On the one hand, it is hard not to sympathize with such a call, for the generation in which we live is quite arguably the most overtly godless one our country has ever had. And while it can certainly be argued that this country has been filled with ungodly people throughout its short history, never have we seen such a commitment by its citizens to delight in that which is so contrary to the law of God, be it social injustice, the parading of homosexuality, idolatry, etc. It seems as though something must be done, and there are obviously people who are attempting to do “something” about it.

And while it tempting to laud such attempts, as a Christian—as one who stands by faith in Jesus Christ and beside the testimonies of Scripture—the way this call to revival is being handled by those who call themselves Christians is showing itself not to be the cure for America’s ills, but it is showing itself to be a symptom of the political cancer that has ridden the American church for far too long.

And the greatest indication of this is the unabashed rally by Evangelical Christians behind a man who unashamedly practices Mormonism—a cultic religion that shares nothing with the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. And while Glenn Beck might understand morality, and while he might rightly preach that abortion and homosexuality are evil, he nevertheless has no solution for the sin that so entangles America’s citizens. And despite this, Evangelicals are singing his praises, because he has a conscience, is conservative, and is willing to stand against immorality.

All of this is a telling symptom of the political cancer of the American church because in the rallying of professing Christians behind a Mormon they demonstrate that the state of America is of greater importance than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. These show that their greatest love is not the Savior who spilt his blood on their behalf, but it is the recapturing of the dim glory of America. These have shown that they are far more concerned with the preservation of the dying American dynasty and the American way of life than they are with eternal Kingdom of God.

Ironically, this desperate alliance of Evangelicals with cultic religions that acknowledge that a god exists will in the end usher in the immorality they are attempting to dispel. And while things might appear to get better under such a godless alliance, it will merely be a bandage of idolatrous morality over the cancer of sin that plagues this country. And by allying ourselves with moral people who do not have the Gospel of Jesus Christ so that we might bind America’s citizens with a law that will never lead to righteousness, we forfeit the only Remedy for unrighteousness—the Gospel.

It is high time that we as Christians abandon this Christless charade of ours. We must choose this day whom we will serve—will it be God in Christ or will be America? Will we consider ourselves aliens and sojourners in this land and citizens of Heaven, or will we rest our security here and neglect the Lord who bought us? There is now no middle ground.

For in addressing sin in this way, we are actually doing more harm than good, for instead of nurturing a public sort of conviction for the confessor so that he would be all the more diligent in the mortification of his sin, we downplay the seriousness of his sin and weaken the conviction that he has by our supposed sympathy. And while we might understand certain struggles and while we might share the same struggles, we should be wholeheartedly committed to the destruction of those sins rather than edifying a brother or sister with false edification.

This similarity is this, namely that there is good and there is evil, and men, in order live eternally, must do more good deeds than evil deeds. It is the burden of men, not to know God chiefly, but to appease him with works. It is pervasive among all religions, whether they be personally conjured or based upon antiquity, and they all share the exact same principle though expressed in different terminology and played with different sorts of rules. Well, that is all religions save one.

Biblical Christianity stands alone in this regard. For it is Christianity alone that declares, “[Salvation] depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who has mercy” (Rm. 9:16). Christianity alone declares that men are not justified by works of the law but in a faith in God that is itself granted by God (cf. John 6:29; Phil. 1:29; Eph. 2:8). Christianity alone declares that God has before the foundation of the world hand-picked those whom he would save and would adopt as his children (cf. Eph. 1:3-6). And it is Christianity alone that declares that all these things are done, including the salvation of men, not for the sake of men chiefly but for the glory of God.

Therefore, it is Christianity alone that declares that end of all things is God. Creation, the Fall, Redemption, disaster, tribulation, etc. all exist by God and for God. There is nothing that exists that does not speak of his glory, and there is nothing that exists that is centered upon men.

And this perhaps is the greatest reason why biblical Christianity is such a stench in the world. We like to attribute Christianity’s putrescence to our own making, but, in the end, Christianity is despised because it declares men can do nothing to save themselves. If men will be saved, God will save them. If mercy is to be shown, God will show it. If compassion is to granted, God will grant it. And no human deed and no act of the human will will sway God in this matter. It rests upon him alone.

And this, my friends, is what distinguishes Christianity from every other religion on the planet. Christianity declares that you cannot work yourself to God, but you must believe upon Jesus Christ and repent and learn that if you have believed upon Jesus Christ and have repented it is because he has given you that faith and repentance.

But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere. For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life.

Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (2Cor. 2:14-16; 4:1-6).

And while we must live our lives from day-to-day and direct each one toward the glory of God, it is of utmost importance to live a life of reflection upon the goodness of our God in Christ. For in not doing so (to which I can readily testify), we effortlessly fall into fits of grumbling and disbelief, much like the Israelites of old who grumbled against the God who for them parted the Red Sea. Therefore, this post is for me a reflection upon these things, and it also a much needed update in the series that I hope will be of some edification to you and your strivings for Christ-likeness.

When I begin to reflect, it almost surreal that it was only a year ago that I was sitting on the deck of a beach house, chewing on the stem of a pipe, and thinking upon what we could do to place ourselves in a position where we could quickly (relatively speaking) rid ourselves of our debt so that we might have a life that was free to live and to give for the sake of Christ and his church. Our situation at the time was pretty bleak for a couple of our age—ensnared by a mortgage which we could hardly afford, barely making minimum payments to a number of creditors, and living from paycheck to paycheck to stay in a house that was so far from our friends, our families, and our church. To make matters all the worse, I picked up a second job on the weekends so that for upwards of four months I scarcely had a day off. I was disconnected from my wife, my friends, my family, and my church, and it all was for the sake of “just getting by.”

It was in this that the Lord began to work to bring us out of our state of spinning tires in the bog to one where we could make some real headway on ridding ourselves of our slavemaster. We had determined in that week of contemplation that the best way to rid ourselves of debt was to buy some land, by a temporary, livable structure to place on it, to sell our home, and to do all of this as inexpensively as possible.

For those familiar with the area, you know that buying cheap land in Wake County is about as possible as finding a needle in a haystack. Even more, we were quite determined as to where we wanted to live in that we did not want to live farther away from our families, our friends, our church, and our workplaces. And even though our list was so determined, God graciously bestowed upon us a piece of land that was closer to work, closer to family, closer to friends (well, closer to most of them), and two miles from where our church met. Even more, this land had septic and water and was formerly the home of other temporary, livable structures. And even more than that, we bought it at a price that was well below what it is worth. All these things done by the hand of an almighty and merciful God. Praise him!

As for the temporary, livable structure, it so happened that in due time my wife’s father’s friend had one such structure that was essentially sitting unoccupied in his backyard. That structure had been the property of his brother who had recently passed, and his widow was all the more willing to be rid of it. And so we purchased said unoccupied, temporary, livable structure with the gracious help of my father-in-law and had it moved to the property on which we recently closed in October.

And though that was such a huge hurdle, what was perhaps a much greater hurdle was working on our house and getting it prepared to sell. There were a number of things that needed to be done—putting closets in two bedrooms that had none (but formally did), replacing the floors of two bathrooms, replacing carpet in our living room, replacing the heat pump, and a gazillion other smaller things—all of which, when coupled with the terrible market we trying to enter (considering there were at least five other properties within view of our front door that had been for sale for several months prior to our desired market date), made our task seem at best an impossible one. And yet we trudged along through holidays and two jobs (seemingly blindly at points), counting on and praying that God would do the same thing that he did with the land and the mobile home with our house.

And so it came to the point that we were ready to sell our home, and we had contacted one of three realtors provided through Dam Ramsey’s website (the website being a suggestion of my father). And it just so happened that the realtor we contacted lived a couple of miles from where we moving, had sent her children to the preschool where my wife’s mother is the director, was a Christian, and went to the church where a guy I had worked with at my second job was an assistant pastor. Even more, she graciously reduced the percentage of selling income and was zealously helpful and gracious throughout the whole process.

When the week had come to put our house on the market, my wife happened upon a woman who was looking to buy a house in our neighborhood, and she let her know that we were about to put our home on the market in addition to the several that were already up for sale. Two days before our house was to go onto the market, our realtor contacted the woman with whom my wife had spoken, and she found that that woman was about to put an offer on a house in our neighborhood that evening. She withheld her offer to purchase that evening so that she could see our home before she made her final decision. She visited our home the next day and made an offer to us that evening above our asking price! All of this the day before our house was to go on the market!

All this happened in this way, I believe, so that God would receive all the glory for the selling of our home. If we had sold our home the first day we had it on the market, we could have attempted to take some of the glory for ourselves thinking that we had made our home a desirable place to live. But God, by his almighty hand, not only sold our home in a bad market, but he sold our home in a bad market on the day before we going to put it on the market! Praise be to him alone!

There is so much more I can tell of from that point to now—the struggles and the graces with regard to the inspection process, the fixing up (still very much ongoing) of the temporary, livable structure, the selling of my car, the day-to-day provision of our Lord, and on and on,—and thinking upon all of these things and how God has so graciously and abundantly provided is beyond overwhelming. The fact is I am ashamed to think that God has evidently done so much for us in this short period of time that I have even once thought about grumbling and complaining. And yet I have done so frequently from time to time, focusing upon the minute details of every day and not upon the miracles God has brought about through all of this. Yes, there is still much work to be done, and, yes, it is overwhelming, exhausting, and sleep-depriving at points, but by looking at the forest instead of being overwhelmed by the trees, I know without a shadow of a doubt that God will continue to bear us through.

Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.

Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe (Gal. 3:19-22).

To answer our present question, “Why then the Law?” the most obvious course is to unpack the answer that the apostle gives. However, before we begin to answer that question, it is good to reiterate what has brought us to this point.

In own journey, we have followed the same line of thinking to which the apostle is outlining to the Galatian church. We have witnessed the testimony given by the Law to Moses and to national Israel, and we have looked at the author’s design in writing the Pentateuch. Having looked at the Pentateuch, we have seen that there is a Promise given to Abraham and his offspring. That Promise given to Abraham is that through his Seed all of the nations would be blessed. The apostle takes this Promise and broadens it to its fullest implications in his letter to Romans, writing, “The Promise to Abraham that he would be heir of the world did not come through the Law but through the righteousness of faith.” He later intimates that the Roman church is partakers of that Promise, writing, “[You are] heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided you suffer with in order that you may also be glorified with him” (Rm. 8:16, 17). This is a great Promise indeed.

The seeming problem that arises is that this Promise that was given to Abraham was given 430 years before the Law was given (cf. Gal. 3:17). That’s 430 years before the sacrificial system, 430 years before the tabernacle, 430 years before the civil law, and 430 years before the Ten Commandments. Abraham not only received an eschatological Promise of a Great Inheritance, but he was while he lived counted as righteous by his faith. And granting that receipt of the Promise required a perfect righteousness, the fact that Abraham not only pursued righteousness but attained righteousness apart from the Law drives us to question, “Why then was the Law given?”

To this question, the apostle Paul answers, “[The Law] was added because of transgressions.” In other words, the Law was given to Moses to lord over Israel because of their sins. And to this point, I believe John Sailhamer offers great insight in his book The Meaning of the Pentateuch. There Sailhamer contends that the Law was not the way that God desired (read revealed will) that his people interact with him. He desired that Abraham’s children would come to him as Abraham had—by faith—and that they would be to him spiritual children as well as his physical children.

But what happened? Israel was a disobedient and obstinate people, and they repeatedly transgressed and broke God’s covenant with them. And thus, in order to keep his Promise to Abraham and his Offspring (read the coming Christ King), he had to preserve Abraham’s lineage by reforging the covenant every time it was broken. Thus, as Sailhamer observes, we do not merely see a continuous book of law given to Moses in the Pentateuch, but we see a pattern of Israel’s disobedience, law, disobedience, law, disobedience, law.

When we view the giving of the law in this light, the apostle’s statement is strikingly clear—“The Law was added because of transgressions.” In other words, the reason that the Law is a part of the Scriptures (other than God’s sovereign will) is because Israel repeatedly rebelled against God by transgressing his covenant. They were unfaithful and faithless. Thus, God in his mercy and faithfulness, continually relented his wrath from Israel through the giving of the Law so that the Promised Offspring would come.

Upon this, the apostle elaborates his meaning. He first asks the question, “Is the Law contrary to the Promises of God?” to which he answers, “Certainly not!” His meaning is not to defend the Law as a proper means or a particular dispensation by which God chose to bring men to himself, but to make the point that the Law was never intended to bring about the righteousness and life that faith brings. In other words, the Law was never intended to be stepladder to God. He writes, “For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law,” intimating that there was never a law given by God that could give life. He makes this same point elsewhere, writing, “For by works of the law no flesh will be justified in his sight, for through the law comes knowledge of sin” (Rm. 3:20).

Now the apostle continues his point by intimating that Law, rather than serving as stepladder to God, served as a guardian and a slavemaster until the coming Faith would be revealed. The language that he uses is particularly strong, calling the law a guard and a prison, controlling its recipients for the sole purpose of preserving them until Christ came. It was instituted to preserve Israel and his children until that time when God’s people would be able to worship him in Spirit and in truth (cf. Jn. 4). In other words, it was brought into existence so as to preserve the line of Judah until that the time when the King from Judah’s line would come forth and would pour his Spirit upon all flesh.

Therefore, since that time as come, since that King has come and conquered sin and death and has ascended to the right hand of the Father in power, ruling and reigning until his enemies would be made his footstool, and since the promised Holy Sprit of God has been sent forth into the world, the Law has served its purpose and its power has been destroyed. As the apostle to the Hebrew puts it, “In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away” (Heb. 8:13).

The apostle Paul in this line writes:

Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise (Gal. 3:23-29).

The sum of all these things is clear, namely that if one is in Christ, he is not under the Law of Moses. He has been set free by Christ from the taskmaster that held Israel, and the taskmaster has now been vanquished (think 70 A.D.). If we are Christ’s, we are so by faith and not by works of the Law, and, we, therefore, like the Galatians should not try to turn back to the slavemaster having now been set free. For that which the apostle writes duly applies to us, “Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” (vv. 3:2,3). No, indeed! and if Israel was not able to save himself by works of the Law, what benefit do we seek to find in its observance?

Next: The Christian Life and the Law

However, when we turn to the New Testament and especially in the writings of Paul, we find that the authors are not hesitant in the least to address the matter. Paul’s letter to the Galatian church, for example, is almost in full an explanation of the Law and a critique of the Galatian church’s view and practice of it. Since the New Testament writers (i.e. those who lived and wrote after the coming of Christ) are not silent on the Law, why have we become so? And even if we have not been silent, why is there a seeming disparity between our own interpretations and applications?

What follows then in not what one might consider a systematic treatment of the Law, but it is rather simple questions posed and answered. The aim is that in the end that the whole might be systematically and theologically sound, but it is more a step-by-step journey than a recapitulation of a journey completed.

What is the Law?
Even beginning with the most basic of questions, it is difficult to come to an absolute consensus on it. When it is asked, What is the Law? the definitions vary, and the lenses through which it is viewed are different. So where are we to begin?

In its simplest of forms, the Law is the instructions / commands given by God through Moses to national Israel. These commands are found in the first five books of the Bible commonly referred to as the Pentateuch. Some have equated the Law with the Pentateuch so that every time that they think Law they think Pentateuch. Here we find the first distinction that must be drawn. For when we look at the first five books of the Bible, they are not a book of Laws, but they are a book that contains laws. In fact, we find that most of the Pentateuch is narrative and that the first commands given in a corpus are not given until the twentieth chapter of the second book. Therefore it must be held that the Law are the commandments given in the book that Moses wrote (i.e. the Pentateuch) not the entire book itself. This distinction will become increasingly important as we come to think upon the author’s intent in composing the Pentateuch.

Now when the Law as found in the Pentateuch is discussed among some, it is not done apart from categorizing the laws given. In Reformed circles, these categories are most commonly labeled as moral laws, ceremonial / sacrificial laws, and civil laws. When they are given these labels, they are meant to communicate that there are laws that are universally acknowledged (the moral law, which is commonly applied to the Ten Commandments), laws that pertain to sacrifice and worship, and laws that were applied to the state of Israel only. In applying these labels, the law is dissected and applied to the church in a fashion that seems fitting to the dissector. And while there is indeed a great deal of logic behind such categories, we must admit that the Scriptures never convenience us with these labels.

Why is the Law Given in the Manner which it is Given?
This is a huge question, and its answer will only give rise to further questions that will need to be answered later. Even so, it is a question that I believe must be answered and answered with great care. Presuming that what I hold as true is true, namely that there is a certain design behind the construction of the Pentateuch and a Sovereign hand over its history, why do we encounter the Law where we do? Why does God call Abraham out of Ur to follow him and yet fails to give him the law that he gave Moses? Why do we find Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, etc. among those who are considered to wholly and faithfully follow Yahweh and who did so apart from the Law given at Sinai? Many presume that these faithful saints had an archaic and oral version of the Law, yet we find that there is no Scriptural warrant for such a presumption. In fact, we find that the authors of the New Testament write against such a notion (cf. Rm. 4).

The implications of the Law given in such a manner are clear, and, though being so, they are huge. Simply put, the Law given to Moses four hundred years after the call of Abraham intimates that faithful worship and service to Yahweh can (if not should) exist apart from the Law, even the Ten Commandments. The apostle Paul picks up this very idea in his letter to the Roman church, saying:

For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression (Rm. 4:13-15).

In other words, the very Promise (read covenant) given to Abraham that he and his offspring would inherit the world (cf. Mt. 5:5) did not merely come apart from the Law, but it came in spite of it. Indeed, the Promise is fulfilled in those who have faith apart from the Law and not in adherence to the Law.

Indeed, the apostle picks up on this very notion in his introductory purpose statement in the book, viz. “to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of [Christ’s] name among all the nations” (Rm. 1:5) not obedience to the Law. Have you have wondered why Jesus was always on the bad side of the Pharisees? Imagine those who sought the Inheritance through strict adherence to the Law dealing with a man who healed (read worked) on the Sabbath (cf. Mt. 12:9-14), was to them a glutton and a drunkard (cf. Mt. 11:19), and who declared unclean foods clean (cf. Mk. 7:19). Christ did not do all these things purposelessly, but he did so with the point of showing:

This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
In vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men (Mt. 15:8,9)

What is perhaps the greatest single example of Christ’s desire to separate law-keeping from love of and obedience to him is that of the rich, young ruler (cf. Lk. 18:18-30). The ruler came to Christ and inquired of him how he could attain eternal life (read the Promise given to Abraham and his offspring). First, Christ addresses him with the Ten Commandments (at least a portion of it), and the ruler responds that he had kept them all. Now, we are typically cynical to his response, but the later, alarmed response of the disciples should prevent us from being so. This man likely was very moral and kept the Law to best of his ability. He may very well have been like Paul who was able to say, “As to righteousness under the law, I was blameless” (Ph. 3:6). And yet, when Christ pushes him further and requires that he sell all of his possessions and give to the poor, the man is able to walk away to his destruction. Why? He had kept the Law of Moses so fully that the disciples responded in somewhat dismay, “Then who can be saved?” This man had kept the letter of the Law and yet was not able to trust Christ over his riches. He had not sought the Promise by faith, and thus he stumbled over the Stumbling Stone (cf. Rm. 9:32).

In other words, we are brought back to the apostle Paul’s declaration in Romans 4, viz. “For the Law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.” Salvation must come not only apart from the Law, but it must come in freedom from it. He writes elsewhere:

For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”—so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith (Gal. 3:10-14).

So then we are left with further questions that shall be answered in due order.

Next: Why Then the Law?

When it is controlled, fire is to men a useful tool to eliminate that which is waste so as to free up space for that which is not. When it is not controlled, it is a decimating force that feeds and feeds until all of its resources are spent and all that is left in its wake is in utter ruin. It is a force to be harnessed, and it is a force to be feared when it is untamed.

When these attributes of fire are considered, they shed light upon God and his revelation of himself to Moses at the burning bush. And when we consider this revelation, burning bush is somewhat of a misnomer, for the bush was not burning at all. The bush was engulfed in flames, and yet, contrary to nature, it was not devoured by those flames. And it is at that point that the God of the universe reveals his name to Moses—Yahweh or I Am.

When we consider the nature of fire and the event of the burning bush, several things can be gathered about Yahweh at this revelation. First, we see that Yahweh, revealing himself as the fire that engulfs the bush but does not consume it, is a Being who is not dependent upon anything for his existence. Whereas a normal fire would devour the bush because it needed the bush as fuel for its existence, Yahweh needs no such fuel to exist. He is absolutely self-sufficient, and he needs nothing, whether on heaven or on earth, not only to exist but to thrive.

Secondly, we see that Yahweh is not a God who can be tamed or controlled, but he is a God who is untamable and uncontrollable. Whereas men can control fire by feeding it with fuel or withholding fuel from it or by locking it in a furnace, Yahweh cannot be controlled by such means. Since he is not dependant upon his creation for his existence, his creation has no sway over him or his will. Nothing or no man can thwart his power or his designs, for he who was I Am before his creation, is he who is I Am at this present time, and would remain I Am if this creation were brought to nothing.

Thirdly, since Yahweh is such a God, his creation is dependent upon him and his mercy and nothing more. When we consider the evil in the world and the hatred of Yahweh and his order in it, we should stand in awe of the great mercy of God in sparing it to this day. For if Yahweh is indeed a Being who is in need of nothing for his existence, and if he indeed is a fire that can exist without fuel, he most certainly can be a Consuming Fire that destroys rebellion and unrighteousness with the force of his great power. As indeed the author to the Hebrews writes:

See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven. At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, “Yet once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.” This phrase, “Yet once more,” indicates the removal of things that are shaken—that is, things that have been made—in order that the things that cannot be shaken may remain. Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire (Heb. 12:25-29).

When we consider that our God is such a God, that he is dependent upon on no one or nothing for his existence or his satisfaction, we must understand ourselves, live our lives, and feel with our hearts in accordance with this greatest of realities. We must understand that God does not need us or is want of our abilities to accomplish his purposes, but he grants to us the gift of being used by him for his Name’s sake. Therefore, when the Scriptures speak of humans working in God’s name, they are called instruments and vessels of God, not by necessity, but by his will. Therefore we must walk humbly knowing that if God chooses to use us, it is by his good pleasure and for his sake alone.

Furthermore, we must dispel thoughts and teachings that portray God as needy and as contingent upon our action to accomplish his will in the world. We must consider that the greatest Work of God in the world—the slaying of his Son for the sake of his people—was done solely by God at a time when none (even his disciples) were willing to stand for his sake. For if Christ died alone and accomplished Salvation for his people alone, he needs no human will or exertion to accomplish his other deeds. Christ reigns as King over his creation, and he will reconcile all things to himself in the appointed time. You can count on it.

Therefore, we must fulfill our days in this light, not as defenders of us defenseless God, but as slaves who are obedient to their Master’s voice. We must obey, even when our obedience does not seem to bear fruit, knowing that God is sovereign over all things and will work all things to their appointed end. We need not worry about what we believe is God’s desire for the world and be frustrated when that does not come to pass, but we should be content in faithful obedience alone knowing that he who holds the universe together by the word of his power will bring his purposes to pass. Amen.

And while we who are Christians profess our immortality to be vested Elsewhere, we are certainly not exempt from this desire to be remembered in this age. And while our ambitions might be sanctified to some degree when compared to those of the world, the underlying desire is the same—to be remembered on this earth after we have passed from it.

Therefore, it is not surprising that many of us find ourselves discontent when we find that our lives on this earth are anything but extraordinary. And it is for this reason that when titles such as “The Purpose Driven Life” find their way into bookstores, they fly off the shelf in the millions. We desire purpose, we desire a high calling, and, most of all, we desire the path of remembrance.

Yet in spite of this, we must consider the possibility that we will not be remembered by this world. Even more, we must consider that we might not be called to be remembered by this world. For what if some of us who call ourselves Christians are called to fulfill what the apostle Paul wrote to Timothy, namely to live “a quiet and peaceful life, godly and dignified in every way” (1Tim. 2:2)? What if our purpose is to submit to one another, to our governments, and to God in all things so as to make ourselves of little consequence to the worldly system around us? For as the bumper sticker concerning women is true, namely, “Well-Behaved Women Seldom Make History,” so it is true of all us, namely, “Well-Behaved People Seldom Make History.” For history loves to remember revolutionists.

This is not to say that the call to discipleship is not an extraordinary call, nor is to say that following Christ is not a revolutionary call, but it is to say that the call to discipleship, as utterly revolutionary as it may be when compared to the world, may not be one that lands our name in the annals of this world. In fact, when we think of it, it is quite revolutionary to desire a life that is quiet and peaceful and desires godliness over remembrance. For even in Christianity we find that we are always on mission or desirous to be on mission about something, whether it be the Great Commission, increasing our church sizes, or conservative politics, so that we scarcely have the time or desire to be quiet and peaceful. Godliness and holiness takes the back seat to greater things, and loving the church—our brothers and sisters in Christ—takes the back seat to that which is bigger, namely the unconverted world and its system.

And this is not to say that these grandiose aspirations are not important or that they have no place in Christian thought, but what if, perhaps, our focus is backwards? What if those grandiose things which we esteem the most should be secondary and a fruit of that which is primary, namely that which is quiet and peaceful? What if those things which are grandiose are contingent upon that which is in our estimations not, and what if our neglect of the lesser, “easier,” and less memorable things is inhibiting the fulfillment of the greater things?

Take for example the Great Commission from Matthew 28. It is a grandiose commission calling for the church to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them and teaching them to observe all that Christ has commanded us. What we must ask ourselves concerning this commission given by our Lord is is it a commission that stands alone or is it one that is predicated by a certain manner of living? Granting what Christ had taught in the previous twenty-seven chapters and the other Gospels, we see that a certain manner of living must exist prior to the fulfillment of this commission. We must love one another (i.e. the church) as Christ has loved us (cf. Jn. 14:34), we must love God with all our being (cf. Mt. 22:37), we must render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s (cf. Mt. 22:21), we must take up our crosses daily (cf. Lk. 9:23), we must sell our possessions and give to the poor (cf. Mt. 19:21), we must love the least of Christ’s brothers (cf. Mt. 25:40), etc. For how are we going to fulfill the Great Commission that Christ gave to his church, namely to make disciples who observe his commandments if we are not those who are his disciples by following his commandments?

The common problem that exists is that there is a misunderstanding as the what the Great Commission really is. Christ says, “Make disciples who observe my commandments,” and we read, “I am sending you on a urgent rescue mission to save the lost.” For this reason, we often overlook the command for obedience and replace it with a command to preach the Gospel as quickly as possible to minimize the number of souls going to hell. Therefore, we make foreign missions our chief goal, and everything that we do as the church revolves around preaching the Gospel in some form or another, whether rightly or wrongly. Ironically, by doing thus, we thwart the design of the Great Commission altogether. For if we first looked to the church and demanded her obedience to Christ’s commands, then we would first love our brothers and sisters as Christ loved us. By doing so, by loving our brothers and sisters in Christ whether at home or abroad, we would declare to the world we are Christ’s, for he said, “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (Jn. 13:35). And by doing this, we would pave the way for the Gospel and the Great Commission, for by our love for the church in obedience to Christ’s command, God will draw his people to himself.

This is not to say that there is no place for preaching the Gospel where there is no church, but it is to say that it should flow from our love for Christ’s church. And to bring this back to the original subject, this love that flows from our obedience to Christ may not be the path for remembrance or glory. Our part in obeying Christ might be simply (“simply” meaning “humanly impossible”) to live a quiet, godly life, submitting to one another in all things, and loving the church as best we can in the circumstances in which we find ourselves. We may never be granted the opportunity to be at the forefront of the “mission field,” and we may only be granted the small sphere to which we are presently assigned, loving our brothers and our neighbors as best we can, being salt in that place that lacks salt. Whether we are called to remain where we are or are commissioned to “grander” things, we should be content in eating and drinking to the glory of God (cf. 1Cor. 10:31).

These interpretations, coupled with a fundamentalist conception that divorce is at all times unacceptable irrespective of circumstance, have essentially disqualified all divorced men from having leadership and service roles in the church, even those whose divorces took place before they believed in Christ. And though divorce should certainly be taken into consideration when reviewing the qualifications of leader or servant of the church (as should a plethora of other factors), I think that a different interpretation in light of the apostle’s context will show that the apostle did not have the subject of divorce in mind when he penned his letter two millennia ago.

Prior to addressing the present text, it would remiss of me not to note that my stance on divorce is somewhat atypical (to say the least) in learned, Baptist circles. For I can scarcely think of one instance in my many years at a Baptist seminary when I heard one person give the opinion that divorce was ever an acceptable option for any Christian. I laid forth my position some months ago in a post entitled, “Sexual Infidelity and Divorce,” and its content is indirectly pertinent to the subject at hand.

1Timothy 3 and the Issue of the Stewardship of God’s Church
When we survey the qualifications given for the offices of elder (lit. overseer) and deacon by the apostle together, we find a common thread of responsibility and stewardship. These officers (for lack of a better term) must be able to govern themselves (e.g. “self-controlled,” “sober-minded,” “not a drunkard,” etc.) and able to govern their households (e.g. “manage his household,” “having submissive children,” etc.). For what reason? The apostle sums it this way: “For if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?” (1Tim. 3:5). Therefore, all of the requirements for church office directly relate with one’s ability to care / govern God’s church.

When we consider the requirement of the apostle, “the husband of one wife,” in this context, we find that it is a matter of stewardship of God’s church and directly relates with his ability to tend for God’s people. While it may be argued that divorce is a sign that man cannot govern his household well, I do not believe (nor does the apostle state) that this is true by necessity. Neither does the apostle state that marriage qualifies a man for an office and singleness disqualifies him, for we do not even know if Timothy himself (the pastor to whom Paul is writing) was married, and we certainly know that the apostle Paul was not.

What we do know is that marriage divides a man’s attentions, duties, responsibilities, etc. between his wife and the Lord. And while these are not mutually exclusive, the apostle does write elsewhere concerning this reality:

I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord (1Cor. 7:32-35).

When we consider the “husband of one wife” requirement with this declaration of the apostle in 1Corinthians and also consider that polygamy was not an uncommon practice in earlier times (as is attested to throughout the Scriptures), we start to see how the “husband of one wife” requirement directly affects the stewardship of God’s church. For if, as the apostle declares, a man married to one wife has his interests divided between the needs of his wife and the things of the Lord, how much more would a man married to multiple wives have his attentions divided? His life would be so consumed with the management of his family that he would not be able to devote adequate attention to care of God’s people. If the polygamous man were to accept such an office in the church, be it an overseer or a servant, either his family or the church would be poorly managed. Thus, the apostle requires, in line with his other qualifications, that a man be a the husband of only one wife, not two or more wives, so that he might be able to govern himself, his family, and the church rightly.

Now this interpretation also answers the question as to why the apostle does not instruct women in this manner in the qualifications of deacons, though we know that there were woman deacons or deaconesses (cf. Rm. 16:1). For while there is no disallowance in Scripture for polygamy, polyandry (i.e. women having multiple husbands) is always viewed as adultery. Therefore, woman deacons would not need to be instructed in this way, for they would be seen as immoral (or not above reproach) otherwise. Furthermore, women are not mentioned in the elder / overseer requirements for the apostle declares that elders must be able to teach, and he states elsewhere that women are not permitted to speak in church (cf. 1Cor. 14:34, 35), which would greatly restrict one’s ability to teach the church.

The Offices and Singleness
Understanding the text in this way also sheds a different light upon those who are single and their meeting the qualifications of an elder or deacon. For while many of a different persuasion would hold that one must be married to be an elder or deacon, this understanding actually highlights the unique ability of single men to govern God’s church. For while the married man’s interests are divided between his wife and the church, the single man can be wholly devoted to serving God’s church. Therefore, singleness, rather than being viewed as a disqualification for church offices, should be held in high regard when one is considered to serve the church.

Conclusions
While I seriously doubt that my treatment of the apostle’s text concerning the qualifications of elders and deacons will sway those who are dead-set in their traditional understandings, I hope that those who are softer will at least consider that the apostle did not direct, “Husband of one wife,” toward those who have been divorced. While divorce should certainly be weighed against one’s ability to govern and to serve God’s people, it should never be an black and white disqualification, especially when that person’s divorce occurred prior to his conversion. God saves those who have been divorced just as he saves those who have not been, and divorce is never listed (contrary to the opinion of some) among the unpardonable sins. May we extend grace as God has extended grace to us, and may we evaluate our leaders by their present fruits in the Light and not when they were, as we all were, in darkness. Amen.

Assuming that I am not wholly wicked (which is sometimes a shaky assumption), what is it about "church” on Sunday mornings that causes my heart at times to shy away from it rather than be drawn to it? What merit (if any) is there for this disposition of my heart?

Sunday as Weekly Service
One aspect of Sunday mornings that has troubled my heart is the tacit (sometimes not) belief and conviction that Sunday morning is somehow more holy and more important than any other time in the week. It is something for which we are implored to “ready our hearts,” and to “give our best” as though the pinnacle of Christian existence is vested in a Sunday morning time slot. The way I have heard it described by many, it is almost as though it is tolerable to have any state of mind or heart whatsoever at any other time insofar as that state is changed in sufficient time to one that is “prepared for worship.”

In light of this, it is hardly surprising to hear language in a Sunday morning church service that describes a particular locale or building as “the house of the Lord,” and the services rendered in that locale (be it singing, tithes and offerings, or attentiveness) as “sacrifices” or “holy duties.” For the church today is to some tantamount to the temple of the Old Covenant, therefore we exhorted to act as though we were meeting God in his holy place, for we are (by our accounts) meeting God in his holy place.

If we view Sunday morning in this light, it is not difficult to perceive why certain aspects of Sunday morning are at the forefront of Christian debate (as least in our country). For when one speaks about a particular church, the first comments about it are not usually their love for one another or the vibrancy of their fellowship, but it is their style of music, the eloquence of their preacher, and the musical ability (or disability) of their choir. The “selling point” of any church is its Sunday service, and if that is lacking in some way according to our personal preferences, we consider it a poor church not worth our presence though it may be a mile from our home.

What is telling about those aspects of Sunday mornings which we find to be of utmost importance is that we would be hard-pressed to validate the worth to which ascribe them from the pages of Scripture. Of course we will find each of them in the Scriptures (well, except for choirs and service dramas), but their importance is not relegated to practice at a particular time (viz. Sunday mornings), but they are to characterize the life of the saint and the continual disposition of the church (i.e. the people of God not the building). Concerning music and its role in the life of the saint, the apostle Paul writes:

Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ (Eph. 5:15-21).

Now, the meaning of the apostle is clear. He does not have in mind a once-a-week service, but he has in the mind the entire life of the Christian and the church universal (i.e. all those who have been bought with the blood of Christ). For he commands, “Look carefully how you walk,” not, “Look carefully how you meet on Sunday mornings.” This manner by which we are to walk (i.e. live our lives) is to be one that is a continual filling of the Spirit so that we are so filled with the Spirit that it overflows in the singing of “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.”

Now, this disposition and practice may certainly be done on Sunday morning gatherings of the church, but it is certainly not to be limited to Sunday mornings nor is Sunday to be viewed as the apex of these things. Sunday mornings should be a representation of how the church has conducted herself throughout the week not a formal event for which we dress up our bodies and our conduct into that which it was not before.

Sunday is not the Sabbath
One of the more puzzling beliefs concerning Sunday to me is this belief that Sunday is the new Sabbath and that Jesus abolished Saturday (i.e. the seventh day) as the Sabbath. And though it would be difficult to pinpoint where this belief concerning Sunday arose (be it in the catholic church or Chick-fil-a), it is more difficult to pinpoint where this belief arises from in Scripture. Yes, we do find in Scripture that the saints met together on Sunday (i.e. the Lord’s Day) as a celebration of his Resurrection, but this is hardly proof that this was viewed by the church as the new Sabbath replacing the old. If anything, it is evidence of the church’s view that the Sabbath concerned those who were in the Old Covenant under the old creation, and the Lord’s Day is a celebration and a recognition of the New Covenant and the New Creation inaugurated by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead—the Firstborn from the dead in the recreation of all things.

Indeed, as Douglas Wilson pointed out, being that the Sabbath was originally an ordinance of the first creation and was later instituted into the Old Covenant, the only thing that would abolish or change such an ordinance would be a New Creation. And not coincidentally, this is exactly what we find in the Lord’s Day, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ—the inauguration of the New Creation. Furthermore, it is for this reason that the apostle the Hebrews is able to speak of the Sabbath in terms of shadow (as he does the rest of the Old Covenant) in that it points the Sabbath Rest—the Eternal Rest of the saints of God (cf. Heb. 4).

To Be Continued…