We are called to repentance to receive the forgiveness in Jesus Christ (Luke 24:47; cf. Acts2:38) as a mark of a true Christian. Because of deceit (Jeremiah 17:9), people consider themselves as christians without any repentance which comes from the heart convicted of offending a holy God. Repentance is an inward change of mind, affections, convictions, and commitment rooted in the fear of God and sorrow to God for offenses committed against Him. This is accompanied by faith in Jesus Christ, given by God (Acts 11:18) and is never regretted (2 Corinthians 7:10). A truly repentant person would not relent but persist as we find in the repentant brother in 1 Corinthians 5 though the Corinthian church went to extreme in dealing the sinning brother (2 Corinthians 2:1-11) they were wrong in receiving the repentant brother but the motive was correct (2 Corinthians 7:5-11). A truly repentant person would try to repair any damage incurred as we find in the life of Zaccheus in Luke 19:1-10. A truly repentant person will not search for honour for himself when seeking to be restored as we find in the example of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32) who saw that he was no longer worthy.
Sorrow for sin committed is necessary but does not mean repentance, but repentance comes from a godly sorrow (2Corinthians 7:9) which will focus more on moral failure than just on consequences of sin (Psalm 51). True repentance does not fight or resist natural consequences as Saul did in his life as Samuel made it clear to Saul (1 Samuel 15:28). Despite of the declarations Saul continually fought David’s rise (1Samuel 24:20); he was so concerned about the consequences of his sin than his own sinfulness.
Thursday 11 June 2009
Moral and Non-Moral Issues
Jesus calls us to love the Lord with all our heart, soul and mind (Matthew 22:37-38) so that we can obey Him (John 14:21). To know what God requires of us to obey (Moral issues) is essential to Christian life. We have to be careful to discern when an action is sinful from when it is not because all actions may be sin but only some actions are necessarily sin. We also have sinful religious actions such as quoting Scripture (Matthew 4:1-9), giving (Matthew 6:2; Acts 5:1-11) and praying (Matthew 6:5; Luke 18:9-14).
To go about this it is essential to distinguish between moral and non-moral issues as we are called to rebuke a brethren when necessary (Matthew 18:15-17; Galatians 6:1-2; 1 Thessalonians 5:14; 2 Timothy 4:2) to help one another. In order to do this we must know which actions are sinful and which are not as we find the scripture insisting on removing a sinful person from the fellowship (1 Corinthians 5) whereas Romans 14 calls the Christians not to pass judgement on non-sinful practices of others. In Roman 14 Paul described those who limited their freedom as being weak; they are just immature and their actions are not sinful. This distinction is necessary so that we do not unrighteously pass judgment on the freedoms of others and fall short of God’s will by approving sinful acts just like the Pharisees (Matthew 15:1-20; Matthew 23:13-36).
In order to distinguish between moral and non-moral issues, we have to distinguish between actual sin and potential sin. It is good for us to limit the possibility of us falling into sin (Proverbs 10:19), even though the possibility of sin is not sin itself. But it is wrong to judge anyone of sin when they have not sin, so should allow them exercise their freedom in non-moral issues (Romans 14:1-4). So a decision that may lead to sin is not morally wrong; examples being forbidding drinking wine in order to avoid the sin of drunkenness (Ephesians 5:18; cf. 1 Timothy 5:23), forbidding incurring debt in order to avoid defaulting on a loan (Romans 13:8) and forbidding a person to quit their job in order to avoid failing to support his family (1 Timothy 5:8). The same is seen with the Pharisees in order to obey the command to keep the Sabbath day holy (Exodus 20:8), they declared any activity including doing good unlawful (Matthew 12:1-14).
We have to also consider those things that are always wrong and those that are wrong only in certain circumstances. If we find ourselves in a certain culture certain things viewed moral may be immoral or offense by one party (1 Corinthians 10:32). Even within the same culture people still view issues differently. Example being how some people view lateness as being rude. Some actions which are not wrong may become wrong if a negative perception is given to it and an offense is taken; but when offense is taken at God’s work we are not guilty (Mark 6:3).
Associating with evil is not the same as practicing evil. The Pharisees accused Jesus of associating with sinners, but they failed to know that participating in a non-sinful thing such as eating does not make one sin (Mark 2:16). Associating or identifying with sinners does not mean practicing sin and it is not sinful (1 Corinthians 9:19-23). The New King James version and other popular modern translations quotes 1 Thessalonians 5:22, as “abstain from every form of evil” not to abstain from all appearance of evil. So we are to abstain from evil not from what other people think is evil. We have to relate with sinners for the sake of the gospel, the forgiveness of sin as Paul teaches (1 Corinthians 5:10; 9:19-23) and as Jesus practiced (Mark 2:15-16; Luke 15:2).
Jesus teaches that His actions are examples (John 13:15), and Peter confirms this (1 Peter 2:21), just as Paul teaches us to follow his examples as he follows Jesus’ examples (1 Corinthians 11:1; Philippians 3:17; 4:9). These are in regards to righteousness and not matters of choice which is determined by circumstances. Example being that the apostles did not choose the replacement for Juda (Acts 1) in the same way that Jesus did for them. So what is prescribed is not what is described. If we say we should only do what Jesus did, then we should not drive cars because Jesus did not drive a car. This is done in many areas such as how to send people for missionary work, how to confront church leaders, why alleged miraculous gifts are valid and how to know God’s will. We should therefore experience the teaching of the apostles, not teach the experience of the apostles.
The Old testament is inspired by God, useful for teaching, reproof, correction and training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16) but it was not given specifically to govern the church. It is useful today to teach on God’s relationship with His people Israel (Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians 10:6-11). We are not under the law of Moses (Romans 6:14; 7:1-6) for Christ is the end for those who believe (Romans 10:4); so we should not put a yoke on disciples which no one can bear (Acts 15:10). Examples today are cases where people hold on the 10% tithe of the Old Testament rather than the New Testament teaching of giving (2 Corinthians 9) or the demand to keep the Sabbath day (Saturday) or the Lord’s day (Sunday) be kept holy rather than teaching our freedom to hold every day alike (Romans 14:5; Colossians 2:16-17).
What is wrong for us and what is wrong for others are not the same. Most commands of the New Testament are subjective not objective and focuses on the heart not the behaviour resulting from the heart. The command of husbands to love their wives (Ephesians 5:25) will have many potential personal applications but it must have the application of not divorcing her (except in instances of adultery or desertion). The principle of honouring all men and specifically our leaders is imperative (2 Peter 2:13-17) but honour must be expressed by submission to our leaders (except in instances when they order us to sin). Most New Testament commands are also positive but not measurable. Examples are: Loving, serving, giving, praying, exhorting, teaching, etc. are all commanded. Everyone person commits sins of omission by failing to do each of these commands faithfully (James 4:17). It is therefore judge when sin of omission has occurred for other people. Paul’s teaching in 2Corinthians 9:7 on giving is therefore a good guide for us on subjective commands.
When there is leadership responsibility, we have the role of making decisions that affect others; decisions may be rightly made that limit the freedom of others. When we have a God-given leadership role with responsibility for others it is different when we do not have. This will guide us not to wrongly accuse people of sin when they are calling us to limit our freedom on the basis of their leadership.
Some issues not explicitly stated as sin are sin. If an action which is not morally wrong is perceived as wrong by a person, he should not sin against his conscience (cf. Romans 14). In another case a person’s conscience may lead him to think that a sinful action is not morally wrong, here he must submit his view to the word of God. The second case is when a certain action necessarily leads to sin in all ways. An example is abortion which is not specifically stated in scripture. Since it is the intentional taking away of an innocent life, it is morally equivalent to sin. This is an action that must result in sin, so it is sin itself.
To go about this it is essential to distinguish between moral and non-moral issues as we are called to rebuke a brethren when necessary (Matthew 18:15-17; Galatians 6:1-2; 1 Thessalonians 5:14; 2 Timothy 4:2) to help one another. In order to do this we must know which actions are sinful and which are not as we find the scripture insisting on removing a sinful person from the fellowship (1 Corinthians 5) whereas Romans 14 calls the Christians not to pass judgement on non-sinful practices of others. In Roman 14 Paul described those who limited their freedom as being weak; they are just immature and their actions are not sinful. This distinction is necessary so that we do not unrighteously pass judgment on the freedoms of others and fall short of God’s will by approving sinful acts just like the Pharisees (Matthew 15:1-20; Matthew 23:13-36).
In order to distinguish between moral and non-moral issues, we have to distinguish between actual sin and potential sin. It is good for us to limit the possibility of us falling into sin (Proverbs 10:19), even though the possibility of sin is not sin itself. But it is wrong to judge anyone of sin when they have not sin, so should allow them exercise their freedom in non-moral issues (Romans 14:1-4). So a decision that may lead to sin is not morally wrong; examples being forbidding drinking wine in order to avoid the sin of drunkenness (Ephesians 5:18; cf. 1 Timothy 5:23), forbidding incurring debt in order to avoid defaulting on a loan (Romans 13:8) and forbidding a person to quit their job in order to avoid failing to support his family (1 Timothy 5:8). The same is seen with the Pharisees in order to obey the command to keep the Sabbath day holy (Exodus 20:8), they declared any activity including doing good unlawful (Matthew 12:1-14).
We have to also consider those things that are always wrong and those that are wrong only in certain circumstances. If we find ourselves in a certain culture certain things viewed moral may be immoral or offense by one party (1 Corinthians 10:32). Even within the same culture people still view issues differently. Example being how some people view lateness as being rude. Some actions which are not wrong may become wrong if a negative perception is given to it and an offense is taken; but when offense is taken at God’s work we are not guilty (Mark 6:3).
Associating with evil is not the same as practicing evil. The Pharisees accused Jesus of associating with sinners, but they failed to know that participating in a non-sinful thing such as eating does not make one sin (Mark 2:16). Associating or identifying with sinners does not mean practicing sin and it is not sinful (1 Corinthians 9:19-23). The New King James version and other popular modern translations quotes 1 Thessalonians 5:22, as “abstain from every form of evil” not to abstain from all appearance of evil. So we are to abstain from evil not from what other people think is evil. We have to relate with sinners for the sake of the gospel, the forgiveness of sin as Paul teaches (1 Corinthians 5:10; 9:19-23) and as Jesus practiced (Mark 2:15-16; Luke 15:2).
Jesus teaches that His actions are examples (John 13:15), and Peter confirms this (1 Peter 2:21), just as Paul teaches us to follow his examples as he follows Jesus’ examples (1 Corinthians 11:1; Philippians 3:17; 4:9). These are in regards to righteousness and not matters of choice which is determined by circumstances. Example being that the apostles did not choose the replacement for Juda (Acts 1) in the same way that Jesus did for them. So what is prescribed is not what is described. If we say we should only do what Jesus did, then we should not drive cars because Jesus did not drive a car. This is done in many areas such as how to send people for missionary work, how to confront church leaders, why alleged miraculous gifts are valid and how to know God’s will. We should therefore experience the teaching of the apostles, not teach the experience of the apostles.
The Old testament is inspired by God, useful for teaching, reproof, correction and training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16) but it was not given specifically to govern the church. It is useful today to teach on God’s relationship with His people Israel (Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians 10:6-11). We are not under the law of Moses (Romans 6:14; 7:1-6) for Christ is the end for those who believe (Romans 10:4); so we should not put a yoke on disciples which no one can bear (Acts 15:10). Examples today are cases where people hold on the 10% tithe of the Old Testament rather than the New Testament teaching of giving (2 Corinthians 9) or the demand to keep the Sabbath day (Saturday) or the Lord’s day (Sunday) be kept holy rather than teaching our freedom to hold every day alike (Romans 14:5; Colossians 2:16-17).
What is wrong for us and what is wrong for others are not the same. Most commands of the New Testament are subjective not objective and focuses on the heart not the behaviour resulting from the heart. The command of husbands to love their wives (Ephesians 5:25) will have many potential personal applications but it must have the application of not divorcing her (except in instances of adultery or desertion). The principle of honouring all men and specifically our leaders is imperative (2 Peter 2:13-17) but honour must be expressed by submission to our leaders (except in instances when they order us to sin). Most New Testament commands are also positive but not measurable. Examples are: Loving, serving, giving, praying, exhorting, teaching, etc. are all commanded. Everyone person commits sins of omission by failing to do each of these commands faithfully (James 4:17). It is therefore judge when sin of omission has occurred for other people. Paul’s teaching in 2Corinthians 9:7 on giving is therefore a good guide for us on subjective commands.
When there is leadership responsibility, we have the role of making decisions that affect others; decisions may be rightly made that limit the freedom of others. When we have a God-given leadership role with responsibility for others it is different when we do not have. This will guide us not to wrongly accuse people of sin when they are calling us to limit our freedom on the basis of their leadership.
Some issues not explicitly stated as sin are sin. If an action which is not morally wrong is perceived as wrong by a person, he should not sin against his conscience (cf. Romans 14). In another case a person’s conscience may lead him to think that a sinful action is not morally wrong, here he must submit his view to the word of God. The second case is when a certain action necessarily leads to sin in all ways. An example is abortion which is not specifically stated in scripture. Since it is the intentional taking away of an innocent life, it is morally equivalent to sin. This is an action that must result in sin, so it is sin itself.
The Christian’s Obligation to the Law of Moses
The word of God is to be obeyed but some of the Old Testament laws are challenging to apply such as the law of capital punishment for incorrigible children (Exodus 21:18-21), adultery (Leviticus20:10) and false teachers (Deuteronomy 13:1-11). The question whether it is wrong for a man to trim his beards (Leviticus 19:27) or whether he can wear clothes mixed with linen and wool (Deuteronomy 22:11) also comes in. some Old Testament laws have been specifically discontinued while many have been repeated in the New Testament. Many Christians choose which to follow from the Old Testament. It was in the meeting in Jerusalem that the apostles and elders clarified on how to apply the Old Testament to the church.
On the issue of circumcision, they discussed on how the law of Moses applies to the life of a Christian (Acts 15:6). Worth noting that salvation is by faith from the preaching of the church from the beginning as Peter’s testimony (Acts 10-11) confirm that circumcision and the law of Moses were not required in contrast to the worries of the Pharisees (Acts 15:5). But the directions given to the Gentiles were to abstain from fornication (1 Corinthians 6:18; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3), from blood, from things strangled and from things sacrificed to idols (1 Corinthians 10:25-29; 32). In respect to fornication, it was sinful but the other practices were not inherently sinful but would, in the Jewish context, be a provocation; as we find Jesus saying all food is clean (Mark 7:19) in addition to Peter’s vision (Acts 10-11).
We also note the Christians are not under the mosaic law because it was only given to Israel and not to the church. The church is distinct from Israel chronologically as Jesus spoke of the church as future (Matthew 16:18) in his earthly ministry, the coming of the Holy spirit (Acts 1:5) and its fulfilment (Acts 11:15-16); and since the baptism of the Holy spirit is putting Christian into the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13) which is the church (Colossians 1:18) we can say the church did not exist until the Pentecost (Acts 2). The establishment of Christ is the cornerstone of the church (Ephesians 2:20-23) and the church is delivered to him at the rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:16-18), as the dead are raised in Christ; unique with the church and not Israel as the Old testament people will also be raised according to Daniel 12:2. In addition to the distinction in chronology, the church is distinct from Israel in Citations. After the church was established Israel is referenced as distinct from the Gentiles (Acts 3:12; 4:8-10; 5:21-35 and 21:28; 1 Corinthians 10:32; Romans 10:1). The Jews and non-Jews who believed in the church age are one body, the church (Ephesians 2:11-23; Colossians 3:11), and the non believing Jews are still a distinct people for whom God has a special plan (Romans 11). The church is not the people to whom the mosaic law was made and so the law does not apply to the church. The commands of the church makes it distinct from Israel as certain commands given to the church were not given to Israel (eg the Ordinance of the Lord’s supper and baptism), and the commands of circumcision were not given to the church. Much of the Old testament laws have been restated in the New Testament but some are not; as we find from the ten commandments that nine have been restated in the New testament with the command for keeping the Sabbath day holy not obligated (Romans 14:1-5; Colossians 2:16).
Christ is the end of the law to believers (Romans 10:4) and so Christians are not under the mosaic law. The law is completed because Christ has fulfilled the law perfectly (Matthew 5:17; Hebrews 4:15), and since Christ’s righteousness is imputed to Christians (2 Corinthians 5:21; Romans 4) believer’s have a fulfilment of the law imputed as well. Christians are only guided by the law of Christ (Romans 8:2; 1 Corinthians 9:21; Galatians 6:2; James 1:25; 2:8, 12), and this law is to love our neighbours as ourselves (John 13:35; cf. Matthew 22:39); called the royal law (James 2:8), as love does no wrong to the neighbour (Romans 13:8-10).
Haven died to the law (Romans 7:1-6) through Christ Christians are not under the mosaic law. The picture of the relationship we have with the law is seen in Romans 7:2-3, as we have died with Christ (2Corinthians 5:14-15; Colossians 2:20; 3:3) and so our obligation to the law is ended (Galatians 2:19-20). It is we who have died (Matthew 5:17-19), not the law and so it is not abolished, so all Christians have died with Christ and have been released from the law.
The replacement of the Old covenant (Exodus 31:12-17), represented by the Sabbath by the New covenant (Luke 22:20) represented by the Lord’s super indicates that Christians are not under the mosaic law as seen the contrast with the later law of Moses and the New covenant that leads to life not death (2Corinthians 3:1-11). The ministry of death and condemnation is replaced by the ministry of spirit in terms of surpassing glory. The New
Testament forms the code of conduct for believers in the church age, some of which
are identical to what was required under the Law.
When the priesthood is changed the law must change (Hebrews 7:12), and because the priesthood is changed, Christians are not under the Mosaic Law. Christ is our priest (Hebrews 2:17; 3:1; 4:14; 6:20), and he was from the tribe of Juda, not a Levi and so the law must have been changed because if the law of priesthood remain he would not have been qualified to act as our priestly mediator (1 Timothy 1:5) to whom we pray through as high priest (Hebrews 4:14-16), and the Old has been replaced by the new (Hebrews 8:7-9); the old completely taken away for the new to exist (Hebrews 10:9).
Paul was not under the mosaic law and so Christians are not under the mosaic law (1 Corinthians 9:19-23), as he notes that if one is led by the spirit then he is not under the law (Galatians 5:18). Moreover he notes that the purpose of the law was to guide Jews to Christ and so Christians are not under the law (Galatians 3:23-26), and God gave laws to govern His people during different periods of time. This we find in that it was not inherently immoral for Adam and Eve to eat from the tree in the garden but it violated God’s direction for them and it is not necessarily righteous to build an ark, but it was God’s command to Noah.
The Old Testament has an important role in the life of a Christian as all scriptures is inspired by God and profitable (2 Timothy 3:16). Information on how God worked in the lives of other people is to instruct and encourage us and being released from the law should not discourage us from reading the word rigorously, because the Old Testament is guide us from temptation (1 Corinthians 10:1-12), and instructs us to persevere with hope (Romans 15:4). We also learn from the Old Testament wisdom books such as Psalms and proverbs, as well as learn more of God’s character from the Old Testament books. While God is revealed more clearly in the New Testament through Christ (Colossians 2:17; Hebrews 10:1), the Old Testament was still accurate and profitable (2 Timothy 3:16-17). God serves mankind in a like manner as parents do to children (Matthew 7:9-11; Hebrews 12:5-10), with different household rules according to the maturity of the children. New rules instructions come in and others are removed as the children grow; and so god treats people differently at different times to develop them.
On the issue of circumcision, they discussed on how the law of Moses applies to the life of a Christian (Acts 15:6). Worth noting that salvation is by faith from the preaching of the church from the beginning as Peter’s testimony (Acts 10-11) confirm that circumcision and the law of Moses were not required in contrast to the worries of the Pharisees (Acts 15:5). But the directions given to the Gentiles were to abstain from fornication (1 Corinthians 6:18; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3), from blood, from things strangled and from things sacrificed to idols (1 Corinthians 10:25-29; 32). In respect to fornication, it was sinful but the other practices were not inherently sinful but would, in the Jewish context, be a provocation; as we find Jesus saying all food is clean (Mark 7:19) in addition to Peter’s vision (Acts 10-11).
We also note the Christians are not under the mosaic law because it was only given to Israel and not to the church. The church is distinct from Israel chronologically as Jesus spoke of the church as future (Matthew 16:18) in his earthly ministry, the coming of the Holy spirit (Acts 1:5) and its fulfilment (Acts 11:15-16); and since the baptism of the Holy spirit is putting Christian into the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13) which is the church (Colossians 1:18) we can say the church did not exist until the Pentecost (Acts 2). The establishment of Christ is the cornerstone of the church (Ephesians 2:20-23) and the church is delivered to him at the rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:16-18), as the dead are raised in Christ; unique with the church and not Israel as the Old testament people will also be raised according to Daniel 12:2. In addition to the distinction in chronology, the church is distinct from Israel in Citations. After the church was established Israel is referenced as distinct from the Gentiles (Acts 3:12; 4:8-10; 5:21-35 and 21:28; 1 Corinthians 10:32; Romans 10:1). The Jews and non-Jews who believed in the church age are one body, the church (Ephesians 2:11-23; Colossians 3:11), and the non believing Jews are still a distinct people for whom God has a special plan (Romans 11). The church is not the people to whom the mosaic law was made and so the law does not apply to the church. The commands of the church makes it distinct from Israel as certain commands given to the church were not given to Israel (eg the Ordinance of the Lord’s supper and baptism), and the commands of circumcision were not given to the church. Much of the Old testament laws have been restated in the New Testament but some are not; as we find from the ten commandments that nine have been restated in the New testament with the command for keeping the Sabbath day holy not obligated (Romans 14:1-5; Colossians 2:16).
Christ is the end of the law to believers (Romans 10:4) and so Christians are not under the mosaic law. The law is completed because Christ has fulfilled the law perfectly (Matthew 5:17; Hebrews 4:15), and since Christ’s righteousness is imputed to Christians (2 Corinthians 5:21; Romans 4) believer’s have a fulfilment of the law imputed as well. Christians are only guided by the law of Christ (Romans 8:2; 1 Corinthians 9:21; Galatians 6:2; James 1:25; 2:8, 12), and this law is to love our neighbours as ourselves (John 13:35; cf. Matthew 22:39); called the royal law (James 2:8), as love does no wrong to the neighbour (Romans 13:8-10).
Haven died to the law (Romans 7:1-6) through Christ Christians are not under the mosaic law. The picture of the relationship we have with the law is seen in Romans 7:2-3, as we have died with Christ (2Corinthians 5:14-15; Colossians 2:20; 3:3) and so our obligation to the law is ended (Galatians 2:19-20). It is we who have died (Matthew 5:17-19), not the law and so it is not abolished, so all Christians have died with Christ and have been released from the law.
The replacement of the Old covenant (Exodus 31:12-17), represented by the Sabbath by the New covenant (Luke 22:20) represented by the Lord’s super indicates that Christians are not under the mosaic law as seen the contrast with the later law of Moses and the New covenant that leads to life not death (2Corinthians 3:1-11). The ministry of death and condemnation is replaced by the ministry of spirit in terms of surpassing glory. The New
Testament forms the code of conduct for believers in the church age, some of which
are identical to what was required under the Law.
When the priesthood is changed the law must change (Hebrews 7:12), and because the priesthood is changed, Christians are not under the Mosaic Law. Christ is our priest (Hebrews 2:17; 3:1; 4:14; 6:20), and he was from the tribe of Juda, not a Levi and so the law must have been changed because if the law of priesthood remain he would not have been qualified to act as our priestly mediator (1 Timothy 1:5) to whom we pray through as high priest (Hebrews 4:14-16), and the Old has been replaced by the new (Hebrews 8:7-9); the old completely taken away for the new to exist (Hebrews 10:9).
Paul was not under the mosaic law and so Christians are not under the mosaic law (1 Corinthians 9:19-23), as he notes that if one is led by the spirit then he is not under the law (Galatians 5:18). Moreover he notes that the purpose of the law was to guide Jews to Christ and so Christians are not under the law (Galatians 3:23-26), and God gave laws to govern His people during different periods of time. This we find in that it was not inherently immoral for Adam and Eve to eat from the tree in the garden but it violated God’s direction for them and it is not necessarily righteous to build an ark, but it was God’s command to Noah.
The Old Testament has an important role in the life of a Christian as all scriptures is inspired by God and profitable (2 Timothy 3:16). Information on how God worked in the lives of other people is to instruct and encourage us and being released from the law should not discourage us from reading the word rigorously, because the Old Testament is guide us from temptation (1 Corinthians 10:1-12), and instructs us to persevere with hope (Romans 15:4). We also learn from the Old Testament wisdom books such as Psalms and proverbs, as well as learn more of God’s character from the Old Testament books. While God is revealed more clearly in the New Testament through Christ (Colossians 2:17; Hebrews 10:1), the Old Testament was still accurate and profitable (2 Timothy 3:16-17). God serves mankind in a like manner as parents do to children (Matthew 7:9-11; Hebrews 12:5-10), with different household rules according to the maturity of the children. New rules instructions come in and others are removed as the children grow; and so god treats people differently at different times to develop them.
Wednesday 8 April 2009
CHURCH LEADERSHIP
The Bible tells us that a church has to have leaders who have authority over the congregation which has to be subjective to them (Hebrews 13:17). This authority is not given to one individual but to a group of people as indicated by the Bible as we see the use of plural in the word leaders. At the beginning of a congregation there might be a leader but this leader is just temporal as we see in Titus 1:5 where Titus was instructed by Paul to appoint leaders. Elders were appointed for the oversight of each individual church as we see Paul and Barnabas meeting with the apostles and elders (plural) of the church (singular) in Acts 15:1-5, and we also see Paul and Barnabas appointing elders of the church in Acts 14:23 at the end of their missionary journey. We also see the plurality of the elders in the church in Acts 20:17-35 and 1 Timothy 5:17; James 5:16; and 1Peter 5:1-2. so the authority of the New testament church did not rest on the congregation nor on an individual but on a group of leaders called elders. The elders had several rules and so have three different names meaning the same; elders (PRESBUTEROS) Acts 20:17, bishop (EPISKOPOS) as overseers, and pastor (POIMEN) who were shepherd of the church of God (Acts 20:28). So elders emphasises the maturity of the leaders, the word pastor emphasises their care for those given to their care while the term bishop emphasises their function as overseers.
Elders are to oversee the church with the loving care of a shepherd and with the maturity of an elder. So they have to be available to the Lord to protect the church and to guide the church. So the function of the elder is therefore to protect himself and the Church (Acts 20:28) from ignorance, partiality, error and from false teachers (Titus 1:9-10). Another function is to guide as we see the congregation asked to be subject to elders (Hebrews 13:17); something which can only be possible if the elder is guides and leads the fellowship to maturity in Christ as Paul calls this labour (Colossians 1:29). The elders would likely concentrate on prayer and teaching of the word of God as they exercise these functions not to be distracted (Acts6).
The qualities of a church elder is a demonstration of leadership abilities as they also show the desire of being an overseer (1Timothy 3:1), and willingness (1Peter 5:2) to do the work. They must have the ability and take care of the church of God (1Timothy 3:4) through the ministering of the word to the church and to those who oppose it (Titus 1:9) to maintain the moral, doctrinal and directional purity of the church. The elder must show example (1Peter5:3) as overseer to the congregation beyond reproach (1Timothy 3:2) in the things of the Lord. Anyone can be charged falsely ( Matthew 5:11-12), but the intent is that the elders life should not give basis for a charge, as we see from the qualities given by Paul in 1 Timothy 3:1-7, Titus 1:5-9); husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, orderly, hospitable, able to teach, not given to wine, not pugnacious, gentle, not contentious, free from love of money, manage his household well, not a new convert, good relationship with outsiders, having faithful children, with no rebellion, not self-willed, not quick tempered, loving what is good, just, devout, and self-controlled.
Elders were appointed by the church planter as seen in Acts 14, or their designates as in Titus 1:5. so they were not selected by the people who made up the congregation but by those who had the responsibility of oversight for the congregation. Because the elders have the responsibility for the welfare of the congregation, they would naturally carry the responsibility of selecting additional elders. The congregation is commanded to be subject to their leaders because they have been given great responsibility; oversight of souls and hence shall be held accountable. The congregation also have the biblical responsibility of supporting the elders financially (Galatians 6:6; 1 Corinthians 9:1-18; 1 Timothy 5:17) as they have the responsibility of the congregation.
The role of the Deacons is to serve in certain church ministries and advise the elders in their shepherding role. As in Acts 6 the apostles knew that without the seven men selected to oversee specific task, they would be distracted from prayer and the ministry of the word. Some people consider them as the first Deacons since the word means ‘servant’. So Deacons must demonstrate a servant heart in their character and ministry. Acts 6:3 notes that they have to be yielded to the spirit of Christ and so the character qualities in 1 Timothy 3:8-13 also apply to them. They also have to be full of wisdom to perform their duties prudently and effectively. In this like they have to be tested (1 Timothy 3:10) to make sure that they are wise and faithful to the ministry which they will lead. A woman can be accepted as Deacon so far as the ministry in which she is faithfully ministering would not be exercising authority over the men (1 Timonthy 2:12). The word Deacon in Greek is DIAKONOS, which was used for men and women. We find references to women deacons in the early church. According to the Letter of Pliny, the governor of Bithnia about A.D. 112, the Emperor Trajan tortured two Christian handmaidens who were called deacons. Pheobe is called a servant, or deaconess, in Romans 16:1.
Elders are to oversee the church with the loving care of a shepherd and with the maturity of an elder. So they have to be available to the Lord to protect the church and to guide the church. So the function of the elder is therefore to protect himself and the Church (Acts 20:28) from ignorance, partiality, error and from false teachers (Titus 1:9-10). Another function is to guide as we see the congregation asked to be subject to elders (Hebrews 13:17); something which can only be possible if the elder is guides and leads the fellowship to maturity in Christ as Paul calls this labour (Colossians 1:29). The elders would likely concentrate on prayer and teaching of the word of God as they exercise these functions not to be distracted (Acts6).
The qualities of a church elder is a demonstration of leadership abilities as they also show the desire of being an overseer (1Timothy 3:1), and willingness (1Peter 5:2) to do the work. They must have the ability and take care of the church of God (1Timothy 3:4) through the ministering of the word to the church and to those who oppose it (Titus 1:9) to maintain the moral, doctrinal and directional purity of the church. The elder must show example (1Peter5:3) as overseer to the congregation beyond reproach (1Timothy 3:2) in the things of the Lord. Anyone can be charged falsely ( Matthew 5:11-12), but the intent is that the elders life should not give basis for a charge, as we see from the qualities given by Paul in 1 Timothy 3:1-7, Titus 1:5-9); husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, orderly, hospitable, able to teach, not given to wine, not pugnacious, gentle, not contentious, free from love of money, manage his household well, not a new convert, good relationship with outsiders, having faithful children, with no rebellion, not self-willed, not quick tempered, loving what is good, just, devout, and self-controlled.
Elders were appointed by the church planter as seen in Acts 14, or their designates as in Titus 1:5. so they were not selected by the people who made up the congregation but by those who had the responsibility of oversight for the congregation. Because the elders have the responsibility for the welfare of the congregation, they would naturally carry the responsibility of selecting additional elders. The congregation is commanded to be subject to their leaders because they have been given great responsibility; oversight of souls and hence shall be held accountable. The congregation also have the biblical responsibility of supporting the elders financially (Galatians 6:6; 1 Corinthians 9:1-18; 1 Timothy 5:17) as they have the responsibility of the congregation.
The role of the Deacons is to serve in certain church ministries and advise the elders in their shepherding role. As in Acts 6 the apostles knew that without the seven men selected to oversee specific task, they would be distracted from prayer and the ministry of the word. Some people consider them as the first Deacons since the word means ‘servant’. So Deacons must demonstrate a servant heart in their character and ministry. Acts 6:3 notes that they have to be yielded to the spirit of Christ and so the character qualities in 1 Timothy 3:8-13 also apply to them. They also have to be full of wisdom to perform their duties prudently and effectively. In this like they have to be tested (1 Timothy 3:10) to make sure that they are wise and faithful to the ministry which they will lead. A woman can be accepted as Deacon so far as the ministry in which she is faithfully ministering would not be exercising authority over the men (1 Timonthy 2:12). The word Deacon in Greek is DIAKONOS, which was used for men and women. We find references to women deacons in the early church. According to the Letter of Pliny, the governor of Bithnia about A.D. 112, the Emperor Trajan tortured two Christian handmaidens who were called deacons. Pheobe is called a servant, or deaconess, in Romans 16:1.
CHURCH DISCIPLINE
Matthew 18:15-20 tells us what to do when a brother is engaged in wilful sin. The first step is to confront the brother with the word of God (Hebrew 4:12) in private (Matthew 18:15). Our confrontation should be aimed at edifying our brother (Ephesians 4:29), while holding to counsel (Proverbs12:15) in order not to wrongly or ineffectively rebuke our brother. If the brother does not change then we move on to the second step which is to multiply confront with two or more individuals as witnesses. They are there to confirm the act and to confirm that this act is out of God’s teaching and needs repentance (Matthew 18:16). It would be good if they know the brother well and in an act of love and concern, if this brother does not repent then step three has to be taken. Here the situation is brought to the Church (Matthew 18:17) so that with the help of the relationship in Church God can persuade him to repentance. It should not be every member of the church but dedicated persons who could be church elders who have a spiritual oversight of the Church who will decide how to proceed to minister to the individual. If the person persists in the sin, the fourth step is to cut all social relationship with the person (Matthew 18:17) and so there is disfellowshiping with him; and the Bible also tells us even not to eat with him (1Corinthians 5:11). We are not expected to be rude anyway but to keep our distance socially from such a person until he repents; the hope is that this will lead the person to repentance.
The purpose of church discipline is because our Lord instructed us in Mathew 18:15-20 and it is supported by 1 Corinthians 5:1-13, Titus 3:10-11 and 1 Thessalonians 5:14; and so in like manner we are loving our neighbours as ourselves. The reason for church discipline is for restoration in order to have true fellowship with the lost one (1John 1:7). This is also for the purity of the church to spare others from the infection of the sin (1 Corinthians 5:1-13). We discipline our children because we love them and feel responsible for them (Hebrew12:7-8) and so we have to do same for a church family member. Wilful sin is the action which is performed in conscious disregard of what the Scriptures clearly teach as
wrong. So to discipline is showing love and holiness of God ((Matthew 22:39-40; 2 John 5-6). We are to confront any brother in Christ who is willingly sinning, it does not matter whether we go to the same local church but in the body of Christ he is a brother. If the individual is in another local church where church discipline is ignored we still have the possibility to go and minister to the brother and even with one or more individuals even though the local church might not come in. As part of the body of Christ we are supposed to exercise discipline because we are holy temples of God and should act accordingly (1Corinthians 3:16; Ephesians 2:21), and if we fail then the Lord in his loving-kindness will discipline us (Hebrews 12:6-13). So if a church does not confront sin it is unthinkable and disobedient as Paul shows its seriousness in 1 Corinthians 5:1-13. for church discipline to come in the sin must be wilful; the scriptures tell us what to do for the other cases in 1 Thessalonians 5:14. The sin should also be an action expressly forbidden in God’s word (1 Cor. 5:9-11). Sinful thoughts cannot be put under church discipline because we are limited in knowledge on what is in a man’s heart (1 Samuel 16:17) and what is in a man’s heart will be expressed (Matthew 15:15-20), so church discipline will only come in when it is expressed outwardly in word or in deed. So we cannot discipline too on the basis of conscience (Romans 14:1-12) say a man who thinks a certain television program is not good but watched by a brother but we can discipline if he steals a television set because the Bible says clearly that “do not steal”. In like manner a man might not be discipline for not loving his wife but would be disciplined for unloving act like being unfaithful to his wife. The process of discipline ceases when the person repents and is restored as seen in Matthew 18:15-20, and 2 Corinthians 2:5-11. Discipline should always be done with care not to harm the unity of the fellowship due to factiousness (Titus 3:10-11).
The purpose of church discipline is because our Lord instructed us in Mathew 18:15-20 and it is supported by 1 Corinthians 5:1-13, Titus 3:10-11 and 1 Thessalonians 5:14; and so in like manner we are loving our neighbours as ourselves. The reason for church discipline is for restoration in order to have true fellowship with the lost one (1John 1:7). This is also for the purity of the church to spare others from the infection of the sin (1 Corinthians 5:1-13). We discipline our children because we love them and feel responsible for them (Hebrew12:7-8) and so we have to do same for a church family member. Wilful sin is the action which is performed in conscious disregard of what the Scriptures clearly teach as
wrong. So to discipline is showing love and holiness of God ((Matthew 22:39-40; 2 John 5-6). We are to confront any brother in Christ who is willingly sinning, it does not matter whether we go to the same local church but in the body of Christ he is a brother. If the individual is in another local church where church discipline is ignored we still have the possibility to go and minister to the brother and even with one or more individuals even though the local church might not come in. As part of the body of Christ we are supposed to exercise discipline because we are holy temples of God and should act accordingly (1Corinthians 3:16; Ephesians 2:21), and if we fail then the Lord in his loving-kindness will discipline us (Hebrews 12:6-13). So if a church does not confront sin it is unthinkable and disobedient as Paul shows its seriousness in 1 Corinthians 5:1-13. for church discipline to come in the sin must be wilful; the scriptures tell us what to do for the other cases in 1 Thessalonians 5:14. The sin should also be an action expressly forbidden in God’s word (1 Cor. 5:9-11). Sinful thoughts cannot be put under church discipline because we are limited in knowledge on what is in a man’s heart (1 Samuel 16:17) and what is in a man’s heart will be expressed (Matthew 15:15-20), so church discipline will only come in when it is expressed outwardly in word or in deed. So we cannot discipline too on the basis of conscience (Romans 14:1-12) say a man who thinks a certain television program is not good but watched by a brother but we can discipline if he steals a television set because the Bible says clearly that “do not steal”. In like manner a man might not be discipline for not loving his wife but would be disciplined for unloving act like being unfaithful to his wife. The process of discipline ceases when the person repents and is restored as seen in Matthew 18:15-20, and 2 Corinthians 2:5-11. Discipline should always be done with care not to harm the unity of the fellowship due to factiousness (Titus 3:10-11).
ABORTION
Should we?
Should we not?
Our God says “YOU SHALL NOT KILL”
Do you love God? Do you love your fellow human being? Then our God who created us all says “you shall not kill”.
Abortion is an operation or other intervention to end a pregnancy by removing an embryo or foetus from the womb. Technically, the medical field considers miscarriage as abortion; reason why they talk of voluntary termination of pregnancy and involuntary termination of pregnancy. In general term and usage the word abortion whether used in our daily life or in a technical field such as computer science, aerospace or medicine, is an offensive term for something so badly done or made that is a complete failure. In this text, we shall mean voluntary termination of a pregnancy when we talk about abortion, and miscarriage when it concerns involuntary termination of a pregnancy. Abortion is not good in itself and it is a sin. We shall look at reasons why we stand on this claim from the Biblical and philosophical view point.
Biblical view of abortion
The biblical reasons why abortion is morally wrong and therefore a sin are based on the fact that we are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27; 9:6) and the fact that a baby in the womb is a person. Psalms 139:13-16 indicates to us that the unformed baby in the womb is a person as David noted that God knew and planned everything about him even when he was still in the womb. In Psalms 51:5 David notes in his repentance that he had the sinful nature even at his conception, so he had the image of God even at conception because he was an actual being at conception, and only actual people are sinful, with a soul in need of redemption.
The bible also tells us that abortion (intentional termination of pregnancy) is punishable as we see in Exodus 21:22-25, as it is related to the law of retaliation. The first verses are not talking about miscarriages as the words used here in Hebrew do not mean miscarriage, as seen in Genesis 31:38; Exodus 23:26; Job 2:10; and Hosea 9:14. So killing an unborn baby is same as killing a born baby. We learn from scripture that a baby in the womb can leap with human emotion and joy, so the baby in the womb is a person (Luke1:41, 44). The Bible also tells us that Jesus was conceived by the Holy spirit in the womb, so his incarnation began at conception (Matthew1:20). Jeremiah was called by God while in the womb (Jeremiah 1:5 ). This just shows that they were people in the womb, not a thing which anyone can do away with at will. From this rapid Biblical overview on abortion we learn that:
· The human being is made in the image of God
· The Baby in the womb has human emotions
· God called some of His prophets while in the womb hence considering them as complete humans
· So, a Baby in the womb is a person
· Killing an unborn baby is same as killing a born baby
Philosophical view of abortion
From the philosophical point of view an embryo is genetically unique from the point of conception and so is not part of the woman because the DNA of the embryo or foetus is different from that of the mother. This embryo, its foetus and the adult developed from the embryo are identical genetically. We did not come from embryos, or foetus, or babies; we were embryos, we were foetus, we were babies and so personhood starts at conception. Genetical uniqueness is a proof that a distinct individual exists but one must not be genetically unique to be a person; identical twins are not genetically unique but they are persons. So the question of “it is my baby” or “it is my body material” so I have the right to do away with it is very wrong because the baby conceived in you is not part of you and is a unique person. Some people think since we know when life begins it can give us a clue on when to abort. Years back life was considered to end when the heart stops beating and since medics have shown that at 18th day in the womb the heart starts beating; some think before 18 days they can abort.
In like manner some think because brain waves can be detected in a foetus at the 42nd day, and if life was considered to begin with the brain wave then it will reduce legal abortion. The location of the baby in the womb does not negate personhood. So ethically, if the baby can exist outside the womb then it should be allowed to live but it does not mean that the baby inside the womb is not a person. In another sense the fact that the person (baby) depends on the woman does not negate the personhood of the baby because viability alone does not determine personhood. The woman has no right to do away with the life of the baby. Even if the baby is part of her, she has no right to kill herself or to chop off part of herself because we know it is morally wrong. Even some adults are dependent on others for their care; and so the responsibilities of mothers are assumed. A poor quality of life does not negate personhood. So the fact that a child might have significant birth defect, or that the child will lack care, love, provision, etc does not give any reason to terminate a pregnancy because if the child is born no amount of these can justify the termination of the child’s life. Some say the baby in the womb has no personal consciousness as if what makes a person is his consciousness. A person in coma is still a person even though he/she has no consciousness, and so one has no right to kill any of them because they have no personal consciousness.
As a matter of fact babies have consciousness as the brain waves become active and self-awareness develops as time goes on; the baby can feel pressure, pain etc. An inability to be certain when life begins does not demand the legalization of abortion. The burden of proof in law is on the prosecution. The benefit of doubt is with the defense. This is also known as a presumption of innocence. So we should bury a body we are sure that is dead not that which we think may be dead. So the burden of proof regarding the personhood of the foetus rests with those who contemplate the termination of the pregnancy, with those who facilitate the termination of the pregnancy and with those who fail to oppose the legal termination of pregnancies. Some people say abortion solves unwanted pregnancies since unwanted babies are not to be born. What solves unwanted pregnancies is adoption, because the unwanted pregnancy becomes wanted children when born and many families would be happy to raise the children. The fact that we do not want a person does not give us any right to terminate the life of that person. From the philosophical view, we learn that:
· The child conceived in the woman is not part of the woman but a unique person since the child has his or her genetic composition which is purely different from that of the mother. So the mother has no right over the child’s life as if it is part of her body. You do not even have the right to kill yourself or chop off part of yourself.
· Is there a time limit when we can commit abortion? Some will say 18 days,42 days and so on. When does life begin? Who can tell when God gives life in a foetus?
· It is not because the baby depends on the woman that she can take away the child’s life. Some adults are dependent on others to live, should they be killed because they are dependent?
· A poor quality of life does not negate personhood and so you have no right to kill a baby because the child might have some birth defects, lack provisions or love, etc.
· Consciousness does not define a person. Just as we cannot decide on our own to end the life of an unconscious person or a person in comma, we have no right to terminate the life of e foetus.
· What solves unwanted pregnancy is not abortion but adoption because unwanted pregnancy becomes wanted children when born and many families will be happy to raise the children.
Our response to abortion should be persuasive not forceful because it is a problem of morality for those opposing abortion. We have to be prayerful asking God to change the hearts of the people concerned as we talk to them (Matthew 28:19-20) with grace, gentleness, and reverence (Colossians 4:5-6; 1Peter 3:15).
In the time of Jesus there was also abortion but Jesus and the apostles knew that their task was redemptive not political so they did not seek to moralize the unconverted but to convert the immoral; Christ did not make it their ministry to change the government laws or to revolt but to change the hearts of individuals, to change them from sin to faith in Jesus Christ. We are to reprove, rebuke and exhort, with great patience and instruction (2 Timothy 4:2); in order to express God’s love to his people, maturing them towards Christ’s righteousness. We as followers of Christ have to make the message of the forgiveness of sins known and received among the world.
Now to you who is taking or committing abortion, you have read and are aware of what you are doing. You know the consequence of sin is punishment and God will not be happy with anyone who despises His orders (DO NOT KILL). For you; who claims innocent and had already done it. Jesus has His hands open and He is asking you now to repent and move in the light because He is the light and He is the way. Withdraw from your thought and be transformed! DO NOT MAKE A MISTAKE!
Want to talk to someone or read more?
You are free to download and distribute from this website on condition that you do not modify the content in part or in full.
However, if you need the hard copy of any article or book in the website, write to us through the email below and indicate your contact address.
Weblog: http://njinihans-about-god.blogspot.com
Email: hansnn06@gmail.com
Marriage and Divorce
The Bible teaches that marriage is an institution from God and that the husband and wife are one flesh (Genesis 2:24) and no one should separate (Matthew 19:4-6). These same verses teach that marriage is between one man and one woman. We are also told that marriage which is designed by God is good (proverbs 18:22) and this is used to picture God’s relationship with Israel (Isaiah 49:18; 62:5), as well as Christ’s relationship with the Church (1 Corinthians 11:2; Ephesians 5:32). The bible describes people who have been single (Matthew 19:12) for the sake of the kingdom and reasons to remain single in light of present difficulties (1 Corinthians 7:25-35); so marriage is not for everyone. The bible teaches that marriage forms a new family (Geneses 2:24) in which the man is the head of the wife and the family (Ephesians 5:22-24). Ignoring this has served to damage marriages and more importantly, has dishonoured the Lord by ignoring His Word. Marriage involves leaving, cleaving and becoming one flesh (Genesis 2:24). So it is a physical union which can be dissolved (1 Corinthians 6:16) but it is intended to be inseparable (Matthew 19:6); and so Christians must marry Christians (1 Corinthians 7:39; 2 Corinthians 6:14).
Covenants are made to be kept (Numbers 30:2; Ecclesiastes 5:4-6) and we are told that marriage is a covenant (Proverbs 2:17; Malachi 2:14). More over God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16) so marriage is meant to last as long as the partners live. So divorce is discouraged and if people are in physical danger in their relationship, separation would be advised rather than divorce. With the difference in what God intends and what He allows we find some exceptions such as when the spouse commits immorality (Matthew 19:3-12) in relation to the law of Moses (Deuteronomy 24:1-4). Immorality in this case should be known not assumed, because marriage should not be terminated on the bases of suspicion. Lust is sin as Jesus attributes it to adultery in the heart (Matthew 5:28), but it is not technically an act of immorality. Another situation which allows for divorce is when a spouse who is not a Christian abandons the husband or wife (1 Corinthians 7:15). In all these situations the believer does not initiate the divorce.
Each of the two exceptions above which lead to divorce allow for remarriage. The situation in Matthew 19:9, talks of one who divorces and remarries, it does not talk of one who divorces and does not remarry. The one who divorces his wife except for immorality is the same individual who remarries and we cannot separate the two issues, else we conclude that someone who divorces his wife, with the exception of immorality, commits adultery. 1 Corinthians 7:15 also implies that the man is free to remarry given that he is abandoned; and so to refuse remarrying is putting restriction to the believer and we find in Corinthians 7:27-28 that the man has not sinned. We should not take divorce as a necessary option for immorality but trust in God’s grace and exercise forgiveness for mercy triumphs over judgment (James 2:13), as God promises to work all things together for the good of those who love Him (Romans 8:28).
Covenants are made to be kept (Numbers 30:2; Ecclesiastes 5:4-6) and we are told that marriage is a covenant (Proverbs 2:17; Malachi 2:14). More over God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16) so marriage is meant to last as long as the partners live. So divorce is discouraged and if people are in physical danger in their relationship, separation would be advised rather than divorce. With the difference in what God intends and what He allows we find some exceptions such as when the spouse commits immorality (Matthew 19:3-12) in relation to the law of Moses (Deuteronomy 24:1-4). Immorality in this case should be known not assumed, because marriage should not be terminated on the bases of suspicion. Lust is sin as Jesus attributes it to adultery in the heart (Matthew 5:28), but it is not technically an act of immorality. Another situation which allows for divorce is when a spouse who is not a Christian abandons the husband or wife (1 Corinthians 7:15). In all these situations the believer does not initiate the divorce.
Each of the two exceptions above which lead to divorce allow for remarriage. The situation in Matthew 19:9, talks of one who divorces and remarries, it does not talk of one who divorces and does not remarry. The one who divorces his wife except for immorality is the same individual who remarries and we cannot separate the two issues, else we conclude that someone who divorces his wife, with the exception of immorality, commits adultery. 1 Corinthians 7:15 also implies that the man is free to remarry given that he is abandoned; and so to refuse remarrying is putting restriction to the believer and we find in Corinthians 7:27-28 that the man has not sinned. We should not take divorce as a necessary option for immorality but trust in God’s grace and exercise forgiveness for mercy triumphs over judgment (James 2:13), as God promises to work all things together for the good of those who love Him (Romans 8:28).
Saturday 7 February 2009
Archaeology And The Bible
The role played by archaeology in biblical studies and Christian apologetics are in the:
- Confirmation of the historical accuracy of Bible as new discoveries support the facts of the Bible.
- Improvement of the understanding of the Bible, as it helps to accurately understand the nuances and uses of biblical words as they were used in their day
- Illustration and explanation of Bible passages, as the events took place in a certain time, in a particular culture, social and political structure. It also supplements topics not covered in the Bible.
Archaeology also has some limitations which are:
- It does not prove the divine inspiration of the Bible but the accuracy of events.
- It can not re-create the proves under study; there’s no repetition in the events and so conclusion must allow for revision and reinterpretation based on new discoveries.
- It’s understanding depends on the interpreters presuppositions and world view.
- Enormous amount of material has been lost eg. the Library in Alexandria lost over a million volumes in a seventh century fire.
- Only few sites have been surveyed, with a fraction excarvated and only pert of what is examined is published eg. It took forty years to put to the public the photographs of the Dead sea scrolls.
We therefore have to understand that the scriptures remain the primary source of authority and so should not be judged by archaeology.
Archaeology and the Old Testament
The story of the Hittites in the Bible raised objections from critics in the 19th century as no source outside the Bible talked about them. A.H. Sayce in 1876 discovered inscriptions on rocks in Turkey and suggested it was the Hittite nation. Hugo winckler excarvated the site at Boghaz-Koy in 1906 and one of the documents found proved to be a treaty between Ramesses II and the Hittite King. Other tablets showed that Boghaz-Koy (Original name Hattusha) was the capital of the Hittite Kingdom. Bedrich Hronzny showed that the Hittite language is an early relative of the Indo-European languages of Greek, Latin, French, German, and English. Five temples were found with tablets which described the rites for purification from sin and of a new temple. All these with others from Egypt (Emar) have proven the laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy which critics once argued that they were too complicated for the time it was written (1400BC). The discovery has confirmed biblical narrative and has given a greater understanding of the history of our language, religious, social and political practices of the ancient middle East.
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah which had a key role in the teachings of Jesus was viewed by critics as a legend. Genesis 14:3 says its location is the valley of Siddim (the salt sea) a name for the Dead sea. Dr. William Albright excavated the site at Bab edh-Drha in 1924 in search for Sodom and Gomorrah but had no conclusive evidence. More digging was done in 1965, 1967 and 1973, and a thick wall of 23 inches was found with a cemetery one kilometre outside the city. Bricks turned red from heat and buried ash of several feet thick. Evidence from all the houses excavated showed that the fire started from the roofs and fell into the house as Dr. Bryant Wood analysed. This matches the Bible account that the city was destroyed by fire that rained from heaven. Southward was found Numeria and further is Es-safi and then Feifa and Khanazir. These cities were abandoned at the same time 2450-2350BC. Many archaeologist believe if Bad ed-Drha is Sodom; Numeria is Gomorrah and Es-safi is Zoar. The cities destroyed had ash deposits. From Bible account four of the five cities were destroyed leaving Lot to flee to Zoar. This was abandoned during this period but not destroyed by fire.
Some scholars dismiss the conquest of Jericho as folklore. Four excavations have been done first in 1907-1909 by Carl Watzinger Garstang (1930), Kenyon (1952-1958) and the last by Bryant Wood. They discovered a wall of 15 feet high around the city. Domestic structures were found between the two walls consistent with Joshua’s description of Rahab’s quarters (Josh 2:15). On one side they found a pile of bricks indicating a sudden collapse. Scholars attribute this to an earthquake, or the damning of the Jordan in the biblical account. The collapsed bricks formed a ramp by which an invader can easily enter the city (Josh 6:20). Kenyon notes that the thick layer of soot indicates that the city was destroyed by fire. Joshua 6:24 describes this. The large amount of grain at the site show that the city was captured quickly and according to Joshua 6:17, the Israelites were forbidden to plunder the city, but to destroy it totally. The archaeologist disagree on the dates as Garstang holds to 1400 BC as the Bible accounts, Watzinger and Kenyon believed on 1550 BC. Dr. Bryant Wood currently on the work notes that Kenyon’s data is from a faulty assumption of pottery found at the site. From Egyptian amulets found northwest of Jericho he had names of Pharaohs dating from 1500-1386BC. Carbon-14 dating of charcoal found in the debris gives 1410 BC. Wood then concluded that the pottery stratigraphic considerations, scarab data and a carbon-14 date all point to a destruction of the city around the end of the late Bronze Age,about 1400 BCE.
Critics have questioned the existence of a king David but in 1993 Dr Avraham Biram excavated Tell Dan in northern Galilee. They found the remains of a black basalt stele containing Aramaic inscriptions with 13 lines having no complete sentence. Two of the lines had “The King of Israel” and “House of David”. In 1994 two more pieces were found referring to Jehoram, the son of Ahab, ruler over Israel, and Ahaziah ruler over the “House of David” or Judah. These give confirmation to the 2 Kings chapter 8 and 9 and so
- There was a Davidic dynasty that ruled Israel
- The Kingdoms of Judah and Israel were prominent political entities as the Bible describes.
Archaeology and the New Testament
There are over 39 extra-biblical sources that attest to over one hundred facts regarding the life and teachings of Jesus. Josephus (37-100 AD) a Jewish historian in his work Antiquities mentions Jesus as a Miracle maker who drew many followers, was crucified and proclaimed alive on the third day. Pliny the Younger, emperor of Bythynia in northwestern Turkey also mentions Christ and the faithful followers who took an oath not to commit any wickedness as he wrote to emperor Trajan in 112 AD. Tacitus a Roman historian also recorded in 115 AD about the persecution of Christians, Christ in relation to Pontius Pilatus in the reign of Tiberius.
The accuracy of the Gospels have been supported by archaeology as the mentioned cities in the Gospels have been located. Capernaum, Bethsaida, Chorazin and Tiberias were very polulated cities along the sea of Galilee. Jesus performed many miracles in Capernaum, Bethsaida and Chorazin but they rejected him and so were cursed by him (Matt. 11:20-24; Luke 10:12-16). These cities eventually disappeared from history for centuries; fulfilling the prophetic condemnation of Jesus. Tell Hum is believed to be Capernaum, still unconfirmed it is believed that Bethsaida is at a tell 1.5 miles north of the Galilean shoreline; and Chorazin is at Tell Khirbet Kerezah 2.5 miles north of Capernaum. The brutality of King Herod as portrayed in Matthew 2 is confirmed by ancient history as he is known to have suspected any one he thought may take his throne. He was known for the slaughter of children, one of his ten wives, three of his sons, a high priest, an ex-King and two of his sister’s husbands were his victims.
From John 5:1-15 Jesus heals a man at the pool of Bethesda. John describes the pool to have five porticoes and archaeologists have discovered this forty feets underground. The pool of siloam in John 9:7 has also been discovered in 1897. This upholds the accuracy of John. Evidence of Pontius Pilate who reigned as procurator from 26-36 AD has been discovered in 1961 by Antonio Frova. The Roman historian Tacitus also confirms this designation of Pilate.
Evidence for crucifixion has been seen from the death of Yohan Ben Ha’galgol discovered in a gravesite in the city of Jerusalem in 1968. Yohan had nails on his lower forearm, pearced on the side and feet. The dead sea scrolls also tell that Jews and Romans abhorred crucifixion due to its cruelty and humiliation. A stone found in 1878 had inscription of a decree from Emperor Claudius (41-54 AD) prescribing the punishment for disturbing graves or dead bodies. This reflects the rioting of 49AD about the resurrection as the Apostles preached of the resurrection of Jesus and the Jews’ argument that the body was stolen. Thallus also wrote in 52AD about the darkness on the crucifixion of Christ as Julius Africanus quotes him in the work, chronography.
The archaeologist Sir William Ramsay after investigating biblical claims as he searched through Asia minor said the book of Acts is an authority for the topography, antiquities, and the society of Asia minor; a position which he did not hold before his research. Luke’s accuracy is seen in the naming of areas, correct titles to government officials and correct time sequence. Luke’s mention of Lysanius tetrarch of Abilene in Luke 3:1 has been under question till an inscription dating the time of Tiberius (14-37AD) in a temple names him “tetrarch of Abila” was discovered near Damascus. An inscription at Delphi was also discovered confirming Acts 18:12-17 that Gallio was proconsul of Achaia. Acts 19:22 and Romans 16:23 is also confirmed by the excavation of a Corinthian theatre in 1928 where it was found that Erastus was a treasurer from the description of his work on an inscription. Inscriptions have been found naming Plubius the “first man” confirming Acts 28:7. Luke names 32 countries, 54 cities and 9 islands without error.
Matt. 20:6-7 ; 27:59 says Peter found the burial cloth of Jesus folded next to where he once laid. A shroud of 14.25 feet long and 3.5 feet wide appeared in Lirey, France after 1357 brought by Geoffrey de Charny a knight. In 1453 his grand daughter gave it to the Duke of Savoy who brought it to Turin, Italy in 1578. This was willed to the Vatican in 1983. some people think it is an authentic shroud since experts have shown that the image on it has no pigment and that the image was a negative image like that of a photograph. In 1977 an extensive study was made on it by an international team of scientists for five days. They found that the image contained blood as well as aragonite which is found in Jerusalem’s first century tombs. They could not determine the authenticity of the fabric but from 48 samples of pollen found, 7 was identified with Palestine plants. The weave of the cloth was herringbone twill which existed in ancient times.
Despite the authentic findings some evidences showed otherwise. In 1987 a carbon 14 dating in laboratories in Oxford, Zurich and University of Arizona indicated a fourteenth century date for the shroud. Many people challenge this result and so future tests will follow. Coins were minted over the eyes of the figure. This was not the Jewish custom and it is unlikely that Joseph of Arimathea or Nicodemus could have placed a coin of the one who condemn Jesus on Jesus’ eyes. Scientists are unable to explain how the negative image was created. The shroud remains a mystery and a lesson for us not to put our faith in mysterious articles.
- Confirmation of the historical accuracy of Bible as new discoveries support the facts of the Bible.
- Improvement of the understanding of the Bible, as it helps to accurately understand the nuances and uses of biblical words as they were used in their day
- Illustration and explanation of Bible passages, as the events took place in a certain time, in a particular culture, social and political structure. It also supplements topics not covered in the Bible.
Archaeology also has some limitations which are:
- It does not prove the divine inspiration of the Bible but the accuracy of events.
- It can not re-create the proves under study; there’s no repetition in the events and so conclusion must allow for revision and reinterpretation based on new discoveries.
- It’s understanding depends on the interpreters presuppositions and world view.
- Enormous amount of material has been lost eg. the Library in Alexandria lost over a million volumes in a seventh century fire.
- Only few sites have been surveyed, with a fraction excarvated and only pert of what is examined is published eg. It took forty years to put to the public the photographs of the Dead sea scrolls.
We therefore have to understand that the scriptures remain the primary source of authority and so should not be judged by archaeology.
Archaeology and the Old Testament
The story of the Hittites in the Bible raised objections from critics in the 19th century as no source outside the Bible talked about them. A.H. Sayce in 1876 discovered inscriptions on rocks in Turkey and suggested it was the Hittite nation. Hugo winckler excarvated the site at Boghaz-Koy in 1906 and one of the documents found proved to be a treaty between Ramesses II and the Hittite King. Other tablets showed that Boghaz-Koy (Original name Hattusha) was the capital of the Hittite Kingdom. Bedrich Hronzny showed that the Hittite language is an early relative of the Indo-European languages of Greek, Latin, French, German, and English. Five temples were found with tablets which described the rites for purification from sin and of a new temple. All these with others from Egypt (Emar) have proven the laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy which critics once argued that they were too complicated for the time it was written (1400BC). The discovery has confirmed biblical narrative and has given a greater understanding of the history of our language, religious, social and political practices of the ancient middle East.
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah which had a key role in the teachings of Jesus was viewed by critics as a legend. Genesis 14:3 says its location is the valley of Siddim (the salt sea) a name for the Dead sea. Dr. William Albright excavated the site at Bab edh-Drha in 1924 in search for Sodom and Gomorrah but had no conclusive evidence. More digging was done in 1965, 1967 and 1973, and a thick wall of 23 inches was found with a cemetery one kilometre outside the city. Bricks turned red from heat and buried ash of several feet thick. Evidence from all the houses excavated showed that the fire started from the roofs and fell into the house as Dr. Bryant Wood analysed. This matches the Bible account that the city was destroyed by fire that rained from heaven. Southward was found Numeria and further is Es-safi and then Feifa and Khanazir. These cities were abandoned at the same time 2450-2350BC. Many archaeologist believe if Bad ed-Drha is Sodom; Numeria is Gomorrah and Es-safi is Zoar. The cities destroyed had ash deposits. From Bible account four of the five cities were destroyed leaving Lot to flee to Zoar. This was abandoned during this period but not destroyed by fire.
Some scholars dismiss the conquest of Jericho as folklore. Four excavations have been done first in 1907-1909 by Carl Watzinger Garstang (1930), Kenyon (1952-1958) and the last by Bryant Wood. They discovered a wall of 15 feet high around the city. Domestic structures were found between the two walls consistent with Joshua’s description of Rahab’s quarters (Josh 2:15). On one side they found a pile of bricks indicating a sudden collapse. Scholars attribute this to an earthquake, or the damning of the Jordan in the biblical account. The collapsed bricks formed a ramp by which an invader can easily enter the city (Josh 6:20). Kenyon notes that the thick layer of soot indicates that the city was destroyed by fire. Joshua 6:24 describes this. The large amount of grain at the site show that the city was captured quickly and according to Joshua 6:17, the Israelites were forbidden to plunder the city, but to destroy it totally. The archaeologist disagree on the dates as Garstang holds to 1400 BC as the Bible accounts, Watzinger and Kenyon believed on 1550 BC. Dr. Bryant Wood currently on the work notes that Kenyon’s data is from a faulty assumption of pottery found at the site. From Egyptian amulets found northwest of Jericho he had names of Pharaohs dating from 1500-1386BC. Carbon-14 dating of charcoal found in the debris gives 1410 BC. Wood then concluded that the pottery stratigraphic considerations, scarab data and a carbon-14 date all point to a destruction of the city around the end of the late Bronze Age,about 1400 BCE.
Critics have questioned the existence of a king David but in 1993 Dr Avraham Biram excavated Tell Dan in northern Galilee. They found the remains of a black basalt stele containing Aramaic inscriptions with 13 lines having no complete sentence. Two of the lines had “The King of Israel” and “House of David”. In 1994 two more pieces were found referring to Jehoram, the son of Ahab, ruler over Israel, and Ahaziah ruler over the “House of David” or Judah. These give confirmation to the 2 Kings chapter 8 and 9 and so
- There was a Davidic dynasty that ruled Israel
- The Kingdoms of Judah and Israel were prominent political entities as the Bible describes.
Archaeology and the New Testament
There are over 39 extra-biblical sources that attest to over one hundred facts regarding the life and teachings of Jesus. Josephus (37-100 AD) a Jewish historian in his work Antiquities mentions Jesus as a Miracle maker who drew many followers, was crucified and proclaimed alive on the third day. Pliny the Younger, emperor of Bythynia in northwestern Turkey also mentions Christ and the faithful followers who took an oath not to commit any wickedness as he wrote to emperor Trajan in 112 AD. Tacitus a Roman historian also recorded in 115 AD about the persecution of Christians, Christ in relation to Pontius Pilatus in the reign of Tiberius.
The accuracy of the Gospels have been supported by archaeology as the mentioned cities in the Gospels have been located. Capernaum, Bethsaida, Chorazin and Tiberias were very polulated cities along the sea of Galilee. Jesus performed many miracles in Capernaum, Bethsaida and Chorazin but they rejected him and so were cursed by him (Matt. 11:20-24; Luke 10:12-16). These cities eventually disappeared from history for centuries; fulfilling the prophetic condemnation of Jesus. Tell Hum is believed to be Capernaum, still unconfirmed it is believed that Bethsaida is at a tell 1.5 miles north of the Galilean shoreline; and Chorazin is at Tell Khirbet Kerezah 2.5 miles north of Capernaum. The brutality of King Herod as portrayed in Matthew 2 is confirmed by ancient history as he is known to have suspected any one he thought may take his throne. He was known for the slaughter of children, one of his ten wives, three of his sons, a high priest, an ex-King and two of his sister’s husbands were his victims.
From John 5:1-15 Jesus heals a man at the pool of Bethesda. John describes the pool to have five porticoes and archaeologists have discovered this forty feets underground. The pool of siloam in John 9:7 has also been discovered in 1897. This upholds the accuracy of John. Evidence of Pontius Pilate who reigned as procurator from 26-36 AD has been discovered in 1961 by Antonio Frova. The Roman historian Tacitus also confirms this designation of Pilate.
Evidence for crucifixion has been seen from the death of Yohan Ben Ha’galgol discovered in a gravesite in the city of Jerusalem in 1968. Yohan had nails on his lower forearm, pearced on the side and feet. The dead sea scrolls also tell that Jews and Romans abhorred crucifixion due to its cruelty and humiliation. A stone found in 1878 had inscription of a decree from Emperor Claudius (41-54 AD) prescribing the punishment for disturbing graves or dead bodies. This reflects the rioting of 49AD about the resurrection as the Apostles preached of the resurrection of Jesus and the Jews’ argument that the body was stolen. Thallus also wrote in 52AD about the darkness on the crucifixion of Christ as Julius Africanus quotes him in the work, chronography.
The archaeologist Sir William Ramsay after investigating biblical claims as he searched through Asia minor said the book of Acts is an authority for the topography, antiquities, and the society of Asia minor; a position which he did not hold before his research. Luke’s accuracy is seen in the naming of areas, correct titles to government officials and correct time sequence. Luke’s mention of Lysanius tetrarch of Abilene in Luke 3:1 has been under question till an inscription dating the time of Tiberius (14-37AD) in a temple names him “tetrarch of Abila” was discovered near Damascus. An inscription at Delphi was also discovered confirming Acts 18:12-17 that Gallio was proconsul of Achaia. Acts 19:22 and Romans 16:23 is also confirmed by the excavation of a Corinthian theatre in 1928 where it was found that Erastus was a treasurer from the description of his work on an inscription. Inscriptions have been found naming Plubius the “first man” confirming Acts 28:7. Luke names 32 countries, 54 cities and 9 islands without error.
Matt. 20:6-7 ; 27:59 says Peter found the burial cloth of Jesus folded next to where he once laid. A shroud of 14.25 feet long and 3.5 feet wide appeared in Lirey, France after 1357 brought by Geoffrey de Charny a knight. In 1453 his grand daughter gave it to the Duke of Savoy who brought it to Turin, Italy in 1578. This was willed to the Vatican in 1983. some people think it is an authentic shroud since experts have shown that the image on it has no pigment and that the image was a negative image like that of a photograph. In 1977 an extensive study was made on it by an international team of scientists for five days. They found that the image contained blood as well as aragonite which is found in Jerusalem’s first century tombs. They could not determine the authenticity of the fabric but from 48 samples of pollen found, 7 was identified with Palestine plants. The weave of the cloth was herringbone twill which existed in ancient times.
Despite the authentic findings some evidences showed otherwise. In 1987 a carbon 14 dating in laboratories in Oxford, Zurich and University of Arizona indicated a fourteenth century date for the shroud. Many people challenge this result and so future tests will follow. Coins were minted over the eyes of the figure. This was not the Jewish custom and it is unlikely that Joseph of Arimathea or Nicodemus could have placed a coin of the one who condemn Jesus on Jesus’ eyes. Scientists are unable to explain how the negative image was created. The shroud remains a mystery and a lesson for us not to put our faith in mysterious articles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)