Slavery, Polygamy, Ceremony, and Sacralism: Old Bottles for New Wine

In ancient times, whether among the people of God or among the nations, there were customs and practices that societies considered acceptable and which God seemed to wink at (Acts 17:30), but which are now considered unthinkable by the vast majority of Christians the world over. We could include slaveholding and polygamy in that category.

In another category, we might place the maintaining of ancient ceremonies, whether they were those specified by the Law of Moses, or whether the many other rites or holy days that Christians have patterned after Judaism. I would also assign to this second category the practice of bearing of arms for conquest or defense by God’s people, which was indeed an activity of faith when commanded by Jehovah in the Old Testament. Related to this last practice is the mode of societal order called “sacralism”, which effectively joins the church with the state, so justifying Christian participation in the role of “avenger” carrying out God’s wrath on the evildoer (Romans 13). Such an arrangement was ordained by God under the law of Moses for Israel. There is an evident lack of consensus in Christendom on the matter of the carry-over of this category of ancient ways into Christianity.

I would suggest that there is a thread running through all of the practices mentioned above, whether or not consensus on them exists among those who are called Christians. The common thread is this, that although these ancient modes and manners have all at some point manifested themselves to some degree in the church of God, formed by the Spirit all at once on the day of Pentecost, the Lord was very patient with His body the church during the many years of transition from Judaism to the “new wine” of the Christian faith. Some of these old ways were simply “old bottles” that should give way in time to new ones compatible with the love, joy, and peace that characterize Christianity (Luke 5:36-39). But many Christians in the church’s history seem to have preferred the taste of the “old wine” of legalism in the “old bottles” – the framework of the law and the ancient customs.

We can be thankful that the institution of slavery has died out in Christendom. The law of Moses regulated the practice to keep it from descending into the inhumanity so often manifested in the Gentile world historically, and well into the 19th century in the Americas, these putatively Christian lands. I do not believe that ownership and total control of another man’s person and the fruits of his labor is compatible with Christianity, even though the apostle Paul was very careful in the way he addressed the Gentile Philemon with respect to his runaway slave, Onesimus. Slave ownership was likely not common in Jesus’ day among the Jews, though there were wealthy men among them, and perhaps this is because of an increasing consciousness of the inconsistency of the practice of slaveholding in light of their experience as slaves in Egypt long before, and in light of their contemporaneous oppression by the Romans. (See Leviticus 25:39-46)

Polygamy has for many centuries been considered an unacceptable arrangement for a God-fearing household, and so was apparently not practiced even among Jews after their Babylonian captivity. However, there are cultures to which the Christian gospel has come in which polygamy, concubinage, or serial marriages are tolerated, so that the word of God through the apostle Paul requiring the qualifications of an overseer plainly include being “the husband of one wife” (I Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6). “From the beginning it was not so” was clearly the teaching of the Lord Jesus as to divorce and remarriage for any cause but fornication (Matthew 19:3-9), and His clear word on marriage certainly applies to the practice of polygamy. This corrective principle has largely been held to by the Christian church as it spread the gospel among the heathen, effectively ending the degrading practice of polygamy in Christendom, notwithstanding its appearance among non-Christian and polytheistic Mormonism. No doubt there must be forbearance with new converts to the faith that are found in an unbiblical marital state acceptable to the society in which they are, but it should not be accepted in subsequent generations.

But now we come to some old practices that Christians still disagree on. Over half of the Christian profession teaches and practices the keeping of holy days, regulation of certain foods, the maintaining of sacred buildings, shrines, furniture, and sacerdotal garments, not to mention the veneration of images and icons in apparent contradiction to the second of the Ten Commandments. The apostles did not teach these rituals to the assemblies of the Gentiles in the first century of the church’s history. In fact, the Epistle to the Hebrews was written perhaps 30 years after Pentecost to patiently but definitely direct Jewish Christians away from the types and shadows of Judaism to the simplicity and reality of Jesus Christ and Christianity. In the New Testament, the keeping of holy days and the avoidance of certain foods was shown to be evidence of weakness or at least lack of maturity in the faith, as Romans 14, Colossians 2:20-23, and Hebrews 13:9-10 give us to understand. The believer who is growing in grace toward Christian maturity comes in time to see such practices for what they are: weak and beggarly elements, and worldly by their very nature (Galatians 4:1-11).

Probably the most controversial item in my listing above has to do with the extent to which a Christian or a Christian movement ought to involve themselves in matters of state, and in the defense of a nation or empire. As to individual participation in politics or warfare, it is likely that but a minority of professing Christians in history have taken the peaceful (or pacifistic) position that is clearly suggested by Jesus for His followers in His memorable words to Peter: “Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword” (Matthew 26:52). Paul wrote that “the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly” (II Corinthians 10:4), but this principle was not yet understood by the eleven in the upper room when they informed Jesus of their preparation with “two swords” in response to His allegorical revelation to them that things would change dramatically for them upon His departure. The Lord’s “it is enough” was a patient response to His disciples’ lack of understanding of the gist of His word to their hearts, and not at all a commendation of their foresight and preparedness for physical self-defense (Luke 22:35-38). So when Peter cut off Malchus’ ear that same night, the Lord’s gracious and poignant response to it (given above) does not at all flow from the popular understanding that two swords were “enough” to defend themselves or the Lord.  It is instructive that none of the apostles, from that point on, ever spoke or wrote an inspired word of encouragement in the use of physical weaponry.

An even more serious breach of the church’s unique and separate position in this world was the acceptance of “sacralism”, which is in essence the confluence of church and state. In this mode, the institution of the visible church seeks to influence or control government, or then government maintains institutional authority and order in a state church. Such has been the regrettable and corrupting paradigm in what has called itself the Christian Church through many centuries of the Christian era, beginning in A.D. 313 with Emperor Constantine’s Edict of Milan. At the church’s founding no such marriage of church and state was even hinted at, and we can be thankful that this bad principle too fell out of favor a few centuries ago, in relative terms at least. Sacralism, and not paganism or atheism, was responsible for most of the martyrdom experienced by non-conforming believers in Europe over several centuries in the last millennium.

It seems to me that a Christian who views taking up arms as a godly means of securing peace and safety is particularly susceptible to sliding back (in thought and aspiration, at least) into a sacral church-state partnership. His goal might be to keep barbarians outside the gate and to prevent maleficent religions from endangering Christians. There is evidence that sacralism is appearing more attractive to some Christians, particularly in the Reformed Evangelical and conservative Roman Catholic camps, under the guises of “Christian nationalism”, post-millennialism, or dominionism.  This way of thinking is to be avoided by followers of a rejected Christ, who will in due time return to set things right among men by establishing His kingdom, the kingdom of the Son of Man (Matthew 13:41). Only then will Christians rightly reign over this earth, for we will be reigning with Him (II Timothy 2:12; Revelation 5:10).

Until that time, let all His saints “grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ” (II Peter 3:18), “till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:13). May Christian maturity and conformity to Christ’s image be our first priority, for the glory of God.

A Sin That Is Not Unto Death

In one of the more difficult to understand passages in the New Testament, we find a distinction made between a “sin not unto death” and a “sin unto death”. Here is that passage of interest, including the context of the believer petitioning God according to His will:

And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: and if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him. If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death (I John 5:14-17).

We notice in this text not only a distinction made between categories of sins, but also a distinction between prayer according to God’s will and prayer that is not suggested or recommended. By presenting us with the need to make these distinctions, the word of God gives us to understand that communion with Him is necessary for effectual prayer. Godly exercise and spiritual thought must be the habit of one who prays expecting his prayers to be answered.

How do we understand this matter of some sins being “unto death” and some sins “not unto death”? We find in a few other places in the New Testament that the commission of sins or fleshly carelessness may bring illness and death (I Corinthians 11:29-32), and we learn that repentance and confession can bring physical healing from an illness brought on by sinning (James 5:14-16). But this exhortation calls upon an intercessor to discern the comparative gravity of the sin of a Christian brother or sister, for the purpose of obtaining “life for them.”

The spiritual Christian, one who is in daily communion with God and seeks His glory, is then reponsible for discerning between these categories of sin. According to the measure that he desires joy and blessing in the soul of his fellow Christian, he has the godly freedom and the right to address his Father on behalf of the faltering believer whose sin has not reached the level of deserving the judgment of physical death. But “all unrighteousness is sin”, and a sinful or fleshly course still tends toward death and has the savor of it (Romans 8:5-13). Just as there is no enjoyment in death, so there can be no real enjoyment of the “life of Jesus”1 in the soul and spirit of a Christian who lives according to the flesh.

Hoping to make the teaching of our scripture passage practical for us, I will take a bit of a risk here in suggesting some examples of the difference between sins that are “unto death” and those that call for life-restoring intercessory prayer. Cursing and swearing, as Peter did while warming himself in the palace of the high priest, is certainly sinful, but there was room for restoration and refreshment of life for him. But to blaspheme God or blatantly lie to the Holy Spirit, as Ananias and Sapphira did, seems to have the character of a sin unto death, and did indeed result in immediate physical death for the deceitful couple. Another distinction might be seen in the realm of sexual sin: no doubt indulging in pornography is unrighteous and fleshly, and it would call for restoration of the beleagured soul back to a joyful Christian life by the intercession of others, but the sin of wanton adultery could be discerned by the spiritual person to be “unto death”, and therefore not a matter he is exercised to pray about, though he certainly should grieve over the impending judgment deserved by that sinner. One more example: Hating a brother or sister in one’s thoughts, as contrasted with following through with the act of murder, would be another distinction that should exercise the spiritual mind, though this would be an extreme scenario. Matthew 5:27-28 and I John 3:15 affirm for us the truth that “all unrighteousness is sin”, and that every sin is so much more grievous in the sight of God than it is in our eyes, but our passage in I John 5 still assumes the distinctions and actually gives us the responsibility to distinguish, using wisdom from God.

In the natural realm, sickness often brings before the mind of a man the fact of his mortality, so that he does all he can to have the enjoyment and vigor of life restored to him, knowing that many illnesses left untreated lead to an early death. What then is the remedy for a sickly Christian life that has an aura of death, in the moral realm? It is fervent intercessory prayer on the part of the spiritual man or woman, leading to contrition, confession, and repentance on the part of the sinning brother.2 The blessed result of such a scenario is that the intercessor’s joy is fulfilled, the restored brother’s enjoyment of the Christian life is refreshed, the Lord Jesus rejoices in the restoration one of His sheep, and God the Father of spirits is glorified.

1 II Corinthians 4:10-12

2 James 5:15-16; Galatians 6:1; II Timothy 2:24-26

Israel’s Difficult Future in Christian Perspective

The dramatic hostilities of last October’s terrorist attack on Israeli citizens, as well as Israel’s retaliation over the months since then up until this moment, have held the attention of the Western world and the Middle East, more so even than recent wars in Ukraine, Afghanistan, and Africa. Perhaps this is because there is in the collective consciousness or cultural memory in Western and Middle Eastern societies that Israel and its environs are of the greatest importance to the future history of the world. The living and true God, by choosing Israel as His earthly people in the distant past with a view toward great future blessing, has ordained that it should be thus, and is arranging the scene even now to bring about His own purposes in the exaltation and glory of His Son Jesus Christ. In the not-too-distant future, both those who “received Him not” (the Jews), along with those who “knew Him not” (the world), will own Him as the Son of God and the King of Israel, who has the right to put down all rule and authority as He takes away the sin of the world (John 1:10-11, 29, & 49).

How should the Christian view these sad events, and what should be the Christian’s attitude toward modern Israel, composed primarily of Jews gathered back into the land of promise while yet in unbelief? Surely, and we might say this point is of greatest importance, we ought to echo the apostle Paul in his heart’s desire and prayer for Israel, that they might be saved (Romans 10:1). A remnant is being saved now during this dispensation of the grace of God, and how wonderful that is to behold. But that “great salvation” (Hebrews 2:3) of Israel will be brought about only when the Jews finally receive their Messiah, which the scriptures plainly tell us will take place in due time (Ezekiel 36 & 37; Romans 11). Israel’s national preservation will not be effected by the efforts of well-meaning Christians with a mixture of political leanings and an a la carte dispensationalism. A dispensational understanding of the scriptures is valuable in our day more than ever, perhaps, but Christians ought to be wary of an anemic eschatology that avoids dealing with the difficult questions of how Jehovah will deal with Israel by a prescribed and righteous chastening, employing the ungodly nations around it to bring to pass His purposes of final restoration and glory.

It almost goes without saying that the Christian’s heart should grieve over the violence suffered on all sides of any conflict, and perhaps especially over the suffering of God’s earthly people during their long estrangement from Him. Still, may our thoughts and affections be formed above all by the interests and the glory of Christ, who must finally reign over Israel and over all things in heaven and earth.

For any who might wish to look further into these things concerning Israel’s future and the proper Christian frame of mind toward current events in that region, I suggest listening to the audio file below. It is ministry given by Stephen Stewart at a Bible conference in Englewood, Colorado, in 2019, long before the recent stream of events that are troubling the world. I believe the truth of the teaching in this short address is as pertinent now as ever.

Biblical Diversity

Recent years have seen an increasing emphasis placed on the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the business world, as well as among charities and governments in America and elsewhere in the West. While it is a right thing to acknowledge the need for just and fair criteria for hiring and promoting individuals in secular organizations, there is disagreement among leaders with varying perspectives as to what those criteria ought to be, and on what underlying values they should be based.

The concept of equity and its desirability is found often in the scriptures, which teach by the use of that term the responsibility of men to deal fairly, with uprightness and without partiality. We can suppose that, without an underlying biblical framework or a Christian world view, equity in an ideological sense might well be used as a cudgel for suppressing initiative and industry in an unrighteous manner.  The inclusion aspect of DEI purportedly seeks to right the wrongs of the exclusion of disfavored groups from full acceptance in the workplace and in society.  But without a biblical and moral basis for exclusion and inclusion as appropriate in the varied spheres and relationships of life, disorder and strife will result. The desire to be inclusive can have a righteous effect if it first be recognized that God has the right to exclude men based on the judgment He has already concluded them all under: unbelief and sin. (Romans 11:32; Galatians 3:22)  Faith in Christ brings with it the only inclusion that will matter at life’s end, when to be included among the number of the redeemed attains infinite value.

It is the subject of diversity that we will discuss here, hoping to approach the matter according to the mind of God as given us in the scriptures. Secular organizations promote or require diversity largely along the lines of ethnicity, skin color, gender, and sexuality. It is often viewed almost as an end in itself, or so it might seem to a critical eye. The word of God, in contrast to any secular motive for diversity, presents it as a means to the end of unity, wholeness, and mutuality in the body of Christ, which is the church. 

There are at least two kinds of diversity that God in His great wisdom uses for the blessing of His people and to the praise of His glory in the church, or assembly.  Perhaps the easiest to explain and understand to an American, given the “melting pot” of national origins that is the United States, is that there is no longer any difference in the sight of God, nor in His dealings with men in grace, now that “the middle wall of partition” between Jews and Gentiles has been broken down by Jesus Christ, by His atoning blood and reconciling death on the cross (Ephesians 2:11-22). “Now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For He is our peace, who hath made both one.”  From the epistle to the Galatians, we learn with complete clarity that the wonderful diversity of ethnicity, status, and gender found in the church of God, as a result of the gospel of God’s grace preached to all nations, is no hindrance whatever to the blessed unity of the body of Christ. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). But notice that the emphasis is not on the diversity, however refreshing that might be to us and however pleasing it is to God, but rather on the unity of position and fellowship that can now exist where it might once have seemed that diversity would be a hindrance.

Another category of diversity we find in the New Testament is the diversity of spiritual gifts found in the church of God. These gifts were given to the assembly by the ascended Christ Jesus and divided to each member of the body by the Spirit of God (Ephesians 4:7-16; I Corinthians 12:4-31). And even as we learn about the diversity of gifts in I Corinthians 12, we learn also of the diverse nature of the roles of the three persons of the Godhead, but here again it is the unified ordering of each role and the unity of purpose among those roles that receive emphasis. God, whom we as Christians call our Father, coordinates a diversity of operations in the world by means of His saints. These operations include the work of the gospel in saving souls; the work of edification of the body of Christ; and the work of the judgment of this world and giving testimony to it. Of the Lord Jesus it is written that there are diversities of administrations or services overseen by Him, and we know that the Lord upon His ascension was “working with” His apostles as they preached the gospel (Mark 16:20). He is the perfect servant, and each of us in our diverse services in the body answer to Him as Master and Lord (Matthew 19:14-23). And so it is the Spirit, carefully designated as that “one Spirit”, who has divided the many spiritual gifts to each and every member of the body of Christ.

We need not dwell long on the gifts and their designations and specific uses, but we find lists in several categories given in three epistles in the New Testament. In all this diversity of gift and spiritual manifestation in the body of Christ, there is a definite purpose that transcends the concept of diversity for its own sake. In I Corinthians 12, the emphasis seems to be on the wholeness and health of Christ’s body through the utilization of each member’s different gift. In Ephesians 4, it is the unity of the body, and the growth or edification of the body toward that final and completed unity, that is the goal of the various gifts. And in the listing of gifts in Romans 12, it is perhaps the mutuality of service and intimacy of love among the members of the body that stands out, as we are given the expression “. . . members one of another”, along with the follow-up exhortations to “let love be unfeigned” and “be kindly affectioned to one another”.

Biblical diversity, diversity according to God’s mind, brings blessing and enjoyment to God and man, not because of the differences and variations in themselves, but because it ends in the “unity of the faith” and “the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:13). This kind of diversity in the body of Christ will end in an eternal perfection where differences among us will fade in the light of His glory, where “Christ is all, and in all” (Colossians 3:11).

The Power of Meekness

Meekness is a term and a moral quality that is not well understood in the world around us. A quick search online or in a dictionary will give you negative or undesirable meanings alongside definitions that are more in keeping with the Spirit’s usage in the Bible. Merriam-Webster includes definitions such as “deficient in spirit and courage” and “not strong”, but I hope to show from the scriptures that those characterizations of our English word “meekness” do not belong in a biblical lexicon of meanings associated with that word.

In fact, Mr. W. E. Vine in his Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, writes this, quoting an earlier work by himself and another1: “The meaning of prautes (the Greek word translated into English as ‘meekness’) is not readily expressed in English, for the terms meekness, mildness, commonly used, suggest weakness and pusillanimity to a greater or less extent, whereas prautes does nothing of the kind . . .  It must be clearly understood, therefore, that the meekness manifested by the Lord and commended to the believer is the fruit of power.”

The Lord Jesus is preeminent among the exemplars given in the scriptures for this godly characteristic, this “inwrought grace of the soul” (W. E. Vine). He is of course that blessed paragon of meekness and of every other moral virtue (Matthew 11:29; II Corinthians 10:1). In the Bible we also find the man Moses, who excelled in meekness relative to all of his contemporaries (Number 12:3).  We see this grace of meekness taught repeatedly by Paul the Apostle, and he exhorts his son in the faith Timothy more than once of the need for meekness in his dealings with those in his sphere of influence (I Timothy 6:11; II Timothy 2:25).

Mr. Vine continues with further help as to meekness: “The common assumption is that when a man is meek it is because he cannot help himself; but the Lord was ‘meek’ because He had the infinite resources of God at His command. Described negatively, meekness is the opposite to self-assertiveness and self-interest; it is equanimity of spirit that is neither elated nor cast down, simply because it is not occupied with self at all.”

The Lord Jesus was as meek as He ever was when rebuking His disciples for their lack of faith,2 when He looked upon the hypocrites around Him in anger3 and upbraided them in faithfulness to His God, or when He made a whip and overturned the tables of the money changers in the temple.4 It was His Father’s will that He was occupied with. The zeal for God’s house was Jesus’ motive. The testimony of Jehovah must be given in faithfulness, and His perfection of meekness meant that His actions were without self-interest or a thought of vindicating Himself. The meek and lowly One defended the holy character of His relationship with His Father when He was accused of having a demon, but He allowed to pass without self-defense the intended slight of the Jews in deeming Him a Samaritan.5

Moses surely failed in meekness when he smote the rock twice in impatience and anger against the murmuring rebels (Numbers 20). But he was steadfast and faithful in that quality when he cast down and broke the tables of testimony on his descent from Mount Horeb (Exodus 32), when he made the Israelites to drink of the pulverized golden calf, and when he rallied the children of Levi to Jehovah’s side in the execution of judgment upon their wicked brethren. Perhaps we could say that glory crowned his meekness when he then stood in the gap to intercede with Jehovah for those who deserved to be blotted out of the book of the living. Moses offered himself, his own life, in the stead of his brethren, whom he had only recently, in the moral power of meekness, chastened and judged in faithfulness. Meekness is not weakness. Weak persons, weak leaders among the people of God, are not meek, and truly meek saints are not weak ones, but are endowed with moral and spiritual power by the Spirit of God.

We must look yet at Timothy, whose natural demeanor was that of timidity, which could be considered to be a form of cowardice. We shrink from using the terminology of cowardice, but Mr. J. N. Darby and some others have rendered the phrase “the spirit of fear” in II Timothy 1:7 as “a spirit of cowardice”. Meekness is manifestly not cowardice, and has no connection to it. Cowards are not meek, and neither are the meek cowards. A meek soul overcomes the fear of the shame of association with the testimony of the Lord (II Timothy 1:8), and this is the exercise about which Paul exhorted Timothy to be strong and faithful. We might even conceptualize meekness as being the outcome of having a spirit of “power, and of love, and of wise discretion” (J.N.D.). If spiritual power bears the fruit of meekness, then love and wisdom, or wise discretion, channel it for greatest moral effect in the godly.

Much more could be written on this subject, but I end with these comments. Humility alone is not meekness, nor is submissiveness, though the meek one will be humble and in proper subjection as called for by the relationships he is in. Meekness entails an active, overcoming power in the face of moral and spiritual obstacles, overcoming as well in the atmosphere of the power of darkness in the world. 

The Spirit of God works to develop His fruit, including meekness, in the lives of all of those He dwells in.6 As meekness characterized the Lord Jesus, so the Spirit desires that it should increasingly characterize His own. And so it will be, that by the godly power of meekness, the meek7 shall at last inherit the earth.

1 “Vine’s Expository Commentary on Galatians” 2 Mark 4:40 3 Mark 3:5 4 John 2:13-17 5 John 8:48-50 6 Galatians 5:22-23 7 Matthew 5:5

The Effect of Grace in Mephibosheth

The touching account of Mephibosheth, King Saul’s crippled grandson who is first seen in II Samuel 4:4 and then more fully introduced in chapter 9, has been enjoyed down through the centuries by believers and used effectively in the preaching of the gospel of the grace of God to sinners. What worshiping soul who has an appreciation of the grace of God toward helpless sinners can fail to see himself or herself through the eyes of this pathetic character, raised up from a seemingly hopeless existence to such great enjoyment and blessing!

King David was not constrained to act upon a merely humane or utilitarian motive in his own mind, nor was he persuaded by human influence, when he invited Mephibosheth into his own house and to his table, where there would be both abundance and fellowship to enjoy together. David was a man after God’s own heart, and because of that, he enjoyed the grace of God in his own soul more than most of his contemporaries did. It was out of that wellspring of enjoyment that David reached out – reached down – to the house of Saul in order to show “the kindness of God” to a self-described “dead dog” and descendant of his envious and hateful predecessor. By that act of mercy crowned with grace, David brought Mephibosheth into the circle of undeserved favor that he himself knew in the presence of Jehovah, and that the lame man came to enjoy for himself.

How can we tell the extent to which Mephibosheth appreciated the position of grace into which he was brought at the king’s table? We perceive it by his earnest response to David in II Samuel 19, when he is finally able to come out to meet the king upon his return from exile. It is clear that Mephibosheth deeply felt and mourned David’s absence, having neglected his personal care and grooming during the time he was deprived of fellowship. No doubt his sustenance had been provided while the king was gone, but it was the lack of communion with his “lord the king” that broke his heart and depressed his spirit.

Adding to his grief over David’s exile was the opportunistic treachery of Ziba, notable servant of the house of Saul, who apparently lied to the king about Mephibosheth’s motives. Ziba did in fact profit from the slight and dishonor he did to his crippled master, and we may wonder at the haste of David in assigning to Ziba all that belonged to Mephibosheth. If David is a type of Christ in the matter of showing such undeserved favor at an earlier time, how then could David fail in his discernment of Ziba’s accusations against his master’s son?1 And why does David not fully rectify the matter and restore Mephibosheth’s possessions in full when he finally appears and provides a legitimate answer to his inquiry: “Why didst thou not go with me, Mephibosheth?”

There may come a time in our lives when we believe we have been treated unjustly or dishonored in some way by others, whether we have a close relationship with them or a merely casual one. We may be found complaining to the Lord in our hearts about the slander or slight, and we may think we deserve vindication, but this will only serve to hinder our communion with Him who orders all things for our good and blessing. We can learn from Mephibosheth in such situations. Perhaps he was much grieved by the wrong done to himself, while he was missing the fellowship of the king, but when once he was restored to the enjoyment of the presence of that one who had lavished such grace upon him and set him at his table, peripheral things just faded away as unimportant.

We may not understand the ways of God in withholding benefits from us that we hoped to enjoy, or when He removes in part some of those objects with natural appeal that we once valued, while allowing others to possess them. We may also spend much time wishing for vindication and restored honor among peers, along with other natural advantages that may be coveted and partaken of apart from communion with Christ. But may it rather be that we learn the lesson that the story of Mephibosheth would teach our hearts by the Spirit, which I suggest to be this: an appreciation of the grace shown us by God our Savior, in daily communion with the Lord Jesus and with a desire for His honor, will cause the appeal of peripheral things and interests to dim to the point that we are content with the way He administers matters among His servants. This surely is the path to fullness of joy and blessing.

“. . . My lord the king is as an angel of God;2 do therefore what is good in thy sight. For all my father’s house were but dead men before my lord the king; and thou didst set thy servant among them that eat at thine own table. What further right therefore have I? and for what should I cry any more to the king?” And the king said to him, “Why speakest thou any more of thy matters? I have said [or: decided], Thou and Ziba divide the land.” And Mephibosheth said to the king, “Let him even take all, since my lord the king is come again in peace to his own house.”

1 II Samuel 16:4 2 II Samuel 19:24-30

The Glory of God and the Existence of Evil

Theologians and philosophers have for many centuries pondered the question of the existence of evil in the universe. For monotheistic thinkers who believe that the one true God could have created the universe in any way that He pleased, and that He could have maintained it in a sinless state, this matter of God’s allowance of evil is of great theological import. Gottfried Leibniz, an 18th-century German philosopher, coined the term “theodicy”1 in addressing the question.

A student of the scriptures with spiritual motives need not spend much time and effort with philosophical argumentation, but may rather find his answers in meditation on the word of God. Now, it is not possible to address the subject of theodicy comprehensively in a brief article, nor can the writer claim to have the depth of knowledge that many other godly Bible students have had. But it is a desire of mine to present a few thoughts that may give others a greater appreciation of that transcendent theme of the glory of God, which He wills to display both through and to the whole created universe.

The overarching principle and the presupposition that one must begin with is that it is God’s necessary prerogative to glorify Himself as the creator and sustainer of all things. To begin from the creature’s perspective or experience would be the first false step on the path of departure from truth, and it will end in humanistic error of one sort or another. The gravity of this principle will be seen in a few texts I quote here, but there are many suchlike in the word of God.

  • As surely as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of Jehovah! (Numbers 14:21)
  • For Mine own sake, for Mine own sake, will I do it; for how should My name be profaned? and I will not give My glory unto another. (Isaiah 48:11)
  • And I will set My glory among the nations, and all the nations shall see My judgment which I have executed, and My hand which I have laid upon them. (Ezekiel 39:21)
  • Father, glorify Thy name. There came therefore a voice out of heaven, I both have glorified and will glorify it again. (John 12:28)

Having approved the truth in our minds and consciences that God must be free to glorify Himself in anything He purposed to create and decreed to come to pass, we might stop to muse for a time how God might glorify Himself to the fullest extent in the universe He created. We believe that God created orders of intelligent spiritual beings we know as angels, in ranks of principality, authority, power, and dominion;2 then at the end of all His creatorial work, and to crown it, He created man, a tripartite being after His own image and likeness. All these created intelligent beings had moral agency, that is, they were responsible to obey God and to not act according to their own wills and interests. In the case of the first man and his wife, there was one command to obey, a prohibition against eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

It is perhaps not very difficult to conceive of the possibility that God could have kept all the intelligent moral agents He created in a sinless state in perpetuity. We are given enough information about angels to know that those angels who did not fall nor leave their original state3 are called “elect angels” and “holy angels”,4 indicating to us that God sovereignly chose them to subsist in holiness. As to man, the tree of life in Eden might have guaranteed to him the same perpetual sinlessness had he availed himself of it. We know, of course, that man was barred from that tree of life upon transgressing, but the redeemed will finally have a part in the “tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God”,5 and will be kept forever free from defilement by evil.

But now our thoughts might come to focus on the question: In a universe kept forever from corruption, in which untold millions of intelligent beings are maintained in perfection admiring and serving their Creator, how would the magnificence of God’s glory or the full range of His attributes be known and appreciated?

We enjoy reading that “God is light” and that “God is love” in John’s first epistle. Had evil never been allowed into a perfect creation, how little had those definitional attributes of God been understood! God’s essential nature would be the same in any case, but an untainted creature might well be ignorant of and unmoved by the value of Light, did it not shine in the darkness for the dispelling of that moral gloom.6 Love might be enjoyed on a level of contentedness and satisfaction in a perpetually innocent soul in relationship with God, but it could never be perceived and known in all its depth and intensity apart from the Father giving His Son for the life of the world and for souls dead in trespasses and sins.7

There is a passage of scripture that helps us to understand a little better the holy motives of God in tolerating for a time the evil He allowed entry into His creation. In Romans 9:22-23, as part of a dissertation on the mercy and justice of God in electing souls according to His sovereign will, Paul wraps up his inspired argument in this way: “What if God, desiring to show His wrath and to make known His power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory?”8 Here we are given a glimpse into the mind of God in His toleration of evil until such a time as He reconciles all things unto Himself, judging and banishing that evil.

Evil did not enter the universe because God could not keep it from defilement. He had a definite purpose in allowing for the intelligent moral beings He created, both angels and men, to fail the test of allegiance and dependence as a result of placing self-interest over against the Creator’s interests and claims. In permitting the entrance of evil, God was able to make known to the whole of creation the full range of His attributes. These would include not only His omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence, but now also His justice, holiness, wrath, immutability, mercy, goodness, and redeeming love, so that all the wonder of His activity in space and time might redound to His eternal glory!

The infinite work of the Son of God on a Roman cross outside Jerusalem is at the center of all of God’s counsels, for there God glorified Himself fully with respect to evil in the heavens and the earth. We who believe on Jesus are eternally blessed through that work, all praise be to Him; but the divine scheme of redemption, and the temporal evil and failure that was necessary for its full development and revelation, find their purpose and vindication in the desire and prerogative of God to glorify Himself through His manifold attributes and excellencies.

“For of Him, and through Him, and for Him are all things: to Him be glory forever. Amen.” (Romans 11:36)

———————————————–

1 Theodicy means “vindication of divine justice”; it is a defense of God’s attributes, including His goodness and omnipotence, in view of the existence of evil in creation. 2 Ephesians 1:21 3 Jude 6 4 I Timothy 5:21; Revelation 14:10 5 Revelation 2:7 6 John 1:4-5 7 John 6:51; Ephesians 2:1; I John 3:16 8 Romans 9:22-23 ESV

Most scripture quotations are from J. N. Darby’s New Translation.

(Header photo: A dark orb – the moon – temporarily eclipses the glory of the sun. Taken in Hermann, Missouri, on August 21, 2017.)

The Value of Spiritual Fatherhood

In every age, according to the wisdom of God the Father of us all,1 fatherhood in the family has been highly important in the development of children into responsible adulthood. God Himself instituted that role, and for believers, that role of fatherhood is of great importance in the moral and spiritual realms, as well as for the physical and economic well-being of the children that fathers either bring into the world or adopt as their own. But spiritual fatherhood to those outside of the family circle has great value as well, particularly in the context of the church of God.

Paul the apostle reminded the Corinthian saints of their relationship to himself as sons of a spiritual father, for he had in Christ Jesus begotten them through the gospel. They were much in need of admonition, and in his warnings to them in I Corinthians 4:15, Paul provides them and us with an insight into how much God values fatherhood in this moral or spiritual sense by presenting to them this contrast: “For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers”. Christian teachers are needful for learning the wonderful truths of Christianity, but those who act for God the Father in the role of a spiritual father to younger believers have a special part to play in the spiritual development of souls in local Christian gatherings.

I have been impressed recently by five scenes in the Bible that bring out different aspects of this kind of fatherhood, in which we can clearly see the benefit and value of this relationship between older and younger saints. For the sake of brevity, we cannot take more than a quick look at each of these, though further meditation on each of these accounts by the reader is recommended.

David experienced failure as a father, and later lamented it. It was no doubt the Lord who put it on his heart to “show the kindness of God” to a much younger man very much outside of David’s family, a lame man of the house of Saul named Mephibosheth. You may read the lovely account in II Samuel 9, which is very often used effectively in the preaching of the gospel. Permit me, however, to make this observation and application, that David was led to reach outside of his family circle to show God’s kindness and a generous hospitality to poor Mephibosheth. We who are older can find here an example to practice in our own settings, that is, to show intentional kindness to our younger brothers and sisters in Christ.

Elisha the man of God had what might be called an “elder brother” relationship with the sons of the prophets in his day, but it seems he had a more tender and fatherly relationship with the young man who served him. In II Kings 6, we find the prophet and his servant surrounded by the hosts of Israel’s enemy, the Syrians. Elisha sees by faith Jehovah’s angelic hosts as horses and chariots of fire covering the mountain, and seeks to comfort the soul of the young man with these words: “Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them.” This young man needed more than just assurance from Elisha that all would be well, appropriate as this encouragement was at that juncture. What he needed was the spiritual eyesight that his master possessed, so as to be able to see for himself that Jehovah had full control of their difficult situation, and immediately that ability to see the hosts of heaven came through Elisha’s prayer. “Lord, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see”, was the simple prayer God used to bestow spiritual eyesight and strengthen a timorous young man’s faith. Spiritual fathers pray, and pray often, for the younger ones under their care, that they might see and enjoy spiritual realities.

Paul had a stated relationship as spiritual father to both Timothy and Titus, though we get the impression that the character of their individual relationships with Paul differed as to level of intimacy, for their personalities and the situations of their ministry differed. Both faced difficulties (all of the younger men in these examples faced difficulties), but Timothy’s timidity in the face of declining faithfulness in the church brought him often to tears. The apostle tenderly sympathizes with him, as one who had shed many tears himself, then exhorts Timothy to have the courage to be unashamed of the testimony of the Lord and of Paul’s situation as a prisoner, and then to be strong in the grace available to him in Christ Jesus.2 A spiritual father enters into the sorrow and difficulties of his progeny, and on that basis is able to foster courage and moral strength.

In Titus, another of Paul’s sons in the faith, there seems to have been more fortitude and even maturity, perhaps both naturally and spiritually. In Paul’s letter to him, fatherly care and responsibility took more of the form of instruction and wise guidance in the face of the opportunistic false teachers and divisive persons found there on the island of Crete.3 These were the difficult situations Titus faced, and sound teaching would be the remedy for the danger these faithless ones represented to the assembly. A spiritual father of any age ought to provide the appropriate godly instruction to those under his care.

The case of the apostle John and Gaius, one of his spiritual children (for John usually writes of children rather than sons), is wrenching to our spiritual sensitivities. We find this account in the very short epistle of III John. Diotrephes held sway over the assembly where Gaius and Demetrius apparently served the Lord Jesus and ministered to others, and John speaks of his religious tyranny in a way that makes clear he believes it to be an evil element among them. That evil called for John’s rebuke and correction after a godly sort. But he commends Gaius for his faithful service to the brethren and to strangers, and recognizes the prosperity or growth in his soul, perhaps facilitated in part by the difficult circumstances God had asked him to minister in. Finally, John encourages Gaius to not imitate the evil he saw around him and in the church, but to imitate what is good, of which John himself was a worthy pattern. Appropriate commendation for faithfulness along with encouragement to positive goodness is another way a spiritual father may foster growth in the souls of his spiritual children.

May this word to the hearts of all of us who are mature Christians be used of our heavenly Father to the end that all of His children, His “sons and daughters bought with blood”,4 be brought along by grace and grow to maturity in their souls by faith.

1 There is an aspect of the fatherhood of God that is universal: Acts 17:29; Eph. 4:6

2 II Timothy 1:3-12; 2:1-3

3 Titus 1:9-14; 3:10

4 Hymn #3 in Hymns for the Little Flock

Claimed by the Love of Jesus

I suppose very few believers on the Lord Jesus Christ would deny in principle that their Savior has rights to them, or has a claim on their lives, by virtue of the amazing love that brought Him down so low as to die on the cross for their sins. But how we answer to the Lord’s claim on us in our daily lives is too often with a lack of devotion and in regrettable failure.

Simon Peter lived, ministered, and then died as a martyr in devotion to the Lord Jesus, and it was the love of his Master that constrained him1 throughout his course as a servant and an apostle of Christ. Let’s consider in a brief meditation a particular incident in Peter’s life that no doubt had a lasting impact on his thought and his activity in the service of his Savior.

In the last chapter of the gospel of John, Jesus appears to some of His disciples after they had gone fishing at Peter’s suggestion. This chapter of the Bible seems to have as a primary purpose a lesson in the ways of the Lord in restoring His own after failure. In this case, Peter was in need of restoration in the presence of his brethren after so publicly failing the Lord by denying Him in the courtyard of the high priest while Jesus was on trial there.2 The Lord had appeared to Simon after His resurrection, no doubt to assure him of His own unwavering love for the faltering disciple and to restore his soul privately.3 But Peter needed more to prepare him for his path of service.

I hardly need to mention the way the Lord Jesus showed His love to Peter throughout His ministry here, by claiming him in naming him “Cephas” in John 1, by healing his mother-in-law in Matthew 8, by saving him from the waves in Matthew 14, by entrusting him with the keys of the kingdom of heaven in Matthew 16, and by giving him a glimpse of kingdom glory with a few others at His glorious transfiguration in Matthew 17. Other examples could be cited. Notice the touching manner in which Jesus looked on Peter after his denials; someone has described it as a “look of wounded love”, moving Peter to repentance, the requisite first step in the restoration of the soul. But Peter needed yet one more session with his Master to cement in his conscious mind how real was the Lord’s love for him, and therefore how real Christ’s claim on his devotion.

Jesus in His restoring grace probes Peter’s heart three times, with three different emphases, in John 21:15-23. The perfection of the Lord’s dealings with His own, as evidenced here, warrants much more attention than a brief essay, but we believe that Peter’s heart was not only touched but fully sounded in the matter of his failure. Little doubt remained that the Lord Jesus had already planned out Peter’s future, both concerning his ministry of feeding Christ’s sheep and lambs, and concerning Peter’s eventual involuntary departure via the article of death.

But Peter’s mind needed a final word from the Lord on that occasion, so as to focus his thoughts on what the Lord Jesus could rightfully claim from him going forward into a future where temporal danger lay for all of the disciples. John clearly enjoyed the special love of the Lord Jesus, and we can perceive that because John refers to himself multiple times, including at this juncture, as “the disciple whom Jesus loved”. Now Peter is a little too interested in what would become of John, asking: “Lord, what about this man?” And the answer of the Lord Jesus is exquisite in its tone of tender correction, as well as in its suitability to the hearts of each of His disciples ever since: “If I will that he abide until I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou Me.”

Only true, unselfish love can make such a demand or claim upon the soul. The Lord Jesus Christ is eminently worthy to be followed, worthy of the devotion of all those whom He has redeemed with His precious blood, and whom He loves to the end,4 to the uttermost. Peter received and understood that gracious message of the deeply personal love of his Savior for him, and we can by faith enjoy it and apply it in each of our redeemed souls. May Peter’s courage and devotion to His Lord and Master inspire each of us to the same.

1 II Corinthians 5:14 2 Luke 22:54-62 3 Luke 24:34 4 John 13:1

Warfare in the Spiritual Realm

“Nothing can, nor ever will, take the place of earnestness in prayer: if we are to have God with us, we must pray. It is marked by perfect calmness . . . For our own souls it is so helpful, because prayer is the expression of entire dependence, but at the same time, confidence in God . . . Constant dependence is the constant expression of faith in God; the soul goes to God with God’s affairs; we realize how much they are our own. The blessed Lord has gone down into the dust of death. Satan’s power was exercised to the fullest, but it was all broken. He comes up again and sits at the right hand of God, takes His people, whom He has completely delivered from the hand of Satan, and uses them for conflict against him — the instruments of His service in the world. A wondrously blessed place if we only knew how to hold it — blessed to be made the Lord’s host against Satan. The more you are in the forefront of the battle, the more you will be exposed to the fiery darts. The more you bear testimony to God’s thoughts, God’s mind, the place the saints have in God’s mind, the more you will be the object of Satan’s attacks. You will necessarily be exposed to more snares and dangers than those who lag behind, and there is no place where dependence is more needed and felt.”

The excerpt above on the necessity and benefit of prayer is from a lecture by J N Darby on Ephesians 6:10-20, entitled “Canaan and the Armour of God”. I have attempted a narration of this encouraging address (below), as it has been both a challenge and a blessing to my soul.

Canaan and the Armour of God

The text of Darby’s lecture may be found at this link: https://www.stempublishing.com/authors/darby/miscbtpb/35011E.html