TITHES AND OFFERINGS: WHERE AND WHEN

To most of us, the Bible appears to spend an inordinate amount of time talking about what we should give back to God. It begins with Cain and Abel and their respective sacrifices, is present throughout the Pentateuch in the myriad of regulations regarding offerings, continues with the rants of the prophets against those who rob God, Jesus' teachings on the proper use of money, the early church giving practices found in the Book of Acts, admonitions on the subject located in the epistles, and concludes with the eventual downfall of human economic systems in the Book of Revelation.

Despite the biblical emphasis on our proper use of resources, most pastors and Bible teachers today are understandably reluctant to tackle the subject before their audiences. But since I don't have to look any of you in the face, I will try wrestling with the wealth (no pun intended) of information available in the Bible regarding tithes and offerings from the perspective of the usual questions such as what, why, when, where, and how (much). One excellent resource on this whole subject, including the spiritual danger that possessions pose, is Jacques Ellul's book Money & Power.

In many Christian congregations, the question of where and when to bring our money to God is definitively answered in one single passage: I Corinthians 16:1-2 where Paul asks the church members to lay aside their offerings each Sunday. At least that is certainly what I was told in our church while growing up. And that teaching is still present in more conservative churches today: “Giving should be a systematic, weekly practice on Sunday when the church meets together.” (Lowery)

The problems with that particular interpretation have been pointed out many times:

    The collection for the saints in Jerusalem is to be put aside by the members of the congregation and saved on their own so that it is ready when Paul comes. The main point is that such offerings “should be regular and systematic.” (Marsh) Note that the money is (a) to be kept at home and not given to the church and (b) the passage does not speak about any regular tithes and offerings, only a particular special offering.

    As to why the money was to be set aside on Sunday, it probably has nothing to do with Sunday worship services. “Jews were forbidden to handle money on the Sabbath, so perhaps the arrangement to lay aside money on the first day of the week was a convenience to avoid offense. There is no mention of a worship service in this instance.” (Orr and Walther)

    “There is very little linguistic warrant for such a suggestion” that each person is to bring their money to the assembly. (Fee)

And the Old Testament regulations on giving provide little guidance either regarding when the various required offerings were to be given. The answer is either not addressed except for certain feast day offerings or depends entirely on the particular situation that necessitates a special offering such as purification offerings or the offering of first fruits. But one thing does seem to be clear, and that is the offerings should come to the temple (see Deuteronomy 12:5-19; Malachi 3:10).

Because of that precedent and the fact that offerings for the poor in early NT church practice appear to have been administered by the local church leaders (Acts 4:32-37; 6:1-7), there are pastors today who will insist that the biblical pattern is for all tithes and offerings to be given through official church channels. These types of congregations usually belong to some sort of larger denominational body which handles all money given to missions. And the money given to the church is then either earmarked for special mission offerings by the giver, or alternatively, all money is given into the church treasury and it is then distributed according to the church budget. In this sort of arrangement, parishioners may often be actively discouraged from giving any tithes or offerings to any outside ministry or charitable organization.

Then, I have attended churches in which only a nominal amount of the church budget was allotted to the mission fund, but members of the congregation were actively encouraged to support missionaries of their own choosing. There are pros and cons to both methods of supporting missions outside the local church. An organized collection method administered by the church or larger church body may be the most efficient way to disperse and monitor those funds. But on the other hand, there is certainly something to be said for the more personal involvement that comes from developing a close relationship with missionaries on one's own.

As biblical indications that not all tithes and offerings need to be funneled through the church, there are two additional passages to point out. The first is found in Deuteronomy 14:22-27 and repeated in Deuteronomy 26:12-15. It states that although the annual tithe on produce is to be given to the temple, every third year it is to be kept in special storehouses in each town for the direct support of the Levites, the alien residents, the orphans and the widows. We see hints of that principle in the NT in the various individuals who appear to support Paul directly with their resources.

My wife and I allot our tithes and offerings to both our local congregation and a variety of individual missionaries and non-profit parachurch organizations, and can see advantages to both means of supporting God's work.

Turning back to the question of when to give our tithes and offerings, again there is no hard and fast biblical model provided for us. The prophet in Amos 4:4-5 alludes to the practice of the people bringing morning offerings to the temple as well as their tithe every three days. This frequency, however, may be due to the fact that workers were generally paid on a daily basis. But even more likely is the fact that Amos is undoubtedly being sarcastic in these verses. He is in effect saying, “No matter how frequently you give your money, even every one to three days, it will do you no good as long as you continue to oppress the needy.”

In practice, I have seen two extremes followed. One friend of ours got paid on a monthly basis, but divided his monthly offerings up so that each week he could put some money into the offering place during Sunday service. He felt that in that manner he could more fully take part in each week's worship. On the other hand, a Mormon acquaintance of mine felt that although he was compelled to tithe, he was not about to let the church have the use of that money until the very last day of the year. In that way, he could invest all of it in the stock market throughout the year and keep the accrued profits for himself. That procedure speaks more to the heart issue of why we give than any other aspect, and that will be the subject of another post.

 

A PROPHET LIKE MOSES (DEUTERONOMY 18:15-22)

A Prophet like Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15-22)

One interesting way I have been approaching the Bible recently is to find a theme and trace it throughout the Old Testament and New Testament. In that respect, a new book by Gary Schnittjer entitled Old Testament Use of Old Testament is of great help, especially the chapter on “Networks.” There, Schnittjer takes 21 key themes in the Bible (such as “Covenant,” “70 Years,” and “Temple Vessels”) and shows graphically how the biblical authors added on to each succeeding passage by alluding to, quoting from or, interpreting it. And finally, even combining the original text with other passages of Scripture to reach new conclusions. Tracing the history of such transmissions is sometimes quite complicated, and the direction of borrowing often not readily determined.

As one specific and relatively simple example, take the theme laid out in Deuteronomy 18:15-22 in which Moses talks about a coming prophet such as himself. But since the book of Deuteronomy is largely a retelling of events in Exodus, the path really begins with Exodus 20:19, in which the people of Israel are so afraid when they see the supernatural events accompanying the giving of the Ten Commandments that they say to Moses, “You speak to us and we will obey; but don't let God speak to us directly or we will die.”

When this story is recapped in Deuteronomy 5, we hear the upshot of the people's request. God tells Moses that the people are correct and that from that point on He will tell Moses what to relay to the people. Then Moses takes the story one step further by explaining to the people that after he leaves them, God will send another prophet (or prophets) in his place. Moses also gives the Israelites a way to determine if future prophets are actually from God.

At this point, it is important to determine what Moses meant by saying that “another prophet” would be sent to the people. Was he referring to one specific person or a series of messengers? Here opinion is sharply divided among commentators:

More than one prophet

“It is generally agreed that Moses' prophecy could well be fulfilled by a succession of prophets, and Deuteronomy 18:19-22 presumes such a situation.” (Marshall)

“The primary sense in which the coming prophets would resemble Moses would be in their function, which was to declare the word of God...The singular (a prophet) is a collective form indicating a succession of prophets.” (Craigie)

“The verb “raise up” in vv. 15 and 18 “is to be understood in a distributive sense (i.e. will raise up from time to time), and does not refer to a single future act.” (Mayes)

One prophet

Although “traditional Jewish exegesis thinks of a prophet arising in each generation...this is untrue historically.” (Harrison)

“The promise has both individual and corporate significance. By NT times, it was understood of a precursor of the Messiah or of the Messiah himself.” (Cousins) This opinion is confirmed by John 1:19-21 in that John the Baptist is questioned by the priests and Levites who ask him whether he is the Messiah, Elijah, or the prophet. He denies all of these identifications.

There is even a slight variation on this second option, based mainly on a consideration of Hebrews 3, in which the author actually contrasts Jesus with Moses.

    E.L. Allen feels that Hebrews 3 was written to refute the strains of thinking among some Jewish Christian circles that Jesus was merely a new Moses.

    Thompson: “He would be like Moses in the sense that he was Yahweh's spokesman, but not in any sense of equality.”

    Kaiser concludes that Moses had in mind no simple prophet or a collective of prophets, but someone “unlike himself would complete the instruction and revelation of God.”

Back to our rabbit trail, which we left off at Deuteronomy 18. The end of this theme, as far as Deuteronomy is concerned comes in Deuteronomy 34:10 which states: “Never since that time has a prophet arisen in Israel to equal Moses.”

If we jump forward in time considerably, we next come to the book of Acts, where the theme resurfaces. Soon after the Day of Pentacost, Peter delivers a speech to the people in which he quotes from Deuteronomy 18:15-18 regarding Moses' warning to heed the words of God's prophets. Peter reminds his audience that many of these messengers of God over the years had prophesied the coming of the Messiah to bless all the people of the earth. In that way, Peter calls them to reconsider and accept Jesus.

Stephen also quotes the events in Deuteronomy 18:15-18, but is not quite as diplomatic as Peter had been since he accused the people of knowingly disobeying Moses and subsequent messengers (see Acts 7:35-43). His approach was met with predictable response from the people.

Getting back to the key verse Deuteronomy 18:15-18, remember that the people did not want God to speak directly to them or they would die. This sub-theme is expanded somewhat in Exodus 33:21-23 in which God allows Moses to see only His back so that he will not die by looking at His face.

The author of Samuel-Kings takes up this incident in Exodus when he alludes to it in I Kings 19:9-14, the story of God allowing the prophet Elijah (also hiding in a cave or cleft on Mt. Horeb) to experience His presence, but not face-to-face.

This theme now continues with Malachi 4:4 first reminding the people of Moses receiving the law on Mt. Horeb and then following it with a prediction in Malachi 4:5-6 of Elijah coming to call the people to repentance before the Judgment Day.

The Synoptic writers conclude the story in the parallel accounts found in Matthew 17:1-13; Mark 9:2-13; and Luke 9:28-36 of the Transfiguration in which both Moses and Elijah appear with Christ and there Jesus reveals to the apostles that the fulfillment of Malachi 4:5-6 was the coming of John the Baptist with the power of Elijah.

Schnittjer stops the trail here since he is mainly concerned with tracing themes within the Old Testament only. But we can easily continue the story by resorting to other NT texts which explore different aspects of the coming prophet theme. I have already mentioned John 1:19-21 in which the religious authorities question the true identification of John the Baptist. In addition, the angel reveals the future role of John in Luke 1:13-17, and Jesus in Matthew 11:7-15 tells the crowd that John was the prophet Elijah who was predicted to come. Finally, Herod even fears that Jesus is John the Baptist raised from the death although others felt that Jesus himself was the coming Elijah. (Mark 6:14-16)

 

3:16

I would hazard a guess that there are at least two Scripture passages even a fledgling Christian knows by heart: the Lord's Prayer and John 3:16. Perhaps Psalm 23 comes in as a distant third along with Genesis 1:1. As an interesting exercise, I went through the Bible to see if there were any additional memorable 3:16's present. I will admit that I was a little surprised by what I found.

The results from those books of the Bible that actually contained any 3:16's (most of which are summarized below) exhibited a limited number of repeated themes. There is nothing magical about this finding in retrospect since I was already well aware that there are many repetitions of the same ideas throughout the Old and New Testament. To me, this serves as one of many pieces of evidence pointing to the unity of composition of the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Also, I should quickly remind the reader that there is absolutely no indication that the chapter and verse divisions in our present Bible were divinely inspired. They came about from several Bible scholars:            Stephen Langton, the Archbishop of Canterbury, devised the chapter divisions in 1227.

    Nathan, a Jewish rabbi, came up with verse divisions for the Old Testament in 1448.

    Robert Estienne basically combined Nathan's OT divisions with his own for the NT in the 1500's.

    The Geneva Bible incorporated all of these divisions in their 1560 edition.

Therefore the correspondences below are mainly due to coincidences coupled with the propensity for the Bible to repeat similar themes with variations.

    Genesis 3:16 – God pronounces a curse on women for the sin of Eve.

    Exodus 3:16 – This momentous occasion is when Moses has just seen the vision of the burning bush and God appoints him to lead the people out from Egypt. God reveals his personal name to Moses.

    Joshua 3:16 – This verse marks the important time when God stops the waters of the Jordan so that the Israelites can pass over to the Promised Land.

    I Samuel 3:16 – The boy Samuel is summoned by God at night and Samuel informs Eli of the fact.

    I Kings 3:16 – Right after Solomon gets his night vision of God granting him the gift of wisdom, Solomon exercises that gift for the first time in making his judgment regarding the two prostitutes and their children.

    II Kings 3:16 – Elisha delivers God's judgment on three kings right after God reveals it to him when he is in a spiritual trance brought about by a musician playing.

    Proverbs 3:16 – Those who find wisdom from God are also promised long life, honor and riches.

    Isaiah 3:16 – God curses the haughty women of Zion.

    Jeremiah 3:16 – There is a prediction of the last days when Jerusalem becomes the throne of God.

    Ezekiel 3:16 – The prophet is appointed as a sentinel for the house of Israel in order to warn them.

    Daniel 3:16 – The three young Jews defy King Nebuchadnezzar and are preserved in the flames.

    Joel 3:16 – God roars from Zion and the heavens are shaken, but He is a refuge for His people.

    Zephaniah 3:16 – In that day, Jerusalem will have no need to fear since God is in her midst.

    Malachi 3:16 – There is a book of remembrance of those who fear the LORD and think on His name.

    Matthew 3:16 – Jesus is baptized and the Spirit descends on him.

    Mark 3:16 – Jesus appoints the twelve apostles.

    Luke 3:16 – John baptizes people with water, but Jesus will baptize them with the Holy Spirit.

    John 3:16 – The identity of Jesus as the Son of God and his role in salvation is stated following Jesus' night time revelation to Nicodemus.

    Acts 3:16 – A man is healed by the power of Jesus' name.

    I Corinthians 3:16 – God's Spirit dwells within each believer.

    II Corinthians 3:16 – There is a reminder of Moses seeing God's glory. Believers have no veil since we have the Spirit of the lord.

    Galatians 3:16 – The promise of the Messiah is given to Abraham (i.e. his seed).

    Ephesians 3:16 – Paul prays that God's powerful Spirit would strengthen the people according to the riches of his glory.

    Philippians 31:6 – There is the admonition that the church hold fast to what they have attained.

    Colossians 3:16 – Let Christ's word dwell in you as you teach and admonish one another in all wisdom.

    II Thessalonians 3:16 – May the Lord of peace be with you.

    II Timothy 3:16 – All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, etc.

    Hebrews 3:16 – The Jews who left Egypt with Moses heard God's word but were rebellious.

    James 3:16 – False wisdom is earthly and leads to wickedness.

    I Peter 3:16 – Defend the faith with gentleness and in the fear of God.

    II Peter 3:16 – The scriptures can be twisted by people to their own destruction.

    I John 3:16 – Jesus laid down his life for us, so we ought to be prepared to do the same for others.

    Revelation 3:16 – The Laodicean church is neither hot nor cold, and so Christ will spit them out of his mouth.

You no doubt have picked up on some of the repeated themes just from the above summaries, but below are my findings with the appropriate 3:16 in parentheses.

    The story of Moses and the Exodus includes his commission from God (Exodus), the miraculous crossing of the Red Sea (Joshua), Moses receiving the Ten Commandments (II Corinthians), and the rebellion of the Israelites in the desert (Hebrews).

    The personal involvement of the Holy Spirit in giving a prophecy to Elijah (II Kings), the baptism of Jesus (Matthew), the baptism of believers (Luke), within each Christian's life (I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Ephesians).

    Women suffer due to the sin of one (Genesis) or several of them (Isaiah) in attempting to raise their status using inappropriate means.

    Revelations of the identity of God (Exodus) and Jesus as His Son (John).

    Night time revelations to individuals (I Samuel, I Kings, John).

    The importance of Christians treating others in a spirit of peace and gentleness (II Thessalonians, I Peter)

    The use (II Timothy) and abuse (II Peter) of Scriptures.

    Christ's role in the salvation of mankind (John, Galatians, I John).

    Special leaders are commissioned by God (Exodus, I Samuel, I Kings, Ezekiel) or Christ (Mark).

    The power of the name of God (Exodus, Malachi) and Jesus (Acts).

    Wisdom is granted to Solomon (I Kings), is coupled with other gifts from God such as riches (I Kings, Proverbs), is needed for admonishment (Colossians), and is contrasted with earthly wisdom (James).

    The riches of God are contrasted with earthly riches (I Kings, Ephesians).

    Judgment falls on the disobedient (Genesis, Joshua, I Kings, II Kings, Isaiah, Joel, Habakkuk, II Peter, Revelation) while the believers are saved (Malachi, Daniel, John).

    It is predicted that in the last days, God will reside in Jerusalem and protect her from all enemies (Jeremiah, Joel, Zephaniah).

    God's glory is seen by Moses (II Corinthians) and strengthens believers (Ephesians).

    A vision of God appears in flames (Exodus, Daniel).

 

THE TEN COMMITTMENTS (EXODUS 20:1-17; DEUTERONOMY 5:6-21)

I have taken the above title and most of the ideas below from an article by Andrew Wilson in Christianity Today magazine, October 2021, p. 32.

Although it is obvious that God handed down these commandments for us to follow, He intended them also as a theological description of who He is and His prior commitment to us. In that way, it is more than just a one-way demand; it is a true covenant initiated by the dominant party, God, and to be followed by the subordinate party, ourselves.

The series of statements in both the Exodus and Deuteronomy versions actually begins with some important theological points regarding God's nature before even starting in on our part of the covenant. The first point is somewhat disguised in most English translations when they state (Exodus 20:2a): “I am the LORD your God.” When LORD appears in all capital letters, that is an indication that it refers to God's personal name, Yahweh, first revealed to Moses. But it also implies that He is the same God who had earlier revealed Himself to all the Patriarchs and given them all the promises through His grace. Thus, the whole process was initiated by God, not by human beings. And it is for that very reason, that v. 7 requires that we consider His name holy.

Going back to Exodus 20:2, the next thing God reveals concerning Himself is His redeeming act in rescuing the Jews from slavery in Egypt. This point is made even more clear in Deuteronomy 5:15. As Wilson says, “Before giving any instructions, God wants Israel to know beyond a doubt that he is a redeeming, rescuing, liberating God. Only then does he begin clarifying how obedience and gratitude should be expressed.” In a way, it is similar to how Paul structures most of his epistles. He begins with “grace” along with a theological section describing what God has done for us in Christ, and only then does he proceed to talking about our appropriate ethical and worshipful response.

Still in verse 2 and continuing into v. 3, there is found a third implied characteristic of God: His absolute Oneness and Otherness that is totally unlike any so-called gods. In a way, this point comes full circle at the end of the Ten Commandments in that any form of coveting on our part, even if only in our heart, constitutes putting another deity in place of God. I realize that this is a sticking point for both Islam and Judaism in that they accuse Christians of worshiping three gods in place of the One. I only mention the objection, but will certainly not attempt to play the theologian and try to resolve the issue to anyone's satisfaction at this time. If you wish to look at what I have posted on the subject, search for the following on this site: “Acts 20:27,” “The Trinity,” “II Corinthians 3:17-18,” and “The Deity of Christ in the New Testament.”

Exodus 20:4 stresses another property of God, His invisible nature. Therefore, any attempt to pin God down to a particular form or likeness of something we are more familiar with is a type of blasphemy.

Exodus 20:5a deals with the subject Paul mentions toward the start of his Letter to the Romans when he talks about the wickedness of those who “exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator...” This is exactly what one does when one chooses to deny another key aspect of God, His role as the source and creator of everything and everyone. This revelation of God as Creator is also given in relationship to another commandment, that which says we are to honor the Sabbath and keep it holy (Exodus 20:11). By doing so, we are also honoring God as the supreme Creator as well as the God of rest for our bodies and souls.

Exodus 20:5b reveals God as a God of justice who will eventually hold an accounting of us for all our actions done in violation of His will (as does v. 7b). But verse 6 balances this side of God's nature with that of his loving-kindness, which lasts infinitely longer than His wrath. “Mercy triumphs over judgment.” (Wilson)

Exodus 20:12 demonstrates that God is also a God of promised blessings as long as we honor our earthly parents along with our heavenly Father. The command not to murder goes back to the fact that man was made in the image of God Himself. Therefore to act in violence against a human being is to in effect attack God Himself. The command against adultery reminds us of the many times the Old Testament compared Israel's lusting after other gods with a married party committing adultery. Thus, in a way, it comes back to the prohibition of worshiping other gods. In the same manner, stealing from another person is robbing them of what is due to them just as God deserves all the glory that is due to Him. And choosing to lie (v. 16) is to purposefully turn away for the Father of all truth in order to follow the Father of Lies, Satan.

Wilson summarizes his short essay by saying, “The Ten Commandments are central to Christian ethics, used by Jesus and Paul as a framework for teaching on the obedience of faith. But they are shot through with God's disclosure of who he is and what he offers.”

 

WHAT IS THE BIBLICAL MODEL FOR CHURCH LEADERSHIP?

One of the reasons behind the proliferation of different Christian denominations stems from disagreement as to the proper, biblical mode of church government, or polity, to follow. And this in turn stems from the fact that the New Testament is not as clear as we would like regarding that subject. Actually, the NT appears to describe two somewhat competing or complementary forms of church leadership.

    A. On the one hand, you could say that the early church was spirit-led:

“When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up.” (I Corinthians 14:26b)

But this model comes with its own major questions: (a) Are all of these spiritual gifts still available today to Christians, or only the “non-sign gifts?” and (b) Paul goes on to say in I Corinthians that all must be done in an orderly manner. But who is going to ensure that order?

    B. As a second pattern, read through the Pastoral Epistles. The guidance given to Timothy and Titus presupposes a structured community governed more or less after the pattern of the Jewish synagogues with its elders. These male leaders appear to also appear under the name of presbyters or bishops. However, according to some denominational interpretations, these three terms may apply to different levels of church leadership. (I am leaving out the office of deacon since it is strictly defined in terms of a service role in the Bible.) And what exactly is the role of Timothy and Titus themselves? Are they equivalent to today's senior pastor, or are they traveling evangelists who are to set up local leadership in the church and then depart?

Thus, since there is no one model of church polity provided in the new Testament that is wholly free from ambiguity, perhaps we should turn to the question of which form of church government is the most effective. All I have to offer below is my own experience over many decades worshiping and serving in a number of different congregations, with the moves from one to the other mainly necessitated by changing work and family situation. And these experiences are strictly limited to attending evangelical, non-liturgical, independent congregations. However, all of these churches were more or less loosely aligned with some sort of denomination or church tradition.

I will make no attempt to describe the following congregations in the chronological order in which I experienced them:

    A church administered by elders who had a more or less permanent tenure and were chosen by congregational vote. The pastor was treated as the main spiritual resource of the church but served at the pleasure of the eldership.

    A loose-knit group of worshipers who adhered rather closely to the pattern given in I Corinthians 14, with rough oversight from a small steering group of gifted leaders who were there to insure that everything was done with decorum and that no one person attempted to monopolize the proceedings.

    A small democratically-run congregation in which all decisions were made by an open vote at frequent meetings after discussion of the pros and cons of the issues at hand. The church tradition demanded multiple eldership at the local level. Since we did not have more than one qualified candidate for that position, three men were chosen to be deacons who did everything from take turns preaching to teaching Sunday school to serving as church janitors.

    A semi-liturgical congregation with a well-developed system of government in which major decisions to be brought before the congregation for a vote had to first be approved by the board. Membership in the board included a chairman more or less appointed by a steering committee, the church treasurer, chairman of the deacons, chairman of the elders, and selected chairmen chosen from the various operating committees. The paid staff, including the senior pastor, were allowed to attend meetings unless told not to do so, but they had no vote.

    A church in which only the ordained staff members were considered to be elders. Deacons were strictly servants of the church but had no real oversight duties. Major issues were decided by congregational vote at monthly business meetings. But most of the key decisions were actually made behind the scenes by the various operating committees, with rotating membership and leadership chosen by the congregation.

    A rather large congregation which was elder-led by a group that was largely self-perpetuating. All of the ordained staff members were also part of the eldership, and the senior pastor more or less called the shots on most issues. Very few items were brought up for a congregational vote.

    An independent congregation blessed with a group of very godly and dedicated elders and staff. The elders interpreted their main duties as shepherds of the congregation and that informed all their actions. They worked very closely with the senior pastor with seemingly little or no conflict.

    A church affiliated with a large denomination which provided most of the Sunday school materials and to whom special missionary offerings were made every year. The eldership consisted of the ordained staff only, with a small rotating group of elected representatives from the church membership serving in an advisory role.

Despite the differences in types of church leadership, all of these congregations managed to function quite well in practice most of the time. And that is why I suspect that we weren't given any hard and fast rules in the Bible regarding which type of organization to set up. On the other hand, even congregations that on paper had almost identical types of church polity varied widely in their effectiveness depending almost solely on the nature of the people chosen to hold leadership roles.

For example, I have known elder-led congregations in which the “lay” eldership was chosen by (a) seniority, (b) spiritual characteristics, or (c) according to their wealth and ability as independent businessmen. Those in the first category often served reluctantly and gladly walked away from their responsibilities as soon as they could find a younger person to take their job. Those congregations which took seriously the qualifications for leadership described in the Pastoral Epistles seemed to be the most successful in identifying true shepherds as well as hiring a pastoral staff which was characterized by their servant hearts. The third group of elders tended to mirror the personalities of the staff members. All were used to doing their own thing the way they wanted to operate and with no coordination with or care for the other leaders or the congregation. To me, the overwhelming lesson was that practically any sort of church government will work as long as the scriptural guidelines concerning the spiritual character of the leaders are adhered to closely. I think that is why, for example, the Pastoral Epistles spend so much time outlining the spiritual qualifications of a church leader but give practically no guidance regarding their actual duties.

A few other personal observations regarding church government are listed below:

    Often, especially in small churches, the real power lies not with those officially outlined in the congregational by-laws, but with the richest, most influential, or most complaining person in the membership.

    One totally unjustified behavior is to join a church with the sole purpose of changing the way they do things to suit your own preferences. That is akin to marrying a spouse with the idea in mind of changing him or her after you are married. It hardly ever works and often leads to divorce.

    The same occasional conflict arises today between the two “biblical” models (A and B above) of church leadership. Since I have been an adult Bible teacher for many decades now, I have personally observed this sometimes good and sometimes bad relationship between the pastoral leaders (staff and elders) and those in the congregation who had the gift of teaching. As in many other situations, there appear to be two equally bad extremes to avoid.

One such extreme is seen when the church leadership washes its hands of all responsibility regarding what is taught or who does the teaching in the church, whether is in regard to Sunday school or small home groups. In one case, the pastor was so desperate to find anyone at all to teach, that for one semester he allowed an elective class for Sunday school devoted to home gardening techniques. At least that was a somewhat innocuous way for parishioners to spend an hour. But in other cases of which I am aware at another congregations, the results were decidedly negative.

As a teenager growing up in church, about the only things at all that I remember were two rather outrageous examples of teachers who never should have been put in that position. One was a pleasant enough woman who taught us that astrology was the method by which God ruled our lives here on earth. And then there was the man who taught the boys' class and spent his time telling off-color “jokes” making fun of minorities. Even the pastor's wife who taught the women's class was little better since she had a laundry list of sinful behaviors to avoid which included playing any card game with a deck having face cards in it.

One Sunday school class was taught by someone who can only be described as a modern-day Judaizer who was in love with all things Jewish. He spent his time teaching the class members about the Jewish rituals, and for a time even led a Jewish-oriented worship service to compete with the regular services of the church until the church leadership forced him to stop. Another similarly ignored Sunday school class was led by a business consultant who spent his time convincing the young men in the congregation that it was time for them to take charge and oust the older leadership of the church.

The other extreme, however, is just as disruptive to the proper workings of the church. That happens when a new minister of education is hired or a new group of elders comes in office, and they decide that they know much better than the Sunday school teachers (whether of children or adult classes) how a class should be conducted. And so without (a) much prior experience themselves as teachers, (b) even attending a single Sunday school class to see how it is run, or (c) getting prior feedback from the teachers, they begin making wholesale changes in how each class should be run. One thing they seldom take into account is that the teachers and leaders of each class are all volunteers, not paid for their efforts. And therefore undue burdens should not be placed on any of them in terms of time required to meet any additional duties.

One church I attended handled “the teacher situation” is a fairly reasonable manner most of the time. For one thing, they had an unofficial practice of coupling a new or inexperienced teacher with a trusted member of the staff or congregation for one semester of team teaching to see how the new teacher did before trusting him with a class on his own. That was the way I started teaching at that particular church soon after attending the congregation. However, at one point I had to inform the church elders that I could not in good conscience put in my name for actual church membership because I did not wholeheartedly subscribe to one of the twenty or so doctrinal points to which I had to agree. It happened to involve a tertiary issue regarding the exact details associated with the end times.

I found out much later that my admission actually triggered a whole elder's meeting to decide what to do with me. They delegated the Minister of Education to talk to me, after which he reported back to the elders. The compromise they suggested was that I could continue teaching as long as I refrained from ever teaching on that particular eschatological matter. I readily agree that it was completely their prerogative and duty to request that of me since they were the official leaders of the church. And in that manner, I continued to teach for years afterward, even though at one or two times I had to refer a question from the class to one of my co-teachers for a reply. And there was another time during a large mid-week presentation by a later Minister of Education when I had to refuse point-blank from responding to a question he posed to me, reminding him and the class of my prior agreement with the eldership of the church.

So in conclusion, I hope you weren't expecting any sort of resolution to the question of either the most effective or most biblical mode of church leadership because I don't think anyone is in a position to answer that question definitively. The best we can do is to adhere to NT guidelines concerning the quality of leadership that we should expect in the church, whatever that form of leadership is in your particular congregation or denomination.

 

NAVIGATING THIS SITE

Search Boxes

Since I am now well over 1,400 posts on this site, I figured it was a good time to give some hints on how to maneuver your way around it. The first thing to admit is that it is not really organized at all according to categories and sub-categories. Thus, about the only way you can see if there is a particular biblical subject or passage you are looking for is to use either of the two search boxes on the site. One is located in a small rectangle in the upper left corner of the home page, and the other is found on the left below the “About Me” section. The search engine is very fast and able to even pick up on phrases or words within the body of the posts. However, you may need to scroll through all the screens it identifies before finding exactly what you are looking for.

One additional thing to note is that I always use Roman numerals to identify the books of the Bible and Bible passages. Thus, it is best to search for I Chronicles rather than 1 Chronicles, II Peter rather than 2 Peter, etc.

If all else fails, feel free to send me an email message at elmerphd21@hotmail.com.

Comments

Although this particular site feature used to work, I don't think it does now. So if you have a comment on any post that you wish to share or have me respond to, again contact me at my email address above.

Original Art on this Site

Among my earliest posts are about 300 featuring my art work, mainly based on biblical themes and passages. These are rather hard to locate among all my writing posts on this site. So if you are interested, I would suggest that you can also view most of them by clicking on the link located on the left side of the home page above the “About Me” section. On that site, they are organized into different galleries mainly by the medium employed.

I do have another site, dr2mccoy.com, on which the same pictures, including short explanations of the biblical passage involved, are shown. That particular site has good search capabilities by key words or biblical references.

Explanations of Biblical Subjects on this Site

The large majority of the posts are devoted to explanations of specific biblical passages, whole books of the Bible, or themes within the Bible. Some of these postings originated with Sunday school or small Bible study groups that I have taught, and others were answers given in response to questions that I have been asked over the years.

In addition, some of the posts originally came from various series of lessons that I presented at churches in the evenings. Since the individual posts go under different names, guides to all the posts in this category can be located by searching the appropriate titles below:

    “Bible Interpretation: Lesson Outline”

    “Apologetics: A Study Guide”

    “The Parables: Lesson Guide”

    “Book of Revelation: A Topical Study Guide”

    “Miracles in the Bible: A Lesson Study Guide”

    “Recognizing Bad Bible Interpretations: A Study Outline”

Then there are several series in which whole books of the Bible are discussed from various points of view. These can usually be found by searching the name of the book (X) you are interested in and attaching the prefixes or suffixes below:

    “X: Introduction to the Literary Structure” This series of posts is abstracted from my unpublished book The Structure of Scripture, and each one explains the way that particular book is organized.

    “The Old Testament in X”

    “Notes on X”

    “X: Study Guide Outline”

Lastly, I sometimes survey the whole Bible to see what it has to say on a given theme. These miscellaneous posts go under titles such as “Mutes in the Bible,” “Walls in the Bible,” etc.

If there is any particular subject you would like be to cover in a future post, just drop me a line at my email address and I will attempt to research it for you.

 

KING AHAZ (II KINGS 16; II CHRONICLES 28)

If anyone doubts that there have been no changes in the attitude of God's people toward society and politics over the year, they have only to consider the reign of King Ahaz of Judah approximately 2,750 years ago. The kings of Judah and Israel during the Divided Monarchy were for the most part sad successors to King David in every way. However, Ahaz hit a new low even though the prophets Isaiah, Hosea and Micah were active during that time period, and Isaiah pleaded with Ahaz personally to change his evil ways (Isaiah 7:1-12).

Both II Kings 16 and the corresponding passage in II Chronicles 28 outline a whole litany of Ahaz' sins including even child sacrifice. But I would just like to highlight two incidents that, at least in my own mind, illustrate faults that characterize the church today and its leaders.

To be fair to Ahaz, we must admit that he faced many challenges since Judah was attacked successively by Aram (with its capital in Damascus), the northern kingdom of Israel, Edom and the Philistines. But rather than relying on God's power as Isaiah had counseled him, Ahaz decided to form an alliance with the Assyrians by giving them money out of the temple treasury in return for military help. At this point in the story, there is a sharp contrast between what II Kings and II Chronicles say regarding this treaty:

    “The king of Assyria heeded him and marched against Damascus. He took it, carried its people captive to Kir, and then killed Rezin [its king].” II Kings 16:9

    “So King Tilgath-pilneser of Assyria came up against him [Ahaz] and oppressed him instead of strengthening him. This was because Ahaz had plundered the house of the LORD...and given tribute to the king of Assyria; but it did not help.” II Chronicles 28:20-21

So which account is correct? Did the alliance with the Assyrians help or hurt Judah? As Williamson said, “such a policy secured relief from one direction only to open the door to an even worse disaster in the other.” And Oswalt puts it another way: “Ahaz could not see the long-range issues. He could only see in the short range, and he was to pay the full price for his short-sightedness.” P.R. House concurs with these opinions when he explains, “Judah, Ammon, and Moab benefit temporarily from Assyria's victory...Such 'freedom' comes with a high price, however...since all these nations are now directly under Assyria's authority.”

Ahaz made the same Faustian bargain with Assyria that a large chunk of American evangelicals and their leaders have been making with politicians for years. We seem to be more than willing to give votes, money and vocal support to anyone who promises to push our moral agenda despite their own obvious moral failings. In return, we may get a short-term return for our time and resources if we are fortunate. But it is at the high price of trading in our prophetic witness to the world and causing us to being looked on in disgust by those to whom we should be presenting a winsome and welcoming face.

I find it interesting to look back on President Nixon's downfall. If you recall, he was a favorite of many evangelical leaders until the secret White House tapes were made public. One famous evangelist, who will remain nameless, was utterly horrified by what was revealed in those private conversations of Nixon with his staff. But what totally turned that evangelist off was not the attempt to cover up a crime designed to influence the election results or even Nixon's snide comments regarding the gullible Christians who had supported him. No, the only thing that upset this church leader was the crude language that Nixon had used. I think it is time that we got our priorities back on track.

While I am on my soapbox (and thankfully for you I don't do it too often), the second lesson for the church revealed in King Ahaz' reign is described in II Kings 16:10-18. The Assyrian leader apparently invites Ahaz to visit Damascus, the scene of the Assyrian conquest. While there, Ahaz sees an altar and is quite taken with the design. He makes a copy and sends it to his architect so that an identical one can be built in Judah for him to worship at.

At this point, my strong temptation is to move forward to the modern application I had in mind to make from these verses. However, honesty makes me admit that there is a sharp difference of opinion between scholars regarding the exact import of what happened in Damascus. These differences seem to boil down to three competing interpretations of the event:

1. What Ahaz saw in Damascus was an Assyrian altar set up by Tiglath-pileser after his conquest of the Aramaeans. And since it was customary, or even compulsory for vassal states of Assyria to adopt worship of the Assyrian gods, Ahaz went ahead and imported that sort of pagan worship to Judah. This view sees no relationship between II Kings 16:10-18 and II Chronicles 28:23, which states that Ahaz worshiped the gods of Damascus. There are many Bible scholars who hold to this interpretation, such as Ellul, House, LaSor, Oswalt, and Waite.

Three major problems with this view are that (a) there doesn't seem to be enough time between Assyria's conquest of Damascus and Ahaz' visit for them to have constructed a brand new altar in the Assyrian mode; (b) there is no historical record even hinting that the Assyrians imposed worship of their gods on her vassal states; and (c) the temple worship of Yahweh continued uninterrupted at Jerusalem except for the change in architecture.

2. What Ahaz saw in Damascus was an Aramaean altar, and he liked its modern style and imported it for temple worship of Yahweh at Jerusalem. However, “this importation becomes for our author [of II Chronicles] a worship of the gods of Aram because of their apparent superiority over the God of Israel.” (Myers)

Although this view appears to be more plausible than that of #1, (a) there is no direct proof that there is a direct parallel between the accounts in II Kings 16:10-18 and II Chronicles 28:23; (b) it would make little sense for Ahaz to have begun worship of an Aramaean god because of its apparent strength just after that same god had obviously not been able to save Damascus from the Assyrians; and (c) temple worship of Yahweh carried on as usual after the change of altar.

3. The design that Ahaz copied was of an Aramaean altar and, “The construction of this new altar of striking dimensions...should be viewed as motivated rather by a spirit of assimilation to the current international fashion.” (Cogan and Tadmor) The comment in II Corinthians regarding the worship of Aramaean gods probably refers to the earlier time period just after Damascus had defeated Judah. Ellison concurs with this view. The main difference between views #2 and 3 is whether there is any relationship between the II Kings account and II Chronicles 28:23.

I see another great temptation to the modern church in this incident (assuming either the second or the third school of interpretation) – the desire to constantly borrow novel ideas and trends from the world and try to adapt them to church practices and teachings. One church which I attended for years was especially addicted to that mode of operation. Almost all of the elders were independent businessmen, and so one time the members of the congregation were subjected to a customer satisfaction survey. The results of this survey revealed that the one thing above all that we wanted was excellence in performance during Sunday morning worship services. The whole premise of this exercise, which can work well in a business setting, was flawed from the beginning. As our current pastor never tires of reminding us, during worship service all of us are the “performers” for an audience of one – God. It is not the staff who are performing for us.

As a result of that particular survey, our pastor at the time (who was indeed a perfectionist in his sermon presentations) actually gave us the identical sermon two Sundays in a row since the first time he had been suffering from a mild cold and happened to stumble over his words once or twice. So to salvage his personal ego, we had to listen to the same message twice.

Then the elders decided to do a cost-benefit analysis on the staff to see how much value they were adding to the church. As a result of that exercise the minister in charge of pastoral care, an excellent pastor and a godly man, was fired and his job responsibilities given to another pastor who was already in charge of both the music ministry and missions (another loss-leader item that soon took a back seat in the church priorities). A little later, a further cost-benefit analysis revealed that the church was probably catering too much to the elderly in the congregation who were on a fixed income. And so, the traditional worship service was disbanded, and the music minister (who believed in a good balance of recent worship songs and classic hymns) was fired.

Jacques Ellul points out the similarity between this attitude and that of King Ahaz: “He sought above all things efficiency at the human level,” but “we cannot separate our objectives from the person of Jesus Christ. Peace and justice [or whatever other goals we set for ourselves as a church]...have no importance or value in themselves.”

The same sort of looking for the latest and greatest trend carried over to the actual teaching in the church. A new best-selling Christian book had come out written by a popular speaker. In fact, the book was roundly criticized by most evangelical scholars as totally misconstruing biblical teachings. However, some of the church elders loved it and decided that several of the on-going Sunday school classes would have to give up their classroom space in order that some of the elders could present a series of lessons on the book, even though these elders were not exactly gifted as teachers.

The elders presented their series and then just failed show up after the last presentation, leaving those who had left their regular classes in order to attend these special teachings wandering around asking people in the other classes if we knew where their teachers were. Basically, the elders just did their thing and then left once they had thoroughly disrupted the other Sunday school classes.

We should keep in mind that the “latest and greatest” is usually one of the first things to become passe'.

 

MUTES IN THE BIBLE

Although the New Testament records the fact that Jesus healed mutes along with those who were blind, as far as I know there are only two in the Bible actually mentioned by name: Ezekiel (3:22-27; 24:25-27; 33:21-22) and Zechariah (Luke 1:5-23). And both of these were only struck mute for a limited period of time.

Ezekiel

S.L. Cook summarizes the situation for this prophet as follows: “Ezekiel's speechless state has been a scholarly conundrum [Zimmerli similarly states that this paragraph is “one of the most difficult passages in the whole book.”]...He must fall speechless, and let the scroll that he has swallowed (2:8b-33) have its fulfillment...The judgments of the swallowed scroll play themselves out in the first half of Ezekiel, after which he regains his speech (24:25-27; 33:21-22).”

Greenberg explains the reason God would not allow Ezekiel to warn the people when he states that “here reproof is checked by a moral motive: the people do not deserve it, for they are a rebellious house.”

But Bullock asks about the most puzzling aspect of this event: “So in what sense was Ezekiel dumb? Five lines of argument have been followed to solve the problem.” These are summarized below:

    1. There was total prophetic inactivity from 592-586, when Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians.

    2. This passage was misplaced from either Ezekiel 24 or 33. That would considerably shorten Ezekiel's period of speechlessness.

    3. Ezekiel was only intermittently dumb during the seven years.

    4. “His dumbness consisted in the inhibition against public reproof of Israel that summoned her to repentance. In a sense, it was cancellation of his public role as watchman (3:17-21) until he was reinstated to that office just prior to his release from silence.”

Bullock, quoted above, opts for this last explanation while a number of other influential scholars such as F.F. Bruce, Chisholm, and Greenberg prefer option #3. And whichever the case may be, Block clarifies the situation by saying, “There is no association with dumbness. His speech is limited not physically or psychologically, but only by God's giving or withholding authorization.” By the way, Block's comment brings up yet a fifth way to explain Ezekiel's experience that has been proposed over the years:

    5. Ezekiel's mute state was due to a psychological condition.

Block states, “For a century psychoanalysts have had a field day with Ezekiel...Although the psychoanalytical approach has lost most of its support in recent years, the conviction that Ezekiel was a sick man persists.” Tiemeyer summarizes the various schools of opinion regarding Ezekiel's condition as due to post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from the forced exile or from sexual abuse as a child. Others diagnose him as a psychotic who suffered from paranoia.

Zechariah

This New Testament example of muteness appears on the surface to be quite different. The priest Zechariah is serving in the temple when an angel appears to him and tells him that his wife will have a child who will be the forerunner of the Messiah. His response bears a strong echo to that of Moses when he was confronted by God in the burning bush incident: “How will I know that this is so?” Since God had honored similar requests for a sign from various OT personages, we should not, therefore, regard Zechariah's request simply as a sign of lack of faith, or his dumbness simply as a punishment for unbelief. These elements are certainly present (see 1:20), but in fact a sign is given which also serves the additional purpose of concealing the wonder of what was to happen until the appropriate time.

Geldenhuys says, “Because Zachariah...did not believe, a sign will indeed be given him, but at the same time the sign will serve as chastisement for his unbelief...This chastisement, however, serves to cleanse him from his unbelief.” And Fitzmyer adds: “The further implication in the action is that God himself closes the lips of Zechariah to conceal from human beings what he is about – for a time at least.”

Similarities

By considering the two stories together, one can now see that there is at least one strong bond between them. In both cases, God gives an important message to his designated representatives (a prophet and a priest) but then purposely prohibits them from sharing it with others until a certain key event has taken place. At that point, their temporary muteness is removed as a confirming sign to the people that it was God's doing.

The only major difference between the two situations is that while God also uses the muteness to punish Zechariah for his unbelief, we see no such implication in the story of Ezekiel. Or do we? At this point I am highly indebted to Block for his additional insight into Ezekiel's case. Block points out that Ezekiel had initially been given his commission to speak prophetically in Ezek. 3:15. But instead, the prophet refused to do so until seven days had transpired. Therefore the reluctant prophet is condemned to undergo seven years of silence except when God called for it. “In the sign-act Ezekiel will symbolically carry the iniquity of his people one day for every year of rebellion.” Thus, both personages had to suffer for their own faults while they were, at the same time, serving as a sign for the people of Israel as a whole, a sign of judgment in the first case and one of hope in the second.

 

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON THE BEATITUDES (MATTHEW 5:1-12)

 

Some time ago I posted a lesson entitled “Matthew 5:1-12: The Beatitudes.” But as Rebekah Eklund writes in Christianity Today in excerpts from her book The Beatitudes Through the Ages, “the Beatitudes are more complex than they first appear. They are (like all of Scripture) inexhaustibly rich. The deeper you dig, the more they yield.” So here are some additional thoughts on the subject from Eklund, those she cites, and other sources.

One insight that is rather obvious in retrospect is pointed out by Sam Wells. It can be pictured below:

PAST                                                                       PRESENT    FUTURE

Blessed are the poor in spirit                                      ,                for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are the meek                                                  ,                 for they will inherit the earth.

Blessed are those who hunger...for righteousness     ,                 for they will be filled.

Blessed are the merciful                                            ,                  for they will receive mercy.

Blessed are the pure in heart                                     ,                  for they will see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers                                    ,                  for they will be called children of God.

Blessed are those who are persecuted...                   ,                  for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

For Wells, the first part of each beatitude represents the Cross while the last half is the Resurrection. And this can apply to our lives also.

The first and last of Matthew's beatitudes are in the present tense while the others are in the future tense. But even in these two cases, according to some, the last phrase should probably read, “the Kingdom will consist of such as these.” Both present and future aspects to the kingdom are stressed in George Eldon Ladd's book, the aptly named The Presence of the Future. And therefore, we are living in the in-between space, where the comma is found.

Eklund says, “Life in the middle of the Cross and the Resurrection is not easy, but it is joyful. It is deeply painful but also beautiful.” She illustrates this with the examples of two godly women “who live on both sides of the Beatitudes: mourning and comforting, making peace and needed it, offering mercy and receiving it.”

Then J. Nolland approaches the Beatitudes from another perspective when he says that “they can be seen as an expanded restatement of Matthew 4:17. This is what it means for the kingdom of God to have drawn near...The list seems to have been designed to echo key elements of the historical experience of God's people chastened by the humiliation of exile and beyond; longing for God to finally put things to rights; peacemakers, not after vengeance because they have recognized their own need for mercy; well conscious of past failure, now seeking to be pure in heart; and ready to suffer, as needs be, out of their freshly affirmed loyalty to God.

On a different front, I came across this perceptive thought from Richard Lischer of Duke University Divinity School: “When the Beatitudes are reduced to virtues or the maxims of positive thinking, the rest of the Sermon is lost as well. Then the sayings about purity, love, generosity, piety and all the others can no longer be understood as representative portraits of the new community's daily life of discipleship. Rather they become new rules, and as rules they inevitably produce the predictable forms of ethical activism, anguish, or security – depending on the species of self-deception at work in the hearer.”

Finally, de Roo summarizes some findings from fragments of the Dead Sea scrolls labeled the Beatitudes Text. “They recall the famous collections of beatitudes in Matthew 5:3-10 and Luke 6:20-23. However, unlike the NT makarisms [a more scholarly term for beatitudes], the Qumran beatitudes do not tell us why the person in question is blessed. The Qumran beatitudes remind us even more of those found in Sirach 14:20-27 [an OT apocryphal book] and in Proverbs 3:13 and 8:32, 84, which unlike the NT makarisms, also have 'the pursuit of wisdom' as a theme.”

It is the fact that new insights seem to pop up every day helping us to understand God's Word that keeps me reading and attending church and Sunday school on a regular basis. And I would urge all believers to keep doing the same. When we think we have learned it all and are content to rest in our limited knowledge of God's will, that is the time our Christian life begins to stagnate.

KING AHAZ (II KINGS 16; II CHRONICLES 28)

 

If anyone doubts that there have been no changes in the attitude of God's people toward society and politics over the year, they have only to consider the reign of King Ahaz of Judah approximately 2,750 years ago. The kings of Judah and Israel during the Divided Monarchy were for the most part sad successors to King David in every way. However, Ahaz hit a new low even though the prophets Isaiah, Hosea and Micah were active during that time period, and Isaiah pleaded with Ahaz personally to change his evil ways (Isaiah 7:1-12).

Both II Kings 16 and the corresponding passage in II Chronicles 28 outline a whole litany of Ahaz' sins including even child sacrifice. But I would just like to highlight two incidents that, at least in my own mind, illustrate faults that characterize the church today and its leaders.

To be fair to Ahaz, we must admit that he faced many challenges since Judah was attacked successively by Aram (with its capital in Damascus), the northern kingdom of Israel, Edom and the Philistines. But rather than relying on God's power as Isaiah had counseled him, Ahaz decided to form an alliance with the Assyrians by giving them money out of the temple treasury in return for military help. At this point in the story, there is a sharp contrast between what II Kings and II Chronicles say regarding this treaty:

“The king of Assyria heeded him and marched against Damascus. He took it, carried its people captive to Kir, and then killed Rezin [its king].” II Kings 16:9

“So King Tilgath-pilneser of Assyria came up against him [Ahaz] and oppressed him instead of strengthening him. This was because Ahaz had plundered the house of the LORD...and given tribute to the king of Assyria; but it did not help.” II Chronicles 28:20-21

So which account is correct? Did the alliance with the Assyrians help or hurt Judah? As Williamson said, “such a policy secured relief from one direction only to open the door to an even worse disaster in the other.” And Oswalt puts it another way: “Ahaz could not see the long-range issues. He could only see in the short range, and he was to pay the full price for his short-sightedness.” P.R. House concurs with these opinions when he explains, “Judah, Ammon, and Moab benefit temporarily from Assyria's victory...Such 'freedom' comes with a high price, however...since all these nations are now directly under Assyria's authority.”

Ahaz made the same Faustian bargain with Assyria that a large chunk of American evangelicals and their leaders have been making with politicians for years. We seem to be more than willing to give votes and vocal support to anyone who promises to push our moral agenda despite their own obvious moral failings. In return, we may get a short-term return for our time and resources if we are fortunate. But it is at the high price of trading in our prophetic witness to the world and causing us to being looked on in disgust by those to whom we should be presenting a winsome and welcoming face.

I find it interesting to look back on President Nixon's downfall. If you recall, he was a favorite of many evangelical leaders until the secret White House tapes were made public. One famous evangelist, who will remain nameless, was utterly horrified by what was revealed in those private conversations of Nixon with his staff. But what totally turned that evangelist off was not the attempt to cover up a crime designed to influence the election results or even Nixon's snide comments regarding the gullible Christians who had supported him. No, the only thing that upset this church leader was the crude language that Nixon had used. I think it is time that we got our priorities back on track.

While I am on my soapbox (and thankfully I don't do it too often), the second lesson for the church revealed in King Ahaz' reign is described in II Kings 16:10-18. The Assyrian leader apparently invites Ahaz to visit Damascus, the scene of the Assyrian conquest. While there, Ahaz sees an altar and is quite taken with the design. He makes a copy and sends it to his architect so that an identical one can be built in Judah for him to worship at.

At this point, my strong temptation is to move forward to the modern application I had in mind to make from these verses. However, honesty makes me admit that there is a sharp difference of opinion between scholars regarding the exact import of what happened in Damascus. These differences seem to boil down to three competing interpretations of the event:

    1. What Ahaz saw in Damascus was an Assyrian altar set up by Tiglath-pileser after his conquest of the Aramaeans. And since it was customary, or even compulsory for vassal states of Assyria to adopt worship of the Assyrian gods, Ahaz went ahead and imported that sort of pagan worship to Judah. This view sees no relationship between II Kings 16:10-18 and II Chronicles 28:23, which states that Ahaz worshiped the gods of Damascus. There are many Bible scholar who hold to this interpretation, such as Ellul, House, LaSor, Oswalt, and Waite.

Three major problems with this view are that (a) there doesn't seem to be enough time between Assyria's conquest of Damascus and Ahaz' visit for them to have constructed a brand new altar in the Assyrian mode; (b) there is no historical record even hinting that the Assyrians imposed worship of their gods on her vassal states; and (c) the temple worship of Yahweh continued uninterrupted at Jerusalem except for the change in architecture.

    2. What Ahaz saw in Damascus was an Aramaean altar, and he liked its modern style and imported it for temple worship of Yahweh at Jerusalem. However, “this importation becomes for our author [of II Chronicles] a worship of the gods of Aram because of their apparent superiority over the God of Israel.” (Myers)

Although this view appears to be more plausible than that of #1, (a) there is no direct proof that there is a direct parallel between the accounts in II Kings 16:10-18 and II Chronicles 28:23; (b) it would make little sense for Ahaz to have begun worship of an Aramaean god because of its apparent strength just after that same god had obviously not been able to save Damascus from the Assyrians; and (c) temple worship of Yahweh carried on as usual after the change of altar.

    3. The design that Ahaz copied was of an Aramaean altar and, “The construction of this new altar of striking dimensions...should be viewed as motivated rather by a spirit of assimilation to the current international fashion.” (Cogan and Tadmor) The comment in II Corinthians regarding the worship of Aramaean gods probably refers to the earlier time period just after Damascus had defeated Judah. Ellison concurs with this view. The main difference between views #2 and 3 is whether there is any relationship between the II Kings account and II Chronicles 28:23.

I see another great temptation to the modern church in this incident (assuming either the second or the third school of interpretation) – the desire to constantly borrow novel ideas and trends from the world and try to adapt them to church practices and teachings. One church which I attended for years was especially addicted to that mode of operation. Almost all of the elders were independent businessmen, and so one time the members of the congregation were subjected to a customer satisfaction survey. The results of this survey revealed that the one thing above all that we wanted was excellence in performance during Sunday morning worship services. The whole premise of this exercise, which can work well in a business setting, was flawed from the beginning. As our current pastor never tires of reminding us, during worship service all of us are the “performers” for an audience of one – God. It is not the staff who is performing for us.

As a result of that particular survey, our pastor at the time (who was indeed a perfectionist in his sermon presentations) actually gave us the identical sermon two Sundays in a row since the first time he had been suffering from a mild cold and happened to stumble over his words once or twice. So to salvage his personal ego, we had to listen to the same thing twice.

Then the elders decided to do a cost-benefit analysis on the staff to see how much value they were adding to the church. As a result of that exercise the minister in charge of pastoral care, an excellent pastor and a godly man, was fired and his job responsibilities given to another pastor who was already in charge of both the music ministry and missions (another loss-leader item that soon took a back seat in the church priorities). A little later, a further cost-benefit analysis revealed that the church was probably catering too much to the elderly in the congregation who were on a fixed income. And so, the traditional worship service was disbanded, and the music minister (who believed in a good balance of recent worship songs and classic hymns) was fired.

Jacques Ellul points out the similarity to this attitude and that of King Ahaz: “He sought above all things efficiency at the human level,” but “we cannot separate our objectives from the person of Jesus Christ. Peace and justice [or whatever other goals we set for ourselves as a church]...have no importance or value in themselves.”

The same sort of looking for the latest and greatest trend carried over to the actual teaching in the church. A new best-selling Christian book had come out written by a popular speaker. In fact, the book was roundly criticized by most evangelical scholars as totally misconstruing biblical teachings. However, some of the church elders loved it and decided that several of the on-going Sunday school classes would have to give up their classroom space in order that the elders could present a series of lessons on the book, even though these elders were not exactly gifted as teachers.

The elders presented their series and then just failed show up the following Sunday, leaving those who had left their regular classes in order to attend these presentations wandering around asking people in the other classes if we knew where their teachers were. Basically, the elders just did their thing and then left once they had thoroughly disrupted the other Sunday school classes.

We should keep in mind that the “latest and greatest” is usually one of the first things to become passe'.

 

MARK 14-15: RICH WITH EMBARRASSMENTS

The day after I decided that the above title might be a good description of these two chapters, I coincidentally came across the phrase “embarrassment of riches” in a novel I was reading. I chose to take it as a sign from God that perhaps I was on the right track in seeing several variations on the general theme of shame encountered in this account of the arrest and trial of Jesus.

I had not noticed until I re-read these verses that it wasn't only Peter who vowed never to deny his Lord. Mark 14:31b says that all the other apostles agreed with Peter. We know how humiliated Peter felt after he had actually done that three times in short succession. Mark 15:72 says that he broke down and wept. And, of course, 14:50 says that the rest of them deserted Jesus and fled.

However, even before the arrest, Peter, James and John were asked to stay awake with Jesus while he was praying in the garden. And they kept falling asleep even after being chastised by Jesus three times. And yet, we hear no word from Mark as to whether they felt embarrassed for their inability to do even that one small thing the Lord asked of them.

The remaining apostle is, of course, Judas Iscariot. He appears to exhibit absolutely no shame for betraying Jesus to the authorities even though he obviously knew what they had in mind. But we learn later that he went far beyond mere embarrassment for his action, leading to utter despair and suicide.

In Mark 14:51-52, we run across this small incident not recorded in any of the other gospel accounts of a young follower running away from the authorities while leaving his clothing behind. The main question is not why the other evangelists ignore this event, but why Mark bothered to include it at all. At this point, I admit that I am not entirely alone in suggesting that the obvious solution is that the young man was in fact Mark himself.

The points in favor of such an identification are as follows:

    The upper room location for the Last Supper appears to have been chosen in advance with secrecy in mind.

    Whoever followed Jesus and the apostles to the Garden had to have done so by trailing them from that house.

    When the apostles returned to Jerusalem waiting for the risen Jesus, we know that they were staying at the house of John Mark's mother.

    It is probable that it is also the house where the Last Supper was held.

Thus, Mark records this highly embarrassing fact regarding his ignoble departure as an act of partial atonement for his actions.

Of all the people present in these two chapters, it is the members of the Sanhedrin who certainly had the most reason for being ashamed of their actions. These spiritual leaders of the nation actually broke three of the Ten Commandments during the trial. They conspired to murder an innocent man, colluded with false witnesses against him, and did it all because they coveted Jesus' sway over the people which robbed them of their own positions of power. Yet seemingly, they showed absolutely no shame for their actions.

But there were two exceptions: Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, both members of the Sanhedrin who had presumably agreed with the actions of the others. We know that the two of them later risked their standing in the eyes of their fellow leaders by seeing that Jesus' body was properly buried. This act of love even went beyond that of Mark in attempting to atone for their embarrassing complicity in condemning Jesus.

Then we run into that secular leader Pontius Pilate, Roman governor of the region. In the various biblical accounts of his behavior, I think we can see a person who is intent on freeing Jesus, not so much because he feels that Jesus is innocent of all the charges against him, but probably in order to put the religious leaders to shame. But despite all of his maneuvers to do so, he is forced to condemn Jesus to death anyway. So in a last attempt to disgrace the high priest and his cronies and salvage his own ego, Pilate words the plaque over Jesus' cross in such a way as to cause them maximum chagrin, and the ploy is highly successful. It is a battle of wills in which neither party comes across very well in the eyes of the beholder.

If Pilate was not already acutely embarrassed by the whole incident, I would bet that he suffered even more embarrassment when he went home that day and had to admit to his wife (who had warned him beforehand not to have anything to do with Jesus) that he had caved in to the combined pressure from the Sanhedrin and the crowd. So much for the powerful representative of the Roman Empire!

Speaking of the crowd who clambered for Jesus' execution, I think that it is highly probable that many of them had been among the throngs who had just recently greeted Jesus at his triumphant entry into Jerusalem, hoping that he would rescue them from the oppressive Roman rule. Their turn about face could have been due to the embarrassed feeling that they had been duped by a pretender. However, I would like to also believe that some in that same crowd were also present during Peter's sermon at the Day of Pentacost and responded positively in faith when they realized to their shame what they had done.

There are two more characters in this drama who I have not yet mentioned: Jesus and Malchus, the servant of the high priest. Of course, Jesus has nothing at all to be embarrassed about despite the best attempts of the worldly authorities at the time to hold him up to public disgrace and humiliation. Interestingly, the famous American playwright Thornton Wilder once wrote a little one-act play for performance in churches called “Now the Servant's Name was Malchus.” It is a piece of fanciful fiction, but enlightening nevertheless. Malchus is in heaven and he approaches Christ with a request that his name be erased from the biblical account of the arrest since he feels that every time people read the story of his ear being cut off, he is embarrassed because he comes off as being a ridiculous character.

Christ's reply is that he himself appears to many people to be ridiculous also since they feel that he is suffering from the delusion that he could save people after his death. Jesus concludes by saying, “Malchus, will you stay and be ridiculous with me?” In fact, that is what Jesus says to all of us today. Will we be willing to be counted with Jesus even though it may cause us some embarrassment in the eyes of those around us?

RESURRECTION IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

 

The concept of a bodily resurrection is well documented in the New Testament, but only dimly present in the Old Testament. Some would say that it is missing altogether there and was a theological innovation the Jews began to borrow from pagan cultures during the time of the Exile. With that brief introduction, here are some OT texts to consider.

There are three incidents during the ministries of Elijah and Elisha (see I Kings 17:22; II Kings 4:35; 13:21) in which the prophets were used to resuscitate people within a few hours of death. These were not examples of true resurrection, in that these people eventually died. However, it certainly demonstrates that God has the power to restore to full functionality a body even after all activity has ceased and cells begin dying.

Moving from the OT history books to the the writing prophets, we see teachings that seem to indicate the belief in some sort of an afterlife:

P.S. Johnston notes that Isaiah 25:7-9 predicts a time when God will “swallow up death forever.”

In the following chapter (Isaiah 26:19), God says, “Your dead shall live, their corpses shall rise.” Johnston responds: “The imagery clearly envisages the personal resurrection from death of at least some Israelites. The application may be national, but the imagery presupposes a concept of individual resurrection.”

Finally, Isaiah 53:10-11 concerning the suffering servant of God (felt to be a messianic image by most evangelical scholars) indicates that this personage would return to life, even if the exact form of that renewed existence is not specified in the text.

In Ezekiel 37, the prophet is shown a vision of a valley of dry bones, and God asks him, “Can these bones come back to life.” Ezekiel replies, “You know, O Lord.” This reply can be taken in one of two ways. One is expressed by Johnston, who says, “Whether Ezekiel or his contemporaries had a concept of personal resurrection is irrelevant, though the prophet's cautious reply to Yahweh's opening question makes this unlikely.” On the other hand, S.L. Cook looks at Ezekiel's reply in an entirely different manner: “Ezekiel does not yet realize that this vision refers to the reestablishment of the exiles in their homeland. Thus, the hope of bodily resurrection was already a live possibility for Ezekiel.”

Daniel 12:2, in the mind of many scholars, represents the only clear example in the whole OT of belief in the resurrection.

    “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth will wake, some to everlasting life and some to the reproach of eternal abhorrence.” (NEB)

But even this pronouncement falls somewhat short of predicting a general resurrection for two reasons. In the first place, this statement is prefaced by the words: “But at that moment your people will be delivered, every one who is written in the book.” Thus, it only applies in this verse to the people of Israel, and not even all of them. Johnston feels that it may only be applicable to one specific generation of Israelites. Nevertheless, this passage certainly does go to show that God had already revealed the reality of the resurrection in the OT.

Hosea 6:2 is the remaining prophetic text that has been cited in regard to the resurrection. But it is by no means a definitive example. Hosea pleads with the people to return to the LORD who has struck them down since “after two days he will revive us; on the third day he will rise us up, that we may live before him.” This verse may provide a hint of Jesus' resurrection after three days, but in its immediate context it gives no indication that Hosea is talking about the literal death and resurrection of anyone.

But that is not all that the OT has to say on the subject of personal bodily resurrection. Kaiser turns to the next section in the Bible, the Wisdom Literature, for additional examples.

One of the most famous pronouncements in the book of Job is his statement in Job 19:23-27, which says in part “For I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the last days he will stand on the earth, and after my skin is gone I shall see God in my flesh.” Kaiser remarks, “No text made the point more clearly nor was more hotly contested on textual and hermeneutical grounds.” In other words, there is a raging controversy regarding not only which Hebrew text to go with, but also how to interpret that text even it it could be pinned down with certainly. I won't go into all the details at this point since it constitutes a major subject all on its own.

Interestingly, Kaiser points to what he feels is an even stronger indication of resurrection found in the OT, but still within the book of Job. Job 14:7 says, “If a tree be cut down, there is hope for it that it will sprout again.” That verse by itself is not exactly definitive, but it takes on new significance when it is connected with v. 14 later in the same passage: “If a man die,will he live again? All my days of toil I will await until my sprouting will come.”

A final wisdom passage is Ecclesiastes 3:17-22 regarding the fact that the spirit of man goes upward while a beast's life goes downward. This is a powerful expression of faith considering the fact that it comes from the rather cynical and earth-oriented author of that book.

Johnston's conclusion is somewhat more negative than justified by the passages above, but I will quote it anyway: Thus, resurrection and life after death remained marginal to OT belief, whether chronologically or theologically, and awaited exploration in intertestamental literature and resolution in the NT.