Category Archives: Thinking God’s Thoughts

05/9/23

Passionately NOT a Bible Translation!

Image: Broadstreet Publishing/YouTube

At the beginning of February 2022, Bible Gateway removed The Passion Translation (TPT) from its listing of 90 English-language translations. TPT was first released as a New Testament in 2017 with the intent to “recapture the emotion of God’s Word.” The removal itself raised passions for and against the action by HarperCollins, Bible Gateway’s parent company. Brian Simmons, identified as the lead translator for The Passion Translation by Broadstreet Publishing, provocatively said: “Cancel culture is alive in the church world.” Is this true, or has the church world, beginning with Bible Gateway, simply had enough of Simmons’ outrageous rhetoric?

Let’s focus on the above linked Facebook post, where Simmons alluded to Bible Gateway’s decision as coming from “cancel culture.” There, Simmons referred to an unnamed critic “who paid scholars to trash TPT, so now we’re off.” This unnamed critic is, in fact, Mike Winger, a Calvary Chapel-trained pastor who has an online ministry called BibleThinker. It is “a ministry dedicated to helping you learn to think biblically about everything.” At the bottom of BibleThinker’s homepage is a link for “The Passion Project” that takes you to everything Winger posted on The Passion Translation.

Winger also has a YouTube channel where he streams his podcasts, and on April 28, 2020 he announced the (then) future Passion Project in “I’ve kept this project a secret… until today.” You can watch it from BibleThinker or from Winger’s YouTube channel. He identified Simmons as the sole translator of the work, despite Broadstreet’s assertions to the contrary, which calls him merely the lead translator. He said while it sells millions of copies, TPT has a lot of serious issues. “Believers just a lot of the time are not aware of how much it radically changes the text of Scripture and makes them think that the Bible is saying things that it isn’t saying.”

Winger said in places TPT adds theology into the text that doesn’t belong there; adding words without telling the reader these words or phrases “are not there in the original language.” Simmons says he is appealing to the Aramaic, supposedly to the “original Aramaic”, when there is no original Aramaic that he can appeal to. The New Testament was written in Greek; and nearly all the Old Testament was written in Hebrew. Only 268 verses of the Bible were written in Aramaic.

Its popularity increased dramatically with endorsements from well known, public figures and pastors in what he called the signs and wonder movement. In a post on his Facebook page on December 10, 2020, Winger said: “TPT presents itself as being a translation that does not reflect the views of any denomination or tradition within Christendom. That claim goes a long way toward convincing people that it’s not a skewed version of the Bible.” But the endorsements show that claim was false: “TPT is skewed toward a hyper-charismatic perspective.”

When explaining why he did his Passion Project, Winger said he realized that scholars who have the credentials to look at a translation and say, with some credibility, whether or not a translation like TPT should be used weren’t paying attention to it. I’d suggest that was probably because they didn’t tend to worship at churches in the signs and wonders movement.

These guys are not generally paying attention to The Passion Translation. They’re not interacting with it; they see it as just this sort of weird kind of translation. They’re not really giving it the time of day. But I can get the attention of scholars because of the platform God’s given me online. . . I can reach large numbers of people online. I can create a bridge between the scholarship and the normal people.

It is true that Winger paid several bible scholars to critique specific books of the Bible, such as the Song of Songs, Galatians, Ephesians, Romans and 1 Corinthians. He thought he could get some scholars to evaluate and produce a significant number of papers dealing with TPT. His plan was to hire a number of well-respected scholars, “And have them each evaluate different books of TPT. They’re going to each write papers on their evaluations.” Winger planned to give those papers to his audience for free, which he did do (see them on BibleThinker). He also put together video interviews with each scholar, “where they summarize … as objective as possible, their conclusions about TPT.”

He thought that would be the kind of resource that would answer all the questions someone may have about TPT. Because the critique would be coming from different scholars, “who all have credentials in their fields and they even specialize in the books that I’m assigning to them to do … you can’t think that it’s the bias of one individual.” He added that Brian Simmons and his supporters tended to dismiss critiques by saying the person has an axe to grind; or they don’t believe in the gifts of the Spirit; or they paid scholars to trash TPT. Winger said: “I believe in the gifts, so you can’t apply that to me. But that is the accusation that comes out.”

Winger noted there have been a few scholars who have critiqued TPT, typically saying “pretty negative things about it.” What has happened is Brian Simmons changed the translation in order to dodge the criticism. He calls it a dodge because while Simmons changes the examples pointed out by the scholars, he doesn’t change the problem throughout the translation. So, this means that an individual paper, even presented by a credible scholar, misses the mark. “Because, six months later there’s a new addition to The Passion out and it doesn’t have those verses that were critiqued.”

“By having scholars analyze multiple different books, showing that there’s not just a few weird verses, but there are pervasive problems with the translation that’s going to get the job done.” One of the most disturbing claims made by Simmons is how he was specially chosen by God for this translation project.

Winger said (in Everything Wrong With The Passion Translation in Colossians), “In my opinion, this is a fraud that has been perpetrated on the people of God, and it’s making one man very rich and famous, while changing God’s Word so much, that it is becoming the word of Brian Simmons.” Simmons claims God supernaturally gave him the spirit of revelation and secrets of Hebrew and Greek that he put into TPT. That he is unlocking the Bible and bringing revival. Simmons says,

It wasn’t a dream. It was a wonderful encounter I had at two in the morning, in an upstairs bedroom, where the one I love came and gave me this commission to do the translation process. He breathed on me so that I would do the project; and I felt downloads coming. Instantly, I received downloads. It was like I got a chip put inside of me. I got a connection inside of me to hear Him better; to understand the Scriptures better. And hopefully to translate. He promised He would give me new understanding, and new, fresh revelation from His Word. And immediately, He gave me downloads. Immediately, I began to receive a supernatural download of insight and revelation that has continued to this day. I had a visitation and I was given the commission by the Lord as He breathed on me, and released me; and called me to translate the Bible. I discovered and uncovered so many mysteries and glory realms in the book of Psalms, it will take your breath away. I believe God gave me the key to the book of Proverbs. The Lord showed me it’s the homonymic structure of Hebrew that is going to be the key to understanding revelation in the last days, including the book of Revelation, which you haven’t gotten yet, honestly. I’m mega understating it. God really helped me do this translation. He promised that he would give me secrets that had not been disclosed; the secrets of the Lord. He’s beginning to share them with me and I’d like to share them with you. I’ve made some discoveries … I don’t know who to talk to. I mean I’m finding out all the secrets and translating. Every time I open the Bible, I get fresh insight. It speaks to me; it goes beyond the mind. I get dreams and revelation from the Lord, that is clear and prophetic. So, I believe … I got baptized in the spirit of revelation in that library room of heaven. And He’s revealing Himself in this hour like never before. The Word of God is coming alive to us. It’s like we’re getting a brand new bible, isn’t it.

The above quotes were excerpted from various videos that Mike Winger has of Brian Simmons sayings these things. Not textual quotes, but video of various talks Simmons made. They are in the “Everything Wrong With The Passion Translation in Colossians” video available on BibleThinker. Alex Hewitt concluded in that video, that “Simmons has so radically altered the text of Scripture, that what you have, is not Scripture in your hands. It contains scriptural truths; it contains many of the ideas that the Bible communicates, but what you’re holding in your hands does not qualify as Scripture.”

The publishers of TPT, Broadstreet Publishing, make the claim that Brian Simmons is a linguist, who co-translated the Paya-Kuna New Testament for the Paya-Kuna people of Panama. But Simmons is not a linguist and he did not help translate the New Testament into the Paya-Kuna language. In this short YouTube video, “Is Brian Simmons Qualified to Make the Passion Translation?,” he claims to have had some linguistic training, but he didn’t. Don Pederson of Ethnos 360, the new name of New Tribes Mission, said, “Brian is not a linguist of any sort.” He was a church planter; not a translator.

Jerry McDaniels of Ethnos 360 said, “Nobody in our mission would ever say that he’s a bible translator or was approved as a bible translator.” Simmons said they had completed their translation work by the late 1980s, but the Paya-Kuna NT was not published until 1995. The Paya-Kuna translation was not completed while Simmons served with NTM. Pederson said, “Brian was not what he claimed and that NTM/Ethnos 360 did not agree with his doctrinal positions nor did we follow his approach to translation.” He added to Mike Winger:

My wife and I knew Brian and his wife Candy when we were in missionary training together in 1977. As you surmised, Brian is not a linguist of any sort. Even back then, he was prone to go on fringe doctrinal detours. It was because of this that he left NTM back in the 80’s (possibly dismissed—I’m not certain).

In “Bible Gateway Removes The Passion Translation,” Christianity Today wrote Simmons and his wife helped develop a new Bible translation, but not to the extent he alleges. The bottom line is Brian Simmons is not what he claims to be and the TPT is not really a translation. Bible Gateway had good reasons to justify its removal. Some of the scholars you can listen to on BibleThinker hesitate to even refer to it as a paraphrase. Please do not take my word for it, listen to them.

Listen to some of the video interviews with the biblical scholars; read some of their papers. Listen to some of Winger’s other TPT videos. Do this particularly if you have been drawn to TPT. All Scripture is God-breathed, according to 2 Timothy 3:16. The Passion Translation does not rise to that standard.

Originally posted on February 15, 2022.

02/21/23

The Effects of Indwelling Sin

In chapter fourteen of Indwelling Sin in Believers, John Owen said he was now ready to examine how the power of Sin is demonstrated by the effects it has in the lives of believers. There are two kinds of effects. First is the great actual flare-ups of sin in their lives. Secondly, there is the habitual decline from the state and condition of obedience and communion with God, “which they had obtained.” Both originate with the law of sin, and both are convincing evidence of its power and efficacy.

First, Owen considers the eruptions of actual sin in the lives of believers, that are recorded in Scripture. The examples Owen gives are not of the ordinary sort of believers, but men with a distinct reputation, “on account of their walking with God.” Noah, Lot, David, Hezekiah, among others. An ordinary method could not have turned them. “It was a poison that no athletic constitution of spiritual health, no antidote could withstand,” namely indwelling sin.

These men did not fall into their great sins at the beginning of their profession of faith. “But after a long course of walking with God, and acquaintance with all these things.”

Who can look to have a greater stock of inherent grace than those men had? To have more experience of God and the excellency of his ways, the sweetness of his love. And of communion with him than they had? Who has either better furniture to oppose sin withal, or more obligations so to do than they? And yet we see how fearfully they were prevailed against.

Are we more holy, wise, and watchful than David, of whom it was said, that he was “a man after God’s own heart?” Or, are we better than Hezekiah, who appealed to God himself, that he had served him “with a whole heart?” (2 Kings 20:3) These men are metaphorically given as buoys to us. That we may discover the sands, the shelves, the rocks “whereupon they made their shipwreck.” And it would have been to their ruin, “had not God been pleased, in his faithfulness, graciously to prevent it.”

Then Owen turned to the habitual decline from zeal and holiness that they had obtained; a state and condition “which are found in many believers.” It often falls out, that instead of manifesting the promises of spiritual growth and improvement, decay and decline are found in many of the saints of God. This is principally from the strength and efficacy of indwelling sin. Owen then observed how some of the saints so decline “from that growth and improvement in faith, grace, and holiness, which might justly be expected from them.”

One example he gave was of men who seem to retain a good zeal for truth. Although they make a good outward appearance, they are found “to be the most abominable.” They cry out against errors, but not for the sake of truth. They do so to support their views and interests. “Let a man be on their party, and promote their interest, be he ever so corrupt in his judgment, he is embraced and it may be, admired.” Notice how Owen’s words apply equally to our time:

This is not zeal for God, but for a man’s self. It is not “the zeal of thing house hath eaten me up;” but “Master, forbid them, because they follow not us.” Better it were, doubtless, for men never to pretend to any zeal at all, than to substitute such wrathful selfishness in the room of it. . .

We need then go no further than this wretched generation wherein we live, to evince the truth of the observation laid down, as the foundation of the instance insisted on. The Lord give repentance before it is too late.

James’ epistle noted the general rule, “that lust, or indwelling sin is the cause of all actual sin, and all declensions in believers.” In the covenant of grace there is abundant provision made, not only for preventing decline and decay in believers, “but also for their continual carrying on towards perfection. The word of the gospel and its ordinances, are given to us for this end (Ephesians 4:11-15). They were all given in order to prevent the decay and decline in the saints, “for building up the body of Christ.” They were designed for our safe-guarding and deliverance from all their attempts and assaults.

So that we no longer live as children, tossed to and fro, carried by craftiness and human into deceitful schemes. “Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ” (Ephesians 4:15). This is the purpose of all gospel ordinances, “namely to preserve believers from all decays of faith and obedience, and to carry them on still towards perfection.” These are the means by which God causes the vine to grow and produce fruit.

We see people living under and enjoying all the means of spiritual thriving, yet they wither and waste away instead of becoming fat and flourishing. This argues there is some secret powerful distemper, whose noxious qualities hinder the virtue and efficacy of the means they enjoy. “This is indwelling sin.” In the midst of all the precious means of growth and flourishing, it can bring leanness on the souls of men.

It may well make us tremble, to see men living under, and in the use of the means of the gospel, preaching, praying, administration of sacraments, and yet grow colder every day than other, in zeal for God; more selfish and worldly, even habitually to decline, as to the degrees of holiness which they had attained to.

In addition to these means of spiritual growth and improvement, there are also the supplies of grace continually provided to the saints from Christ Jesus, who communicates spiritual life to all who are his. He gives out sufficiently to afford them a strong, vigorous, thriving, flourishing life. He comes not only to provide life to his sheep, but he came to give it abundantly (John 10:10), “so that they may be fat and fruitful.” So it is with every member of the whole body of Christ. “The end of all communications of grace, and supplies of life from this living head. Is the increase of the whole body, and every member of it.”

The withering and decay of any member of Christ’s mystical body is not a result of his failure to communicate grace for an abundant life. Rather, it is from the powerful intervention and opposition of indwelling sin. Where lust grows strong, a great deal of grace will be spent just to keep the person alive. It spends its strength and power in withstanding the continual assaults of violent corruptions and lusts, “so that it cannot put forth its proper virtue towards further fruitfulness.”

This is clear evidence of the efficacy of indwelling sin. Namely, that it is able to prevent and check the mighty power of grace. “This makes so many trees barren in fertile fields.” It compels the fruitful vineyard to bring forth so many wild grapes. So great is the power and efficacy of indwelling sin, that it often leads saints to decline in their walk with God, as with Samson.

Such is this indwelling sin, if not watched over; it breaks all the cords made to bind it; it blunts the instruments appointed to root it up; it resists the instruments appointed to root it up; it resists all healing medicines, though ever so sovereign; and is therefore, assuredly of exceeding efficacy.

The end result of recognizing this power of sin is that we must be careful to avoid and prevent its scheming. Of all the effects it produces, there is none more dangerous than how it habitually weakens many believers from their former ways and attainments, notwithstanding all the sweetness their souls have found in them.

01/24/23

The Sword Shall Not Depart

© pamela4578 | 123rf.com

King David had his ups and downs when family and politics mixed. As a youth, he defeated Goliath in single combat and came to the attention of Saul, the king. As he gained notoriety and fame, he married the daughter of King Saul, Michal, with the bride-price of a hundred Philistine foreskins; David brought two hundred (1 Samuel 18:25-27). When Saul became publicly intent on killing David and David fled into the wilderness (with Michal’s help), Saul gave his daughter to another man to be his wife. After Saul was killed in battle and David became king, Michal was returned to him. But she ridiculed David for dancing before the Lord and as a consequence she was childless (2 Samuel 6:16-23).

Robert Bergen noted in his commentary on 2 Samuel that an audience knowledgeable of the Torah would see Michal’s childlessness as a curse against a disobedient wife, and not as evidence of David’s failure to sleep with her. “Michal’s lack of faith would mean that the house of Saul would be forever separate from Israel’s eternal royal dynasty.” But David had other wives and while he reigned as king in Hebron, he had six sons by six different women: Amnon, Chileab, Absalom, Adonijah, Shephatiah and Ithream (2 Samuel 3:2-5). Solomon, who would be king after David, was born later in Jerusalem, along with Shammua, Shobab, Nathan, Ibhar, Elishua, Nepheg, Japhia, Elishama, Eliada and Eliphlet (2 Samuel 5:14), and the unnamed son born to Bathsheba before Solomon. So, how was it that Solomon, and not one of his older half-brothers could become the king of Israel after David?

Given the custom of primogeniture, Solomon would have several older male siblings with, perhaps, a perceived stronger claim to the throne—particularly those who were born in Hebron. According to The Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible, the term primogeniture refers to the exclusive right of inheritance that belonged to the firstborn male. However, if the firstborn died, the next oldest living male did not automatically receive that exclusive right. Exceptions could be made by the family patriarch, who in this case was David, if he chose to do so.

Applied to David’s family tree, Amnon had the right of primogeniture. But he was killed by Absalom, apparently in revenge for Amnon’s rape of Tamar, Absalom’s sister (2 Samuel 13:22; 28). It may also have been politically motivated. Chileab, the second born so to David, may have died in infancy, which would have then made Absalom next in line to be king after Amnon. David’s favoritism towards Absalom, even after his assassination of Amnon, seems to suggest Absalom was David’s initial choice to rule after him. However, Absalom’s attempt to usurp the throne from his father, and Joab’s killing of Absalom, eliminated him (2 Samuel 18:14-15).

That left Adonijah as the next in line, but it seems David exercised his right as the family patriarch and said Solomon, not Adonijah, would be king after him. Apparently, this did not sit well with Adonijah, because when David was old and advanced in years, he aligned himself with Joab and Abiathar the priest, and declared himself king. But this coup did not happen. Nathan and Bathsheba told David about Adonijah’s plans. He affirmed his promise to Bathsheba that her son Solomon would be king after him and arranged for a clear transfer of power to Solomon (1 Kings 1:5-48).

Because of his failed attempt to become king, Adonijah was afraid Solomon would kill him. But Solomon said if Adonijah proved himself to be a worthy person, nothing would happen to him. Yet Solomon warned in 1 Kings 1:52, “If wickedness in found in him, he shall die.” Adonijah did not prove himself to be a worthy person and tried to gain Abishag, David’s last concubine, as his wife. Moreover, he tried to draw Bathsheba into his scheme by petitioning her to make the request of Solomon. Bathsheba agreed to go to Solomon and speak in behalf of Adonijah.

Some commentators have misjudged Bathsheba believing she was “rather stupid,” with the implications of Adonijah’s request for Abishag escaping her. But in his commentary, Paul House reasoned that Bathsheba did realize he was trying to use her. Whoever possessed the former king’s harem, controlled the kingdom, as Ahithophel counseled Absalom to do is his failed coup against David (2 Samuel 16:21-22). She knew Solomon would see Adonijah’s deceitful request as part of another attempt to gain the throne. Solomon saw Adonijah’s gambit for what it was and had him put to death for his wickedness (1 Kings 2:13-25).

Bathsheba was not a stupid, naïve woman. She was the daughter of Eliam as well as the wife of Uriah (2 Samuel 11:3). Eliam seems to have been the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite (2 Samuel 23:34), meaning she was Ahithophel’s granddaughter. Ahithophel was originally an advisor to David, but then aligned himself with Absalom in his failed coup (2 Samuel 16:23). Could this reversal be attributed to Ahithophel seeking revenge against David because he committed adultery with his granddaughter and then had her husband, Uriah killed in his attempt to cover it up? As prophesied by Nathan, the actions of Amnon, Absalom and Adonijah seemed to all be “part of the evil raised up from David’s own house”:

“‘Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.’ Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house. And I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel and before the sun.’” (2 Samuel 12:10-12)

Although God forgave David, there were ongoing consequences for his hard heart and willful, deceitful actions with Bathsheba and Uriah. Like life in a modern soap opera, the sword did not depart from David’s house. Sincere repentance does not necessarily expunge the consequences of our sin.

12/27/22

In Love and Tolerance

© gadri12 | 123rf.com

“Bill’s Story,” the first chapter of Alcoholics Anonymous, told of how Bill W. got clean and sober. He wrote: “An alcoholic in his cups is an unlovely creature.” Yet there was a realization of the importance of carrying the message to the newcomer, in love and tolerance, from the very beginning. The weakest, most unpresentable members of A.A. (Alcoholics Anonymous) or N.A. (Narcotics Anonymous) are often newcomers.

Early A.A. met frequently so that “newcomers may find the fellowship they seek.” Genuinely feeling that “the newcomer is the most important person at a meeting” is a maxim within each Fellowship. N.A. said it this way: “The newcomer is the most important person at any meeting because we can only keep what we have by giving it away.” Within a 1946 Grapevine article, “Ours Not to Judge,” Bill W. said: “We have begun to regard these ones not as menaces, but rather as our teachers. They oblige us to cultivate patience, tolerance and humility.” Chapter seven of Alcoholics Anonymous, “Working with Others,” says:

Practical experience shows that nothing will so much insure immunity from drinking as intensive work with other alcoholics. It works when other activities fail . . . Frequent contact with newcomers and with each other is the bright spot of our lives.

The need for tolerance appears regularly throughout the A.A. Big Book. In the “We Agnostics” chapter of Alcoholics Anonymous, the hypocrisy of pointing to religious intolerance when the alcoholic was intolerant towards religion itself was pointed out. The importance of tolerance for healing family relationships was noted. The essential requirement of tolerance in relating to others—within and outside A.A.—was underscored repeatedly.  Succinctly in the “Into Action” chapter, Bill W. said: “Love and tolerance of others is our code.”

We find the same awareness in the N.A. Blue Book. In their “How It Works” chapter, N.A. noted that one thing will defeat them more than anything else in recovery, “an attitude of indifference or intolerance toward spiritual principles. Three of these that are indispensable are honesty, open-mindedness and willingness. With these we are well on our way.” As recovery progresses, principles such as “hope, surrender, acceptance, honesty, open-mindedness, willingness, faith, tolerance, patience, humility, unconditional love, sharing and caring” touch every area of their lives, leading to a new image of themselves. “Honesty and open-mindedness help us to treat our associates fairly. Our decisions become tempered with tolerance.”

Parallel to this thinking, In My Utmost for His Highest on May 6th, Oswald Chambers said: “It takes God a long time to get us out of the way of thinking that unless everyone sees as we do, they must be wrong. That is never God’s view.” Love and tolerance flow from a self-conscious recognition in A.A. that not only are individuals corporately members of the larger body, but they are also dependent upon one another. They need one another for sobriety.

A.A. and N.A. have been successful in maintaining solidarity within their respective fellowships by remembering that despite their open-ended criteria for membership (the only requirement for membership is the desire to stop drinking or using drugs), they are individually members of one another. This diversity of membership with minimal formal guidelines raises the potential for conflict over everything from how to apply the Twelve Steps in ongoing recovery, to where donations for service projects within the local regions and groups of the two fellowships should be allocated. These and other disputes exist within each fellowship, sometimes with heated and vehement ‘discussions’ of the issue.

But so far, the internal disputes have not led to the demise of A.A. or N.A. To the contrary, each fellowship has reported yearly increases in the number of groups established worldwide for more than thirty years. Nor has there been a disgruntled splitting of the fellowships, which seems more commonly to have occurred within the local churches and denominations of Protestant Christianity. I’d suggest this is because A.A. and N.A. are more effective in living out Romans 14:19 than the church today seems to be: “So then let us pursue what makes for peace and mutual upbuilding,” despite their diversity.

Paul’s warning in the next verse, Romans 14:20, has been too often disregarded by the church: “Do not for the sake of food destroy the work of God.” In chapter 14 of Romans, Paul discusses the way in which the church in Rome can accommodate diverse opinions on how individuals should live out their lives as members of the kingdom of God. The two disputed issues Paul gave as examples were whether or not members of the church should be vegetarian; and whether individuals should continue to honor the holy days within the Jewish religious system. Paul’s response has an almost postmodern, live-and-let-live sense to it: Each person should be fully convinced in his own mind on the rightness of his position (Romans 14:5). But as John Murray pointed out in his commentary on Romans, Paul was not just acknowledging options here, rather he was giving a command:

The injunction to be fully assured in one’s own mind refers not simply to the right of private judgment but to the demand. This insistence is germane to the whole subject of this chapter. The plea is for acceptance of one another despite diversity of attitude regarding certain things. Compelled conformity or pressure exerted to the end of securing conformity defeats the aims to which all the exhortations and reproofs are directed.

What keeps this from becoming a self-styled sense of merely doing what was right in your own eyes (Judges 21:25) is Paul’s clear reminder that the church in Rome does not live for its own purposes, but for the Lord’s (Romans 14:7-12). In other words, he reminds them of their surrender to and calling in Christ; they are not their own (1 Corinthians 6:19b). Everything we do in life is in reference to this basic fact. Our daily lives are a living sacrifice to God (Romans 12:1-2): “If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord” (Romans 14:8). The Shorter Catechism of the Westminster Confession of Faith makes the same point, declaring that the chief end of humanity is “to glorify God, and enjoy him forever.” The Scriptural support given for such a declaration comes from both the Old and New Testaments:

My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever. For behold, those who are far from you shall perish; you put an end to everyone who is unfaithful to you. But for me it is good to be near God; I have made the Lord God my refuge, that I may tell of all your works. (Psalms 73:26-28)For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen. (Romans 11:36) So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. (1 Co 10:31)

The context which permits Paul to exhort the church in Rome to “pursue what makes for peace and mutual upbuilding” in their relationships with one another is that his command is grounded in recognizing that their primary purpose is to “live to the Lord.” Again, we can turn to John Murray and his comments on Romans 14:12:

It is to God each will render account, not to men. It is concerning himself he will give account, not on behalf of another. So, the thought is focused upon the necessity of judging ourselves now in the light of the account which will be given ultimately to God. We are to judge ourselves rather than sit in judgment upon others.

If a “weaker” individual has scruples about whether or not they should eat meat, the “stronger” person should not look down upon him or her. Conversely the “weaker” person should not judge the “stronger” person because they do not keep to the same restrictions. Keeping or not keeping certain holy days was similarly a matter of personal preference; and the keepers and non-keepers were not to judge or despise the others for their position. “Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.”

The proper attitude towards those with different ideas on how to glorify and enjoy God should be to avoid placing any stumbling block or hindrance in the other person’s way. Emphasizing the relationship between the two sides—abstainers and non-abstainers, keepers and non-keepers—Paul refers to them as brothers; members of the same fellowship body. If you think of your position as “stronger” because you don’t have the same scruples to avoid eating meat, “Do not for the sake of food, destroy the work of God.” (Romans 14:20a) The kingdom of God is a matter of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit (Romans 14:17). Again, this freedom presupposes that the primary purpose for a believer is to live to the Lord; to worship and enjoy him forever.

Self-conscious recognition of the unity of individual believers should lead to their harmony in corporate relationships. Here there can be no distinction between Jew or Greek, strong or weak, “for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him.” (Romans 10:12) Bill W. commented on the inclusiveness of A.A. by noting how one day he talked privately in his office with an A.A. member who was a countess and that night met a man at a meeting who used to be part of Al Capone’s mob. After retelling this anecdote in the Grapevine, the anonymous editor said: “In AA, our very diversity is a measure of our unity.”

Perhaps the ultimate example of how Twelve Step recovery and the epistle to the Romans correspond in their thinking about tolerance, unity and fellowship is when they each turn to the Golden Rule, what Jesus said was the second greatest commandment, loving your neighbor (Mark 12:28-31). In the Big Book chapter, “A Vision for You,” Bill W. commented how the newcomer would make lifelong friends in A.A., bound together by their common escape from disaster and shoulder to shoulder journey of recovery. “Then you will know what it means to give of yourself that others may survive and rediscover life. You will learn the full meaning of ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself.’”

At the current time in our culture and political climate, Christians need to see how loving others—even those we strongly disagree with—is a decree of Scripture. Paul commanded the Roman church to owe no one anything except the continuing debt to love each other, for then they will have fulfilled the law. Every one of the commandments was summed up in “‘You shall love you neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no wrong to a neighbor, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law” (Romans 13:8-10). For more on the Golden Rule, see “Doers of the Word.”

If you’re interested, more articles from this series can be found under the link for “The Romans Road of Recovery.” “A Common Spiritual Path” (01) and “The Romans Road of Recovery” (02) will introduce this series of articles. If you began by reading one that came from the middle or the end of the series, try reading them before reading others. Follow the numerical listing of the articles (i.e., 01, 02, or 1st, 2nd, etc.), if you want to read them in the order they were originally intended. This article is 17th in the series. Enjoy.

11/29/22

Hindering the Birth of Conceived Sin

© thaiprayboy | 123rf.com

In chapter 13 of Indwelling Sin in Believers, John Owen said before he moved on to examine the remaining evidence for the power and efficacy of sin, he wanted to reflect further on James 1:14, which he thought was “the bottom and foundation of our discourse of the general deceitfulness of sin.” Owen said James seems to be saying in 1:14 (“But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire”) that whenever sin is conceived, it is inevitably brought forth. However, by placing the origin of sin in the consent of the will to the sin, as he did in chapter 12 (See “Engaging the Will with Indwelling Sin”) and supposing that the manifestation of sin consists in its actual commission, “we know that these do not necessarily follow one another.” Owen said that there is a realm of sin conceived in the womb of the wills and hearts of men that is never brought forth. How can this be true?

First, it is not because of the connection between desire and sin in this realm. When sin conceives, it wants to give birth (James 1:15). And if in fact, it does not, there is only a minor reduction of its guilt. A will determined to sin is actual sin. There is nothing lacking on sin’s part, if a conceive sin is not actualized. The obstacle and impediment to its conception lies elsewhere.

There are two things necessary for a conceived sin to become actualized: power and the resolve of the will to give it birth. Wherever these two are, actual sin will ultimately ensue. Therefore, whatever would hinder conceived sin must affect either the power or the will of the sinner. And this hinderance must be from God!

He has two ways of doing it—by his providence or by his grace. Owen is not saying they are distinct from each other. There is always a generous mixture of grace in God’s providence and ample providence mixed within his grace. However, providence is seen in the power or the outward acts of the individual, and grace is evident internally with regards to the will.

So, when sin is conceived, the Lord can obstruct its production by his providence by taking away the power necessary for its to be accomplished—life itself. Life is the foundation of all power, and when it ceases, “all power ceases with it.” God frequently averts the power of sin by taking away the lives of those who conceived it. He did so with Sennacherib by taking away the life of his soldiers (2 Kings 19:35). Similarly, he dealt with those soldiers who came to take Elijah by sending down fire from heaven (2 Kings 1:10-12).

But, Owen asked, since even believers may conceive sin, does God ever prevent its production and accomplishment in them by taking their lives? Surely, God does not judicially cut off the life of any who are his in order to prevent the manifestation of some sin they may have conceived. This would be directly contrary to 2 Peter 3:9, where it says the Lord is patient towards us, not wishing that any should perish, but “that all should reach repentance.”

This is the purpose for the long suffering of God towards believers, that before they die, they may come to the awareness and repentance of every known sin. This is the unchangeable rule of God’s patience in the covenant of grace. Far from being an encouragement to sin, it is a motive to universal watchfulness against it. It is of the same nature as the gospel of grace and mercy in the blood of Christ. This exemption of which we speak lies in direct contradiction to it.

Whereas our Savior declares the whole nature of conceived sin in the Sermon on the Mount of Matthew 5, it cannot be that they must perish forever who are “so judicially cut off.” God does not deal that way with his. He does not cast off the people he foreknew. And yet, there are some cases where God may take away the lives of his own in order to prevent the guilt they would otherwise incur.

For example, if there was coming some great temptation and trial upon the world that God knew one of his elect would not be able to withstand. Knowing that it would dishonor him, God takes them out of the world, as it says in Isaiah 57:1, “For the righteous man is taken away from calamity.” Not only is he taken from the evil of punishment and judgment, but also the evil of temptations and trials. This often proves to be the worse of the two.

It may also occur in the case of ignorance or not knowing the mind and will of God. This seems to have been the case with Josiah when he was killed in battle at Carchemish (2 Chronicles 35:24). Doubtless the Lord often proceeds like this:

When any of his own are engaged in ways which please him not, through the darkness and ignorance of their minds, that they may not proceed to further evil or mischief, he calls them off from their station and employment, and takes them to himself, where they shall err and mistake no more.

Ordinarily, God has other ways of diverting individuals from sin, other than killing them, as we shall see. God can also providentially hinder conceived sin by cutting short the power necessary to bring it forth. Without that power it is impossible to execute what they had intended or bring forth what they had conceived. Here we also have various examples in Scripture. In 1 Kings 13:4 Jeroboam stretched out his hand to lay hold of the prophet, but it withered and became useless.

This is a tried-and-true way for God to prevent sin from overflowing the world. He cuts people short of their moral power necessary to accomplish the sin. Many who have plotted mischief against the church of God have been divested of the power by which they sought to accomplish it. Some have their bodies stricken with disease, so they cannot serve their lusts. Others are deprived of the instruments by which they would accomplish their work.

There has been for many days, sin and mischief enough conceived to root out the generation of the righteous from the face of the earth, had men strength and ability to their will, did not God cut off and shorten their power, and the days of their prevalence.

In some cases, under some intense temptations, God may obviate the accomplishment of conceived sin with believers. However, there is a difference from what he does with nonbelievers and it is only in cases of extraordinary temptation.  One way or another God takes away their power so they are not able to do what they have designed. In this way God awakens them to consider what they are doing, and brings about a repentant change in their hearts from the sin they intended.

God may also prevent the accomplishment of the conceived sin by removing or taking away the means by which the sin the conceived sin was to have been committed. God may do this by diverting the thoughts of the individuals who had conceived sin. In Genesis 37, the brothers of Joseph had thrown him in a pit with the intention of starving him. But God brings a company of Ishmaelite merchants by, and diverts their thoughts with a new thought—selling him instead of killing him. “These are some of the ways whereby God is pleased to hinder the bringing forth of conceived sin, by opposing himself and his providence to the power of the sinning creature.”

 

11/1/22

Unity, not Uniformity

© lirtion | 123rf.com

In a previous article, “Thoroughly Following the Path of Recovery,” I related the true story of a woman with five years of sobriety who responded to an amends letter written by the man who had killed her son in a hit-and-run accident. She said she could not describe the healing and gratitude his letter brought. She sobbed in her sponsor’s arms. “Thank you. I pray that you will keep on the path of sobriety and receive God’s love and forgiveness.” They were now in unity; they were brother and sister within the fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous.

There are no qualifications for membership in A.A. other than the desire to stop drinking. You are a member of A.A. if you say you are. This is formalized in what is known as the Third Tradition: “The only requirement for A.A. membership is a desire to stop drinking.” This sense of unity and community is often referred to as the “We” of the Twelve Step program.

To illustrate this characteristic of recovery, addicts and alcoholics will point to the frequency with which the word “We” appears in the Twelve Steps, beginning with the first word of the First Step: “We admitted we were powerless over alcohol–that our lives had become unmanageable.” The Twelve Steps of recovery are self-consciously a first-person plural process: We are one as long as we share the desire to stop drinking.

In Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, within his essay on the Third Tradition, Bill W. declared that no matter who you are or how low you’ve gone, A.A. won’t deny you its fellowship. But that wasn’t always true. In the early days, because of fear and intolerance, there was an abundance of rules. “Everybody was scared witless that something or somebody would capsize the boat and dump us all back into the drink . . . We built a fine-mesh fence right around A.A.”

Experience taught them that taking away any alcoholic’s chance at membership was to potentially issue a death sentence; or to condemn him or her to endless misery. “Who dared to be judge, jury, and executioner of his own sick brother?” Two examples were given to illustrate how the early groups came to abandon all membership regulations.

One individual suffered with an unnamed dual addiction, who nevertheless easily demonstrated that he was a desperate case who above all wanted to get well. Concerned with the stigma of the man’s second addiction, they were more afraid of what others might say than the trouble this “strange alcoholic” might bring. Then someone said that what kept running through his mind was the thought: “‘What would the Master do?’ Not another word was said. What more could be said?”

Another person was a confirmed atheist who thought that A.A. could get along better without its “God nonsense.” He proceeded to remain sober and be vocal about his views. Eventually he had a slip and began drinking again. No one attempted to reach out to him. Holed up in a cheap hotel room, he thought that this was the end. Even A.A. had deserted him. “As he tossed on his bed, his hand brushed the bureau nearby, touching a book. Opening the book, he read. It was a Gideon Bible.” He didn’t drink again after the experience in the hotel room and became a valued member of A.A. What if they had succeeded in throwing him out for his blasphemy? “What would have happened to him and all the others he later helped? So the hand of Providence early gave us a sign that any alcoholic is a member of our Society when he says so.”

For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. (Romans 12:3-5)

Paul’s exhortation here is for us to not become prideful, to not think more highly (hyperphroneō) of ourselves than we should. In contrast, we are called to think with sober judgment (sōphroneō). The play on words in the Greek is intentional as Paul seeks to emphasize that we should not make too much of our seemingly unique and important function within the body of Christ. As members of the same body, we are given different duties or service work for the overall good of the body.

In Greek, the root word né̄phō referred to someone who avoided intoxication or was unaffected by wine. Sōphroneō then meant saneness, rationality, sober judgment. In Stoic thought, it referred to the essential virtue of proper conduct that proceeded from modesty (1 Tim. 2:9). So, Paul’s use of the various forms of né̄phō reflects the ancient philosophical belief that by practicing a particular belief system (i.e., Stoicism or Twelve Step recovery), you could put the world into proper perspective and therefore overcome it (Titus 2:12). 

In other words, walk the talk and you will be able to live sober, holy lives in this present age; according to the measure of faith given to you by God. “That they were to think of themselves with ‘sober judgment’ (v. 3) suggests how out of touch with reality their opinions of themselves were. Robert Mounce said in his commentary on Romans, “Since the metaphor suggests intoxication, one might say they were in danger of becoming ‘egoholics!’”

This measure of faith is not referring to a degree of faith imparted by God, which then determines the extent of sober judgment the individual can exercise. It also does not refer to saving faith, as if there was a greater degree or richer manifestation of it meted out by God to certain believers. Paul explicitly says the opposite here: don’t fall into the trap of thinking you’re “more spiritual” than someone else. Rather, this measure refers to the specific faith given by God for the individual to fulfill his or her calling as a member of the body of Christ, since “the members do not all have the same function.”

Paul begins with an observation that it was the grace given in his function as an apostle within the body of Christ that permitted him to exhort “everyone among you” to think with sober judgment about themselves. John Murray said the role as an apostle did not make Paul more spiritual than others within the body of Christ. In effect, Paul is saying: “I’m no better than you are. And even the fact that I am telling you not to be prideful means only that I am acting on the grace given me as an apostle. I’m just another bozo on the bus.”

Just as each of us has a body made up of many parts with various functions, in Christ we who are many form one body, with each member belonging to all the others. The spiritual worship of presenting our bodies as living sacrifices (Romans 12:1) is grounded in our individual bodies being one of the many parts of the one body in Christ. So, the individual parts of the body of Christ belong to each other as do the individual parts of a physical body. And they serve each other with differing functions, just as the individual parts of a physical body.

This reference to the ‘body metaphor’ (we though many are one body in Christ) is the only instance of its use in the epistle to the Romans, but not the end of the concept in Pauline thought. Paul uses it repeatedly in Ephesians, Colossians and First Corinthians. Christ is the head of the church, which is His body (Colossians 1:18). And since the church is his body, he nourishes and cherishes it (Ephesians 5:29–30). In 1 Corinthians 10:17 we find Paul’s use of the body metaphor in his discussion of communion, “we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” In Romans 12:5, he expands the notion that we who are many form one body by adding that we are “individually members one of another.” Believers are indeed members of one body (Colossians 3:15), which God causes to grow (Colossians 2:19).

This sense of unity in diversity, of one body with many parts (1 Co. 12:20), has certain implications and obligations. If one member denies it is a member of the body because it is not “a hand,” this denial does not make it any less a part of the body (1 Co. 12:14–15). Individual body members do not have the same function (Ro. 12:4). But they are arranged, as God desired them to be (1 Co. 12:18). We are also obliged to see that our community life in the body reflects God’s will. We are to “put off” things such as falsehood, and speak truth with our neighbors because “we are members one of another” (Ro. 12:5; Eph. 4:25). We are individually members of each other as well as in Christ. Together we have the same unity in diversity inherent within our physical bodies and when one member suffers, we all suffer; when one member is honored, we all rejoice (1 Co. 12:26). We are to put on the new self (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10), the armor of light (Ro. 13:12), and even the full armor of God (Eph. 6:11). And over all these virtues, we are to put on love, “which binds everything together in perfect harmony” (Col. 3:14).

This fuller exposition of the body metaphor is certainly behind Paul’s reference to the one body with many members in Romans 12:3-5, but is not needed here to make his point. By His grace, God gives each of us a measure of faith to fulfill a specific purpose within the larger body of Christ. There is a reason for our life. We are to live out this calling with the same harmony of purpose found in the organs of our own physical body.

There are several ideas in this passage and others in Romans common to Twelve Step Recovery and the sense of unity within the Fellowship. The above notion of the “We” of the program is one. Recognizing that while there are many members of A.A., they are united together. The First Tradition of A.A. says, “Our common welfare should come first; personal recovery depends upon A.A. unity.” The A.A. “Big Book” says most members sense that real tolerance of other people’s shortcomings and viewpoints and a respect for their opinions are attitudes that makes them more useful to others: “Love and tolerance of others is our code.”

Recognizing the importance of love and tolerance to other members in the Fellowship of A.A.—to other members of your spiritual, sober “body” is another. From this is a realization of the necessity to put the needs of the Fellowship-body before your own. This leads to a growing recognition of the presence of God-consciousness as the individuals and group seek to practice sober judgment in all their affairs.

If you’re interested, more articles from this series can be found under the link for “The Romans Road of Recovery.” “A Common Spiritual Path” (01) and “The Romans Road of Recovery” (02) will introduce this series of articles. If you began by reading one that came from the middle or the end of the series, try reading them before reading others. Follow the numerical listing of the articles (i.e., 01, 02, or 1st, 2nd, etc.), if you want to read them in the order they were originally intended. This article is 16th in the series. Enjoy.

10/4/22

It Bites Like a Serpent

Because it gives such a vivid picture of compulsive drinking, Proverbs 23:29-35 is a favorite passage of mine.

image credit: iStock

image credit: iStock

29 Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has strife? Who has complaining? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes?

30 Those who tarry long over wine; those who go to try mixed wine.

31 Do not look at wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup and goes down smoothly.

32 In the end it bites like a serpent and stings like an adder.

33 Your eyes will see strange things, and your heart utter perverse things.

34 You will be like one who lies down in the midst of the sea, like one who lies on the top of a mast.

35 “They struck me,” you will say, “but I was not hurt; they beat me, but I did not feel it. When shall I awake? I must have another drink.”

Not only does this passage truly capture the out-of-control drinking of an alcoholic, it also displays the rich imagery of biblical Hebrew in the process. The description of unmanageability and negative consequences would fit right in with the personal stories in the AA Big Book or on one of the modern recovery blogs.

The passage begins with a series of rhetorical questions that lays out the unmanageability suffered by alcoholics and problem drinkers throughout the ages: woe, sorrow, strife, complaining, wounds without cause and red eyes. Who has all things? “Those who tarry long over wine.” The litany of questions also suggests someone who is familiar with the negative consequences from “tarrying over wine.” It seems that the author knew of what he wrote from personal experience.

According to R. Laird Harris in the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, wine was the most intoxicating drink known in ancient times. The reference to mixed wine suggests a process of first evaporating wine with a high sugar content; then mixing it with more wine to get a higher alcoholic content in the “mixed wine.” Even in Old Testament times problem drinkers knew how to maximize their high with the “hard stuff.”

The imagery of verse 31 is wonderfully seductive: red, red wine that sparkles in your cup and goes down smoothly. But watch out! It bites like a serpent and stings like an adder. The message then and the message today is the same for an alcoholic. The seductive appeal of sparkling wine is just as dangerous as a biting serpent.  And if you do not listen to the warning , you could end up dead.

Now we enter into the heart of a drunken stupor: your eyes see strange things; your heart utters perverse things. Watch this YouTube video of Robin Williams describing how alcoholics “see strange things and utter perverse things.” Nothing much had changed there.

The imagery in verse 34 is of being on a ship in the midst of a storm. Tossed about by the waves, one minute you are in the midst of the sea; the next at the top of the mast. In Psalm 107:27, sailors in a storm are said to be reeling like drunken men. Drunkenness is feeling like you are on a storm tossed ship. Can anyone relate? Like a storm, drunkenness must be “ridden out;” endured until the end. And you are powerless to calm the seas and end the storm.

The drinker says that he was struck, but not hurt (35a); beaten, but he did not feel it (35b). When you’re drunk, pain fails to register. Sometimes you don’t even remember what hit you. The terror of the strange things seen and perverse things uttered is like a dream: when will he awake? And if he does, more wine becomes the goal: “I must have another drink.”

Wine leads to negative consequences for those who pursue it; and the aftermath of a drunken storm leads right back to wine. A bleak, hopeless circle is depicted. The main point of the passage is then: Do not look at wine; it bites like a serpent and leads to an unending circle of sorrow.

So why do we do it? Why do humans turn to wine and other intoxicants? Ronald Siegel suggested in his book, Intoxication, that pursuing intoxicants is a “fourth drive,” following hunger, thirst and sex.

“History shows that we have always used drugs. In every age, in every part of this planet, people have pursued intoxication with plant drugs, alcohol, and other mind-altering substances. . . . This ‘fourth drive’ is a natural part of biology, creating the irrepressible demand for drugs.”

I think Leo Tolstoy is closer to the truth. In his essay “Why Do Men Stupefy Themselves?” he said:

“For man is a spiritual as well as an animal being. He may be moved by things that influence his spiritual nature, or by things that influence his animal nature. . . . People drink and smoke, not casually, not from dullness, not to cheer themselves up, not because it is pleasant, but in order to drown the voice of conscience in themselves.”

In the end, the apostle Paul had it spot on. In Romans 7:21-23 he said: “So I find it to be l law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.”

Originally posted on 8/1/2014.

09/27/22

Diagnosing Spiritual Heart Problems

© madelaide | stockfresh.com

© madelaide | stockfresh.com

While classically known in biblical passages like Luke 6:39, the “blind leading the blind” metaphor is also found outside of Scripture. In Horace, it exists as “the blind leader of the blind.” It is also found in the Katha Upanishad, an important Hindu religious text: “Abiding in the midst of ignorance, thinking themselves wise and learned, fools go aimlessly hither and thither, like blind led by the blind.”

In Luke 6:39, Jesus asks two rhetorical questions: “Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit?” The answer to the first rhetorical question is obviously “No.” The second question directs attention to the consequences of the blind leading the blind: will they not both fall into a pit? Yes, they will.

Then Jesus declares that a disciple is not above his teacher. When he is fully trained he will be like his teacher. There is a dual meaning to the Greek word translated as “lead” in verse 43. It can refer to guiding someone in reaching a destination or to guide someone in acquiring knowledge. So the two seemingly unconnected statements in verses 39 and 40 are joined to say: Just as a physically blind man cannot lead a person to a destination he cannot see, a blind leader cannot impart knowledge he does not have to a disciple.

In order to reinforce this teaching, Jesus moved on to the hyperbolic contrast of the log and the speck in verses 41 and 42. So how can you help someone remove a “speck” from his eye, when you have a “log” in your own? The presence of the log in you eye blinds you and prevents you from effectively helping another person remove the speck from their eye. As Robert Stein said in his commentary, “Luke understood the parable as referring to the danger of being blind to one’s own faults and at the same time judging others. If a disciple has not learned enough to see his or her own faults and yet judges others, how can such a person truly teach or correct others?”

Now, to drive home what he is saying, Jesus makes another metaphorical comparison, saying that people are like trees. “For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit.” The conjunction “for” connects the next three verses, Luke 6:43 to 45, with the previous verses, 39 to 42. Paul Tripp said In Instruments in the Redeemer’s Hands that within these verses, Jesus is answering the age-old question of human motivation—why we do the things we do. Just as there is an organic relationship between the roots of a tree and its fruit, there is a connection between a person’s heart and their behavior—what they do and say.

For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit, for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thornbushes, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks (Luke 6:43-45).

The roots of the tree correspond to the heart, while its fruit equals our behavior. “We speak and act the way we do because of what is in our hearts.” And if our heart is the source of our sinful behavior, then lasting personal change must always occurs through the heart. Paul Tripp illustrated this principle with a parable of his own.

He has an apple tree in his back yard that year in and year out produces dry, wrinkled, brown, pulpy apples. After several seasons, his wife suggests that they should cut down the tree if they can’t get good fruit from it. Paul gets an idea of what to do. He returns home with branch cutters, a heavy-duty staple gun, a ladder, and two bushels of apples. He then cuts off all the pulpy, wrinkled, brown apples and staples the shiny red apples to every branch of the tree. “From a distance, our tree looks like it is full of a beautiful harvest. . . . For a while, it may seem like the real thing, but it will prove temporary and cosmetic.”

If a tree produces bad apples year after year, there is something drastically wrong with its system, down to its very roots. I won’t solve the problem by stapling new apples onto the branches. They will also rot because they are not attached to a life-giving root system. And next spring, I will get the same problem again. I will not see a new crop of healthy apples because my solution has not gone to the heart of the problem. If the tree’s roots remain unchanged, it will never produce good apples.

Luke doesn’t say here what makes a heart “good.” But Stein in his commentary pointed back to passages like Luke 3:7-9, which calls people to repent and bear good fruit. Just before the passage discussed here, Jesus described what this “good fruit” might look like: love your enemies; bless those who curse you; give to everyone in need. “Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful” (Luke 6:27-36).

From this illustration of how a tree and its fruit represents the connection between our hearts and what we do and say, Paul Tripp drew three principles:

  • There is an undeniable root and fruit connection between our heart and our behavior. People and situations do not determine our behavior; they provide the occasion where our behavior reveals our hearts.
  • Lasting change always takes place through the pathway of the heart. Fruit change is the results of root change. Any agenda for change must focus on the thoughts and desires of the heart.
  • The heart is the target in personal growth and counseling.

Tied now to the Ezekiel 14:1-11 passage discussed in “Spiritual Heart Problems,” we have a greater understanding of the blinding, distorting action of the stumbling block and the heart idol. The elders who came to Ezekiel were truly blind to the idols in their own hearts. And they would not have been able to understand anything the Lord said to them through Ezekiel as long as the “log” of their sin was lodged in their hearts.

A new heart (Ezekiel 36:25-26) was needed. There must be a radical change at the root level. A good tree bears good fruit. A bad tree, ruled by its heart idols, its gillûlîm, will produce bad fruit. You’ll know what is going on in your heart or that of another person by the fruit of their behavior. How can you tell whether or not it is stapled fruit? Watch the tree. Stapled fruit doesn’t last. It gets brown, pulpy and wrinkled and then falls off the tree.

Originally posted on 8/21/2015

09/13/22

Spiritual Heart Problem

© hriana | 123RF.com

© hriana | 123RF.com

One of the biblical passages I often review and discuss with people when I counsel them is Ezekiel 14:1-11. There is a richness here that applies as much to modern believers as it did to those in Babylon at the time of the exile. But I think we should look at some of the background first to get a clear understanding of what is being said.

In 597 BC, Nebuchadnezzar besieged and conquered Jerusalem for the first time (2 Kings 24:10-17). As was their custom, the Babylonians deported the upper classes and leaders of the lands they conquered. They took the government officials, the fighting men, priests, craftsmen—10,000 individuals in all. Ezekiel, from a priestly family, was one of the deported exiles.

Nebuchadnezzar made Zedekiah, the uncle of the deposed king Jehoiachin, king of Judah in his place. But Zedekiah rebelled against Nebuchanezzar, leading to a second siege that ended in January of 588 BC with the sacking of the capital city. Zedekiah had been influenced by a fanatical faction who believed (wrongly) that the Lord would protect Jerusalem and the temple within it, just as He had when the Assyrians besieged Jerusalem in the time of Hezekiah (2 Kings 19:32-37). As a punishment for his rebellion, Zedekiah was made to witness the killing of his sons as the last thing he saw before he was blinded and then taken in chains to Babylon (2 Kings 24:18-25:7).

In chapter 13, Ezekiel had just thoroughly condemned false prophets who claimed to be speaking for the Lord, but had instead seen false visions and spoke lies. They gave false assurances to those who inquired of them, prophesying out of their own hearts. They misled the people, saying there would be peace, when there was no peace to be had. So you have this one group of prophets assuring the exiles and the elders there will be peace; and you have Ezekiel condemning them as false prophets. How are you to decide what the truth is? The exiled elders decided to come to Ezekiel and hear what he said the Lord wanted them to know.

But when the elders came to inquire of the Lord through Ezekiel, the Lord said to Ezekiel in 14:3 that they “have taken their idols into their hearts, and set the stumbling block of their iniquity before their faces.” Will the Lord let them be consulted by them? “Of course not!” is the implied answer. So Ezekiel is to say to these elders that whenever one of God’s people takes up an idol into his heart and trips over the stumbling block that sin places in his life, the Lord’s response will be to address their idolatries. This is so that the Lord may lay hold of the hearts of his people, who are estranged from Him because of their idols.

The word translated as “idol” in Ezekiel 14:3 (gillûl) is one of the ten words that are translated as “idol” in the OT. It literally means log, block, shapeless thing; and can even be a reference to dung droppings. So when an idol is referred to as gillûl, it isn’t complimentary or neutral. Ezekiel was particularly fond of calling idols gillûlîm, and used it thirty-eight of the forty-seven times the word is found in the OT.

As Paul Tripp said in Instruments in the Redeemer’s Hands: “An idol of the heart is anything that rules me other than God.” Tripp went on to add: “whatever rules our hearts will exercise inescapable influence over our lives and behavior.” We too have “heart idols.” Those shapeless, sinful blocks of dung are within our hearts as well as the hearts of the elders. John Calvin commented that the human heart was a “perpetual forge of idols.” So the message the Lord has for these elders (and us) is “Repent! Turn from your detestable heart idols!” (14:6) His purpose is for His people to return to Him: “that they may be my people and I may be their God” (14:11).

The Hebrew word for “stumbling block” means something that trips you up; a hindrance. In Jeremiah 6:21, the Lord said He would put stumbling blocks before the people, causing them to stumble, because they refused to listen to Him. In Ezekiel 7, He said the land of Israel would be punished for all its abominations. Those who have silver and gold would not be able to deliver themselves in that day of wrath, because their wealth was “the stumbling block of their iniquity.” The stumbling block is then associated with the idol; it trips you up or hinders you in some way. You could say it is the “fruit” to the “root” of the heart idol.

Iain Duguid, in his commentary Ezekiel: The NIV Application Commentary, said we don’t want to give up our cherished sins. “Ezekiel tells us that such an approach to God is not an option.” We cannot serve the true God and “keep one foot in the camp of idolatry at the same time.”

Outwardly, our appearance may “fit”: We go to church regularly and appear to be decent, religious people. Yet when it comes to the tough decisions in life, there are other standards operating than God’s Word, which demonstrates the existence in our hearts of other gods than the true God. We have deep-seated idolatries in our hearts that drive our various behavior patterns.

There is one final thing to note in Ezekiel 14:3. The stumbling block is before their faces—it is right in front of them. But it isn’t recognized as a hindrance. So there is also a blinding, distorting aspect to the stumbling block. In Ezekiel 7, the stumbling block of wealth was actually thought to be a way to deliver them from the day of wrath—and not a manifestation of the root idol. Paul Tripp had a great illustration of this:

Imagine that someone places his hand up to his face so that he is looking through his fingers. What will happen to his vision? It will be seriously obstructed, and the only way to clear it is to remove his hand. In a similar way, an idol in the heart creates a stumbling block before the face. Until the idol is removed, it will distort and obscure everything in the person’s life.

And we could add, a stumbling block distorts any word that the elders (or anyone else) would seek to hear from God. So the first thing God needs to do when we come to inquire of Him is to confront the heart idols we have and remove their stumbling blocks from before our faces. What appears at first to be God’s judgment is actually His preparing us to clearly hear what He has to say. The stumbling blocks of our idols distort God’s word. They will trip us up even as we try to sincerely listen to and follow the Lord.

The solution to this problem is a spiritual heart transplant—the promise of a new heart. First the Lord God will cleanse us from our idols (gillûlîm). Then He will give us a new heart and a new spirit, removing the heart of stone and giving us a heart of flesh (Ezekiel 36:25-26). Jeremiah, a contemporary of Ezekiel, said the Lord would accomplish this by putting His law within us: “I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people” (Jeremiah 31:31-34).

 

Originally posted on July 17, 2015

09/6/22

What Does Religious Mean?

© kuco | 123RF.com

© kuco | 123RF.com

As Terence Gorski has pointed out, A.A. is now legally a “religion” within the US. But I don’t think this really settles the dispute over whether A.A. is or is not religious. Legal rulings can be changed, as they have for many issues such as abortion and marriage. So I’d suggest that A.A. as a “religion” is based upon a particular sense of what “religious” means in modern culture and that could change.  There is at least one other view of religion that would not consider A.A. to be religious.

It seems that there two main starting points to define what being “religious” means in modern culture.  One follows Edmund Tylor and focuses on the belief in the supernatural, while the other emphasizes Emile Durkheim’s notion of the sacred and the profane. Within American culture, Tylor’s understanding seems to have influenced legal decisions on constitutional issues of the separation of church and state as well as legal rulings on the religiousness of A.A. At this point in time, Tylor’s sense of religion rules the day.

Tylor (1832-1917) simply defined religion as “the belief in spiritual beings” and held that this belief existed in all known cultures. He suggested that a belief in spirits and deities grew out of a belief in souls, which itself was a result of attempting to explain phenomena such as dreams, trances, visions and death. An evolving understanding of religious belief, Tylor’s theory said that all religions were based on animism, which had two parts: belief in a human soul that survived bodily death and belief in other spirits or deities. Animism led to fetishism, the veneration of animals, idols trees and so forth.

This belief was extended to the veneration of spirits and gods which were less attached to objects; leading to the concepts of gods, demons, spirits, devils, ghosts, fairies and angels. The next stage was the association of gods with good and evil, leading to belief in very powerful deities. Another pathway to these powerful gods was to seek after “first causes” for reality. The attribution of good and evil or first cause to the idea of gods and spirits then led to the concept of a Supreme Being. “Animism has its distinct and consistent outcome, and Polytheism its distinct and consistent completion, in the doctrine of a Supreme Deity.”

This seems to have built on the thought of Ludwig Feuerbach, who wrote The Essence of Christianity in 1841. Feuerbach argued against both the divinity of Christ and the existence of God, stating that all theology could be resolved into anthropology—with God as the projected essence of Humanity. What ranked second in religion, namely humanity, must be recognized as first:

If the nature of Man is man’s Highest Being, if to be human is his highest existence, then man’s love for Man must in practice become the first and highest law. Homo homini Deus est— man’s God is Man. This is the highest law of ethics. This is the turning point of history.

Tylor’s ‘evolving’ understanding of religion was similar to that of Carl Jung. Jung saw Western religions as unsophisticated. He said there were five main stages in the evolution of the idea of God.

First was the animistic view, where Nature was ruled by an assortment of gods and demons. Second was the Greco-Roman polytheistic notion of a father of Gods ruling in a strict hierarchy. The third stage idea was that God shared human fate, but was betrayed, died and then resurrected. The fourth stage held that God became Man in the flesh and was identified with the idea of the Supreme Good. Christianity conflated the third and fourth stages, according to Jung.

“The fifth and highest stage of belief in God is when the entire world is understood as a projected psychic structure and the only God is the ‘God within’ or the ‘God-image.’” (Frank McLynn Carl Gustav Jung: A Biography, 409-410) The God-image was a special reflection of the Self, the penultimate archetype of the collective unconscious in Jung’s psychology. This Self was not the ‘self’ of everyday language, which Jung typically referred to as the ‘ego.’ Frank McLynn suggested that Jung’s Self was roughly equivalent to the ‘Atman’ of Buddhism.

On the other hand, Emile Durkheim said in The Elementary Form of the Religious Life, (EFRL) that religion was a product of society and not always supernaturally inspired. So religion should not be defined just in terms of the ideas of divinity or spiritual beings: “Religion is more than the idea of gods or spirits, and consequently cannot be defined exclusively in relation to these latter.” (EFRL, p. 35) As a category, Durkheim said the supernatural only made sense when opposed to a modern scientific explanation for natural phenomena. He pointed out that for most of the world’s peoples, including premodern Europeans, religious phenomena were viewed as perfectly natural. For Durkheim, the division into “sacred” and “profane” was a necessary precondition for religious belief:

All known religious beliefs, whether simple or complex, present one common characteristic: they presuppose a classification of all the things, real and ideal, of which men think, into two classes or opposed groups, generally designated by two distinct terms which are translated well enough by the words profane and sacred. This division of the world into two domains, the one containing all that is sacred, the other all that is profane, is the distinctive trait of religious thought. (EFRL, p. 37)

Durkheim believed that a belief in the supernatural was not necessary or even common among religions. However, the separation of different aspects of life into the two categories of sacred and profane was common. Objects and behaviors seen as sacred were considered to be part of the spiritual or religious realm. Sacred things for Durkheim were not limited to just gods or spirits. Anything and everything could be sacred: rocks, trees, a spring, a piece of wood, a house. Sacred objects were as varied as the diversity of religions. “Sacred things are simply collective ideals that have fixed themselves on material objects.” Profane things were everything else in the world that did not have a religious function or hold a religious meaning.

There was a radical separation between the sacred and profane, so that the two could not approach each and still retain their essence. The sacred was not the profane and the profane was not sacred; they were “more or less incompatible with each other.” (EFRL, p. 40) And yet, they interact with one another and depend upon each other for survival.

Durkheim believed that religious belief was built upon this fundamental distinction. When a number of sacred things were organized within a belief system that can be distinguished from other similar types of systems, “the totality of these beliefs and their corresponding rites constitutes a religion.” (EFRL, p. 41)

There were two essential criteria for religious belief, according to Durkheim. First, there was a division of the entire universe into the sacred and the profane; which embraced all that exists, but which radically excluded each other. Second, religions formed a Church: “In all history, we do not find a single religion without a Church.”

So then Durkheim defined religion as: “a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them.” (EFRL, p. 47)

The spiritual, religious distinction made by William James and embedded in Twelve Step spirituality, seems to be the most widely accepted sense of generic spirituality in American culture today. It embraces Durkheim’s thought on religion and rejects Tylor’s understanding. It does this by self-consciously refusing to formulate a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things and also accepts the naturalness of believing in some type of transcendence. The very heart of Twelve Step spirituality is the permissibility of the individual to formulate a personal understanding of their “god.” So what unites members of Twelve Step groups like A.A. is the diversity of religious and spiritual belief permitted—even to the acceptance of the lack of such a belief.

This is the first of three related articles (What Does Religious Mean?, Spiritual not Religious Experience, The God of the Preachers) that will more fully describe some of the influences I believe helped to shape the spiritual, but not religious distinction of 12 Step recovery.

Originally published on May 22, 2015.