One of the greatest blessings that I have in my life in the ministry that I am in is the sweetness of serving along with a team of elders. Our church, unlike any I have ever served in, recognizes that God has called the body to be spiritually led by a team of men who all work together to accomplish the task of ministry. The elders in our church are not my underlings or servants, they are my partners and friends. Our elders are godly men who bring different gifts and perspectives to the table.
Sadly, in so many churches, the model of ministry is that of a single pastor wielding all the authority and owning the work. The model is more that of an American corporate CEO and his company. Perhaps there are assistants on staff. Perhaps there are deacons who act as a board to either help or check the pastor. But in so many cases, the pastor plays the role of the solo leader.
Moses, as he led the nation of Israel through the wilderness, made the mistake of trying to be the solo leader. Moses acted as though every decision needed to be his. He burdened himself and the nation by owning responsibility for all the things that the people did.
But, one day, Moses’ father-in-law came to him, saw what he was doing, and offered him both rebuke and advice. Now, this is not a picture of the New Testament church. But it is a great example of the principle of how elders ought to work, or at least how they ought to start to work.
Exodus 18:13-23 – 13 The next day Moses sat to judge the people, and the people stood around Moses from morning till evening. 14 When Moses’ father-in-law saw all that he was doing for the people, he said, “What is this that you are doing for the people? Why do you sit alone, and all the people stand around you from morning till evening?” 15 And Moses said to his father-in-law, “Because the people come to me to inquire of God; 16 when they have a dispute, they come to me and I decide between one person and another, and I make them know the statutes of God and his laws.” 17 Moses’ father-in-law said to him, “What you are doing is not good. 18 You and the people with you will certainly wear yourselves out, for the thing is too heavy for you. You are not able to do it alone. 19 Now obey my voice; I will give you advice, and God be with you! You shall represent the people before God and bring their cases to God, 20 and you shall warn them about the statutes and the laws, and make them know the way in which they must walk and what they must do. 21 Moreover, look for able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe, and place such men over the people as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens. 22 And let them judge the people at all times. Every great matter they shall bring to you, but any small matter they shall decide themselves. So it will be easier for you, and they will bear the burden with you. 23 If you do this, God will direct you, you will be able to endure, and all this people also will go to their place in peace.”
Jethro saw something that many churches do not see in their structure. To fail to surround a pastor with other leaders who can take responsibility for ministry is not wise. It will wear a pastor out. It will prevent a people from growth. It will not honor the Lord.
Moses had a major role to still play. He, as a prophet, had the responsibility to communicate the word of God to the people. Remember, the Scriptures had not been written yet, so Moses carried direct revelation to the people. In fact, this is also why Moses should have decided the hard cases, because he had a direct line to God that was not there for every other person in the nation.
How is what Jethro told Moses like and unlike elders in the modern church? Jethro saw that no moderately large group of people in a spiritual context is wise to be led by only one man. It is a task that is beyond us. Notice that Jethro brought the leadership down to groups of tens. There was a hierarchy in the nation, there had to be, but no person would have been responsible to individually oversee any more than ten people in Jethro’s plan of thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens. One can assume that this would have been properly expanded so that people were called to serve and oversee a manageable group.
I would also argue that Jethro’s plan is unlike elders in the modern church in the role that Moses played. Moses served the role of Old Testament prophet. He spoke to God for the people and spoke direct words from God back to the people. Praise God, we are not in such a world. In a solid church structure, the elders, all of the elders, have access to the completed word of God and can communicate it to the people. In the church, the burden of teaching should not fall on the shoulders of one man as if he, like Moses, is the only one with access to God’s words.
Of course, I am not saying that, among a group of elders, there may not be one or two who teach more often. It may be that a church particularly pays one of the elders to be the primary preacher. But it is not healthy for a church to see only that elder in the pulpit while all the others play what appear to be secondary roles. This is why I love the fact that, in our church, other elders regularly preach and I sit in the congregation, hearing the word of God and being challenged and encouraged like the rest of God’s people. It would paint a poor picture for our congregation if they never saw me sit under the authoritative teaching of the word of God done by one of our elders.
Also, I would suggest that the New Testament congregation has a role to play in their own leadership in a way that simply could not work in the political situation of the nation of Israel. The only congregational business meetings Israel had led to disaster. But, in the New Testament, there appears to be a call for the congregation to take part in affirming the leadership of elders. We see this clearly in how Paul writes regarding church discipline in 1 and 2 Corinthians. The congregation in the New Testament church also had the requirement to rebuke elders in sin, though such a thing was only to be done under very controlled circumstances and with the greatest seriousness.
Of course, this passage is not the primary argument for biblical eldership. But, as I said, this passage is a great example of the basics of why elders are proper and needed. If your church has only one teacher, only one wielder of authority, your church may well not be doing things in a wise and loving way for the congregation or for the pastor. If your church only sees someone else in the pulpit when your pastor is on vacation, you may well not be functioning in a healthy way. In the New Testament, writers constantly write about the “elders” in the local church and not about the individual pastor. God knew what he was doing, and he showed us in various ways why it is so very good for us to have a plurality of elders to lead the congregation by the word of God and for the glory of God.
Not an Either Or
One of our most common logical reasoning mistakes is the fallacy of the false dilemma. Whether it is in the 24-hour news cycle or in our living rooms, we often fail to reason rightly by demanding that someone do either this or that, believe either this or that. But, sometimes, if we are not careful, we will miss the fact that people need to do or believe both things, that they are not mutually exclusive.
An example that comes to my mind is the person who decides that, because their heart is not in it today, they will not attend worship service. They will assume that God wants them to get their heart right before they go to church. They will know that God does not want them to be hypocritical when they attend worship. So, they decide, either God wants me to deal with my heart or to go to church. And they fail to consider that there is a better option.
When the Lord Jesus was putting the Jewish religious teachers of his day in their place, he showed us that God is not always about the either/or choices.
Matthew 23:23 – “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.”
Jesus says that the religious folks of his day are hypocrites. They were willing to give God a tenth of everything they own. They would tithe from their spice rack, which would have been a bigger deal to them than it sounds like for us. Spices were valuable. But, the religious folks ignored what Jesus said are the weightier parts of God’s law. They treated people badly, with injustice and cruelty, which violates the heart of all the laws of God relating to others, to love our neighbor as ourselves.
A person from the either/or false dilemma school of thought would say to the scribes and Pharisees that they need to stop tithing their spices and start loving others. Jesus does not do so. Jesus tells them that they did what they should have done with their tithes. But, they should have added love of neighbor to their lives if they really wanted to please God. Failure in one area did not give the religious teachers the right to disobey in another.
Now, go back to my illustration of the person who isn’t going to church today because his heart is not right. He is a fool. Why add to the guilt of a dark heart the disobedience of separating himself from the commanded gathering of God’s people. And, make no mistake, God’s people are supposed to gather and not give that up (cf. Heb 10:24-25). The solution for this man is not to hide until his heart is better. The man should do what he knows is biblically right, go and gather with God’s people, and he should ask the people of god to help him battle against the darkness of his heart. The man should both go to church and fight his sinful heart, not either one or the other and definitely not neither.
What about the false battle that some wage between living under grace or living lives of obedience? Some Christians pretend that grace almost excludes a call to righteousness and obedience. Others assume that a battle to obey the commands of God must make them less gracious toward themselves or others. What would God say? There is no false choice to be made here. God commands both of us. We obey his word. We live under his grace. There is no conflict.
Where else in your life do you put yourself into the either/or mentality when it is not merited? Where do you say to God that you will either obey him here or there? Where might the Savior say to you to keep up the right behavior in one area while adding to it proper and weightier behavior in another?
Burden Builders
How do you think of your Christian leaders? How do you think of your Christian friends? When you hear from your pastor, your teachers, or those with whom you are in fellowship, what happens to the burden on your spiritual shoulders? Is your load lightened? Or, does your burden get heavier as you listen and interact? How about when people talk with you? Do you lighten loads or load down others?
One of the criticisms that the Lord Jesus raised against the Pharisees and teachers of the law had to do with how they made life far harder, far more difficult, more heavy, for the people. The teachers of Jesus’ day had no problem loading people down with commands, rules, and expectations that were well beyond the Scriptures. And, I am sure that they also used the Scriptures as a solid weight from time-to-time.
But Jesus was not impressed with the way that the teachers squashed people in their lives. Jesus said in Matthew 23:4, “They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger.” Something about the religious guys of Jesus’ day burdened people, even sometimes with the truth, but in a way that only crushed and never healed.
I wonder for myself and for others if such a thing ought to be said of us. I surely hope not. We want to be faithful to Scripture. We will be a people of truth and of Scripture in our local church. But, I wonder if there is a way that, if we are not careful, we will take even that commitment and make it more burden than blessing, more weight than wonder, more grinding than gracious. How can we be sure to be people of truth without being people of crushing regulations and expectations?
There is a difference we must grasp between ways of communicating the ways of the Lord. We call people to righteousness. We call people to sanctification. But we must be sure that our calls, that the steps we demand people follow, that the burdens we ask people to bear are biblical. And, we also must be a people who, when a hard burden is on a fellow believer’s shoulders, we are the first to get under that load with them and help them lift it.
Imagine, for example, some possible problems. A believer is wrestling with a sin they need to let go. Maybe they are treasuring a dream for their future at a level that it has become a heart idol. Of course we must help them to see that treasuring the Lord is the call and that heart idols must not be in our lives. But, is that all we do? Do we tell them how wrong they are, prove our point, say a prayer over them, and then walk away? What a burden we have placed on their shoulders without helping them move it. Could we not help more? Do we call them the next day? Do we show them love in other areas? Do we help them to know that we are their friends, whether or not they defeat their sin this instant? We can do better. Yes, the burden is one of truth in this instance, but our relationship can help lift it.
Or perhaps we have something we want a person to believe. Perhaps there is a doctrinal area in which we disagree. How do we approach them? Do we come in, guns blazing, and tear them to shreds? How burdensome this is without any attempt to help them. If your goal is winning an argument and not in healing and growing a believer, I wonder how pleased the Lord really is with your debating skill.
And, from time-to-time, the burdens we tie up on people’s shoulders are not even biblical. Sometimes we weigh people down with our preferences and expectations. Sometimes we will pour onto others, not a biblical call to discipleship, but our own personal way of growth that we demand they follow too. This is a burden that, if we are wise, we will lift off their shoulders for them by helping others to see that they must meet the Lord’s expectations, not ours.
Consider, Christians, what God says to us in Galatians 6:1, “Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.” How often do we feel the call to correct? How seldom do we attempt to correct in a spirit of gentleness? We must do both. We must call for changes in our fellow believers. But our calls must be biblical and gentle. Our calls must be met with our lives connecting to theirs to walk the hard road with them. We should not be known as people who pop into others’ lives, drop a bomb of truth on their heads, and walk away never to help. May we learn to love with life, to love with friendship, to love in fellowship, to love for the long haul, to love with truth, and to love with genuine, gentle grace.
Judgment and Meaning Well
How many times have you heard that God judges the heart, not the actions, of a person? Is that statement true? “God judges the heart” is one of those statements that has truth in it, but which is easily misused, misunderstood, and misapplied. That statement is a true statement to a point, but can easily become a platitude that people apply where it does not belong.
Where is it true? Throughout the Scriptures, God has said strong things to those who have performed right religious deeds with cold and cruel hearts. Consider that, in Amos 5:21-24, God told the people that he hated their religious ceremonies, because they performed those duties with hearts that were full of evil. So, in that case, God looks at the heart more than the actions.
But, does it go the other way? When somebody has a zeal for God, but is wrong about the facts, does God look at the heart more? Are those who say they want to serve God, but who are wrong about how to know God, OK before God?
Look at what Paul wrote about his Jewish kinsmen in Romans 10 to see something about heart and knowledge.
Romans 10:1-3 – 1 Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.
Paul writes of the Jews of his day that they had, indeed, a zeal for God. There were people among the Jews who really wanted to do right things with God. Was that zeal enough?
No, the zeal for God in the hearts of Paul’s people was not enough to bring them salvation. In verse 1, Paul said that his heart’s desire for them is that they would be “saved.” To desire their salvation implies that they are currently unsaved, lost, in grave danger. Thus, we can only logically conclude that, though God looks at the heart, God does not give a pass to a person whose heart is passionate but who does not know him. The people were trying to establish a righteousness of their own. Establishing righteousness is good. But, to attempt to establish righteousness not in the way of God is not enough to make a person right with God.
May this text remind us, then, that God is our ultimate judge and master. Yes, he sees into our hearts. He is never fooled by our outward religious practices as if those can mask a darkened, godless heart. At the same time, God is also holy, and his standard is firm. He is not going to allow zeal to make him violate his way of righteousness. People are not OK with God just because they are passionate about God, or what they think to be divine. No, God has made a way of salvation, one way, the way of Christ. When Jesus declared that no person comes to the Father except through him (John 14:6), he meant it.
Now, don’t get me wrong, it is always better to do right than to do wrong. It is better to obey God, even when your heart is cold, than to have a cold heart and add to that coldness more disobedience. And, we love all who live in this world who desire to please God, and we love those who do not desire to please God. We want to see people come to life in Christ, to be forgiven by God, and to be saved. But we must grasp that being a sweet hearted person is not the way of salvation. To be right with God is to come to him in his way, with a genuine heart that trusts in Christ and finds mercy by grace alone through faith alone.
A Twisted Thought on Apologetics
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.
God’s Sovereignty Over Pharaoh’s Heart
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.
Fulfilling Prophecy on Purpose
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.
A Reason to Love the Doctrine of Imputation
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.
God Is Who God Is
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.
One Look at Church Membership in Scripture
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.
Pastor Travis Peterson 