Sunday School Questions for December 4

Hey Everyone.

Here are the questions for this Sunday.

I will have a paper copy for you this Sunday unless you would like we to continue posting them this way. Email me and tell me what you think!

Read Genesis 14:1-12.

Note: These events preceded Lot’s capture. They cover fourteen years and describe four separate events:

Genesis 14:1-3 – Fourteen years before Lot’s capture, Eastern Kings conquered the Siddim Valley.

Genesis 14:4 – The conquered peoples rebelled.

Genesis 14:5-7 – The Eastern kings came back to punish the people.

Genesis 14:8-12 – There was a battle, and Lot was captured.

1. a. List the names of the four conquerors from the East in 14:1.

b. List the names of the five Siddim Valley kings in Genesis 14:2.

c. From what great plain did the four come? (See also Genesis 11.)

d. Where is the Valley of Siddim (home of the five kings)?

2. How did Lot’s choices (Genesis 13) contribute to his being a prisoner (Genesis 14:11-12)?

Read Genesis 14:13-16.

3. What do you learn about Abraham that helps you understand why he won the victory?

4. Give several ways that Abraham illustrates a Christian engaged in a battle with unseen and “spiritual” enemies. (See 2 Corinthians 2:14-15 and Ephesians 6:10-18.)

5. In 2 Corinthians 10:3-5, Paul speaks of fighting with spiritual weapons. What are two spiritual weapons we can use? (See Ephesians 6:17-18.)

Read Genesis 14:17-24 and 15:1.

6. a. Which two kings officially honored Abraham at the victory celebration?

b. Describe Abraham’s meeting with each of them and his attitude toward each one.

7. What did he give to the king of Salem? (This is mentioned in Scripture for the first time.)

8. a. What two things did God promise Abraham in Genesis 15:1?

b. Why did Abraham need those special promises? (See Genesis 14:21-24.)

Read Psalm 110 and Hebrews 4:14-16 and 7.

9. a. By comparing Psalm 110:1 with Matthew 22:44-45, we learn that “Messiah” or “The Lord’s Anointed” is the subject of this Psalm. In what way does this Psalm prophesy that Messiah will be like Melchizedek (Genesis 14)?

b. List five ways that Melchizedek was a picture of Christ’s person and work. (See Hebrews 7.)

10. Give verses in the Hebrews passages that describe Christ as the personal Priest who continues His unceasing priestly work for every true believer in Him.

Read Hebrews 2:18; 4:14-16; 5; and 6:18-20.

11. What lessons concerning Christ as Priest would you choose to give to:

a. A discouraged Christian?

b. A tempted Christian?

c. A lonely Christian?

How God Defines Evil

Isaiah 55:1—

Come, everyone who thirsts,
come to the waters;
and he who has no money,
come, buy and eat!

John 7:37-38—

Jesus stood up and cried out, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’”

John 4:13-14—

Jesus said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”

Jeremiah 2:13—

My people have committed two evils:
they have forsaken me,
the fountain of living waters,
and hewed out cisterns for themselves,
broken cisterns that can hold no water.

Quote of the Day

The Christian gospel is not merely that Jesus died and rose again; and not merely that these events appease God’s wrath, forgive sin, and justify sinners; and not merely that this redemption gets us out of hell and into heaven; but that they bring us to the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ as our supreme, all-satisfying, and everlasting treasure. ‘Christ … suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God’ (1 Pet. 3:18)

— John Piper, God is the Gospel

Signs You Have Not Experienced Gospel Wakefulness

From Reformation Theology...

From Jared Wilson's new book, Gospel Wakefulness, here are 11 signs (pgs 72-73) you haven't experienced gospel wakefulness...

1. The gospel doesn't interest you--or it does, but not as much as other religious subjects.
2. You take nearly everything personally.
3. You frequently worry about what other people think.
4. You treat inconveniences like minor (or major) tragedies.
5. You are impatient with people.
6. In general, you have trouble seeing the fruit of the Spirit in your life (Gal 5:22-23).
7. The Word of God holds little interest.
8. You have great difficulty forgiving.
9. You are told frequently by a spouse, close friend, or other family members that you are too "clingy" or too controlling.
10. You think someone besides yourself is the worst sinner you know.
11. The idea of gospel centrality makes no sense to you.

15 Ways to Kill Bitterness

According to Hebrews 12:15, bitterness is a “root attitude” of the heart that grows where there is a shortage of grace. Roots grow downward, going deeper and getting more deeply embedded. The root of bitterness also causes other sins to grow upward and outward, “causing trouble” and “defiling many” other people. But how do we kill this root?

One of my favorite yard “tools” is Roundup, the liquid weed and grass killer that gets into the plant’s internal “circulatory system,” going deep down to kill the very root—for good. Consider the following list as Biblical Roundup for the Bitter Soul.

1. Daily remind yourself that your sin against God, which has already been forgiven in Christ, is greater than anyone else’s sin against you and that your new standard for forgiving others is how much God has forgiven you (Eph 4:32; Col 3:13).
2. Consciously put away every form of bitterness and refuse to take up offenses for the hurts of others (Eph 4:31).
3. Confess to God that your bitterness has surrendered ground to Satan, giving him a place in your life (Eph 4:26-27).
4. Remember that no injury you have experienced, or ever will experience, can compare to the injury received by Christ who prayed, “Father, forgive them for they do not know what they do” (Luke 23:34).
5. Forgive from your heart those who have hurt you, real or imagined, intentional or unintentional (Matt 18:35).
6. Consciously remember Joseph (Gen 50:20). Remind yourself of the truth that if you are a believer then God is always working behind the scenes for your good to conform you to the image of Christ (Rom 8:28-29).
7. Never seek revenge or make people pay for their sin (Rom. 12:19). Jesus already paid for it completely (1 Pet 3:18).
8. Remember that God’s anger against you, and your sin, has been propitiated by Christ (Rom 3:25; 1 Jn 2:1-2). Therefore, you have no biblical right to harbor anger toward another.
9. Humble yourself and ask forgiveness from those against whom you’ve been bitter (Matt 5:23-24).
10. Bless those who hurt you; overcome evil with good (Rom 12:19-21).
11. Pursue love for one another, which covers a multitude of sins (1 Pet 4:8).
12. Actively choose not to remember the wrongs that others have committed against you. Actively choosing not to remember is different than forgetting. In Jeremiah 31:34, God says he will “remember no more” the sins of his people. This is not memory failure or forgetfulness. This is God’s conscious choice to no longer hold our sins against us. We must do the same with the sins of others.
13. Destroy “lists of sins” committed against you, mental lists or actual, written lists (1 Cor 13:5).
14. Make peace with others, as much as is in your power (Rom 12:18). If a person from whom you’ve asked for forgiveness refuses to do so, but chooses instead to remain your enemy, then love them and pray for them while you continue to obey God and guard your own heart from bitterness (Matt 5:44).
15. Trust God to judge righteously (1 Pet 2:23).

HT: Paul Tautges

Hearing God's Whisper

Yesterday I posted an article about Herman Cain hearing from God.

Books like Dallas Willard’s Hearing God: Developing a Conversational Relationship with God and Bill Hybels’s The Power of a Whisper: Hearing God, Having the Guts to Respond and Henry and Richard Blackaby’s Hearing God’s Voice continue to popularize the idea that a true relationship of intimacy with God requires ongoing private and personal revelations as a normative part of the Christian life.

In the latest issues of Solid Ground Greg Koukl—who is not a cessationist—looks carefully at the biblical texts offered in defense of this idea. He writes:

Virtually everyone seems to be “hearing from God” in some fashion these days—pastors, writers, worship leaders, even the regular folks at our weekly Bible studies—so the basic idea must be right.

But is it? Must I “hear the voice of God” in order to know what He wants from me. . . Is this what Jesus meant by, “My sheep hear My voice,” or what Paul meant by being “led by the Spirit”? And what if I hear nothing but silence when I listen? Does this say something about my spiritual well-being? Am I living a substandard Christian life if I don’t have a hot-line to God? . . .

In my mind, there’s only one way to address such questions. They cannot be answered by appealing to personal experiences, but only by appealing carefully to the text. What does Scripture teach.

See Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3. You can access all of the issues here.

Did God Tell Herman Cain to Run for President?

I don't usually talk about politics here but I could not pass this up.

It seems presidential hopeful Herman Cain is a modern Moses:

Herman Cain returned to his home state for a brief campaign stop Saturday, telling a cheering group of young Republicans in Atlanta that God told him to run for president and that he was "in it to win it."

"I prayed and prayed and prayed. I am a man of faith," Cain told the Young Republican National Federation at the Westin Peachtree Plaza. "I had to do a lot of praying for this one, more praying than I have ever done before in my life. And when I finally realized that it was God saying that this is what I needed to do, I was like Moses: 'You have got the wrong man, Lord. Are you sure?' ... Once I made the decision, I did not look back."

So what should I do if God told me not to vote for any candidate who claims to have been told by God to run for president?

Remorse vs. Repentance

Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me. —Psalm 51:11

Martyn Lloyd-Jones on the nature of genuine repentance, as seen in Psalm 51:

I do not hesitate to assert that this is perhaps the most subtle and delicate test as to whether we have repented, or where we are: our attitude towards God. Have you noticed it in the psalm? The one against whom David has sinned is God, and yet the one he desires above all is God. That is the difference between remorse and repentance. The man who has not repented, but who is only experiencing remorse, when he realizes he has done something against God, avoids God. . . . The man who has not been dealt with by the Spirit of God and has not been convinced and convicted, tries to get away from God, to avoid him at all costs. He does not think, he does not read the Bible, he does not pray; he does everything he can not to think about these things. But the extraordinary thing about the man who is convicted of sin by the Holy Spirit is that though he knows he has sinned against God, it is God he wants—“Be merciful to me, O God.” He wants to be with God—that is the peculiar paradox of repentance, wanting the one I have offended!

The Sin of Counting

I’ll admit to being weary, to the point of irritation, whenever I hear ministers of the gospel reporting their statistics as external evidences of success. And I know I’m not the only one. (The first minute-and-a-half of this video makes the point.)

Enough already.

I’m not saying I’m less tempted than the next guy to hope for big numbers and stats, the apparent signs of God’s blessing on my ministry. I am. But I’ve seen the focus on numbers as a temptation to be resisted, not something to be embraced. And when preachers find a way to mention the numbers in public, and often, it comes across as bragging; it’s worldly and unbecoming of Christians who are to be characterized by humility and meekness.

One of the worst plagues to hit Israel came about when David numbered his troops, taking pride in his military might. For all the external, visible signs of success David could see and count on a human level, only God could knew the true condition of Israel. Widespread spiritual decay would soon divide David’s kingdom and eventually expel the people of Israel and Judah from the land of promise.

Counting isn’t always pride, right? God commanded Moses to take a census of the people (Num. 1, 26), and for very practical reasons (e.g., to register the fighting men, to determine per-tribe ransom for servicing the temple). Here at Grace to You, we have to keep track of certain numbers to make sure we’re good stewards of the resources God entrusts to us.

But just like David’s pride in counting the troops, we too can tend to grow proud when we look at the stats—baptism numbers, conference attendees, book sales, etc. It can get ugly pretty fast. Big numbers, or maybe just upward-tending numbers, can flatter. They’re like the applause of a crowd, patting you on the back and making you feel good about what you’re doing. Numbers can easily lull you into a false sense of security, keeping you from the hard and painful work of self-examination before the Word of God.

Our modern preoccupation with numbers—the emphasis on the visible, external, measurable—reminds me of a few theses in Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation, which proved to be at the theological center of the Reformation.

19 That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened.

22 That wisdom which sees the invisible things of God in works as perceived by man is completely puffed up, blinded, and hardened.

Without getting into the details, the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church justified themselves by pointing to external, visible signs of success. They assumed, as Luther pointed out, that God’s work (which is invisible) are visibly manifest, something that could be perceived, measured, and counted. Simply put, if it worked, if it was successful, if it was mighty, if it was manifestly glorious, then God was in it. Luther called that a theology of glory, meaning a theology that is focused, not on the true glory of God, but on what appeared to be glorious in the estimation of man.

The error of the theologians of glory is the same as the pragmatists of our day. They assume they can perceive, measure, count, and glory in the invisible things of God, things that are truly imperceptible and uncountable. That kind of thinking, as Luther said, “is completely puffed up, blinded, and hardened.”

As he confronted the heart of Roman Catholic theology, Luther pit the theology of glory against the theology of the cross. Here’s how he put it in thesis 20:

20 He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross.

The theology of the cross recognizes God’s work as a subverting work, one that overturns human pride, thwarts human wisdom, and acts opposite of human expectation. The suffering of the cross—what is truly visible and manifest about God—is not impressive by any measure of man. That which is humble and weak and low and unimpressive—namely, the stuff of suffering—is not something that grabs attention, fills your conference, gains a following, or builds your fan base. But that’s the way of the cross, which is God’s true work, demonstrated “in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption” (1 Cor.1:30).

The theology of the cross is not the message of pragmatic growth methodology, whether we’re talking about old-school Seeker or today’s more fashionable, hipster version. Pragmatists are like Luther’s theologians of glory, practitioners of methodologies that “work.” And the preoccupation with signs of visible success is making many Christian leaders, as Luther saw in his day, “completely puffed up, blinded, and hardened.”

It’s embarrassing to hear them couch their growth stats in pious sounding phrases like, “It’s so amazing how many churches God is planting through us,” or, “I’m so humbled to see that ___ people made decisions for Christ,” or, “I was humbled to be speaking to ___-thousand people last week,” and on and on. Parading acts of personal piety, completely contrary to Jesus’ teaching in Matt. 6, is proof positive of being puffed up. Those who are puffed up are blinded to their error and hardened to any correction.

None of us is completely free of the charge of pragmatism. Pragmatism is only a matter of degree, isn’t it. But being sullied by the error of pragmatism doesn’t exonerate us; it just shows how utterly in need of grace we really are.

That’s what David learned, when God brought swift and deadly judgment against the people. “Behold, I have sinned, and I have done wickedly. But these sheep, what have they done?” (2 Sam.24:17). Would that today’s church leaders would not only repent of their own sin of counting, but take a keener, more heartfelt interest in the good of the Lord’s sheep.

Let us all strive to “cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” (2 Cor.7:1). In an attitude of humility and repentance, we’ll truly find the grace and blessing of God.

Thanksgiving

Since 1863, on the fourth Thursday of November, families and friends in the United States have gathered to commemorate an old tradition linked back to the early European settlers.

You know the story: The pilgrims and Native Americans came together for a happy feast to celebrate the harvest and forge new friendships. A few hundred years later, this event became a legislated holiday and got Norman Rockwelled into the fabric of American life. We call it Thanksgiving.

The Aim of Paul's Ministry

It's interesting that we name a national holiday after an emotion — a very good emotion. In fact, an emotion for which the apostle Paul aimed his ministry. He tells it like this in 2 Corinthians 4:15:

It is all for your sake, so that as grace extends to more and more people it may increase thanksgiving, to the glory of God.

"It is all for your sake." What's he talking about? In short, "it" refers to Paul's gospel proclamation along with its accompanying ethos of suffering and persevering faith (2 Corinthians 4:13–14). Or, said a little longer, "it" refers to Paul's gospel proclamation flowing from an ethos in continuity with the Old Testament writer of Psalm 116 — an ethos that perseveres in the midst of affliction by faith in the resurrection.

This is Paul's character. This is how he does it: afflicted, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed (2 Corinthians 4:8–9). He went about as a missionary, taking the gospel from one city to the next, carrying in his body the death of Jesus, looking to the eternal weight of glory. And he did it for our sake.

He did it for our sake so that as the gospel continues to advance among all peoples, it may increase thanksgiving, to the glory of God. As grace extends to more and more people, it makes more and more people grateful. And this whole act of extending grace and responding in gratitude glorifies God.

Specific Gratitude

And it's a particular kind of gratitude. There is nothing generic about it. It is thanksgiving for the death and resurrection of Jesus, the Son of God incarnate, who came to save his people from their sins. This is the kind of thanksgiving that the apostle is aiming for. The kind that no holiday can manufacture.

While we do have some writings from the early pilgrims, we don't really know the full details of the "thankfulness" present when the original attendees huddled around that now-famous meal. Were their hearts inclined to God in some vague sense? Did they call him Providence or Jesus? Were they just glad to have some food? We don't know, and for our purposes it doesn't really matter.

But what does matter is how we will huddle around our meal tomorrow.

More Than Food and Football

Here's a plea that we look along the beams of delicious turkey and good football to see Jesus, crucified for us, dead and buried for us, raised for us on the third day. For his grace has been extended to us. We've heard the good news. Paul (or one of the apostles) told someone who told someone who told someone. And eventually one of these "someones" told us. This grace has extended to "more and more people." It has extended to you and me.

So in the midst of our many thanksgivings, may we be mainly thankful for that — for Jesus and all that he is for us. And in so doing, may we fulfill Paul's goal, the increase of thanksgiving, to the glory of God.

HT: Desiring God

Sunday School Questions

Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

Melissa and I will be in Beautancus (yes it is a real place!) visiting my family and will not be in Sunday School. We will be back the following week and look forward to being with you all again.

I have listed the questions for this week's Sunday School time below. I know it will be a great discussion.

UPDATE: Here are the questions in a printable format.

Read Genesis 13:5-13.

1. How are Abraham's attitudes and actions an example for Christians who disagree with each other?

a. Genesis 13:5-13

b. 1 Corinthians 6:1-8

c. Ephesians 4:1-3

d. Ephesins 4:31-5:2

2. Why did Abraham have the right to choose first?

3. a. What was the basis for Lot's choice? Give the verse.

b. In what ways do people choose to live in a certain area for the same reasons today?

c. Exactly what was wrong with Lot's choice? Give verse.

d. What effect did his coice eventually have on his wife, his family, and his own spiritual well-being? Skim Genesis 14 and 19.

4. If we love the world and choose its viewpoint, how does this affect us?

a. John 14:27

b. John 17:15-16

c. Ephesians 4:17-20

d. James 4:4

e. 1 John 2:15-17

Read Genesis 13:5-18.

5. a. How did Lot temporarily seem to gain by his choice?

b. How did Abraham temporarily seem to lose by his choice?

6. How did God's promise to Abraham after Lot left him include more than he seemed to have given up?

7. a. What are some promises to the Christian who seems to give up so much for Christ's sake?

b. How are Christian blessings worth what Christ requires us to give up for Him?

8. a. What did God require Abraham to do in order to teach him that he must know God's inheritance and appropriate each promise in practical ways?

b. In what way does Joshua 1:3-9 illustrate these parts of true faith?

9. What words and phrases in Genesis 13; 15:18-21; and Jeremiah 31 make it clear that when God meant the land of Canaan was to be given to Abraham's descendants, this was to be taken literally?

Read Genesis 18:16-19:38.

10. What position must Lot have held in Sodomite society if he "sat in the gate"?

11. a. Lot may have thought that by going to live in Sodom he could influence the people of that city. Was he successful?

b. How did they react to his warnings?

12. What did Lot's family lose or gain by Lot's becoming an important man in Sodom?

13. What proof can you find in Genesis 18-19 that Lot had genuine faith in God's Word that resulted in moral righteousness? See also 2 Peter 2:7-8.

Read Luke 12:13-21 and 1 Corinthians 3:9-15.

14. How does 1 Corinthians 3:12-15 describe the eternal loss of a Christian who makes Lot's choice?

15. From the following verses, why are our choices after we become Christians so important?

a. Romans 14:10-12

b. 2 Corinthians 5:9-10

c. 1 John 2:28

16. How was Lot like the man in Luke's parable?

You Might Be a Pragmatist...

I’d imagine most of us on the conservative end of evangelicalism understand the wrongheadedness of church growth methodology. It’s easy to see how men like the early pioneers of church growth (Donald McGavran, C. Peter Wagner, Robert Schuller) and their most famous disciples (Bill Hybels, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen) got it wrong.

The theology of the Bible teaches us God is absolutely sovereign over salvation; He alone predestines, calls justifies, and glorifies fallen sinners who are dead in trespasses and sin. Christ is the sovereign head of the church who receives the elect bride from His Father; He alone directs, equips, and grows the church according to the will of the Father. The Holy Spirit is the executor of the Father’s will, drawing the elect to Jesus Christ; He alone regenerates the sinner, seals the elect, and empowers the church for growth and service.

We don’t deny the human element, even as we affirm monergism and divine initiative. God uses means and we’re part of the means He uses to do His work, right? As Paul said, “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth.” And it’s important to see that the apostolic pattern of planting and watering were not according to a pragmatic, “the end justifies the means” approach. Paul, Apollos, and every other exemplary minister of the apostolic age did ministry according to the means God prescribed (i.e., Eph. 4:11-16) and not according to what seemed reasonable to the culture (i.e., 1 Cor. 2:1-5).

The end goal, as well as the means employed to achieve that end, are important to God. So, when we use pragmatic-oriented church growth principles to plant and water, we go against the grain, planting and watering according to the pattern of the flesh rather than the power of the Spirit. That’s wrong. We, along with Paul, want the faith of those who hear us to rest, not “in the wisdom of men but in the power of God” (1 Cor. 2:5).

So, here’s my concern: Are we truly squeaky-clean? Are we free from the charge of pragmatism? Do we condemn in our preaching what we practice in our ministries?

At times, I can imagine the church growth practitioners with wry smiles on their faces. They listen to us condemn the methodologies they’ve openly embraced, while using them to grow our churches and ministries. Sure, there’s a difference in degree, but that only makes our public denouncements all the more hypocritical. After all, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

When those of us who claim to be Reformed, or Calvinists, or faithful adherents to the Doctrines of Grace (or whatever the most accurate title happens to be for your brand of biblical fidelity), when we eschew in our preaching and teaching what we practice in our ministries, we unwittingly become one of the strongest arguments in support of evangelical pragmatism.

So, just to help you think it through, to provoke you a wee bit, here’s a quick Top 10 list you can use to evaluate yourself and your ministry for signs of pragmatism.

1. If you see ecclesiology as a subset of missiology, you might be a pragmatist.
   
   
2. If you believe evangelism rather than edification is the purpose of the church, you might be a pragmatist.
   
   
3. If you are trying to figure out what works in evangelism and church growth, and you’re using resources less than 100 years old to answer the question, you might be a pragmatist.
   
   
4. If you turn to sociology and psychology rather than theology to help you understand human response, you might be a pragmatist.
   
   
5. If you think the feel of your church, the music you play, and what you wear makes it more/less likely for an unbeliever to believe the gospel, you might be a pragmatist.
   
   
6. If you are often counting your numbers (e.g., number of visitors, baptisms, and “decisions for Christ,” visitors to your website, sermon downloads, or any other countable sign of growth), you might be a pragmatist.
   
   
7. If you feel the need to quote your numbers to establish your credibility, you might be a pragmatist.
   
   
8. If you are more concerned with the opinions and comfort-level of unbelievers who visit your church than you are with the opinions of believers in your church, you might be a pragmatist.
   
   
9. If your church youth program is designed to accommodate and entertain young people rather than teach and confront them, you might be a pragmatist.
   
   
10. If the young set the tone and determine the culture of the church, you might be a pragmatist.
    
    

I know that’s a short, somewhat simplistic, and woefully incomplete list, but hey, it’s a start. If any of those points are true of you or your church, you might need to repent. Start by confessing your sin of relying on the flesh and using fleshly methods, and study the Scripture to set a positive course for your ministry.

• Study biblical anthropology so you understand the truth about the human condition and human response (Rom. 1:18–3:18; Eph. 2:1-3).
  
  
• Study the true purpose of the church and the pattern of church growth as laid out in Scripture (Eph. 4:7-16; 1 Tim. 3:1-16).
  
  
• Study the ways and means of God until you see how opposite they are of the ways and means of man (1 Cor. 1:18–2:5; Jam. 3:13-18).

Learn to live by faith and not by sight; that is to say, stop counting! God’s work is largely invisible, growth takes take time, and wisdom is generally not recognized by her contemporaries, but by all her children (Luke 7:35).

The Final Word on Contextualization (Almost)

John MacArthur opened this series by asking an important question: Where did Christians ever get the idea they could win the world to Christ by imitating it?

Believe it or not, church marketing specialists answer that question by claiming the apostle Paul as their inspiration. They say he modeled contextualization when he addressed the Athenian philosophers on Mars Hill (Acts 17:22-34). But their favorite passage to cite to justify contextualizing the gospel is 1 Corinthians 9:22-23, where Paul wrote, “I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some. And I do all things for the sake of the gospel, that I may become a fellow partaker of it.”

John MacArthur confronted and corrected that false way of thinking about Paul’s statement with a careful, reasoned explanation of the text. Far from mandating pragmatism in ministry, the apostle Paul was calling for personal sacrifice on the part of the evangelist.He was describing not his willingness to sacrifice the message, but his willingness to sacrifice himself to preach the message. He would give up everything to promote the spread of the gospel—his rights, privileges, and ultimately his own life.

That’s precisely how Paul lived and ministered. The history of his ministry in the New Testament bears proof after proof of that claim.

Paul was no contextualizer. His point in 1 Corinthians 9 was that no evangelist should let his Christian liberty hinder anyone’s hearing and understanding the message of Christ. In that passage, Paul was describing—and in some sense, advocating—an attitude of personal sacrifice, not compromise. Paul would never alter Christ’s call to repent and believe the gospel under any circumstances—and neither should you.

Quote of the Day

“It cannot be emphasized too strongly that God’s love is the source, not the consequence, of the atonement. . . . God does not love us because Christ died for us; Christ died for us because God loved us. If it is God’s wrath which needed to be propitiated, it is God’s love which did the propitiating.”

– John Stott

By All Means Save Some

Paul’s one aim in making himself the slave of all was so that they might be saved. He was not trying to win a popularity contest. He was not seeking to make himself or the gospel appealing to them. His whole purpose was evangelistic. C. H. Spurgeon, preaching on 1 Corinthians 9, said,

I fear there are some who preach with the view of amusing men, and as long as people can be gathered in crowds, and their ears can be tickled, and they can retire pleased with what they have heard, the orator is content, and folds his hands, and goes back self-satisfied. But Paul did not lay himself out to please the public and collect the crowd. If he did not save them he felt that it was of no avail to interest them. Unless the truth had pierced their hearts, affected their lives, and made new men of them, Paul would have gone home crying, “Who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?” …

Now observe, brethren, if I, or you, or any of us, or all of us, shall have spent our lives merely in amusing men, or educating men, or moralizing men, when we shall come to give our account at the last great day we shall be in a very sorry condition, and we shall have but a very sorry record to render; for of what avail will it be to a man to be educated when he comes to be damned? Of what service will it be to him to have been amused when the trumpet sounds, and heaven and earth are shaking, and the pit opens wide her jaws of fire and swallows up the soul unsaved? Of what avail even to have moralized a man if still he is on the left hand of the judge, and if still, “Depart, ye cursed,” shall be his portion? (Spurgeon, “Soul Saving Our One Business,” The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, vol. 25, 674-676)

That is precisely my concern about today’s pragmatic church-growth strategies. The design is to attract the unchurched. For what? To entertain them? To get them to attend church meetings regularly? Merely “churching” the unchurched accomplishes nothing of eternal value. Too often, however, that is where the strategy stalls. Or else it is combined with a watered-down gospel that wrongly assures sinners a positive “decision” for Christ is as good as true conversion. Multitudes who are not authentic Christians now identify themselves with the church. The church has thus been invaded with the world’s values, the world’s interests, and the world’s citizens.

By all means we are to seek the salvation of the lost. We must be servants to all, deferential to every kind of person. For Jews we should become Jewish; for Gentiles we should be like Gentiles; for children we should be childlike; and so on for every facet of humanity. But the primary means of evangelism we dare not overlook: the straightforward, Christ-centered proclamation of the unadulterated Word of God. Those who trade the Word for amusements or gimmicks will find they have no effective means to reach people with the truth of Christ.

Quote of the Day

“The Sovereignty of God is the stumbling block on which thousands fall and perish; and if we go contending with God about His sovereignty it will be our eternal ruin. It is absolutely necessary that we should submit to God as an absolute sovereign, and the sovereign of our souls; as one who may have mercy on whom He will have mercy and harden whom He will.”

– Jonathan Edwards

Contextualization and the Corruption of the Church

It should be clear that modern church marketers cannot look to the apostle Paul for approval of their methodology or claim him as the father of their philosophy. Although he ministered to the vilest pagans throughout the Roman world, Paul never adapted the church to secular society’s tastes. He would not think of altering either the message or the nature of the church. Each of the churches he founded had its own unique personality and set of problems, but Paul’s teaching, his strategy, and above all his message remained the same throughout his ministry. His means of ministry was always preaching—the straightforward proclamation of biblical truth.

By contrast, the “contextualization” of the gospel today has infected the church with the spirit of the age. It has opened the church’s doors wide for worldliness, shallowness, and in some cases a crass, party atmosphere. The world now sets the agenda for the church.

This is demonstrated clearly in a book by James Davison Hunter, a sociology professor at the University of Virginia. Hunter surveyed students in evangelical colleges and seminaries, and concluded that evangelical Christianity has changed dramatically in the past three decades. He found that young evangelicals have become significantly more tolerant of activities once viewed as worldly or immoral—including smoking, using marijuana, attending R-rated movies, and premarital sex. Hunter wrote,

The symbolic boundaries which previously defined moral propriety for conservative Protestantism have lost a measure of clarity. Many of the distinctions separating Christian conduct from “worldly conduct” have been challenged if not altogether undermined. Even the words worldly and worldliness have, within a generation, lost most of their traditional meaning.… The traditional meaning of worldliness has indeed lost its relevance for the coming generation of Evangelicals. (Hunter, Evangelicalism: The Coming Generation, 63)

What Hunter noted among evangelical students is a reflection of what has happened to the entire evangelical church. Many professing Christians appear to care far more about the world’s opinion than about God’s. Churches are so engrossed in trying to please non-Christians that many have forgotten their first duty is to please God (2 Cor. 5:9). The church has been so over-contextualized that it has become corrupted by the world.

Quote of the Day

“He chooses us, not because we believe, but that we may believe; lest we should say that we first chose him.”

– Augustine

For the Weak, I Became Weak

In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul models self-sacrificing love toward unbelievers. He explains his willingness to forfeit personal liberties and accommodate himself for the sake of the gospel. He’s already mentioned two groups of people in the first section of this chapter—Jews and Gentiles. Paul was willing to forego his apostolic freedoms in order to reach both races. But racial application was only the beginning.

In verse 22, Paul mentions a third group: “To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak.” Who are the weak? In Pauline theology this expression refers to overscrupulous Christians—immature believers who don’t understand their liberty. In the Jewish community, for example, some new Christians still wanted to observe the Sabbaths, attend the synagogues, follow the dietary laws, and maintain all the feasts and ceremonies of the Old Testament law. Some in the Christian community had weak consciences and still felt such things were obligatory. They were just emerging out of Judaism and still holding on, feeling the pangs of conscience to do those things that had become habit and were associated with the true God and the Old Testament Scriptures.

Among the Gentiles, on the other hand, there were those saved out of idolatry who now feared having anything to do with meat offered to idols. Perhaps some clung to old superstitions and feared demonic idols or simply wanted nothing to do with anything reminiscent of the former lifestyle.

Paul, of course, was free from such fears and superstitions. And he was free from the ceremonial law of the Old Testament. The law of Christ governed him. Although he felt free to do things that other people’s consciences wouldn’t allow them to do, when Paul was with weaker brethren he was careful not to violate their sensibilities. He adapted his behavior so as not to offend them. He yielded in love rather than offend a weaker brother.

How did he do that? At one point he took a Nazirite vow to quell a false rumor among the believing Jews in Jerusalem that he was preaching against Moses and urging Jewish people not to circumcise their children (Acts 21:17–26). Ironically, it was the carrying out of that vow that ultimately led to his arrest and imprisonment. The unbelieving Jews hated the message of the gospel, so they undertook to destroy the messenger. But they had no legitimate complaint against Paul personally, for he had gone out of his way to be a Jew for the Jews, a Gentile for the Gentiles, and a weak brother for the weak brethren.

Again the question comes, why did Paul subject himself to all that? First Corinthians 9:22, 23 says: “That I may by all means save some. And I do all things for the sake of the gospel.” “By all means” may sound at first like an echo of pragmatism, but don’t forget, Paul is speaking here of condescension, not compromise. What is the difference? To condescend is to remove needless offenses to people’s religious consciences by setting aside some personal, optional liberty. To compromise is to set aside an essential truth and thereby alter or weaken the gospel message.

Paul set himself in contrast with the compromisers and marketeers in 2 Corinthians 2:17: “We are not like many, peddling the word of God, but as from sincerity, but as from God, we speak in Christ in the sight of God.” The compromiser sells a cheap gospel and tries to make it appealing by stripping away the offense of Christ. Paul simply wanted to keep himself from being an obstacle or a stumbling block to people’s consciences so that the unadulterated message could penetrate hearts and do its work. If people were offended by the message, Paul did not try to remove the offense of the gospel or abolish the stumbling block of the cross, and he would not tolerate those who tried (Gal. 5:11). But he was willing to practice self-denial and deference if that opened opportunities for him to preach.

Quote of the Day

“It is tragic to go through our days making Christ the subject of our study but not the sustenance of our souls.”

– Vance Havner

For the Gentiles, I Became a Gentile

As long as it did not violate God’s Word or compromise the gospel, Paul was willing to accommodate himself to his audience. As we noted in the last post, that was certainly true of his Jewish audience. But Paul didn’t stop with the Jews. He demonstrated the same heart of sacrifice toward the Gentiles—all for the sake of the gospel.

Going back to the ninth chapter of 1 Corinthians, you read in verse 21, “To those who are without law, [I become] as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might win those who are without law.” “Those who are without law” are the Gentiles. Note the qualifier Paul inserted. He specifically stated that he is “not … without the law of God but under the law of Christ.” He clearly was not saying he became morally lawless to please despisers of true righteousness.

Though he became as “without law” in the ritual or ceremonial sense, he was not living licentiously or behaving unrighteously. He would have no sympathy with antinomians—people who believe all law is abolished for Christians. “Without law” is not a reference to the moral law. Paul is not implying that he lived it up just to make the Gentiles admire him. He did not encourage people to think they could become Christians and hang on to a worldly lifestyle. Again, he was talking about the Old Testament ceremonial law. When he ministered to Gentiles, he dropped all his non-moral Jewish traditions. When Paul was with the Gentiles he followed Gentile customs and culture insofar as it did not conflict with the law of Christ. He avoided needlessly offending the Gentiles.

When Paul was in Jerusalem, for example, he followed Jewish religious customs. He observed the feasts and Sabbaths, and he followed Jewish dietary laws. When he went to Antioch, however, he ate with the Gentiles, even though that violated his own tradition and upbringing. Peter came to Antioch and also ate with the Gentiles, until some Judaizers showed up. Then Peter and some others withdrew and held themselves aloof (Gal. 2:12). Paul says, “Even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy” (v. 13). That was when Paul rebuked Peter to his face in front of others.

Notice why Paul confronted Peter: “I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel” (v. 14). Paul’s reason for becoming all things to all men was not so he could slip the gospel in covertly. On the contrary, it was so he could without hindrance proclaim the truth of the gospel more straightforwardly than ever. He wanted to remove any personal offense, so the offense of the gospel would be the only one. Paul saw Peter’s compromise as something that undermined the clarity and the force of the gospel, and that is why he confronted him.

Quote of the Day

“Like a sailboat equipped with the most sophisticated guidance technology, our Christian lives are often decked out with the latest principles for living, with spiritual guidance counselors telling us what will make life really work for us and our families. Oftentimes, brand new Christians sail out of the harbor under full sail, eager to follow the guidance system, making use of all the gadgets, enthusiastically listening to every fellow boater who has some advice to offer. Yet as many long-time believers know, eventually the winds die down and we find ourselves dead in the water. Then when storm clouds gather on the horizon, we discover that all of the guidance technology and good advice in the world cannot fill our sails so that we can return safely to the harbor.

The equipment can plot our course, tell us that a storm is coming, and indicate our present location, but it cannot move us one inch toward the safety of the harbor. In other words, if we are looking for motivation in the Christian life, it cannot come from motivational principles; only the gospel fills our sails…While God’s wise directions are necessary, apart from the ever present word of promise that, despite our failures at sea, God is at the helm piloting us to safety, we will eventually give up on sailing altogether. Purposes, laws, principles, suggestions, and good advice can set our course, but only the gospel promise can fill our sails and restore to us the joy of our salvation.”

– Michael Horton, The Gospel Driven Life

For the Jews, I Became Jewish Part 2

When Paul wrote, “To the Jews I became as a Jew … to those who are under the Law, as under the Law” (1 Corinthians 9:20), he was not talking about accommodating the message. He was simply saying he would not jeopardize his ability to preach the message by unnecessarily offending people.

Several illustrations of that principle appear in the New Testament. In our last post, we looked at the example of the Jerusalem Council. Out of love and concern for Jewish unbelievers, the council asked new Gentile converts to abstain from engaging in cultural practices that the Jews found offensive. That was in Acts chapter fifteen.

Acts chapter sixteen includes a similar illustration. It is the first time in Scripture we meet Timothy. Luke records that he was “the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek” (v. 1). Jews would have considered him a Gentile, because his father was a Gentile. Moreover, Timothy’s mother would have been considered a virtual traitor for marrying a Gentile.

Yet Timothy “was well spoken of by the brethren who were in Lystra and Iconium. Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him” (vv. 2, 3).

Wait a minute. Why did he do that? Paul certainly didn’t believe Gentiles needed be circumcised to be saved. In fact, Paul refused to have Titus circumcised when the Jerusalem legalists demanded it (Gal. 2:1-5). Furthermore, Paul once opposed Peter to his face because Peter had compromised with the legalists (Gal. 2:11–14). He asked Peter, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?” (v. 14). So why did Paul have Timothy circumcised? Was he compromising the issue, demonstrating inconsistency?

No. Timothy wasn’t doing it for salvation. He obviously had not undergone circumcision when he was saved. And he wasn’t doing it to make hardened legalists happy or to tone down the offense of the gospel. He simply wanted to identify with the Jews so he might have an entrance to preach the gospel to them. Paul and Timothy were not hoping to pacify pseudo-Christian legalists, act the part of hypocrites, or mitigate the gospel in any way. They simply wanted to keep open lines of communication to the Jews they were going to preach to. This was not an act of compromise or men-pleasing. It was loving—and physically very painful—self-sacrifice for the sake of the lost.

Wherever he could acknowledge the strong religious tradition of a people and not offend their sensitivities, Paul was glad to do so—when it did not violate God’s Word or impinge on the gospel. But the apostle never adapted his ministry to pander to worldly lusts or sinful selfishness.

Quote of the Day

“‘Come unto me,’ he says, ‘and I will give you.’ You say, ‘Lord, I cannot give you anything.’ He does not want anything. Come to Jesus, and he says, ‘I will give you.’ Not what you give to God, but what he gives to you, will be your salvation. ‘I will give you‘ — that is the gospel in four words.

Will you come and have it? It lies open before you.”

– C. H. Spurgeon, The Treasury of the New Testament

For the Jews, I Became Jewish Part 1

As we noted in the last post, Paul was not advocating “contextualization” when he wrote to the Corinthians, “I have become all things to all men, that I may be all means save some.” He was calling for self-denial and sacrifice for the sake of reaching unbelievers with the gospel.

How did Paul apply that principle? In 1 Corinthians 9:20 he describes the practical outworking of self-denial: “To the Jews I became as a Jew … to those who are under the Law, as under the Law.” This describes a selfless sacrifice of Paul’s personal liberty: “though not being … under the Law,” Paul willingly subjected himself to the law’s ritual requirements in order to win those who were under the law. In other words, he adopted their customs. Whatever their ceremonial law dictated, he was willing to do. If it was important to them to abstain from eating pork, he abstained. If their sensibilities demanded that a certain feast be observed, he observed it. Why? Not to appease their pride or affirm their religion, but in order to open a door of opportunity for him to preach the uncompromised truth, so that he might win them to Jesus Christ.

Paul would stoop to no compromise of the truth. He simply sacrificed personal freedoms and preferences, removing any unnecessary diversion or excuse that would thwart the opportunity to declare the powerful, saving gospel plainly to them.

Paul was not suggesting that the gospel can be made more powerful by adapting it to a certain cultural context. He was not speaking about accommodating the message. He was simply saying he would not jeopardize his ability to preach the message by unnecessarily offending people. If the message was an offense, so be it: “We preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness” (1 Cor. 1:23). But Paul would not make himself a stumbling block to unbelievers: “Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God” (10:32).

Several illustrations of this may be adduced from the New Testament. In the fifteenth chapter of Acts the Jerusalem Council, the first church council, met to determine how they should assimilate the Gentile converts. Many of the Jewish believers were so steeped in Jewish tradition that they were skeptical about the Gentiles who were turning to Christ. Then some men came down from Judea and began teaching the Christians, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved” (15:1). In other words, they were claiming the Gentiles couldn’t become Christians unless they became Jewish first. The church was thrown into confusion.

The Jerusalem Council was assembled to discuss the issue. Scripture says there was much debate (v. 7). At one point Peter testified that he had been present when Gentiles first received the Holy Spirit, and all the evidence demonstrated that God was in it (vv. 7–12). Finally, James, the leader, handed down this ruling: “It is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles” (v. 19).

That settled the question. The church would accept Gentiles as they were, without placing them under the Jewish ceremonial law.

But then notice the next verse. James went on to add this: “We [will] write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.” He listed four things the Gentiles were to stay away from.

First, “things contaminated by idols” meant food offered to idols. That was precisely the issue that troubled the Corinthians. Eating food offered to pagan idols was grossly offensive to Jewish people. They despised pagan idolatry. But as Paul suggested, there is nothing inherently wrong with eating food that had been offered to idols. What is an idol, anyway? “We know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one” (1 Cor. 8:4). Nevertheless, the Jerusalem Council added this warning to stay away from things contaminated by idols, so as not to needlessly offend the Jews.

Second, the Gentiles were to stay away from fornication. This does not mean simply that they were not to commit fornication. That is obvious. It is not a gray area. There was much in the apostolic teaching that prohibited every form of fornication, or sexual sin. So “abstain … from fornication” is much more than a command against acts of fornication. Since the Gentile religions revolved around sex rites, temple prostitutes, and orgiastic ritual, James was saying the Gentile believers should have nothing to do with their former ways of worship. They should not attend any ceremonies where these things were going on. They were to sever the tie completely with pagan styles of worship so repulsive to Jews.

Third, they were to abstain from the meat of strangled animals; and fourth, they were to stay away from blood. Strangled meat retains a lot of blood. Jewish law demanded that any animals to be eaten must have the blood completely drained from them. To the Jews, the eating of blood was one of the most offensive of all Gentile practices. And some pagan religious rites involved the drinking of pure animal blood. The Jerusalem Council therefore commanded Gentile believers to abstain from all such practices.

Understand the significance of this. The Jerusalem Council’s decision was an explicit condemnation of legalism. The Council refused to put the Gentiles under the Mosaic law. So why did they lay these four prohibitions on them? The reason is made clear in Acts 15:21: “For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

In other words, they were to abstain from those four things so they would not offend the Jewish unbelievers. If Christians practiced these most offensive of all Gentile rituals, unbelieving Jews might turn away from the gospel before hearing it.

Quote of the Day

“Time is very short… The scarcity of any commodity occasions men to set a higher value upon it, especially if it be necessary and they cannot do without it. Thus when Samaria was besieged by the Syrians, and provisions were exceedingly scarce, “an ass’s head was sold for fourscore pieces of silver, and the fourth part of a cab of dove’s dung for five pieces of silver.” 2 Kin. 6:25. — So time is the more to be prized by men, because a whole eternity depends upon it; and yet we have but a little of time. “When a few years are come, then I shall go the way whence I shall not return.” Job 16:22. “My days are swifter than a post. They are passed away as the swift ships; as the eagle that hasteth to the prey.” Job 9:25, 26. “Our life; what is it? It is but a vapour which appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.” Jam. 4:14.

It is but as a moment to eternity. Time is so short, and the work which we have to do in it is so great, that we have none of it to spare. The work which we have to do to prepare for eternity, must be done in time, or it never can be done; and it is found to be a work of great difficulty and labor, and therefore that for which time is the more requisite.”

-Jonathan Edwards

The Preciousness of Time and the Importance of Redeeming It

Servants of a New Covenant

“All things belong to us, and we are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.” Paul made that tremendous, seemingly unqualified promise to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 3:21–23). Christians are free. Yet there is a paradox that balances that truth. Though free, all Christians are slaves. It is a new kind of bondage: we are “servants of a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Cor. 3:6). As willing slaves, we must voluntarily restrict our own liberty for others’ sakes. Isn’t that what Jesus Himself taught? “If anyone wants to be first, he shall be last of all, and servant of all” (Mark 9:35). Paul applied the principle of voluntary servitude to evangelism. He made himself a slave to all—including the roughest, most contemptible, loathsome pagan. Being free, he nevertheless joyfully entered into slavery for the gospel’s sake.

This principle of voluntary slavery was pictured graphically in the Old Testament law. Exodus 21:5, 6 describes the process by which one could choose to make himself another’s servant: “If the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,’ then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently.” The Israelites were permitted to keep fellow Jews as slaves only for six years. On the seventh year they were to be set free. But if one voluntarily chose to continue serving as a slave, his master would literally put his ear against the doorpost, take an awl, and drive it through the ear. The hole in the slave’s ear was a sign to all that he was serving out of love, not because he had to. Paul was saying he had voluntarily relinquished his freedom in order to serve all men. In a spiritual sense, Paul had perforated his ear on behalf of the unsaved. “Though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more” (1 Cor. 9:19).

The word translated “made … a slave” is the Greek verb douloō, “to enslave.” This is a strong expression. It is the same word used in 1 Corinthians 7:15 in relation to the marriage bond. And the same word is used in Romans 6:18, 22 to speak of our union with Christ. It describes an exceedingly secure bond. Paul had denied himself in the truest sense by placing himself under such a bond to everyone else.

The phrase “that I might win the more” is not talking about winning earthly or heavenly rewards. Paul was speaking of winning the lost to Christ. Such was Paul’s concern for lost souls that, though he was free in Christ, he was willing to enslave himself to people if it would give him an opportunity to proclaim the gospel. He expressed a similar commitment in 2 Timothy 2:10: “I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory.”

Consider all that Paul suffered for the gospel’s sake. He became a prisoner. He went to jail. He was beaten, whipped, shipwrecked, and stoned. He continually set his own life aside. Ultimately he was killed for the testimony of the gospel. He would have gone even further if it were possible. To the church at Rome Paul wrote these shocking words: “I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh” (9:23, 24). In other words, he felt as if he would have given up his own salvation if he could, so that his Jewish brethren could be saved.

In contrast, the Corinthians were demanding their rights. They were misusing their freedom at others’ expense. Weaker brothers were stumbling, and it is very likely that unbelievers were repelled by the selfishness and strife that dominated the Corinthian fellowship, so carefully chronicled in Paul’s first letter to them.

Instead Paul wanted them to follow his example. “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1). And what was his example? Go back one verse, to the end of 1 Corinthians 10: “Just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of the many, that they may be saved.” So the only sense in which we as believers are to be men-pleasers is in looking “not only to [our] own interests, but also to the interests of others” (Phil. 2:4, niv).

That’s the point Paul was making here. He was not advocating a marketing plan. He was not making a plea for “contextualization.” He was not suggesting that the message be made more acceptable, or that the role of preaching be replaced by psychology, skits, and worldly entertainment. He was calling for self-denial and sacrifice for the sake of proclaiming the unadulterated truth to those who do not know Christ.

Quote of the Day

“The Gospel is about a rescue mission and not about lending man a helping hand in his search for God”

– Byron Yawn

Liberty in Christ

It is crucial that you understand the nature of Christian liberty. As a Christian, you are not under law, but under grace (Rom. 6:14). Freedom from the law certainly does not mean that the principles of righteousness revealed in the Old Testament law are now nullified. It does not mean that the Ten Commandments have no application to your present life. It does not mean that you can subjugate God’s holy standards to personal preference. It obviously does not mean you are free from any moral requirements.

What does it mean? It means that Christians are not bound to observe Old Testament ritual. We don’t have to sacrifice animals, observe the laws of ceremonial cleanness, and celebrate all the new moons and feasts and sacrifices. We don’t have to follow the dietary laws given to Israel through Moses. We are free from all that.

Likewise, obviously, we are free from all Gentile religious ceremony and superstition. Whatever our religious background or heritage, in Christ we are free from all the trappings of it. We now live by God’s grace, which has the principle of true righteousness built in.

In other words, our spiritual lives are governed not merely by an external code, but by God’s grace, which operates in us to fulfill the righteous requirements of the law (Rom. 8:4). Grace teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires, and to live sensibly, righteously, and godly (Titus 2:12). And grace empowers us to live holy lives.

This tremendous liberty is one of the most remarkable aspects of the Christian life. We have no need to yield to custom or ceremony or human opinion. There are no earthly priests to intercede between us and God: “There is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5). We don’t need to make a pilgrimage to a temple somewhere to worship; our very bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19). We can worship God in spirit and in truth anytime, anyplace (John 4:23, 24). Whatever we ask in Jesus’ name He will do (John 14:13, 14). The Holy Spirit is given to us as our advocate and comforter (vv. 16, 26). All things belong to us, and we are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s (1 Cor. 3:21–23).

Quote of the Day

“The vague and tenuous hope that God is too kind to punish the ungodly has become a deadly opiate for the consciences of millions.”

– A.W. Tozer

Giving Up To Gain

One of the most frequently quoted passages church marketing specialists use to justify “contextualizing” the gospel is Paul’s letter to the Corinthians. In chapter 9, he summarizes his gospel strategy by claiming he became all things to all men. But look again at what Paul is actually saying in these verses:

For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more. And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some. And I do all things for the sake of the gospel, that I may become a fellow partaker of it (1 Cor. 9:19–23).

The first sentence in that brief excerpt shows clearly what Paul was talking about. He was describing not his willingness to sacrifice the message, but his willingness to sacrifice himself to preach the message. He would give up everything—even become “a slave to all”—if that would promote the spread of the unadulterated gospel. His desire to win souls is the heart of this text, and he repeats it several times: “that I might win the more”; “that I might win Jews”; “that I might win those who are under the Law”; “that I might win those who are without law”; “that I might win the weak”; and “that I may by all means save some.” So winning people to Christ was his one objective. In order to do that, Paul was willing to give up all his rights and privileges, his position, his rank, his livelihood, his freedom—ultimately even his life. If it would further the spread of the gospel, Paul would claim no rights, make no demands, insist on no privileges.

And that is precisely how Paul lived and ministered. Not that he would modify the message to suit the world, but that he would behave so that he personally would never be an obstacle to anyone’s hearing and understanding the message of Christ. He was describing an attitude of personal sacrifice, not compromise. He would never alter the clear and confrontive call to repentance and faith.

Paul was making the point that Christian liberty must be circumscribed by love. That is the whole theme of the eighth through the tenth chapters of 1 Corinthians. It is the context in which these verses are found. The Corinthians were evidently debating about the nature and extent of Christian freedom. Some wanted to use their liberty to do whatever they desired. Others leaned toward legalism, begrudging those who enjoyed their liberty in Christ. Paul was reminding both groups that Christian freedom is to be used to glorify God and serve others, not for selfish reasons.

Here’s an example of how that principle applies. Some of the Corinthians apparently had asked Paul whether they were free to eat meat offered to idols (8:1). Such meat often was collected from the pagan temples and sold in the marketplace at bargain prices. Paul told them it is not inherently wrong to eat such food, but if doing so places a stumbling block in someone else’s way, such an offense against another person is wrong. Paul summarized his reply with these words: “Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God; just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of the many, that they may be saved” (10:31-33).

How did Paul use his own liberty in Christ? “Though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more” (9:19). He saw his personal liberty and human rights as something to be used for God’s glory, not his own enjoyment. If he could trade his own liberty for an opportunity to proclaim the gospel and thus liberate others, he would do it gladly.