Tag: authority

Categories
Gospels and Acts Scripture

By Whose Authority (Luke 20:1-8)

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

20 One day, as Jesus was teaching the people in the temple and preaching the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes with the elders came up 2 and said to him, “Tell us by what authority you do these things, or who it is that gave you this authority.” 3 He answered them, “I also will ask you a question. Now tell me, 4 was the baptism of John from heaven or from man?” 5 And they discussed it with one another, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say, ‘Why did you not believe him?’ 6 But if we say, ‘From man,’ all the people will stone us to death, for they are convinced that John was a prophet.” 7 So they answered that they did not know where it came from. 8 And Jesus said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.”

The first thing we need to notice is that Christ was preaching the Gospel.

A delegation from the chief priests and scribes interrupted him and asked him by what authority he did “these things”.

These men represented the Sanhedrin, the head of the “Church” for all intents and purposes.

Christ was preaching the Gospel of salvation and the authorities were only interested in Christ’s credentials to do “these things”.

They could have cared less about the Gospel message.

What they really want to know about was how Jesus thought He had the authority to overturn money tables and tell them how Temple operations should be handled.

The way Temple sacrifices worked at the time of Christ…

This delegation weren’t interested in learning anything from Christ.

They were two-faced in their questioning because they already had their answer.

Think of the political dialogue we’re all familiar with on TV shows today.

Questions are not asked so much to receive answers so much as to trap opponents.

Let me explain a bit about “authority” at the time of Christ.

It was universally accepted among Rabbis at the time that authoritative teaching required previous authorization.

All teaching had to be authoritative because it was approved by authority and handed down from teacher (rabbi) to student (disciple).

The ultimate appeal in any discussion was to some great authority, either an individual Teacher or a Decree by the Sanhedrin.

To teach or to decide contrary to established authority was either a sign of gross ignorance or a sign of rebellion.

In either case, you were to be visited with ‘the ban’ for putting out a shingle and teaching contrary to authority.

This is at least one aspect of the controversy here.

Nobody would have thought of haggling with what they called a Haggadist – a popular expositor, preacher, or teller of legends

But authoritatively to teach, required some sort of warrant.

There was regular ordination, called Semikhah, to the office of Rabbi, Elder, and Judge.

In Christ’s time these were not three offices but were combined into one.

A Rabbi was an Elder was a Judge.

There was no ordination outside of what the Sanhedrin conferred.

The presence of at least three ordained persons from the Sanhedrin was required to ordain a man and then, and only then, could He teach.

The bottom line is this:  at the time of Christ, no one would have thought to teach authoritatively without proper Rabinnic authorization from the Sanhedrin.

Think about it then.

Did the Sanhedrin know whether or not they had conferred Rabinnical authority on Christ?

Of course they knew they had not.

In their mind, Christ was coloring way outside the lines.

It explains, in great part, why they would not listen to a word He said because He had never been granted the right to teach by them.

Everybody knew that Christ had no authority to knock over tables or to teach unless the Sanhedrin granted it.

The question, therefore, was deceptive.

They were merely trying to get Christ to admit that no Commission of the Sanhedrin ordained Him.

Everyone present would then conclude, with them, that Christ was not a Rabbi and had no authority and should be ignored.

Their question was intended to expose Christ as a poser.

But Christ was not just any man.

He knew exactly what they were up to.

How did Christ respond?

He responded with a pointed question back to the delegation.

By what authority did John baptize?

Remember that, during John’s ministry a delegation had been sent by the Sanhedrin asking him about the authority he had to baptize.

J.C. Ryle notes this:

It may reasonably be doubted whether the importance of John the Baptist’s ministry is generally understood by Christians. The brightness of our Lord’s history overshadows the history of His forerunner, and the result is that John’s baptism and preaching do not receive the attention which they deserve. Yet it should never be forgotten, that the ministry of the Baptist was the only New Testament ministry foretold in the Old Testament, excepting that of Christ. It was a ministry which produced an immense effect on the Jewish mind, and aroused the expectation of Israel from one end of Palestine to the other. Above all, it was a ministry which made the Jews without excuse in their rejection of Christ, when Christ appeared. They could not say that they were taken by surprise when our Lord began to preach. Their minds had been thoroughly prepared for His appearing. To see the full sinfulness of the Jews, and the entire justice of the judgments which came on them after crucifying our Lord, we must remember the ministry of John the Baptist.Christ spoke of John and testified of him that he was the greatest prophet that Israel had in its history.

 

The greatest prophet of the Old Covenant had been in their midst.

Instead of coming to John to be baptized and to repent they had haggled with him as to why he was baptizing.

The greatest prophet in the Old Covenant had been in their midst and so Christ asked them plainly:  By what authority did John baptize?

The question was meant to expose a flaw in their thinking about the reality of authority.

They clearly did not believe John had the authority to baptize.

Why?

Because John hadn’t received his authority from them.

Uneducated men might have flocked to John but they knew better.

John was not acting according to the way they perceived reality and so he was ignored by them as an imposter.

They could stop their ears to everything John said without ever hearing him.

They were convinced that John, too, was an imposter.

But they knew the people held John to be a prophet.

And so they chickened out and said they didn’t know by what authority he baptized.

The doctors of the Church didn’t know?

They were the ultimate authority and they were ignorant of authority?

Men like these did not, therefore, deserve an answer from the Incarnate Son of God.

These men had hardened their hearts to the baptism of John.

These men had continually hardened their hearts to the ministry of Christ.

The rays of the sun were in blazing glory all around them but they clamped their eyes shut.

They said:  “We see nothing except what we authorize.  We see nothing except that what has been passed to us by our standards.  We know best.”

They could hear no voice but their own and so Christ refused to give them an answer.

They had forfeited the right to an explanation from the Son of God because they did not desire to be taught.

Some of you know that I grew up Roman Catholic.

A number of years ago, after my conversion to Christ through the writings of R.C. Sproul, I was in a conversation with a man from my former Church.

He was extolling the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church to me.

He noted that the Roman Catholic Church’s view of tradition was much like the Jews.

He thought, therefore, that Rome was in the strand of a grand tradition of how authority operates.

I thought with amazement that he could not see that his was precisely the problem the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin had in Christ’s day.

The similarities between the way in which the Scriptures can become obscured behind men’s traditions are strikingly similar.

Truth began to drift as doctrine was built not on the foundation of God’s Word but upon centuries of commentary on the Word.

Eventually men stopped looking to the Scriptures and the entire structure was built upon commentary.

The Scriptures must then be interpreted according to tradition instead of tradition giving way to Scripture.

Eventually the magisterium convinced itself that people should stay away from the Scriptures because it led them to error where error is defined as a departure from Church law.

Eventually the Church began to believe that its own pronouncements stood on equal footing with God’s own Word.

Indeed, the Word really fell under Church authority because it could only be used in support of what Church law had concluded.

Such a Church can hear no voice but its own.

But let us not pretend that we are immune from such error.

An even cursory reading of the Scriptures teaches us how prone our hearts are to wandering.

Within the life of Paul, he was concerned that the Church at Galatia had left a foundation he had laid for them in the Gospel.

Men quickly become conceited in their pride when they forsake the living Word for idols of their imagination.

Idolatry is not merely things we make with our hands but the ideas about God that we conceive in our minds..

We are foolish if we think it cannot happen to us.

Men who are entrusted to teach others are doubly damned if they teach others this same idolatry.

They are doubly damned when they replace the authority of God’s Word with their own.

We think too highly of ourselves if we imagine that the Sanhedrin and the Pharisees are some other species.

Surely I could never do such a thing.

I’m not a bad guy, I’m a good guy.

I love God.

I seek to obey His commandments.

This could never happen to me or my Church.

*Whenever you read a story in the Bible don’t look to see how you’re like the good guy but search your heart as to how you are just like those who oppose Christ.

In our time, we pray much for provision, for our success, and for an overthrow of the wicked around us.

But hear the prophet Amos as he testified to a prosperous nation:

 

Amos 4:6-12 (ESV)

Israel Has Not Returned to the Lord

6           “I gave you cleanness of teeth in all your cities,

and lack of bread in all your places,

yet you did not return to me,”

declares the Lord.

7           “I also withheld the rain from you

when there were yet three months to the harvest;

I would send rain on one city,

and send no rain on another city;

one field would have rain,

and the field on which it did not rain would wither;

8           so two or three cities would wander to another city

to drink water, and would not be satisfied;

yet you did not return to me,”

declares the Lord.

9           “I struck you with blight and mildew;

your many gardens and your vineyards,

your fig trees and your olive trees the locust devoured;

yet you did not return to me,”

declares the Lord.

10         “I sent among you a pestilence after the manner of Egypt;

I killed your young men with the sword,

and carried away your horses,

and I made the stench of your camp go up into your nostrils;

yet you did not return to me,”

declares the Lord.

11         “I overthrew some of you,

as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah,

and you were as a brand plucked out of the burning;

yet you did not return to me,”

declares the Lord.

12         “Therefore thus I will do to you, O Israel;

because I will do this to you,

prepare to meet your God, O Israel!”

 

We suppose that the worst thing that can happen to us is the loss of everything good around us.

Loss of home.

Loss of employment.

Loss of an economy.

Loss of a nation.

But God testifies in His Word that He often sends these things to turn us from our idolatry.

These are not even remotely close to the worst thing that can happen to us.

The worst that can happen is prophesied later in Amos.

Amos 8:11 (ESV)

11         “Behold, the days are coming,” declares the Lord God,

“when I will send a famine on the land—

not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water,

but of hearing the words of the Lord.

 

Do you understand what Amos was prophesying?

The final judgment is not a loss of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.

The final judgment of God is an inability to hear the Lord when He speaks in His Word!

This is like a punch in the gut for me.

That God would speak to us and we would be unable to hear.

That the living Word would be read in our midst and we could not hear what they speak to us.

That light would shine around us and we would be unable to see.

That the aroma of the Gospel would be around us and we would only smell the stench of death.

What good is it, beloved, if we gain the whole world and lose the ability to hear the living God?

Christ, save us all!

I don’t want you to walk out of here thinking that it’s because the Sanhedrin were learned men.

We’re called to study the Scriptures diligently.

We’re called to become mature in these things.

I also don’t want you to be deceived into thinking that one escapes this by rejecting the Church.

Christ Himself calls us into His Church.

Ephesians 4 makes clear that He gives us pastors and teachers that we may attain to the unity of the faith.

But we can so easily start to assume that we see clearly in our own hearts.

Perhaps some of you are bored right now.

Perhaps some of you know exactly what you wanted to hear.

Enough about sin and repentance already.

I’ve heard that before.

I’ve already got that filed away and understand it.

Enough of this stuff about hearing the Word.

I hear it every Sunday.

I’ve got more important things on my mind.

Beloved, we need to shake off this kind of thinking.

The living Word is penetrating us to our core and we need to come to attention before it.

We must fall again at the Savior’s feet and pray that He opens our ears.

We must never, never, never forget that it is Christ Who keeps us.

We begin by faith.

We begin by laying hold of Christ because we see our sin.

We see the sin that we rightly understand leads to our condemnation.

And so we turn way from our sin and look up to Christ and put our sin to death on a Cross.

We cling to Christ and believe that He has been resurrected from the dead.

We worship Christ because He has been testified to as the Son of God.

But this is not a self-generated effort.

This is not a mental exercise where we simply file away facts about Christ.

We must lay hold of Christ daily.

We must turn in faith daily.

We must pursue Christ and pray that He opens the Word to us.

Trust not your heart in your own strength.

Do not assume that your heart cannot lead you astray.

Do not assume that because, yesterday, you were excited about Christ that today is not a day to hear him anew.

Do not be satisfied with your zeal for Church attendance.

Do not be satisfied that you have been brought to Church by your parents.

Christ is placarded before you in His Word.

Do not walk away from here confident in your own strength.

Look up afresh at the Cross because Christ has given us eyes to see.

We are not secure because we belong to the right Church.

We are not secure because we believed once upon a time.

We are secure because all those who turn in faith to Christ are held tightly in His grip.

He knows His sheep and not one of them will be lost by the Good shepherd.

Christ has prayed for you even as He prayed in thanksgiving to His Father for the disciples of His day:

Matthew 11:25-28 (ESV)

25  “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; 26 yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. 27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. 28 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

 

Let us pray.

Categories
Gospels and Acts Scripture

Luke 8:40-56

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Luke 8:40-56 (ESV) — 40 Now when Jesus returned, the crowd welcomed him, for they were all waiting for him. 41 And there came a man named Jairus, who was a ruler of the synagogue. And falling at Jesus’ feet, he implored him to come to his house, 42 for he had an only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she was dying. As Jesus went, the people pressed around him. 43 And there was a woman who had had a discharge of blood for twelve years, and though she had spent all her living on physicians, she could not be healed by anyone. 44 She came up behind him and touched the fringe of his garment, and immediately her discharge of blood ceased. 45 And Jesus said, “Who was it that touched me?” When all denied it, Peter said, “Master, the crowds surround you and are pressing in on you!” 46 But Jesus said, “Someone touched me, for I perceive that power has gone out from me.” 47 And when the woman saw that she was not hidden, she came trembling, and falling down before him declared in the presence of all the people why she had touched him, and how she had been immediately healed. 48 And he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace.” 49 While he was still speaking, someone from the ruler’s house came and said, “Your daughter is dead; do not trouble the Teacher any more.” 50 But Jesus on hearing this answered him, “Do not fear; only believe, and she will be well.” 51 And when he came to the house, he allowed no one to enter with him, except Peter and John and James, and the father and mother of the child. 52 And all were weeping and mourning for her, but he said, “Do not weep, for she is not dead but sleeping.” 53 And they laughed at him, knowing that she was dead. 54 But taking her by the hand he called, saying, “Child, arise.” 55 And her spirit returned, and she got up at once. And he directed that something should be given her to eat. 56 And her parents were amazed, but he charged them to tell no one what had happened.

C.S. Lewis once wrote a letter to a budding author on the art of storytelling. He reminded the young writer that the author should not have to continually ask the reader: “Gentle reader, do you feel amazed? Gentle reader, do you feel astonished?” A story, if it is written well, will have that effect naturally if its news is astonishing.
I wonder if we have all heard the accounts from Luke’s Gospel so often that we fail to be amazed by what we encounter. Luke, you remember, is writing to Theophilus and he writes his Gospel accounts so compellingly that he doesn’t need to ask the reader to react in certain ways because the sheer wonder of Christ’s work in the lives of people speaks for itself.
Last week, Bob Rumbaugh taught on the healing of the Gerasene demoniac possessed by legions of demons. It is very telling that after the display of Christ’s authority and power, the entire city begged Christ to leave them.
As we pick up at verse 40, Christ just returned to Galilee and He was welcomed by a throng of people. Pressing through the crowd came a desperate man. His name was Jairus and he was a ruler of the Synagogue at Capernaum. Every synagogue was ruled by a board of elders and this was a man of high position. In Capernaum, Christ had healed a paralytic as recorded for us in Luke 5. Also in Capernaum, a Roman Centurion had sent request that Christ heal his servant and Christ had marveled at the faith of this God-fearing gentile who was a benefactor of the Capernaum synagogue. Surely, then, Jairus knew of Jesus’ power and authority and came to Christ and in an act of self-humiliation before Christ threw Himself at the Master’s feet.
Where the people of Gerasene had pleaded with Christ to leave them, Jairus pleaded with Christ to come to his home to heal his twelve year old daughter who was sick and near death. A father’s affection and desperation poured out of him. This was his only daughter. He called her “my little daughter” in Mark 5. She was his girlie and she was dying. He pleaded that Christ would come quickly.
Now we know that Luke wrote his Gospel not as one who had seen the events but as one who had carefully interviewed hundreds of eyewitnesses and put them into an orderly account. This account is written as if we’re reading the whole thing through the eyes of Jairus and I want you to put yourself in the shoes of a man who desperately loves his daughter and wants to get the Savior to her as quickly as possible.
As they went to the house, the going was slow. Crowds were pressing in on Jesus and suddenly Jesus stopped. I can only imagine that Jairus was several feet ahead of Christ and looked back and thought “…why is He stopping, doesn’t He realize my little girl is dying?”
But Christ was looking around and asking “Who touched me?”
Who touched you? Are you kidding me? There are people pressing in on you and you ask “Who touched me?”
Leave it to Peter. He’s like you and me. Peter tells Him what is obvious to the naked eye: “Master, the crowds surround you and are pressing in on you!”
It’s so easy for us to criticize Peter because we don’t realize that he was a better man than we are. If you’ve never been baffled by the way of the Lord then I would suggest you don’t know the Lord very well. We are so blind to spiritual things and assume all the time that what we see is how the Lord sees things.
But Christ knew better. As He was pressing through the crowd, a woman who had a discharge of blood for twelve years snuck through the crowd. She thought to herself that if she could just touch the tassels of his garment that she would be healed. The crowd was so large that she thought she could just brush him unnoticed.
You and I read this and we think to ourselves: “OK, a flow of blood for twelve years” but, beloved, those were twelve long years for this woman. She had exhausted every penny she had on physicians to heal this affliction. It’s not as if she simply had to deal with the physical discomfort of this sickness but this flow of blood made her ceremonially unclean according to Lev 15. This meant that not only was she not permitted to worship with the people of God but it also meant she couldn’t even come near them or they too would be ceremonially unclean. This meant that this woman had lived twelve long and painful years in the solitude of ceremonial uncleanness.
Bavinck writes a beautiful account of the creation of the first woman and how much the first man needed companionship. What is true of man is true also of woman and I want you to hear what he says about Adam after he named the animals and couldn’t find a helper suitable for him: “Though formed out of the dust of the earth, Adam was nevertheless a bearer of the image of God. He was placed in a garden which was a place of loveliness and was richly supplied with everything good to behold and to eat. He received the pleasant task of dressing the garden and subduing the earth, and in this he had to walk in accordance with the commandment of God….  But no matter how richly favored and how grateful, that first man was not satisfied, not fulfilled. The cause is indicated to him by God Himself. It lies in his solitude. It is not good for the man that he should be alone. He is not so constituted, he was not created that way. His nature inclines to the social — he wants company. He must be able to express himself, reveal himself, and give himself. He must be able to pour out his heart, to give form to his feelings. He must share his awarenesses with a being who can understand him and can feel and live along with him. Solitude is poverty, forsakenness, gradual pining and wasting away. How lonesome it is to be alone!
Twelve years this woman had wasted away in solitude. Perhaps she had gone to the Priest: “Is there any way for me to approach the people of God that I might worship and fellowship with them? Is there nothing you can do for me?”
But the Priest could only administer the Law. The Law had no remedy for her. The Law could only command that she stay away.
Numbers 15 commanded the men of Israel to wear tassels on their garments to remind them to keep the Law of God. Christ was the only man to ever remember to keep that Law perfectly and this poor woman reached out and touched that reminder.
And she was instantly healed!
Jairus was probably getting impatient at this point. Christ was standing there asking who had touched Him.
Finally, when she realized she could not conceal what she had done, she stepped forward. Women didn’t call attention to themselves in that culture and the tale of her sickness would have been embarrassing as she recounted it but, glory be to God, she had been healed!
Christ had outed her for two reasons. First, He is such a compassionate Savior that He wanted it to be a public testimony that this woman was now healed. She was now clean. She could be restored to full fellowship. Christ was not so busy or so important that He couldn’t stop and take the time to restore her to her people. It was the end of her physical affliction and also the end of an unbearable loneliness.
Secondly, Christ called her out so she would understand that it wasn’t the tassel of His garment that had healed her but it was His power and His authority that had healed her. Her faith had been somewhat superstitious. Her faith had been somewhat weak in looking to a physical object to heal her. But Christ rewarded even a feeble faith and reminded her that it was He who rewards. It was Christ she had received.
In verse 48 He said to her, Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace. Can you imagine receiving a benediction to “Go in peace” from the God-Man who grants peace with God?
Now we don’t know how long they had lingered, but, while Christ was still speaking, someone came from Jairus’ house saying: “Your daughter is dead; don’t bother the Teacher anymore.”
How many of you have seen your child close to death as I have? Can you imagine, even if only a little, how Jairus felt at that moment.
But Christ ignored the messenger. He turned straight to Jairus and told him: “Fear no longer; only believe, and she will be made well.”
Hold on to me Jairus. Do not fear.
How often do we need to hear that from God and how often does He tell us that in the Scriptures because we do fear.
 When they arrived at the house, Christ allowed no one to come in except Peter and John and James, and the child’s father and mother. It doesn’t say that there was no available space to fit more people but, rather, that Christ would not permit anyone else to come in.
Meanwhile, a crowd of mourners had already gathered and they were weeping and wailing over her. Christ commanded them to stop weeping for, He said, “she is not dead but asleep.”
But, the text says, that the crowd laughed in Jesus’ face because they knew she was dead.
But Jesus didn’t invite these scorners into the room to see what happened next. That’s not me.  I’d want others there. I’d want the world of mockers to see what Christ did. I’d want them to see for themselves how foolish they are.
But Christ kept the scorners outside the room.
And this is so beautiful in verses 54 and 55. Christ spoke to this girl in the way a Jewish mother might wake her child in the morning.
My child, get up!
This was not a request. This was not a suggestion.
The Son of God, by whom all things were created, speaks with power and authority. Death itself had no authority in the presence of such a command. The God who speaks things into existence commanded the child to get up.
And verse 55 states that her spirit returned and she got up at once.
Death surrendered its prey at the word of Jesus.
And, once again, we witness the compassion of the Savior as he directed them to give her something to eat. I know if my daughter had just been brought back to life that I would be so ecstatic that feeding her after a long illness might be forgotten.
Verse 56 records something remarkable. I think the common view of Christ is that, if He could, He would do anything to convince people to believe in Him. Instead of a Christ who is desperate to convince all scoffers, verse 56 gives us a frightening warning. Hear this again:
Her parents were astonished, but he instructed them to tell no one what had happened.
Of course they’re astonished. Their daughter was dead and is now alive and was made alive simply by the word of Christ.
But Christ forbade them from telling anyone what had happened.
Nobody who had laughed at Christ would receive testimony about this sign. Christ’s sign was not for scoffers to be amazed at power but to confirm the faith for those that desired to receive Him for Who He was.
The rest of the story of that town isn’t told but, knowing human nature as I do from the Word, I’m convinced that later on that day those very people that laughed at Christ to His face were telling one another: “Oh, she wasn’t really dead, she was just sleeping.”
This passage has been searching me out over the last couple of weeks as I’ve been meditating on it. I want to share a few observations.
First, it is plain to me that Christ doesn’t need our help with the skeptics. As the Apostle Peter commands, we ought to always be ready to give a defense for the hope that lies within us and that hope is the person and work of Christ. We ought to unashamedly present and testify to the work of that Savior. But there comes a point when people want to insist that God be their show pony and prove something to them that they can see with their eyes and touch with their hands.
God gave them life and breath and testifies to Himself all around them in the things created. Our testimony of Christ’s death and resurrection is further historically verifiable testimony of Christ’s authority. Beloved, those who hear that news and still use the gifts of their intellect, given them by God, to turn around and slap Him in the face do not deserve anything from God. We can be sorrowful for them. We can continue to pray for them. But, if you’re one of those who is blessed enough to hear God’s Son and His power confirmed to you every week and you still laugh at Christ, do not presume that He who sits on high owes you a single thing.
Secondly, I’m repeatedly amazed at how often Christ made Himself ceremonially unclean in order to get near people and heal them. Not only did He ceremonially defile Himself in touching an unclean woman to heal her but He touched the dead hand of a little girl that He might command her to come to life.
Sinclair Ferguson recounts a friend of his who was once addicted to drugs. He was a hard-corps addict whose life was on the brink of destruction.
But Christ found him and healed him and he is now a preacher of the Word.
He says this: “For something unclean to become clean, something clean has to become unclean.” Hear it again: “For something unclean to become clean, something clean has to become unclean.”
Christ was willing to become ceremonially unclean for these two sufferers because He came into the world out of sheer force of the Love of God to do something much harder. He became Sin, who knew no Sin, that we might become His righteousness.
While we were dead in our sins and trespasses, while our righteousness was like, as Isaiah put it, a used menstrual rag, Christ hung between heaven and earth and bore the wrath of His Father in our stead. He suffered the full weight of our uncleanness so that we might be clean and can stand boldly in the presence of our Father.
Finally, I have been meditating on the Lord’s timing in giving us exactly what we most need.
Did you feel the angst of Jairus as he waited on Christ to come and heal his little girlie? Yet, Christ made Jairus walk through the valley of the shadow of death. Christ made Jairus suffer the news of the death of His daughter so that He could allow Jairus to trust Him during the walk to his home and see that Christ answers those that plead with Him. It was not what Jairus wanted but what he needed. It was Christ’s timing and not Jairus’.
God allowed a woman to suffer twelve years in the agony of isolation and sickness that He might display His mercy for all to see and that she might have a personal assurance from Christ that she now had peace with God. How long do you suppose she had prayed for healing? Do you suppose, in glory, she regrets one day of her suffering on this earth as centuries later the story of her healing has converted countless souls to the Gospel? God didn’t give her what she wanted earlier because He had appointed a day when He would gloriously fulfill her need in a way she could never imagine.
Isaiah 40:31 (ESV) — 31 but they who wait for the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings like eagles; they shall run and not be weary; they shall walk and not faint.
Yesterday, I was privileged to listen to Ravi Zacharias talk about Christ and our culture. He concluded with a story that is fitting on the timing of the Lord.
Ravi was ministering in Vietnam in 1971, and one of his interpreters was Hien Pham, an energetic young Christian. He had worked as a translator with the American forces, and was of immense help both to them and to missionaries.
Shortly after Vietnam fell, Hien was imprisoned on accusations of helping the Americans. His jailers tried to indoctrinate him against democratic ideals and the Christian faith. He was forced to read only communist propaganda in French or Vietnamese, and the daily deluge of Marx and Engels began to take its toll. “Maybe,” he thought, “I have been lied to. Maybe God does not exist. Maybe the West has deceived me.” So Hien determined that when he awakened the next day, he would not pray anymore or think of his faith.
The next morning, he was assigned the dreaded chore of cleaning the prison latrines. As he cleaned out a tin can overflowing with toilet paper, his eye caught what seemed to be English printed on one piece of paper. He hurriedly grabbed it, washed it, and after his roommates had retired that night, he retrieved the paper and read the words, “Romans, Chapter 8.” Trembling, he began to read, “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. … For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8:28,38,39).
This was to have been the first day that he would not pray; evidently God had other plans.
Beloved, isn’t our Savior amazing!       
Let us pray.

Giving Honor to our Rulers (Romans 13)

I recently taught on Romans 13 and it gave me a fresh perspective on the passage.

Romans 13 certainly teaches us about how we ought to honor and respect those who govern us and that, in fact, their authority comes from God. I don’t believe, however, that it says everything about our relationship to the civil sphere and it could even lead one to some erroneous conclusions.

For instance, it does not permit us to simply do everything the governing authorities tell us to do. We are not permitted to disobey God in the obedience to government and civil government is to be honored “where it is due” – that is to say that it has no authority beyond the sphere it has been given authority by God. In some cases, then, we would be permitted to resist or disobey civil authority if their actions are un-Lawful – that is to say that they commanded us to do something that God’s Law forbids. On this point, even the light of nature reveals this to man and everybody intuitively understands that “…I was just obeying orders…” was not an appropriate defense by the Germans or the Japanese following WWII.

If you notice, however, in Romans 13 Paul focuses on something that many of us need to take notice of. In fact, given the attitude that many here exhibit regarding the civil authorities they would do well to pay attention to what Paul is teaching.

Fundamentally, the issue is that Christians are to seek to be at peace with all men and, by extension, aren’t to be seditious as a general rule. That doesn’t mean they just put up with anything but some men have the wicked idea that no man, ever, will ever tell them what to do. They are rebellious and seditious to the core. Christians ought not to be so.

It is telling that the Romans 13 passage focuses on the fact that authority derives from the Almighty and even more telling that the “rubber meets the road” when Paul teaches the Romans about taxes. It’s fascinating, in fact, that the Pharisees tried to trap Christ by asking whether they should have to pay taxes. Some commentators believe that Paul might be addressing many of the Jewish believers at Romans who have this same sort of spirit concerning the authorities that rule over them – “They’re not my leaders.” The Jews couldn’t stomach that these Romans ruled them.

Paul reminds them, however, that rebellious attitude toward authority is indicative of rebellion against God in general. Part of the Christian “transformation” (Romans 12:2) is a renewal of our minds concerning authority. Christians submit to authority because they know God stands behind it. They honor authority because God is behind it. Paul also reminds them that “…if you’re a knucklehead and are seditious then you’ll get exactly what you deserve…” because, as a general rule, people who do evil get punished for doing evil. We’re not permitted to violate the speed limit just because we’re citizens of heaven any more than I’m permitted to drive as fast as in America because I’m an American in Japan.

In fact, it is very revealing that many despise the institutions that God has given to bless them. What some Christians wear as a badge that they are so inclined to speak of their rulers and institutions with disdain, is a form of the ingratitude that Paul speaks about in Romans 1 as being a mark of depravity. As Durham rightly noted, the command to honor your father and mother is a general command to render honor to due authority. Those who are never trained to honor father and mother never learn how to honor other authority and, in fact, their biggest problem is that the folly in their heart causes them to despise Authority in general. It is no mistake that disrespect to parents is listed among the sins of a depraved society. If I don’t train my child to respect authority then I’m setting him up to disrespect God in the long run.

I also believe that pacifism is a form of a denial of the faith. It not only selfishly lets the pagan do all the protection and “ministerial work” in a society to make life tolerable but it turns around and calls the very thing God has ordained for our general good an evil thing. I have no patience for such men. They may believe they are honoring God in their convictions but they are not honoring the God of the Bible by calling His very authority a wicked thing and something they are forbidden to participate in. I’m not a blind patriot but I thank God for police officers and soldiers who, when they perform it honorably, are God’s ministers for good in judging evil and keeping the sinful heart from bringing anarchy to a society.

Thus, I believe the general principle is to be those who try to live at peace and, as much as is in us, to be agreeable and obedient to our rulers. Disobedience to their rule ought to be the exception when we are forced to do so because they have decreed something God forbid but it doesn’t automatically give us a badge to badmouth or despise the authority. Daniel and his friends were willing to die for their convictions and would not obey the laws that would have caused them to disobey God but, when released, they continued to serve the same men with submission obeying the rules that did not. They didn’t sinfully say: “Not my leader” in the seditious way that Christians believe they are warranted in saying: “Not my President”.

That’s because Daniel was Godly enough to know Who had vested that authority in the Kings and by denying their authority he would have been saying: “You’re not my God.” It’s a reminder that Daniel was unlike the world while many “Christians” are very much like the world with their rebellious spirit. We would do well to wonder how much we’re like the world when it comes to our attitude toward authority as well.

Categories
Theology

Theonomy: Three Questions Answered

Jacob asked the following:

Theonomy is concerned with three irreducible questions, which anti-theonomists cannot answer in an epistemologically satisfactory manner:

1) Which sins should civil magistrates punish?
2) What should those punishments be?
3) How does one justify the answers to the first two questions?

If we are left to govern ourselves by general revelation, then civil laws must be ultimately a matter of opinion, yet laws by their very nature are to reflect what ought to be. Moreover, apart from Scripture inductive inference cannot be justified. Therefore, apart from Scripture it would be baseless to infer that all persons are endowed by nature with the same moral code. Accordingly, it would be tyrannical to impose unjustifiable codes of conduct, let alone sanctions for violations of those codes, upon others who do not claim to share those same codes.

My answer:

1) Which sins should civil magistrates punish?
The sins that God gives them the authority to punish.

2) What should those punishments be?
Generally based on the rule of restitution. The Law gives case law to indicate that you replace that which you take in the offense.

3) How does one justify the answers to the first two questions?
The Bible.

OK, I answered the questions so here’s my “beef”.

I don’t have a problem discussing the general principle that the laws of the magistrate ought to reflect God’s Law. I think, theoretically, if a country wants to punish blasphemy with the death penalty that it is not unjust for them to do so. To be unjust, intrinsically, would point to some sort of justice that is extra-Scriptural and the idea is not extra-Scriptural that blasphemy could be punished by death. Even leaving aside the issue of whether the magistrate should do so, it seems to me at least, to be pointless to argue whether the Magistrate would be making an unjust law if it decided to enforce that idea.

Now, here is where I start to get off the bus because, while I agree with that basic principle, I don’t see the Church’s chief aim as being activism to ensure that the Magistrate is introducing those laws.

The problem I have with those of a theonomic bent (though I don’t have a huge problem with them) is that they seem to devote more time worrying about transforming the Magistrate than the Apostles did. It is an argument from silence and I’m unlikely to win any debates to persuade a theonomist from his path but the general trend of NT doctrine is clear enough to me to believe that it is NOT the Church’s principle focus.

In other words, if all a theonomist wants me to agree to is the idea that a Magistrate would not be unjust for creating a law that punishes blasphemy by stoning a man to death then I am not going to spend a long time arguing that God is offended at the idea that a Magistrate would punish someone for blaspheming Him. It’s all very theoretical to me of course. BUT, if the same man wants me to join him in a crusade to tell the Pastor that he’s not preaching cultural transformation enough and that the Church needs to spend more time leading the charge to storm the State Legislature and lobby for the creation of those laws then I would tell him to pound sand.

The Church’s mission is the preaching of the Word, the administration of the Sacraments, and Church Discipline. Ironically, the most rebellious people I’ve met in the latter category are theonomists who would not submit to Church Discipline even as they wanted pagans to submit to God’s Law.

I believe, however, that as a citizen I have the right to exercise my time and talents to reform Civic institutions. I also believe that Magistrates will be judged for creating and enforcing laws in disobedience to the Law of God written on their consciences and will also be judged for failing to write laws that God has ordained. But that is their responsibility to create and enforce the proper laws and it is not the Church’s job to spend all it’s time, moving away from it’s primary mission, to pick up the slack where the Magistrate is failing. I believe they have a prophetic role to the State and that the State is further condemned for not listening but that does not make it the Church’s mission to do the State’s job.

Categories
Devotion

The Pontiff of Humanity

from my blog Board Housewife & The Cat

“The Pontiff of Humanity”

Advisory: Scary content.

The Cat enjoys scaring his friend Zack. He has urged me, therefore, to write about Positivism’s arch scion, Auguste Comte, about whom we were just reading in Dabney. Comte had the modest aspiration of becoming “Pontiff of Humanity.”

Ideas that reject sources of knowledge can get very weird, and Comte quite possibly attained the zenith of weirdness. If we owe our ideas to no sources of knowledge outside of our own experience of phenomena, we tend to become a bit obsessed with ourselves. Thus, atheism is the predictable logical consequence of positivism.

Positivism denies the supernatural, even in light of the evidence of supernatural facts. Thus, the documented miracles that Christ performed on earth before thousands of witnesses would be denied or explained naturally–an impossibility untroubling to a positivist mind.

The cosmological implication of this is, or should be, terribly frightening: self-existence without God. As Dabney puts it so well, “Thus, matter is clothed with the attributes of God” (Robert L. Dabney: The Sensualistic Philosophy, Naphtali Books, 2003, p. 81).

Comte, who lived from 1798 to 1857, was certainly not the first person to attempt to recreate God; nor was he original in his attempt to introduce worship of himself. However, there is a certain novelty to his approach of denying the existence of any god, while introducing a religious system of worship with himself as the center, and expecting liberty-enjoying people to go along with it.

To the psychotic Comte, a religion without God was a reasonable concept. His religion included the necessary element of worshipers. To ensure a prodigious number of them, he devised a congregation known as the “Great Being,” consisting of all humanity, living, dead, and those who will live. Evidently hip to the utility of liturgical worship principles, Comte devised a system of worship with 84 holy days in a year and nine sacraments (p. 83).

Comte’s system was to consist of a “spiritual order” of positivist philosophers and educators (reminiscent of Plato’s philosopher kings, but in Plato’s gnostic model, at least knowledge was understood to come from without the visible world). These people would be presumed infallible and defiance of their dicta would not be tolerated. Above the oligarchy would be the Pontiff of Humanity, with Comte, of course, to be the first to hold this office. The Pontiff, imbued with unsurpassed wisdom, would select his own successor.

Comte had a plan for the United States of America, wherein three bankers were to govern each of the States. The spiritual order would be absolute in its authority, and its authority would be absolute in its sphere of human control–social, spiritual, educational, and, economic.

Comte suffered from manic depression in addition to his obvious megalomania, and was rescued in the course of several suicide attempts. But consider the burden under which he labored–the pressure of ruling every soul that ever lived, did live, and ever would live–equipped only with the laws of nature directly sensible to him. No wonder he held such a hopeless, fatalistic world view, holding “intellectual skepticism as the most advantageous state of mind” (Dabney, p. 84). The irony was likely lost on him that he could not even trust the validity of his own “infallible” ideas.

Unchallenged deference to experts because they are experts, regardless of competence, is a current manifestation of Comte’s positivist world view. I would submit that Comte’s view is not extreme, but rather the logical outcome of positivism, and that it exists around us more than makes us comfortable to think.

Dabney said this in the 19th century, and it is as true in our day as it was in his: Positivism’s “most deplorable result is the impulse which it gives to irreligion and open atheism. Thousands of shallow persons, who have no understanding of any connected philosophy, and are too indolent and inattentive to acquire it, are emboldened to babble materialism and impiety, by hearing it said that the “˜positive philosophy’ has exploded the supernatural” (Dabney, p. 85).

Adherence to positivism and its sequelae is shallow and uncomplicated; it is a giving over to a reprobate mind. Paul presaged the philosophy long before Dabney warned America: “for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator…” Ro 1:25. “And even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting…” Ro 1:28.

Positivists would profess that their philosophy advocates nothing specifically immoral, that nature itself is sufficient revelation of proper moral conduct. Whose nature–Auguste Comte’s? Their scheme forecloses any moral source outside of nature and sensibility; therefore, how can morality be known? But this is a rude question to ask an all-knowing Pontiff of Humanity.