A Spirituality of Ignorance

I've been lurking a discussion of preaching. Mostly its been recollections of some well-known preachers of the past as well as a couple of current ones. They are critized by some for the lack of Biblical depth. Here is one from InternetMonk that hits this situation head-on (not to be applied directly to the forehead, but to the heart):


Dumb Up, Brother: A Spirituality of Ignorance
September 27th, 2007 by Michael Spencer

Somewhere in the backlogs of this web site I recounted what it was like being on staff at a church full of seminary students. Everyone knew so much that we had real difficulty doing anything- like buying stamps- without endless debate.

Of course, there were advantages to having a lot of smart people in the church. Our liturgy was far ahead of most churches, so on an intellectual and aesthetic level, it was a thing of beauty. We never had problems getting Sunday School teachers. We had problems getting our Sunday School teachers to not use too much Hebrew grammar. And, of course, because we were a rather intelligent bunch, we enjoyed the blessing of not being ignorant.

I’m quite serious. It’s not a good thing to be ignorant, and Christians shouldn’t hold up ignorance itself as any sort as a virtue. As much trouble as it was, I was glad there was always someone around to remind us that economic decisions had connections and repercussions in the real world. I was glad we were made sensitive to racism, sexism, discrimination against the disabled and so forth. I was even glad when some homosexual Christians came by to talk with the pastoral staff about their concerns. They didn’t get what they wanted from us, but it was a conversation that I wasn’t ashamed to participate in.

Now I live in a part of the county where ignorance of every sort is widespread. The dropout rate is almost 30%. Running any kind of school here is a battle. And most of the ministers and Christians in this area are untaught, or at the most, self-taught. Comparatively speaking, pastoral ignorance of various kinds is common.

My friend Walter is a local pastor. He’s never attended Bible school, much less college. He’s not much of a reader. He’s too busy in his bi-vocational ministry just trying to make ends meet and do what his job, family and church need of him to be a scholar. Some of Walter’s sermons are difficult for me to listen to. They are delivered in mountain style and they are, frankly, hard to understand. Mostly, Walter takes a well known character or story and applies some principle from the scripture to the day to day experiences of his congregation.

Mountain people face many difficulties. These include poverty, drugs in the community, unsafe living conditions, lack of economic opportunities, undependable medical care, crime and so on. A mountain pastor is always facing a congregation who, for the most part, are there because if God doesn’t come thorough, life is going to fall apart. Walter’s people believe that he can point them to God’s power and presence. They believe the encouragement of the Lord comes through the “man of God.” They are generally not there to experience a “Christian classroom” with pastor as professor.

Of course, those who are more educated in the doctrines of the Christian faith will tell me that there is much wrong with Walter’s ministry. He needs to know many, many things and preach them faithfully. His congregation will be strengthened by doctrinal soundness in way they won’t be through Biblical stories and their lessons. His ignorance ought to be repaired and his ministry improved. I’ll not argue with that, but I will tell you another Walter story.

One thing I didn’t tell you is that two years ago, I was in the hospital with my dying mom, and I needed a pastor. At the time, I didn’t have one. I guess I could have called any number of the ministers that I know. Actually, having been the minister in the hospital before, I was fairly certain of what would happen, and while I wouldn’t have been ungrateful, it wasn’t that important to me.

Walter happened to be in the hospital that day, visiting members of his congregation and the wider community, as was his habit. He found me, my wife and my dying mom in the ER.
Walter stayed with me all day. He found a doctor who would let my mother stay in our hospital and pass there, instead of flying her to Lexington. He helped me talk to the doctors about the course of treatment mom and I had agreed on. He prayed for me. He was a pastor to me. He was Christ to me.

Never once did Walter attempt a theological justification of the ways of God. He never got out the Bible. (Nothing wrong if he’d chosen to, of course.) He was the Bible for me that day. He put flesh and blood on God and hung out with me. He thought for me when I couldn’t think clearly. He knew my heart and he helped me listen to my heart at a very confusing moment. He treated me with love and dignity that brought joy into one of the worst days of my life.

Walter showed me that day that if you are going to measure life by how it’s lived, and not by how people talk about what they believe, he knows a lot more about God than I do. He’s not read anywhere close to the books that I’ve read and he doesn’t have my vocabulary or degrees. He has the the book that matters, and its author, in him. Compared to Walter’s embodiment of Jesus, I’m stupid.

Those of you planning to write and tell me the other side of the coin can save your ink. I know the other side of the coin. What I’m going to say to anyone listening is that I see little evidence that great learning or correct doctrine produces Christ-like people. It may, and it certainly has a part to play that can’t be eliminated. God has used books in my life to make me more like Him. But a lot of those books have been theologically ignorant and incorrect by the standards of the doctrinally correct and intelligent.

I’ve spent years listening to claims and counter claims about how various theologies, doctrines and denominations can get you the real Jesus if you’ll learn there bit or or join their team. Based on the resulting lives I’ve seen- starting with my own- I’d say we’re all full of “dung” on that one. Christ-possessed individuals exist across the spectrums of denominations, education and sophistication. In fact, I’m starting to suspect God puts his fingerprints all over more people from the wrong side of the tracks than on “our” side just to throw us off. He must enjoy hearing me say someone who does or doesn’t believe theology/doctrine “X” can’t manifest the deep imprint of the fingerprints of Jesus. (Heaven’s Comedy Channel must include hours of stupid things I’ve said.)

Jesus says that God loves to take a Walter and show me real spirituality. He loves for me to realize that I can make an “A” on a theology paper and be useless in a hospital or in the lives of real people. He loves for me to hearing the banging, clanking, crashing uselessness of much of what I’ve valued, and then discover the treasure in what I’ve called trash.

Walter has a life full of Jesus. How did Walter get so full of Jesus? By wanting him there and keeping the doors and windows open for Jesus. Not by learning the outline, the answers and the powerpoint version and stopping there. My version of Jesus often looks a lot like an essay question I’d write. Walter’s Jesus- his rough, unpolished and ignorant version of Jesus- is the real deal, at least when it counts.

Remember that Jesus was a teacher, but he never dismissed class. Life was his classroom, because he refused to isolate truth into compartments. He had no intention of producing a disciple who was an expert in theology but useless in a hospital ER. He had no plan to allow the specializations we use to excuse ourselves from what it really means to be a Christian. Carrying the Cross and Washing Feet weren’t talks. They were your life.

And if you’re smart enough to improve on that, you’re too smart. Dumb up, brother.

The comments that follow (you can read them at Michael's site, just click on the subject at the beginning) are very interesting, including one who was blessed by a CoC elder.

Seeker friendly or God obeying?

There is a growing trend within American churches in general and specifically within Churches of Christ to organize their Sunday gatherings so as to be attractive to outsiders.

It used to be that they were used to beat them severely with hell-fire and damnation. It seemed to work -- superficially. All to often, those who responded to one of the 23 verses of "Just As I Am" were immediately forgotten -- being given little or no discipleship training. Then there was great consternation over their "dropping out" so quickly.

Now, in our postmodern environment, we seek "seekers" so we can make them feel good about entering into a relationship with God/Jesus. Here are the closing paragraphs of an essay, What’s Wrong with Being Seeker-Centered? by Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason, one of my favorite sites.

Here is the solution to the church's problem. We have to abandon the seeker model and we have to adopt the Biblical model. Ooh, that sounds so arrogant. You are saying what they are doing is not Biblical? Yes! This is not rocket science. Find me anywhere in the Scriptures where the church gathers as Christians for the purpose of watering down the Gospel message and getting people to come into their church congregation. The church gathered for training and edification of believers, then they went out with the message of sin and salvation so people could get right with God before they could even begin to think about whatever purpose God had for their lives. First things first. That is the consistent model in every single time in the book of Acts where the Gospel is preached.

In all 14 times the Gospel is preached where we have detail of what they said, there is not a single occasion where anyone was invited to have a relationship with God. There is not a single occasion where anyone is told that if they become Christians their life will get better, they will have more purpose, and everything will fall together. There is not a single occasion where the Apostles said that God loves them. The word love appears nowhere in the book of Acts. Now, is the love of God manifest there? Sure. But it is not the central message. It isn’t what leads to salvation. It is not what the Gospel is all about. The love of God is manifest in the efforts that He took to rescue a fallen human race. That’s the measure of His love. But the message is about fallen human beings, about sin and righteousness and judgment, and that Jesus came to restore man to their Savior against whom they have persistently rebelled. That’s the message that saves.

After you read this essay in full, I recommend you brouse other offerings there. No, I don't agree with all there, but it all does make me think.

Dan

Yet another good read

I have finally finished Brand Jesus mentioned in previous posts. I can't recommend it highly enough.

Reaching into the high stack of "to reads," I came out with The Myth of Certainty: The Reflective Christian & the Risk of Commitment , another InternetMonk recommendation.

Here are a few paragraphs that struck home with me (being often guilty as I am):

Too many wounded Christians also indulge in a condescending attitude. There is a sarcastic bite to their use of the phrase "the church" that suggests they bear no responsibility for its failings. Whether through their exposure to secular critics of religion, their greater intelligence, or their broader experience, they have, thankfully, been liberated from the pathetic narrowness which still afflicts others. Adapting the superior attitude they elsewhere condemn, they, like the Pharisee in Christ's parable (Luke 18:11), thank God that they are not like other Christians: narrow, legalistic, unsophisti­cated.

Narrowness, hypocrisy, intolerance aplenty have always been in the church, which is to say the church has always been made up of human beings. But there has always been the Spirit of God, also, moving to work His will in His ways, human failure notwithstanding. One manifestation of that spirit, missing from the standard caricature of the church, is the genuine concern it often feels for the struggling Christian, even if that concern is sometimes shown in heavy-handed ways.

The church often feels like the rescuer trying to talk the would-be suicide victim off the ledge. Nothing could be clearer to the rescuer than that jumping, no matter what the reasons, would be a disastrously wrong decision. Talk about respecting the person's right to choose, or the possibility that he might survive the jump after all, strikes the rescuer as irrelevant, irresponsible, even criminal. The church, in short, often cares about the ultimate fate of the dissenter in a way no one else ever will. Those who would "free" him or her from religious illusion seemingly have very little to offer in place of faith, being not much different from those in the street who shout for the person to jump.

The reflective Christian's relationship to the church, then, is varied and complex. Much of the difficulty that arises stems from an inadequate awareness on both sides of the dual nature of the church as an instrument of God's work and, at the same time, a culturally bound monument to human fallenness.

Many accede to the church's identification of its ways with God's ways. They are presented with an entire package labeled "the Christian faith," which is actually composed of many extra elements—the idiosyncratic traditions of that specific branch of Christendom, particular political and social views, a set of attitudes toward the larger culture, personal preferences and prejudices, and so on.

The Christian in this situation too often adopts the false either-or thinking of the subculture. Some keep their questions and concerns concealed, as likely to condemn themselves for lack of faith as to question whether the concept of faith they have been presented is adequate. Like rape victims who suffer the added trauma of being badgered by a defense lawyer at a trial, many wounded Christians have learned that revealing their thoughts compounds their difficulties, especially in the conservative church.

Others, as they find themselves in ever greater tension with their environment, feel they must either silence a fundamental part of themselves and conform to expectations, or reject the entire package they have been offered and make do without God. They have internalized the often inaccurate equation of their church and subculture with God and His work, and in rejecting one, they mistakenly reject the other.

These people need to understand what Kierkegaard under­stood so well: not only is Christendom not synonymous with a life in Christ, following Christ may well require rejecting parts of Christendom. The church is continually tempted to confuse its mission to spread and embody the "good news" with the need every organization feels to perpetuate and en­hance itself. Karl Earth identified the difference when he said, "Ministration of the word is not administration, however smoothly it may go." 3 The reflective Christian should be sensi­tive to the difference as well, affirming and committing himself or herself to those parts of a Christian subculture which hon­estly attempt to do God's work, while staying free, as much as possible, from the inevitable distortions that abound wher­ever human beings are found.

I constantly have to fight against closed-mindedness. I pride myself as being open-minded then discover how selective that is. There are a few doctrines/beliefs that I resist contrary views. But, then, that's being human (I hope I'm not alone).

Dan

Through A Glass Darkly

by
Kurt Simmons

Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, and charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity." (I Cor. 13:8-13)

I Corinthians 13 is among the most famous chapters in the Bible. Its use is so common in wedding announcements and bulletins that it is known even among those that never read the Bible or attend church. The lessons of the chapter concerning the qualities of charity, compassion and love are clear enough. But what about the rest of the chapter? What about those verses referring to the passing away of miraculous gifts and seeing through a "glass darkly" versus "face to face"? To what does this language refer? Some have taken Paul's language of seeing through a "glass darkly" as referring to our lives upon the face of this dark and sinful globe, and that his use of the phrase "face to face" refers to when, in Heaven, we shall see God. Does this interpretation bear scrutiny? Probably not. As we shall see, the better view is that Paul is referring to the Mosaic versus Christian age.

The Two Covenants
If we would understand I Cor. 13:8-13, we must first understand its companion text, II Cor. 3:12-18:

"Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: and not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty. But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord."

Even a cursory glance at these verses will reveal their relationship with I Cor. 13:8-13. They were written by the same apostle, to the same church and use the same images. In both texts, Paul refers to a mirror or "glass." In I Cor. 13:12, he says they see through a glass "darkly." In II Cor. 3:18, he says they behold as in a glass with "open face." That Paul is referring to the same things in both texts is almost beyond dispute. Although his language seems furtive, the context shows that Paul is making allusion to the Old and New Testaments.

The Corinthian church was being troubled by false teachers from the Judaizers. The church at Corinth had given these Jews a forum to teach and they were subverting the gospel and seeking to turn the Corinthians away from Paul. (II Cor. 2:17; 10:10,11; 11:4,13-15) The Judaizers were preaching "another Jesus." (I Cor. 11:4) The Judaizers were gainsaying Paul's apostleship, twisting the fact Paul did not accept money to preach, saying it was an insult the Corinthians. They also called his credentials as an apostle into question, saying he was not an eloquent speaker. (II Cor. 11:5-12;12:12,13; cf. I Cor. 2:1-4) Thus, one of Paul's purposes in his second letter to the Corinthians was to demonstrate the superiority of the Christian system and its complete incompatibility with the Old Law. Paul wants the Corinthians to separate themselves from the Judaizers (II Cor. 6:14-18), his thorn in the flesh (II Cor. 12:7), and be reconciled to him and, through his ministry, be reconciled to Christ and God. (II Cor. 5:19,20;7:2)

It is against this background of the Judaizers troubling the church that Paul wrote II Corinthians, chapter three, comparing the ministry of Old and New Covenants. In the course of the chapter, Paul moves back and forth from one covenant to the other, comparing the attributes of each: The Old Law Paul says was of the "letter" (i.e., "fleshly ink"); the New is written with the Spirit of God. (vv. 3,6) The Old was written and engraven in stone; the New upon the believer's heart. (v. 3) The Old, Paul called the "ministration of death" (v. 7); the New, the "ministration of righteousness." (v. 9) The one system gendered death, the other life. (v. 6) The glory attending the giving of the Old was fading (vv. 7,13; cf. Heb. 8:13); the glory of the New surpassing. Paul concludes, saying, Moses put a "veil upon his face" so the children of Israel could not see clearly the end or purpose of law (v. 13), but that he (Paul) used "great plainness of speech" in declaring the gospel of Christ. (v.12) In the gospel, believers behold the glory of the Lord with "open" (i.e., "unveiled") face (v. 18), but the mind of the Jews remained veiled and blinded in reading the Old Law. (vv. 14, 15)

The Old Testament Concealed
A familiar saying has it that the "Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed." If this saying is attributable to any particular passage of scripture it is to II Cor. 3:13, above. In saying Moses put a "veil upon his face," Paul avers to the fact that there lay concealed with in the types and shadows of the Mosaic law prophetic images of the substitutionary death of Christ. "For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect...For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." (Heb.10:1,4) Because the mystery of the gospel was concealed and not openly declared, the Jews could not "steadfastly look to the end" of the law: They could not see that the law was merely transitional, to lead men to Christ, but mistook it as an end in itself. "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law to all that believe." (Rom. 10:1-4; cf. Gal. 3:24) The Jews mistook the law as an end in itself; a perfect and complete system of righteousness and not the shadow that it was. Hence, they did not submit to the righteousness of God in Christ.

From what has been said, it is plain that the apostle's reference to Moses putting a veil upon his face is merely a metaphor for the types and shadows of the law; the prophetic aspect of the temple service and other Old Testament laws pointing to Christ. But if Moses put a veil upon his face, Paul used "great plainness of speech" (vv. 12,18), depicting plainly the glory of God in the "open" (i.e., "unveiled") face of Christ. In other words, the apostles did not use types and shadows to convey the message of Christ's redeeming blood. Their job was not to conceal the mystery of the gospel, but to reveal it. Thus, when Paul says that they behold the glory of the Lord as in a mirror clearly, with open face, we understand that he is simply averring to the fact that the gospel is not veiled beneath types and shadows like the Mosaic law. With this explanation of II Cor. 3:12-18 in mind, we are prepared to look at I Cor. 13:8-13.

New Testament Revealed
The context of I Corinthians, chapters 12-14 revolves around the purpose and use of spiritual gifts. In Cor.13:8-13 Paul explains the purpose and duration of miraculous manifestations of the Spirit, likening them to the stuff of childhood, saying that upon attaining maturity they would be done away. The time of childhood reasoning and understanding Paul describes in terms of seeing through a "glass darkly;" but upon maturity, "face to face." (vv. 11,12) Based upon his comparison of the two covenants in II Cor. 3:12-18, it seems clear that Paul is referring to them again here.

God's people were in their infancy under the law, but would come to maturity in Christ. "Now I say, that the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; but is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Even so we, when we were children were in bondage under the elements of the world." (Gal. 3:24; 4:1-3) The period of infancy that obtained under the law corresponds to the childhood Paul mentions in I Cor. 13:11. The spiritual gifts associated with the early church were given for the very purpose of equipping God's people with the doctrine and ethical teaching necessary to bring them to majority; to an understanding of man’s need of a Savior and that that Savior is Christ. These gifts were distributed in the beginning of the Christian era during the final days of the Mosaic age. "And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy." (Acts 2:17,18; cf. Joel 2:28-32) The "latter days" of the Mosaic age was the beginning of the Christian era. The two overlapped by approximately 40 years, or from Pentecost to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. During this period, the infancy that attended bondage of the law was being brought to maturity in Christ:

"And he gave some apostles; and some prophets; and some evangelists; and some pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. Till we all come to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. That we henceforth be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine...but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him that is the head, even Christ." (Eph. 4:11-15)

Note that the Christian era did not mark the beginning of spiritual gifts, but their end. The gift of prophecy and power of the Holy Ghost had existed under the Mosaic law, as evidenced by the powerful works of the prophets, but came to completion and ceased in Christ. This is an important fact often overlooked. The infancy Paul refers to in Ephesians is often assumed to belong solely to the church, and somehow different from the infancy under the Mosaic law. But this is incorrect. The infancy that characterized the early church was the same infancy that obtained under the law. It is the doctrine of the gospel that brings those who were children under the law to the "measure and stature" of Christ. Hence when Paul characterizes spiritual gifts as belonging to childhood in I Cor. 13:11, he is saying that they were associated with the era belonging to the Old Law which was about to "vanish away." (Heb. 8:13) If this is correct, then Paul's language in I Cor. 13:12 about seeing through a glass "darkly" may be clearly seen to refer to the indistinct image and shadows cast by divine revelation during the pendency of the Mosaic age.

Through a Glass Darkly Versus Face-to-Face
The term "darkly" in I Cor. 13:12 in the Greek is enigma (i.e., "in a riddle"). Opposite of seeing through a glass darkly, is seeing "face to face." (v.12) These correspond to the "veiled" speech of Moses, and the "great plainness of speech" and "open face" characteristic of the gospel in II Cor. 3:12-18. The Hebrew writer says substantially the same thing: "God, who a sundry times and in divers manners spake in past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son." (Heb 1:1) That is, God spoke to the father in types and metaphors, but now speaks to us openly and clearly (i.e.,"face to face") through Christ. That this is the correct meaning of the phrase "face to face" is easily demonstrated.

In Numbers chapter twelve the story is recorded how Miriam and Aaron reproached Moses for having married an Ethiopian woman. This displeased the Lord, who rebuked the two with the following words:

"And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold. How then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?" (Num. 12:6-8)

Notice that the phrase "mouth to mouth" and speech that is plain or "apparent" is set in opposition to "dark speeches." This language corresponds with I Cor. 13:12. The phrase "mouth to mouth" is equated with seeing "face to face," and "dark speeches" equates with "seeing through a glass darkly." Similar usage occurs in Exodus 33:11, where it is said that the Lord spoke unto Moses "face to face" as a man speaks to his friend. This does not mean that Moses saw the face of God, for "there shall no man see me, and live." (Ex. 33:20) Rather, use of the phrase "face to face" and "mouth to mouth" signify that the Lord communed openly with Moses, perhaps telling him plainly of the coming substitutionary death of Christ, whereas God communicated the plan of salvation to other prophets through more obscure, indirect means. Jesus himself made a similar remark to the apostles shortly before his crucifixion, saying that he had concealed nothing from them. (Jn. 15:15; 16:29)

Although God spoke "mouth to mouth" and "face to face" with Moses, Moses put a veil on his face when speaking to the sons of Israel. (Ex. 32,34; Deut. 9:7-21;10:1-5) But the veil woven from the law of Moses is taken away in the gospel, and we behold the glory of God’s salvation openly in the face of Christ. "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." (II Cor. 4:6) The "shining" in the hearts of the apostles was the inspiration of the Holy Ghost; the glory of God in the face of Jesus is the redemption he wrought in his death, burial and resurrection.

That Which is Perfect
Some will ask, Why does Paul say in I Cor. 13:12 that they saw "darkly," but in II Cor. 3:18 he says we see with "open face?" Doesn't Paul contradict himself? This can be explained in two ways. First, Paul's use of "darkly" in I Cor. 13:12 versus "open face" in II Cor. 3:18 reflects the different emphasis of the two passages. In I Cor. 13:8-13, Paul is emphasizing the temporary nature of spiritual gifts and their identification with the age that was passing away. In II Cor. 3:8-18, the emphasis is upon the surpassing glory of the gospel of Christ. The age to which spiritual gifts belonged was a time of types and shadows wherein man saw only darkly the mystery of the gospel and the glory of the age to come. On the other hand, in the gospel, God causes the radiance of his glory to shine openly in the face of Christ. Jesus has brought his blood within the veil (Heb. 9:12,24); the glory of God's presence has illuminated his skin, which now shines openly in the face of Jesus, our High Priest, as he blesses the people. (Ex. 34:29-35)

Second, Paul's use of "darkly" versus "face to face" reflects the "already but not yet" character of the first century A.D. It must be borne in mind that the church was in a period of transition. The Mosaic age did not stop immediately at the cross, but lingered on for a time, the Hebrew writer describing it as a thing that "decayeth and waxeth old" and was "ready to vanish away." (Heb. 8:13) The Christian age, on the other hand, although begun at Pentecost 33 A.D., did not come in fullness until the old had passed away. Indeed, not even the atoning work of Christ was come in its fullness to the early church, which was given the gift of the Holy Ghost as the earnest of their inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession. (Eph. 1:13,14; II Cor. 5:5) This is why the Hebrew writer describes Christ as a high priest of "good things to come." (Heb. 9:11) If the benefits of Christ's blood and the power of the age to come (Heb. 6:5) were fully realized by the early church, the Hebrew writer would not have had occasion to characterize them as things yet to come. But as it is, the receipt of these things was still in expectation. The seal given in evidence of God's ownership and assurance of the promised redemption was the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, imparted by the laying on of the apostle's hands. (Acts 19:6; cf. 8:17) The earnest passed when the church has redeemed out of the "present evil age" (Gal. 1:4) in 70 A.D. at the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by Rome. This is the time Paul referred to in I Corinthians, chapter thirteen; the time when that which was "in part" was done away and replaced by that which is perfect and complete.

Conclusion
During the pendency of the Mosaic age, man saw through a glass darkly. The mystery of the gospel was veiled in Moses, but is done away in Christ. The gifts of the Spirit belonged to the latter days of the world-age identified with the types and shadows of the Mosaic law. Their existence testified to the fact that that which was complete had not yet fully come. "For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did." (Heb. 7:19; cf. 7:11; 8:7) Just as the types and shadows of the law found fulfillment in Jesus, so the gifts of the Spirit found completion in Christ also. Their utility ceased when the body of believers was come to majority; the age set by the Father for inheritance in the kingdom of Christ. (Gal. 4:1-4; Eph. 4:11-13) Childhood has yielded to maturity; and Christians now behold the glory of God "face to face" in the open, unveiled face of Jesus.

Abandoning the “Invisible Lifeline”

Good morning, all. I pray you had a great Sunday. Mine was very good.

Here is the latest (opening paragraphs) from my favorite Baptist writer, Michael Spencer, who blogs as the InternetMonk. Although I don't agree with his remedy, he does a great job identifying a problem.


Abandoning the “Invisible Lifeline”
September 23rd, 2007 by Michael Spencer

“If you’re not 100% sure that you are saved…if you are 99% sure, but have even 1% of doubt, then I want you to come forward this morning and repent. You need to rededicate your life to Christ.” -Closing words of a recent sermon by a well-known Southern Baptist preacher.

I’m on record as an opponent of the use of the public invitation, and the longer I’m around evangelicals who use it, the more convinced I am that it’s usually- not always, but usually- a detriment and obstacle to healthy Christianity. Of its many flaws, the effect it has on preachers has to be near the top. In short, invitationalism has caused thousands of preachers to become “sacramental con men,” promising a “local appearance” of Jesus or the Spirit, and then giving those who come mostly nothing, while telling them that everything is now just fine.

Preachers using the public invitation are tempted to shape the entire sermon around the response of walking forward at the close of the sermon, so finding theological and practical justifications for that walk forward is a major concern. (The better public invitations are, in my opinion, less directly connected to the specifics of the sermon and more directly connected to either baptism, church membership or specific time of prayer.)

If you are like me- and too many of you are. It’s scary- then you’ve heard, over and over and over, what amounts to what I call the promise of the “invisible lifeline” in much evangelical preaching: Do this thing- and that “thing” can vary greatly- and you’ll be taking hold of God and his power. This amounts to a kind of evangelical sacramentalism, and that needs to be acknowledged.

Discernment: Head or Heart?

I see, almost every day, some reference to an individual's being led by the Holy Spirit to some decision or understanding. I don't for one moment deny the sincerity of such a claim. I do, however, question the basis for it. I find only two groups of NT Christians who were promised HS guidance -- the Apostles (John 16) and prophets (Eph 3:5). In the NT, prophets were those who received, miraculously, a message from God (thru the HS?) to be passed on to the disciples. I've not met anyone who makes such claim today (although there are those who do).

Here is a short look into the source of Christian discernment --- relying on scripture written, during that age of direct HS activity, to Christians who were indwelt with the miraculous manifestation of the HS --- which indicates that discernment was a matter of rational investigation/decision making.

Discernment: Head or Heart?
Gregory Koukl

Is "spiritual" discernment an objective judgment of the mind, or a subjective intuition of the spirit?

I had a challenge from a friend a couple days ago that I've heard many times. Maybe it's been leveled at you, too. It has to do with spiritual discernment. Am I in my "head" too much when I do spiritual discernment, and not enough "in the Spirit"? Am I discerning with my mind - with reason and rationality - and not discerning with my heart ? That was her question.

It got me thinking. Since I'm involved in offering a reasonable defense for the faith and advocating clear thinking on critical issues, since I'm skeptical of those whose religion is almost entirely emotional/intuitive, people have challenged me that I'm only "half there" not using all my spiritual faculties and therefore am at risk of running into error.

"Koukl, you're just in your head too much," they suggest. "You're too left-brained when it comes to spiritual things. You're too logical, too reasonable. You don't depend enough on your heart to discern the spiritual realm. Yes you're using your mind, but what about your spirit? Why do you always trust in your own thinking instead of what the Spirit is saying about something?"
These statements imply that somehow I'm not doing a full-blooded assessment of things because I'm only using half of my machinery. My analysis should include the subjective, not just the objective.

This kind of critique assumes a couple of things. First, it assumes that there are two types of spiritual assessment. One is a rational assessment, a kind of theological head-trip. The other is a subjective, intuitive skill that some call discernment, in which we sense deep within us that something is on target or that something is amiss.

Second, it implies that the subjective, intuitive analysis is more advanced and more accurate. It is a "higher method," a more tuned-in capability. It's a spiritual assessment and not just a mental, rational assessment. It's an ability to "hear what the Spirit has to say."

People who make these kinds of comments generally are skeptical of the rational to begin with. It strikes them as being fleshly. It's what Koukl "brings to the table," so to speak, his mind, his thinking, his own rationality, his own ideas. And all of these smack of "the ways of the world," as opposed to going to God and letting God do the analysis for us.

This distinction is incredibly pervasive in Evangelical circles, so much so that some groups have even given a name to it. Some of the so-called Word-Faith teachers distinguish between what they call sensate knowledge --that which you learn with your mind as a result of study and analysis- -and revelational knowledge --that which is mediated directly to you in the spiritual realm. You have this learned stuff you get with your head, and you have this spiritual stuff you get from somewhere "out there," from the spiritual realm.

The second type is definitely better, the argument goes. You need to develop the capability to learn things spiritually so you can really get the deep truth, because the sensate stuff is distorted by the flesh. At least this is implied when you hear these kinds of assessments. And isn't it really true that Evangelicals trust more in their "spirits" than in their minds when it comes to spiritual things?

When I was less than a year old in Christ, I went to a coffeehouse in the basement of a church in Pacific Palisades in California. It was so long ago that Keith Green was not even a Christian yet (for those of you who remember that fine Christian musician who died in 1982 in a plane crash). Keith was there that night playing with Randy Stonehill, who eventually was to lead Keith to Christ. But Keith wasn't a believer that night.

As I entered the door that evening, my friend Joyce paused and put her hand to her chest as if she felt something. "Gosh, I sense that something is wrong. I feel this check in my spirit," she said. And I thought, I can't wait till I get to the point in my spiritual growth where I can know things directly in the spiritual realm, and have this sixth sense and discern things like Joyce just did.

It's 23 years later and I still haven't gotten that sixth sense. Instead, I use my mind. I don't say that as a concession, like I got the booby prize. I think it's biblical. The only way to know if I'm correct, though, is to ask the questions, "Which way is really right? Which is best? Do we discern with our minds, or do we need a sixth sense for optimum spiritual discernment?"

When I was challenged this week, my first response was, "I bet if you do a scriptural analysis, you'll find there are more verses that have to do with an objective assessment than those for a subjective one." I figured that if there really are two different ways of discernment, no one could fault me for being rational if I had scriptural support, especially if more verses supported a objective method than a subjective one.

As I did a mental inventory of the New Testament, though, it suddenly occurred to me that I couldn't think of any verses at all that supported the notion of discernment as subjective and intuitive. None came to mind, so I had to do a little searching.

I went to my NASB Bible Master program and started looking up words, starting with the word "discern." There are only two verses in the New Testament that even use the word. In Matthew 16:3 Jesus says that in the morning, "...[you say] 'There will be a storm today, for the sky is red and threatening.' Do you know how to discern the appearance of the sky, but cannot discern the signs of the times?"

Jesus was talking about looking at particular signs - the appearance of the sky - and drawing conclusions about what the weather will be like. That's an objective, not a subjective, assessment.
Hebrews 5:14 chastised those who ought to have been teachers of the Word, eating meat instead of drinking milk. Then it says, "...but solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil." So the discernment here is not subjective; it's objective. It's using the knowledge and practice of the truth of the Scriptures to develop an ability to objectively discern right from wrong.

Then I looked up the word "discernment." There's only one use of it, Philippians 1:9-10. It says, "...this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve the things that are excellent, in order to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ."

Here, discernment is coupled with knowledge resulting in a morally excellent life. Discernment is knowing what's right and what's wrong. We get that from the Scriptures, as Hebrews 5:14 points out. Sounds like an objective assessment to me.

Then I looked up the word "test." There are fifteen verses that use this word, but only one that applies to our issue. In I John 5:1-3 it says: "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because there are many false prophets gone out into the world." Now we're getting warmer, I thought, testing the spirits. Surely now we're moving into subjective.

Not so. Read again. The next verse says, "By this you know the spirit of God. Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God." Hmm...not a subjective test here, but an objective one, once again.

First Corinthians 12:10 talks about spiritual gifts. Here we might be on to something, because distinguishing of spirits is a spiritual gift. There is no hint of objective standards here; there's also no hint of subjective standards. In fact, what's curious about this verse is that it doesn't say anything else in this passage, nor anywhere else, about what it means to distinguish spirits.
I'm inclined to believe that since it's a spiritual gift, it leans more toward a subjective ability, because if this were referring to an objective way to distinguish spirits, we all could do it, and we wouldn't need the gift. So here seems to be one verse that lends itself to a subjective sense of discernment, but it's not something that everybody has, only those who are gifted. If I'm not gifted in this way, then there's no point in me trying to distinguish spirits subjectively, because I have different gifts.

Next I looked up the word "correct," but there were no entries. I looked up the word "correcting" and found II Timothy 2:25, "...with gentleness, correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth." Here the correcting has to do with having a conflict with people who disagree with you. The verse above it says, "...not being argumentative, but gracious when wronged, with gentleness correcting..." Once again we have an objective test. We see that somebody is doing something wrong and we offer correction. No intuitive pondering here or getting into a spiritual twilight zone. Rather a correction "leading to the knowledge of the truth." The truth is objective.

Here's my point. Is it true that Koukl is too much into his head, using his reason to assess spiritual things, and is not into the Spirit enough? Only if the Bible teaches that we must balance the two. But when I asked the question, "Where does the Bible teach such a thing?" I found no such teaching. I was unable to produce any scriptural support except for I Corinthians 12:10 about the distinguishing of spirits, which is a spiritual gift I have not been given, apparently, and which only a few have.

The point is, when the Bible talks about discernment - when it talks about assessing spiritual things - it's talking about a rational assessment based on objective criterion. You can't be "too much in your head" when it comes to spiritual discernment. Using your head is spiritual discernment, if you're using the truth properly.

Be ye not conformed . . .

Here's yet another cut from a book you need to read:

Brand Jesus: Christianity in a Consumerist Age Tyler Wigg Stevenson, ~ Seabury Books May, 2007 ~ ISBN: 1596270497 [Amazon has it for ten bucks]

At the end of the book (pp 188-194), Stevenson gets to the nitty-gritty of how to overcome our consumeristic Christianity. He turns to Rom 12. Here are his comments on vs 2:

Conformation versus Renewal
Paul follows the urging of 12:1 with the instruction of 12:2, which both clarifies and expands our understanding of what the offering of our bodies as living sacrifices will look like — that is, the renunciation of the world's pattern and the renewal of minds. The result of this, he writes, will be the ability to discern the perfect will of God.

For our purpose of understanding what it will mean to be a faithful Christian in the age of Brand Jesus, the dual implication, of 12:2 is especially important. Paul's clarification of the living sacrifice entails a negative and a positive action on the part of the Christian. Living out our faithfulness with integrity will mean changing our present location, which itself requires that we give up the old (the negative) and adopt the new (the positive). The faithful life requires both steps.

***
First, the negative. We are not to "conform to the pattern of this world." The initial interpretive danger here is to imagine that we automati­cally know what that pattern is. Language of "world/liness" is tossed around in churches as if we all know precisely what it indicates and are already doing such a good job at avoiding it. What "world/liness" usually refers to, in church-ese, is that terrain on the far side of the cultural boundary markers that evangelicals have set for ourselves. In short, the term "the world" often has no content in and of itself, but is most frequently used to mean whatever the church smugly believes itself not to be. This is why even churches that blaspheme the gospel with prosperity teaching* are able to rail against worldliness, despite the fact that they are concerned with nothing so much as flourish­ing materially and physically in the here and now — a definition of "worldly" by most any standard.

*The "prosperity gospel" is the heretical but increasingly popular teaching that God wants Christians to be "prosperous" in all areas of life, not the least of which is material wealth. Prosperity preachers point to their own lavish lifestyles as confirmation of Cod's blessing and favor on their teaching, though most Christians within historic orthodoxy would reply that the only thing such lifestyles conclusively prove is the existence of a well-fleeced flock. In short, being pretty lousy news, the prosperity "gospel" is actually not the gospel at all, and is a prime example of ostensibly Christian behavior that leads non-Christians to blaspheme the name of the God.

By "pattern of this world," however, Paul is not referring generi­c-ally to the "not-church," but specifically to what might be termed the pattern of the present age, the order imposed by "powers and princi­palities" that is a concrete spiritual reality In many ways, this entire book represents an attempt to discern what this spiritual reality is in our day. And our conclusion tells us that Mammon, in the form of consumerism, has established the pattern for our day.

This pattern cannot fully be understood simply as a sweeping cul­tural trend, such as those frequently listed by evangelical writers with a full head of polemical steam (materialism, consumerism, anything-goes-ism, oh my!). No, if we think of worldliness as an external trend, it becomes too easy to dismiss as irrelevant to the believer's life. ("Those things arc after the pattern of this world. / don't believe in those things; hence, I am not conforming to the pattern of this world. Now... off to the mall!") But, as we have seen, the habits of con­sumerism bear an insidious influence even on those who imagine themselves to be immune. This ought not to be surprising; rather, it is hard to understand why so many Christians seem to think that non-conformation to the pattern of this world is an easy — indeed, almost automatic by virtue of being a church member — discipline.

No, the "pattern of the world" contains those aspects of life that we tend to consider — in practice, if not in confession — to be on the same level as our Christianity. Race (understandings of identity, rather than actual skin color) is one such aspect; class is another,- gender (roles, as opposed to biological sex) is a third such power. Which one of us does not have a race, a class, a gender? Who among us is immune to thinking of him- or herself in these categories? The few exceptions of each only prove the dominion of the rule. The "pattern of the world" consists of those forces like racism/tribalism, classism, and sexism, which infect us all. And if we doubt this, is it not proven by the fact that race, class, and gender are the three attributes that Galatians 3:28 tells us we transcend in Christ?

Now, into this group of worldly patterns has arisen consumerism, which threatens to become the king of all patterns, given that we in­creasingly understand all other aspects of our identities through our consumptive habits (including nationality gender, race, class, etc.). This movement is all the more threatening for our lack of recogni­tion that it is happening. We are becoming irretrievably consumptive beings, and this is true whether we want to or not and regardless of whether we ever give that fact a conscious thought. Now, that is a pat­tern worthy of the prince of this world, and one that gives due weight to Paul's instruction.

***
Paul juxtaposes the negative rejection of the pattern of the world with the positive exhortation to "be transformed by the renewal of your minds." As with the reference to "bodies" in 12:1, we should import neither a modern nor a dualistic (body vs. mind) understanding to Paul's usage of "minds." Dunn writes that Paul's reference to the re­newal of minds points to "a transformation which works from inside outwards," which, while typical of prophetic exhortation, "becomes a way of distinguishing the Christian emphasis from the too ethnic, law-centered spirituality of contemporary Judaism."3 In other words, "renewal of your minds" is Paul's prescription for the Romans, follow­ing on his diagnosis of the external religious sensibility that we saw in our exploration of Romans 2:17-32, the hypocritical moralism of 2:1-16, and the mental degradation especially in 1:28-32. The mind, renewed, is the beginning of the proper vision of God, which will come to undo and replace the spiritual glaucoma induced by sin.

We explore below some specifics of mental renewal. Perhaps the most important overall implication, however, is the way in which the inside-outwards change of "renewing your minds" is itself an example of nonconformation with the pattern of this world. After all, the pat­terns of our daily living reinforce nothing so much as the idea that change is an external commodity. How could it be otherwise in a buy-to-be society? What you consume — by definition, something external to you — defines who you are. If you don't like who you are, buy your­self a new identity, a new lifestyle. Thus goes the prevailing, if often unconscious, conventional wisdom.

This attitude is so endemic to our society today that even anti-consumerism is itself a consumer good. Take the popular magazine (and quasi-mail-order catalogue) Real Simple, which carries the im­plicit promise that fed-up consumers simply need to buy a subscription in order to figure out how to buy less. James Twitchell, noting this phe­nomenon of consuming anti-consumption, observes the "profoundly commercial nature of letting go" of commercialism, in that we seek the cure to the "social disease" of our consumerism by "buying a how-to-stop-buying book."4 But in the end, all that's changed is what you buy — not your basic disposition to consumption. The pattern of this world is maintained.

The change that occurs through the renewal of minds, by contrast, does not begin by adopting any new external source of meaning. Paul's exhortation implicitly rejects consumerist logic such as that demon­strated, for example, in the Christian T-shirt makers' mottos. "Put on the Lord Jesus Christ [with our shirt]" and "Change Your Shirt, Change the World" are revealed as inherently false — or, at least, inherently in­adequate for, and likely distracting from, the true work of Christian discipleship.

While the renewal of minds cannot begin with the external, how­ever, neither can it be limited to internal change. "Coming to belief in Jesus Christ" is not something that simply happens in one's life. Our usual understanding of conversion is totally inadequate to the task of discipleship as presented by Paul, because all too often the essen­tial transaction is "inviting Christ into your life," with anything that follows simply being viewed as sanctificatory bonus. But renewal of minds is not a goal in and of itself; no, if we look at 12:2, such re­newal is the means of "be[ing] transformed." The necessary internal change that is the renewal of minds is incomplete — cannot, in fact, be claimed as valid — if it does not lead to the holistic offering of our "bodies" as living sacrifices in all their social, external, and especially ecclesial relationships.

The Will of God
The result of this nonconformation on the one hand, and transfor­mation via renewal of minds on the other, is the ability "to test and approve what God's will is." These are dangerous verses for contempo­rary generations obsessed with discovering personal significance. The fact that a book dealing with personal purpose has become the best-selling hardcover book in American publishing history should tell us something of the nature of our era's spiritual angst.* Each of us wants to be special; moreover, each of us wants to know the nature of our par­ticular specialness. That we feel this way is understandable given our modern rootlessness and the efforts that advertisers expend to make each one of us feel uniquely targeted as the right consumer for their brands.

*I refer, of course, to Rick Warren's The Purpose-Driven Life. However, while I think that this fact is indicative of our unfortunate situation, I hope that I will not be misread here as criticizing Pastor Warren, for whom I have a deep respect. He understands the contemporary world and has written a book for people who live in it. So, while the title of The Purpose-Driven Life may attract people whose concern for purpose is profoundly self-centered, that's admittedly where most of us are. Furthermore, if read properly, Pastor Warren's book will not let its reader abide comfortably in his or her initial disposition.

But is this the way of God? Though it appeals to our culture's ex­istential crisis, the idea that God has a particular, micro-managed meaning for each one of us smacks of an entirely modern, unbiblical individualism. Yes, God numbers the hairs on each of our heads, and yes, all lives are treasured in God's sight — but to imagine that we are each the center of our own, special, divine reality show frac­tures the redemptive work of God into as many fragments as there are believers, reinforcing the cosmic self-centeredness endemic to Brand Jesus Christianity.

We should also acknowledge that discovering God's individual plan for our individual lives is a pretty narrow spiritual ideal, given that it completely fails to account for the worst tragedies of human existence. [see Decision Making and the Will of God , Garry Friesen ~ WaterBrook Press ~ ISBN: 1590522052]

That is, it may be what we're worried about in modern America, but it's certainly not the most universal human concern. Worrying about which job God wants you to take is, admittedly, high up on the list of desirable crises to have, given that it requires a fair amount of physi­cal and economic security to indulge in the first place. Fussing about a meaningful job requires, to begin with, a life — which is why the poverty and misery of much of the world, properly considered, in­stantly reveals our particularly American quest as a relatively petty spiritual concern. And yet too many of us treat individual purpose as the highest goal of discipleship, demanding a significant portion of our spiritual (and, given the money we spend on self-help books, financial) resources.

Instead, we should read the final exhortation of Romans 12:2 — "then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is" — in light of Paul's unrelenting Christ-centered teaching. Without denying the particular value of each human life, it seems that the will of God for our lives doesn't require daily, special discernment. We're to become like Christ. That's it. We are not the center of God's redemptive drama, Christ is.

Our purpose, if we're given the luxury of worrying about it, is to enter into him. Becoming a living sacrifice is not about being the best me I can be. Though being a living sacrifice will not destroy one's individuality, neither will it encourage or strengthen it. While disci­pleship is a profoundly personal responsibility, it does not consist of the disparate paths of each person following his or her own individual purpose. Instead, it is the movement of every Christian toward the same center in the Lord. It is, in fact, the action of becoming more like one another as we each live into Christlike-ness, imitating imper­fectly the one perfect living sacrifice. As we come into alignment with God — as described above — we thus achieve discernment regarding our conformity with his "good and perfect" will: not one individually tailored for us, but one given specially in Christ, whom we are then able to follow. (Notice that this is an inversion of the consumcrist ideal of hyper-individuality.)

The fact that God's will is that we each become Christlike is con­firmed by the description of behaviors that follows, in Romans 12-15. All of these conform to the self-sacrificial mission and teaching of Jesus. Consider the consistent double-sidedness of Paul's exhortation: Hate what is evil, cling to the good; never lack zeal, keep your fervor, do not curse your persecutors, but bless them; do not be proud, but as­sociate with the lowly. This duality of rejecting evil and affirming the good is itself an echo of Christ's life. Recall prayer and fasting — the two are a parallel of the renewal of minds and nonconformation to the worldly pattern. The former is the renewed intention and self-direction toward God; the latter, an abstaining from all mortal sustenance.

American Christians have a hard time pretending at radical faithful­ness. The way we live doesn't appear to be substantially different from the way our non-Christian neighbors live, and even the few attributes from which we derive our proud distinctiveness — such as it is — seem to go largely ignored by much of the congregation. We appear to have embraced that emaciated, bumper-sticker theology of sanctification: "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven." To be sure, none of us has arrived at pure holiness. But if our spiritual lives are satiated by for­giveness alone, we have no claim to a discipleship that includes the imperative of Matthew 5:48: "Be perfect... as your Father in heaven is perfect."

Part of the problem, I would suggest, is in the two-fold error of understanding our faith primarily through external, cultural factors, which has led to the commercialization and politicization of the witness of our discipleship. That is, we've replaced personal (both indi­vidual and church-body) commitments to self-sacrificial virtue with a legislative program designed to criminalize sin, and a consumptive pat­tern that we imagine will keep us from stumbling. And we have done so in large measure because we've accepted that cultural influence is tantamount to faithfulness.
Of course, we're not living any better than non-Christians. We're doing the exact same things under a different brand.

The Law of Sin and Death

The Law of Sin and Death
Kurt Simmons

In any discussion of this kind, it is important to take account of the universal nature of the law of sin and death and that mankind’s salvation lay in redemption from it, and not from the Mosaic law, as some Preterists have supposed. The law of sin and death was in force from the time God made man and placed him in the garden. God’s instruction to Adam not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil carried with it the sanction of death for its transgression: “For in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” (Gen. 2:17) There are no fewer than five types of death that may be identified in the scriptures: 1) moral and spiritual, 2) legal and juridical, 3) physical, 4) hadean, and 5) eternal death. Moral and spiritual death speaks to mankind’s inherent fallenness, the moral depravity that besets the whole race due to Adam’s transgression. Juridical death speaks to the legal censor and sentence of death pronounced upon all that transgress God’s law. Paul alludes to juridical death when he says, “And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins.” (Eph. 2:1) That is, God had acquitted them of their sins and the penalty of death, and made them heirs of life.

Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. (Rom. 14:23) This means that sin is tied to man’s moral faculties of faith and conscience, exculpating infants and idiots from guilt. From the time he arrives at the age of accountability, man lives under the sentence of juridical death for his sins. Unless he is saved from his sins, and receives pardon by obedience to the gospel, at the time of physical death man’s fate is fixed and the sentence of eternal death awaits him. However, prior to the eschaton, man’s spirit was kept in hades; thus, the origin of hadean death. This was necessary so that the souls of the righteous might be kept in safety until Christ could accomplish the work of his cross, making redemption for their sins. It is to the souls of the just in hades paradise that John refers in Revelation when he says he saw the souls of them beheaded for the gospel, living and reigning with Christ. (Rev. 20:3-6) The wicked were also kept in hades tartarus until the judgment of the last day, when they were cast into the lake of fire, which is called the “second death” (eternal death). (Rev. 20:11-15; cf. I Pet. 3:19; II Pet. 4:2)

The point that needs to be made here is that death came into the world independent of Mosaic law. The reign of sin and death was universal; all men were under its power, both Jew and Gentile. Bringing in the Mosaic law did not create mankind’s bondage, nor would taking away the Mosaic law deliver him from it. The Mosaic law was superimposed upon the law of sin and death; its ordinances merely served to demonstrate man’s condition, which obtained from the time of the race’s fall in the garden. Paul said “The law entered that the offence might abound.” (Rom. 5:20) That is, the Mosaic law did not create the offence, it merely magnified it; it served to teach man about his bondage to the law of sin and death, and the hopelessness of his condition apart from the substitutionary death and atoning sacrifice of Christ. Proof of this is seen in the fact that the Mosaic law is no longer in force today, yet all who are not in Christ are under bondage to the law of sin and death. Moreover, the Gentiles were never under the law of Moses, but they were under bondage to sin and death, and every bit as much in need of salvation as the Jews. It was to Gentiles Paul wrote when he said “And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1) - juridically dead in sin, even though not under the law of Moses.
Paul makes express mention of the law of sin and death in his letter to the Romans:

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law
of sin and death. For what the [Mosaic] law could not do, in that it was weak
through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and
for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. Rom. 8:2, 3; emphasis and bracketed matter
added.

Notice that two laws occur in this passage: 1) the law of sin and death and 2) the law of Moses. The Jews thought that perfection came by the Mosaic law, but Paul shows that it could not deliver from the law of sin and death. This is because man can never rise completely above his flesh, but lives under condemnation of the moral and spiritual law he is bound to transgress. Moreover, the law of Moses made no provision for redemption (the blood of bulls and goats could never take away sins, Heb. 10:4): “For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did, by which we draw nigh to God.” (Heb. 7:19) A little earlier, Paul identified the law of sin and death with the law of man’s inherent fallenness in this passage:

For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: but I see another law in
my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity
to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! Who shall
deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our
Lord. Rom. 7:22-24; emphasis added.

In this passage, the “law of God” that delights the inward man is the moral and spiritual law. Violation of the moral and spiritual law brings man under the law of sin and death. Like the law of sin and death, the moral and spiritual law exists independent of the Mosaic law. Although much of the moral law was codified by the law of Moses, it did not derive its force from it, and it continues to exist today even though the Mosaic law has passed away. The “law of sin in my members” refers to the elemental forces of man’s inherent fallenness. The Spirit and Inspiration that God breathed into our first ancestor that enabled him to live above his flesh, was lost to Adam and his descendants through sin. Man is now “carnal, sold under sin.” (Rom. 7:14) It is impossible that he ever live completely above his flesh, even though he aspires to do so. Hence, Paul’s lament “O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death.” Paul is not seeking physical death in this verse, for physical death without redemption is eternal damnation. Rather, Paul is expressing the impossibility of ever achieving salvation under the moral and spiritual law. No matter how much man might aspire to the moral and spiritual law, the law of sin in his members brought him into captivity to the law of sin and death. However, Paul expresses his thankfulness for the redemption in Jesus when he says “I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Since man’s problem laid in the universal law of sin and death, it should be clear that an exclusively “Jewish” eschaton would avail man nothing; something more had to be taken out of the way than the Mosaic law.

Reeves on Scripture

I would like to introduce to you part of an essay by a dear brother, Joe Reeves. I have known Joe and Donna for 35 or so years. First at Eastside in Colorado Springs then in Athens, Greece. Joe is a retired USAF officer. His interests include philosophy and the study of 1st century texts. We have spent hours discussing our faith and lack thereof. And, yes, we disagree sometimes, but I respect his knowledge and writing ability. His view of 1st century Christian documents is not a typical one, but one that I believe is "right on." I'll gladly forward any comments to Joe. Perhaps he will respond.

To understand the meaning of any piece of written or oral language adequately one must understand the culture and subcultures that the language is being used to expresses. If the particular writing was written in the distant past, then it is even more important to understand the culture and subcultures from which the author was writing. Failure to do so will certainly lead to a misconception of the writer’s original intent and specific points that he or she was making to their original audience.
This is a point that is often overlooked in modern biblical teaching but it is just as true of any biblical book as it is of any other writing. Almost all “biblical” writing was written to an audience contemporary with the author, and to an audience that the writer wished to transpose in their thinking. In fact, I do not know of any exception. Failure to understand the culture in which a biblical book was written will almost certainly ensure the failure of any later audience to understand the writer’s points. This fact then requires that the attentive Bible reader must find a way to proceed from the text to some identifiable culture that imparts meaning.
The question is, which culture do people use to understand biblical meaning? Usually, people try to “interpret” the Bible from their own contemporary cultural standpoint rather than the cultural standpoint of the original writer and his envisioned audience. But when they do so, they also “interpret” the Bible through a totally different system than they interpret other written language. No one that I know interprets the local newspaper in that way. I will argue that unless Bible readers go back and examine the writer’s original social system and the social system of his original envisioned audience, they can not hope to understand the writer’s original point. But I find that few modern readers wish to understand the original message.
People today need to recognize that the “Bible” was written from within a culture outside of even the time and culture in which these books were collected together into what has become known as a “canon.” There was over three hundred years between these events. The New Testament books were written by Jews (with one exception) and collected together by Romans over three hundred years after they were written. Even between these two periods and cultures, those people simply had different mind sets about “Christianity.”
But in our modern culture, understanding the Bible from the original cultural perspective does not seem to be a concern to most modern “Christians.” In today’s “Christian” culture, the writer’s original point is seldom discussed. Instead, the reader usually supplies his or her own meaning to the text based on the current culture. And in this atmosphere of the different religious subcultures, one assumed meaning seems to be as acceptable as almost any other. This alternative is not new. It has been the general practice since Bible readers began to remove the biblical texts from the original cultural context in which they were composed. In today’s culture, these texts are no longer studied as texts but as proof texts and interpreted as if they were written by and to, people in the same social system as the modern reader.
The result of this cultural substitution is that the real, intended textual meaning of the biblical writing from the writer’s standpoint is no longer understood and his intended message to his envisioned audience no longer makes sense to the modern reader. In the modern Bible readers’ way of understanding, the words in the documents no longer refer to the original reader’s/hearer’s world, but to the modern reader’s world. Even the things mentioned such as ideas, values, feelings, people, clothing, houses, roads, and plants take on a totally different meaning than the meaning these words had to the writer and to the original recipients. But, since in current cultures the major teaching of these later readers’ subculture is that the Bible documents are “sacred writings”, they also believe those writings must make sense. But since so many of today’s Bible reader, even the most trusted teachers’, knowledge of the original culture is only minimal, the modern reader can no longer understand these words in the context of their original social system. So these later readers came up with a new way of interpreting the words based on their own culture. People of each new culture still insist that the Bible is, or was, the inspired “word of God”, but each succeeding generation and succeeding culture where the Bible was used interprets it based upon their own social system rather than on the culture to which it was originally written.
It is extremely difficult to get this point across to most modern Bible readers. But understanding this point is absolutely essential for proper biblical understanding. Like almost everyone reared in an American church, I did not understand how differently Americans or Europeans deal with “Scripture” until I lived in Greece for a period of time. While living in Greece, I saw that the Greek form of Christianity was culturally very different from mine. At first this was very troubling, but with the help of two native Greek Christians, I began to see that all the world, including first century Judaism, was somehow very different from the social system of rural 20th Century Arkansas, where I grew up. Because of that, I set out to learn as much as possible about the cultures of the Bible times, and now understand that you simply can’t know what the Bible meant for the original audience if you try to see it through your 21st century social system.
When people began to interpret the Bible based on their own culture rather than the writer’s culture and his understanding of the audience’s original culture, it became necessary to come up with a new understanding of how it should be interpreted. So these later readers devised a new criterion. In order for people in each succeeding culture to be able to interpret the Bible to apply primarily to themselves and their new culture, new theories of interpretation had to be produced. For the new culture, words no longer meant what they had meant when originally written by the original authors to the original audiences. Instead, interpreters now began to make interpretations that had never been made before. They began to make unjustified distinctions between the literal and figurative, assigning new literal meanings to things that the author and his audience would have quickly grasped as figurative, and they assign figurative meanings to other things that were obviously literal to the people of the first century. The new interpreters insist that the new meanings came form the true author of the Bible, God. They even insist that the Holy Spirit, not their culture, is the cause of their interpretation. They seem to believe that regardless of what understanding the author intended for his original audience, his words mean something totally different to the 20th and 21st century people, again insisting that the Holy Spirit makes it so. In fact, it is not uncommon for today’s leaders to state that concept very explicitly. And if you doubt the truth of this statement, then just ask church folks this question; can a text of scripture, at a later time come to mean what it never meant before to an earlier cultural group? The overwhelming reply you will receive is yes it can and usually does.
The search for the new cultural meaning, with a loss of concern for the original, and the belief that the literal or figurative meaning was, and is, obvious and easily understood to refer to today’s culture, resulted in the fact that the biblical documents ceased to be treated as stand-alone texts, which originally, to the very first recipients, they had to be. When one critically examines both these texts and the time and situation in which each separate text was written, it is rather obvious that their initial recipients had no choice but to understand them to be stand-alone documents. But instead of being considered meaningful language intended to communicate a particular message to a particular audience living at a particular time contemporary with the writer, people of these later cultures now consider the Bible as something in which the sum total was greater than the sum of the parts and as revealed and inspired language puzzles which only the religious elite can solve. In fact, here is a quote from a “ministry” major at one of the leading “Christian” universities, “With the Bible, even just reading it in English, you have to search and delve into the Scriptures to find the hidden meanings or use of an analogy.” Modern religious leaders began to claim that they had been especially “anointed” to understand what “God’s words” mean to this new culture. The Bible began to be used to bolster some controller’s idea or some behavior he required of other people at a given time and place. Simply put, the Bible became a document of proof texts used to prove, for or against, any doctrinal position from the Pope, to the institutional church government, to the content and conduct of a worship service, to special prayer languages, to the end-time-prophesy. (I think that gets us all) For most people of each new generation, the Bible now began to mean what it had never meant. Think about that: in our society the Bible is believed to mean what it has never meant before, what it obviously did not mean to the original writer, and could not have meant to the original recipients. It is no wonder that so many people in today’s world think God has told them so many different and opposing things. But even more amazing is that many professed Christians seemingly believe that God is the author of a specific text that may have several legitimate meanings for different modern readers, none of which would have been understandable to the original audience.
Today, the term text no longer refers to the entire document as written, say by Paul to the Galatian Christians or Matthew to a group of Jewish Christians. Rather, modern teachers take a sentence or phrase from here and there and combine that snippet with another sentence or phrase taken from another document, perhaps from a different author written to a different audience at a different time and having a totally different subject, and with that method believe they have proven any sort of dogmatic doctrinal position. This methodology can be easily born out by visiting different churches’ worship services and listening to their preacher, or just taking a cursory look at the history of biblical interpretation. This spiritualized puzzle formula makes intelligent reading of the biblical texts near impossible. This is especially true when we get the kind of “help” we do from today’s “religious elite” and also from many of the modern translations. For the observant thinker, there is no easier place to see cultural bias than from different English Bible translations.
If one uses the Bible to get an overall view of God and how He has worked throughout history, the in-depth cultural and language studies of past societies, though helpful, may not be necessary. But the way that the Bible is most often used today, to beat one’s neighbor over the head with some “essential” doctrinal position, in-depth study becomes paramount. There are many things discussed in the Bible that simply can not be adequately dealt with, in the way in which we in the 21st century people insist on doing. To understand these things properly, we must first go back and do in-depth studies on the original culture, language, and philosophy. When we do that our study will point to the need for using the structured approach to Bible study.
Furthermore, I will insist that when one uses the Bible in a way different than the original author intended, or if any person uses the Bible to prove a point different than the author’s original point, that person is making a private interpretation—a practice that Peter stated should not be done. If someone makes a point that is not the point the writer originally intended, they certainly can’t say they are speaking where the Bible is speaking.
In order to understand the Bible, it is essential to realize that we are not those to whom it was originally written. We do not live in the same culture as those who wrote the documents of the Bible. We are not of the same culture as those to whom it was addressed. Nor do we routinely have the same problems and circumstances as those people in the cultures to which answers were supplied by the Bible authors. Yet many in our culture use these documents as if we, not people some two thousand years ago, were indeed the intended recipients and with the assumption that the writers fully understood our circumstances and wrote to us based on our culture with no message at all to the original addressees.
If you look at many of the most popular doctrines of today’s church culture, and if you understand anything about the first century culture, it is evident that the most popular doctrines of today’s church culture would have made absolutely no sense to people in the first century. For example, what sense would today’s popular interpretations of Revelation, Daniel, and Ezekiel have made to those books’ original recipients? Given today’s Premillennialist [or any other "futurist" position - Dan] interpretation of Ezekiel, Daniel, and Revelation, advocates of this current thinking agree that these books had no message for those to whom they were first delivered. In fact, in numerous books written by modern premillinnealists the authors emphatically state that since these books were written when the time of fulfillment was centuries in the future, they could not have had any meaning to any generation before our own. Further, just tonight, I heard a preacher state that “God is revealing things to our generation about the end times that have never been revealed to any generation prior to ours.” Given the modern end time interpretation, if correct, these books certainly could have had nothing to communicate to the Christians between the end of the first century and the beginning of the 20th century. At best, those books had one meaning for the first recipients and a totally different meaning for people today. They would also have had to have intermediate meanings to those who lived in the interim between then and now, else they would have been valueless to those generations.

The nature of the Kingdom

At breakfast (several brothers meet each Wed AM to discuss whatever, sometimes a book we are reading) this week the nature of the Kingdom came up. Here is one of the better views I've found:

WHAT IS THE KINGDOM OF GOD?

David Kroll

Many within the Christian community limit their perspective of the Kingdom of God to looking at it only in terms of it being a future event. It is believed that the Kingdom will be established at a future return of Christ. Its seat of government will be headquartered in Jerusalem where Christ will rule from a rebuilt temple, along with the resurrected saints, In embracing this view, the focus is on the Kingdom as an event that will put an end to sinful living and force people to live in compliance with God’s law.

A careful consideration of the scriptures that discuss the Kingdom of God, which is also referred to as the Kingdom of Heaven, will show that the Kingdom is something that was expected to begin to occur at the time Christ walked on this earth. The scriptures show the Kingdom to involve how we live our lives in the hear and now. As we study the scriptures that relate to the Kingdom, we will see the Kingdom is all about how we relate to God and our fellow man. We will see from the scriptures that the Kingdom is a spiritual dynamic.

Let's take a fresh look at the scriptures that relate to the Kingdom and let's see if we can get a better handle on what the Kingdom is all about.

The key to understanding the scriptures, as is true of anything we read, is to read the statements of its writers in context. Who is being addressed and what meaning would it have for those being addressed. In most cases when Christ and the apostles addressed the people of their time, it was with the intention of conveying meaning to them. That is the purpose of communication.

When John the Baptist appeared in the Judean desert and began his ministry, what did John preach? “Repent, for the Kingdom of heaven is near.” (Matt. 3:2) After John was put in prison and Christ began His ministry, what did Christ preach? “The time has come, He said. The Kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news.” (Mark 1:15).

There are two Greek word, engus and engizo, which appear 73 times in the NT narrative and are translated as near or at hand. In Matthew 21:1, the word is used to describe being close to Jerusalem. In Matthew 26:18 this word is used to show that the crucifixion was about to take place. In Matthew 26:45 the same Greek word is used to show the immediacy of Christ’s betrayal. In John 7:2 the word is used to show the nearness of the Feast of Tabernacles which Christ planned to attend. Over and over again in the NT, where we see these two Greek words used, we see by context these words simply relate to something about to take place soon.

Therefore, there is no contextual or linguistic reason to believe that these words mean something else when found in association with statements about the timing of the Kingdom. Every Greek Lexicon I checked showed these words to mean something close at hand.

Both John and Christ said that the Kingdom of God was near. Christ said that the time had come. Both John and Christ admonished those who they were addressing to repent in relation to the Kingdom being near. If the Kingdom was only to be something to appear thousands of years into the future, the admonition to repent because the Kingdom was imminent would have made no sense at all. They were being asked to repent in relation to the Kingdom being near.

In Matthew 10:5-7, Christ instructs His disciples to go to the lost sheep of Israel and preach this message: “The Kingdom of heaven is near.” If you would have been living 2000 years ago as one of the lost sheep of Israel, and someone comes to your town and begins telling you about the kingdom of heaven being at hand, you would not have concluded that this Kingdom was not really at hand but way off in the future.

It’s interesting to note at this point that the Jews of Christ’s time was looking for a physical kingdom to appear in their time and deliver them from their Roman oppressors. They were familiar with the writings of Daniel and other of the prophets and according to their calculations the Kingdom of God was right around the corner. There understanding of the Kingdom was not, however, what Christ was bringing to the table. Just like many Christians today, the Jews were looking for a physical Kingdom to bring order, peace and justice to an oppressed world. Yet when Christ appeared before Pilate, what did He say?

John 18:36:36: Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."

The Greek for world is kosmos. Kosmos has broad application in the Greek language with the common thread being that the word refers to the physical realm. Christ was essentially saying that His Kingdom was not of this physical realm. Was Christ saying that His Kingdom does not apply to the physical realm? Is Christ here possibly speaking of the Kingdom as a spiritual dynamic?

We must realize that the good news of the Kingdom was a focal point of Christ’s message. Christ gave more than a dozen parables explaining the nature of the Kingdom. Apostle Paul was constantly teaching about the Kingdom. A variety of writings from the first century that did not become Biblical scripture, also attest to this fact. It is therefore imperative that we understand what the Kingdom is. If the Kingdom is not part of the physical realm, what realm is it part of. Was Christ looking at the Kingdom as being part of a future physical realm when he made His statement to Pilate? Was Christ saying that the Kingdom is non physical?

Let’s look at a profound statement make by Christ in answer to a question presented to him about the Kingdom.

Luke 17:20-21:

Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come,
Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation,
nor will people say, `Here it is,' or `There it is,' because the kingdom of God
is within you."

The Greek word translated “careful observation” appears only this once in the NT. The Greek lexicons define it as something that can be watched or observed with the eyes in a visible manner.

The Greek translated “within you” is felt by some to be better translated “among you.” Among you is not the common meaning as shown in various Greek lexicons. Every translation I looked at has “within you.” This word is used only one other time in the NT and that is in Matthew. 23:26 where Christ told the Pharisees to, “First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside will be clean.” The Greek word translated “inside” is the same word translated “within” in the above quote.

It is sometimes explained that Christ was referring to Himself as the king of the Kingdom being present with them and therefore among them. But Christ was obviously visible to the Pharisees and he is here answering their question as to when the Kingdom will appear by saying it does not come visibly. What does Christ mean by this statement? Is Christ again indicating that the Kingdom is a spiritual phenomenon? Let’s take a look at how Christ defines the Kingdom.

Matthew 21: 28- 32:

"What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first
and said, `Son, go and work today in the vineyard.' "`I will not, he answered,
but later he changed his mind and went.” Then the father went to the other son
and said the same thing. He answered, `I will, sir,' but he did not go. "Which
of the two did what his father wanted?" "The first," they answered. Jesus said
to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are
entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the
way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and
the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe
him."

Entering the Kingdom is associated with practicing the way of righteousness. The tax collectors and prostitutes are seen as repenting and pursuing righteousness and in so doing, they are entering the Kingdom. The religious leaders are seen as not repenting and therefore failing to enter the Kingdom.

Christ views first century repentant sinners as entering the Kingdom then and there. The phrase “are entering” is in the present active indicative tense in the Greek language. This signifies that it is something happening at the time. The time spoken of was two thousand years ago. People were entering the Kingdom two thousand years ago by repenting and turning to righteousness. What did John the Baptist and Christ preach? “Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand.”

Scripture identifies the Kingdom as the way of righteousness.

Romans 14:17: “For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit”

Matthew 6:33: “But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.”

We see the way of righteousness and entering the Kingdom as synonymous. Being in the Kingdom is all about how we behave. It is all about our conduct, our attitude, our way of living. It is all about being born again.

John 3:1-10:

Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish
ruling council. He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a
teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him." In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the
truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." "How can a
man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second
time into his mother's womb to be born!" Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth,
no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.
Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not
be surprised at my saying, `You must be born again.' The wind blows wherever it
pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it
is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

In some Christian fellowships this passage is used to support the theological position that being born of the spirit is talking about becoming a spirit being in order to enter the Kingdom of God. The term spirit being, however, is not mentioned or discussed in this passage. What is discussed is being born of the spirit and it is discussed in reference to the experience being like the wind. Now the wind is invisible, isn’t it? Being born of the spirit is an invisible experience. You don’t see Gods spirit in you from the standpoint that you can see it, touch it or in some way observe it. And others don’t see Gods spirit in you in that respect either But if Gods spirit is in you, others will see the effects of that spirit in your behavior, no different than people see the effects of wind even though the wind itself is invisible. God’s spirit is not physical. it is spirit and therefore physically invisible. That’s why Christ compared it to the invisible wind.

So what about the Kingdom? Is it a physical or a spiritual entity? Do we enter it physically or do we enter it spiritually. Christ told the Pharisees that the Kingdom does not come visibly. You can’t physically see it. Christ told Nicodemus that you must be born of the spirit to enter the Kingdom. Christ compared being born of the spirit to the non visible wind. Paul, in writing to the Corinthian church, said in I Corinthians 15 that flesh and blood can’t enter the Kingdom. Yet this same Paul told the Colossians that they were in the Kingdom.

Colossians 1:13-14: For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

If flesh and blood cannot enter the Kingdom, how could these flesh and blood Colossian’s be brought into the Kingdom? The answer to that question involves our understanding of the relationship between being born again and entering the Kingdom of God. Christ made it very plain to Nicodemus that in order to enter the Kingdom, you must be born again and that being born again is a non physical, spiritual experience. It’s an experience that involves the imperishable.

1Peter 1:23: For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.

What is that imperishable seed that we are born of?

John 3:9: No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.

Having Gods seed within us relates to having God’s spirit residing in us. Having God’s spirit is what facilitates our spiritual rebirth. Being born of God is associated with being born of the spirit, as Christ pointed out to Nicodemis. Being born of the spirit, which is the same as being born of God, is what enables us to refrain from sin. Refraining from sin leads to righteous behavior. Righteous behavior is what the Kingdom of God is all about. So you can see how being born again, the way of righteousness and being in the Kingdom are closely tied together.

We find Christ making a very interesting observation in Matthew 11:11-15:

“I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it. For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. He who has ears let him hear."

The Kingdom of God began to be established in the first century and continues to advance to this very day. In Matthew 13:33, Christ likened the Kingdom to yeast that gradually works its way through dough until the entire dough is permeated.

Matthew 23:13: “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut (present active imperative) the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying (present middle participle) to.”

How could the religious leaders shut the kingdom in men’s faces and not enter themselves? Because of their unrighteous behavior. Their unwillingness to except the message Christ was preaching.
Mark 12:28-34:

“One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one” answered Jesus, "is this: `Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: `Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."
"Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices." When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God”

Again we see the Kingdom of God associated with the way of righteousness as defined by the law of love. Christ told the teacher he was close to the Kingdom when he expressed the understanding that to love God and man is what life is all about.

Like that of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ, the ministry of Paul was focused on the Kingdom. When Paul was taken as a prisoner to Rome, he was allowed to live by himself with a soldier to guard him. While in Rome he initially addressed the Jewish leadership. What did he declare to them?

Acts 28:23:

They arranged to meet Paul on a certain day, and came in even larger numbers
to the place where he was staying. From morning till evening he explained and
declared to them the kingdom of God and tried to convince them about Jesus from
the Law of Moses and from the Prophets.

The scriptures that follow indicate that many of the Jews rejected Paul’s teaching about the Kingdom. The Jews had a paradigm about the Kingdom that they just could not let go. First century Judaism saw the promised Messiah as a conquering military leader who would restore the Davidic Kingdom to Israel and wipe out the Romans. They viewed the Kingdom as replacing Roman rule with their rule.

The Messiah that Paul was preaching was a crucified savior who taught a Kingdom that involved loving your enemies and doing good to them that hate you. A spiritual Kingdom versus a physical Kingdom. Christ did not fit the paradigm of the Messiah the Jews were expecting.

Additional evidence for this is found in Acts 19:8. Here we find Paul in Ephesus and while there he “entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God.” Again we find that teaching about the Kingdom of God was the focal point of Paul’s ministry. What was the response? Verse nine: “But some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way. So Paul left them. He took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus.”

Here again we see a resistance to Paul’s preaching about the Kingdom of God. Why this reaction to what Paul was preaching? What was Paul teaching about the Kingdom of God that brought such a negative response? Paul was preaching the Kingdom of God as a way of life. He was teaching the Kingdom as an ethical system, something that was being referred to in the first century as “the Way.” “The Way” involved repentance and forgiveness through the crucified and resurrected Christ and the pursuit of righteous living.

As explained above, the Jews expected the Messiah to be a conquering military leader that would oust the Romans and reestablish the glories of the Davidic Kingdom. It is obvious from the reaction Paul received that he was not preaching this kind of Messiah or this kind of Kingdom. This is why his message was largely rejected by the Jewish community of the first century.

In Acts 20, we see Paul saying his goodbyes to the Ephesian Church elders. In verse 21 he tells them: “I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus." In verse 25 he says: "Now I know that none of you among whom I have gone about preaching the kingdom will ever see me again.” Here again we see a synergism between repentance and faith in Christ and the preaching of the Kingdom.

Paul clearly shows that repentance and faith in Christ is what the Kingdom is all about. Repentance is all about a changed way of behaving before God and man. Faith in Christ is all about having our sins forgiven when we fall short of righteous behavior. Paul made it very clear the Kingdom of God relates to our conduct.

I Corinthians 6:9-11:

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not
be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male
prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Galatians 5:19-23: The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the
kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
Remember what Paul said to the Roman church: Romans14:17:

“For the kingdom of God is righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit”
Paul is saying the same thing to the Corinthian and Galatian Church. The Kingdom
of God is living a spirit filled way of life. It involves righteous living. It
involves having been born of the spirit and therefore having the power to live
pleasingly before God. It involves having our sins forgiven and being reconciled
to God. Therefore the Kingdom is a present reality for the born again Christian.

It should be evident from the scriptures we have reviewed in this essay, that the Kingdom is a present reality for those who accept its message. This message includes salvation through the sacrifice of Christ and the pursuit of righteous living. The Kingdom life involves a total commitment and response to the will of God involving the two great commandments, love toward God and love toward man.