Midrash and the Modern Messenger

In John 13:18–19 (ESV), we read:

“¹⁸ I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen. But the Scripture will be fulfilled, ‘He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.’ ¹⁹ I am telling you this now, before it takes place, that when it does take place you may believe that I am he.”

Jesus is identifying the betrayer, Judas.  Judas, one of the twelve disciples chosen by the Lord is going to act in traitorous treachery.  According to the words of our Savior, He says to the disciples that the betrayal is taking place that “the Scripture will be fulfilled”.  Quite clearly in the text we assume that the reason Jesus chose Judas to betray him was to fulfill Scripture.  Literally the Greek text reads: “But so that the scripture may be fulfilled.”^[1]

“The psalm Jesus quoted was attributed to David, who lamented the defection of a trusted confidant (Ps 41:9). A parallel occurs in Psalm 55:12-14. Quite probably it referred originally to Ahithophel, who had been David's counselor and diplomatic advisor but deserted him in Absalom's rebellion (2Sam 15:12; 16:15-23; 17:4, 14, 23).”[2]

Normally we read the word “fulfilled” to indicate a direct prophetic accomplishment.  An example would be that in approximately 700 BC, the prophet Micah named the tiny village of Bethlehem as the birthplace of Israel's Messiah.  In Micah 5:2 (ESV) we read:

“² But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days.”

The quotation cited by our Savior in John 13 is clearly not written in a way that the reader of the Psalm would think this was written to foretell a betrayal of the Messiah.  So, we are left with the question, what does “fulfill” mean in this text.  When Jesus says that an event “fulfills” Psalm 41:9 it does not necessary mean that the event was predicted.  As a modern reader we don’t quickly understand this.

This type of assertion was a form of Bible interpretation called “midrash” that helped Jews interpret a current happening by linking it to Scripture.  A midrash is like a parable or an allegory. One might also see it as an elevated illustration.  It includes elements of commentary.  I prefer to view it in terms of type and antitype.  In the case of Jesus and Judas, David and Ahithophel are the types and Jesus and Judas are the antitypes.  One is a foreshadowing of the other. 

Interestingly, the Apostle Peter employed the same interpretative method in the process of selecting Judas’ replacement.  We read in Acts 1:16–20 (ESV)

¹⁶ “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus . . . ²⁰ “For it is written in the Book of Psalms, “ ‘May his camp become desolate, and let there be no one to dwell in it’; and “ ‘Let another take his office.’”

A more familiar example is found in Matthew chapter 2 where we read: “Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt.”^[3]  Then we read: “This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, ‘Out of Egypt I called my son.’” ^[4]  The citation from Hosea 11:1 refers to Israel—not to Jesus. However, we recognize this as midrash rather than predicted prophecy.  Some refer to it as prophecy by parallelism.

What was appropriate for Matthew, for John, for Paul and other inspired writers is not appropriate for modern scholars, preachers, and authors.  Too often creative (overly creative) preachers and teachers will assert a certain doctrine or principle and reach back into the Old Testament and claim that this fulfills a particular Old Testament story of verse.  I recall one preacher attempting to show that the rescuing of Rahab in Joshua 2 anticipated the secret rapture of the Church.   

The Midrashian interpretation of Scripture, that is inspired and recorded in the Bible is one thing.  For pastors and teachers to employ the same method of interpretation is tantamount to claiming for themselves infallibility and inspiration.  It is an attractive method for the lazy and dishonest preacher for they soon succeed in providing their congregations with ever new and creative interpretations of the Bible.  It both denies the sufficiency of Scripture and the perpetuity of Scripture. 

So from John 13 we learn two things:  One, is that the word “fulfilled” does not always mean predictive prophecy realized; and Secondly, the art of Midrashian interpretation is only trustworthy when it is evidenced within the text of Scripture by inspired authors.  We have no liberty to turn any text from type to anti-type on our own whim and authority.

 

 

 

---

^[1] Biblical Studies Press. (2005). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.

[2] Expositor's Bible Commentary, The, Pradis CD-ROM:John/Exposition of John/III. The Private Ministry of the Word (13:1-17:26)/A. The Last Supper (13:1-30)/1. The washing of feet (13:1-20), Book Version: 4.0.2

^[3] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Mt 2:13). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

^[4] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Mt 2:15). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

What Does James 5:19-20 Mean?

This Sunday, I allude to a verse in the Letter of James.  James 5:19–20 (ESV),

 ¹⁹ My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, ²⁰ let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

What does this mean and what are the implications?  James was the brother of Jesus and became a leader in the early Church in Jerusalem.  Some of fondly referred to his letter as the New Testament book of Proverbs due to its wise and practical instruction. James answers the question, “How shall we then live.”  Faith, to James, is more than an idea; it includes a practical outworking of godliness.  The Letter was probably written soon after Christ’s ascension and primarily to dispersed Jews.  He addresses such topics as:

a. The need for wisdom in tests and trials;

b. Obedience to the Word;

c. Living loving lives among the rich and poor;

d. Living out your faith in good works;

e. Godly speech and worldliness;

f.  Instruction to the wealthy; and returning to the first category,

g. Suffering and prayer.

It would seem difficult to separate James 5:19-20 from his instruction on suffering, prayer and confession of sin because this would leave the letter without a concluding statement. However, that seems to be the case.  It appears that James is placing his arms around the readers and reminding them to care for one another by helping those who sin, particularly the sins noted in his letter.  What a poignant way to end a letter that focuses on the truth that our justification is justified by our godly behavior.  He is writing to “brothers” and his concern is “anyone among you.”   He is clearly addressing someone within the congregation “wandering away from the truth”. 

The verb “wander away” can either mean to be led astray or going away by one’s own choice. ^[1]  The word “if” conveys the possibility that this hasn’t happened, but if it did this is what you are to do.  The scenario is a wandering from the “truth”.  One might think this is a departure from orthodoxy, but the practical extent of this letter leads me to conclude that it is a wandering away from right behavior.  The call to the Christian community is to “bring him back”.  The danger to an unrestored wanderer is bleak to say the least: It will “save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.”^[2]

At the very least this person who is “among” them is a professing Christian.  And in accord with this letter, I would agree with Bloomberg and Kamel that “this restoring is more a work that shows their faith than one that creates their salvation.”^[3]  That this is more than physical death is surely the danger. “That this cannot be physical death may be inferred from the literal translation of the Greek text: it "shall save his soul from death." So it would seem that spiritual death is in view.”[4]

Of course, it is only our Savior that saves. But the ministry of a loving believer seeking to restore a fallen brother (Galatians 6:1-2) is surely a life-saving rescue mission.  The restoration of the confessing believer not only shows that they have passed from death to life, but we learn that it “will cover a multitude of sins.”^[5]  This harmonizes with 1 Peter 4:8 that reads, “Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins.” (1 Peter 4:8, ESV). 

Grammatically “The sins that are “covered” could also be the sins of the person who has wandered (v. 19), but it might be instead (or also) the sins of the person who has intervened on their behalf (Prov 10:12).”[6]  “The most obvious person would be the one who has strayed. Yet, ‘Jewish sources are quoted to the effect that the one who turns a sinner to repentance is deserving of forgiveness himself.’”^[7]  The verse tends to be ambiguous, but the natural reading, I would contend, would be that the erring brother is the recipient of such “covering”.  “Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.” (Psalm 32:1, ESV)

What does this mean? It would surely include the thought that once his sins are confessed before God in true repentance, they are “forgiven and forgotten” by God the Father. He has promised the erring saint in 1 John 1:9 (ESV), “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” [Emphasis mine].  The “saving the soul from death” is surely the result of confession and repentance and there is no sin that cannot be “covered” for the penitent believer. 

James's purpose in these closing verses is to encourage Christians to make an effort to bring the wanderer back.  A return by the “sinner” will “justify” their profession of faith with the promise that all their sins can be forgiven.  We Calvinists are fearful about embracing the warnings of Scripture, but that should not be the case.  Indeed, it is only those who persevere who show they are one with Christ.  “For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end.” (Hebrews 3:14, ESV).  And again, “And we are his house, if indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope.”^[8]

So, I conclude that James is telling us that even though we have been saved by the grace of God and once-for-all sacrifice of Christ, we are still sinners living in mortal bodies who have a tendency to wander off like silly sheep. So, we are to watch out for each other and return each other to the truth of the Christian life, knowing full well that if an erring congregant fails to respond in repentance the consequences are dire. 

Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it;
  Prone to leave the God I love:
Take my heart, oh, take and seal it
  With Thy Spirit from above.
Rescued thus from sin and danger,
  Purchased by the Savior’s blood,
May I walk on earth a stranger,
  As a son and heir of God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

^[1] Blomberg, C. L., & Kamell, M. J. (2008). James (Vol. 16, p. 248). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

^[2] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Jas 5:20). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

^[3] Blomberg, C. L., & Kamell, M. J. (2008). James (Vol. 16, p. 249). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[4] “Expositor's Bible Commentary, The, Pradis CD-ROM:James/Exposition of James/XII. Miscellaneous Exhortations (5:7-20)/D. Concerning the Wanderer (5:19-20), Book Version: 4.0.2

^[5] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Jas 5:20). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

[6] Zondervan. The NIV Zondervan Study Bible, eBook: Built on the Truth of Scripture and Centered on the Gospel Message . Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

^[7] Blomberg, C. L., & Kamell, M. J. (2008). James (Vol. 16, p. 249). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

^[8] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Heb 3:6). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

The Sayings of the Wise – Part 25

 

THIRTY SAYINGS OF THE WISE

SAYING NUMBER TWENTY-Four

The 24th saying of the wise is found in Proverbs 24:10 (ESV), "If you faint in the day of adversity, your strength is small."  Our immediate reaction might be, "Duh!"  Of course!   Why is this a wise saying?  "A difficult time is literally a “time of restriction” (Hb tsarah). To be limited is literally to be “restricted” (Hb tsar). So to avoid losing strength, act." [1]

Stated otherwise I think we can all see the wisdom.  If you fail to do nothing, which the Hebrew verb רָפָה (rafah) can mean, you will weaken, not strengthen, Procrastination does not empower but in fact contributes to weakening.  "Although framed as an observation, this is actually an exhortation for the reader to show himself strong and courageous in times of adversity."[2]

I like to watch a sporting event called American Ninja Warriors.  The advanced obstacle course that these athletes traverse is quite phenomenal. Occasionally one is hanging on a bar prepared to propel themselves to the next obstacle.  The truth that we all know is that the longer they hang there, the weaker they will become.  Procrastination does that to us. 

Tim Challies has written on this in an article published by Christianity.com. He makes this observation:

"First, I had to see this: Procrastination is a problem of spirituality before it is a problem of productivity. I came to understand that God has put me on this earth to bring glory to him by doing good for others. If that is the case, then procrastination hinders my ability to carry out my purpose. It is downright evil."

We often look at procrastination as an issue of personal discipline but I think Challies is right in that we ought first to consider it a matter of sin.  It is in that we have hope.  It is in that we can apply the Gospel.  “So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.” (James 4:17, ESV) 

Should we need acknowledge, as Christians, that God is for us and is working for our good -- our sanctification.  Therefore when we read: “His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire” (2 Peter 1:3–4, ESV), we indeed have an empowering, sin-defeating promise to propel us into obedience?

The sum and substance of our lives as Christians as we prepare for eternity is wrapped up in one word: perseverance.  We read the exhortation of the preacher in Hebrews 10:35–36 (ESV),

³⁵ Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. ³⁶ For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised. 

So the Wise Man is right, the longer we delay in acting in what is right, the weaker we become. Our own strength is realized in all its weakness.  Obedience invites the strength and the power of God. Paul could testify:

“But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.” (1 Corinthians 15:10, ESV) 

I honestly believe that if we Christians view procrastination as not a "productivity" problem, but a spiritual problem, we would enjoy the wonders of God's enabling grace and thus find great joy in living for Him.

 

_____________________________________________________

1. Stabnow, D. K. (2017). Proverbs. In E. A. Blum & T. Wax (Eds.), CSB Study Bible: Notes (p. 990). Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers.

2. Crossway Bibles. (2008). The ESV Study Bible (p. 1176). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles

Is It Ever OK to Lie? 1 Samuel, Part 35

In the previous Blog, I noted that David confirmed Saul’s intention to kill him.  Saul’s son, Jonathan warns David and he himself remains faithful to a covenant he made with David. After their vow of friendship Jonathan sends David on his way.  In flight from Saul, David stops at Nob to gather supplies.  Within this story there is an ominous clue by the narrator of sad events that will transpire because of this stopover. Since he has nowhere else to turn, David flees to Philistia. He could have returned home to his enemy, Saul, but instead he decides to take his chances among his other enemies.

 Text:  1 Samuel 21 (ESV)

 “Then David came to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest.”^[1]  Nob located between Gibeah and Jerusalem seems to have become a center for priestly activity and the tabernacle, at this time. “Ahimelech. A great grandson of Eli (1:9) . . . Not only is there a rejected king on the throne (15:26–29) but also a disqualified priest (2:30–36).”^[2]

 Ahimelech was surprised and seemed distressed at David’s visit.  It probably wasn’t a secret that David was being hunted by the King.  David lies about his mission and asks for food for himself and his men. The priest answered, ““I have no common bread on hand, but there is holy bread—if the young men have kept themselves from women.”^[3] “Common bread, which might be eaten by anyone, is distinguished from holy bread, which, like sacrifices, could be eaten only by the clean (e.g., Lev. 10:10). Sexual contact was one source of uncleanness (Ex. 19:15; Lev. 15:18) . . . The “holy bread” was the bread of the Presence of Ex. 25:30; Lev. 24:5–9.”^[4]   It is clear that Ahimelech was “bending” the rules.

 Then we read this: “Now a certain man of the servants of Saul was there that day, detained before the Lord. His name was Doeg the Edomite, the chief of Saul’s herdsmen” (1 Samuel 21:7, ESV) which will prove to be an ominous statement later revealed in the story.

 Having eaten the bread, David also asked for a sword. In a moment of déjà vu David was granted Goliath’s sword whom he had killed.

From there David flees to Gath in Philistia.  No one could invent a story like this!  This is bizarre.  Fleeing from his enemy, the Israelite king, David flees to the enemy of Israel – wearing the sword of Goliath, the Philistine dead champion.  Another point of intrigue is that although Israel didn’t recognize David as king, the servants of Achish, king of the Philistines did! This gave David much fear.  So, what did he do?  We read in 1 Samuel 21:13 (ESV),

 ¹³ So he changed his behavior before them and pretended to be insane in their hands and made marks on the doors of the gate and let his spittle run down his beard.

Achish is convinced by David’s imitation of insanity and refuses to allow him to remain with them.  We read in the next chapter, “David departed from there and escaped to the cave of Adullam.”^[5]

 This is a story of deception. Sir Walter Scott is quoted as saying, “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.”  David’s deception of the Philistine king, Achish but particularly his lie to the priest Ahimelech is troublesome.  David may have thought that ensuring the safety of himself and his men warranted telling a lie.   He may have even been trying to protect Ahimelech in case Saul found out (If so this backfired horribly (see Chapter 22:9-18)). People lie for lesser important reasons, don’t they?  What is essentially sinful, albeit for “good” reasons, can never justify our actions.

The Bible nowhere presents an instance where lying is the right thing to do. The ninth commandment prohibits bearing false witness (““You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” (Exodus 20:16, ESV)).  Likewise, the New Testament is clear: “Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another.” (Ephesians 4:25, ESV).

The Bible also describes at least two instances where lying produced good results (e.g., For example, the lie the Hebrew midwives tell Pharaoh seems to result in the Lord’s blessing on them (Exodus 1:15-21), and it probably saved the lives of many Hebrew babies. Another example is Rahab’s lie to protect the Israelite spies in Joshua 2:5.). Pragmatism or situational ethics have never been affirmed in the Bible as excuses for sin. 

The most common illustration of this dilemma comes from the life of Corrie ten Boom in Nazi-occupied Holland. Essentially, the story is this: Corrie ten Boom is hiding Jews in her home to protect them from the Nazis. Nazi soldiers come to her home and ask her if she knows where any Jews are hiding. What is she to do? Should she tell the truth and allow the Nazis to capture the Jews she was trying to protect? Or should she lie and deny that she knows anything about them?

Ethics classes love to debate this quandary. One ethics class I took taught that it is OK if done in love.  In other words we can sin, if love is the motive!  Some authors consider David’s lie, including the midwives and Rahab, to “appear to be acceptable”.  But it is extremely hard to read the Scriptures and even suggest that lying (although admittedly in these cases an exceedingly difficult choice) is ever acceptable in the eyes of God.  Lying flies against His nature.  He is the God of truth. Whether lying leads to further consequences as David’s does or even if it seems to have accomplished what its intention was, it is still wrong.  The biggest question is why God doesn’t strike us down (e.g., Acts 5:1-11) every time we lie, not whether it might provoke the silence of God, or even bring to pass some good.

God never lies (Titus 1:2). He is the source of truth. “It is impossible for God to lie” (Hebrews 6:18). Liars will be among those judged in the end (Revelation 21:8).  Our prayer should be:

“Have mercy on me, O God, according to your steadfast love; according to your abundant mercy blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin . . . Behold, you delight in truth . . ..” (Psalm 51:1–6, ESV)

 

 

---

^[1] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (1 Sa 21:1). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

^[2] MacArthur, J., Jr. (Ed.). (1997). The MacArthur Study Bible (electronic ed., p. 410). Nashville, TN: Word Pub.

^[3] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (1 Sa 21:4). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

^[4] Crossway Bibles. (2008). The ESV Study Bible (p. 527). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

^[5] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (1 Sa 22:1). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

6 Reasons Why I Disagree with John MacArthur and the Elders of Grace Community Church.

I would be remiss not to mention a couple things at the outset.  Dr. MacArthur’s ministry in preaching, teaching and writing has served my soul as long as I’ve been a Christian.  I have the highest respect for the faithful tenure of service that he has provided to Grace Community Church, the Church in general and countless numbers of peoples, in various languages, through Grace To You.  My disagreement with Dr. MacArthur is not personal.  I do think he and his elders erred on this matter.

Also I want to concede that the Elders at Elk Point Baptist Church also wrestled with this issue.  Although I was on vacation, I was privy to their work and I highly endorse it.  Their work in many ways is superior to mine.  They focused primarily on the issue that the political and legislative climate in California was totally different than the Province of Alberta.  To import a church’s reaction in that state and import their conclusion into our province was not logical.  My comments are not intended in any way as to undermine their work.  This blog looks at MacArthur’s position in light of his context and I remain convinced that it is unwise.  What gives rise to my response is the final sentence of his position, which reads: “Our prayer is that every faithful congregation will stand with us in obedience to our Lord as Christians have done through the centuries.”  The implication is obvious: to disagree is to be unfaithful.  The position of MacArthur is reported here: https://www.gty.org/library/blog/B200723

 In short here are 6 reasons why I disagree with their decision.   

 #1.

It is unfortunate that the GCC position did not reference exact California legislation.   We presume by the GCC blog that there was a “government-imposed moratorium on our weekly congregational worship or other regular corporate gatherings.”  The language of GCC is “moratorium”  meaning “halt” or “cessation.”  The language of the State includes ideas of restriction, re-location, addition of protocols.  Why did GCC escalate the language?

“Places of worship must therefore discontinue indoor singing and chanting activities and limit indoor attendance to 25% of building capacity or a maximum of 100 attendees, whichever is lower. Local Health Officers are advised to consider appropriate limitations on outdoor attendance capacities, factoring their jurisdiction's key COVID-19 health indicators. At a minimum, outdoor attendance should be limited naturally through implementation of strict physical distancing measures of a minimum of six feet between attendees from different households, in addition to other relevant protocols within this document.”[1]

I think it is blatantly wrong for GCC to say that the State called them to cease their worship when it is apparent that the State asked for an adjustment to their worship.   We need to be careful of our language.  When the authors opt to use cease and desist language instead of amended and curtailing language it implies manipulation.

#2.

Civil disobedience seems unfounded and certainly not be the only moral course of action at this time.

  Churches throughout the US and Canada have found ways to honour Christ AND honour Caeser.  It is not true that GCC cannot meet.  They can meet out of doors. Is there any reasonable explanation why the larger congregation can’t meet in smaller groups?  I suggest two options to GCC. As an attendee I participated in a pastor’s luncheon (with 4000 + pastors and wives) hosted in GCC’s outdoor complex.  In what is normally beautiful California weather that would be an option.  Secondly, GCC and MacArthur boast some of the most qualified elders in the western evangelical world plus a cadre of exceptional professors at their Master’s Seminary, why couldn’t this 4000 member congregation fall under the leadership and preaching of various smaller groups held in COVID-19 respectful gatherings?  Alastair Begg’s church, Parkside Church, in Cleveland does this. I usually watch their full online service every Sunday.  To date, Alastair preaches to an empty auditorium and weather-permitting, the Church gathers out of doors for the evening service, seeking to meet under the COVID guidelines.

#3.

The State has not prohibited worship in every way and in all cases.  As yet this is not an Acts 5:29 scenario.  They have not been commanded not to meet (period).  They have been called to meet under certain conditions. Because they are not commanded ever to meet and because they are not commanded to disobey God.  They can still meet, still worship, still sing, still preach the Gospel, still evangelize.  So what might be behind this?  I am fearful that this appears to be more a political, social statement than an evangelical statement.  A careful listening of the following interviews given by MacArthur reveals, in his own words, that this is a “protest”.  His Church does not believe the narrative that lead up to the State’s restrictions.  In English they don’t believe the veracity of the medical claims.  By his own words MacArthur does not believe that the situation is as dire or deadly as being claimed.  They may also disbelieve the measures being taken as unnecessary or ineffective. These interviews will show this:

https://youtu.be/ssMW4QOCr7g

https://youtu.be/SR-TxvubxdA

#4.

MacArthur claims the US historic claim to separation of Church and State with its Biblical support. However what is overlooked is that the doctrine of separation of church and state has never been assumed in cases of building codes, fire regulations, health and safety concerns and even charitable status issues.  In Elk Point Baptist Church that are a myriad of things we do in compliance to the civil authorities from the above-mentioned to use and reporting of funds, Constitutional particulars, marriage licensing, etc. etc.  Indeed we would agree with MacArthur that there are many important areas that the State has no right to interfere, but health and safety of citizens is part of their God-given portfolio and we humbly submit recognizing that.

#5.

There appears to be no regard for what has become a very real health concern in the State of California. Photos of the congregation without masks or social distancing appear insensitive to the reality.  If there was a gas smell at GCC, not only would the worship be halted, the building would be evacuated and members would not re-convene until the health threat had passed.  God’s call to love Him with all our being cannot be set against His call to love our neighbour.  From the beginning of this so-called pandemic, Christians have been reminded to be sensitive to one another’s needs and to think not only of you, but others as more important (Philippians 2:3-5).  What is fundamentally different that a mass gathering without due care and diligence on a beach in San Diego and 4000 people packed into an auditorium without due care for their neighbour?  Both smack of unbridled insensitivity to the needs of others.

Lastly,

 #6.

But perhaps with equal importance we must come to the conclusion that the New Testament does not condition our response to human authorities on whether we think they are fair or even if we think their conclusions are based upon faulty data.  “Children, obey your parents if you think they’re right.” (!!?!!)  Peter lived through and instructed the Church in the most egregious, wicked regime in human history. Here’s what he wrote,  

“Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.” (1 Peter 2:13–17, ESV) [Emphasis mine].

For instance, let me assume that I think that the work of the epidemiologists is faulty; that the medical analytics are flawed; that the diagnosis and treatment is lacking; along with a multitude of other foundational defects.  None of those things offer a free ticket to disobedience.

Conclusion

I end as I began.  With the deepest gratitude and respect for Dr. MacArthur and Grace Community Church I am not only surprised, but saddened that they would promote this position, for the reasons they give. They also have worldwide influence and I wish they had exercised greater discernment. I sadly see a political or social motivation more than an evangelical one.  I am also repulsed by the notion that to disagree with them renders me and my church as unfaithful.  I position myself in a vulnerable place to differ with such a giant in the faith. To God alone be the glory.

   

 

---

[1] https://files.covid19.ca.gov/pdf/guidance-places-of-worship--en.pdf

The Ultimate Goal of Christian Friendship - 1 Samuel, Part 35

In the previous chapter, Saul attempts to kill David eight times. He initially tries to persuade Jonathan to murder David, but Jonathan refuses and asserts his friend’s innocence (vv. 1–5). In response, Saul vows not to harm David. However, he goes back on his word a short time later (vv. 9–10). David flees to Samuel at Ramah and goes into hiding and we have the remarkable story of David’s friendship with Saul’s son, Jonathan.

1 Samuel 20 (ESV)

David is confused as to why Saul wants to kill him.  At this point Jonathan doesn’t seem certain that this is his father’s wish.  Between the two of them they hatch a plot. Jonathan will excuse David from sitting at dinner with the King.  How the King reacts will convince both men one way or the other. “If he says, ‘Good!’ it will be well with your servant, but if he is angry, then know that harm is determined by him.” (1 Samuel 20:7, ESV)

David was certain of Saul’s murderous intentions, but Jonathan would seek to determine if they are valid or not and he promised to tell David.  In their friendship they made a covenant.

“And Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, “May the Lord take vengeance on David’s enemies.” And Jonathan made David swear again by his love for him, for he loved him as he loved his own soul.” (1 Samuel 20:16–17, ESV)

Their covenant is further amplified in vv. 13–17, 42; 23:17, 18. The disclosure involved David hiding by a rock heap.  Jonathan would shoot three arrows near the heap and send his servant to fetch them. If Jonathan tells us servant to fetch the arrows in front of David’s hiding place that means that things are OK with the King.  If he commands his servant to fetch arrows beyond David, the news is bad.

At the King’s table, Saul initially said nothing about David’s absence.  But eventually he asked, and Jonathan gave the planned reply. “Jonathan answered Saul, “David earnestly asked leave of me to go to Bethlehem. He said, ‘Let me go, for our clan holds a sacrifice in the city, and my brother has commanded me to be there. So now, if I have found favor in your eyes, let me get away and see my brothers.’ For this reason he has not come to the king’s table.”” (1 Samuel 20:28–29, ESV)

“Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan.”^[1]  There’s the answer.  The King’s anger is affirmed.  Jonathan brings the news to David.  “And as soon as the boy had gone, David rose from beside the stone heap and fell on his face to the ground and bowed three times. And they kissed one another and wept with one another, David weeping the most. Then Jonathan said to David, “Go in peace, because we have sworn both of us in the name of the Lord, saying, ‘The Lord shall be between me and you, and between my offspring and your offspring, forever.’ ” And he rose and departed, and Jonathan went into the city.” (1 Samuel 20:41–42, ESV)

One of the most obvious insights into the relationship of David and Jonathan was their unbelievably faithful friendship.   Even in this chapter we learn that:

• It was stronger than personal desires (v4).
• It was stronger than family relationships (v9).
• It was stronger than personal ambition (v31)
• It was stronger than the fear of death (v3).
• It was stronger than time (v15).

 “Then Jonathan said to David, “Go in peace, because we have sworn both of us in the name of the Lord, saying, ‘The Lord shall be between me and you, and between my offspring and your offspring, forever.’ ” And he rose and departed, and Jonathan went into the city.” (1 Samuel 20:42, ESV)

 Verse 42 reads this way in the NIV: “The Lord is witness between you and me, and between your descendants and my descendants forever.”   Many take this phrase to be a blessing.  It sits well on Christian plaques and posters.  But it is actually an imprecation – a calling of God’s judgment on one another, if in fact they or their offspring fail to keep the covenant.  The CEV captures the essence: “And remember, we each have asked the Lord to watch and make sure that we and our descendants keep our promise forever.” 

 But there is a deeper story here than simply a lesson on good human friendships.  I think it is caught up in this verse: “May the Lord take vengeance on David’s enemies” (1 Samuel 20:16b, ESV).  David is now God’s representative to Israel.  He is the anointed King awaiting enthronement. He also prefigures the perfect King who would come and rule over God’s people.  Jesus Christ is his son – his offspring.  The friendship of David and Jonathan was in fact a preservation of the Seed of David, King Jesus. To wipe out the household of David is to eliminate the promise of a Savior. 

Saul stands as the personification of the offspring of Satan (Genesis 3:15) seeking to crush the offspring of the Woman.  On this path of human history, the friendship of David and Jonathan stood opposed to that plan.  Here the story collapses into one point.  The marks of a great friendship include the cooperation of friends to stand against all that opposes Christ.  Friendships will either support the glories of Christ or they will oppose Christ.

 

---

^[1] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (1 Sa 20:30). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

The Doctrine that Undercuts Racism

“Total Depravity not only protects us from pride—it protects us from racism. A heart understanding of Total Depravity eradicates any kind of racism in our hearts. No people, tribe, or race outran the curse of sin. Nations and races have committed all kinds of hellish depravity against each other. From the mistreatment of Israelites in Egypt, through the African slave trade, Jim Crow in the United States, Nazi Germany, the Klu Klux Klan, to hate crimes against Syrian refugees in Europe, and right down to sentences said among friends that begin with, “I’m sorry, but Mexicans/Chinese/Italians…”—it all comes from Total Depravity. And once we know Total Depravity, we see that racial superiority is a charade. Every person of every shade of skin under the sun is, by nature, dead in sin. No one is better. Total Depravity explains why racism is so hard to see, repent of, or forgive. Depravity blinds us to depravity.”

- Humble Calvinism © 2019 J.A. Medders