Save that thought! I just had a thought that may have implications about eschatology. The word "end" in the Bible - it seems it doesn't always literally mean "end" but can also mean "future" or "outcome".
For example:
When God promised Israel through the prophet Jeremiah, "For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end", He wasn't only talking about Israel's final end - He was also talking about what the outcome would be for Israel, what Israel's future - spanning a considerable period of time - would be.
When James exhorted, "...ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy..." he wasn't referring to the literal end of Job's life - He was referring to the outcome of the whole saga of the Book of Job, which was the restoration of all things that lasted a considerable number of years thereafter in Job's life.
When Paul exhorted, "Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation", he wasn't meaning that they all died, although some of them may have died already - rather, he was meaning to consider the fruit, or outcome in their lives of the faith they were living by.
"End" doesn't necessarily mean the chronological demise of something - but it may refer to its "future outcome" - a state which, once started, may continue for quite a long time before its final "end" comes.
For futher research:
So, when the disciples asked Jesus concerning the destruction of the Temple and the "end" of the world, could it be that part of Jesus' answer (in Matthew 24) was not exclusively about the literal "end" of the world but could some of it also have been about the "future outcome" of the world? After all, the disciples' questions seemed to be prompted by Jesus' initial predictions about the Temple, not about the whole world.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Saturday, March 06, 2010
Three Points of Law and the Manner in Which We as New-Testament Believers Fulfill Them
Just a further comment about the way in which we DO fulfill all of the particular points of Law singled-out in the above article. We don't, as the article says, accept only part of the Law as inspired and authoritative while shrugging off another part of it. That's not what God's grace taught us to do. As we walk in the Spirit - walk in love - we fulfill the ethics that formed the basis of every single point of the Law. We may express some of those ethics through a different vehicle now that we are under a New Covenant - but the underlying moral ethic is unchangeable, and by God's grace we as New Testament believers have been graciously enabled to fulfill all of those ethics to the full.
The article cited the death penalty for male homosexuality. It's not that we shrug-off the Law's punishment for homosexuality as being "uninspired" or outdated - rather, we see mercy as having triumphed over judgment - the righteousness of the Law was fulfilled without altering the demand of the Law, through Christ's substitutionary death on the cross. We still consider homosexuality to be a sin ethically worthy of death, but we see the punishment of the Law as having been carried for us substitutionally by Christ. Thus, the whole ethic of the Law - including its punishment - is completely fulfilled by us. Our sins are forgiven. (That doesn't necessarily mean however that the crime of homosexuality, or any other crime, should no longer be punishable by a civil court.)
The article also cited the Law's death penalty for juvenile rebellion, as another alleged example of our inconsistency. First of all, that point of Law actually prevented the very thing which it is often misconstrued as condoning. Prior to Moses' day, honour-killings by family members were taking place in almost pandemic proportions across the Gentile nations - and it still occurs even today in some cultures. That particular point of Law prevented incidences of honour-killings from ever taking place in Israel. The parents were instead restricted to presenting the juvenile to the Elders, and a public statement had to be made. Obviously the statement included the inference that attempts at rehabilitation had failed. They would bring their son to the Elders knowing full well what the ramifications would be for their son. Obviously no parent would go to all that trouble lightly. It therefore prevented sudden, irrational, angry, proud killings by family members against their own. It guaranteed that only the most serious, worthy cases ever made it to the Courts. In fact, there is no recorded case in the Old Testament of this procedure ever being carried-out. It encouraged family-members to work it out at home. The intent of the Law was therefore merciful, rather than harsh. As for the death penalty - again, it's not that we as New Testament believers now see that particular point of Law as an injustice. We still see it as justtice - however we consider the ethic of punishment to have been fulfilled through Christ's substitutionary death on Calvary. We therefore uphold the ethic and the moral of the Law. Thus our sins are forgiven, without having to pick-and-choose which part of the Law we want to keep. (But again, that doesn't necessarily mean that juvenile crime, and other crimes, should no longer be punishable by a Civil court.) ... See More
Finally, the article mentions the Law's prohibition against wearing mixed-fabrics, and states that since modern Christians don't abide by that particular point of Law, homosexuality also is therefore justifiable. But actually, we do fulfill the ethic that was behind that point of Law also. There are many points in the Law which were not in themselves a moral ethic, but which served to illustrate a deeper, unchanging moral ethic.
(For example, circumcision. There was nothing moral or immoral about circumcision itself. It's significance, under the Old Testament, was COVENANTAL and symbolic. Under the New Covenant, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision makes any covenantal difference. The ethic that was symbolized through the Old Covenant practice of circumcision is fulfilled in us through baptism and through sanctification of the flesh and spirit.
Another example of this is the point of Law which said, "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth the corn". Paul's comment about this verse was that God didn't give Israel that point of Law because He cared for oxen alone. Moses wrote it to illustrate their ethical responsibility to pay their labourers. Paul then applied this Law which seemed to be about oxen to a New Testament setting and used it in support of his assertion that preachers of the Gospel have the right to earn a living from the ministry.
The Laws of blood-sacrifices are in the same category. We fulfill the true intent of those Law, not through continuing to bring blood-offerings, but through our acknowledgment of that one great sacrifice which they were meant to foreshadow.)
The Law against mixed-fabrics is probably in the same category. It isn't morally wrong that we now wear mixed fabrics, that we do or don't get circumcized, and that we don't bring blood-sacrifiices - because we fulfill the true ethic that was inherent in each of those Laws, in another way. The point behind prohibiting mixed-fabrics in Israel was to serve as an illustration of moral and ethical DISTINCTION, similar to the way in which circumcision did. There was an unchanging distinction between right and wrong. There was an unchanging distinction between holy and profane. Through the prohibitions against wearing mixed-fabrics, God gave them a symbol of the importance of that truth.
Wearing mixed-fabrics was not as simple in those days as going down to the shop and buying an item of clothing as we do, often without taking too much notice about the makeup of the fabric. In those days, the effort it took to manufacture mixed fabrics very often would have in itself been loaded with other intent. Like cutting the corners of one's beard, it was in itself, in those days, somewhat symbolic of an ethical statement. It spoke of mixed-allegiances; of twisted, mixed morals. That's the type of social and religious disorder which Moses was giving Israel a symbolic reminder of through this particular point of Law.
Now that we are under a New Covenant, we embrace that same truth - but through a different vehicle. We express it through our appreciation of the cross, where God made a distinction by judging sin on the cross in the body of His Son so that we could be justified by His resurrection from the dead by the spirit of holiness. We fulfill this Law by praising God for having sanctified us as a peculiar, distinct people, as a holy, distinct priesthood. We fulfill it through doing good, holy works and by not practising, teaching or condoning sin as if it wasn't distinguished from holiness. In this way, we as New Testament believers do fulfill the ethic, the moral, of that particular point of Law (against mixed-fabrics). In fact - we ARE the fulfillment of that particular point of Law. (But that doesn't mean there might not also be some physical advantages of one fabric over another's).
By God's grace, through the efficacy of the cross, we DO fulfill all of the Law in every way. The above article is therefore wrong in its conclusion that the Laws prohibiting homosexuality are either uninspired, unauthoritative, or non-applicable in modern society. Like every part of the Law, Jesus didn't come to destroy it, but to fulfill it. The ethic of heterosexuality carries through into the writings of the New Testament. Adultery, fornication, homosexuality, and all uncleanness are taught in the New Testament as being sins.
God's grace didn't change the definition of sin - God's grace gave us power over sin, freely through Jesus Christ.
The article cited the death penalty for male homosexuality. It's not that we shrug-off the Law's punishment for homosexuality as being "uninspired" or outdated - rather, we see mercy as having triumphed over judgment - the righteousness of the Law was fulfilled without altering the demand of the Law, through Christ's substitutionary death on the cross. We still consider homosexuality to be a sin ethically worthy of death, but we see the punishment of the Law as having been carried for us substitutionally by Christ. Thus, the whole ethic of the Law - including its punishment - is completely fulfilled by us. Our sins are forgiven. (That doesn't necessarily mean however that the crime of homosexuality, or any other crime, should no longer be punishable by a civil court.)
The article also cited the Law's death penalty for juvenile rebellion, as another alleged example of our inconsistency. First of all, that point of Law actually prevented the very thing which it is often misconstrued as condoning. Prior to Moses' day, honour-killings by family members were taking place in almost pandemic proportions across the Gentile nations - and it still occurs even today in some cultures. That particular point of Law prevented incidences of honour-killings from ever taking place in Israel. The parents were instead restricted to presenting the juvenile to the Elders, and a public statement had to be made. Obviously the statement included the inference that attempts at rehabilitation had failed. They would bring their son to the Elders knowing full well what the ramifications would be for their son. Obviously no parent would go to all that trouble lightly. It therefore prevented sudden, irrational, angry, proud killings by family members against their own. It guaranteed that only the most serious, worthy cases ever made it to the Courts. In fact, there is no recorded case in the Old Testament of this procedure ever being carried-out. It encouraged family-members to work it out at home. The intent of the Law was therefore merciful, rather than harsh. As for the death penalty - again, it's not that we as New Testament believers now see that particular point of Law as an injustice. We still see it as justtice - however we consider the ethic of punishment to have been fulfilled through Christ's substitutionary death on Calvary. We therefore uphold the ethic and the moral of the Law. Thus our sins are forgiven, without having to pick-and-choose which part of the Law we want to keep. (But again, that doesn't necessarily mean that juvenile crime, and other crimes, should no longer be punishable by a Civil court.) ... See More
Finally, the article mentions the Law's prohibition against wearing mixed-fabrics, and states that since modern Christians don't abide by that particular point of Law, homosexuality also is therefore justifiable. But actually, we do fulfill the ethic that was behind that point of Law also. There are many points in the Law which were not in themselves a moral ethic, but which served to illustrate a deeper, unchanging moral ethic.
(For example, circumcision. There was nothing moral or immoral about circumcision itself. It's significance, under the Old Testament, was COVENANTAL and symbolic. Under the New Covenant, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision makes any covenantal difference. The ethic that was symbolized through the Old Covenant practice of circumcision is fulfilled in us through baptism and through sanctification of the flesh and spirit.
Another example of this is the point of Law which said, "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth the corn". Paul's comment about this verse was that God didn't give Israel that point of Law because He cared for oxen alone. Moses wrote it to illustrate their ethical responsibility to pay their labourers. Paul then applied this Law which seemed to be about oxen to a New Testament setting and used it in support of his assertion that preachers of the Gospel have the right to earn a living from the ministry.
The Laws of blood-sacrifices are in the same category. We fulfill the true intent of those Law, not through continuing to bring blood-offerings, but through our acknowledgment of that one great sacrifice which they were meant to foreshadow.)
The Law against mixed-fabrics is probably in the same category. It isn't morally wrong that we now wear mixed fabrics, that we do or don't get circumcized, and that we don't bring blood-sacrifiices - because we fulfill the true ethic that was inherent in each of those Laws, in another way. The point behind prohibiting mixed-fabrics in Israel was to serve as an illustration of moral and ethical DISTINCTION, similar to the way in which circumcision did. There was an unchanging distinction between right and wrong. There was an unchanging distinction between holy and profane. Through the prohibitions against wearing mixed-fabrics, God gave them a symbol of the importance of that truth.
Wearing mixed-fabrics was not as simple in those days as going down to the shop and buying an item of clothing as we do, often without taking too much notice about the makeup of the fabric. In those days, the effort it took to manufacture mixed fabrics very often would have in itself been loaded with other intent. Like cutting the corners of one's beard, it was in itself, in those days, somewhat symbolic of an ethical statement. It spoke of mixed-allegiances; of twisted, mixed morals. That's the type of social and religious disorder which Moses was giving Israel a symbolic reminder of through this particular point of Law.
Now that we are under a New Covenant, we embrace that same truth - but through a different vehicle. We express it through our appreciation of the cross, where God made a distinction by judging sin on the cross in the body of His Son so that we could be justified by His resurrection from the dead by the spirit of holiness. We fulfill this Law by praising God for having sanctified us as a peculiar, distinct people, as a holy, distinct priesthood. We fulfill it through doing good, holy works and by not practising, teaching or condoning sin as if it wasn't distinguished from holiness. In this way, we as New Testament believers do fulfill the ethic, the moral, of that particular point of Law (against mixed-fabrics). In fact - we ARE the fulfillment of that particular point of Law. (But that doesn't mean there might not also be some physical advantages of one fabric over another's).
By God's grace, through the efficacy of the cross, we DO fulfill all of the Law in every way. The above article is therefore wrong in its conclusion that the Laws prohibiting homosexuality are either uninspired, unauthoritative, or non-applicable in modern society. Like every part of the Law, Jesus didn't come to destroy it, but to fulfill it. The ethic of heterosexuality carries through into the writings of the New Testament. Adultery, fornication, homosexuality, and all uncleanness are taught in the New Testament as being sins.
God's grace didn't change the definition of sin - God's grace gave us power over sin, freely through Jesus Christ.
Natural Disasters - a Judgment of God?
Are natural disasters a judgment of God? A friend of mine said, "If it looks like judgment, feels like judgment, and acts like judgment - then it is judgment". Something I'll keep in the back of my mind for future thought.
Thursday, March 04, 2010
The Meaning of Grace
I think it means that nothing Jesus ever said or did was intended to be construed as Him putting-aside the requirement of the Law. The religious leaders of the day deliberately misapplied the Law to suit their own lusts. But Jesus brought-out the true spirit of the Law and always fulfilled it perfectly on every point. And He expected no ... See Moreless of His disciples! Jesus didn't want anyone to think that He came to destroy the Law. He said He came to fulfill it. And the message of the Gospel is that through the indwelling Spirit of God, believers too are empowered to fulfill the righteousness of the Law. The Gospel didn't teach us to be licentious towards immorality. God's grace teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts. The Prophets also foresaw the day when God would take out the heart of stone and replace it with a heart of flesh and write His Laws in our hearts and cause us to walk according to the spirit of His precepts and His ordinances. That's the power of the new birth, without which no-one can see the Kingdom of heaven. The Gospel didn't lower the benchmark - it raised us up to the benchmark. Hallelujah! Every point of Moses' Law can be summed-up in one word: love. Therefore love is the fulfilling of the Law. Every point of Law taught Israel something about love. Now that we are under a New Covenant, we may not express all of the points of Law in the same manner that was appropriate under the Old Covenant. We will however express the principle that was illustrated by the Law, in its true meaning - on every point. The Law gave people only a shadow of what it means to walk in love. But the indwelling Spirit does more than that - He actually shed abroad God's love into our very own hearts, enabling us to now walk in love as He walked. Through His exceeding great and precious promises, we have actually been made partakers of the Divine nature. To truly be called His children therefore, we ought to walk as He walked. In the Book of Revelation, we read that Jesus was not happy with any church-member who practised or taught sexual immorality, or who condoned it in others. The message of the Gospel is not a licence to the flesh or a diminutive of the spirit of the Law on any point. In the Book of Revelation the believers were warned not to add to nor diminish anything that was written. Since we live in the Spirit, we can also walk in the Spirit - and the nine fruits of the Spirit will keep us from breaking any principle that was underneath any point of the Law. Grace isn't antinomian - it is Divine empowerment to fulfill the Law in its true, fulfilled spirit. And if we sin - if we confess our sin, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sin and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. How wonderful, how pure, is God's message of love and holiness!
How We Fulfill the Law
Just a further comment about the way in which we DO fulfill all of the particular points of Law singled-out in the above article. We don't, as the article says, accept only part of the Law as inspired and authoritative while shrugging off another part of it. That's not what God's grace taught us to do. As we walk in the Spirit - walk in love - we fulfill the ethics that formed the basis of every single point of the Law. We may express some of those ethics through a different vehicle now that we are under a New Covenant - but the underlying moral ethic is unchangeable, and by God's grace we as New Testament believers have been graciously enabled to fulfill all of those ethics to the full.
The article cited the death penalty for male homosexuality. It's not that we shrug-off the Law's punishment for homosexuality as being "uninspired" or outdated - rather, we see mercy as having triumphed over judgment - the righteousness of the Law was fulfilled without altering the demand of the Law, through Christ's substitutionary death on the cross. We still consider homosexuality to be a sin ethically worthy of death, but we see the punishment of the Law as having been carried for us substitutionally by Christ. Thus, the whole ethic of the Law - including its punishment - is completely fulfilled by us. Our sins are forgiven. (That doesn't necessarily mean however that the crime of homosexuality, or any other crime, should no longer be punishable by a civil court.)
The article also cited the Law's death penalty for juvenile rebellion, as another alleged example of our inconsistency. First of all, that point of Law actually prevented the very thing which it is often misconstrued as condoning. Prior to Moses' day, honour-killings by family members were taking place in almost pandemic proportions across the Gentile nations - and it still occurs even today in some cultures. That particular point of Law prevented incidences of honour-killings from ever taking place in Israel. The parents were instead restricted to presenting the juvenile to the Elders, and a public statement had to be made. Obviously the statement included the inference that attempts at rehabilitation had failed. They would bring their son to the Elders knowing full well what the ramifications would be for their son. Obviously no parent would go to all that trouble lightly. It therefore prevented sudden, irrational, angry, proud killings by family members against their own. It guaranteed that only the most serious, worthy cases ever made it to the Courts. In fact, there is no recorded case in the Old Testament of this procedure ever being carried-out. It encouraged family-members to work it out at home. The intent of the Law was therefore merciful, rather than harsh. As for the death penalty - again, it's not that we as New Testament believers now see that particular point of Law as an injustice. We still see it as justtice - however we consider the ethic of punishment to have been fulfilled through Christ's substitutionary death on Calvary. We therefore uphold the ethic and the moral of the Law. Thus our sins are forgiven, without having to pick-and-choose which part of the Law we want to keep. (But again, that doesn't necessarily mean that juvenile crime, and other crimes, should no longer be punishable by a Civil court.) ... See More
Finally, the article mentions the Law's prohibition against wearing mixed-fabrics, and states that since modern Christians don't abide by that particular point of Law, homosexuality also is therefore justifiable. But actually, we do fulfill the ethic that was behind that point of Law also. There are many points in the Law which were not in themselves a moral ethic, but which served to illustrate a deeper, unchanging moral ethic.
(For example, circumcision. There was nothing moral or immoral about circumcision itself. It's significance, under the Old Testament, was COVENANTAL and symbolic. Under the New Covenant, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision makes any covenantal difference. The ethic that was symbolized through the Old Covenant practice of circumcision is fulfilled in us through baptism and through sanctification of the flesh and spirit.
Another example of this is the point of Law which said, "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth the corn". Paul's comment about this verse was that God didn't give Israel that point of Law because He cared for oxen alone. Moses wrote it to illustrate their ethical responsibility to pay their labourers. Paul then applied this Law which seemed to be about oxen to a New Testament setting and used it in support of his assertion that preachers of the Gospel have the right to earn a living from the ministry.
The Laws of blood-sacrifices are in the same category. We fulfill the true intent of those Law, not through continuing to bring blood-offerings, but through our acknowledgment of that one great sacrifice which they were meant to foreshadow.)
The Law against mixed-fabrics is probably in the same category. It isn't morally wrong that we now wear mixed fabrics, that we do or don't get circumcized, and that we don't bring blood-sacrifiices - because we fulfill the true ethic that was inherent in each of those Laws, in another way. The point behind prohibiting mixed-fabrics in Israel was to serve as an illustration of moral and ethical DISTINCTION, similar to the way in which circumcision did. There was an unchanging distinction between right and wrong. There was an unchanging distinction between holy and profane. Through the prohibitions against wearing mixed-fabrics, God gave them a symbol of the importance of that truth.
Wearing mixed-fabrics was not as simple in those days as going down to the shop and buying an item of clothing as we do, often without taking too much notice about the makeup of the fabric. In those days, the effort it took to manufacture mixed fabrics very often would have in itself been loaded with other intent. Like cutting the corners of one's beard, it was in itself, in those days, somewhat symbolic of an ethical statement. It spoke of mixed-allegiances; of twisted, mixed morals. That's the type of social and religious disorder which Moses was giving Israel a symbolic reminder of through this particular point of Law.
Now that we are under a New Covenant, we embrace that same truth - but through a different vehicle. We express it through our appreciation of the cross, where God made a distinction by judging sin on the cross in the body of His Son so that we could be justified by His resurrection from the dead by the spirit of holiness. We fulfill this Law by praising God for having sanctified us as a peculiar, distinct people, as a holy, distinct priesthood. We fulfill it through doing good, holy works and by not practising, teaching or condoning sin as if it wasn't distinguished from holiness. In this way, we as New Testament believers do fulfill the ethic, the moral, of that particular point of Law (against mixed-fabrics). In fact - we ARE the fulfillment of that particular point of Law. (But that doesn't mean there might not also be some physical advantages of one fabric over another's).
By God's grace, through the efficacy of the cross, we DO fulfill all of the Law in every way. The above article is therefore wrong in its conclusion that the Laws prohibiting homosexuality are either uninspired, unauthoritative, or non-applicable in modern society. Like every part of the Law, Jesus didn't come to destroy it, but to fulfill it. The ethic of heterosexuality carries through into the writings of the New Testament. Adultery, fornication, homosexuality, and all uncleanness are taught in the New Testament as being sins.
God's grace didn't change the definition of sin - God's grace gave us power over sin, freely through Jesus Christ.
The article cited the death penalty for male homosexuality. It's not that we shrug-off the Law's punishment for homosexuality as being "uninspired" or outdated - rather, we see mercy as having triumphed over judgment - the righteousness of the Law was fulfilled without altering the demand of the Law, through Christ's substitutionary death on the cross. We still consider homosexuality to be a sin ethically worthy of death, but we see the punishment of the Law as having been carried for us substitutionally by Christ. Thus, the whole ethic of the Law - including its punishment - is completely fulfilled by us. Our sins are forgiven. (That doesn't necessarily mean however that the crime of homosexuality, or any other crime, should no longer be punishable by a civil court.)
The article also cited the Law's death penalty for juvenile rebellion, as another alleged example of our inconsistency. First of all, that point of Law actually prevented the very thing which it is often misconstrued as condoning. Prior to Moses' day, honour-killings by family members were taking place in almost pandemic proportions across the Gentile nations - and it still occurs even today in some cultures. That particular point of Law prevented incidences of honour-killings from ever taking place in Israel. The parents were instead restricted to presenting the juvenile to the Elders, and a public statement had to be made. Obviously the statement included the inference that attempts at rehabilitation had failed. They would bring their son to the Elders knowing full well what the ramifications would be for their son. Obviously no parent would go to all that trouble lightly. It therefore prevented sudden, irrational, angry, proud killings by family members against their own. It guaranteed that only the most serious, worthy cases ever made it to the Courts. In fact, there is no recorded case in the Old Testament of this procedure ever being carried-out. It encouraged family-members to work it out at home. The intent of the Law was therefore merciful, rather than harsh. As for the death penalty - again, it's not that we as New Testament believers now see that particular point of Law as an injustice. We still see it as justtice - however we consider the ethic of punishment to have been fulfilled through Christ's substitutionary death on Calvary. We therefore uphold the ethic and the moral of the Law. Thus our sins are forgiven, without having to pick-and-choose which part of the Law we want to keep. (But again, that doesn't necessarily mean that juvenile crime, and other crimes, should no longer be punishable by a Civil court.) ... See More
Finally, the article mentions the Law's prohibition against wearing mixed-fabrics, and states that since modern Christians don't abide by that particular point of Law, homosexuality also is therefore justifiable. But actually, we do fulfill the ethic that was behind that point of Law also. There are many points in the Law which were not in themselves a moral ethic, but which served to illustrate a deeper, unchanging moral ethic.
(For example, circumcision. There was nothing moral or immoral about circumcision itself. It's significance, under the Old Testament, was COVENANTAL and symbolic. Under the New Covenant, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision makes any covenantal difference. The ethic that was symbolized through the Old Covenant practice of circumcision is fulfilled in us through baptism and through sanctification of the flesh and spirit.
Another example of this is the point of Law which said, "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth the corn". Paul's comment about this verse was that God didn't give Israel that point of Law because He cared for oxen alone. Moses wrote it to illustrate their ethical responsibility to pay their labourers. Paul then applied this Law which seemed to be about oxen to a New Testament setting and used it in support of his assertion that preachers of the Gospel have the right to earn a living from the ministry.
The Laws of blood-sacrifices are in the same category. We fulfill the true intent of those Law, not through continuing to bring blood-offerings, but through our acknowledgment of that one great sacrifice which they were meant to foreshadow.)
The Law against mixed-fabrics is probably in the same category. It isn't morally wrong that we now wear mixed fabrics, that we do or don't get circumcized, and that we don't bring blood-sacrifiices - because we fulfill the true ethic that was inherent in each of those Laws, in another way. The point behind prohibiting mixed-fabrics in Israel was to serve as an illustration of moral and ethical DISTINCTION, similar to the way in which circumcision did. There was an unchanging distinction between right and wrong. There was an unchanging distinction between holy and profane. Through the prohibitions against wearing mixed-fabrics, God gave them a symbol of the importance of that truth.
Wearing mixed-fabrics was not as simple in those days as going down to the shop and buying an item of clothing as we do, often without taking too much notice about the makeup of the fabric. In those days, the effort it took to manufacture mixed fabrics very often would have in itself been loaded with other intent. Like cutting the corners of one's beard, it was in itself, in those days, somewhat symbolic of an ethical statement. It spoke of mixed-allegiances; of twisted, mixed morals. That's the type of social and religious disorder which Moses was giving Israel a symbolic reminder of through this particular point of Law.
Now that we are under a New Covenant, we embrace that same truth - but through a different vehicle. We express it through our appreciation of the cross, where God made a distinction by judging sin on the cross in the body of His Son so that we could be justified by His resurrection from the dead by the spirit of holiness. We fulfill this Law by praising God for having sanctified us as a peculiar, distinct people, as a holy, distinct priesthood. We fulfill it through doing good, holy works and by not practising, teaching or condoning sin as if it wasn't distinguished from holiness. In this way, we as New Testament believers do fulfill the ethic, the moral, of that particular point of Law (against mixed-fabrics). In fact - we ARE the fulfillment of that particular point of Law. (But that doesn't mean there might not also be some physical advantages of one fabric over another's).
By God's grace, through the efficacy of the cross, we DO fulfill all of the Law in every way. The above article is therefore wrong in its conclusion that the Laws prohibiting homosexuality are either uninspired, unauthoritative, or non-applicable in modern society. Like every part of the Law, Jesus didn't come to destroy it, but to fulfill it. The ethic of heterosexuality carries through into the writings of the New Testament. Adultery, fornication, homosexuality, and all uncleanness are taught in the New Testament as being sins.
God's grace didn't change the definition of sin - God's grace gave us power over sin, freely through Jesus Christ.
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
Christian Communism?
There was certainly a large-scale redistribution of wealth that took place in early Church in Jerusalem.
We could certainly lift our game! What an exciting way to live.
But I don't see it as a mandate for the LEGISLATED redistribution of wealth, like what takes place under Communism and Socialism. Neither do I see it as a mandate for Christian communalism.
I see the giving in Jerusalem more as voluntary, generous, necessary, extraordinary, limited, and unique.
In my mind, Acts 5:4 eliminates that possibility:
"WHILES IT REMAINED, WAS IT NOT THINE OWN? AND AFTER IT WAS SOLD, WAS IT NOT IN THINE OWN POWER?"
It was voluntary. And the means of production remained privately owned.
It wasn't demanded. It wasn't taught. It wasn't repeated elsewhere in the Book of Acts.
But no doubt there are circumstances in which that kind of extravagent giving will again be temporarily called-for in response to some immediate emergency.
Not sure how much the topic interests you, but I might explain my reasoning a bit more...
Ananias and Sapphira were rebuked because they had agreed together to lie to the Holy Spirit - they were never under any compulsion to give. From start to finish, their giving was voluntary. The means of production always remained privately-owned.
The Apostles hadn't demanded it nor did they later make a doctrine out of it. It wasn't repeated by other Churches elsewhere. This didn't become the expected lifestyle for all believers of all times in all places in all circumstances. This wasn't the charter of a new economic system. And there was no taxation involved.
So I guess I don't mind anyone repeating that program of redistribution, so long as they also follow the same example of private ownership and free-will! (Anyone should be allowed to opt-out.) But that's not usually the case under Communism and Socialism is it.
Here is a quote from the People's New Testament Commentary:
"It does not describe a community of goods, but a miraculous benevolence: (1) the goods were not a common fund, but each one had goods that he possessed; (2) he did not say that his goods were his own; (3) they used all as if it belonged to all; (4) there were none that lacked, for (5) those that had houses and lands sold them and brought the proceeds to the apostles. It was a time when a great liberality was called for. Thousands of Jews from abroad had become Christians and must remain at Jerusalem until instructed in the gospel. It was a great emergency, and the church was equal to it, for they brought money, goods, and the proceeds of houses and lands to sustain those who lacked. This continued until God was ready to send them forth, and when the persecution arose about Stephen they went everywhere preaching the word (Ac 8:4)."
Another reason why I'm personally reluctant to take it as a basis for LEGISLATED redistributionism (as an economic strategy or model) is that I don't think DOCTRINE should be founded on historical and poetical books of the Bible alone: I think doctrines ought to be able to be substantiated by clear statements made in the teaching books of the Bible - especially for something as major as a new economic system!
This was an isolated incident in a historical, not doctrinal, book of the Bible, the Book of Acts. Furthermore, even the story itself tells us that this was not compulsory. It wasn't the introduction of a new set of economic rules. It was pure generosity.
The redistribution that took place in Jerusalem was never demanded, taught, repeated, nor mentioned again, not in practice nor in precept.
None of the Gentile churches were mentioned in the Book of Acts as having ever adopted the practice. The Apostles in Jerusalem hadn't demanded it - so neither was it taught in the Epistles to any of the Gentile churches.
Other activities which happened at Jerusalem (such as their habit of continuing in the apostles' teaching; and fellowship; and breaking of bread; and prayers) were later formalized into doctrine by the Episltes and were always repeated by the Churches universally.
But the level of liquidation and sharing of property that took place in Jerusalem did not find an ongoing place in Apostolic doctrine or practice.
This was an extraordinary response to a unique need. Jerusalem was a politically and economically disadvantaged outpost of the Roman Empire.
(It was so poor that even many years after when churches became established among the Gentiles, it was still necessary that the Gentile churches continued the practice of financially supporting the poor in Judaea.)
And to make the need even greater, thousand of visitors from all over the world had just been added to the Church. None of them owned anything in Jerusalem and all of them needed to be housed and fed.
And everyone could sense persecution was brewing. A short time later all the believers except the Apostles fled the city, leaving everything behind.
And then a few decades later, the entire city of Jerusalem was destroyed by Rome. Jesus had forewarned them that this event would take place within their generation.
Liquidating, therefore, was a good strategy. In fact it was their only option.
I know of a time when this happend in Sri Lanka. Believers started feeling led to sell their houses and live in extended-family groups and share their resources. Two years later, the war intensified, people had to flee their lands - and everyone who hadn't sold their houses lost them anyway.
But not everyone in Jerusalem sold everything - or else none of them would have had houses in which to meet. It says they "met daily from house to house".
Phillip was one of those who was present in the early Church at Jerusalem, but later in the Book of Acts we are told that the apostles stayed in Phillip's house where he lived with his four daughters. Evidently then Phillip the Evangelist didn't think Peter had instituted Christian Communism!
Paul didn't instruct the Gentile churches to do as the Jerusalem Church had done. Instead he encouraged them to take advantage of their economic freedom, to "work" with their own hands (something the believers in Jerusalem had little opportunity to do) so they would "have" (i.e., own) so they could then "give" (i.e. voluntarily give) to others.
While he was in Rome he rented his own house. Notice he didn't instruct the church-members that they should be communally sharing all their accommodation with him. He rented his own place - for two full years.
Christian communes usually fizzle out. The Holy Spirit has historically led believers to form temporary communes during emergencies - but not as a blueprint forever.
Wherever Christians have tried to stay in communes beyond their use-by date, problems arose. I think it breaks with Biblical principle - except during emergencies.
For example, after an earthquake and a tsunami, it may be necessary for temporary tent-cities to be set-up and for wealth to be voluntarily redistributed. But that doesn't mean the victims should stay living together and dependant on others for the rest of their lives!
A good example of the problems that can arise was the Plymouth Colony in North America. They tried to base their new society on shared farming-land, on shared produce. That may have been okay during the first season of the colony. But eventually it caused all sorts of problems - including near starvation of the colony. Men lacked motivation to labour to produce food for other men's wives and children. After they reverted to a free-enterprise system, productivity soared - and human inter-relationships improved too. The colony was saved.
Here in Australia where we haven't felt earthquakes, where tsunamis are only 20cm high, where circumstances aren't as bad as those faced by the early Church in Jerusalem - it may be appropriate to use other strategies besides liquidating and redistributing wealth.
Give someone employment. Or train him. Or, help him deal with whatever issues prevent him from staying in a job.
It might require that we give something in the beginning. But eventually the goal should be to help the person become self-sufficient.
Meanwhile there will always be emergencies somewhere, especially overseas. In those circumstances. Acts 2 & 4 will serve as a great example to us.
Actually, the spirit of Acts 2 and 4 can filter through everything we do - even in circumstances when being that radical isn't called-for.
May that faith infiltrate everything we do.
Those are my thoughts so far. I'm open to learning more.
We could certainly lift our game! What an exciting way to live.
But I don't see it as a mandate for the LEGISLATED redistribution of wealth, like what takes place under Communism and Socialism. Neither do I see it as a mandate for Christian communalism.
I see the giving in Jerusalem more as voluntary, generous, necessary, extraordinary, limited, and unique.
In my mind, Acts 5:4 eliminates that possibility:
"WHILES IT REMAINED, WAS IT NOT THINE OWN? AND AFTER IT WAS SOLD, WAS IT NOT IN THINE OWN POWER?"
It was voluntary. And the means of production remained privately owned.
It wasn't demanded. It wasn't taught. It wasn't repeated elsewhere in the Book of Acts.
But no doubt there are circumstances in which that kind of extravagent giving will again be temporarily called-for in response to some immediate emergency.
Not sure how much the topic interests you, but I might explain my reasoning a bit more...
Ananias and Sapphira were rebuked because they had agreed together to lie to the Holy Spirit - they were never under any compulsion to give. From start to finish, their giving was voluntary. The means of production always remained privately-owned.
The Apostles hadn't demanded it nor did they later make a doctrine out of it. It wasn't repeated by other Churches elsewhere. This didn't become the expected lifestyle for all believers of all times in all places in all circumstances. This wasn't the charter of a new economic system. And there was no taxation involved.
So I guess I don't mind anyone repeating that program of redistribution, so long as they also follow the same example of private ownership and free-will! (Anyone should be allowed to opt-out.) But that's not usually the case under Communism and Socialism is it.
Here is a quote from the People's New Testament Commentary:
"It does not describe a community of goods, but a miraculous benevolence: (1) the goods were not a common fund, but each one had goods that he possessed; (2) he did not say that his goods were his own; (3) they used all as if it belonged to all; (4) there were none that lacked, for (5) those that had houses and lands sold them and brought the proceeds to the apostles. It was a time when a great liberality was called for. Thousands of Jews from abroad had become Christians and must remain at Jerusalem until instructed in the gospel. It was a great emergency, and the church was equal to it, for they brought money, goods, and the proceeds of houses and lands to sustain those who lacked. This continued until God was ready to send them forth, and when the persecution arose about Stephen they went everywhere preaching the word (Ac 8:4)."
Another reason why I'm personally reluctant to take it as a basis for LEGISLATED redistributionism (as an economic strategy or model) is that I don't think DOCTRINE should be founded on historical and poetical books of the Bible alone: I think doctrines ought to be able to be substantiated by clear statements made in the teaching books of the Bible - especially for something as major as a new economic system!
This was an isolated incident in a historical, not doctrinal, book of the Bible, the Book of Acts. Furthermore, even the story itself tells us that this was not compulsory. It wasn't the introduction of a new set of economic rules. It was pure generosity.
The redistribution that took place in Jerusalem was never demanded, taught, repeated, nor mentioned again, not in practice nor in precept.
None of the Gentile churches were mentioned in the Book of Acts as having ever adopted the practice. The Apostles in Jerusalem hadn't demanded it - so neither was it taught in the Epistles to any of the Gentile churches.
Other activities which happened at Jerusalem (such as their habit of continuing in the apostles' teaching; and fellowship; and breaking of bread; and prayers) were later formalized into doctrine by the Episltes and were always repeated by the Churches universally.
But the level of liquidation and sharing of property that took place in Jerusalem did not find an ongoing place in Apostolic doctrine or practice.
This was an extraordinary response to a unique need. Jerusalem was a politically and economically disadvantaged outpost of the Roman Empire.
(It was so poor that even many years after when churches became established among the Gentiles, it was still necessary that the Gentile churches continued the practice of financially supporting the poor in Judaea.)
And to make the need even greater, thousand of visitors from all over the world had just been added to the Church. None of them owned anything in Jerusalem and all of them needed to be housed and fed.
And everyone could sense persecution was brewing. A short time later all the believers except the Apostles fled the city, leaving everything behind.
And then a few decades later, the entire city of Jerusalem was destroyed by Rome. Jesus had forewarned them that this event would take place within their generation.
Liquidating, therefore, was a good strategy. In fact it was their only option.
I know of a time when this happend in Sri Lanka. Believers started feeling led to sell their houses and live in extended-family groups and share their resources. Two years later, the war intensified, people had to flee their lands - and everyone who hadn't sold their houses lost them anyway.
But not everyone in Jerusalem sold everything - or else none of them would have had houses in which to meet. It says they "met daily from house to house".
Phillip was one of those who was present in the early Church at Jerusalem, but later in the Book of Acts we are told that the apostles stayed in Phillip's house where he lived with his four daughters. Evidently then Phillip the Evangelist didn't think Peter had instituted Christian Communism!
Paul didn't instruct the Gentile churches to do as the Jerusalem Church had done. Instead he encouraged them to take advantage of their economic freedom, to "work" with their own hands (something the believers in Jerusalem had little opportunity to do) so they would "have" (i.e., own) so they could then "give" (i.e. voluntarily give) to others.
While he was in Rome he rented his own house. Notice he didn't instruct the church-members that they should be communally sharing all their accommodation with him. He rented his own place - for two full years.
Christian communes usually fizzle out. The Holy Spirit has historically led believers to form temporary communes during emergencies - but not as a blueprint forever.
Wherever Christians have tried to stay in communes beyond their use-by date, problems arose. I think it breaks with Biblical principle - except during emergencies.
For example, after an earthquake and a tsunami, it may be necessary for temporary tent-cities to be set-up and for wealth to be voluntarily redistributed. But that doesn't mean the victims should stay living together and dependant on others for the rest of their lives!
A good example of the problems that can arise was the Plymouth Colony in North America. They tried to base their new society on shared farming-land, on shared produce. That may have been okay during the first season of the colony. But eventually it caused all sorts of problems - including near starvation of the colony. Men lacked motivation to labour to produce food for other men's wives and children. After they reverted to a free-enterprise system, productivity soared - and human inter-relationships improved too. The colony was saved.
Here in Australia where we haven't felt earthquakes, where tsunamis are only 20cm high, where circumstances aren't as bad as those faced by the early Church in Jerusalem - it may be appropriate to use other strategies besides liquidating and redistributing wealth.
Give someone employment. Or train him. Or, help him deal with whatever issues prevent him from staying in a job.
It might require that we give something in the beginning. But eventually the goal should be to help the person become self-sufficient.
Meanwhile there will always be emergencies somewhere, especially overseas. In those circumstances. Acts 2 & 4 will serve as a great example to us.
Actually, the spirit of Acts 2 and 4 can filter through everything we do - even in circumstances when being that radical isn't called-for.
May that faith infiltrate everything we do.
Those are my thoughts so far. I'm open to learning more.
Friday, February 26, 2010
God's Grace Doesn't Remove the Goal-Posts
The Lord Jesus and the Apostles said adultery, fornication and all uncleanness is wrong. If agreeing with the Bible is to be polarized, then I'll gladly remain polarized. As for having discussion where the tone is set by questions rather than by answers - there shouldn't be any questions - it's not our place to question God, just to obey and teach what He commands.
The Bible has a lot to say about Economics and economic systems. Almost all of the Old Testament promises about the coming Messiah were made in an economic/political context. None of it was rescinded by the New Testament.
When Theological Colleges train ministers, they needn't divorce the Messianic Scriptures from their social and political context. Christ's grace teaches us to fulfill the principles that undergirded Moses' Law - which provided blueprints for commerce as well as for worship and relationships. Therefore a well-trained minister needn't be the last person to talk on economics.
Grey areas? The Bible doesn't warn us not to eat polonium-nitrate either. But it ought to be self-evident based on commandments in the Bible whether something is good or evil. Besides, the article cited above isn't talking about what some might call grey areas: it condones evils such as abortion, sodomy and same-sex 'marriages'.
The Bible is like the Brussels Tariff in the sense that everything imaginable is classified by it even though it may not be listed there by name
Jesus was very compassionate towards women. He was also very merciful towards sinners. But when He showed mercy, it was never at the expense of failing to comply with God's Law. In the ministry of Jesus, mercy and truth met together; righteousness and peace kissed each other. For example, when He said to the woman taken in adultery... See More, "Neither do I condemn thee, go and sin no more", it was His mercy and peace that said, "Neither do I condemn thee," but it was His truth and righteousness that said, "Go and sin no more". By showing mercy to the woman rather than condemning her, Jesus was complying with, rather than ignoring, the requirement of Moses' Law. Moses' Law required the testimony of two or more witnesses in order to convict a person; and the eyewitness was to be the first to cast a stone. As you know, in the case of this woman, it so happened that only Jesus remained in the room - no eyewitness remained. Therefore neither was Jesus required by Law to condemn her. Mercy triumphed over judgment. But true mercy never alters the definition of justice nor ever fails to meet its demands. To do otherwise would be unrighteousness, and there is no unrighteousness with God. God didn't set us free from our sins through ignoring our sins or through changing the definition of sin or through accepting us despite our sins. Rather, He set us free from our sins through meeting the demands of His own righteousness, on the cross. As the hymn said, "Heaven's peace and perfect justice kissed a guiilty world in love".
my aim has been to show that extending mercy towards sinners does not require us to say that sin is no longer sin. Sin is still sin, otherwise grace is no longer grace. E.g., Jesus didn't condone aultery - He forgave the adulterer and told her to go and sin no more. He didn't condone the crippled man's sins - He forgave his sins ... See Moreand told him to take up his stretcher and walk. So today, extending God's grace to sinners does not mean that we need to tell them that their sin is okay, or to say that it isn't actually sin after all. Instead, our message can be that despite the destructiveness of our sins, God has provided forgiveness for our sins through Jesus. John the Baptist, Jesus and the Apostles preached that men should repent - therefore the necessity for reform can remain part of our message too. The message of God's grace needn't provide a license for indulging the baser nature of mankind - rather it is a message that actually empowers people to fulfill the righteousness of the law in their lives, and to go and sin no more! Receiving God's grace can be a life-changing experience, not merely a concept to hear about.
If you are using the word 'capitalism' as a synonym for 'greed', 'selfishness', 'covetousness' and 'extortion' then yes Jesus would be against it. The standard definition for 'capitalism' however is: 'the economic system where the means of ... See Moreproduction are privately owned' - and Jesus certainly upheld the ethic of private ownership of property. In that sense therefore, Jesus was a capitalist. So was Moses. And so were the Apostles. Each of them believed property can be privately owned. That equals capitalism. But of course, they were against the practise of disadvantaging others. But capitalism can be practised without disadvantaging one another. In fact, by definition capitalism works best when there is mutual benefit in economic activity. As for 'income redistribution on a large scale' through legislation - that isn't something which the Bible calls for. The Bible encourages 'giving' - but it doesn't recommend an economic system where the State assumes rights to individuals' money to redistribute as the State sees fit, especially not on a 'large scale'. If it did, "giving" could no more be called "giving" - because you can't "give" something if someone else has "rights" to it. You could "pay" it, but not "give" it. But that economic system wasn't Jesus' concept, nor Moses's. They spoke about "giving" - and you can only "give" something if it belongs to you and if you have exclusive rights to decide what you do with it - which equals capitalism. Jesus encouraged generosity - but He didn't deny the morality of the ethic of private-property-rights, as socialism and communism do. It's interesting that in the economic model which God gave to Israel through Moses, there was no legislation whereby anyone had rights to get anyone else's money or property for free: not the Levites, not the poor, not anyone. And no-one was required by Law to give or pay anything to anyone - whether it was to the Levites or to the poor - without being allowed the expectation of receiving some service or commodity in return, either. Moses' system of social welfare was a win-win situation for both parties - it certainly wasn't a free, one-way redistribution of one party's hard-earned money. It was a brilliant system, actually. And Jesus and the Apostles upheld it in principle. That still gives us the freedom to give though. But remember: Jesus didn't ask everybody to leave everything and literally follow him. And not everyone in the book of Acts sold everything and laid it at the Apostles' feet. But even those who did give away everything, did so because they were free to do so, not because it was imposed on them by an economic system. It's one thing to encourage generosity and mercy. The Bible does. But it's entirely a different thing if you start undermining freedoms and private property-rights - the Bible doesn't do that.
In this discussion about Biblical economics and sexuality, all I'm aiming to point-out is simply that in the process of reaching out with grace to sinners and in the process of reaching out with commercial help to the poor, it isn't necessary, effective nor right for us to alter the morals and values of the Word of God. Right and wrong are... See More still right and wrong; private property is still private and not public property. If we lose those values, we'll end-up contributing to the disintegration of the very society which we are seeking to help. And that wasn't the strategy by which Christ and the Apostles turned their world upside down. The grace and giving shown by Christ and by the early Church was so powerful NOT because they altered Biblical values, but precisely because they still had the concept of the sinfulness of sin and because they still had the concept of the individual's complete economic freedom despite living under a sexually immoral and economically totalitarian/socialist redistributionist regime - and they were able to bring something more powerful, more graceful, more righteous, into society. Yes, Jesus and the Apostles sought to achieve the salvation of sinners and the salvation of the poor - but they did not seek to achieve it by watering-down the concept of sin nor by instigating some system of legislated redistribution of wealth that contradicted the Scripture's values of private property rights and freedom. Instead, they brought the tools of grace, giving and work - which they implemented without altering the definition of the sinfulness of sin and without altering the freedom of the individual to give to the poor as he sees fit. And the economic freedom which we all enjoy today, and the dignity which women feel today, are all part of the result of their work!
If sin isn't sinful, grace isn't amazing. If property isn't private, giving isn't generous.
Isn't there considerable support for the view that the Global Financial Crisis was caused in great part as a result of the Clinton Administration's push for sub-prime lending? While many banks thought better of sub-prime lending, it was the Clinton Administration which interfered in the free market by legislating in favour of sub-... See Moreprime lending. The policy may have been designed to help the poor but ended-up causing more poverty than the world has seen since the Great Depression! It wasn't possible to help the poor using a strategy that didn't make sound economic sense. Large-scale redistribution of other people's property against their will is not a sustainable way of helping the poor. Giving aid is important during emergencies - but it can't be a successful at alleviating poverty long-term. Abuses don't have to be part of the free market economy where there is a rule of law. We need a rule of law. But those laws don't need to include a large-scale redistribution of wealth. Moses' Law is a good illustration of the types of ethics which need to be built into a legal system in order for it to prevent abuses without interfering in the free market. Anything else is a loss of freedoms, and will negatively impact on an economy's ability to lift its poor into the abundance that God desires for them.
I don't doubt that greed may have been a motivator why some financial institutions became involved with sub-prime lending. But if it was, notice, it backfired on them, more than on the borrowers. Very often it wasn't the borrowers who became bankrupt - they were able to hand the house-keys back and walk away, leaving no other recourse for the ... See Morelenders. In Australia the banking laws are different. Here, the lender can also come after the borrower's other assets, unlike in America where the lender can do no more other than recover the house itself. Therefore in America it was the lenders who suffered most. So, the problem wasn't the bankers' freedom to engage the market - the problem was not the free market - the problem was that the lenders did not engage the market in a sustainable way. It was their own lack of judgment. And it was the leftist Democrats who opened-up the way, in fact they insisted, through Legislation, to encourage this type of unsustainable lending. So if the problem was greed and poor judgment by the lenders (and by the Clinton Administration) then the answer is not to restrict the free market. The answer is to correct their judgment! If greed was a factor, then the solution is not to legislate against freedom, but to legislate against greed itself. There is a way to legislate against greed without introducing Socialism - without legislating against the free market. Moses did so effectively. He never restricted private property rights. He never introduced any sort of Socialist redistribution of wealth. But He did legislate against usury to fellow-citizens. He did legislate against the mistreatment of employees. He did lay down certain minimum benefits which an employer was required to pay to an employee. He did stipulate that rural land could be purchased only from within one's own Tribe, only urban property could be purchased unrestrictedly. But none of those points of legislation were Socialist in nature. Each of them upheld the ideology that "the means of production are privately owned". Moses did write a system for looking-after the poor and other segments of society - but his system never required any involuntary redistribution of wealth from one segment of society to another where it wasn't mutually profitable. That's Bible! And it works. The reason I point all this out, is because I think there is a trend nowadays of misunderstanding the Grace and power of God. It's all very well that we want to extend grace to the poor and to sinners. But let's not lose sight that God's grace is powerful enough to fix the problem without any need for us to alter the definition of the problem.
Perhaps we should drop the use of the label "Capitalism" in this discussion, in case we differ in our definitions of it. The main point I have been seeking to make in this discussion is that the grace of Jesus which we are constrained to show to sinners and to the economically poor, does not teach us to water-down the ... See Moreseriousness of sin nor does it recommend the expropriation of privately-earned funds on a large scale to benefit the poor. The grace of God is plenty effective without us needing to change the rules of play. If a footballer is too tired to run the full-length of the field to score a goal, it's against the rules to move the goal-posts mid-game. Instead, you rest the player, give him a needed boost, such as an energy drink, maybe a quick massage, then send him back onto the field-of-play with renewed strength to run the full length of the field and score the goals. That's how God's grace works. It doesn't change the moral requirement of God's Law. It doesn't change the moral ethics of economics. God's grace changes the player so he can win the game! Anyone who tries to change the rules of the game, is disqualified. God's grace isn't so weak that it needs us to change the goal-posts for sinners, by altering the righteous requirement of God's Law, in order to somehow make sinners more acceptable despite their sin. No, God's grace changes the very heart of the sinner, sets him or her free from sin, and enables them to kick those goals, to walk in accordance with the unchangeable righteous standard of God's holy Law. God's grace is not so weak that, in order to lift the economically poor, it needs a humanist government to change the ethical boundaries of private property and personal responsibility, as is done by Socialism. God's grace doesn't steal from the rich to help the poor. God's grace is able to lift the poor without changing the ethical goal-posts for the poor, without changing the ethical goal-posts in a manner which disadvantage the honest owners of capital. That is how powerful our Gospel is. We can expect to see lives changed and helped to that degree. But watering-down sin, personal responsibility, and private-property rights, isn't going to change anyone or anything long-term.
Moses said, "Thou shalt not steal". Straightaway, private-property rights are implied. In Socialism and Communism, nobody can "steal" from you because the State has given everybody rights to everything you own. Moses never implemented a system of expropriating property from one segment of society and freely giving it to another segment. Not ... See Moreonce! Tithing was not an example of socialist-style wealth-redistribution. Tithes were paid to the tribe of Levi as remuneration for services rendered - the service of the Priesthood which the Levites performed for the benefit of all Israel. In other words, it was a salary. It wasn't welfare. Part of the tithes were to be eaten and enjoyed by one's own family at the House of God. Part of the tithes were also given to feed the poor. But failure to do so was not an offence punishable by the civil Judges of the day, unlike other points of Law contained in Moses' writings which were punishable. In the case of giving to the poor, it was a matter of personal conscience. It was not a legislated expropriation of wealth. It was not a communal sharing of the ownership of the means of production. There were other ways Moses recommended helping the poor too. One of them was lending. Another was gleaning. And a third was indentured service. In the first of those three methods, the owner of capital wasn't allowed to make a gain (interest) from the transaction, but neither did he incur a cost. In the next two of the above methods, the owners of capital as well as the poor benefited alike from the arrangement. It was a win-win situation. Gleaning was hard work, it didn't cost the owner of capital anything, he would have made a small profit from it, although he might have been able to make more profit if not for the provision of gleaning, and the gleaner was paid usually just enough to feed himself and his family for a day, or maybe just a little bit extra. But not enough for "gleaning" to be seen as a precedent for "large scale redistribution of wealth". It was not a case of free money for no work. And it DIDN'T come at a cost to the land owner. The third method, indentured service (aka slavery, although it was NOT the same as pre-civil war slavery) provided a tremendous short-term opportunity for the poor to work their way out of debt. They were to be provided with accommodation, food, clothing, training, a suitable wage, and a good severance package when they left. It was to be for a strictly limited term (seven years only, the slave was not permanently owned as in pre-civil war slavery). Mistreatment of the indentured servant by the employer was punishable by law. The purpose of the provision of indentured service was to help the poor by giving them an alternative to homelessness, unemployment and debt. At no cost to the public. The voluntary employer also benefited from the agreement. Unlike pre-civil war slavery, it was a win-win situation. The equivalent today might be to take the poor into your house, or into your business, to look after them extremely well, to train them, pay them, and at the same time to benefit financially from their services while they are with you, and then send them on their way free from debt and able to set themselves up in life. That was Moses' social welfare system. There was no expropriation of wealth. Private property, the work ethic, and humane treatment were each upheld all the way through. There was no shared ownership of the means of production. Wealthy owners of capital were forbidden from taking advantage of the poor; but neither was any system ever implemented which forced the redistribution of their wealth into the hands of the poor except where it was voluntary and where there was a reasonable expectation of at least a certain amount of profit, and where the poor also worked for you directly - certainly, there was no loss involved. As for the Jubilee, it was far from being an example of an equal distribution of wealth. Far from it! To whom did the ownership of all property revert? To the original owners. Not to the poor! Not equally to the whole population! It reverted exclusively to the original owners, irrespective of who was poor. As for the cancellation of debts - that was a point of Law which actually would have restricted the extent to which wealthy people would have been willing to enter into transactions with the poor, not the opposite. It is far from being an example of large-scale redistribution of wealth. It's the exact opposite. For starters, the types of debts that would have been cancelled would have been very small. Remember, interest was not allowed to be charged to fellow-citizens. Therefore lending was not profitable for lenders. So they wouldn't have been lending huge amounts. Therefore loans would have been small, and would have been an emergency measure only, to cover the bare necessities of life. Plus, if a wealthy person knew the Jubilee year was just around the corner, he would have been even more careful to make sure that he only lent an amount which he felt confident would be recovered before the Jubilee year. The amounts of money Moses had in mind would not compare with Australia's annual Social Welfare expenditure. It certainly wasn't an example of legislated, large-scale, wealth redistribution! The Jubilee wasn't something that gave poor people the opportunity to make a living off the wealthy for free. No way. All of this is important because nowadays it's popular to call it "social justice" to syphon huge amounts of money from one bracket of society and give it freely to people who earn less. Moses implemented no such system. In fact, to do so, is really an injustice against the segment of society which it disadvantages. Let the wealthy help the poor in a manner that is a win-win sitation, and legislate against taking advantage of the poor in a way that doesn't benefit them at least to some extent. That's Biblical. That's walking in love, to both the poor and to the hard-working, rightful owners of wealth. Anything else doesn't teach the poor anything.
The Bible has a lot to say about Economics and economic systems. Almost all of the Old Testament promises about the coming Messiah were made in an economic/political context. None of it was rescinded by the New Testament.
When Theological Colleges train ministers, they needn't divorce the Messianic Scriptures from their social and political context. Christ's grace teaches us to fulfill the principles that undergirded Moses' Law - which provided blueprints for commerce as well as for worship and relationships. Therefore a well-trained minister needn't be the last person to talk on economics.
Grey areas? The Bible doesn't warn us not to eat polonium-nitrate either. But it ought to be self-evident based on commandments in the Bible whether something is good or evil. Besides, the article cited above isn't talking about what some might call grey areas: it condones evils such as abortion, sodomy and same-sex 'marriages'.
The Bible is like the Brussels Tariff in the sense that everything imaginable is classified by it even though it may not be listed there by name
Jesus was very compassionate towards women. He was also very merciful towards sinners. But when He showed mercy, it was never at the expense of failing to comply with God's Law. In the ministry of Jesus, mercy and truth met together; righteousness and peace kissed each other. For example, when He said to the woman taken in adultery... See More, "Neither do I condemn thee, go and sin no more", it was His mercy and peace that said, "Neither do I condemn thee," but it was His truth and righteousness that said, "Go and sin no more". By showing mercy to the woman rather than condemning her, Jesus was complying with, rather than ignoring, the requirement of Moses' Law. Moses' Law required the testimony of two or more witnesses in order to convict a person; and the eyewitness was to be the first to cast a stone. As you know, in the case of this woman, it so happened that only Jesus remained in the room - no eyewitness remained. Therefore neither was Jesus required by Law to condemn her. Mercy triumphed over judgment. But true mercy never alters the definition of justice nor ever fails to meet its demands. To do otherwise would be unrighteousness, and there is no unrighteousness with God. God didn't set us free from our sins through ignoring our sins or through changing the definition of sin or through accepting us despite our sins. Rather, He set us free from our sins through meeting the demands of His own righteousness, on the cross. As the hymn said, "Heaven's peace and perfect justice kissed a guiilty world in love".
my aim has been to show that extending mercy towards sinners does not require us to say that sin is no longer sin. Sin is still sin, otherwise grace is no longer grace. E.g., Jesus didn't condone aultery - He forgave the adulterer and told her to go and sin no more. He didn't condone the crippled man's sins - He forgave his sins ... See Moreand told him to take up his stretcher and walk. So today, extending God's grace to sinners does not mean that we need to tell them that their sin is okay, or to say that it isn't actually sin after all. Instead, our message can be that despite the destructiveness of our sins, God has provided forgiveness for our sins through Jesus. John the Baptist, Jesus and the Apostles preached that men should repent - therefore the necessity for reform can remain part of our message too. The message of God's grace needn't provide a license for indulging the baser nature of mankind - rather it is a message that actually empowers people to fulfill the righteousness of the law in their lives, and to go and sin no more! Receiving God's grace can be a life-changing experience, not merely a concept to hear about.
If you are using the word 'capitalism' as a synonym for 'greed', 'selfishness', 'covetousness' and 'extortion' then yes Jesus would be against it. The standard definition for 'capitalism' however is: 'the economic system where the means of ... See Moreproduction are privately owned' - and Jesus certainly upheld the ethic of private ownership of property. In that sense therefore, Jesus was a capitalist. So was Moses. And so were the Apostles. Each of them believed property can be privately owned. That equals capitalism. But of course, they were against the practise of disadvantaging others. But capitalism can be practised without disadvantaging one another. In fact, by definition capitalism works best when there is mutual benefit in economic activity. As for 'income redistribution on a large scale' through legislation - that isn't something which the Bible calls for. The Bible encourages 'giving' - but it doesn't recommend an economic system where the State assumes rights to individuals' money to redistribute as the State sees fit, especially not on a 'large scale'. If it did, "giving" could no more be called "giving" - because you can't "give" something if someone else has "rights" to it. You could "pay" it, but not "give" it. But that economic system wasn't Jesus' concept, nor Moses's. They spoke about "giving" - and you can only "give" something if it belongs to you and if you have exclusive rights to decide what you do with it - which equals capitalism. Jesus encouraged generosity - but He didn't deny the morality of the ethic of private-property-rights, as socialism and communism do. It's interesting that in the economic model which God gave to Israel through Moses, there was no legislation whereby anyone had rights to get anyone else's money or property for free: not the Levites, not the poor, not anyone. And no-one was required by Law to give or pay anything to anyone - whether it was to the Levites or to the poor - without being allowed the expectation of receiving some service or commodity in return, either. Moses' system of social welfare was a win-win situation for both parties - it certainly wasn't a free, one-way redistribution of one party's hard-earned money. It was a brilliant system, actually. And Jesus and the Apostles upheld it in principle. That still gives us the freedom to give though. But remember: Jesus didn't ask everybody to leave everything and literally follow him. And not everyone in the book of Acts sold everything and laid it at the Apostles' feet. But even those who did give away everything, did so because they were free to do so, not because it was imposed on them by an economic system. It's one thing to encourage generosity and mercy. The Bible does. But it's entirely a different thing if you start undermining freedoms and private property-rights - the Bible doesn't do that.
In this discussion about Biblical economics and sexuality, all I'm aiming to point-out is simply that in the process of reaching out with grace to sinners and in the process of reaching out with commercial help to the poor, it isn't necessary, effective nor right for us to alter the morals and values of the Word of God. Right and wrong are... See More still right and wrong; private property is still private and not public property. If we lose those values, we'll end-up contributing to the disintegration of the very society which we are seeking to help. And that wasn't the strategy by which Christ and the Apostles turned their world upside down. The grace and giving shown by Christ and by the early Church was so powerful NOT because they altered Biblical values, but precisely because they still had the concept of the sinfulness of sin and because they still had the concept of the individual's complete economic freedom despite living under a sexually immoral and economically totalitarian/socialist redistributionist regime - and they were able to bring something more powerful, more graceful, more righteous, into society. Yes, Jesus and the Apostles sought to achieve the salvation of sinners and the salvation of the poor - but they did not seek to achieve it by watering-down the concept of sin nor by instigating some system of legislated redistribution of wealth that contradicted the Scripture's values of private property rights and freedom. Instead, they brought the tools of grace, giving and work - which they implemented without altering the definition of the sinfulness of sin and without altering the freedom of the individual to give to the poor as he sees fit. And the economic freedom which we all enjoy today, and the dignity which women feel today, are all part of the result of their work!
If sin isn't sinful, grace isn't amazing. If property isn't private, giving isn't generous.
Isn't there considerable support for the view that the Global Financial Crisis was caused in great part as a result of the Clinton Administration's push for sub-prime lending? While many banks thought better of sub-prime lending, it was the Clinton Administration which interfered in the free market by legislating in favour of sub-... See Moreprime lending. The policy may have been designed to help the poor but ended-up causing more poverty than the world has seen since the Great Depression! It wasn't possible to help the poor using a strategy that didn't make sound economic sense. Large-scale redistribution of other people's property against their will is not a sustainable way of helping the poor. Giving aid is important during emergencies - but it can't be a successful at alleviating poverty long-term. Abuses don't have to be part of the free market economy where there is a rule of law. We need a rule of law. But those laws don't need to include a large-scale redistribution of wealth. Moses' Law is a good illustration of the types of ethics which need to be built into a legal system in order for it to prevent abuses without interfering in the free market. Anything else is a loss of freedoms, and will negatively impact on an economy's ability to lift its poor into the abundance that God desires for them.
I don't doubt that greed may have been a motivator why some financial institutions became involved with sub-prime lending. But if it was, notice, it backfired on them, more than on the borrowers. Very often it wasn't the borrowers who became bankrupt - they were able to hand the house-keys back and walk away, leaving no other recourse for the ... See Morelenders. In Australia the banking laws are different. Here, the lender can also come after the borrower's other assets, unlike in America where the lender can do no more other than recover the house itself. Therefore in America it was the lenders who suffered most. So, the problem wasn't the bankers' freedom to engage the market - the problem was not the free market - the problem was that the lenders did not engage the market in a sustainable way. It was their own lack of judgment. And it was the leftist Democrats who opened-up the way, in fact they insisted, through Legislation, to encourage this type of unsustainable lending. So if the problem was greed and poor judgment by the lenders (and by the Clinton Administration) then the answer is not to restrict the free market. The answer is to correct their judgment! If greed was a factor, then the solution is not to legislate against freedom, but to legislate against greed itself. There is a way to legislate against greed without introducing Socialism - without legislating against the free market. Moses did so effectively. He never restricted private property rights. He never introduced any sort of Socialist redistribution of wealth. But He did legislate against usury to fellow-citizens. He did legislate against the mistreatment of employees. He did lay down certain minimum benefits which an employer was required to pay to an employee. He did stipulate that rural land could be purchased only from within one's own Tribe, only urban property could be purchased unrestrictedly. But none of those points of legislation were Socialist in nature. Each of them upheld the ideology that "the means of production are privately owned". Moses did write a system for looking-after the poor and other segments of society - but his system never required any involuntary redistribution of wealth from one segment of society to another where it wasn't mutually profitable. That's Bible! And it works. The reason I point all this out, is because I think there is a trend nowadays of misunderstanding the Grace and power of God. It's all very well that we want to extend grace to the poor and to sinners. But let's not lose sight that God's grace is powerful enough to fix the problem without any need for us to alter the definition of the problem.
Perhaps we should drop the use of the label "Capitalism" in this discussion, in case we differ in our definitions of it. The main point I have been seeking to make in this discussion is that the grace of Jesus which we are constrained to show to sinners and to the economically poor, does not teach us to water-down the ... See Moreseriousness of sin nor does it recommend the expropriation of privately-earned funds on a large scale to benefit the poor. The grace of God is plenty effective without us needing to change the rules of play. If a footballer is too tired to run the full-length of the field to score a goal, it's against the rules to move the goal-posts mid-game. Instead, you rest the player, give him a needed boost, such as an energy drink, maybe a quick massage, then send him back onto the field-of-play with renewed strength to run the full length of the field and score the goals. That's how God's grace works. It doesn't change the moral requirement of God's Law. It doesn't change the moral ethics of economics. God's grace changes the player so he can win the game! Anyone who tries to change the rules of the game, is disqualified. God's grace isn't so weak that it needs us to change the goal-posts for sinners, by altering the righteous requirement of God's Law, in order to somehow make sinners more acceptable despite their sin. No, God's grace changes the very heart of the sinner, sets him or her free from sin, and enables them to kick those goals, to walk in accordance with the unchangeable righteous standard of God's holy Law. God's grace is not so weak that, in order to lift the economically poor, it needs a humanist government to change the ethical boundaries of private property and personal responsibility, as is done by Socialism. God's grace doesn't steal from the rich to help the poor. God's grace is able to lift the poor without changing the ethical goal-posts for the poor, without changing the ethical goal-posts in a manner which disadvantage the honest owners of capital. That is how powerful our Gospel is. We can expect to see lives changed and helped to that degree. But watering-down sin, personal responsibility, and private-property rights, isn't going to change anyone or anything long-term.
Moses said, "Thou shalt not steal". Straightaway, private-property rights are implied. In Socialism and Communism, nobody can "steal" from you because the State has given everybody rights to everything you own. Moses never implemented a system of expropriating property from one segment of society and freely giving it to another segment. Not ... See Moreonce! Tithing was not an example of socialist-style wealth-redistribution. Tithes were paid to the tribe of Levi as remuneration for services rendered - the service of the Priesthood which the Levites performed for the benefit of all Israel. In other words, it was a salary. It wasn't welfare. Part of the tithes were to be eaten and enjoyed by one's own family at the House of God. Part of the tithes were also given to feed the poor. But failure to do so was not an offence punishable by the civil Judges of the day, unlike other points of Law contained in Moses' writings which were punishable. In the case of giving to the poor, it was a matter of personal conscience. It was not a legislated expropriation of wealth. It was not a communal sharing of the ownership of the means of production. There were other ways Moses recommended helping the poor too. One of them was lending. Another was gleaning. And a third was indentured service. In the first of those three methods, the owner of capital wasn't allowed to make a gain (interest) from the transaction, but neither did he incur a cost. In the next two of the above methods, the owners of capital as well as the poor benefited alike from the arrangement. It was a win-win situation. Gleaning was hard work, it didn't cost the owner of capital anything, he would have made a small profit from it, although he might have been able to make more profit if not for the provision of gleaning, and the gleaner was paid usually just enough to feed himself and his family for a day, or maybe just a little bit extra. But not enough for "gleaning" to be seen as a precedent for "large scale redistribution of wealth". It was not a case of free money for no work. And it DIDN'T come at a cost to the land owner. The third method, indentured service (aka slavery, although it was NOT the same as pre-civil war slavery) provided a tremendous short-term opportunity for the poor to work their way out of debt. They were to be provided with accommodation, food, clothing, training, a suitable wage, and a good severance package when they left. It was to be for a strictly limited term (seven years only, the slave was not permanently owned as in pre-civil war slavery). Mistreatment of the indentured servant by the employer was punishable by law. The purpose of the provision of indentured service was to help the poor by giving them an alternative to homelessness, unemployment and debt. At no cost to the public. The voluntary employer also benefited from the agreement. Unlike pre-civil war slavery, it was a win-win situation. The equivalent today might be to take the poor into your house, or into your business, to look after them extremely well, to train them, pay them, and at the same time to benefit financially from their services while they are with you, and then send them on their way free from debt and able to set themselves up in life. That was Moses' social welfare system. There was no expropriation of wealth. Private property, the work ethic, and humane treatment were each upheld all the way through. There was no shared ownership of the means of production. Wealthy owners of capital were forbidden from taking advantage of the poor; but neither was any system ever implemented which forced the redistribution of their wealth into the hands of the poor except where it was voluntary and where there was a reasonable expectation of at least a certain amount of profit, and where the poor also worked for you directly - certainly, there was no loss involved. As for the Jubilee, it was far from being an example of an equal distribution of wealth. Far from it! To whom did the ownership of all property revert? To the original owners. Not to the poor! Not equally to the whole population! It reverted exclusively to the original owners, irrespective of who was poor. As for the cancellation of debts - that was a point of Law which actually would have restricted the extent to which wealthy people would have been willing to enter into transactions with the poor, not the opposite. It is far from being an example of large-scale redistribution of wealth. It's the exact opposite. For starters, the types of debts that would have been cancelled would have been very small. Remember, interest was not allowed to be charged to fellow-citizens. Therefore lending was not profitable for lenders. So they wouldn't have been lending huge amounts. Therefore loans would have been small, and would have been an emergency measure only, to cover the bare necessities of life. Plus, if a wealthy person knew the Jubilee year was just around the corner, he would have been even more careful to make sure that he only lent an amount which he felt confident would be recovered before the Jubilee year. The amounts of money Moses had in mind would not compare with Australia's annual Social Welfare expenditure. It certainly wasn't an example of legislated, large-scale, wealth redistribution! The Jubilee wasn't something that gave poor people the opportunity to make a living off the wealthy for free. No way. All of this is important because nowadays it's popular to call it "social justice" to syphon huge amounts of money from one bracket of society and give it freely to people who earn less. Moses implemented no such system. In fact, to do so, is really an injustice against the segment of society which it disadvantages. Let the wealthy help the poor in a manner that is a win-win sitation, and legislate against taking advantage of the poor in a way that doesn't benefit them at least to some extent. That's Biblical. That's walking in love, to both the poor and to the hard-working, rightful owners of wealth. Anything else doesn't teach the poor anything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)