark and Luke pulled text from Matthew in writing to their audience which would be beneficial and leave out things that were viewed less important and add in other things, maybe learned from other Apostles or word of mouth, that were important for their audiences.

Co-authoring Holy Spirit

The final view is that all of the authors wrote independently of sources and gained their information by direct contact with either Jesus or His apostles. According to tradition Matthew was written by Matthew, the disciple of Jesus, who was called Levi and he had first hand contact with Jesus. So why should he need to use Mark, a document written by Mark, a companion of Peter and Paul? It is likely that both Mark and Luke, a companion of Paul, met Matthew and discussed the historical Jesus, which would explain the similarities between all three of them. But let us not forget that all Scripture is inspired by God and He, through means of His Spirit, might have dictated parts of Scripture for His purpose.

The Correct One

Which is correct? I don't know. I like to agree with the tradition of the church fathers that the gospels were written by either Apostles or those directly associated with them. With that being said, it doesn't make since that Matthew, an Apostles of Jesus, would use a document written by Mark (however it could be possible since Mark was a companion of Peter). It makes more since to me that Matthew wrote his document, and it could have been used by Mark and Luke, or it could have been that they shared so much in common with Matthew because of being around him or that all the Apostles shared the same ideas and memories of Jesus. With this idea, it would be hard to do away with the work of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, I am not very dogmatic on the subject, but I like to think that the truth is found some where between the last two or solely in the third.

Jesus' Testing in Relation to His Vocation

The first thing to keep in mind is what it is to tempt some one. We say that Jesus was tempted. To tempt someone is try to cause them to sin. So we use the word tempt in relation to Satan because he tries to get us to sin. However, more generically the word can mean to test one. As we will see, the temptation period was a testing period for Jesus. Jesus was given a vocation from God. A vocation is (1) the particular occupation for which you are trained, (2) a regular occupation, especially one for which a person is particularly suited or qualified, (3) an inclination, as if in response to a summons, to undertake a certain kind of work, especially a religious career; a calling (Webster's, Dictionary). Some view a vocation and an occupation to be two different things. At times this might be the case. But, I think that God has gifted all people to be able to do something and do it well. The career one chooses should be their vocation, which God has gifted them to do well. Some times we like to think of a vocation as some high calling only given to the special people called to be pastors, ministers, evangelist, and missionaries. That is a bad understanding of a vocation though. Some are gifted to work on the assembly line of Ford, others are gifted to be doctors, others are gifted to be mothers and wives. For them, that is their vocation.

Another obstacle is confusing vocation with purpose. We all have but one purpose and that is to glorify God. And, I find that such a purpose can be broke down into three groups: our sanctification or holiness (1 Thessalonians 4:3), to worship Him (Deut. 6:13), and minister to others [to the lost (Matt. 28:19-20) and to the saved (1 Thessalonians 5:11)]. When we do all of these things we are obedient to God and He is glorified. Those are apart of our life in Christ and can and should be related to our vocation, but they are not our vocation. We are all uniquely gifted to fill a certain vocation, but we are all gifted to fill our purpose.

Jesus' vocation is hard to define. While alive, it appears He was to teach of the coming kingdom and the truth, and to show that way to the Father. But a vital part of His vocation was to die on the cross (Mark 10:45). With those being two parts of Jesus' vocation, let us look at how He was tested prior to entering into His public ministry.

The Holy One, blessed be His name, does not elevate a man to dignity until He has first tested and searched him; if he stands in temptation then He raises him to dignity. William Barclay (Communicator's, 48)

Before Jesus could enter into His public ministry, He had to be tested. This time of testing was His inaugural passage (Communicator's, 48). One thing to keep in mind, none of the authors were present at this time. This time in Jesus' life was somewhat of a spiritual autobiography for His disciples (Communicator's, 48). This is why the writer of Hebrews could say, "For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin" (Heb. 4:15).

To start our study of how and why Jesus was tempted I want to look at two charts that contrast Jesus to Adam and Israel.

As Hebrews 4:15 says, "One who has been tempted in all things as we are", and 1 John shows how all are tempted, "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world" (2:16). Satan does the tempting, but he uses the world to draw us in. Above is a chart that shows how both Adam and Jesus were tempted in the same ways, the same ways that we ourselves are tempted. If you look at any temptation that comes your way you will find that you can put it into one of these three categories. The thing to notice is that where Adam failed, Jesus pasted the test. And that is why we can rejoice, "For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous" (Rom. 5:19).

To continue our study of in relation to Jesus' vocation let us look at all the temptations as a whole to see what is common to them all. They all seem to have some key themes: (1) Jesus as the Son of God, (2) obedience and trust in the Father, (3) His messiahship, and (4) contrast with Israel's experience (Word 63). They also all have the same pattern: (1) it gives the setting, (2) Satan's words, and (3) Jesus' response. Even Jesus' response is similar to all three as when He quotes scripture He either says "it is written" (Matthew) or "it is said" (Luke).

Now let's hit on some of the technical stuff in the verses. When Satan acknowledges Jesus' Sonship, in the first and second trial, the term 'ei' is used in the Greek, which has usually been translated as 'if.' The question then becomes whether or not Jesus is sure of His Sonship. Both Matthew and Luke go beyond what Mark says to show that Jesus was born under divine means. Luke goes far enough to suggest that Jesus knew who He was at the age of twelve. So is Satan attacking the knowledge of Jesus to whether or not He is the Son of God just revealed to Him at baptism? This is possible. Even believers today struggle at times to whether or not they are sons of God.

However, another way to look at this verse is to translate the Greek word 'ei' as 'since', instead of 'if'. When we do this, we must re-interpret what was said and meant. No longer is Satan spurring on doubt, but he is spurring on self-interest (Communicator's, 49). Is Jesus going to use His messianic power to satisfy His physical hunger? Is He going to use His messianic power to gain allegiance of political Israel? Is He going to gain the world through means other then the way the Father has willed (His suffering and death)? These are all test to see if He will remain obedient to the Father's will.

In Matthew 3:15 it says that John, the Baptist, baptized Jesus and then three verses later in 4:1 the Spirit led Him into the wilderness. Much the same was Israel baptized in the Red/Reed Sea as they passed out of Egypt and into the wilderness led by the Spirit [pillar of cloud/fire] (Exodus 3:21). These were times of testing to see if they would remain obedient.

In the first temptation of Jesus, He was hungry after fasting for forty days and nights. Now why does Matthew state that He fasted for forty days and nights? Fasting was not always perceived as something you do for a full twenty-four hour period. Much like the Muslims do today during their religious season of Ramadan, they will fast all day and then eat during the night. Matthew wanted to make it clear that He had not eaten for a full 960 hours. Why is this forty days and night important? It could be seen as an atonement or cleansing period before a major task, such as when Moses receives the tablets (Word 63) in Deuteronomy 9:9, "When I went up to the mountain to receive the tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant which the LORD had made with you, then I remained on the mountain forty days and nights; I neither ate bread nor drank water." Jesus could have been going though a cleansing period before His entrance into the ministry. However, it is also to bring to remembrance the forty years in the wilderness by Israel.

The first of the final three test that Jesus would have to endure was that of making stones into bread. "If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread." Again, on the surface this doesn't look like a test that could result in a sinful act. So would it have been a sin for Jesus to turn the stones to bread and eat? Yes. "The testing then amounts to this: shall Jesus exercise his messianic power for his own ends in a way that avoids difficulty and pain, or shall he accept the path of suffering (and death) that is his Father's will?" (Word, 65).

To deal with this test Jesus goes to the only authoritive source on the issue, Scripture. "MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD", quoting from Deuteronomy 8:3,

He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the LORD.

Jesus, like Israel, was tested so that He might know that man does not live by bread alone, but by the things, which proceed from the mouth of God. If Jesus would have turned the stones into bread he would have been placing food over God's Word and would not have been humbled.

Jesus later spoke on the subject of food, found in John 4:34, "Jesus said to them, 'My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to accomplish His work.'" And in 6:35, "Jesus said to them, 'I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.'" This further goes to show that Jesus fully grasped the truth that food was of little importance in the eternal scheme of things.

When looking at this temptation it is important to remember that Jesus was human. The Church has held for the most part of twenty centuries that Jesus was fully man and God. Many times we seem to place more significance of the divine than we do the human. I don't know if you have ever attempted fasting, but it is one thing that I find myself horrible at. I have tried it multiple times and I usually find myself failing. Even going a day or two without food is very difficult. I guess if food wasn't readily available it might be easier, but this wasn�t the case for Jesus. He, through His messianic power, was more than capable of feeding himself by turning stone into bread. This wasn't a test to see if He could, but rather to see if He would.

Another confession that the church has held to is that Jesus was sinless. Jesus was fully obedient to the Father and fulfilled the great command, "And He said to him, 'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND'" (Matt. 22:37, Deut. 6:5). But Jesus had to learn obedience, "Although he was a Son, he learned obedience from what he suffered", which is seen in the revelation to obedience to the Word of God (Heb 5:8).

The next temptation is to jump from the temple, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for it is written, 'HE WILL COMMAND HIS ANGELS CONCERNING YOU'; and 'ON their HANDS THEY WILL BEAR YOU UP, SO THAT YOU WILL NOT STRIKE YOUR FOOT AGAINST A STONE'" (Matt. 4:6, Psalm 91:11). This is the only time Satan uses Scripture to test Jesus. An odd thing about this quotation is that it is not at all messianic. Psalm 91 is meant for the faithful Israelite, but this is not in contradiction of its use in the Gospels as Jesus was an Israelite and a representative for Israel.

Another odd thing to be noticed when reading this text is that the jump was by no means a jump into some sort of danger. Satan made it clear that if Jesus jumped He would be rescued. [Now whether or not this is an actual jump or one in a vision is not really known (same thing for the last temptation). It is possible that Jesus was actually standing on the temple and that He could actually jump off. But this could be a vision. Fasting and visions are common companions and for good reason (Dan. 10:3). Also, no where else is Scripture is Satan given some sort of power by which He can teleport from one place to another, no report was ever given by which some one saw Jesus standing atop the temple, and there is no mountain by which the entire world can be seen (in the third temptation)] (Word, 63). The important thing to understand is that if Jesus would have jumped He would have been rescued, but by not jumping He remains in the will of God which resulted in His suffering and death.

Jesus' rebuttal against jumping was, "On the other hand, it is written, 'YOU SHALL NOT PUT THE LORD YOUR GOD TO THE TEST'" (Matt. 4:7) and is found in Deut. 6:16, "You shall not put the LORD your God to the test, as you tested Him at Massah." When Israel was passing through the wilderness they became thirsty because there was no water. So they began to grumble among themselves and grumbled against Moses asking if he brought them out to die. So Moses went before the Lord and God gave them water by the rock, and the place was named Massah because they tested the Lord by saying, "Is the LORD among us, or not?" (Exodus 17:7). If Jesus would have jumped it would have been just like the people who grumbled because He would have been second guessing the will of God.

The final temptation is quite different because in the first two an imperative is given, but in the final one a promise (Word, 68), "All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me" (Matt. 4:9). In Deuteronomy Moses warns Israel about false allegiance: "But you shall remember the Lord your God, for it is He who is giving you power to make wealth, that He may confirm His convent which He swore to your fathers, as it is this day"; and "You shall utterly destroy all the places where the nations whom you shall dispossess serve their gods, on the high mountains and on the hills and under every green tree" (8:18: 12:2). This was a call for idolatry and if Jesus had followed Satan; he would have given Him everything. Question, can you trust Satan to keep his end of the deal? Well, possibly Jesus could have. The thing that Satan desired was to be above God, and if part of the Triune God would have bowed to him that would have surely fulfilled part of, if not all of, that desire. Interestingly these were already promised to the Messiah, "Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance, And the very ends of the earth as Your possession"; "May he also rule from sea to sea And from the River to the ends of the earth" (Psalm 2:8; Psalm 72:8). However to obtain this obedience was required. What Satan offered was a way around the suffering that would be in Jesus' future.

So what did Jesus choose? He once again submitted Himself to God through obedience to the Word and quoted Deuteronomy 6:13, "YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD, AND SERVE HIM ONLY" (Matt. 4:10). The verses that follow in Deuteronomy 6:14-15 put it quite simple,

You shall not follow other gods, any of the gods of the peoples who surround you, for the LORD your God in the midst of you is a jealous God; otherwise the anger of the LORD your God will be kindled against you, and He will wipe you off the face of the earth.

Jesus could have gained the world by going around what the Father wanted, but what would that have profited Him. "For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?" (Matt. 61:26).

When this period of tempting was over Satan left, Luke says until an opportune time, which can be seen why as Jesus is later tempted to find other means to do His Father's purpose other than suffering. Matthew and Mark both state that Jesus was ministered to by angles, which is fulfillment of the prediction that Satan made by quoting Psalm 91. Jesus remained faithful to God and obedient to the Word and the angles tended to Him.

This idea of obedience to the Father is a vital theme to the theology of the Gospels. His victory comes not though power and authority, but by humility, service, suffering--true greatness.

It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." Matt 20:26-28

The sonship of a Christian must lead to obedience with Christ as its example, though there will be much testing and difficulties. The testing will not be the same, but they will call for self-sacrificing, which is obedience to the Father alone and the measure of true discipleship (Word, 69).

Class Notes, taken by

Michael Naaktgeboren, from

Lecture given by Dr. Paul Redditt, at

Georgetown College Georgetown, Kentucky

Spring 2006

The Communicator's Commentary: Matthew

Lloyd J. Ogilvie: General Editor

Myron S. Augsburger: Author

Word Books, Publisher Waco, Texas

August 1982 by Waco, Inc.

Dictionary.Com

Vocation.

Webster's Online Dictionary

Vocation.

Word Biblical Commentary

Volume 33A Matthew 1-13

Donald A. Hagner

Word Books, Publisher Dallas, Texas 1993

Psalm 19

1. The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
   And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
2. Day to day pours forth speech,
   And night to night reveals knowledge.
3. There is no speech, nor are there words;
   Their voice is not heard.
4. Their line has gone out through all the earth,
   And their utterances to the end of the world
   In them He has placed a tent for the sun,
5. Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber;
   It rejoices as a strong man to run his course.
6. Its rising is from one end of the heavens,
   And its circuit to the other end of them;
   And there is nothing hidden from its heat.
7. The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul;
   The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
8. The precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart;
   The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
9. The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever;
   The judgments of the LORD are true; they are righteous altogether.
10. They are more desirable than gold, yes, than much fine gold;
    Sweeter also than honey and the drippings of the honeycomb.
11. Moreover, by them Your servant is warned;
    In keeping them there is great reward.
12. Who can discern his errors? Acquit me of hidden faults.
13. Also keep back Your servant from presumptuous sins;
    Let them not rule over me;
    Then I will be blameless,
    And I shall be acquitted of great transgression.
14. Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
    Be acceptable in Your sight,
    O LORD, my rock and my Redeemer. (NASB)

This is my favorite psalm and verses 7,8, and 9 rank near the top of my favorites. It is an amazing thing how God's Word is perfect, sure, right, pure, clean, true, restoring the soul, making wise the simple, rejoicing the heart, enlightening the eyes, enduring forever, and righteous altogether. Praise God, that through His Word we have a vision of what He is.

Church Discipline--Our First Responsibility

I have found that in the modern church--the 21st century church--discipline is not really much of an issue. Most churches don't practice it and those who do are many times seen as legalistic. Why is it that churches don't like to practice discipline? It could be that in this day, were numbers means more than anything, pastors and members are fearful of running its members off. It could be that pastors and members lack the training on how to deal with the issue. It could be that pastors and members are so sinful themselves that they can't imagine judging another so as to say they need to be disciplined. Why is discipline in the church so important?

I will order them from least importance to most important. (3) The sake of the believer's testimony and his relationship with Christ. (2) The sake of the church's testimony and her relationship with Christ. (1) The sake of Christ testimony and His glory. So what is our first responsibility in administering church discipline?

Love! The church must love the believer enough to confront him of his error. Individuals of the church must love the church enough to keep sin out of it. And the church must love Christ enough to protect His testimony to the world. So why have we failed so miserably in the administering of church discipline? Because we lack the sort of love needed to discipline. It is easy for us to talk behind some ones back and make jokes about them and their sin. It is easy to scorn them and make them feel shameful. Is that any good though? Does it work? No. What it does is causes a fallen believer to fall away from the church because the ones who should be there to support him are cruel and insensitive.

How many people have left the church because they have felt betrayed and ridiculed, and eventually forgotten? The reason church disciple isn't done in many churches is because all the discipline they have seen was done without love. So how should we administer church discipline?

I won't go through all the steps here, but if you like, check out a previous post. Rather I want to stick to the heart of discipline--love. When we see a brother in sin we should not be filled with anger, but rather mercy. As a father disciplines his son so shall the church. A father doesn't discipline his son for his enjoyment, but for the good of his son out of love. When we see a brother sin or we have one sin against us we need to be filled with love. We need to think about the issue and decide if the issue needs discipline (Will it hurt the testimony of him, the church, and Christ? Some issues need to just be forgiven and left at that). If it does then we go to the brother humbly in love and tell him of his offence and hope for reconciliation. If the brother repents then Scripture tells us we have won a brother. Here is the hardest part. Out of that love, whether he repents or not, we must forgive him of his sin. That doesn't mean that you don't continue to discipline him if he fails to repent, but it means that you must give him mercy and grace--just like our Father has done for us.

Does not our Father discipline us when we are wrong, does He not do this out of love, but have we not been forgiven by His grace? We have been forgiven, and yet He disciplines us to lead us to reconciliation with Him, so that we might be more intimate with Him. That should be the desire we have when we see a brother sin. We should be filled with love and grace and go to him to reconcile him back to the church by disciplining him so that he can be intimate within the fellowship.

I wish that more of the flock had this sort of love. That one would be willing to go and tell another he is wrong for his sake, the sake of the church, and the sake of Christ. I have been extremely blessed to have others in my live that have disciplined me in spiritual matters. I haven't always listened at first and many times it has put a strain on my relationship with them; but praise God that I later saw my foolishness, repented of my sin, and asked for forgiveness from my brethren. The most joyful part of all of it was going to them and asking for their forgiveness and seeing that they already had. They had already forgiven me, before I even asked and they were just waiting for me to be reconciled back to them. This is brotherhood and friendship in the faith. This is love. And this is what we are all suppose to have for one another.

The Church’s Greatest Flaw

In my study of the New Testament, I find men who wrote about the greatest and most serious issue facing humankind. They wrote with great diligence to display their thoughts about this problem and the only means to overcome it. Interestingly it had nothing to do with immortality, poverty, slavery, or global warming. The problem understood to be the greatest is still the same today. Yet the church has over looked it in its attempt to reform society. What is the great problem that plagued the world so much that it required God to inspire twenty-seven letters in the first century?

Sin. The entire New and Old Testament is dedicated to the means by which God would deal with this issue of sin. The Old Testament points toward God’s promise to reconcile His people to Him and the New Testament shows the means it took to accomplish this. As much as the Scripture points to Christ, it also points to our sin. Some would say this takes the importance off Christ. However, that is not the true. If anything, it disciplines our focus on Jesus. If it had not been for sin, God’s Christ would never have come to this place to suffer from our disobedience.

Why is it that Jesus, God in flesh, did not try to reform Roman rule? Why did He not even redeem His people, Israel, from Rome and establish His earthly kingdom? Everyone wanted it. It was not His purpose. Then He commissioned His Apostles to preach the truth, giving them signs to confirm their message. Oddly, neither in the Acts of the Apostles, nor in the letters they penned was social reform mentioned. Why did these men, of great power, not try to change the culture through political means?

The church’s greatest flaw has been its political agenda of morality. The church has diligently attacked or supported homosexuality, capital punishment, war, slavery, and other moral issues. Yet the New Testament never prescribes such an action. The Apostles and local churches were a very small minority in the Roman Empire. Even with the sign gifts given to the Apostles, they did not have much influence outside of the church. Some say this is the reason they did not reform society. Scripture is in disagreement with that. Even in the local churches, social reform was not an issue. The issue at hand was the sin of the believers and Christ’s redemptive work. It was though Jesus that men and women were able to life faithfully, morality was never the issue.

Did not Jesus and the Apostles establish social reform among the believers? Yes and it is in the two commandments: love God and people. It is wrong to force this on a society of non-believers who can never live up to it. It is because of God that we are able to love.

Look at some social issues during the time of Christ and the Apostles and see how they dealt with them. Jewish legalism was a major threat to the people of God. Jesus spoke boldly against the legalism of the Pharisees and scribes and proclaimed that one would have to be more righteous then these to see the kingdom of heaven. Jesus’ call for people to turn away from their self-righteousness was done on a private, individual, level. He taught though parables so that peoples’ eyes could be opened to the truth.

Sexual immorality was horrible in first century Rome. Fornication, homosexuality, and prostitution were common and not seen as wrong by the normal citizen. Imagine if Paul would have gone to Caesar and suggested that social reform needed instituted. Not only was homosexuality common, but it was a respected way to satisfy elders as young boys gratified these passions. Prostitution was not only like we have in modern society, but also it was a part of many Roman religious ceremonies. Temple priestesses were prostitutes and orgies were a form of worship to the gods. Paul, as Apostle to the gentiles, had to deal with this in gentile churches. He commanded them to no follow in the lustful passions of the pagans, but he did not tell them to hinder those outside the fellowship from committing immorality.

Slavery has been a major issue for the American church because of our past, which resulted in a civil war. Many have claimed that Scripture forbade slavery, but a closer look shows differently. In Old Testament Israel, a man who had slaves was required to release them on year of Jubilee, but a slave had the right to remain with his master under his own will. Rome was different. Israel’s slavery resulted from a debt owed or one would surrender himself as a slave to preserve his life. Roman slaves were mostly captives of war. As Rome spread, more and more became slaves. Evidence shows that fifty percent of Rome was slaves. Why did the New Testament writers not attack slavery? It was not an issue to them. The New Testament never tries to reform the social classes between master and slave; rather it reformed the relationship between them. Slaves should be obedient and masters should be just. Paul never calls for freedom of slaves. Not even among brethren.

The church is not God’s means of political reform. The church is to proclaim the message of man’s sin and Jesus’ redemptive work. That is the good news. In recent years, the church has made valiant efforts to save the morality of America, but all it has done is alienate us from our world. Individuals can do as they feel let to do, but it is not a ministry of the church. The society we are trying to save through morality knows that conservative Christians think homosexuality is an abomination, that capital punishment is good, the war in Iraq is just, and abortion is murder; but what good is that? In our attempt to save America from immorality, we have turned them over to sin with no escape. Morality proclaimed, Jesus forgotten…that is the Church’s Greatest Flaw.