Author Archives: Pastor Brian

At Least My Kids Don’t . . .

by

Have you ever had a conversation with a Christian parent whose child has gone somewhat astray? In an apparent attempt to assuage the guilt for feeling bad about the child’s otherwikids drinking smokingse nefarious choices, the parent will sometimes say, “At least my child doesn’t do drugs,” or “At least my child doesn’t sleep around,” “At least my child doesn’t smoke or drink,” or something to that effect.

 But that always leaves me scratching my head a bit. At what point did the measure of successful Christian parenting become, “At least my child doesn’t do drugs”? When did we lower our standards?

As the father of four (ages 10, 12, 16, & 18) I am well aware of the difficulties of parenting—parenting isn’t for cowards! It is hard work. I am grateful for a godly wife who has been enormously influential in the raising of our children.

I am also aware that we don’t get to pick our children and that otherwise godly parents can still sometimes have children who go wayward. We must remember that “train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it” (Prov 22:6 ESV) is a proverb and not a universal promise.

But, as a culture, we’ve lost our way. We’ve lowered our standards. How have we lowered our standards? Let me suggest three closely related items.

First, we’ve lowered our standards when we feel it’s more important to our child’s friend than it is to be our child’s parent. This is all too common in our culture. Parents who evidently want to re-live their “glory days” do whatever is necessary so that their 15-year-old will think they’re cool—or at least so that their 15-year-old’s friends will think they’re cool!

Let’s be honest. It’s important to have a good relationship with your children, and I hope that your child(ren)’s friends feel comfortable coming over to your home. But this doesn’t mean that you have to get a fresh tattoo and a body piercing so that a 15-year-old will think that you’re hip!

Your children have enough friends. What they need from you is for you to be their parent. They need you to love them unconditionally—even during the awkward years of adolescence as they learn to find their own voice in this world. They need you to be an example of what it is to follow Christ. They need to hear and see from you, “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (1 Cor 11:1 ESV).

Second, we sacrifice our children on a variety of pagan altars. Let me suggest two such altars—work and materialism.

Work is good. Work existed prior to the Fall, and it’s good for a child to see her dad work hard to earn an income to support the family. But workaholism isn’t a good thing. Workaholism is idolatry. Workaholism is idolatry because we either find our identity in our work—instead of in Christ—or because we feel it’s necessary to work to provide the results we desire instead of trusting God to provide the results he desires. This isn’t an argument to be slothful. No, we should work and we should work hard, but we needn’t sacrifice our families on the altar of the workplace.

When was the last time you took time to rest from work? The Sabbath principle of rest was instituted for our sakes (Mark 2:27).

And to what end do we work? We work so that our children can have more “stuff” than we had. This is bowing at the altar of materialism. Yes, this is also an idol. We work to afford fancy vacations. We work to live a certain lifestyle. We work so that our 8-year-old can have a smart phone! Really?! What 8-year-old needs a smart phone?! Why don’t we work at being parents? Our children need their parents more than they need stuff.

Third, we’ve lowered our standards when we forget what the primary role of a parent is. The primary role of the parent is to “bring [our children] up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Eph 6:4).

We’ve become so caught up in being our child’s friend that we’ve forgotten that our primary job is to disciple our children in the faith. Your child’s discipleship is your primary responsibility. It isn’t the primary responsibility of the pastor or youth pastor or children’s pastor. Mom and Dad, it’s your job.

The church is there to aide you in this process. The church should help you in this process, but the church can’t do it for you. You have a far greater impact on your child than any youth pastor will ever have, and your children will learn from your example—whether good or bad.

If you only attend church when you feel like it, then don’t be surprised when your child only attends church when he feels like—if at all!

If you disrespect your church leaders by “having them for lunch” (I’m speaking metaphorically here), then don’t be surprised when your child has no respect for the church or its leaders.

If you use foul language and watch promiscuous movies . . . I’m sure you’re getting the idea by now.

It’s the job of mom and dad to point their children to Jesus. It’s the job of mom and dad to point their children to the gospel. This is where we find our hope. We ultimately only “point” our children to the God who loved us all enough to send his only Son. And when we point our children to God, we allow him to shape their hearts and to draw them to himself.

Join me next time when we ask the question, “Have we raised a good, little Pharisee?”

For his glory,
Pastor Brian

“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.”
Deuteronomy 6:4–7

What Is the “Book of Jashar”?

by

Second Samuel begiBook of Jasharns with David learning of the deaths of King Saul and King Saul’s son, Jonathan. As David was lamenting their deaths, David quoted a lengthy poem from the “Book of Jashar” (2 Samuel 1:18–27). This mysterious book is also mentioned in Joshua 10:12–13. What is this “Book of Jashar”? And, should this book be included in the Bible?

What is the Book of Jashar?

We ought not to think about Jashar as a proper name. The word “Jashar” means “upright one,” so the Book of Jashar is sometimes referred to as the Book of the Upright One.

The Book of Jashar is thought to have been a book of poems and songs about various heroes of the faith. It is ultimately an unknown book, although some claim to have an accurate copy of the book. The book has been used by various cults and sects such as Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Should the Book of Jashar be included in the Bible?

If the Bible quotes the Book of Jashar, why isn’t it in the Bible? Just because a work of antiquity is quoted in the Bible, it does not follow that the work is on par with the Bible. In other words, in order for a book to be included in the canon of scripture, it must have been understood to have been inspired by God. The Book of Jashar simply does not reach that threshold.

There are indeed a number of extra-biblical sources that are quoted in the Bible that are not included in the Bible. One author wrote,

“There are other Hebrew works that are mentioned in the Bible that God directed the authors to use. Some of these include the Book of the Wars of the Lord (Numbers 21:14), the Book of Samuel the Seer, the Book of Nathan the Prophet, and the Book of Gad the Seer (1 Chronicles 29:29). Also, there are the Acts of Rehoboam and the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah (1 Kings 14:29). We also know that Solomon composed more than a thousand songs (1 Kings 4:32), yet only two are preserved in the book of Psalms (72 and 127). Writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament, Paul included a quotation from the Cretan poet Epimenides (Titus 1:12) and quoted from the poets Epimenides and Aratus in his speech at Athens (Acts 17:28).”

We can know that everything included in the Bible is inspired by God and therefore truthful and without error, but this inspiration does not necessarily transfer to the remainder of the works quoted.

By way of analogy, we may write a brief essay that is without error and totally truthful. In the process of writing our brief essay, we may even quote from other sources. Even though our essay is without error and totally truthful, it would not necessarily follow that the sources from which we quoted were also completely without error and totally truthful.

In his sovereign wisdom, God guided the thoughts of those who wrote scripture and he protected them from error so that the Bible is completely trustworthy and it is completely without error. God may have inspired these authors to quote from additional sources, but that does not mean that these additional sources are in any way equal to scripture.

2 Peter 1:19–21
19 And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts,
20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation.
21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

2 Timothy 3:16–17
16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

For His Glory,
Pastor Brian

What Are We to Make of Jephthah’s Tragic Vow?

by

More than one reader, upon finishing Judges 11:29–39, has been overwhelmed by grief from this tragic story. At first glance it appears that Jephthah makes a vow to the Lord to offer as a burnt offering whoever or whatever comes out of his home when he returns home from battle. Specifically, the text reads as follows.

 Judges 11:30–31Jephthah_meets_his_daughter
30 And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD and said, “If you will give the Ammonites into my hand,
31 then whatever comes out from the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the Ammonites shall be the LORD’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.”

Even before one reads the rest of the story one might wonder why he would make such a vow, but the story turns to tragedy when Jephthah returns home from a successful battle and his daughter is the one to meet him.

Judges 11:34–35
34 Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah. And behold, his daughter came out to meet him with tambourines and with dances. She was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.
35 And as soon as he saw her, he tore his clothes and said, “Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low, and you have become the cause of great trouble to me. For I have opened my mouth to the LORD, and I cannot take back my vow.”

The story concludes with the simple statement,

Judges 11:39–40
39 And at the end of two months, she returned to her father, who did with her according to his vow that he had made. She had never known a man, and it became a custom in Israel
40 that the daughters of Israel went year by year to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in the year.

What are we to make of this tragic story? Did Jephthah really make a human sacrifice of his only daughter? Hebrew scholars are divided on this issue. Here are two contrasting opinions.

Daniel Block, who wrote the New American Commentary on Judges and Ruth, believes that Jephthah really did make a human sacrifice of his daughter.

Block argues that Jephthah was trying to manipulate God into providing victory over the Ammonites. Jephthah’s “haggling” with God ultimately backfired on him. Block contends that Jephthah had been combining the various religious beliefs of the region—many of which allowed for human sacrifice—with the Hebrew faith. In short, Jephthah turned out to be pagan instead of pious, and since this was his only child, his lineage was also stamped out through this tragic act.

Another Old Testament scholar, John Sailhamer, however, disagrees with Block. He argues that Jephthah didn’t make a human sacrifice of his daughter, but rather devoted her to the service of the Lord as a perpetual virgin.

In the NIV Compact Bible Commentary Sailhamer writes, “The words of Jephthah in 11:31 should be rendered, ‘whatever comes out of the door . . . will be the Lord’s or I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.’ In other words, Jephthah’s vow contains two parts, dedication to the Lord or burnt offering.”

Sailhamer argues that Jephthah’s vow is textually linked to the vows found in Leviticus 27:1–13. “There are two types of vows here. The first is the dedication of a person to the service of the Lord (Lev 27:1–8); the second is the dedication of an animal for an offering to the Lord (Lev 27:9–13)” (NIV Compact Bible Commentary).

In the second type of these vows, only ceremonially clean animals could be offered to the Lord so, according to the Mosaic law, Jephthah could not have vowed “whatever” came out of his door for a burnt offering.

Sailhamer also makes the argument that the text nowhere states that Jephthah actually made a human sacrifice of his daughter. The text simply states that he did to her as he vowed (11:39).

The skeptic may wonder why Jephthah got so upset when his only daughter came out of the house to meet him. This is a fair question, but the answer lies in the text itself: “She was his only child.”

By dedicating his only daughter as a virgin to lifelong service (and remaining a virgin in that service), he was in effect cutting off his name from the earth. His lineage would end with his daughter. This was the source of his being “brought low” and his “trouble.”

So, what are we to make of Jephthah’s tragic vow? Who is right? Daniel Block or John Sailhamer?

What lessons can we learn from this account? Let me suggest three.

First, no matter which interpretation is correct (I, personally, am a big fan of John Sailhamer and so I side with his interpretation), we can know that God is not the author of evil (3 John 11). Even if we were to take Block’s position, the evil would lie at the feet of Jephthah and his rash vow rather than at the feet of God.

Second, a vow is a promise and so a vow unto the Lord is a promise we make to God. We need to carefully consider the promises we make to God because when we make a promise to God, we are to keep it (Numbers 30:2). Whether it’s a marriage vow made before God or a vow to give a portion of one’s income to the Lord’s work, it is a promise made before the Lord, and we break those promises to our own shame and to our own harm.

Finally, there is one human sacrifice that did happen for which we should all be eternally grateful. And this sacrifice can be attributed to God himself. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). God gave his only Son to pay the penalty that we owed so that those who place their trust (faith) in God would not perish but have eternal life. This sacrifice of the Son of God, who was fully God and fully man, was a part of God’s plan from the beginning (see Acts 2:22–24 below).

While the idea of human sacrifice may disturb our 21st Century sensibilities, I, for one, am glad that God loved the world (“the world” includes you and me) enough to give his only Son. Jesus laid down his life willingly for us. “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).

For His Glory,
Pastor Brian

Acts 2:22–24
22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—
23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.
24 God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.

Did God really “hate” Esau?

by

Did God really “hate” Esau? This question was recently posed to me by a godly woman in my congregation.

For those of you who may be unfamiliar with the story of Esau, let me fill in a few details (Note: You can read the whole story for yourself in Genesis 25–36.)

Esau was the oldest twin brother of Jacob. Esau was the favorite of his father, Isaac, and Jacob was the Esau-and-the-bowl-of-soupfavorite of his mother, Rebekah. But even before they were born God told Rebekah,

“Two nations are in your womb,
And two peoples from within you shall be divided;
The one shall be stronger than the other,
The older shall serve the younger.”
Genesis 25:23

Esau would ultimately sell his birthright to Jacob for a bowl of stew (Genesis 25:29–34), and later Jacob would deceived his father so as to receive Esau’s blessing (Genesis 27). Did Esau get the raw end of the deal?

To the untrained eye this story reads like a transcript from the Jerry Springer show. But thankfully, for our sakes, God in his grace interprets the story for us.

In Malachi 1 we read these words,

“‘I have loved you,’ says the Lord. But you say, ‘How have you loved us?’ ‘Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?’ declares the Lord. ‘Yet I have loved Jacob but Esau I have hated.’”
Malachi 1:2–3a

Those are strong words, but they still don’t, by themselves, help us understand what is going on. So the Apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote these words in Romans 9,

6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9 For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
Romans 9:6–13

Finally in this passage we begin to understand the reason why “the older shall serve the younger.” We begin to understand why God said, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” The context here in Romans is clear. The context is God’s free and sovereign choice in electing those whom he chooses to elect—not based on any foreseen merit in them, but purely based on his sovereign freedom.

This passage from Romans is part of a larger argument (Romans 9–11) on God’s sovereign choice of a people for his pleasure. There were those who thought that since not every ethnic Jew (i.e., an ethic Jew is a person who could trace his/her physical ancestry to Abraham) was being saved, God must have failed to keep his promises.

But Paul argues that they are not Jews who are only ethnic Jews, but they are Jews who have faith like Abraham. They are Jews only who are children of the promise.

Paul goes on to demonstrate this fact through two historical examples. One example is Isaac and Ishmael. Abraham fathered both Isaac and Ishmael, but only Isaac was the son of promise. The covenant blessings fell only to Isaac.

The second example is that of Esau and Jacob. Both of these men had the same father and mother. They were twins (fraternal, not identical). Yet before they were born, before they had done anything “good” or “bad,” God had chosen the one over the other.

The story is a story of God’s freedom in choosing (or “election”). Biblical theologian Thomas Schreiner writes, “the seed of Abraham are not the physical children of Abraham or the children of the flesh, but they are the children of Isaac and the children of promise. God never promised that all ethnic Israelites would belong to the true people of God. . . . [T]he children of promise are the true children of God” (Thomas Schreiner, Romans, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, 494).

New Testament theologian Douglas Moo writes,
“This brings us back to our original question: What does Paul mean by asserting that God ‘loved’ Jacob but ‘hated’ Esau? The connection of this quotation with v. 12 suggests that God’s love is the same as his election: God chose Jacob to inherit the blessings promised first to Abraham. God’s ‘hatred’ of Esau is more difficult to interpret because Paul does not furnish us at this point with contextual clues. Some understand Paul to mean only that God loved Esau less that he loved Jacob. He blessed both, but Jacob was used in a more positive and basic way in the furtherance of God’s plans. But a better approach is to define ‘hatred’ here by its opposite, ‘love.’ If God’s love of Jacob consists in his choosing Jacob to be the ‘seed’ who would inherit the blessing promised to Abraham, then God’s hatred of Esau is best understood to refer to God’s decision not to bestow this privilege on Esau. It might best be translated ‘reject.’ ‘Love’ and ‘hate’ are not here, then, emotions that God feels but actions that he carries out. In an apparent paradox that troubles Paul (cf. 9:14 and 19 following) as well as many Christians, God loves ‘the whole world’ at the same time as he withholds his love in action, or election, from some.”
Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, 586–87.

Once again Schreiner is helpful. He writes,
“Does the text suggest double predestination? Apparently it does. We need to remember that in the Pauline view predestination never lessened human responsibility (cf. Rom. 1:18–3:20; 9:30–10:21), and the correlation between divine sovereignty and human responsibility is ultimately a mystery that is beyond our finite comprehension. We dare not conclude that human decisions are a charade, insignificant, or trivial. But we must also beware of a rationalizing expedient that domesticates the text by exalting human freedom so that it fits neatly into our preconceptions.”
Schreiner, 501.

The story of Jacob and Esau is a story of God’s free and unconditional election. God’s “loving” Jacob was God choosing Jacob. God’s “hating” Esau was God rejecting Esau. As finite human beings we may not understand why God chooses to act in this manner, but we know that God is always completely merciful and gracious. I would like to close this blog article with this lengthy quote from pastor and author John Piper.

“One of the ways God makes this [i.e., his free and unconditional election] clear is that when Abraham fathered two sons, God chose only one of them—Isaac, not Ishmael—to be the son of promise. And when Isaac had two sons, even before they were born, God chose only Jacob, not Esau, to continue the line of his chosen people. In each case, God acts in a way that highlights his sovereign freedom in election. In Isaac’s case the child is born by miraculous, divine intervention when Abraham and Sarah are too old to have children. The point is to show that God’s purposes in election are not limited by human abilities or inabilities. He is free to choose whomever he pleases, even if he has to create a child by miraculous birth.

“This is the truth that John the Baptist had in mind when he warned the Pharisees and Sadducees, ‘Do not presume to say to yourselves, “We have Abraham as our father”; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham’ (Matthew 3:9). In other words, don’t ever think that God is obliged to choose you because of some human distinctive like your physical descent from Abraham. If God needs descendants from Abraham to fulfill the promises of election, he can create them out of stones. He is not boxed in. He is not limited to you. Beware of presuming on his electing grace. It is absolutely free.

“God makes the same point in the way he chooses Jacob and not Esau. In their case God choose the son who, according to all ordinary custom and human expectation, should not have been chosen, namely, the younger one. Thus he shows that God aims to undermine any attempt to limit his freedom in election. He is not bound or constrained by human distinctives. The apostle Paul stresses in Romans 9:10–13 that the reason for the election of Jacob, not Esau, and Isaac, not Ishmael, was to show that God’s election is free and unconditional. It is not based on Jewishness or primogeniture or virtue or faith; it is free, and therefore completely merciful and gracious.”
John Piper, The Pleasures of God: Meditations on God’s Delight in Being God, 114–15.

For His Glory,
Pastor Brian

Once Saved Always Saved? by George O’Leary

by

My brother George O’Leary sent me something he recently wrote. I thought this would be a good forum to share (with his permission).

Once Saved, Always Saved? by George O’LearyOnce saved always saved

O how I’ve struggled with once saved always saved. I know and believe as it says in Romans 10:13 that all who call on the name of the lord shall be saved. I know that “No one can snatch us from our Lords hand” John 10:28-30 (paraphrasing) I know I’ve been sealed and given the Spirit in my heart as a guarantee, 1Corinthians 1:22. I know that it was Grace that saved me and not by works, Ephesians 2:8, 9. And I being a chief sinner like Paul, most definitely know that. I know that I am far from perfect but, I also know that I have been changed. I can absolutely feel it! My family and friends have seen it. I’m not boasting on myself but the changing power of the Holy Spirit when I accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior and Lord.

And, I think that is where I have had trouble with once saved always saved. I do not understand how people can accept the finished work of Jesus Christ and continue to live a life that is contrary to the Word of God. Don’t they realize that they have accepted the grace of God and have been freed from sin, death, the grave and a Godless hell. In one very emotional moment, people call out and accept the saving grace of Jesus Christ. A moment that should absolutely instill the desire to change a life bound for heartache and defeat to a life that is freed from the burden of sin and its destruction. Here are my questions; If that is the result of my one time decision, if in that one moment my eternity has been secured, Then why does the God call me to examine myself?(2Corinthians 13:5) Why am I to show myself approved?(2Timothy 2:15) Why am I to walk circumspectly?(Ephesians 5:15)Why am I to attend worship?(Hebrews 10:24, 25) Why am I called to be Holy?(1 Peter 1:16) Why am I to tithe?(Matthew 23:23) Why have I been called to repent?(Luke 13:3)

If after I have accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior and Lord and my eternal life has been secured, are there so many instructions on how to live my life as a follower of Jesus Christ. I accept the sacrifice He made on the cross. I fully believe in His resurrection. I mean even Jesus said “It is finished”. He is my Savior and Lord! I prayed to God to show me what I was missing?? And that’s when it hit me!!

He did finish it. Salvation was secured for the sinner that accepts Jesus Christ as their Savior and Lord. There is no way to earn it, you can’t steal it, buy it or can anyone other than Jesus provide it for you. It was finished by Jesus Christ my Savior and Lord. Did you hear that? The answer was right there. There is the reason for all the post salvation instructions in our Christian walk. Jesus is my Savior and Lord. There it is again. Let me say it one more time; Jesus is my Savior and Lord. He can’t be one without the other. So many people want to make Him their Savior but do not allow Him to be their Lord. That’s the reason for all the post salvation instructions. For us to make sure that He is, not only our Savior, but our Lord also. For this reason we are to examine ourselves, we are to show ourselves approved, we are to walk circumspectly, we are to not forsake the assembly, we are to edify one another, we are to pray, we are to love, we are to repent and live holy lives set apart from the world because Salvation isn’t a onetime emotional act that changes nothing but your destination!! It is a onetime physical act that changes everything that leads to your final destination…. Those instructions are there for us to know the truth about our salvation. He showed us such grace by paying the sin debt that we could not pay. Oh what grace we have been shown. He Loves us, oh how He loves us. Let us now not forget that we are to love him also. (Matthew 22:37) Search His word for your life’s instructions. They’re there for our benefit.

Pastor Brian said it best a couple of years ago when we were chatting. I voiced my thought about once saved always saved and he said it best, “If saved, always saved. Remember, If we call Him Savior, He must also be our Lord.

Uncleanness and Bodily Discharges

by

As we are spending the year reading through the Bible, we sometimes come across passages that appear to not “make sense.” On this past Sunday at church, I Uncleanhad a couple of the women in my church ask me why an offering had to be made for a woman’s menstrual cycle. The text in question was Leviticus 15:19-30. Let’s take look at this passage.

Leviticus 15:19-24
19 “When a woman has a discharge, and the discharge in her body is blood, she shall be in her menstrual impurity for seven days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening.  20 And everything on which she lies during her menstrual impurity shall be unclean. Everything also on which she sits shall be unclean.  21 And whoever touches her bed shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening.  22 And whoever touches anything on which she sits shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening.  23 Whether it is the bed or anything on which she sits, when he touches it he shall be unclean until the evening.  24 And if any man lies with her and her menstrual impurity comes upon him, he shall be unclean seven days, and every bed on which he lies shall be unclean.

The first part of this passage deals with a woman’s “normal” menstrual cycle. During this time period the woman was considered “unclean” and anything she touched was also considered unclean. There are a number of lessons we can take from this.

First, since everything she touched was also considered unclean, this gave the woman a natural break from her household duties. In other words, she would not be cooking and cleaning during this period because in the process of doing so, she would be making everything she touched “unclean.” So, this was actually a time for the woman to rest from her normal household duties.

Second, the prohibition of sexual intercourse during this time was an indication that sex was not to be an obsession in life (either for the man or for the woman). Sex is a good gift given to a husband and a wife by God. It is to be used for procreation and it also has a unitive function (i.e., it helps the husband and wife to grow closer to one another). But sex is not an all-important activity as our culture wants to make us believe. So, God has a built in “break” from sexual activity between a husband and a wife.

Third, it is important to see that there is no special offering that needs to be made for a woman’s normal menstrual period. This is a natural part of a woman’s biology; no offering needs to be made. This period of uncleanness for the woman is similar to uncleanness experienced by the man when he has an emission of semen (see Lev 15:16-18).

Now let’s look at the remainder of the passage.

Leviticus 15:25-30
25 “If a woman has a discharge of blood for many days, not at the time of her menstrual impurity, or if she has a discharge beyond the time of her impurity, all the days of the discharge she shall continue in uncleanness. As in the days of her impurity, she shall be unclean.  26 Every bed on which she lies, all the days of her discharge, shall be to her as the bed of her impurity. And everything on which she sits shall be unclean, as in the uncleanness of her menstrual impurity.  27 And whoever touches these things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening.  28 But if she is cleansed of her discharge, she shall count for herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean.  29 And on the eighth day she shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons and bring them to the priest, to the entrance of the tent of meeting.  30 And the priest shall use one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. And the priest shall make atonement for her before the LORD for her unclean discharge.

A key phrase is found in verse 25, “not at the time of her menstrual impurity.” In other words, this a period of “abnormal” feminine discharge. This would be an indication that something was awry with the woman’s normal menstrual cycle. We need to keep in mind that some of the law codes given to the people of Israel were hygienic in origin. They didn’t speak to the worth of the individual, but they were designed to keep the spread of any potential diseases to a minimum.

When the woman was experiencing an abnormal discharge she was also considered unclean and she remained unclean for eight days after the abnormal discharge stopped. On the eighth day she would take an appropriate offering (verse 29) to the priest who would then offer these to the Lord.

If the abnormal discharge didn’t stop, she remained unclean. This helps us better understand the condition of the woman who reached out to touch the garments of Jesus in Mark 5:25-34.

It is important to stress three things. First, this offering was not for a woman’s normal discharge. The normal discharge is a part of her natural biology. These offerings were for “unnatural” discharges. Second, this is not a sexist part of the Law since this is the exact same process a man had to go through when he had an “unnatural discharge” (see Lev 15:13-15).

And, third, Moses tells us that the reason people to avoid the various issues that cause ceremonial uncleanness was so that they would not defile the tabernacle (15:31). But we live in an age of a new covenant, and we can look back on the old covenant and realize that the laws regarding cleansings has been fulfilled in Christ Jesus. He has entered the holy tent once for all to deliver redemption for all of us (see Hebrews 9:11-12).

For His Glory,

Pastor Brian

Book Reviews

by

As a part of my job, I have the great pleasure of reading good books about living the Christian life. I want to provide a brief review of two such books here.InvitationToAJourneyARoa30576_f

Mulholland, Jr., M. Robert. Invitation to a Journey: A Road Map for Spiritual Formation. IVP Books, 1993. 173pp.

As the title suggests, Mulholland’s book is about the Christian journey toward “spiritual wholeness.” He defines spiritual formation as “a process of being conformed to the image of Christ for the sake of others” (12). The book is divided into four sections.

In the first section Mulholland dissects his definition of spiritual formation into four parts. The first part of spiritual formation is to recognize that spiritual formation is a process, not an event. Second, it is a process of “being conformed.” In other words, this is not something we do to ourselves. He writes, “The difference between conforming ourselves and being conformed is the vital issue of control” (25). Third, it is being conformed into the image of Christ. Mulholland argues that the image of Christ is the “fulfillment of the deepest dynamics of our being” (33). Finally, being conformed to the image of Christ is ultimately for the sake of others.

In the second section of the book Mulholland relies heavily of Carl Jung and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) personality test. He argues that each person has a unique personality type and understanding one’s personality type helps one grow in holistic spirituality.

Mulholland deals directly with various spiritual disciplines in the third section. He describes the classical Christian pilgrimage as “awakening, purgation, illumination, and union.” He discusses the spiritual disciplines of prayer, spiritual reading, and liturgy. He helpfully shows how God works in the Christian life to wage war against death and bring life (120-34).

In the final section Mulholland underscores the importance of the faith community for spiritual formation.

Mulholland writes from a Wesleyan theological perspective. This, in itself, is not an issue, but because he is writing from this perspective, he makes some rather elementary exegetical fallacies so that his exegetical conclusions fit his theological perspective. I’ll highlight just one such fallacy. His exegesis of Ephesians 1:3-6 is flawed by a simple word study fallacy. Mulholland argues that the Greek word (eklegomai) which means and is translated “chose” (Eph 1:4) by every major English translation really means “spoke forth” since it is a compound word with the respective parts of the compound meaning “forth” (ek) and “speak” (lego). This is a rather elementary fallacy since compound words do not necessarily have the meaning of the sum of each part. For example, we all know that a pineapple is not a special type of apple that grows on pine trees!

Without question the strongest part of Mulholland’s book is his attention to the fact that spiritual formation does not happen in isolation. We are created as communal creatures and God has designed us to live and flourish in community. Mulholland argues that not only is the end result of spiritual formation “for the sake of others” (see definition above), but even the process of spiritual formation is in the context of others. One quote will suffice even though this theme is beaten like a drum throughout the book. He writes, “There is no holistic spirituality for the individual outside of the community of faith” (50).

Recommendation

I would recommend this book for the discerning Christian reader who is interested in spiritual formation.

 

Thornborough, Tim, and Richard Perkins, eds. The Big Fight: Christian Men 51qBC3ibWELvs The World, Flesh & Devil. The Good Book Company, 2012. 107pp.

A total of 10 contributors come together to write this very helpful book for men who are pursuing holiness. Each contributor wrote one chapter of particular interest to men (although it must be stated that these are not solely men’s issues).

The “G” key on the keyboard got stuck in the naming of the chapters: Guilt, Gold, Gossip, Glare, Grumbling, Gospelling, Girls, Gifts, Grog, and Games. A preacher must have come up with the titles for each chapter!

The book is written so that it could be used for a small men’s group or one-on-one, or it could be read and used by a single individual.

None of the chapters are written to be particularly deep theologically, but every chapter is immensely practical. This is certainly by design and it does not detract from the book in any way. Every chapter includes discussion questions and recommendations of further resources for reading.

Recommendation

I would gladly recommend this book to a man or a men’s group.

 

A Bridegroom of Blood

by

After God had appeared to Moses in the wilderness and revealed himself as “I am who I am” (Exodus 3:14), Moses set out to return to Egypt to confront Pharaoh and to tell him to let the captiveA Bridegroom of Blood Israelites go. Moses took his wife, Zipporah, and his sons with him on the journey. But along the way, something strange happened. Here is how it is recorded in the Bible.

Exodus 4:24-26 (ESV)
24 At a lodging place on the way the LORD met him and sought to put him to death.  25 Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it and said, “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!”  26 So he let him alone. It was then that she said, “A bridegroom of blood,” because of the circumcision.

This passage raises several important questions. Who did the Lord meet with in verse 24? Who did the Lord seek to put to death? And what had this person done that was worthy of death?

The most natural reading of the text is that the Lord was meeting with Moses to put Moses to death, but the original Hebrew language would allow for the Lord to be seeking to put Moses’ son to death. For our purposes, we will consider the more natural reading of the text, but before we do this, we will need to travel over 400 years into the past, to the time of Abraham.

When Abraham was an old man the Lord appeared to him to reiterate a covenant he had already made with Abraham. This event is recorded in the Bible as follows.

Genesis 17:1-8 (ESV)
1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless,  2 that I may make my covenant between me and you, and may multiply you greatly.”  3 Then Abram fell on his face. And God said to him,  4 “Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations.  5 No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations.  6 I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you.  7 And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.  8 And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God.”

The “sign of the covenant” that the Lord made with Abraham was circumcision. The Lord said to Abraham,

Genesis 17:10-14 (ESV)
10 “This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised.  11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you.  12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring,  13 both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant.  14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”

This “sign of the covenant” was a sign that was to be continued “throughout your generations,” and 400 years later God chooses Moses to be his mouthpiece before Pharaoh, but Moses had not kept the “sign of the covenant,” not even with his own children.

With our 21st century sensibilities, we might consider it strange that God would take something this simple so seriously, but God is always honored when we obey. Moses had not obeyed what God had clearly taught and it nearly cost him his life. This incident serves as a judgment or as a warning about the importance for the children of God to keep the commands of God. God takes his commandments seriously.

This message is confirmed just a few verses later when in Exodus 5:3, Moses and Aaron said, “The God of the Hebrews has met with us. Please let us go a three days’ journey into the wilderness that we may sacrifice to the LORD our God, lest he fall upon us with pestilence or with the sword.”

God had already shown himself to Moses in such a way that Moses knew God was serious about his people keeping his commandments, so with a serious tone, Moses and Aaron say,  “Lest he fall upon us with pestilence or with the sword.”

And God is still serious about his people keeping his commandments. In the new covenant we are no longer bound by physical circumcision since now our hearts have been spiritually circumcised (see Jeremiah 4:4; Romans 2:28-29; Colossians 2:11-12), but God is still concerned about his people following him in obedience.

Are you following the Lord in obedience? Here are just three questions to consider.

  1. If you’ve been born again, have you followed the Lord in obedience through believer’s baptism? See Acts 8:36, 38; 16:33; 18:8; 1 Corinthians 12:13.
  2. Are you a member of a local church? The New Testament knows nothing of a believer who is not ultimately affiliated with a local body of believers. The Scriptures here are too numerous to mention. A great resource to think about church membership is Jonathan Leeman’s little blue book, Church Membership.
  3. Is your life characterized by holiness? This doesn’t mean that you live a perfect life, but is your life characterized by a pursuit of holiness. Another great resource is Jerry Bridge’s book, The Pursuit of Holiness.

For His Glory,

Pastor Brian

 

 

Who Are the Three Men in Genesis 18?

by

Genesis 18:1-5 (ESV)
1 And the LORD appeared to [Abraham] by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day. abraham-and-the-three-angels
2 He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth
3 and said, “O Lord, if I have found favor in your sight, do not pass by your servant.
4 Let a little water be brought, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree,
5 while I bring a morsel of bread, that you may refresh yourselves, and after that you may pass on- since you have come to your servant.” So they said, “Do as you have said.”

Who are these “three men” from verse two who were standing in front of Abraham? We know that at a minimum in some way these three men represented the LORD to Abraham since verse 1 tells us that “the LORD appeared to” Abraham. These “men” weren’t human men as the text of Genesis 18-19 make clear. They were heavenly beings.

But could one of these men have actually been “the LORD”? John Sailhamer argues that this could raise difficult questions since the Pentateuch specifically forbids any presentation of God in any physical form.

Moses spoke to God’s people in Deuteronomy 4:15, “Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire.”

This, of course, is a reference against idolatry, but does this mean that God would never appear in a physical form before man? The incarnation of the Christ in Jesus of Nazareth would appear to argue against that conclusion.

The second commandment (see Exodus 20:4) prohibits human beings from making an image of God. It doesn’t prohibit God from showing up in physical image. But, then again, God did tell Moses that no man could see God and live (see Exodus 33:20).

This, of course, brings us back to the incarnation. We believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ, the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, and we believe that he was God in the flesh (see John 1:1, 14; Colossians 1:15-20; Hebrews 1:1-4; etc.). Jesus of Nazareth was clearly seen by others, even though he was (and is!) God.

Bruce Waltke argues that the three men of Genesis 18 are “actually the Lord and two angels” (page 266). He continues, “The later identifications of the ‘men’ (18:10, 13, 16-17, 33; 19:1) confirm their manifest difference. One man is none other than the Lord, as 18:2-3 and especially 10, 13-15 make explicit” (266-67).

This “Lord” would be none other than the pre-incarnate Christ, the second person of the Trinity.

For His Glory,

Pastor Brian

What are the 120 years of Genesis 6:3?

by

     When we read the accounts of our antediluvian (before the Flood) ancestors, we 120 yearsmay be shocked by how long these men lived.

  • Adam — 930-years-old
  • Seth — 912-years-old
  • Enosh — 905-years-old
  • Kenan — 910-years-old
  • Mahalalel — 895-years-old
  • Jared — 962-years-old
  • Enoch — 365-years-old
  • Methuselah — 969-years-old
  • Lamech — 777-years-old

These ages are found in Genesis 5, and, yes, they are “real” years. How was it possible for a person to live multiple centuries? They were able to live multiple centuries not because they had better genes than we have, but because God’s Spirit abode with them (Genesis 6:3).

But then in Genesis 6:3 we read,

“Then the LORD said, ‘My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.'”

There are a couple of different prominent positions about what these 120 years mean.

First, theologians as prominent as Augustine, Martin Luther, and John Calvin have argued that these 120 years refer to a reprieve of sorts. In other words, the Lord was granting mankind a reprieve of 120 years before he would send the Flood. This is certainly a possible interpretation of this passage.

A second interpretation of this passage, however, is that the 120 years refers to the length of time God was going to allow individuals to live. In other words, individuals would no longer live for centuries (as above), but their lifespan would no longer exceed 120 years.

But, one might object, do we not have accounts of people living more than 120 years even after the Flood? And, yes, we do have such accounts. Noah, for example, lived to be 950-years-old (Genesis 9:29) — and 350 of those years were after the Flood (Genesis 9:28)! And Genesis 11 is full of men who lived multiple centuries. So, can the 120 years possibly refer to the length of an individual’s life? Yes, it can. Let’s keep a couple of important points in mind.

First, just because individuals didn’t immediately start living only 120 years, it doesn’t mean that the process of the shortening of an individual’s lifespan wasn’t in place. Consider, for example, what happened in the Fall. God told Adam and Eve that in the day they ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil they would surely die (Genesis 2:17, emphasis added). But we learn in Genesis 3:6 that when they in fact ate from the tree, they did not drop dead. Certainly they experienced spiritual death immediately, but physical death proved to be a process. As we saw above, Adam would live to ripe old age of 930-years-old.

And, second, we also need to keep in mind that the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) was written as one piece of literature. God’s statement in Genesis 6:3, “his days shall be 120 years,” isn’t brought to fulfillment until the conclusion of the Pentateuch.

John Sailhamer writes,

“In keeping with this point, the author continues to show the ages of the men of the book and notes that generally their ages grow increasingly shorter (cf. 11:10-26). It is only at the close of the Pentateuch that we finally reach an individual who is specifically mentioned as dying at the age of 120 years, Moses, who was in the wilderness and who died as a result of unbelief and divine punishment (Num 20) — he died though he was still in good strength (Deut 34:7)” (page 77).

With the Flood, the process of the shortening of an individual’s lifespan had begun. One hundred twenty years would be the limit.

For His Glory,

Pastor Brian