Tag: Providence Reformed Church

The Christian practice of apologetics means  making a defense for the faith—the Greek apologia means to defend, not to say you are sorry. Christians who focus on apologetics are focused on using Scripture, philosophy, science, and other evidences to help skeptics to see that the claims of the faith are rational, genuine, and trustworthy. So, the person who defends the accuracy of biblical translation, the person who argues for the existence of God from the principle of first causes, and the person who uses archeological findings to show that the walls of Jericho really fell all are using apologetics.

 

If you ask different Christians, you will find different levels of interest in apologetics. Some folks will spend a lot of time and energy brushing up on their arguments, and they do so for good reasons. Others believe that God has already given all people knowledge of his existence (cf. Rom. 1:18-20), and thus they will not go far down the road of arguing for God based on nonbiblical foundations, and they do so for good reasons. Some believe that apologetics are tools to use to help people come to faith in Christ. Others believe that apologetics can pull down obstacles to faith, but that this kind of argument cannot change a heart.

 

My goal in this post is neither to affirm nor disavow apologetics as a whole, but to remind us , from an odd Scriptural angle, that the unbelieving world is far less logical about things of God than we often assume in apologetics. We need to realize that those who are antichristian are not always willing to actually think clearly about the evidence and arguments before them.

 

Take, for instance, the Egyptians. Pharaoh, the Egyptian ruler, experienced multiple miracles in his presence and around his land that laid waste to his kingdom. He saw water turned to blood, pests swarm and depart based on the commands and prayers of Moses, storms wreck the crops and livestock, darkness cover the land of the Egyptians but not the Hebrews, and even the death of firstborn all over the country. Each time, Pharaoh claimed to believe in the power of the Lord and he claimed that he would release the Hebrew slaves. But, after he looked back over his situation, he hardened his heart, changed his mind, and went back on his word.

 

After the Passover, the Egyptians sent the Hebrews out of their land. However, Pharaoh changed his mind one more time, leading his chariots out to recapture the valuable workers. Thus came the confrontation on the shores of the Red Sea.

 

Now, what I want us to consider is the logic, the rationality, of the anti-God Egyptians in the face of evidence. Let’s not argue about what the plagues should have done to persuade the Egyptians. Let’s not argue about the walls of water that parted to allow the Israelites to cross over on dry land. Let’s not even point out that the Egyptian soldiers recognized they were in deep trouble as their chariot wheels began to clog and swerve as they tried to cross the Red Sea. Instead, lets focus on one thing that happened before anybody had to drown.

 

Exodus 14:19-20 – 19 Then the angel of God who was going before the host of Israel moved and went behind them, and the pillar of cloud moved from before them and stood behind them, 20 coming between the host of Egypt and the host of Israel. And there was the cloud and the darkness. And it lit up the night without one coming near the other all night.

 

Besides the plagues, besides the other evidences to come, this odd little story stands out to me. The Egyptians arrived in time to get to the Hebrews before the sea parted and the land was dry. The Egyptians should have been able to take care of business, except for one thing: God stood in between the Egyptians and the Hebrews. The pillar of cloud—also a pillar of burning fire at night—came down out of the sky and blocked the path of the Egyptians so that they could not get to the Hebrews.

 

Now, what would a logical leader do when faced with this event? Would not a thinking person be convinced by a supernatural cloud that stood in the gap and refused to let his army get to the Hebrews? Would not a thoughtful leader say to himself, “Maybe I’d better turn around, cut my losses, and go back home?” One would think so. But Pharaoh pressed on, drove his army into the sea, and the army that chased Israel died.  God proved himself mighty and glorious.

 

Now return to the concept of apologetics for a moment. What impact did logic and rational thinking have on the skeptics at the Red Sea? What help was repeated proof and visible confirmation to those who hated God and his people? The answer is that such things, perfectly powerful evidence, did not convince the Egyptians.

 

We live in a world of folks, some of whom are going to come to faith in Christ and some of whom are not going to come to faith in Christ. And I would suggest that it is wise and good for Christians to have solid answers in areas like philosophy, science, history, archeology, and all the rest. We want to think through the skeptics’ questions and know that the Scripture has answers. We want to offer a defense for the faith, especially for those who are honestly confused. But, and this is important, we also must recognize that, regardless of the seeming honesty of the skeptic, we will often find that a person who does not desire to submit to God will not be convinced by evidence, not even miraculous evidence. It is only the power of God working through the word of God and Spirit of God that can bring a spiritually dead heart to life and draw a skeptic to Christ. So, let us focus on solid thinking for sure. But, let us even more focus on Scripture, prayer, and honesty, as we learn that only the Lord can help a person to believe the truth that is blazing like a pillar of fire before their eyes.

If you have studied the book of Exodus, you have most likely noticed the parallel language that is present at the end of the plagues. God warns Pharaoh through Moses, demands the release of the people of Israel, and threatens a plague if Pharaoh will not comply. Pharaoh refuses to do what God says, the plague comes, and something in the land is wrecked. Then Pharaoh asks for help and promises some sort of freedom to Israel. Moses prays to God and the Lord stops the plague. Then, in each instance, Pharaoh’s heart is hardened, he goes back on his word, and he does not let Israel go.

 

One of the questions often asked by readers of Exodus is, “Who hardened Pharaoh’s heart?” In some passages, we read that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. But, in other passages, we see God quite clearly declare that he, the Lord, hardened Pharaoh’s heart. Which is it?

 

Exodus 9:34 – But when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunder had ceased, he sinned yet again and hardened his heart, he and his servants.

 

Exodus 10:1-2 – 1 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go in to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants, that I may show these signs of mine among them, 2 and that you may tell in the hearing of your son and of your grandson how I have dealt harshly with the Egyptians and what signs I have done among them, that you may know that I am the Lord.”

 

First, let us be wise here and remember that it is not likely that the Lord inspired this passage to bring us to a point of debate over first or second causes, of synergism or monergism. This passage is there to show us some very clear and obvious truths. God is over all. God moves through the hearts of kings and rulers. God works events to display his own glory.  

 

But, we also need to grasp that some grand truths are present in the holy and inspired word of God. Did God harden Pharaoh’s heart? Yes. Did Pharaoh harden his own heart? Yes. So, who is to blame for Pharaoh’s sin? The answer there is Pharaoh. God never forced Pharaoh to do anything that Pharaoh, in his sinfully hard heart, did not wish to do. But, then, did God participate in the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart? Yes, he did—he says he did. Did God sin? Nope, God can’t do that.

 

But wait, we don’t like this. We don’t fully understand it. We demand an explanation. But, who do we think we are? Who are we to demand that the Lord clarify for us his ways so that we can sit in judgment as to whether or not we like his methods? God does not tell us exactly how the balance of God hardening and Pharaoh hardening worked. While you and I may try to sketch out how we think it worked, the Scripture has no interest in revealing that to us. Thus, neither does God. He has is ways, they are above and beyond ours, and we do not have the right to demand to know them.

 

God does explain something to us in this passage. At the beginning of chapter 10, God tells us why he has hardened Pharaoh’s heart. He did so, “that I may show these signs of mine among them, and that you may tell in the hearing of your son and of your grandson how I have dealt harshly with the Egyptians and what signs I have done among them, that you may know that I am the Lord.” So, God says he hardened Pharaoh’s heart so he could show his power in the plagues, so he could show his glory, so we could know he is the Lord. God did what God did in order to display his power, his justice, his might, his glory.

 

Notice what God did not say to us. He did not tell us, “I only strengthened his already hard heart. Don’t worry, I didn’t have anything to do with actually making him worse, that wouldn’t be fair.” God did not give us any reason in this passage at all to tell us how the whole hardening process or the pattern happened.

 

And so often, right here, we want to reshape the story. We are afraid, if somebody hears this, they will not like God. We are afraid that somebody will not approve of God working in this way. We think that maybe Jesus would not act like this. But, in all this we are very much wrong.

 

God is perfect. God is not judged by an external standard of righteousness, something outside him that measures him. We are measured by the righteousness of the Lord. We have no right at all to even consider sitting in judgment over the choices, actions, and motivations of the Lord. He is the one who is sovereign, not us.

 

What supreme arrogance it would be for me to say to God, “I’m not sure that you treated Pharaoh rightly by hardening his heart. I think you should have allowed him to do what he wanted with no interference. But it looks like you messed with him here. I’m not sure I approve.” Then, were I to continue with, “And, I really do not know that it is OK for you to display your power and justice by crushing the Egyptians the way that you did. You are not allowed to act like that. You are supposed not to let any people hurt.”

 

Were I to say such things, what would have happened? In my own little arrogant imagination, I would be putting myself on the judge’s bench and God in the place of the accused who must defend himself. I would be making myself the prosecution, bringing evidence against the actions of the Lord all the while I would also be the jury, deciding if I approved of God’s explanation to me. This, dear friends, is never the proper position for humans against the Lord.

 

When Job accused God, the Lord never answered to Job or explained his rationale. Instead, God pointed out to Job, through about four chapters of questions, that Job is far too small and far too limited to possibly grasp the workings of the Lord. And when Job realized what he had done, he declared his repentance because he saw that he had foolishly stepped out of line (cf. Job 42:1-6).

 

Who hardened Pharaoh’s heart? Pharaoh did. God did. Did God ever do wrong? No, not at all. Do we have the right to decide whether we like what God did? Not really, because we are sinful and limited creations attempting to question the glorious, holy, perfect Creator.

 

Does this apply to other topics? Does this passage and explanation apply to something like sovereign election in salvation? I think it does, but that is for another post and for you to consider as you study the Scriptures for yourself. I know this, God’s ways in salvation are just as much his as are his ways in handling Moses or Pharaoh. If the word of God says that my only way to come to the Lord is through him drawing me to him (John 6:44), giving me the ability by his power (John 6:65), bringing to life my dead heart (Ephesians 2:1-ff), and granting me faith as a gift (Ephesians 2:8), I certainly have no reason to question him and complain at his methods. I have no more right to judge the ways of God in salvation than I have to judge the ways of God in the Exodus. God is good. I am limited. The Lord’s word is perfect and true. May I love the Lord and surrender to his perfection without ever placing myself in the position to try to be the judge again.

 

Let me add, in case this all looks too harsh, that God has displayed himself to us as so wonderfully kind and gracious too. The same God who did this with Pharaoh is the God who let little children come to him even when the disciples wanted to push them away. The God who squashed the Egyptians to display his glory also displayed his glory by healing the sick, giving sight to the blind, and—most gloriously of all—giving his own life to pay the price for the sins of all his people. God is not mean. No, his ways are not ours. His holiness is beyond us. But we must not allow one picture to be our only image. The Lord is right, always right, in his justice and in his mercy, in his love and in his wrath.

If you study the Gospel According to Matthew, you will find a great many references to the Old Testament. In those references, you will often see Matthew say something like, “This took place to fulfill that which was spoken by the prophets.” Regularly, Matthew sees things that Jesus did or that happened around Jesus, and he saw that those events perfectly matched the Old Testament predictions of the coming Messiah.

 

It is always fascinating to see a prophecy fulfilled. When Joseph moved down to Egypt and then back to the land of Israel, to Nazareth, prophecy about Jesus was fulfilled. It seems highly unlikely, however, that Joseph thought much about the fact that he was fulfilling prophecy with the family’s change of address. He ran to Egypt because the angel said so and because there was a large Jewish community living in places like the city of Alexandria. Joseph picked Nazareth as a home town because of the dangerous political situation in Judea. 

 

So, when things happen, and then we look up and see that it was predicted long beforehand, we think to ourselves, “Wow.” It is just amazing that people, walking through their normal lives, did things that God had said would happen hundreds of years before hand.

 

But, what about when people do things on purpose to fulfill prophecy? I ask this because Jesus, at least once, made a very calculated move to intentionally fulfill a prophecy. What does that say about prophecy and about Jesus?

 

Matthew 21:1-5- 1 Now when they drew near to Jerusalem and came to Bethphage, to the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, 2 saying to them, “Go into the village in front of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them to me. 3 If anyone says anything to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord needs them,’ and he will send them at once.” 4 This took place to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet, saying,

5 “Say to the daughter of Zion,

‘Behold, your king is coming to you,

humble, and mounted on a donkey,

and on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.’ ”

 

When Jesus sent disciples to pick up the little donkey, he was doing so very much with the intent to fulfill the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9. Matthew points out to us that those words from the Old Testament prophet told Jerusalem to rejoice, because the promised King from God was coming to them, and there was a way to recognize him. The one God was sending to be the Savior would be humble, and would ride on a colt, a donkey’s foal, into Jerusalem.

 

Think about how much Jesus must have done to arrange this scene. While Matthew does not tell us this for sure, and so there is speculation here, it seems likely that Jesus had prearranged the use of this animal. Jesus told the disciples where to go to pick up the donkey. He told them what to say to the animal’s owners. Either this is a miracle of Jesus, using supernatural knowledge to know where to find a little donkey and what to say to its owners to get them to let him borrow it, or Jesus had talked with those owners and arranged the whole thing.

 

Then comes my question: Does the intentionality of Jesus in any way taint the fulfillment of prophecy? I would argue that it does not. Zechariah still perfectly predicted what the Messiah would do. Why would it be wrong for the Messiah to do it on purpose? In fact, I would argue that the intentionality of Jesus here actually serves to help us understand exactly what Jesus knew to be true of himself. If Jesus worked to fulfill a prophecy from several centuries before his birth, he definitely intended to identify himself as the King, the fulfillment of the prophecy. Jesus was saying in the loudest public voice possible that he indeed is the promised Messiah, the King sent by God.

 

Much Like C. S. Lewis challenged us regarding Jesus’ deity, we have only a few choices as to what to believe about Jesus in the fulfillment of this prophecy. He could be wrong about himself, thinking he is Messiah when he is actually not. That would make him an insane person, by the way. Or he could be tricking people on purpose, telling a lie about himself. That would make him evil. Or, the truth is, Jesus really is exactly the person God has been promising and promising and promising from the Garden of Eden on.

 

Any proper study of Jesus’ life, his teachings, his character, and his resurrection can lead us to only one conclusion about him. Jesus is God in flesh and the promised Messiah. Our only proper response, then, is to bow to him, receive him as our King and Master, and follow him with our lives.

In different phases of church history, different doctrinal phrases and concepts become more or less central. Consider how you have heard people talk about the word “inerrancy.” Sometimes that word is all over the place. Other times, it is a part of our doctrinal foundation, even if we are not talking or writing about it. The same can be said for trinity, homoousious, election, or just about any concept.

 

One word that I have not heard much about in recent days is “imputation.” The theological concept of imputation includes the idea of God granting to those he has saved the righteousness of Christ. Imputed righteousness allows us to be people who are still imperfect, still struggling against sin in this fallen world, but who are simultaneously seen by God as bearing the perfection of Jesus. The perfect record of Christ’s righteousness is credited–imputed—to our accounts. Thus, God can look at us, correct us for our sin, sanctify us step-by-step, call us to repentance, and at the same time he looks at us and sees that we are fully forgiven and granted the perfection of Jesus and thus are his children, welcomed into his presence, and ready to be rewarded by him for the perfect obedience of the Savior. 

 

 

Imputation is a beautiful, soul-comforting doctrine. It helps us to be able to confidently seek the Lord and approach him as his adopted children even while we know we must repent of sin. Imputation allows us to rest in the grace of Jesus instead of trying to work enough merit into our lives to earn God’s favor.

 

In my daily reading this morning, I saw the significance of imputation in an odd place. I found myself reading through Psalm 18, and I found that I could not imagine praying what David prayed. How could I say those words? Then I recognized that, on my own, I could not. But, with the imputed righteousness of Christ, I most certainly must. Read the psalm, And see how uncomfortable it makes you feel. 

 

Psalm 18:20-24

 

20 The Lord dealt with me according to my righteousness;

according to the cleanness of my hands he rewarded me.

21 For I have kept the ways of the Lord,

and have not wickedly departed from my God.

22 For all his rules were before me,

and his statutes I did not put away from me.

23 I was blameless before him,

and I kept myself from my guilt.

24 So the Lord has rewarded me according to my righteousness,

according to the cleanness of my hands in his sight.

 

Can you imagine writing a song in which you declare that the Lord has rewarded you according to the cleanness of your hands? Can you imagine singing about God favoring you because of your righteousness? If you have no struggles here, I would guess that your picture of your own perfection is a little clouded. We are sinners. None of us is righteous enough before the Lord on our own to claim that God owes us goodness because of our own goodness.

 

But, bring in imputation. When God looks at my record, he sees the record of Christ. When God looks at my test scores, he sees the perfect answer sheet filled out by Christ. When God looks at my life-evaluation, he reads the life-evaluation of Jesus. Then, yes, I can say that God will reward me based on my righteousness, the righteousness imputed to my account in Christ.

 

2 Corinthians 5:21 – For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

 

What joy must we find in imputation! How awesome it is to think that God is not looking at me, mad at me, disappointed in me, but instead sees the righteousness of Christ. This is a good doctrine, and one we must not lose.

 

Now, let’s have the disclaimers. First, David knew that he was not perfect. Contextually, I also do not think David was seeing imputation. What David was dealing with specifically was the fact that he, as a leader, had not wronged those who were attacking him and trying to kill him. Because David had been faithful to the Lord and not a villain, he could say that God rewarded him with battle victory because of his righteousness.

 

Second, may we never allow the doctrine of imputation to lead us to a quietism that no longer strives against sin. Never has Christianity, biblical Christianity, been a willingness to continue in sin simply because grace has been applied. Those who know Jesus and grasp imputation will, because of the presence of the Holy Spirit in their lives, battle against the evil still indwelling in our lives. Like a land owner who finds squatters on our claim, we battle against sin until our claim is free of those who do not belong there. We fight sin until it is gone. We participate in sanctification until our lives match the picture of imputation that God has already given us. So, please, do not allow yourself or anyone else to continue in sin out of a lazy acceptance of imputed righteousness; God never called us to live like that.

 

But, with disclaimers aside, may we all learn to love the truth that God has imputed to our accounts the righteousness of Jesus. We can trust in the resurrection of Jesus as our future resurrection too, because God already sees us with the perfect life of Jesus credited to our own records. We can trust that God will care for us, because he cares for his perfect Son. 

I’m not sure that we can get a more famous scene in the book of Exodus than the scene of God speaking with Moses from the burning bush. The scene is dramatic, memorable, and gripping. It is perfect for movies. And almost everybody, even those who are not students of the Bible, know something of it.

 

Included in that scene is the question Moses asks the Lord about his name. Moses knows God is sending him to Egypt to bring out God’s people. Moses wants to know what name he should use for God. He wants to know what to say if they ask what is God’s name.

 

Exodus 3:13-14 – 13 Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” 14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I am has sent me to you.’ ”

 

God tells Moses, “I am who I am.” On the surface, this does not seem terribly helpful. But, a bit of consideration here is very helpful.

 

First, let me not go down the often traveled road of many modern teachers. I’ve heard people say that the “I am” is open-ended so that we can know that God is everything we need. Certainly, God has no lack in his ability to supply our needs, our joys, our comforts, and all the rest. However, I do not know that this is behind the name.

 

I would think it more likely that God was letting Moses know that God is, well, God. Moses and the people of Israel living in Egypt do not get to define him. This is not to say that God is beyond being defined. But, it is the Lord, through his revelation of himself through his word, who will define himself. He is not going to be simply the God who rescues or the God who comforts or the God who heals or the God who judges. Such are pieces that are too small to be the entirety of the Lord. God is God, the ultimate God over all. He is Lord, and he will not be subject to our wishful thinking as to his ways or limits.

 

Consider how a restrictive name might have impacted Moses’ mission. He goes to Egypt and tells people that God has called the people to leave the land of their slavery. They want to know God’s name. Then, pretend that Moses does what we often do in modern Christianity and begins to define God based on what the people seem to want at the time. Would Moses be describing the reality of God? This is not likely. The people wanted rescue and freedom. They wanted to be out from under the yoke of their harsh task masters. But, did they want a God who would, in the next 40 years, watch them die in the desert for their refusal to obey his commands?

 

When we consider the phrase, “I am who I am,” we must consider the truth that God is God, whether we want him to be or not. We do not get to reshape him in our ways. We do not get to tell him how he should have done things. It is not ever our place to approve of or disapprove of his choices in our lives. God is God. He is who he Is. He is perfect, holy, righteous, and all the other things he revealed to us over the centuries of revelation in Scripture. He is not someone to be repackaged for a new generation.

 

In many ways, we have a Moses-like job. We are called by God to walk into a land of slavery and hostility. We are to locate people who belong to the Lord and call them to leave the land of their slavery for a place of life. In so many ways, this is evangelism.

 

As we try to tell the world around us about Jesus, about the call of the Lord to leave this land, they may question us as to the identity of the Lord. What is his name? How foolish we are to try to drum up a good ad campaign for God, shining on the Lord the light that we think the world most wants to see. He did not leave such an option open to us. We cannot rename God as a person who approves of things the world loves even though the Scripture has called it sin. We cannot reshape the image of God to make him into someone who would never judge, who makes human autonomy the ultimate good, and who expects no faithfulness from those he rescues. No, the Lord is the Lord, he is who he is. And we, if we are to be faithful, must present the world with the genuine picture of the God who calls them out of the land of slavery.

 

May we learn from the name of God given to Moses. May we present the Lord as who he is and not as what we think the world wants him to be. May we also serve him as who he is, and not based on how we want our lives to be. The reward is the promised land of eternal life, eternal joy, and eternal perfection. The reward is worth any of the hardships we face in the here and now as we find ourselves having to be reshaped into God’s image instead of us reshaping God into ours.

And, we must recognize that, in our own Christian walks, God is who God is. That means that when things do not go the way that we want, we have no right to declare God to have failed us or mistreated us. God is, by definition, perfect and holy. His ways are right. His understanding is beyond us. We cannot rightly redefine him as a different kind of being based on how we feel about what has occurred in our lives. God is God. God is Lord over all, even over our every moment. And we best honor him when we understand this: He is who he is, and he is always, always exactly right and pure and perfect in every way.

It seems that, every so often, I will run across a person who refuses to become a member of a local church because, as they declare, they do not see the concept of formal church membership in Scripture. Are such people correct? Is there a call in the Bible to go through the membership class, to declare commitment to a local body, and to affirm the beliefs and order of a local congregation? Is there a proper, biblical rationale to call people to formal membership. The membership skeptic demands proof. Can we oblige?

 

There are many arguments that can be made and have been made on behalf of church membership, and I do not wish to rehash them here. If you want to look at the question of church membership more fully, to wrestle through how it all works, visit 9marks.org and see the arguments that are put forward by that solid organization. However, in my reading today I was reminded of a verse in Scripture that, I believe, shifts the burden of proof off of the elders promoting membership and onto the shoulders of those who claim no such thing is commanded in Scripture.

 

Hebrews 13:17 – Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.

 

Now, first things first, that verse does not say anything about formal membership. There is no church covenant mentioned, no membership roll explicitly described. And, generally, at this point the membership skeptic feels confident.

 

The membership skeptic would say to us that the burden to prove membership rests on the shoulders of a membership proponent. I believe that there are things contained in this verse which powerfully shift the burden of proof for church membership off of the shoulders of the proponent of membership and onto the shoulders of the skeptic. Here are three phrases which I argue at least allow if not codify  church membership from this verse, and which a membership skeptic bears the burden of disproving:

·             Obey your leaders 

·             keeping watch over your souls

·             with joy and not with groaning

 

The verse says, “obey your leaders.” That is not a statement that says only obey your leaders if they can produce a specific prooftext for you. The verse is not telling folks, only obey if you see in Scripture that the instruction given to you is actually a direct instruction from God. If such were the intent of the verse, the command should not be “obey your leaders,” but rather “obey what you see in Scripture.”

 

Of course, we are not to follow a church leader who directs us against Scripture. We are not to follow a person as he leads us into sin or as he makes inappropriately restrictive commands. However, there seems to be, in the call to obedience, a right of leaders to lead, meaning they can instruct people’s behavior at some level so long as that instruction is not a violation of biblical principle.

 

Thus, if the leaders in a church say that they want people who are a part of that church to covenant together and become part of a formal membership roll, the burden of proof now falls on the membership skeptic to produce a biblical command against the directive of the leaders of the local church. It is not required that the elders prove that membership is required by Scripture. The burden is on the skeptic to show a proof against membership. And I have yet to ever hear any skeptic’s argument go further than to say they are unconvinced of the requirement for membership. Thus, “obey your leaders” makes the case for membership so long as the leaders are in churches that have formal membership.

 

Second, the phrase “keeping watch over your souls” indicates membership. Those who are leaders and to be obeyed in Hebrews 13:17 have a responsibility to keep watch over the souls of those they lead. Here is the simple question: Over whose souls are leaders to keep watch? As a pastor, am I charged with keeping watch over every human soul? Am I charged with keeping watch over the souls of all in my city, a town of around two million? Am I to keep watch over the souls of every visitor to our Sunday morning services? How many visits must they make before I know that I am watching over their souls?

 

It is apparent that the author of the book of Hebrews knew that there was some appropriate method for the leaders of the local congregation to know over whose souls they were to keep watch. How did they know? The only sensible way had to include a person’s voluntarily communicating to the leaders that they wished to be united with the local congregation and thus under the care of the shepherds. Call it what you will, that is membership. The burden of proof here shifts to the skeptic to come up with another, logical and biblical argument that proves that this is not some sort of formal membership that is understood by leader and led alike. 

 

Finally, the phrase “with joy and not with groaning” is a clincher. Those under the leadership of elders are to let them lead with joy and not to give them cause to groan. Simply speaking personally as an elder, I will say this: It gives me joy when a person formally, openly, and honestly declares himself or herself to be under our church’s care, committed to the body, ready to serve. The way that we do this is with membership. So, in our congregation, to let us lead with joy and not with groaning is not to be a visitor who has not declared commitment. Instead, to help us lead with joy is to declare formally that you are in, one of the family, under our watch care. The way we do this is through formal membership processes. To oppose membership is to make our jobs harder, causing groaning. Again, the burden of disproving this or overturning it with biblical cause is on the shoulders of the membership skeptic, not on the shoulders of the leaders who have agreed on a simple and formal way to know whom we lead.

 

There is, of course, much more in the New Testament that indicates that formal membership in the local church was understood. All of that is worth studying. However, it is also wise for those of us who have membership in our local churches to recognize that the burden of proof to oppose membership is on the shoulders of the skeptic who must be able to biblically and convincingly disprove the conclusions drawn from the three phrases in Hebrews 13:17. And, while I recognize that authoritarian and legalistic leadership is a danger to be opposed—a danger which Scripture also teaches us how to deal with—the general and clear call in this verse is to have leaders, acknowledged leaders, who have authority, acknowledged authority, over people who are voluntarily led. This implies membership, a membership which empowers leaders to keep watch with joy.

 

One objection to what I have written has come to me as I continued to think this issue through. Does what I have just written do away with the principle of sola scriptura? Would a proponent of the regulative principle in worship have to oppose this? My hope is not. I have no belief at all that the elders of a church have the right to develop a doctrine that is not present in Scripture. However, I would argue that the elders in a local church have every right to extrapolate from Scripture sensible practices that fit with the overall tone and purpose of the text. So, for example, while Scripture does not have a policy present for child pick-up from an event, there is nothing wrong with a church’s leadership developing a check-in policy for the protection of children. While Scripture does not say anything about how many cups to use in communion, the elders of the church may develop a plan that works best for the particular church and its context. The point of a membership roll is for the protection of members and the shepherding of the flock. The concept of a membership seems to be implied or at least allowed by Hebrews 13:17 along with many other passages. So, no, I have no intent to promote elder authority beyond sola scriptura. However, I deny that there is anything out of biblical bounds in leaders of a church organizing things for the more faithful shepherding of the flock.

 

Does this view that I am proposing allow for an authoritarian eldership? No, I do not think so at all. Praise God, the congregation as a unit has the right to speak into the lives of the elders to challenge them where they are in sin. Now, Paul puts clear checks in place. Accusations against an elder are not to be entertained apart from witnesses. Obviously, Paul wanted to keep the church from being rocked by the waves of every disgruntled person in the congregation. But, for sure, if the elders are developing requirements for church life that are improper or unduly harsh, the body has the right to speak back regarding that issue.

 

Now, let me go back and reiterate the main point I am making: opposition to formal church membership is something that the skeptic must prove, not the church leader. If someone wants to try to have a church without a formal membership, they are not necessarily in sin so long as they have a method of obeying the commands of body life in Scripture. However, I would suggest that such an attempt is far more difficult and less effective—thus less obedient—than it is to have a membership roll and policy. But, and this is the important piece for those who argue against formal memberships, the church that has wisely chosen a formal membership policy has every right to do so and to expect those who wish to be a part of the life of that church to go through the process.

Sometimes we forget the amazing things that God is doing in the small parts of the big stories of the Bible. Notice what happens as God wraps up the book of Genesis. Earlier, we have seen God make a promise in the Garden of Eden that a descendant of the woman would come into the world and crush the devil, thus setting things right in a world gone wrong. Then, centuries later, God made a promise to Abram (Abraham) that he would have a family through whom God would bring someone to bless all nations on earth. Then we saw Isaac and Jacob begin the nation-making process, but it was slow. And, finally, we watched Joseph sold to Egypt, preparing the way for the family to move.

 

In chapter 46, we see that God moved the family to Egypt, a total of 70 people in all. Joseph, because of his position in Pharaoh’s court, had the knowledge and influence to see to it that his family would live in the land of Goshen. And Joseph had the savvy to tell his family exactly what to say to the king to get things to happen the right way.

 

Genesis 46:33 – When Pharaoh calls you and says, ‘What is your occupation?’ 34 you shall say, ‘Your servants have been keepers of livestock from our youth even until now, both we and our fathers,’ in order that you may dwell in the land of Goshen, for every shepherd is an abomination to the Egyptians.”

 

All this seems neat. Joseph has landed a pasture for his family to keep sheep. They will survive the famine. That is nice.

 

But, God is doing something more, something quite special. Of all the places this family could have moved, Egypt was interesting. Egypt is not part of the promised land. Egypt is not the land flowing with milk and honey. Egypt is not where God promised Abraham that his family would live. So, why Egypt?

 

Only in Egypt was there a place that Israel and his family could move and be kept separate from the locals. The Egyptians had that interesting aversion to shepherds. So, Israel could move his family there, work, live, and be left alone.

 

One thing that God was doing was sovereignly moving things to allow the family of Israel to grow into the nation of Israel. God put them in a place where they could grow for hundreds of years without being noticed on the world stage. The family could grow, and be separated from the influences of the Canaanite religions and even from the Egyptian polytheism. As I once heard a teacher say, God placed the nation in an incubator where they could grow, free from pagan infection, for the centuries needed to become the nation of Israel we have come to know. God acted to preserve his promise, to keep the family alive, and to make it possible to bring the promised one into the world.

 

God is doing more in Scripture than we sometimes see. And we should learn from it to trust him and to know that he is on his throne. No, Jacob never planned to move to Egypt. He probably was not a big fan of leaving his homeland. But God used that move to build the nation. God used that move to keep his promise. And God can use our circumstances to work his will in our lives too, regardless of how well we realize what he is up to.

The honesty of the Scriptures is lovely to behold. God, in the inspiration of his holy word, did not remove from the lips or the pens of the authors of the various books the pain, hardships, foibles, and failures they faced. It is good, very good, that we see that they did not all have it easy. It is good, very good, that we understand that they had fear, doubt, frustrations, and all the rest.

 

In Psalm 17, as a simple example, the psalmist is praying to God for deliverance. Early in the psalm, the singer declares to God that he is asking for rescue because he has been faithful to the ways of the Lord. I think it fair to say that the psalmist, in declaring his uprightness, did not consider himself perfect, but simply understood that he had obeyed God’s laws in his dealings with those who are trying to wrong him and to kill him. The psalmist cries out to God for protection, knowing that he has never treated people in the wicked way the people are responding to him.

 

Now, a false religion, at this point, would have done a few things. First, the false religion may well have pretended that followers of God never face frustrations like the psalmist faced. But God’s word is honest, telling us that pain is a part of living in this fallen world.

 

Another thing that a false religion may have done is put in the psalm a perfect promise of absolute vengeance, restoration, and vindication. If I were making up a religion and shaping it to my whim, I would make sure that my poor, wronged psalmist could say that soon, very soon, all the bad guys will get theirs and my hero will ride off into the sunset victorious.   

 

But notice that, unlike the false religion of the prosperity gospel or the violent self-vindication of other religions, the Bible takes the psalmist down a different road.

 

Psalm 17:13-16

 

13 Arise, O Lord! Confront him, subdue him!

Deliver my soul from the wicked by your sword,

14 from men by your hand, O Lord,

from men of the world whose portion is in this life.

You fill their womb with treasure;

they are satisfied with children,

and they leave their abundance to their infants.

15 As for me, I shall behold your face in righteousness;

when I awake, I shall be satisfied with your likeness.

 

The prayer of the psalmist makes sense. He cries out to god to arise, fight, beat down the bad guys, and show that the psalmist has been right all along. That prayer is not a surprise. Nor is such a prayer wrong.

 

Then the psalmist points out how much ease the bad guys have. They have kids. They have money. They seem to be passing wealth down from generation to generation as they continue to have things their way.

 

And one expects the psalmist to see the tables turn and get his way. But, this is not what God has to teach us in this song of worship. No, God wants to show us something better, and it is not the false, worldly success promoted by man-made religion.

 

At the end of his prayer, the psalmist says, “As for me, I shall behold your face in righteousness; when I awake, I shall be satisfied with your likeness” (v. 15). Do you see what happened? The psalmist does not, at the end of the day, expect an earthly reversal of fortune. Instead, the psalmist stops, takes a breath, puts on an eternal perspective, and expresses a greater hope than money and kids and earthly success. The psalmist expresses that his soul will actually be satisfied, not in the stuff that the world sees as success, but in the sight of the face, the majesty, the glory of God. Seeing God in his glory satisfies. Having riches in this life does not.

 

I wonder how well we sing this truth today. I wonder how honest our songs are about the pain and hardships of life. I wonder how often, when we present the truth of the faith, we include for people that there is no guarantee of success before the return of Jesus and the ultimate resurrection. I wonder how well we show people that a glimpse of the glory of God is worth more than power, prosperity, or progeny. May we learn to sing songs like Psalm 17 and focus our joy, not on the here and now, but on eternal truth.

There is, among many well-meaning Christians, a common practice of creating commands, rules, and standards that the Lord did not make. If you have ever been in any church for any period of time, you will probably know of some of them. Years ago, church leaders railed against the playing of cards. In other settings, ministers taught against dancing. Still today, many Christians declare any drinking of alcohol to be a sin, or those who do not declare it to be sin will still passively affirm that view by only allowing non-drinkers to serve in leadership in their churches. When I was in a youth group years ago, I remember being taught that any listening to secular—read not intentionally Christian—music was a sin. Or some churches will apply very specific rules for what constitutes appropriately modest dress for ladies.

 

Why do we do these things/? Why do we make rules that God did not make? In all of the things listed above, the ones who made those standards for their churches almost always did so because they wanted to help. Church leaders saw the potential dangers in each area, and they wanted to set up road blocks to prevent their people from falling into sin. Ministers opposed dancing, not because dance is evil, but because, in dance halls of their time, dance had become sexually charged and lust inducing. My youth minister opposed secular music, not because of a desire to do any harm, but out of a desire to call his students to think on righteous things—a good desire. We all know that drunkenness is a sin, and some decided to say that any drink takes a step toward sin, a step that is better not taken.

 

There are two problems, however, with our tendency toward making extra commands. One is that they do not work. Another is that they dishonor the Lord.

 

Hear how the apostle Paul responded to a people who were trying to apply strict dietary standards to help prevent people from sinning against the Lord.

 

Colossians 2:23 – These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.

 

Paul says that the rules people were making up in Colossae had an appearance of wisdom. These did not look like stupid commands. But, Paul also said that they lack any power to turn a person from sin.

 

In an encounter in Matthew 15, Jesus was approached by the religious leaders of his day and confronted on not following their particular rules on ceremonial hand-washing. Jesus actually turned the tables on the religious folks, asking them in verse 3, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?”  “ It seems that the religious guys of his day had changed God’s laws to fit things that they thought were wise. Look at how Jesus described where they ended up.

 

Matthew 15:6b-9 – 6b … So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. 7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:

8 “ ‘This people honors me with their lips,

but their heart is far from me;

9 in vain do they worship me,

teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ ”

 

Jesus quotes Isaiah 29:13, , a strong condemnation in the Old Testament, which clearly says that God is not honored by people who teach the commands of men as if they are the word of God. This should lead us to a right conclusion that, whether from false or true motivation, to create rules and commands that God did not make is dishonoring to the Lord.

 

Allow me, at this point, to check the glee of the lawless among us looking for license to sin and to declare that nobody has any right to bind their consciences. To obey the Lord does not require a specific biblical prooftext. For example, while I would argue that no person has the right to tell another Christian that no Christian may watch a movie, I do believe that we can apply other biblical principles to call people to account for what they watch. If you are watching something full of sin and which leads to lust, if you are watching something that someone had to sin to make, you are probably violating principles of the word of God. This is not me making a rule, it is simply me applying Scripture to life. So, let us not pretend that there are no standards for modern living to be derived from the word of God.

 

However, and this should slow down the moralistic legalists among us, we make a major mistake the moment we start teaching as commands things that the Lord did not command. Man-made rules do not restrain sin. Man-made rules that are not clearly biblical commands or clearly and directly derived from Scripture dishonor God.

 

Am I saying that authorities will not develop and apply standards for their businesses or their homes that are not commands found in Scripture? Of course I am not. We have rules in our house about when bedtime is or what time a child needs to get home. Those rules are not Scripture. But, they are ours to make as parents. However, we are not foolish enough to pretend that our rules are God-given commands that must apply to all believers.

 

One more caveat: God commands us to obey our authorities. If, then, you are a child under parents with particular rules or an employee who is willingly employed by a boss with a certain standard, obey that standard so long as you are not violating Scripture to do so. To avoid drinking alcohol, for example, is not a violation of a biblical command even if a command to avoid alcohol for an adult is not biblical. If a parent has made a rule for the ladies of the house about what clothes are acceptable, a child must obey that command to dress modestly, even if it cramps her style. We obey authorities, and sometimes give up our rights to do so, and we honor God in the process.

 

Friends, love the word of God. Do not compromise Scripture. Obey the word with great faithfulness. Do not set for other, adult Christians standards that are not in the word. At the same time, do not pretend that we can disobey the things and principles the Lord has taught. The bottom line is this: Don’t play with the word of God. Fear the Lord and take his commands seriously. Love the Lord, and do not try to do his job by creating law.

The word Christian, perhaps first mockingly coined, is a word that means “little Christ.” The idea of the word is that those who are followers of Jesus are little models or imitators of the Savior. Of course that is not intended to call believers divine or to suggest that we take part in the work of saving people from their sins. But it does mean that our lives, as followers of Jesus, should mimic his character as we obey his teachings and model his values. We are not, of course saved by such obedience, but if we are saved, such obedience becomes part of our lives.

 

That concept, the concept of looking like Jesus, came to my mind as I read the little transition section between two particular stories in Matthew’s gospel. At the beginning of Matthew 14, Matthew tells of the murder of John the Baptist, a good man, at the hands of Herod. Then, Matthew tells of Jesus crossing the sea, meeting a crowd, and feeding the 5,000.

 

What we often miss is the little section about why Jesus crossed the sea. I think it is significant as we consider modeling our lives after the Savior.

 

Matthew 14:13-14 – 13 Now when Jesus heard this, he withdrew from there in a boat to a desolate place by himself. But when the crowds heard it, they followed him on foot from the towns. 14 When he went ashore he saw a great crowd, and he had compassion on them and healed their sick.

 

Matthew says that, when Jesus heard about the unjust execution of John the Baptist, he withdrew in a boat. This news was sad news. It seems that Jesus and his disciples got in to the boat to get away for a little while. It is fair to say that they needed a rest. It is fair to say that they needed some time to grieve.

 

But, the crowds figured out where Jesus was going, and they raced around the lake to be there before the boat. Thus, when Jesus got off the boat, aiming for a place of solitude, he found a clamoring crowd of thousands. The crowd was full of hurting and needy people.

 

What did Jesus do? He did not tell the people to go away. He did not declare that he had a right to some down time. He did not tell them that his disciples were his priority, they needed a rest, so the crowd would have to go away. No, Jesus taught and healed those who desperately sought him.

 

I wonder, then, how much we who call ourselves Christian really want to model the Savior? If we do, modeling his character will include giving up our comforts and our rights for the good of others in the name of God. It will mean letting go of a well-deserved vacation from time-to-time to love others in need. It will mean letting go of our rights and even our perceived needs for the honor of the name of the Lord.

 

This is not all about things we must do outside the church, by the way, as if this attribute of Jesus is all about mission trips or soup kitchens. We also need to model the self-sacrificial commitment of Jesus to the good of others in our church lives. God has commanded us to be a part of the formal worship of the Lord. When we attend church, we display that God is number one and we encourage other believers simply by being there with them—not to mention how great it is for us to get into each other’s lives for prayer and encouragement. But how many of us will blow off that commitment the moment we think we need a little down time or that we think some other priority presses? Modeling Jesus’s character would have us giving up our rest and even our convenience to invest in the lives of others, even other believers.

 

No, this is not a call to legalistic rules about church attendance. Neither is it a radical outcry against taking a vacation. Rather, the point here is that we must become a people who model Jesus by being faithful to the commands of the Lord and compassionate toward others, even when we have the desire to be left alone or to do our own thing. We must ask if we look like Jesus with the decisions we make.