Home » Posts tagged 'Apostle Paul'
Tag Archives: Apostle Paul
The Doctrine of Inspiration of Scripture and Translation (Part Three)
Statements for Consideration
Consider these three statements:
The King James Version is divinely inspired.
God immediately inspired the King James Version.
God gave the King James Version by inspiration.
Do all three have the same meaning? Are all three true? If not all three are true, then is any one of them?
I will answer these questions. To start, let’s read the first part of 2 Timothy 3:16 again: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God.” The King James Version translators (KJVT) translated the three Greek words: pasa graphe theopneustos. We have only this statement on inspiration, because it’s the only time theopneustos (“God breathed”) is found in the New Testament. Other passages elaborate or apply.
The Considerations from Scripture
God Breathed Out
2 Timothy 3:16 says God breathed out “scripture.” Inspiration applies in a technical and specific sense to these sacred writings that come from God. God inspired the product produced, not the men. Yes, 2 Peter 1:21 says “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” That doesn’t contradict the truth of 2 Timothy 3:16. It elaborates. Inspiration, however, applies to sacred scripture alone according to 2 Timothy 3:16.
Inspiration occurred when God breathed sacred scripture (graphe). Again, depending on the context, graphe (scripture) refers to inspired writing. It does in 2 Timothy 3:16.
The Exclusion of Two Statements Above
God breathed out all sacred scripture. The KJVT, and I agree, took pasa graphe theopneustos as ‘given by inspiration of God.’ When given, the sacred scriptures were either Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. That excludes the KJV from scripture given by inspiration of God. Therefore, that excludes two of the above statements:
God immediately inspired the King James Version.
God gave the King James Version by inspiration.
I’m saying these two statements are false ones. They are saying, I believe, the same thing, meaning “God inspired” and “God gave by inspiration” are the same [An early comment by Jon Gleason in the comment section explain the London Baptist Confession position of “immediate inspiration”].
To come clean at this moment, until now I never took it upon myself to come to sufficient, completed thinking on the exact subject of these posts. I’m not done considering it, but I have arrived at sufficient enough thought to write this post (the third in a series so far). A comment I wrote last week, I edited because it disagreed with what I am writing here.
God Immediately Inspired Some Translation
“Scripture Saith”
As of this moment, I believe God inspired some translation. Which translation did God inspire? He inspired at least these translations:
John 19:37, “And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.”
Romans 9:17, “For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.”
Romans 10:11, “For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.”
1 Timothy 5:18, “For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.”
James 4:5, “Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?”
God inspired all of these translations. . . . in their original Greek. He gave these by inspiration. In almost all of these, you are reading translations of translations, English translations of Greek translations from the Hebrew text. I use these specific verses because they say, “scripture saith.” If sacred scriptures say it, it means God said it.
“Have Ye Not Read Scripture?”
Jesus also used the language, “have ye not read this scripture”:
Mark 12:10-11, “And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner: This was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?”
He translated a copy of the Old Testament Psalm 118:22-23. He again calls a Greek translation of the Old Testament Hebrew, “scripture.” Jesus and the Apostles also did more than just translate. In anticipation of this question, I say that Jesus targummed. Even the dictionary definition of targum says:
an ancient paraphrase or interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, of a type made from about the 1st century AD when Hebrew was declining as a spoken language
God inspired everything in the New Testament, including Jesus’ interpolations inserted into a translation of an Old Testament text.
“Spoken By the Prophet”
Other examples apply. The New Testament often says the two words, “spoken by,” referring to translated Old Testament scripture:
Matthew 2:17-18, “Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.”
Matthew 27:35, “And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.”
Acts 2:16-21, “But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: . . . . . And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
Equating a Translation of a Copy with a Copy
Above are three of at least twenty “spoken by” passages in the New Testament. 1 Timothy 5:18 above gives unique information. Paul translates to Timothy an Old Testament text (Deuteronomy 25:4) and quotes a New Testament one (Luke 10:7), and he calls them both, “scripture.” He equates what we could call a translation of a copy of the Old Testament with a copy of the New Testament by calling them both, “scripture.”
Unlike what B. B. Warfield later asserted in his book on inspiration, copies are sacred scripture and accurate translations of copies are “scripture.” I contend, based upon 2 Timothy 3:16, that upon the completion of the canon, God did no more breathing out of translations. However, I also contend that accurate copies and accurate translations of those copies are in fact “scripture.” I also contend that these accurate copies and accurate translations are inspired. What God inspired, breathed out, remains inspired and breathed out. That occurs also with a translation in light of further New Testament elaboration.
The King James Version Is Divinely Inspired
Because of what I explain above, I believe one of the three statements, “The King James Version is divinely inspired.” I say that because it remains inspired. Insofar that the King James Version is an accurate translation of a perfectly preserved text, it is inspired by God. This is how anyone can say about the King James Version, it is the inspired Word of God.
I might disappoint some of you with the following. The King James Version is not the only inspired translation. Any accurate translation of a perfectly preserved copy is also inspired. When I say translation, I also mean translation into any language, not just English. That also means that if I sit down and do an accurate translation of a perfectly preserved copy, that too is inspired. If it is what God said, even in a translation, then it is also scripture.
No one translates today by inspiration of God. God by providence enables translation. He created language for translation. Verses above say a translation is scripture, so a translation of scripture can be scripture. An accurate translation of scripture is scripture. As scripture it remains inspired.
The Gospel Is the Power of God Unto Salvation, pt. 7
Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four Part Five Part Six
Not long ago in evangelicalism, the terminology “lifestyle evangelism” arose. Early in this series, I wrote that the lifestyle is part of the message, but cannot replace the gospel itself. “The gospel is the power of God unto salvation” (Romans 1:16).
In my encounter with lifestyle evangelism, I found it to mean living a life a Christian should live around an unbeliever. From the unbeliever’s experience with that life, he wants to know what caused it, and asks. Then a Christian can explain in a non-pressure kind of way. I believe the words “lifestyle evangelism” originated in the 1976 book by C. Bill Hogue, titled: Love Leaves No Choice: Lifestyle Evangelism. Many characterize this lifestyle as “nice.” Be nice to people. They want you to be nice to them. Then when they ask what’s different, you connect it to the gospel.
Instead of “Lifestyle Evangelism”
In a technical sense, I do not see lifestyle evangelism in the Bible. The life surely should accompany the gospel. It should not contradict the gospel. Salvation comes through the gospel, which means preaching it. That is what I see in the Bible. Many do not think you are “nice” when you preach the gospel to them.
You want to preach the gospel, because it is the power of God unto salvation. Salvation will not occur without the gospel and it comes through preaching. That does not mean that you keep preaching the gospel to those who refuse to hear it.
Based on Romans 1:16, getting the gospel out to people is getting the power of God unto salvation out to people. What the lost need for their salvation stays away from them, sometimes with the reasoning of lifestyle evangelism. They think they do not want the gospel. Usually they cannot know what they need and that they need the gospel, because they do not have the gospel. The gospel gives the power that begins working toward a desire for salvation.
The Effect of the Knowledge of Romans 1:16
When I get up in the morning, I begin thinking about preaching the gospel. Do I mean going door-to-door? I could mean that. I could ring a doorbell, wait for someone to open the door, and start to try to preach the gospel to someone. What if I do not go door-to-door, does that remove the possibility of preaching it?
I think it is easier to get into the preaching of the gospel by going door-to-door. It ensures I will do that. However, in very cold weather areas or during very cold weather times, not everyone will open the door to listen to you preach. I am not attempting to discourage you from preaching in the Winter in cold weather areas. What if people do not open the door because it is so cold or during a certain time of the year, you will not ring door bells or knock on the door because of the cold?
You have to look for and pray for opportunities to preach the gospel. I call this being aggressive. If I do not go door to door and I want to preach it to someone else, I cannot stay in my house. I have to leave the house to see that happen. I still must go to where people are, and then I give attention to possible opportunities. If it is even possible, I must take that opportunity.
Taking the Opportunity with the Gospel
My wife and I right now are living in a small studio apartment. We have no car, so we walk for what we need. We have a very small refrigerator, so we have to go there more often. As I get old (yes, I’m getting old), I have to stop more often. Sit. Rest. That might mean getting a hot beverage somewhere.
It has been very rainy, cloudy, and dark where my wife and I are. It was sunny yesterday for the first time in I don’t know how long. We both got a coffee and we sat outside of the coffee place in the Winter across from a man, who sat outside. I began talking to him and that turned into a gospel conversation with an explanation of the gospel. Opportunities are there for the one looking for them and taking them. I grabbed it, like reaching for something that I want and taking it off the shelf. I just did it.
When I preached the gospel, it was not forced. It is normal for me to bring the gospel into a conversation. I wasn’t going through the motions, like someone who must just get this done. No, I want to give the gospel, that is, to take opportunities. I do, because the gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16). I assumed that man across from me was lost and nothing was more important to him than salvation, and so, the gospel.
Know How To Start the Gospel
If you are going to preach the gospel to people, you will need to know how to start. At first, you need to plan that. You prepare for it. You think about that first sentence you will say and the direction you will take. The goal is to get from starting a conversation to preaching the gospel. All of this relates to the gospel being the power of God unto salvation.
Before you ever get to how you start a conversation that leads to the gospel, you must think about how you will encounter people. You will not preach to anyone if you do not see anyone. You have to leave the house to do that. Before you plan on how you begin a gospel conversation, you plan on where you will go to see people.
You may see people all the time. People have many different realms in which they meet people. How do they bring Jesus into those contacts? Very often it starts with the trouble for everyone without the gospel. People know they’re in trouble, which is how Paul begins the gospel in the book of Romans.
The gospel conversation could start earlier than the trouble of the lost person. It could begin with the true nature of mankind. He is not an accident. God made him for a purpose.
I like to say to someone, “When Darwin looked at a cell, he saw a blob.” Today when we look at a cell, we see irreducible complexity. Even on a cellular level, life did not arise from an accident.
More to Come
The Significance of Mediation in Reconciliation and Relationship, pt. 2
Sin separates man from God and the only way back to regain that relationship comes through mediation. Man cannot get back to God on his own. He needs a mediator. You know that is Jesus, about whom the Apostle Paul writes in 1 Timothy 2:5, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
Reconciliation brings together two opposing or warring parties. A barrier separates them. Perhaps the two can reconcile without mediation. When it comes to God and man, the separation requires mediation for reconciliation to occur. Very often for two people to reconcile, mediation is also necessary.
Mediation is a means of reconciliation. Mediation must occur between man and God for reconciliation to succeed. Reconciliation very often requires mediation in order to succeed between other opposing parties: nations, tribes, families, and people. A rift can exist between two people impossible for them alone to eliminate. They need help.
The book of Philemon presents mediation by the Apostle Paul between Philemon and Onesimus. In so doing, it reveals many important components to successful mediation. Paul gives a master class on mediation between two conflicting people. It also provides the authority for the act of mediation. Mediation is scriptural.
Two churches, Jerusalem and Antioch, the first two churches in the world, came to a division between each other. They had to sort it out with one another in Acts 15. They were able to do so. In 1 Corinthians 11:18-19, Paul says that divisions will need to occur and for several reasons. Despite those, the divided sides should strive for unity.
Mediation and Neutrality
I like the way Thayer puts it in his lexicon: “one who intervenes between two, either in order to make or restore peace and friendship, or to form a compact, or for ratifying a covenant.” Friberg lexicon says, “basically, a neutral and trusted person in the middle (Gk, mesos). He continues, “one who works to remove disagreement, mediator, go-between, reconciler.”
When Moses called for witnesses (Ex 21:22-25, Dt 17:6-7), referenced by Jesus (Mt 18:16) and Paul (1 Tim 5:19), that meant neutral ones. Neutral ones stand under cross examination. Just because someone has two or three people who testify does not constitute biblical witness.
A legal component exists in mediation. The mediator, like a judge, ensures fairness in the process of reconciliation. He witnesses and weighs the speech and behavior between the two sides. Scripture illustrates this role in 1 Kings 3 with Solomon’s judgment of two women fighting for the same baby.
Real Desire for Reconciliation Wants Mediation Too
Both women claimed the same child as her own. Solomon said he would divide the child in two and give one half to each. The true mother deferred. She wanted the child to live. She would lose her own child to the other woman. Solomon knew the deferential mother was the true one. Her response to mediation told a tale, as it most often does in conflicts. The one who desires the relationship, really wants it, not just posing like the imposter mother did, also wants mediation.
You want a mediator to be just. He cannot judge in a biased way. Like Friberg said above, he must be a neutral party. Fair mediation requires equal justice. If you went for mediation and you found the mediator on the payroll of the other party, you might think him biased. Just courts prohibit this in their judges and juries because of potential prejudice.
Someone really wanting reconciliation will accept mediation. When a person does not want reconciliation, neither does he want mediation. He doesn’t want neutrality. He wants his way and a stamp of approval. This is not mediation. It is not even a witness in the arbitration of an event.
Pitfalls to Mediation
What happens in a broken relationship with friends, institutions, or family members and one side calls for mediation? The other party rejects. Maybe you reader too reject mediation. Think about it.
People very often want vengeance in an issue. Maybe they have a grudge. They coddle and nurture wrath. They prefer a biased judge with a biased handpicked jury, who will give them the decision they want. This is the government of North Korea. At a trial, you receive only the will the authoritarian leader. Mediation will require humility.
Judges cloister juries against corrupting outside influences. Information from outside the courtroom does not face cross-examination. Personal feelings and gossip shape opinions.
During the Cold War, what deterred two warring nations was called “mutually deterred destruction.” With the advent of nuclear weapons, nations would use their threat to take over as many other nations as they could. The United States needed nuclear weapons to deter such actions. Ronald Reagan called this “peace through strength.” Military power aided negotiations with a threatening enemy. Both sides need similar strength for fair judgment.
More to Come, Lord-willing
35th Anniversary of the Church I Planted in California, pt. 5
Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four
Anyone who might want to start a church in the San Francisco Bay Area likely understands two difficult realities, one, it’s hostile to Christianity, and, two, it’s very expensive to live there. My wife and I went there because of the former. We trusted God with the latter.
Our Dodge Omni did not make it through the first year. We bought a used Subaru Wagon with a three year loan. It was our last car loan. We drove it until it dropped by which time we had saved for another used car. We also moved to a different apartment that was fifty dollars cheaper a month.
In my twenties in the 1980s, no one could force you to buy health insurance. I was taught by wise men to get it, even if we “didn’t need it.” This paid off our first year. Jumping into the car again and again in door-to-door evangelism resulted in surgery for a pilonidal cyst surgery. It’s minor but very expensive without health insurance.
How did the church grow? No one knows who will listen to preaching and who will not. No one knows who will respond well. An important part of starting a church is pressing through the difficulty and rejection.
What helped me persevere were two factors. One, I experienced hardships already. I carried a heavy load through college and grad school that was tough. I majored in biblical languages. Greek and Hebrew were not easy. Our family lived in difficult conditions, my dad working two jobs and taking a full load of classes, driving junk cars and living in harsh circumstances. I played competitive sports and lost a lot of games in college. Our teams won in high school. I played quarterback and we won. Our basketball team won. In college, we lost and lost and lost at every sport.
In football, you don’t just lose, but you get beat up too, especially playing my position. It was tough getting in and staying in shape with many other responsibilities. I could never quit. It was drilled into me by my father never to give up. It wasn’t winning that got me through. We had very few wins in those four years. As our coach liked to say, we were small, but slow.
Two, the Bible gives great encouragement. Most of you reading probably know this one, but 1 Corinthians 15:58 helped.
Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in. I thought of it all the time.
What a great verse from the Apostle Paul in God’s Word. When things are not going well, I thought, as can you, my labor was not in vain in the Lord. Even if I got no or negative results, I abounded. God said so.
I hit every door in Hercules, around 20,000 people, 1 1/2 times in the first year. We never had a single service with twenty or more that first year. This occurred to someone who thought he would have 100 in his first service. I had already lost a lot, been literally beaten up, had my bell rung, as we called it then. It was hard.
In the first few months Bridget and I had a few hundred dollars to our name. I lived in an urban area for the first time. I was not a city boy. Someone called our church number, said he was a pastor stranded without gas on a long trip. Out of compassion, I gave him half him a hundred dollars. This might seem crazy, but it really was how naive I was to this kind of situation. It wasn’t the last time someone fooled me in a similar way.
We had some great stories though. God saved some and the church did grow by His grace. God used my wife and I to start one of the Lord’s churches.
In December of that first year, my wife got me an unusual Christmas present. We had no television. She knew I liked watching bowl football games at the end of December and early January. She would rent a television from rent-a-center. Up to that point, I had never heard of rent-a-center. Fundamentalists would preach against television and I understand, but I evangelized the man at the counter. I invited him to church.
The story was that this newly married couple wanted a church, but he didn’t want her Catholic Church. They came on a Sunday night, and besides my wife, those two were it. Four people. They were the Brants, Dan and Van, the latter Vietnamese. On Sunday night, I did a series through Ecclesiastes, which I saw and still see as also evangelistic. It did impact the couple. They kept coming back.
Within a few weeks, I went to visit them to preach the gospel. After preaching the entire message, I asked if they wanted to believe in Jesus Christ, to follow Him. She was ready, so she stood up on her own, and moved to the chair right next to mine. She received the Lord. We baptized her in her swimming pool in their back yard. Van Brant, Mrs. Brant, we now call her, stayed with us from that time henceforth. She is still a faithful member of Bethel Baptist Church, gloriously saved.
To Be Continued
Debunking of Nine Marks Dual Church View: Both Universal and Local Churches, Part One
On 8/25/2022, the organization Nine Marks, started by Pastor Mark Dever of Capital Hill Baptist Church in Washington, DC, published on its website an article written by Jonathan Leeman, the editorial director of Nine Marks, entitled, “The Church: Universal and Local” (Click on the article to compare this analysis with the post). Nine Marks, I believe, wants to defend “local” because that is the main emphasis of Nine Marks. In the articles I have read by Nine Marks, they want to emphasize the meaning of “assembly” for ekklesia. That is enough to get major push back from the rest of evangelicalism.
Despite its doctrine of the church, local, Nine Marks teaches a universal church in the above article also as its position on the church, so a dual church view. Is there both a universal church and a local church? This post will begin an assessment of Leeman’s article as to its ecclesiological veracity.
In his first paragraph, the introduction, Leeman provides his definition for a universal church, a contradiction in terms, and for a local church. He calls the “universal church” “a heavenly and eschatological assembly.” You have to admire the point of consistency from Leeman with the meaning of ekklesia in his definition. He sticks with “assembly” through the essay. However, if it is an assembly, how could it be “universal”? Something universal does not and can not assemble. Leeman forces the definition to fit a catholic presupposition.
In Leeman’s summary, the second paragraph, he says the “New Testament envisions two kinds of assemblies.” I can’t argue against an assembly in heaven. Saints will assemble in heaven (cf. Hebrew 12:23). The church is not just any assembly though. The New Testament uses ekklesia to refer to something other than the church, and the King James translates it “assembly,” referring to a group of people gathered together, not a church (Acts 19:32, 39, 41). An assembly in heaven, the King James also calls “an assembly,” because it isn’t a church.
I’ve heard the heavenly assembly called a “church in prospect.” Leeman doesn’t use that terminology, but he takes the essence of that and stretches it into something mystical and for today. He calls salvation the membership for the universal church. All the saints will not be in “heaven,” actually the new heaven and the new earth, until the eternal state. The Bible has terminology for all saved people: the family of God and the kingdom of God. What occurs in heaven is not an ecclesiological gathering. The heavenly assembly does not function as a New Testament assembly.
The practical ramification of a “universal church,” Leeman explains, is “a local church that partners with other churches.” Leeman knows that nowhere does an English translation call the church a “local church.” Every church is local. Assemblies are always local. Churches should partner with other churches, but that isn’t a universal church. Those are still assemblies partnering with other assemblies of like faith and practice.
In his section, “Two Uses of the Word ‘Church’,” Leeman utilizes Matthew 16:18 and Matthew 18:17, the only two usages of ekklesia in the Gospels and both by Jesus. He says the first is universal and the second is local. Since no assembly is universal, he’s wrong on Matthew 16:18. An analysis of every usage of ekklesia by Jesus, most in Revelation 2 and 3, and over twenty times, every one is obviously local. Good hermeneutics or exegesis understands Matthew 16:18 like all the other times Jesus used ekklesia, where Jesus said, “my church.”
Jesus’ ekklesia is still an ekklesia, not something scattered all over the world, but still an assembly. When He calls it “my ekklesia,” Jesus distinguishes it from other governing assemblies. People in that day already understood the concept of a town meeting, a governing assembly. Jesus rules through His assembly and gives it His authority. Ekklesia was also the Greek word translated for the Hebrew congregation of Israel, the assembly in the Old Testament.
Leeman attempts to illustrate his dual church doctrine with two examples from the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:18 and 1 Corinthians 12:28.
For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. (11:18)
And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. (12:28)
Leeman says that 11:18 must be local and 12:28 must be universal. Leeman fails to mention a syntactical structure in Greek and English, either the particular or generical singular noun. Singular nouns have either a particular or generic usage. Singular nouns must be one or the other. 11:18 is an example of a particular singular noun. 12:28 is an example of a generic singular noun. The latter speaks of the church as an institution, representing all churches.
Ephesians 5:25 is a good example of the generic use of the singular noun.
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
If there is a universal church, then there must be a universal husband and a universal wife. All of these singular nouns are examples of the generic singular noun. “The husband” is still a husband in one particular place or location. There is no mystical or platonic husband. This is how Paul speaks in 1 Corinthians 12:28. If the church in 12:28 is universal, then Paul excluded himself from salvation in 1 Corinthians 12:27, the previous verse, when he writes:
Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
He says concerning the church at Corinth, “ye are the body of Christ,” excluding himself. When Paul uses the body analogy, he means something local. All bodies are local. All body parts belong to one particular body, not spread out all over the planet.
Leeman assumes without proving. He does not prove a universal church. He assumes it and then he sees it places in the New Testament where it isn’t. His conclusions do not follow from his premises. In his section on “Universal Church,” being “God’s people” in 1 Peter 2:10 and adopted into God’s family in Romans 8:15 are not allusions to a church or “the” church.” These are salvation terms, not ecclesiological ones.
All 118 usages of ekklesia in the New Testament are an assembly either used as a particular singular noun or a generic singular noun. An ekklesia is always local. In a few instances, the assembly is something other than a church, but when it is used for the church, it is always local. That’s what ekklesia means.
To Be Continued
The Circularity and Wholeness of the Beatitudes As a New Covenant Corollary to God’s Law
God is One and His Law Is One. One could say the Old Covenant is One. The New Covenant doesn’t differ than the Old Covenant. It is a corollary to it, so in the same way the Law is circular and whole, the Beatitudes of Jesus are.
The New Covenant assumes that man has broken the Old Covenant. Is he now hopeless? Is God’s purpose for man now permanently ruined? When God went to find Adam and Eve in the Garden, He introduced the New Covenant to them as the only pathway forward.
While Jesus’ ministered on earth, His audience tried to force the Old Covenant into something it could not do without the New Covenant. Jesus didn’t come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it through the New Covenant. He starts the Sermon on the Mount with the New Covenant enablement of Old Covenant success. Blessing can come as promised in the Old Covenant, but first, poor in spirit.
Just like the first commandment and the tenth commandment mirror each other, the first and the eighth of the Beatitudes do. The first, poor in spirit, theirs is the kingdom of heaven, and the eighth, they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, theirs is the kingdom of heaven. The first four and the second four come at the New Covenant from two very important different directions. The first four are the front end of the New Covenant and the second four are the back end of it.
The front end is not works, but grace alone. The back end exposes what the first four were necessary to produce. If someone starts from the back, he is led to the front. If someone starts with the front, he receives the back. If someone is not persecuted for righteousness’ sake, he is not poor in spirit. If someone is poor in spirit, he will be persecuted for righteousness’ sake. The truly persecuted are because they are poor in spirit and theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
When someone sees he’s not persecuted, not peacemaking, not pure in heart, and not merciful, he recognizes his poverty of spirit, he mourns over his sin, subjugates his will to God in meekness, and hungers and thirsts after righteousness. The Jewish teachers of Jesus’ day were justifying themselves, unlike the tax collector in Luke 18:13, who didn’t tout his own righteousness, but in poverty of spirit cried out, Lord, be merciful to me a sinner. They reasoned that they could justify themselves by ignoring the weightier matters of the law, the ones so heavy, so difficult, that they were impossible to keep. Someone could keep trying to keep them with his heart of stone, but never succeed.
You’re not saved by being merciful, but only those poor in spirit, mourn, meek, and hunger and thirst after righteousness can and will be merciful. Don’t think that you will obtain mercy without being merciful, but don’t think they you’ll be merciful until you take the path through the first four of the beatitudes of Jesus.
To receive the saving knowledge of Christ Jesus His Lord, the Apostle Paul must count all his own law keeping efforts as dung or as loss (Philippians 3). He sees, I’m not merciful, I’m not pure in heart, I’m not peacemaking, and I’m not being persecuted, but I’m a persecutor, so he becomes poor in spirit. He has no confidence in his flesh, so now he rejoices in Christ Jesus. The Old Covenant did its proper job and then the New Covenant did its. You can start at the front or the back, just like with the ten commandments. They are all interrelated, just like God Himself is one.
James said that God gives grace to the humble, those who humbly submit themselves to God. Those who do won’t be praying to consume it upon their own lust and they won’t go presumptiously into a business endeavor, ignoring the good that God wants them to do in His will. In humility they are submitting themselves to the God of grace, who enables them to pray in His will and live in His will.
When you receive the grace to be saved, you are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, righteousness that you hungered and thirsted after, because you knew you were without it. You were poor. The pure in heart see God, but that comforting purity will never come to you without you mourning over the impurity, not just external impurity, but the impurity of conscience that true salvation cleanses. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners, and purify your hearts, ye double minded. The Apostle Paul was impressive before religious leaders before his conversion, but he knew that was not true before God. The Lord Jesus provided that for him, not righteousness obtained by works, but by the faith of Christ.
Recent Comments