We turn now to Romans 13.
You know, one of the sad truths of church life is that we rarely make it this far in Romans. We start in chapter 1, and two quarters later, we’re still worrying over original sin and predestination and election. We move onto the minor prophets or the latest book from Max Lucado rather than continue slogging through the challenges of Romans. After all, we sometimes think, the serious theology is only in chapters 1 – 8!
Well, those chapters are serious theology indeed, but Paul taught all that so that we could better understand the applications. And chapters 12 -15 are the application chapters. They explain why the theology matters. This is some of my favorite stuff!
Now, I’m going to skip the first few verses of chapter 13, as we covered those (over and over) in the series on Pacifism. It’s end of the chapter that particularly interests me today —
(Rom 13:8-10 ESV) 8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
We’ve discussed this passages many times before, but the key point — one I don’t think we’ve made in the past — is that the Ten Commandments are about loving your neighbor. Murder, adultery, envy, theft, dishonor of parents, bearing false witness — are all natural corollaries of “love your neighbor.” And “love your neighbor” is, of course, much broader. The Ten Commandments are but examples pointing us toward the broader principle.
Love, therefore, is the Christian ethic — but it’s not an abstract love. It’s the love demonstrated by Jesus on the cross. It’s service, submission, and sacrifice. Love requires action.
You see, this is the command that’s essential to forming a community — a colony, if you please. We sometimes think of “love your neighbor” as referring to the poor and the lost, and it does. But it first refers to the body of believers that you are a part of. If you can’t love them, you can’t love very well at all. We start by loving our own. We don’t dare stop there, but we absolutely must start there.
Notice how often the New Testament urges us to “love one another” — “love your neighbor” as applied to the church. The command is narrower than Paul teaches here but nonetheless true and right, because that is where we start.
I’m skipping next to chapter 14 because it’s an example of the principles announced in chapters 12 and 13. Indeed, chapter 14 announces some of the hardest disciplines I know.
(Rom 14:1 ESV) As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.
“Opinions” is a translation Alexander Campbell would have celebrated, because he used “opinions” to refer to all doctrines other than faith in Jesus. Does Paul agree? The NIV translates “disputable matters.” The meaning is literally “inward reasoning.” It can mean “thoughts” or, sometimes, “rebellious questionings,” as in —
(1Ti 2:8 ESV) I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling;
(Phi 2:14 ESV) Do all things without grumbling or questioning,
(Rom 1:21 ESV) For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
(Luk 24:38 ESV) And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts?
(Luk 9:46-47 ESV) 46 An argument arose among them as to which of them was the greatest. 47 But Jesus, knowing the reasoning of their hearts, took a child and put him by his side
The word can be value neutral, but tends to have a negative color — “doubts” or “questions” is probably better than “opinions.” And it fits the context
(Rom 14:2-3 ESV) 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him.
This is almost certainly a reference to Jewish scruples. A good Jew ate kosher, that is, respected the various food laws. Outside a strong Jewish community, kosher meat would be impossible to find, as it had to be properly butchered.
A related and equally possible meaning would be that Paul is speaking of meat sacrificed to idols. Most meat sold in a Gentile marketplace was offered to a false god. That was the Roman way. To eat such meat could, in some circumstances, be an act of devotion to that god. Both Jews and Christians would sometimes refuse to eat such meat as a matter of conscience.
In a church where people routinely ate together, there would certainly be some who come to a common meal who refuse to eat the meal — as not kosher or bought in the marketplace. And there’d be those who eat. The possibility of insult was great, as both sides might consider the other side to have a weak faith — even to be insulting. A hostess might take offense that her meal was eaten by half the guests. There may have been huge social pressures to sin against one’s conscience.
We have members who are vegetarians, and some vegetarians consider it morally wrong to eat an animal. Paul’s command is simple. Those who eat meat should not look down on or insult the vegetarian, and the vegetarian should not look down on those who eat meat. AND they should eat together despite their differing views.
This is an application of Romans 1 – 11, that is, Paul’s teaching that God’s kingdom now includes Gentiles as well as Jews. Paul is dealing with the practical problem of bringing Gentiles into a Jewish world. And the solution is love applied in light of the gospel.
“God has welcomed him” means, I believe, that in a common meal, it’s not the host who sets the rules but God — who invites all and welcomes all. God invites and God puts up with disagreements such as this so long as we don’t make them tests of fellowship. That is, we absolutely must still eat together (and take communion together) despite our disagreements. There may be no “vegetarian” and “carnivore” churches (or even small groups). All churches and fellowships must be open to all.
(Rom 14:4 ESV) 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
But the Romans did pass judgment on each other. The context is clear that they questioned whether the others might “stand” before God. In their minds, these were doctrinal issues that were fellowship and salvation issues. Paul tells us they’re not, but his readers disagreed. They disputed over what they considered tests of fellowship, and Paul plainly tells them to get over it.
“And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand” is a reference to God’s grace. Neither side merits salvation and therefore neither side is damned just because they don’t merit salvation. NO ONE does! Rather, both sides have faith in Jesus, both sides are trying to honor God, and so God’s grace will make up whatever deficiencies there may be. (Another application of Paul’s theology from earlier in Romans.)
The lesson, therefore, is that grace can cover some doctrinal disagreements. Some try to trivialize this passage to refer to such opinions as the color to paint the foyer, but Paul’s readers were damning each other over the question. They saw it as doctrinal.
Indeed, a large of portion of Acts deals with the doctrine of kosher foods and eating foods sacrificed to idols. The topics appear throughout the New Testament. These are serious doctrinal issues that the early church struggled to answer. Ask Peter or Paul whether food sacrificed to idols or the obligation to honor the Mosaic food laws were serious doctrinal issues to them!
(Rom 14:5 ESV) One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
Paul next raises another doctrinal dispute current in Rome. It’s very likely that he has the Jewish Sabbath and feast days in mind. And this controversy remains with us. We still argue over whether Easter should be treated the same as any other day and whether Sunday is the Christian Sabbath. Some insist that certain activities are prohibited on Sundays. And in Romans, Paul doesn’t give the answer.
We know Paul’s conclusion from other writings of his, but he doesn’t share the right answer with the Romans! Obviously, he means for them to get along and accept one another regardless of who is right.
Those approving meat considered the cleanliness laws of Moses fulfilled in Christ and no longer applicable. Those insisting on eating kosher considered themselves to be honoring commands of God that were then 1500 years old that defined the separation of God’s people from the world.
Those who honored the Sabbath (or perhaps even Sunday as the Christian Sabbath) considered Sabbath-keeping as a command relating all the way back to the Creation (as many still argue). Others consider the Sabbath a vestige of Judaism fulfilled in Jesus. Every day is a day dedicated to God and the true Sabbath rest comes with the Second Coming. And that debate continues today.
We don’t divide over these issues, but that’s only because the editors of church periodicals haven’t made them fellowship issues (yet). There are plenty of issues on which the Bible says much, much less that we’ve divided over!
But this is a lesson on discipline. What is the lesson?
(Rom 14:3 ESV) Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him.
To be God’s community, his colony, we must stop dividing over such things. Not all doctrinal disputes are salvation issues! And we shouldn’t have separate congregations for every nuance of Church of Christ theology. That is not unity — it’s very definition of division.
We have to learn to get along with people we disagree with. That doesn’t force us to be silent on our opinions, but we do need to learn to extend the same grace to one another that we’ve received from God.
We say we value and believe we should live by the 10 commandments but in practice we mostly ignore the Sabbath command.
I think it is crystal clear that God intended that man should rest for one of each 7 days. But, Christians routinely ignore the 4 command as if it was not there. Why make such a fuss over the others if you are going to ignore one?
Sabbath is for rest, not worship. Not a word about setting aside a day for worship. Every day, including Sabbath is a day for worship.
You will be happier and healthier if you do it God’s way in regard to rest.
Indeed, the Sabbath was made for man, not the other way around. But while a weekly “day of rest” certainly may have personal benefits, that was not the reason for the Sabbath. The Sabbath was a day of “no work” for a deeper reason. On the day you do not work, you do nothing to provide for yourself. On that day, the reality is brought home that God provides for you, not only today, but all the other days as well. It is less the “rest” and more the “not workinig” that signifies.
Accordiing to Hebrews, we enter into the Sabbath rest by faith. That faith recognizes that Christ has accomplished our salvation. Having thus entered that rest, a seventh-day observance is an addition to that, it is no longer “the Sabbath”. Thus the man who “esteems every day alike” can also participate in the Sabbath in its most fulfilled sense.
Royce’s comment about a “day of worship” is also correct. It is rather like wben I speak with those who insist that Sunday is “The Lord’s Day”. Their tradition in this is so immutable that even direct reading of scripture does not dislodge it.
But things do improve over time. At least nowadays we can take in a movie on Sunday without going to hell when we go for popcorn.
Charles wrote,
Never heard that and I think it’s very profound. (Wish I’d said it.)
Sabbath is Saturday. We typically work from Mondays to Fridays, then there is a weekend off. No one hinders us to keep the Sabbath if we feel like it. Yes, if we feel like it, because we are explicitly not onder the old Law, but under the Law of Christ! the Sabbath is a shadow of Christ, but not a binding command anymore. The other nine commands are repeated in the new covenant, but not this one. Which is remarkable enough.
OK, then cut out the “worship” and speak of the assembling of Christ’s church. We need a specific time and place to be able to do that. Let’s even propose we don’t assemble for worship, but only for such “men-centered” activities as fellowship, eating, instruction, edification … are you then happy, Royce? Or is it not about terminology? And of course we will worship God when we assemble as a church, won’t we?
Maybe I completely missed your point, though …
Alexander
Alexander wrote:
Consider this from Hebrews:
Why do we still say that the 4th commandment is never repeated in the New Covenant?
Jerry
No, Jerry, this is talking about the fulfillment of the type! We have to strive to enter the rest that lies ahead of us, after we finished our pilgrimage through this desert. Chapters 3 and 4 describe vividly, how and why the Israelites failed which is written as a warning for us (see also 1Co 10:1-13).
This is not a command to keep the Sabbath as under the Mosaic covenant. Concerning keeping this day Paul is very clear:
Alexander
Alexander wrote,
This has often been said, but the other day, someone mentioned to me that the command to make no graven images is not repeated in the NT. And I just looked and can find no repetition of that command.
I have no idea what the significance is, but it came as quite a surprise to me.
Alexander,
I never said we are commanded to keep the Jewish Sabbath or even Sunday as a Christian Sabbath. There is still a Sabbath for the people of God, though.
As you indicated, ultimately this is the rest of the eschaton. However, that rest begins even now. I blogged on that >here and here. In a nutshell, this is the rest from our labors we receive when we receive salvation by grace through faith, a salvation that is not a result of our works but a salvation that frees us to glorify God in Christ as God works in us to desire and to do His good pleasure.
Jerry
That first link should be here
Jerry
@ Jay: how often is it said that we should flee the idols? And doesn’t 2Co 6:14-18
We shouldn’t even touch idols – which means these “graven images” (Gr eidolon = image).
@ Jerry
The way you presented your thought at first made me wonder, however. But I disagree with salvation by faith apart from works. The works paul refers to ALWAYS and ONLY mean the works of the Mosaic Law, not works of obedience or wprks in general. This would be grossly misreading Paul – and in all the discussions on grace and works we tend to take sides on either of the two positions, but scripture does not teach that our works play no role in our salvation. Therefore the rest Hebrews is talking about is entirely in the future.
A parallel text in REv says we enter rest after our death:
But before that we have to labor. That’s what Hebrews says:
There REMAINS a rest – not that we have entered it yet, but it remains. We have to strive to enter it, to progress thriough this wilderness until we reach and cross Jordan. To say we already have this rest is the same as if the Israelites would have said: The desert here is actually already Canaan.
Having the hope and the Spirit in our heart, having been saved FROM sin (and pharao) does not mean that we are already IN heaven. No, we have to walk a long distance on a narrpow path, where our faith and faithfulness will be tested just like the faith of the Israelites was tested. Therefore we need to be diligent, watchful, cautious and bring fruit in every good work. Wgho says we’ll reach heaven without these – because we are supposedly saved by faith alone – errs.
Think about it, Jerry. I don’t mean to be harsh to you or anybody who holds to such a view (and maybe I misrepresent what you mean): But this is Protestant/Evangelical theology that has in fact very little in common with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But I undestand that since most of all sermons and books we have come from this background we fail to see the difference. It took me a few years to understand the serious error in the Evagelical presentation of the Gospel.
Alexander
Alexander spoke of meeting together: “We need a specific time and place to be able to do that.”
But not a REGULAR time and place. Also, we should not presume that every gathering needs to gather everyone. The broad and general call for gathering together has expanded, then petrified, into a regularly-scheduled weekly meeting which all the members of the group are expected to attend. The conflation is unfortunate.
The 4th command is not a reference to the “rest for the people of God” spoken of in the book of Hebrews. There is a principal. Humans need physical rest and one day out of 7 is God’s formula.
It is true that those who have put their trust in Jesus are not longer under the penalty of the commandments they are however still in effect and we must do our best to comply with them. Whether or not they are mentioned in the NT is the weakest of arguments in my view. It’s never ok to lie, to murder, to commit adultry, etc., and it’s also wrong to ignore the command about rest.
Royce, I would guess the guys and gals on the frontline of these wars we are having continuelessly would agree with you.
Did the Hebrews recognize that day of rest during the exodus?
It appears to me that Paul did not take issue with believers “having every day alike”. It’s hard to segregate the Sabbath from that argument, as it would have been the most entrenched “day” among the Jews in the early church.
As to rest, our generation as a whole probably has to work less to meet its basic life needs than any non-royal group in recorded history. As we have evolved from 6 days-a-week, sunup-to-sundown, down to 40 hours a week in the last 100 years or so, perhaps we have already entered into that sort of rest… we gained over twenty-four hours a week right there. ;^)
@ Alabama John
I have heard Billy Graham in Vienna. He preached A Gospel about Jesus Christ, but not the Gospel of the Kingdom. As long as the Kingdom is left out it is not THE Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Alexander
Alexander,
If one preaches what Paul did it’s not the real gospel? He preached Christ.
Perhaps, Romans has seemed difficult and drawn out because we’ve tried to mold the writings to our own traditions and misunderstanding of grace and works. Maybe, our preconceived notions have had us chasing rabbits and avoiding the truth presented in Romans.
However, if we can keep an open mind, then legalism is clearly countered in the letter to the Romans.
I’ve preached and taught more from Romans and Galatians in the past couple years than from any other texts. This has resulted in the congregation becoming more grace centered and more inclusive. We’ve gotten away from having to teach some aspect of the brotherhood approved “plan of salvation” every single sermon. Instead, in classes and in informal discussion, our members are searching for ways to be morre spiritual, more productive and more relevant to what people need.
There are a vast number of area families who once were members here or in other area congregations but left years ago because the church ceased to be relevant to their needs. Our people are now talking about waysto reapproach them– to let them know we know we missed the boat and that Jesus Christ is the answer.
Our women are demonstrably more empowered to serve, although this has not set well from some in area Churches of Christ.
Only Jesus can save us from the wretchedness of sin and its after effects–not the old law–not our self-imposed rules–not the rules imposed by bullies who want us to share in the misery of their legalism. An open minded reading of the Letter to the Romans tells us this.
“Our people are now talking about waysto reapproach them– to let them know we know we missed the boat and that Jesus Christ is the answer.”
Beautiful. Say it just that way and these people will fall over themselves to listen to you. A little humility goes a long way.
Paul preached Christ in the context of His Kingdom:
Let me explain it a little better: Most evangelists (Billy Graham is no exception) in their Gospel Presentations focus exclusively on “man’s personal need for salvation”. No mention is made of Christ being King to whom all knees shall bow, and no mention is made of the Kindom into which we shall be transferred by separating ourselves from this world, the King to whose laws we have to submit henceforth.
This includes many evangelists in the churches of Christ, but they at least still mention baptism, which Evangelicals completely cut out of their presentation.
The Gospel has following necessary elements:
– God’s ushering in His Kingdom through Christ, He will reign
– Therefore all have to repent of their former ways
– There is a need to be separated from the rule of Satan in this world
– We need to be cleansed, forgiven, born again in order to be admitted into the Kingdom
– For this we need to be baptized in water and in Spirit
– For this Christ died his sacrificial death and rose from the grave
– His ascension to the right hand of God markes the beginning of His reign
– Confessing Christ as Lord means confessing Him as King
– He will come back in glory when His Kingdom will be made visible to the whole earth and judge all people acording to their works
What usually is presented as “gospel” is
– You are a sinner
– But God loves you unconditionally
– Christ died for your sins so you can live forever in heaven
– If you believe this and repent of your sins, you have eternal life
This is no exaggeration. What is normally presented as Gospel are a few truths from the New Testament, completely taken out of their context in the Kingdom! This is NOT the Gospel Chrit came to announce! This is also not the Gospel Paul preached!
One reason for this misunderstanding is the fact, that Protestants in general miss the reasons why Romans and Galatians where written in first place: To explain and settle the question whether we Gentiles need to be circumcised. All faith-works-grace-law paragraphs in his letters deal with this (and ONLY this) issue. They are not meant to be a full Gospel presentation at all.
A few strange results of our crippled message:
– Many find it difficult to “reconcile” paul with James
– Many preach more from Paul’s letters than from the Gospels
– Paul’s words are therfiore better known than Christ#s words
– an individualistic gospel (personal salvation) produces individualistic Christians
– and this problems to understand why we still have to obey Chrsit although we are under grace … endless confusion and debates
A thought question:
Have you ever wondered why the most often Psalm in the NT is Psalm 110 and NOT Psalm 23?
Alexander
Peter preaches a gospel message about Christ, 3000 come to faith, no kingdom message.
The Kingdom message in Acts 2:
Based on Psalm 110! A Kingdom psalm, the most often quoted Psalm in the NT! Here Peter proclaims christ as King (which is the meaning of Christ BTW)!
Royce, I have the vague imprseeion that you are one of these “reductionists” (talking about Christ but omitting the Kingdom). Today in Bible Study I used the analogy: Talking about Christ but not the Kingdom is like talking about my boss but not the company he leads. I am the employee of my boss, hired to work in his company. My work affects the way I see and experience him. We are called to be citizens of God’s Kingdom where Christ is seated at the Right hnad of God and rules as King. And every knee shall bow …
Royce, if you don’t understand the Kingdom, you don’t understand the Gospel. Sad and true: Most evangelists fall short in this area. Most, and it is a tragedy!
Alexander
Alexander, Oh I understand the Kingdom and who the King is and that I am a subject in that kingdom. You are making some statements here that are not true.
There, I’ve summed it up well. You seem to be the self appointed “know it all here” and yet you are not as smart as you think in my view. Anyone who has spent considerable time studying the Bible and especially the NT as I an others have, know you are often off course. I mean this in the best possible way. I still regard you as a dear brother and wish you the best but in this case you are wrong in regard to the importance of Jesus. You see, the question at hand is not the Kingdom but Jesus Christ. You or anyone else who adds to the good news about his work for sinners is wrong.
No, Royce, I think you don’t get it! You may think of me as you please, because it is not pleasant to be told that what one has preached for decades is only half the truth. I went through this myself and it took me several years to sort it all out – I know how hard and humiliating this is. But it does need an open heart, Royce. This i miss in your replies.
My point is: We have to preach Christ, but not disconnected from the Kingdom. Our gospel-presentations typically leave out half the message Christ proclaimed and the significance of His ascension to the right hand of the Father. Therefore we only speak of “Grace” but not of Christ’s rule. Therefore there is no separation from this world, because we don’t proclaim this new heavenly nation we have to become part of by separation from our wicked society. Therefore there is always so much confusion abut faith/laws/grace/obedience.
I did not add to the gospel. You took an essential part of it away (from the gospel message) – as most preachers, and as I did for many years. It is not good theology – as e.g. Max Lucado in one of his books does – to take John 3:16 and saying: “This i the Gospel” and building all of his message on this verse. This is “reductionist” – think of how much is omitted! Omission is as dangerous as adding to the Gospel.
Oh, I really understand where you come from, Royce: Such a position (The call for Grace) is a reaction to an overly formalistic, rule-based church life some. But as so often, the reaction went far into the opposite extreme. It is not your or my ministry, Royce, but the Lord’s. So we both need to be diligent to preach the whole counsel of God. May he give us wisdom and love for this.
Alexander
Please Royce, take ome time to think this trough:
This you said to me. Earlier you said:
This surprized me very much, I opened the Bible and tried to show you, that Acts 2:32-36 are a Kingdom message.
To this you reacted quite strangely, saying:
What was not true in my post? Could you please name my errors? To me it was the other way round: You made a statement that was wrong, and I tried to show you why. What made you so angry?
Alexander
Let me help you, Roye: Go down this list I wrote, and please tell me what I have added to the Gospel. what should not be there?
If you can’t find a line to cross out here, then please tell me, why not all of this is preached in our Gospel presentations. Please understand my insistence on this, because I do believe that this lies at the root of all our disagreements here.
Alexander
The only context in which grace makes any sense is in a kingdom context. If there is no divine rule, who cares if God forgives us or not? I do think we have ridden the pendulum across the clock from “sinners in the hands of an angry God” to “Jesus wants to be your buddy”, with stops at all the intervening stations. So it is easy for us to have intramural squabbles over how we navigate that spectrum.
What we sometimes fail to consider fully when we share the message of the scriptures is the context and audience of those scriptures. Jesus was speaking to a society who saw themselves as God’s people, as confirmed by their rule-following. They were already looking for a return of kingdom rule to Israel. This was their context. Being God’s chosen people was their highest value.
The folks at Mars Hill considered that there are men and there are gods and men are weaker; so men need to figure out how to get along with them. These were Greeks, who had human reason as their highest value.
Today, western society has “outgrown” both gods and external authority. The idea that the universe was created by a great intelligence has been relegated to the realm of superstition. While westerners value objective reason, subjective emotion holds an powerful place as well. Truth has experienced a shift in modifiers; once, we sought THE truth, now MY truth is just as valid. We are a largely hedonistic society where personal happiness is our highest value.
Our presentation of the Gospel must begin where our audience lives. If your presentation is in terms of first century Judaism, prepare to be fairly ineffective among people who have no referents for that culture. I would suggest that we often do not lay nearly enough foundation in our presentation of the Gospel. We open our Bible, expecting our audience to immediately find it meaningful and authoritative, and begin to speak of times and people and places of which our audience has no knowledge and little interest. Then, when our message is not warmly received, we dust off our feet and complain that the world has no interest in Jesus.
The Gospel is both a cosmic tale and a personal testimony of discovering the realities that tale reveals. That is how we must learn to present it.
Here’s a challenge for your consideration. How would you present the Gospel without your Bible? I don’t mean without the story that lies therein, but without an authoritative text as your main point of reference? How would you relate this cosmic tale to a 21st century American or European? Where would you begin?
Charles said “Our presentation of the Gospel must begin where our audience lives. If your presentation is in terms of first century Judaism, prepare to be fairly ineffective among people who have no referents for that culture. I would suggest that we often do not lay nearly enough foundation in our presentation of the Gospel. We open our Bible, expecting our audience to immediately find it meaningful and authoritative, and begin to speak of times and people and places of which our audience has no knowledge and little interest. Then, when our message is not warmly received, we dust off our feet and complain that the world has no interest in Jesus.”
Seems Paul agreed with that method
19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.
I’d start with our daily newspapers and I’d point out how far superior the Kingdom of God is cmpared to our politics and political correctness. In other words: Obama might be president, but Jesus Christ is King.
Alexander
It’s a silly premise. If you can know about the Kingdom of God without a Bible why couldn’t I know about Jesus??
The Kingdom? The question is how do you get into the Kingdom. So far (maybe I missed something, or maybe I’m misrepresenting you…) you appear to be putting Kingdom teaching, good works, and the work of Christ on equal footing.
John 3:3
Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
The new birth precedes the kingdom.
As you know, the Jews were looking for a King to rule on earth. They could not grasp a King dying upon a Roman cross. The message that the Kingdom was at hand was of great interest to Jews but not so to Gentiles. Of course in the first century Jesus and his followers reasoned with the Jews about the Kingdom of God and of heaven. They kept making the point, don’t wait for the Kingdom of God, it’s here! The taught about the Kingdom in that context and reasoned with them about Jesus from the Law and the Prophets making the case that Jesus was indeed the King they were looking for.
The gospel (good news) that we are to proclaim is that gospel Paul called the “gospel of Christ” or the “gospel of the grace of God”. It was Christ who died for us, who by his body purged our sins, and it was Christ who rose and is coming again. “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself”. It is Christ we wait for so that we can then fully appreciate Kingdom living.
This is the only place I know of where a fellow is wrong to make much of Jesus, to preach and teach about him. I could understand if this was the blog of a Jehovah’s Witness or a Mormon, but we are all assumed to be Christ followers!
Charles wrote,
Amen.
Cosmic Tale … personal testimony … realitiest that the tale reveals
Not that you mean it this way, but the same words could b used to describe the cults of Mithras or Isis as well. Why don’t we just use scriptural terms for scriptural themes?
Alexander
This is true, but some draw a very wrong conclusion from that, saying that the only gospel relevant for the gentiles is the “gospel of the grace of God”. Hyperdispensationalists go a s far as to actually speak of two different churches. I don’t think that you think anyway close to that, Royce.
Yet, whether the Kingdom was of main interest to the Gentiles or not, the message is also directed to them. I tried to show it above, but I’ll repeat it. The only time the phrase “Gospel of the Grace of God” appears is in Acts 20:24, which is followed by Acts 20:25 where Paul is “proclaiming the Kingdom”. That’s is a Gentile context.
God’s Kingdom is not of this world, but it is nonetheless very real. We do have a King, and this part of the message was (and should be) very disturbing to the earthly rulers:
Having a real king and living in a real kingdom makes us sojourners, pilgrims, strangers in our society. Our involvement in the world therefore should be carefully limited, and some things are simply not possible as partaking in military or government, a position held to by many churches of Christ 100 years ago. A real King also means that we have a lawgiver, we are under a law that we must obey. Not in order to enter the Kingdom, but because we became citicens of the Kingdom through the New Birth in baptism.
Such as israel was baptized in the name of Moses in the Red Sea and THEN received a Law, so did we receive a law after having been saved by grace out of “Egypt”. And we are sternly warned that we must not behave like the Israelites in the wilderness who murmured and disobeyed in disbelief.
Even in the NT God is called a Lawgiver (Jas 4:12), and Paul says that we not without law, but under the Law of Christ (1Co 9:21).
This also teaches us that we are not completed yet. The Kingdom is not of this world, but it will be revealed in this world when Christ comes back in Glory. We are “forerunners” of this Kingdom on Earth, and Kingdom life should be seen in our churches and personal lives.
What I mean, and maybe this makes it a bitt better understood:
When we proclaim the Gospel we must make mention of God’s Rule as well. We can’t just speak of Grace and then – surprise! – there are ome rules to follow! We need to communicate what it means to come under the leadership of a Lord and King. I think one term that describes this struggles among US-Evangelicals is “Lordship Salvation”. Confessing Christ as Lord is essential, but this includes His Kingship.
A problem is that Lord, Christ, even Kingdom of God became “religious” terms that are normally not understood. Even Gospel is such a word – “Good News” simply does not describe its meaning. When Euangelion was proclaimed in Ancient times it was a “royal Proclamation”, as the inscription of Priene demonstrates, where Augustus proclaimed his Euangelion. So even this beginning of Mark gotthe attention of the Gentile listeners as well:
A royal proclamation by – as also the emperors called themselves! – a son of God. Hey, this is politically incorrect, smells like rebellion. And yes, in a way Christians are political dissenters.
I bet a Gospel Presentation with this focus would also today get the attention of the listeners. And might even bring us in jail for his name’s sake …
Alexander
Alexander wrote: “Cosmic Tale … personal testimony … realitiest that the tale reveals
Not that you mean it this way, but the same words could b used to describe the cults of Mithras or Isis as well. Why don’t we just use scriptural terms for scriptural themes?”
>>>
These are not just “scriptural themes”, Alexander, they are spiritual ones. These realities predate their being recorded. They did not spring from the Bible, but are merely recorded therein. I feel no more limited to those terms than I feel bound to expressing those realities in Koine Greek. I find that an insistence upon “bible names for bible things” poses a requirement on the listener to learn my language before he can read my story. I don’t find that very condusive to getting the message out to those who don’t speak Bible. And frankly, some of those biblical terms are connected to the Crusades and the Inquisition and apartheid and sectarian atrocities, so I’m not sure that really solves the problem.
So, these days, I tend to translate. (Rather like Paul telling the Greeks about their “unknown god”.) But I am open to suggestions for terminology. Do you have a recommendation for a synonym for “cosmic tale”?
Well, the apostles gave testimony of what they ahve seen and heard. Facts, not a “tale” – too many view the Bible stories as “fairy tales”, that#s one reason i object to this term.
But why not start at what you have seen and heard from Christ? I we want the message to be reöevant, give the people a glimpse into your own life with Christ.
Alexander