In Exodus 23:20-21 God says to Moses and the Israelites:
Behold, I am going to send an angel before you to guard you along the way and to bring you into the place which I have prepared. Be on your guard before him and obey his voice; do not be rebellious toward him, for he will not pardon your transgression, since My name is in him.
??
When did this happen?
One of my children asked today (Easter) why God waited all through Saturday until Sunday before raising Jesus from the dead.
I think it relates to the Sabbath.
First, consider the very first Sabbath way back in Genesis 2. It says there that God set the Sabbath apart as holy because on that day He rested from all His work.
Why did God need to rest? Because He was tired? Of course not. The significance of God resting is that He was finished. He rested from all His work because it was complete. The Sabbath marked a recognition that there was nothing left to do.
What was one of the last statements Jesus made on the cross? “It is finished.”
I suspect the Sabbath after the crucifixion is meant to remind us that God’s second great work — the work of redemption — was finished with the death of Christ about 2000 years ago. Nothing needs to be added. We don’t have to mix our own good works in with what He did. He doesn’t need to be crucified again. That Saturday in the grave stands for the fact that everything had been accomplished.
A day later, the new creation began with the resurrection of Christ, the “second Adam”.
I heard a sermon about fasting just a little bit ago. I have lots of thoughts about fasting and lots of questions too.
Generally Christians say fasting is spiritually important because:
I am particularly skeptical of the last claim. I think the value of suffering is overrated.
I find this verse really convincing:
If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence. (Col 2:20-23)
This says it straight out: at least sometimes “severe treatment of the body” is “of no value against fleshly indulgence”. I’ve heard there were people who flogged themselves in order to gain spiritual status or power somehow. That seems very mixed up. How is it really any different to say that the pain of hunger is what makes fasting beneficial?
There is a value to being willing to suffer. While suffering has no spiritual value of its own, it is nevertheless the side effect of some good things. That is why people can say “no pain, no gain”. For some things, if you aren’t working hard enough at them that it hurts, you aren’t working hard enough at them to help either. It isn’t the suffering itself which is beneficial, though, it’s the other stuff. If we shy away from suffering too much we can lose out. It’s in this sense that Paul said
Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win. Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air; but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified. (1 Corinthians 9:24-27)
It’s not that beating up on his body made him more spiritual; it’s that being disciplined means being willing to suffer for the sake of a more important goal.
Because of that it is sometimes practically helpful to resign ourselves to suffering. Once we expect it as a matter of course, we can have the will-power to keep pushing through it. I think that’s what this verse means:
Therefore, since Christ has suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same purpose, because he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin, so as to live the rest of the time in the flesh no longer for the lusts of men, but for the will of God. (1 Peter 4:1-2).
Often we need to suffer for others. Love usually involves sacrifice of some kind. The point of the sacrifice, though, is that it will actually help someone in some way. It usually doesn’t make my love any purer to hurt myself just for the sake of proving how much I am willing to lose.
This verse is interesting:
Then David said to Ornan, “Give me the site of this threshing floor, that I may build on it an altar to the LORD; for the full price you shall give it to me, that the plague may be restrained from the people.” Ornan said to David, “Take it for yourself; and let my lord the king do what is good in his sight. See, I will give the oxen for burnt offerings and the threshing sledges for wood and the wheat for the grain offering; I will give it all.” But King David said to Ornan, “No, but I will surely buy it for the full price; for I will not take what is yours for the LORD, or offer a burnt offering which costs me nothing.” (1 Chronicles 21:22-24)
In this story, David is offering a sacrifice to express his repentance to God for having sinned. It would be evading responsibility for him to shift the burden of that sacrifice to someone else. So, again, first of all, the cost isn’t really the point; it just follows logically that if you give a gift to God, it costs you.
But it may be that in this case David is saying something more than that. He may be saying that the very cost of it is the point somehow. He may be saying that a sacrifice that hurts is worth more. If so, I think we should understand it as saying that offering something of value to him was a better expression of his desire to give to God than offering something worthless would have been. Perhaps there are times when we give someone something to show we love them, and we choose to give something that costs us because it communicates how deeply serious we are in our love.
In the case of fasting, I don’t think that suffering is the point. I do think suffering is linked to it, though.
All of which, I realize, has answered my question for me. Someone tonight said that fasting is “cutting off the flesh”. But that isn’t it – rather, fasting is the expression of having already “cut off the flesh”. If we renounce the flesh in our hearts then fasting is a natural way to symbolize and affirm that choice. If we don’t, fasting doesn’t help at all. Fasting doesn’t cause renunciation of the flesh, it proceeds from it.
Comments?
I read this yesterday:
But remember the former days, when, after being enlightened, you endured a great conflict of sufferings, partly by being made a public spectacle through reproaches and tribulations, and partly by becoming sharers with those who were so treated. For you showed sympathy to the prisoners and accepted joyfully the seizure of your property, knowing that you have for yourselves a better possession and a lasting one. Therefore, do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what was promised.
“For yet in a very little while,
He who is coming will come, and will not delay.
But my righteous one shall live by faith;
And if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him.”
But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul. (Hebrews 10:32-39)
I was struck by the phrase “you have need of endurance”. The people addressed in this letter had once joyfully endured persecution, but now they were getting weary of believing. Their determination was flagging. The writer exhorts them to keep hanging on until the end.
One of the things I’m struggling with these days is having faith. In my daily life, I keep encountering things that overwhelm me with fear and I just give up for a day or two. God keeps pulling me back to the place where I have to make a conscious decision to trust him again and move on in joy.
The challenges to my faith are not big things, not major persecution or anything. Just things like a class that didn’t go well, or a car that broke down and will cost more than we have to fix it, or having to confront someone about their sin when it makes me very uncomfortable to do so. What God seems to ask me to do is not just follow through but do so with confidence and joy.
The interesting thing is that having faith like that – choosing to trust and stop worrying – is exhausting for me. I find myself completely worn out at the end of the day if I’ve done well. I can’t quite figure out why. My suspicion is that fear and other strong emotions are pulling hard at me at a deep, mostly subconscious level, and I’m spending all day fighting them off without quite realizing it. Because of that, having faith these days is literally hard work.
Things ought to get easier with practice. Whatever emotional resistance I’m encountering these days will eventually be trained out of my default psychological setting, and believing with joy will come more naturally. That’s what character growth often consists of.
I think it’s interesting that faith can be tiring. I haven’t heard other Christians say they’ve experienced this, but I’ll bet a lot of them have. I think the taxing nature of faith is linked in some way to several Scriptures besides the one above, such as: Luke 22:40-46 (note v 45), Romans 4:18-21, Galatians 6:9, or James 1:2-4.
Abraham had two children, Isaac and Ishmael. Ishmael was first-born, but the line of Israel came through Isaac. Then Isaac had Esau and Jacob. Esau was first-born, but gave away his birthright and the line came through Jacob. The Jacob had a whole bunch of sons, but the one God used for his purposes was Joseph, nearly the last of the twelve.
Why this emphasis on the first-born not being the important one?
I don’t think it will do to say, “There is no significance. It just happened that way historically.” Old Testament Jewish readers, at least, would have expected the pattern to mean something important to their identity as a nation chosen by God.
Does it emphasize that being the chosen people is up to God rather than man? (Compare Romans 9:11). Or that God is more concerned with a person’s heart than his position? (Compare 1 Samuel 16:7). It can’t be straightforwardly Messianic: Jesus is definitely pictured by a first-born, not a second-born, son. (John 3:16, Colossians 1:15).
Hmmm …
Any suggestions?
[I'm back! After a two-month hiatus. I apologize for my long absence!]
In a recent post in my philosophy blog, I explored the relationship of morality to the laws and traditions of the culture we live in. I suggested there that possibly “we have no moral obligation to obey either the laws or tradition, but we have a moral obligation to be willing to obey the laws and to be willing to follow tradition, which is almost (but not quite) the same thing.”
For most of my Christian life, I would have said that we do have a definite moral obligation to obey the law. I held a pretty hard-line view of the importance of submission to authority, which I was sure the Bible supported. I would have pointed to the following Scriptural ideas:
I still agree with most of this, but my emphasis would be very different. Two things have changed my mind.
First, my interpretation of 1 Peter 2:13 changed. Here’s 1 Peter 2:13:
Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution …
A couple of verses later, it adds:
Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God.
I used to read these verses as saying,
“By God’s design, you are under the authority of various human institutions. Now that you belong to Christ, stop rebelling and be a submissive person.”
Now I read them in light of the truth that we are no longer citizens of this world, but citizens of the kingdom of God. We are here only as ambassadors – foreigners who live here but whose allegiance is to another land. Therefore I take them to be saying,
“You are now free from human authority, and serve God instead. However, for the sake of His reputation, and as good ambassadors, and as those under His command, continue to humor the human systems around you by submitting to human authorities. That will serve God’s purposes best.”
The practical result is the same: obey human authority. The reason is very different: obey not because you are under human authority, but because you are under God’s authority.
So we have an indirect moral obligation to obey the laws, but no direct moral obligation to do so.
Second, I’ve begun to realize that if the Bible has, say, a gazillion warnings (by command or example) about the dangers of rebellion, it must have about two gazillion warnings about the dangers of unjust authority. Just as powerful as our desire to rebel is our desire to be tyrants.
I think a Biblically balanced view of authority will be careful to emphasize the warnings given to those in authority at least as strongly as the warnings given to those under it. It will encourage a healthy suspicion that those in positions of power will tempted to abuse that power. I believe my previous way of looking at things was too naively trusting of systems of authority.
Thoughts?
I mentioned these six points last time in discussing 1 Corinthians 1:17-2:5, 2:14-16:
I’d like to consider the first one.
Think hard, think well.
Although this particular point isn’t found in 1 Corinthians 1-2 (at least not much), it is an important thing to consider as we look at that passage.
Intellectual humility is never an excuse for intellectual laziness. Whatever God has given me intellectually I should use for Him. That’s part of what it means to “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your mind and with all your strength” (Mark 12:30).
Why does God want me to use my intellect? Not because He needs it! (See Job 38.) Nor is it in order to win the intelligentsia to Christ. On the contrary, God has specifically worked things out so that the opposite is true: “For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God,God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe … God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise … the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are,so that no man may boast before God.” (1 Cor 1:21,28,29). God has deliberately ordained that people will not get saved by being won over by the brilliance of Christian intellectuals.
No, the point is that whatever I do for God, I need to do as well as I can. Serving Him with all my might will mean, in the intellectual realm, that I try to think accurately and honestly about everything the very best that I can.
This is all the more true if I am gifted with a good mind. In that case, I need to set the bar high for myself. (Compare 1 Timothy 4:14-16 and 2 Timothy 2:15.) I should not be content to reason sloppily. Instead, I should strive to grow in intellectual honesty and fair-mindedness. I should cultivate curiosity and a love of learning. I should establish a habit of working hard to search out truth. I should seek to become saturated by Scripture.
OK, suppose I want to use my mind to serve God, but I am worried about becoming intellectually proud. Does God have any direction for me?
Absolutely. There are lots of Bible verses about pride in general, of course, and I love that, but there is also a specific Bible passage whose central theme is intellectual pride: 1 Corinthians 1-2.
I started to write something about this passage last week, but it sort of got away from me. Here it is, a week later, and I still haven’t really finished. What I would like to post for now, though, is lots of stuff about how to interpret it, with just a few closing comments on how to apply it.
Framing the passage
First, note the context. Paul wrote this letter to the church in Corinth. They had a ton of problems. They accepted immorality as normal for their members, turned their worship services into sideshows, and compromised the doctrine of the resurrection. They also had a real problem with spiritual pride, manifested in the form of major divisions in the church. Paul talked about that throughout the book but it is the focus of the first four chapters.
In 1:10, the instructive instructive part of the book begins with these words:
Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you … (1 Cor 1:10)
Later in chapters 3 and 4 Paul reproves the Corinthians for this divisiveness. He starts by saying,
And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of Christ, as to infants in Christ … for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly and are you not walking like mere men? (1 Cor 3:1-3)
After offering himself and Apollos as examples of people working together in unity to serve Christ, he concludes this way:
Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other. (1 Cor 4:6)
In the middle of all this fall the verses from 1:17 to 2:16. There Paul narrows the topic of spiritual pride in general to intellectual pride specifically. He shows the conflict between the gospel and the arrogant wisdom of the world in 1:17-2:5. In 2:6-2:16 he contrasts that with the godly wisdom we’ve been granted in Christ, concluding that we have been given the supernatural capacity to understand spiritual things because we have “the mind of Christ”.
We will focus specifically on 1:17-2:5 and 2:14-16.
Interpreting the passage
For now, let me just make two obvious but fundamental observations about the meaning of this passage.
First, notice how anti-intellectual it seems at first glance. It sure looks like it is saying that the Christian gospel is not particularly rationally justifiable, but it doesn’t matter, and we shouldn’t try to justify it rationally anyway.
This can’t quite be right. Paul’s missionary practice, according to Acts, often involved reasoning with unbelievers to persuade them to believe. The words used to describe what he did are things like arguing, reasoning, persuading, and so on. So there must be more to it.
After a second glance, it seems likely that the real emphasis isn’t being rational but rather being proud. I think the guiding principle in interpreting the entire passage is to distinguish between seeking rationality in pride or in a way that panders to others’ pride, vs. seeking it humbly and in a way that encourages others to be humble.
At one point, I planned to walk through the verses phrase by phrase talking about the best way to interpret them, but I’ve decided that isn’t really necessary. Just go read them for yourself: (1 Corinthians 1:17-2:5, 1 Corinthians 2:14-16.)
Applying the passage
Far more interesting to me is how these verses apply to our own day. Here are the six points I see as most significant. I’ll expand on them soon.
When I was a kid in school, I was bright and caught on to ideas quickly. I got lots of A’s. One of the things that confused me was what being humble meant. Was it pride to notice that I was smarter (academically) than the kids around me? Was it more humble to pretend that wasn’t true?
I heard the story about the rich young ruler. He was unwilling to follow Christ because he would have to give up all that he had. I felt like that. I was afraid that I would be unwilling to get saved if I wasn’t willing to become a fool for Christ. How could I be humble enough to respond to God if I was aware that I was smarter than a lot of people around me?
In high school, I attended a Christian fellowship for a while that emphasized the importance of discarding “worldly wisdom” and just believing God instead. They were worried when people tried to analyze spiritual truths too much. I tried — I really tried — not to think about my faith so much. After about a year, I said to God, “God, I can’t stop thinking! No matter how much I try to just believe, my mind just keeps running. I want to be humble, and just have faith, but I can’t figure out how much it’s OK to think about everything.”
The thought that occurred to me then — as though God were speaking to me — was something like this: “Kevin, don’t you realize that I made you the way you are? That i know you like to think about everything, and that I designed you that way for a purpose? Go ahead and think all you want! Just remember to surrender your thinking to me.
These days, I approve of Christians thinking! At the same time, I think there is a danger to putting our reason ahead of God. I think intellectual pride is a very real danger for us as Christians. I think every Christian intellectual ought to be aware of the Biblical warnings for those who think well (or think they do!).
So what is the Biblical teaching about intellectual humility? I’d like to write a little about that in the next few weeks. At this point, here are the passages I want to consider:
I think these passages are the core of the Biblical understanding of intellectual pride / humility.
If you are interested in this subject yourself, spend some time reading the passages above. Pray about what you already know and believe. Work out what you think intellectual humility means. Write me your encouragement, advice, or questions.
Are there other passages or topics do you think I need to consider?
Here is something I wrote a few years ago about 1 Thessalonians 5:22 and what it means. I’ve edited it slightly.
==
1 Thessalonians 5:22 says “abstain from every form of evil”. Christians often assume this means that we need to be careful not only to avoid doing wrong, but also to avoid doing anything that looks wrong. I believe that is a misinterpretation of this verse, and I’d like to explain why.
I’m going to investigate the interpretation of this verse in four steps.
1. Greek word
Let’s begin with the Greek word interpreted as “form” and see if it sheds any light on the question. The Greek word is eidos, and means, according to Vine’s, “that which strikes the eye, that which is exposed to view … the external appearance, form or shape”. It emphasizes the outward appearance of something as opposed to its inward essence. For example, in Luke 3:22, the Holy Spirit descended in the form (eidos) of a dove. When Christ was transfigured, the appearance (eidos) of his face changed, becoming white (Luke 9:29). In John 5:37, Jesus said no one has heard the Father’s voice or seen His form (eidos). In 2 Corinthians 5:7, we are said to walk by faith, not by sight (eidos) – that is, we do not live by the way things look but by our knowledge of what is really true. We don’t pay any attention to what appears to be true around us at the moment, but live by faith in what God says is really true.
2. Restate the central question
With this understanding of eidos in hand, we can now rephrase the central question to clarify it. When Paul says:
abstain from every eidos (outward appearance / form / shape) of evil
he could mean one of two things. It could mean “abstain from everything evil, no matter what it looks like”, or it could mean “abstain from everything that looks like evil, whether it actually is or not”. These lead to the two different interpretations we are discussing. The second of these, the standard interpretation (with which I disagree), would be interpreted this way:
Abstain from everything that looks like evil – everything whose form or shape or outward appearance is evil – whether or not its inward essence is evil. That is, if something looks evil, but isn’t, abstain from it anyway.
The first way of interpreting it (which I agree with) would be this:
Evil things can sometimes take on a deceptive outward appearance. Abstain from evil no matter what form it takes, whether it looks wrong or not.
Under this interpretation, saying “every appearance of evil” is similar to saying “every kind of evil”, or “evil in every guise”. (Vine’s, by the way, says that this use of eidos was common in Greek writings around the time of the New Testament.)
3. Context
Next, let’s consider the context of the verse, so that we can understand what Paul meant by it when he wrote it. 1 Thessalonians was written by the apostle Paul to the fledgling church in Thessalonica. He had been run out of town before he was able to complete his instruction, and wrote the letter to encourage them to keep believing, to clarify some doctrinal issues, and to straighten out some ethical questions that had arisen. In the last chapter, he closed out his letter by giving a series of miscellaneous instructions about church life to the Thessalonians. This particular phrase is part of the instructions about prophesy in the church, in verses 19-22.
Do not quench the Spirit; do not despise prophetic utterances. But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil. (1 Thessalonians 5:19-22)
Compare this to 1 Corinthians 14:9, “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment.” Paul is telling the church how to respond when one of their members claims to have been given a message for them from the Holy Spirit. He says, first of all, not to deny all such claims routinely – to despise such prophetic utterances would be, he says, to quench the work of the Holy Spirit in their midst. We need to let Him speak through each of us to the rest. On the other hand, says Paul, we must not take everything said as true, but rather must examine it carefully. We must discern whether it is truly from the Holy Spirit, or not. If it seems to really be from God, then cling to it – take it seriously, follow its encouragement or counsel or direction. If it does not seem to be from God, then reject it.
Now, which of the two interpretations above make the most sense? Does Paul mean, “abstain from everything that looks evil, whether it is or not”? Or does he mean, “abstain from everything evil, whether it looks it or not”? I think the second makes much more sense than the first. Paul’s emphasis is on testing and discernment – i.e., looking behind the appearance of something to discover its true essence. The point is, a lot of prophecies sound good. Paul says we have to examine them, to find out whether they really are good or not. Having examined them, we need to respond accordingly. Those that are not from God, we need to abstain from – we are to abstain from every form of evil, from all errors regardless of their outward attractiveness. Those that are from God, we are to cling to, even if they don’t seem nearly so appealing to us.
If the standard interpretation were to apply here, Paul would be saying,
“Test all the prophecies. If one of them is really from the Lord, cling to it – unless it seems wrong on the surface, in which case you should abstain from that prophesy even though it was not wrong in itself.”
I don’t see how that makes much sense.
Of course, even though Paul wrote this in connection with prophesies, we can apply its principles to any area of our lives. The point is to see behind the veneer. We are to respond to things according to what they really are, no matter what form they take.
4. Connections
Finally, let’s think through how this connects with other ideas in Scripture and in life.
First, where anything is truly evil, both interpretations agree that we must reject it. There is no room for compromise with sin under any interpretation of “abstain from every form of evil”. The differences arise only when we are considering things that are good in essence but are perceived as evil by the culture we are in. Such cases require discernment on our part to decide how to live best.
Second, even though 1 Thessalonians 5:22 does not mean what most people think it does, there is still Scriptural validity to the idea that we should be careful about how others see our actions. It is legitimate to be concerned about the testimony of our lives. One important Scripture showing this is found in 2 Corinthians 8:21
… we have regard for what is honorable, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men.
There are plenty of Scriptures about how we should live our lives in such a way as to draw others to Christ (1 Peter 3:16), to glorify God (Matthew 5:16), to avoid making others stumble (Romans 14:16-21), or even to guard our reputations (Proverbs 22:1).
On the other hand, it’s equally important to realize that we cannot possibly please everyone, and we shouldn’t expect or try to. Our culture perceives a lot of things as evil that we don’t: spanking our kids, for example, or saying people are sinners. Do we need to abstain from these things because they appear evil to people around us? Of course not. On the contrary, we are to discern what the truth about these things really is and make choices independently of the beliefs of the people around us. This is our liberty in Christ, and it is also our obligation.
If we lose this perspective, we begin to pay too much attention to what others think. Jesus predicted that those who persecute Christians would believe that they were in the right, that the Christians were the ones offending God (John 16:2). He warned us to be careful of being too acceptable to the world (Luke 6:26 — see also Proverbs 29:25; Galatians 1:10, 2:6).
Balancing a healthy regard for others’ opinions with a healthy freedom to make choices counter to them is tricky but important. An interesting example of trying to maintain the balance is found in the last half of 2 Corinthians (for example: 2 Cor 5:12-13; 6:3,8-10; 8:21; 10:7-8; 11:5-7,12,16-21, 30; 12:1,3,19).
Print 
PDF