MENU

Where the world comes to study the Bible

6. Peter’s Capitulation and Paul’s Correction (Galatians 2:11-21)

As today is my father’s birthday, I am inclined to reflect upon some of my memories of my father and me. Even though my dad and I had our confrontations, they never lasted long. For example, I remember one occasion at the dinner table when I had corrected my younger brother. Since he was nearly ten years younger than I, I felt that he should obey me. Needless to say, he did not agree with me, and he told me to “shut up.” I then attempted to physically enforce my authority with what I considered to be some needed discipline, but my father intervened. What troubled me at the time was that Dad didn’t seem to think punishment was required in this case. (Now, years later, I have to admit he may have been right.) I had felt our differences should be settled on the basis of whether or not it was right for my brother to tell anyone to “shut up,” and I was angry that my father did not back me up.

As I was obviously losing the argument, I made one last effort and blurted out to my father, “Well, then, you shut up!”

My brother’s comment did not get a response from Dad, but mine certainly did! For a split second I weighed the option of a dramatic act of protest, and actually considered flipping the dinner table upside-down.

Although Dad and I were at odds during this incident, within an hour our differences had been resolved. Dad and I were able to laugh about that incident, and never again was it brought up in a context of debate or disagreement. While our differences at times were intense, they were short-lived.

Some biblical scholars have felt that there was a lasting conflict between Paul and Peter. The 19th century German scholar, F. C. Baur of the University of Tubingen, hypothesized a new “dialectic” method for interpreting the New Testament. It became known as the Tubingen School of Theology. Baur reasoned that there was a deep seated conflict between Peter, the apostle to the Jews, and Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles. He determined the authenticity of the New Testament books in accordance with the criteria of this theory. Any book which exhibited tension between Paul and Peter, between law and grace, he considered to be authentic. Furthermore, he interpreted each in light of the alleged tension between Paul and Peter and their divergent doctrinal views.

Galatians 2:11-21 was cited by those in this school as the origin of the conflict between Paul and Peter which intensified as time passed. (I must tell you that few hold Baur’s view on this point today.) However, the two apostles’ differences were few, and those were short-lived. I understand that this incident took place before the Jerusalem Council, described in Acts 15. Since Peter defended Paul at the Jerusalem Council, it is clear that Peter quickly responded to Paul’s rebuke. As a matter of fact, Peter and James, who are both prominent in Galatians 2, are prominent in Acts 15 as well.

The incident which Paul recounts is not portrayed as a long-standing debate between himself and Peter; instead, it is reported as proof of Paul’s independence as an apostle. In chapter 1 Paul defends his claim of apostleship; it was not of any human origin or commission, but by divine appointment (1:1). Those who challenged that apostleship had circulated among the Galatian churches preaching a distorted gospel, and these false teachers were worthy of being accursed (1:6-9). These Judaizers, who forced circumcision and law-keeping upon Gentile converts (cf. Acts 15:1, 5; Gal. 2:3-4), condemned Paul’s gospel as man-made and man-pleasing (1:10).

Paul counters this charge in the remainder of chapter 1 and in chapter 2. He declared that his conversion was virtually independent of men, since Christ revealed Himself to him and in him (1:13-16). Rather than looking to the apostles in Jerusalem for his message or for approval for his ministry, Paul had little contact with them, visiting Jerusalem and the church leaders only twice in 17 years (1:18; 2:1). On these occasions he did not stay long, and he met with only three of the apostles—Peter, James, and John (cf. 1:18-19; 2:2, 9). Paul did not ask for their approval, but he did seek to work in harmony with them. In contrast to the Judaizers who insisted Titus be circumcised, the apostles did not demand it; on the contrary, they fully accepted Paul and Barnabas as partners in the gospel, giving them the “right hand of fellowship” (2:1-10).

The incident recorded in 2:11-21 is Paul’s final documentation in support of his independence as an apostle. Not only did he not seek the approval of the apostles (1:18-2:10), Paul actually dared to publicly rebuke them when they were inconsistent with the gospel (2:11-21). This is Paul’s last historical proof of his independence as an apostle. In chapters 3 and 4, Paul uses theological proof to show that the Judaizers were seeking to use the Old Testament law in a way that it was never intended to be used. Finally, in chapters 5 and 6, Paul shows how the gospel can produce lives which are godly, something the law could not accomplish.

The Incident and Paul’s Indictment
(2:11-14)

11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

Peter’s visit to the church at Antioch probably occurred before the Jerusalem Council. He had apparently been there for some time,44 long enough for it to be observed that his custom (at least while he was with these Gentile Christians) was to live like them, rather than to live as a Jew. Such customs were not new to Peter, for that was the way he had been instructed to associate with Cornelius and the other Gentiles who had gathered at his house (cf. Acts 10).

In time, a party of Jews from Jerusalem arrived. Paul referred to these men as having come “from James,” rather than “from Jerusalem.” Perhaps we should not make too much of Paul’s choice of words here. He may have only meant to refer to the fact that James was recognized as the dominant leader in Jerusalem and that to come from Jerusalem was, in effect, to come from James. On the other hand, James must at least have been informed of this visit and might even have been the initiator of it.45

A sequence of events was set in motion by the arrival of the party “from James” which culminated in Paul’s confrontation of Peter. Peter gradually46 began to withdraw from the Gentiles and to avoid them. This behavior was most evident at meal time. The subtlety of the change in Peter’s conduct is similar to the change in one’s behavior in response to learning that a loved one is terminally ill. Joseph Bayly describes some of the changes which occur in the behavior of the loved ones of those who are dying:

Nurses have mentioned a pattern of behavior to me: first a wife will kiss her husband on the mouth, then on the cheek, then the forehead, and finally she will blow him a kiss from the door. The change is not lost on him.47

A similar change occurred at the dinner table at Antioch. Apparently the party “from James” ate at first by themselves, while the rest, both Jews and Gentiles, ate together. Then these Jewish guests were joined by Peter and eventually by all the other Jewish Christians (except Paul). Finally, there were two groups at meal time, the Jewish party and the Gentile party. If the church at Antioch observed communion with a common meal as we would expect (cf. 1 Cor. 11:17-34), the problem then was intensified for their worship had become divided.

When Paul recognized the seriousness of the situation48 he confronted Peter personally and publicly (vv. 11, 14). Peter was corrected before all because the Jews had been wrong to follow him, and the Gentiles had been injured by their actions. Peter was singled out because even in his wrong-doing he was a leader. To correct Peter’s conduct was to correct the problem.

The actions of Peter and those who followed him were clearly identified as sin. Peter was rebuked because he “stood condemned” (v. 11). Paul’s boldness in rebuking Peter and the other Jewish Christians at Antioch was due to the seriousness of this sin. There were several reasons why their relationship to the Gentiles in Antioch (or should I say their response to the Jews from Jerusalem) could not be taken lightly.

(1) The actions of Peter and the others were wrongly motivated. Peter, we are told, acted out of a fear for the “party of the circumcision” (v. 12). It is safe to say that the others were also motivated out of a desire not to offend, either the Judaizers or Peter. Peter, as well as those who followed him in his capitulation to the circumcisers, was guilty of acting as “men-pleasers.”

(2) The actions of Peter and the others caused some to stumble. Verse 13 informs us that Peter’s actions set an example which was followed by the “rest of the Jews,” and that their hypocrisy caused “even Barnabas” to follow. What Peter did, others did after him, following his lead.

(3) The actions of Peter and the others were hypocritical. In verse 13 Paul wrote that the rest of the Jews, including Barnabas,49 “joined him [Peter] in hypocrisy.” The hypocrisy of their actions was based on the fact that what they still believed, they had ceased to practice. They had not deliberately departed from right doctrine: they had simply deviated from it in practice.

(4) The actions of Peter and the rest were a practical denial of the gospel. Paul acted decisively when it became apparent to him that “they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel” (v. 14). What Peter did compelled the Gentiles to live like Jews (v. 14), which was, in Paul’s words, “another gospel” (cf. 1:6-7). The major argument of this section is concerned with this deviation.

The Issue Defined and Defended
(2:14-21)

14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? 15 We are Jews by nature, and not sinners from among the Gentiles; 16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified. 17 But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be! 18 For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor. 19 For through the Law I died to the Law, that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.”

As previously stated there were several reasons why Peter’s actions (and those who followed him) were wrong. The principle reason, however, is that the truth of the gospel had been forsaken. The gospel in practice had violated the gospel in principle. Verses 14-21 contain three arguments50 which show that such actions deserved rebuke.

The first argument (verse 14) is directed against Peter. Paul stands toe to toe, eyeball to eyeball with Peter, charging him with acting hypocritically. Though Peter was a Jew, he lived as a Gentile, at least during his stay in Antioch. The lesson Peter had learned by means of a divine vision had enabled him to associate with the Gentile Cornelius and the other Gentiles who were gathered in Cornelius’ home (Acts 10). When Peter arrived in Antioch, he lived there according to the customs of the Gentile, and not as a Jew. After the arrival of those who came “from James,” all of this changed. Peter began to live as a Jew, compelling the Gentile believers to live like him (as a Jew) in order to have fellowship with him and the other Jewish believers. What inconsistency! What hypocrisy! If Peter, a Jew, did not need to live like a Jew, why did he demand by his actions that Gentile Christians live like the Jews?

Let me attempt to illustrate the inconsistency of Peter in a way that may be more relevant to us. It is my understanding that Ross Perot’s computer company in Dallas (EDS) has a dress code for its employees. The men who work there are required to have short hair and to dress in a dark suit and tie. Let’s suppose that Mr. Perot suddenly has a change of mind and that he liberalizes the rules so that employees are now permitted either to dress as formerly in shirt, suit, and tie, or, they may now come to work in jeans and T-shirts. It quickly becomes evident that there are two different categories of employee, both of which have the approval of Ross Perot. One is the “old guard” which likes things as they were. They continue to wear dark suits and ties, which is, of course, completely in compliance with the new policy. The other group consists of those wearing T-shirts, jeans, and sneakers.

Soon, problems begin to develop between the two groups. The old guard (like the Pharisees) continues to dress as formerly in suits and ties and begins to pressure the other employees to do likewise. One employee, whom we will call Peter, has belonged to the “old guard,” but when he meets a group of the “avant-guard” who hold a weekly Bible study and prayer time during their lunch break, he becomes a member of their Bible study. To make them feel more at ease, he keeps a change of clothes in his locker so each week he can change into jeans and sneakers before attending the study.

Some of Peter’s friends, members of the “old guard,” ask to attend the study with Peter, but they refuse to dress like the rest, and, offended by Peter’s dress, tell him so. In fact, they refuse to even sit near him when he is wearing a T-shirt and sneakers. In order to remain on good terms with his old friends, Peter not only reverts to the former dress code but slowly withdraws from the other Christians who still dress casually. As a result, the newer group is forced to follow the old dress code or suffer the loss of Peter’s fellowship. Peter is wrong and is worthy of rebuke because he has acted hypocritically. He not only has given up the freedom he once enjoyed in his manner of dress, but he also functionally has forced others to surrender as well.

Verses 15-17 move from Peter’s problem (actually just a symptom) to the very root of the problem, the pride which the Judaizers had in their Jewishness that caused them to feel smugly superior to the Gentile Christians. Verse 15 is virtually the slogan of the Judaizers, mirroring the arrogance which was at the root of the refusal of the men “from James” to eat with the Gentiles: “We are Jews by nature, and not sinners from among the Gentiles.”

When I was young, a rhyme we used to repeat went something like this:

Rootie, toot, toot,
Rootie, toot, toot,
We’re the boys from the institute.
We don’t smoke,
And we don’t chew,
And we don’t run around with the girls that do.

Behind this rhyme there is a note of smug superiority. There is likewise a strong sense of superiority behind the words of verse 15. Paul cited these words to reveal the attitude underlying the Jewish withdrawal from fellowship with the Gentile Christians. The Judaizers felt they could not eat with the Gentiles because they were sinners and would continue to be until they were converted to Judaism.

At the root of the Judaizers sense of superiority was a deep-seated racial prejudice. Jews felt that by nature, by birth, they were somehow endowed with a spiritual superiority. This mentality is evident in the Gospels as well (cf. John 4:9; 8:33). The carnal Jew concluded that by virtue of being Jewish he was pious, while the Gentile, by virtue of his birth, was sinful. The only way that such pride could be maintained within Christianity was for the Jewish Christians to insist that the Gentile converts adopt Judaism in addition to trusting in Christ.

Verse 16 corrects this fallacious reasoning, as indicated by the initial word “nevertheless.” Paul reminds Jewish Christians that they were not able to earn justification through law-keeping; rather, like the Gentile Christians, the Jewish believers, too, were justified by faith in Christ.51 Spiritual superiority could not be claimed by the Jewish Christians if they were saved in exactly the same manner as the Gentiles. Thus the smug superiority of some of the Jewish Christians, which caused them to look down their spiritual noses at the Gentiles as sinners, was founded on a misconception.52

In verse 17a Paul drives the point of verse 16 home, which leads to a further question (v. 17b) and answer (v. 18). Those who seek to be saved (justified) by faith in Christ, whether Jew or Gentile, acknowledge their sinful state. Salvation by faith in Christ is only necessary for those who cannot be saved by self-effort, by the “works of the law.” The gospel is based on the fact that all men are equal before God, contrary to the smug statement of verse 15. Acceptance of the gospel is admission of sin and human inability for both Jews and Gentiles.

By nature, both Jews and Gentiles are sinners, so that neither group has any grounds for feeling superior to the other. This argument is also found in the epistle to the Ephesians:

And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest (Eph. 2:1-3).

In this passage Paul refers to the Gentile believers as “you” and to the Jewish believers as “we.” His point is that both Jews and Gentiles are dead in their sins, servants of Satan, until they have been redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ.

The fact that the gospel views Jews, as well as Gentiles, as sinners, caused the Judaizers much grief. If this were true, they reasoned, then their standing before God was really better under the old covenant than under the new. It seemed to them that the gospel promoted sin, for in the previous dispensation, under the law, the Jews were righteous, and the Gentiles were sinners. However under the new covenant (the gospel), both Jews and Gentiles are each sinners. Doesn’t this mean that if the gospel increases the number of sinners, that Christ must be a minister of sin, promoting sin rather than causing it to cease?53

Such a conclusion is in error. As Paul will demonstrate in Galatians 3 and 4, the law never did save, nor sanctify. The law set a standard which no man (except the Lord Jesus) has ever been able to attain to. Paul’s immediate answer is found in verse 18: “For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor.”

In order to understand Paul’s answer to the ridiculous charge that Jesus Christ was responsible for increasing sin, we must first understand the mentality of the Judaizer. To the Judaizers, a gospel which repealed the law was responsible for promoting sin, since they believed that the law was able to overcome sin’s power. For the gospel to repeal the law for Gentile converts was to promote sin. When the Judaizer required law-keeping of Gentile converts, he felt he was reducing sin.

Paul’s answer in verse 18 showed that just the opposite was true. To return to a righteousness based upon law-keeping (in Paul’s words, “to rebuild what one had once destroyed”), was to reveal one’s own sinfulness. Instead of Paul’s gospel making Christ a minister of sin, accepting the “different gospel” of the Judaizers proved the one who turned back to be a transgressor. The repeal of the law freed one to live righteously, while a return to the law made sin inevitable.

In verses 19 and 20 Paul establishes the argument of verses 17 and 18 by reviewing what takes place when a sinner turns to faith in Christ. Paul speaks of this in the first person (“I”), but it is evident that he speaks generally of what takes place when any sinner trusts in Christ by faith.

In Christ one dies to the law. The condemnation which the law has pronounced on the sinner is fully borne by the sinner, in Christ. The result is that the sinner dies to the law, so that it can no longer condemn him. The process is carried out “through the law,” reminding us that the gospel is the fulfillment of the law. The law can take the sinner only to the point of condemnation and to the sentence of death. The redemption which the law promised, and of which the sacrificial system was a prototype, could only be accomplished by Christ, the Lamb of God. The result is that the sinner, powerless to live righteously under the law, is now free to live to God (v. 19).

Verse 20 is perhaps the best known passage in the entire book of Galatians, and yet few have come to appreciate it in light of the context of Paul’s rebuke of Peter, whose behavior was inconsistent with the gospel which it summarizes. The thrust of this verse is not so much the need for sanctification, but rather the futility of seeking to live righteously under the law to which the saint has died.

The reason why the gospel has repealed the law is that the law has done its job. It has shown man his sin and has promised him salvation through the shed blood of a coming Savior. The law was never intended to save, nor to sanctify. Verse 20 outlines, in brief, what the gospel has done to save and to sanctify. When a man is saved by faith in Christ, he has died in Christ to the law; Christ now lives within him, enabling him to live righteously. He is now able to live a new life by faith, not by works. This is vastly superior to the old way of life.

The conclusion of Paul’s argument is found in verse 21. There are only two choices in the final analysis, either of which is exclusive of the other: one can live by faith in Christ and experience God’s grace, or he can strive for righteousness under the law and forsake grace. The reason the Judaizers were wrong in insisting that faith should be buttressed by law is that when you choose one, you must forsake the other. Some things (like “love and marriage”) may go together (“You can’t,” as the song says, “have one, without the other”), but not so with law and grace. If the law is sufficient to save and to sanctify, the death of Christ becomes needless.

Conclusion

Surely Paul has proven his point. Neither he nor his gospel was deserving of the label “man-pleasing.” After all, whom would Paul rather please than the leaders of the Jerusalem church? How could the rebuke of Peter (and, by inference, any who agreed with him) possibly be construed to be the result of a compulsion to please men? It was exactly the opposite. The Judaizers sought to please their colleagues, the Pharisees. They were unwilling to “take the heat” for accepting the Gentile Christians on an equal basis with Jewish believers. Conversely, Paul was willing to stand absolutely alone for the truth of the gospel without even Barnabas at his side.

Paul’s authority as an apostle is fundamental to the argument of the book of Galatians, but there are other lessons for us as well. Let us conclude our study by considering the implications of the gospel suggested by this passage.

First, we should learn from this text that much of evangelical error is inferential. Peter had no idea that he was denying the gospel, but he was. He did so, not by his affirmations, but by his actions. By his actions, Peter sided with the Judaizers, who insisted that Gentiles were sinners unless they converted to Judaism in addition to turning to Christ by faith. Christians need to become much more conscious of the implications of their actions, for we can deny in practice what we believe in propositional form. Let us seek to understand the gospel more fully and to live it more consistently.

Second, we should learn that we should expect to be tested on those very points which we believe most emphatically and which we may teach dogmatically. Who, more than Peter, had come to know that eating with the Gentiles was consistent with the will of God? In Acts 10 God instructed Peter to abandon the ceremonial food laws in order to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. Peter defended his actions before his Jewish brethren in Acts 11. In Antioch Peter lived according to the lesson he had learned in Acts 10. Later when some Jewish brethren arrived “from James,” he capitulated.

Under testing Peter abandoned what he believed. The same may be true of James. In the first half of the second chapter of his epistle, James addresses the evil of showing partiality within the church. Did not he himself support this? It is at least possible, since Paul records that the men who came to Antioch were from James. If nothing else, James learned a valuable lesson from Paul which he later conveyed to others in his epistle.

Although these men may have acted inconsistently with the truth, let me be quick to commend them for the change which is evident following Paul’s rebuke of Peter. I believe that the Jerusalem Council followed shortly after this rebuke; yet it was there that Peter and James were the two strongest supporters of the gospel as preached by Paul. They spoke out clearly in defense of Paul’s gospel, and they denied the teaching of the Judaizers (Acts 15:24). The practical prohibitions placed on the Gentiles were intended, I believe, to prevent any further recurrences of division and strife. These men, James and Peter, were great men, for they were willing to respond in a godly way to rebuke.

Third, this passage provides us with a footnote for the matter of private rebuke. We are all aware of the teaching of our Lord in Matthew 18, which instructs us to confront an erring brother privately. Our text in the second chapter of Galatians should inform us that some correction must be done publicly. Public correction is necessary where public error has corrupted others.

The underlying principle of private rebuke, I believe, is that sin should always be dealt with on the smallest possible scale. If we can deal with sin privately, so much the better. According to Matthew 18, it is only when private rebuke fails that public rebuke should follow. Matthew 18 concerns an offense committed by one brother against another. In Galatians 2, Paul publicly rebuked Peter on a different basis. Peter had publicly sinned, not actually against Paul, but against the gospel and against the Gentile Christians. Because Peter’s actions were public and he was a leader, many followed him in his sin. Thus, Paul rebuked him publicly, in order to correct a corporate problem.

A few years ago, after Bill Gothard’s ministry had become public and popular, Joe Bayly publicly challenged Bill to answer some specific questions, which would clarify his teaching. Initially Bill refused, claiming Matthew 18 in his defense and appealing to Joe to speak privately with him. Joe’s response was that Bill had in no way sinned against him personally, but that Bill’s teaching ministry had been public, and some of his students had taken his teaching to ridiculous extremes. Because his teaching and its impact were far reaching, private rebuke would not correct the wrong which had resulted. Fortunately, Bill eventually agreed to clarify his teaching, which Joe published. Joe was right, I believe, and he took a stand when Bill was second only to Moses in the minds of many. Those who err in public may require correction in public.

Let me give you a practical application of this. Every Sunday our church observes the Lord’s Table and provides the men with an opportunity to speak publicly. I am well aware of the sensitivity of some men about public correction. Believe me, there is not one elder who is eager to correct anyone publicly after he has spoken in the church meeting. However, when a man exercises his responsibility to speak, he must also assume responsibility for what he says. If the error is minor, correction may not be needed; however, when the error is serious and far-reaching in its implications, it must be corrected. Those who assume leadership, must be dealt with like leaders—publicly. I say this with great hesitation, realizing fully that this applies to me more than most of you. We are all accountable for what we say and do, but leaders are more so. No one knew this better than James (cf. James. 3:1).

Fourth, we are reminded of the fallibility of the giants of the faith. I sometimes hear preachers speak of Peter’s fallibility as though it somehow terminated in Acts 2, when Peter along with others, was filled with the Holy Spirit. There were great changes in his life, of course, but the gift of the Spirit did not make Peter infallible. Let us be reminded that no matter how spiritual a man may be, he is always capable of sin.

Fifth, we should learn that serious problems can have very beneficial ends. I believe that this incident served to shape the decision of the Jerusalem Council as much or more than any other. It did not, as Baur said, create a rift between Peter and Paul which would only intensify in time. The Jerusalem Council suggests the opposite. The conflict here, as that incident between my father and I many years ago, lasted only a short time, but it led to an ever deepening love and respect for each other. God is always able to take unpleasant incidents and turn them into life-changing lessons.

Finally, we should learn from this passage that our authority comes from biblical principles, more than it does from our position. Stop and think about Paul’s confrontation of Peter. Why do you think Paul was able to stand toe to toe, eyeball to eyeball, with Peter? Was it because Paul was an apostle? I think not. This incident certainly established Paul’s independence as an apostle, but it was not the basis for his apostleship. Nor was his apostleship the basis for Paul’s confrontation of Peter. The authority for what Paul did was the gospel. He tells the Galatians that he rebuked Peter when he saw that he and the other Jewish believers were not acting in a straightforward way with the truth of the gospel (Gal. 2:14). Paul’s actions were therefore based upon principle, not upon position.

Over and over I hear people coming to the elders of our church, asking what the elders are going to do about a certain problem in someone’s life. We try to point out that the Bible never lays the responsibility for correction on the elders, per se, but on the individual who is aware of the sin. It is this brother or sister who is to go to the sinning saint and rebuke him and only then take it to the church if they refuse to repent. Underlying the passing of the buck of correction to the leaders of the church is the assumption that correction is not “their place.” The issue involved in correction is not your position, but God’s principles. In this instance in Galatians, the principles of the gospel warranted rebuke, even when those in error were those who held the position of authority. Let each of us seek to be men and women of principle and seek to protect the truth of the gospel, regardless of our position, and regardless of the position of those whom we must rebuke. Let me remind you, however, that rebuke is to be based upon principle, not on personal convictions, or on personal preferences, or perspectives.

It is my opinion that the Christians of this generation lack courage, the kind of courage manifested by Paul. One reason for this is that we are not people of principle, and we understand inadequately the principles of the Word of God. Let us strive to be men and women like Paul, people of principle and of courage, willing to stand on and to stand by the Word of God, regardless of who we must oppose.

May God enable you to submit to the truth of the gospel by personally trusting in Christ for salvation. Then may He enable each of us, as Christians, to seek to practice and to preserve the truth of the gospel, even when this requires rebuke.


44 The tense of the Greek verb, translated “used to eat” by the NASB, is imperfect, which implies that some time had passed and that this was the habit of Peter—to eat with the Gentiles, like a Gentile.

45 It is difficult to determine what part, if any, James may have had in the arrival of this party. On the one hand, it is possible that James knew nothing whatever of the mission of these men, but this seems unlikely in light of the fact that Paul chose the expression “from James,” rather than “from Jerusalem.” These men may have claimed to have come “from James” in order to enhance their influence and to further their Judaistic views. On the other hand, it could be that James actually sent these men to Antioch. Acts 21:17-26 is informative concerning this matter. On Paul’s returned to Jerusalem here, he was met by James and all the elders (v. 18). They expressed the concern of some of the believing Jews, who were zealous for the law (v. 20), that Paul was teaching the Jews who lived amongst the Gentiles that they should cease to live as Jews (v. 21). This was very close to the conduct of Peter while in Antioch, and word of this may have reached Jerusalem so that a delegation was sent by James to investigate the matter. This delegation was likely more zealous for the law than James, similar to the group described in Acts 21:20-21. The party “from James” may have taken it upon themselves to straighten out Peter and Paul. We are not told the reason for the arrival of this party, and thus it was not vital to the point which Paul was making.

46 Both verbs are in the imperfect tense, which suggests a gradual change in Peter’s conduct, rather than a glaring, instantaneous, change. Also, Paul informs us in verse 14 that he publicly rebuked Peter when he “saw” what had happened, suggesting that the change in Peter’s actions, as well as the other Jewish believers, was gradual and only finally recognized (“seen”) by Paul.

47 Joseph Bayly, The Last Thing We Talk About (Elgin, Illinois: David C. Cook Publishing Co., 1973), p. 36.

48 Some have suggested that Paul may have been gone at the time Peter arrived and the problem originated. Thus, he would have dealt decisively with Peter and the others when he returned. I think it is more likely that the problem gradually developed and that Paul finally saw the matter for what it was. Thus, the apostle tells us he “saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel” (v. 14). The implications of this incident took some time to come into focus, at which time Paul acted decisively.

49 It is with particular dismay that Paul is forced to inform us that “even Barnabas” was guilty of falling in line with the Judaizers. From verse 13 we know that Barnabas was influenced by the hypocrisy of the whole group, while the other Jews merely followed Peter (compare “their hypocrisy” in verse 13b with “the Jews joined him in hypocrisy” in 13a). Barnabas may thus have been the last to fall into this error. The shocking thing about his capitulation is that he had been so enthusiastic about God’s work among the Gentile converts (cf. Acts 11:22-23). Remember, however, that it was the apostles from Jerusalem who had first sent Barnabas to Antioch (Acts 11:21). Barnabas may have felt some obligation to the party which had come “from James,” and after everyone fell into line with the circumcision party, he may finally have felt compelled to join them as well. We learn from this incident that Paul, alone, stood against the other Jews on behalf of the gospel. While he and Barnabas had stood together in refusing to have Titus circumcised (Gal. 2:3-5), Paul stood alone against Peter. This adds weight to Paul’s claim to have been independent of the other apostles and to his defense that he was not a man-pleaser.

50 I believe that the change in pronouns in these verses is a significant clue to the development of Paul’s argument. In verse 14, the argument is directed toward Peter, and thus the pronoun is “you.” In verses 15-17 the principle pronoun is “we,” indicating that Paul is now speaking to the Jews. In verses 18-21 the pronoun changes to “I,” where the principles of the gospel become much more personal. Paul thus argues from the general (“you” and “we”) to the specific (“I”).

51 The “we” of verse 16 refers to the Jewish Christians.

52 There is a great deal of difference between “privilege” and “superiority.” In Romans 3:1, 2 and 9:4-5 Paul lists some of the privileges which were bestowed upon the Jews, but this did not suggest superiority, for “to whom much is given, much is required” (Luke 12:48).

53 There are numerous attempts to explain the question of verse 17, but this seems best to me. Whenever Paul uses the expression,”May it never be!” (cf. Rom. 6:2, 15; Gal. 3:21), it is response to a question which has been asked, which is a wrong conclusion, based upon a correct premise. The gospel did prove the Jews to be sinners, like the Gentiles, but this did not mean that Christ could be accused of promoting sin.

Related Topics: Law

The Net Pastor’s Journal, Eng Ed, Issue 37 Fall 2020

A ministry of…

Author: Dr. Roger Pascoe, President,
Email: [email protected]

I. Strengthening Biblical Interpretation
“How To Read And Understand The Bible” (Pt. 4)

Introduction

This is part 4 of our continuing study of “Strengthening Biblical Interpretation: How to Read and Understand the Bible.” In the previous three parts of this study (issue numbers 34, 35, and 36 of this Journal) we have looked at the following subjects:

Part 1

1. Three basic tasks in Biblical interpretation

2. Two important hermeneutical questions

Part 2

1. Literal interpretation

2. Interpreting certain literary genres and devices

3. Single mean; multiple applications

4. The impact of culture on our understanding – ancient and contemporary cultures

Part 3

1. Two extremes of cultural vs transcultural interpretation

2. Two examples of cultural vs transcultural interpretation

a) Foot washing

b) Head coverings for women

3. Four guidelines for understanding and interpreting cultural issues

Now, in this part 4, we will outline Ten Simple Rules Of Biblical Interpretation. For this subject, I have found R. C. Sproul, Knowing Scripture, 63-99 to be very helpful.

RULE #1: Interpret Scripture In Accordance With The Author’s Originally Intended Meaning

If you have properly and adequately studied the text, you should be able to write down what the author intended to say to his original audience. You must be able to state this before you move to what it means for your audience today. I recommend that you write out the passage in your own words (paraphrase it). This will reveal whether you know the meaning of the passage. If you don’t know what it means, you won’t be able to write it out in your own words. Try to write it out by amplifying the meaning of the words and phrases, explaining the imagery in your own words.

RULE #2: Interpret Scripture In The Light Of Other Scripture

Since we believe that Scripture is divinely inspired, we also believe that no part of Scripture can contradict or be in conflict with another part of Scripture since God cannot contradict himself.

This principle (interpreting Scripture in the light of Scripture) is very important for two reasons. First, because of attacks against Scripture by unbelievers. One of the primary attacks against Scripture by unbelievers is the assertion that Scripture contradicts itself. Since the Bible was written by over 40 authors over a period of 16 centuries, if it were not a divinely authored book, contradictions and inconsistencies would be very possible. By interpreting Scripture in the light of Scripture, you can show that the entirety of Scripture is consistent with itself.

Second, interpreting Scripture in the light of Scripture is an important principle because of the attitude with which Christians read Scripture. Christians do not read and interpret the Bible with the intent of finding inconsistencies in the text (as a non-Christian would). Rather, we look for inconsistencies in our interpretation of the text, which would be revealed by this rule of “interpreting Scripture in the light of Scripture.” Furthermore, we read and interpret Scripture with an attitude of submission to the inherent authority, accuracy, integrity, and cohesion of the text so that if there is a contradiction or inconsistency with our interpretation, the problem is with us, not the text.

Therefore, a basic principle of sound biblical interpretation is that to correctly understand one passage of Scripture, you must bring in other texts that are either comparative or contrasting texts. If your interpretation of the passage under study conflicts with the teaching of another comparative or contrasting passage, then your interpretation is not correct. Or, if a verse or passage has several interpretive options, and the one you have chosen is not consistent with other comparative or contrasting passages, then that interpretive option must be rejected and one that is consistent with the other passages must be chosen.

Following this rule of biblical interpretation helps in several ways:

(1) It expands your study and exposition of the text by bringing more light to it from other texts.

(2) It acts as a safeguard to ensure that you are not interpreting the text in a way that is inconsistent with other texts.

(3) It ensures that you understand the progressive unfolding of God's revelation in Scripture. As time progressed, God revealed more and more of himself, his will, his purposes etc. to us through Scripture.

(4) It helps you see the different bases on which God related to and dealt with people at different times. So, Scripture is not only a progressive unfolding of divine revelation but also a progressive unfolding of God's relationship to mankind.

RULE #3: Use The Clear, Major, and Numerous Scriptures To Explain The Less Clear, Minor, and Few.

Since revelation in Scripture is progressive, it is understandable that early revelation may be less clear than later revelation because it is partial and sometimes obscure. Scriptures which are partial or minor in their treatment of a topic do not have interpretive authority over those which are fuller and clearer. The clear and major revelations clarify those that may be less clear and minor.

This, again, emphasizes the need for rule #2: Interpret Scripture in the light of other Scripture.

RULE #4: Be Careful In Making “Logical” Deductions And Inferences.

This rule is closely related to the previous rule. What may seem like a logical deduction or inference from Scripture may not necessarily be true. What is logical to us may not be logical in God’s ways or thoughts. Obviously, if explicit teaching contradicts your inference or what you think is implicit, then the explicit teaching rules. It is important, therefore, to look for explicit instruction that supports what you may think is implicit in the text.

It’s so easy to adopt interpretations and applications of Scripture based on logical deductions, or assumed implicit instructions or inferences that you draw from the text, which may not be what the author intended to convey at all.

While we need to be careful with making deductions and inferences, we do need to identify the general principles that arise from the specific details in the text under our study. Be very careful that the conclusions you draw from your text are the underlying, universal, timeless principles that are being revealed in the text.

RULE #5: Do Not Make Scripture Meet An Unreasonable Literary Standard

By “unreasonable literary standard” I mean a standard that you would not require of any other literature. R. C. Sproul calls this “reading the Bible like any other book” (Knowing Scripture, 63). One commentator puts it this way: “In interpreting the Bible we do not ask any favors which we do not believe are proper rules for the reading of any serious literature” (Mal Couch, ed. A Biblical Theology of the Church, 15).

Of course, the Bible is not just like any other book because: (1) it is unique (no other book like it); (2) it is divine (no other Author like it); (3) it is inspired (no other source, communication, revelation, or power like it).

But, we must read it like any other book in the sense that it is constructed using written words, like any other book - words which had a commonly understood meaning at the time; words which need to be interpreted and understood in accordance with the common rules of grammar at the time and which are designed to be understood on that basis. Also, we must not attribute to it literary liberties that we would not allow for any other literature.

But note this caveat: though we may understand the meaning of the words and grammar correctly, that does not mean that anyone who reads the Bible will necessarily arrive at the correct conclusions about what it says and how it applies to our lives. For that, we need the illumination of the Holy Spirit, which is the exclusive possession of believers only. Unbelievers can understand the words on the page; they can analyze its grammar; they can engage in the same literary analysis that they would do for any other piece of literature. But unbelievers do not arrive at the correct conclusions about it because they do not have the illumination of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 4:18) - their ability to understand the Bible is limited to the level of literature only. Though they may have intellectual comprehension they do not have spiritual comprehension. Thus, unbelievers do not submit to the authority of Scripture; they come to wrong conclusions about it; they cannot see the spiritual significance of Scripture; they do not assign proper value to it; they do not accept the implications of Scripture for faith and practice; and they will not accept the application of Scripture to their lives. If we are to assign to the Bible proper value, arrive at the correct conclusions about what it says, and apply it relevantly to our lives, we need the illumination of the Holy Spirit.

The point I am trying to make here when I say “do not make the Scriptures meet an unreasonable literary standard” is that its grammatical construction (words, phrases, clauses etc.), its contexts (historical, cultural, political etc.), and its literary genre (poetic, narrative etc.) must be examined in the same way you would examine and read any other literature, but with the enablement of the Holy Spirit. This objective method of biblical interpretation prevents subjective, mystical interpretation that is not rooted in scholarship and can be made to mean anything the reader wants or thinks.

RULE #6: Read and Interpret The Bible From A Personal-Application Perspective.

Do not ask “What does this mean to me?” but “How does this apply to me?” In asking this question, we not only bring out its current and relevant application, but we find out first how it was applied to the people to whom it was originally written. By seeing how the author crafted his argument and how he applied it to the real life situation of his original audience (i.e. why he was writing, what problem he was addressing etc.), we discover how it may apply to ourselves within the limitation of its original intended meaning.

Please note this limitation: Even though we may make many applications from one truth, those applications are still limited by the teaching of the author as he originally intended it. You are not authorized to apply Scripture any way you want, just as you are not authorized to interpret it any way you want. As someone has said, “There is more heresy taught in the area of application than in explanation.”

So, we need to read and interpret the Bible from a “personal-application” perspective by identifying with the author’s intended meaning (and what his original audience would have understood); by identifying the life situation of the original audience (and how what was written applied to them); and then applying it appropriately to our own life situation and culture (i.e. in a way that is consistent, and corresponds, with the original situation).

RULE #7: Identify Literary Devices and Genre And Interpret Them Accordingly.

I have already defined what I mean by literal interpretation, particularly when it comes to literary devices (such as figures of speech) and literary genres (such as poetry, apocalyptic, allegory etc.). Each literary genre must be interpreted accordingly. For example, Hebrew poetry must be interpreted in accordance with its patterns and customs - e.g. parallelisms etc. (e.g. Ps. 2:4; Prov. 1:20; Gen. 4:23; Isa. 55:6-7). We need to distinguish between proverb and law. Like our English proverbs, Hebrew proverbs are not intended to be universal truisms for all people at all times, but general principles that are generally true for those living godly lives.

RULE #8: Study The Grammatical Construction and Meaning Of Words Carefully

You cannot interpret Scripture accurately if you do not pay close attention to the grammar – (1) the parts of speech (e.g. noun, verb); (2) the form of each word (e.g. singular or plural; present or future tense etc.); (3) the meaning and use of words in their context and their relationship to each other (i.e. syntax) to form phrases, sentences, and paragraphs. Do not make words mean what you want them to mean or what you think they mean based on contemporary usage. You must understand the word as it was used in its original literary, cultural, and historical contexts. Remember that sometimes words change in their meaning over time.

Pay attention to repeated, significant, and key words. Repeated words and phrases usually tell you something about what the author is trying to emphasize, and / or the theme of the text (e.g. Phil. 1:27; 2:2,3,5; 3:15,16; 4:2,7). Significant words might be: (1) Theological terms (e.g. justification); or (2) The main verb in a sentence; or (3) Conjunctions and prepositions. Words cannot be interpreted in isolation from their usage. So, be sure to always determine what a word means by analyzing its form and its usage in its context.

When you have a word with multiple possible meanings, you have to look at its context and at the various usages in the Bible in order to determine its meaning.

RULE #9: Read and Interpret The Bible Christologically.

By this I mean, read the Bible from a N.T. perspective. Every message should point to Christ or the Christian life in Christ. Each sermon should be governed by the redemptive focus of the Scriptures (cf. Bryan Chapell’s “Fallen Condition Focus” (FCF) in Christ Centered Preaching, 1994). This focus is not only the salvation of the lost but also the growth of believers so that they become all that God intends them to be. Chapell asserts that “proper understanding of a passage and focus of a sermon require a clear FCF” (Bryan Chapell, 42).

Theologically, every sermon must have as its purpose the same purpose as the passage, which is “an aspect of the human condition that requires the instruction, admonition, and / or comfort of the Scriptures” (Chapell, 43). By having this as its objective, every sermon will be unified in its purpose.

RULE #10: Read and Interpret The Bible Theologically.

Look for indications in the text of the essential truth(s) that the author is expressing. Ask yourself: (1) What doctrine (theology) is the original author expressing? (2) What is the overriding truth that emerges from the text? Don’t impose your doctrinal bias onto the text. Don’t read into the text what is not there. Ask yourself: (1) What is the text saying about God? (2) What is it saying about man’s relationship to God? (3) What is it saying about how to live for God? If you can’t find the answer to these questions in the text, you probably don’t know what the theological point of the text is.

The difficulty of this task often depends on the literary genre. The non-didactic genre can be challenging to uncover the truth that is being taught – e.g. the Song of Solomon, or, the book of Jonah. Is Jonah about how God deals with a wayward prophet? Or, is it about God's sovereignty in all circumstances, whether acts of nature (storms, plants, and worms), pagan sailors, wayward prophets, or wicked Gentiles etc.?

In this regard, you have to be very careful interpreting narratives in order to be sure you understand the theology that is being taught. You have to extract the theological point from the narrative detail.

II. Strengthening Biblical Leadership
“Serving Our Master In A World That Hates Him: An Exegetical Study Of John 15:18-27”

As Christian leaders we often face rejection both in our churches and in the world. Living as a Christian is challenging and often intimidating, isn’t it? The world is so antagonistic to the gospel and to Christ himself. Sometimes their animosity makes us afraid to stand up for Christ. But here’s the encouragement - Jesus said, In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world” (Jn. 16:33).

So, what do we do, as leaders of God’s people, to encourage our congregations to testify for Christ when the surrounding culture is so hostile? That’s our subject in this article: “Testifying for Christ in a world that hates him” (Jn. 15:18-27). I hope that this Bible study will help you and encourage you as it becomes increasingly difficult to publicly profess Christ in this world.

In our passage, Jesus has just exhorted the disciples to abide in him (15:1-11) and to love one another (15:12-17). Now Jesus moves on to warn them of the hatred of the world against himself and therefore against them, his followers (15:18-25) and to encourage them to testify for him in the midst of such hatred (15:26-27).

The principle that we learn from this passage is that “Despite opposition from the world, we can faithfully testify for Christ.” We notice three theological principles in this text…

I. The World Hates Followers Of Christ (18-20).

Notice that 1. The world hates followers of Christ because it hated Christ himself first (15:18). “If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you” (15:18). When Jesus says, “if” the world hates you, he is not inferring that the world may or may not hate you. This is an “if” of reason, not an “if” of doubt. There is no doubt that the world hates followers of Christ.

The disciples themselves had already experienced this. They knew what had happened to the man born blind and his parents in ch. 9. They knew the blind man’s parents “feared the Jews because the Jews had agreed already that if anyone confessed that He was the Christ, he would be put out of the synagogue” (9:22). This was sheer intimidation by the Jews against these people because they had experienced the healing power of Jesus. The Jews were bound and bent to shut down their testimony of what Jesus had done for their son. In the days to come the disciples would experience an even greater degree of hatred from the world. There is an innate hatred that springs from those who are bitterly opposed to Christ. The truth is that the world hates Christians because it hated Christ. The world is filled with wicked men and women whose Satan-inspired hatred for Christ is manifested in their hatred for followers of Christ.

Jesus comforts his disciples by saying, “If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you (15:18).” The comfort in this is that Christians who experience the world’s hatred are suffering alongside their Saviour. Jesus suffered the world’s hatred first, and Christians suffer for Christ now. The apostle Paul calls this a privilege, a gift: “For to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for His sake” (Phil. 1:30). Jesus does not call us to experience anything that he has not experienced himself first. Because of suffering and opposition, many of Jesus’ disciples stopped following him (Jn. 6:66). They couldn’t take the intolerance, the rejection, the humiliation, the physical punishment. That’s the challenge many Christians face today.

So, 1. the world hates followers of Christ because they hated Christ himself first; 2. The world hates followers of Christ because we have been chosen by Christ (15:19-20). “If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you (15:19). To be “of the world” means to be identified with the world, to hold the world’s beliefs and morals, to adopt the world’s habits and character. If you did that, Jesus says, “the world would love” you as one of “its own.” If you were motivated and characterized by the world’s standards, the world would accept you as one of its own. But the truth is, the world does not accept you. In fact, the world hates you “because you are not of the world.” The reason you are not of the world is because Jesus “chose you out of the world.”

Did you get that? Jesus is saying there is only one reason why you are not accepted by, nor subject, to the world and that’s because “I chose you out of the world.” That is his sovereign grace and mercy toward his followers. The reason the disciples were separate and apart from “the world” was not because there was anything good or meritorious before God in them, but because they had been sovereignly chosen by Jesus. And just as Jesus sovereignly called them so he sovereignly calls all believers today to himself to be his followers and his spokespersons. That’s what makes us different from the world. We have been called out of it by God and separated to him for his exclusive use and purpose.

Repeating what he had already told them in 13:16, Jesus says “Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’” (15:20a). Jesus’ followers cannot expect better treatment than Jesus himself received. Just as he was not exempt from persecution, neither are we. “If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also” (15:20b). In other words, however the world responds to Jesus will be their response to us, his followers. If they persecuted him, they will persecute his followers. Conversely, if they obeyed his word, they would obey the word of his followers also. In short, the world will respond to you the same way they responded to Jesus.

The world hates followers of Christ - 1. because it hated Christ himself; 2. because Christians have been chosen by Christ out of the world, and, 3. The world hates followers of Christ because the world does not know God (15:21). “But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know Him who sent Me” (15:21). The world will persecute and hate those who take the name of Jesus “because they do not know Him who sent Me.” You can only know God through Jesus Christ. If you hate Jesus, it’s because you do not know God – “the One who sent Him.” Anyone who truly knows God knows that Jesus is his one and only eternal Son whom he sent into the world. If they had known that Jesus was the sent One from God, they would not have treated him as they did. For the Bible says that “the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world” (1 Jn. 4:14).

So the first theological principle in this passage is that the world hates followers of Christ. But notice the second theological principle…

II. There Is No Excuse For The World’s Hatred Of Christ (15:22-25).

1. There is no excuse for hatred of Christ because of the words He spoke (15:22-23). “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin” (15:22). The truth is they should have known who Jesus was. He came to make God known to them and he did so in word and deed. If Jesus had not revealed to them who He was in his teachings, then they would not have committed the sin of rejecting him as their Messiah because they would have been ignorant - “they would have no sin.” But since Jesus did reveal to them who he was, “now they have no excuse for their sin.” To reject Jesus is inexcusable; they are guilty. Why? Because Jesus clearly spoke the truth to them about who he is and who God is. Yet they still rejected him. And for that there is no excuse. No person ever born into this world has any excuse for rejecting Jesus when they stand before the Great White Throne of God’s judgement - nothing to say, no excuse, no self-justification. Why? Because they have heard the truth and rejected it.

“He who hates Me hates My Father also” (15:23). You cannot know God except by knowing and believing in Jesus. If you hate Jesus you hate the Father also. The Jews in Jesus’ day claimed that God was their Father but they rejected Jesus as God’s Son, the Messiah. That’s impossible because Jesus and the Father are one. You can claim to know God, but if you reject Jesus the Son of God, you reject God the Father also. So, people and religious groups who claim to worship God but deny the deity of Christ, his substitutionary atonement for sins, his resurrection from the dead etc. cannot and do not know God.

So, 1. there’s no excuse for hatred of Christ because of the words he spoke. And, 2. There is no excuse for hatred of Christ because of the works he did (15:24-25). “If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would have no sin” (15:24a). Not only are Jesus’ words (15:22) irrefutable evidence of who he is but so are Jesus’ works. He was unique in what he said and what he did. If he had not performed the miraculous signs that he did, then, he says, “they would have no sin.” But Jesus did perform “works which no one else did” and for that everyone is responsible for their response to him. “But now they have seen and also hated both Me and My Father” (15:24b). The people of Jesus’ day showed their response by rejecting him during his lifetime and at his death. Such rejection was inexcusable for the evidence was irrefutable as to who Jesus was. In rejecting him they rejected the One who sent him as well.

Now, this isn’t any different from today. We have the evidence of Jesus’ words and works right in front of us in the Scriptures. So, everyone is responsible for how they respond to the evidence. What we see in this passage is that the evidence often isn’t enough to convince some people of their sin and need of a Saviour. Such is the hardness of the human heart.

“But this happened that the word might be fulfilled which is written in their law, ‘They hated Me without a cause.’” (15:25). That’s a tragically sad truth – “they hated me without a cause.” People who may hate us usually have a reason. But in the case of Jesus, they hated him for no reason. This just goes to show the incredible hardness and wickedness of the human heart! Jesus came doing good to people without money and without price. He did good to people who didn’t even know him, healing those who were sick, feeding those who were hungry, raising some from the dead. He came speaking words of grace and mercy. He came to make God known to us.

By hating Jesus without a cause, Jesus’ opponents unknowingly accomplished two things: (a) they were responsible for his death; and at the same time (b) they fulfilled God’s eternal redemptive purposes. God used man’s wicked acts to accomplish his perfect will so that human beings are responsible for Jesus’ death while at the same time, through his death, God offers eternal life to the human race. That’s the magnificent love and grace of God!

What have we learned so far? First, the world hates followers of Christ (15:18-20). Second, there is no excuse for hatred against Christ (15:22-25). So, how then do we, as Christ’s leaders in His church, faithfully serve Him and testify for Him in such a hate-filled world? Well, here’s the encouragement…

III. Despite The World’s Hatred, We Can Testify For Christ (15:26-27).

1. We can testify for Christ because of the empowerment of the Holy Spirit (15:26). In 15:18-25, Jesus has warned the disciples of coming persecution and he explained the reasons why they would be persecuted. Now, in 15:26-27, Jesus exhorts and comforts the disciples by telling them where our source of strength would come from to testify for Him in the midst of opposition and persecution. Just as he had told them at the beginning of chapter 14, Jesus reminds us again that our comfort and power in the face of opposition is the Holy Spirit. “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me” (15:26). Jesus promised that when he went back to heaven, he would send to them the “Helper (Comforter)… from the Father.” This, of course, is what happened at Pentecost.

The nature of the Holy Spirit is “the Spirit of truth” (15:26b). Just as the word of God is truth and Jesus is the truth, so the Holy Spirit is truth because the Trinity is one. So, the nature of the Holy Spirit is truth itself and the work of the Holy Spirit is to “testify of Me.” That is one of the Holy Spirit’s primary roles today in the world. “When he has come,” Jesus says in 16:8, “he will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgement.” In the world, the Holy Spirit testifies to the utter sinfulness of the human race, the utter graciousness of God, and the utter marvel of Christ’s redemption. The Holy Spirit is the “Spirit of truth” who testifies to God’s truth.

So, 1. we can testify for Christ because of the empowerment of the Holy Spirit and 2. We can testify for Christ because of our relationship with Him (15:27). “And you also will bear witness, because you have been with Me from the beginning” (15:27). Very soon the disciples would experience their utter lack of witness for Christ when they all forsook him and fled. But upon the coming of the Holy Spirit they would be emboldened and empowered to do so without any fear. Men who deserted Christ in fear would soon be men of courage, who fearlessly testified for Christ even to the point of death because of their relationship with him from the beginning.

Like the disciples, because we have an intimate relationship with Christ, we are empowered by the Holy Spirit to testify to the grace of God without fear. We can testify to the pitiful moral condition of the human race. We can testify to the saving grace of God in Christ. And all this in the midst of the world’s opposition. As church leaders, our responsibility today is to set the example of how to testify for Christ even in the face of opposition. As his followers, we are indwelled by the Holy Spirit and placed in the world to testify to who Jesus is, why he came, what he did, where he is now, and his soon-coming return. We testify for him every time we pray for our food. We testify for him every time we speak a word for Christ to others. We testify for him when we take a stand against those who demean Christ. We testify for him by our lifestyle, our speech, our deeds, our priorities, our associations, our habits. Whatever we say or do must be with the goal that we bring glory to God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Final Remarks

What have learned in this passage is: 1. The world hates followers of Christ because they hated Christ himself (15:18-20); 2. There is no excuse for hatred against Christ because of (a) the words that he spoke, and (b) the works he did (15:22-25); yet, 3. Despite the world’s hatred, we can faithfully testify for Christ, (a) because of the empowerment of the Holy Spirit (15:26), and (b) because of our relationship with Him (15:27). That’s our comfort and encouragement.

May this word today be an encouragement and challenge to us all, especially those of us who lead and pastor God’s people. Jesus has warned us that testifying for him will not be easy. And he has encouraged and equipped us to do so even despite the world’s hatred. May we stand firm for Him in a world that hates him.

III. Sermon Outlines

Title: Letters To The Seven Churches: Sardis- Nominal Christianity (Rev. 3:1-6)

Theme: A church may maintain a façade of Christianity even when it is about to die

Point I: There is a difference between reputation and reality: “I know your works that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead” (3:1)

1. By reputation (“name”) this church was “alive”

2. But in reality it was “dead.”

Point II: There is a connection between waking and working (3:2)

1. This church needed to “wake up” – “be watchful”

2. This church needed to “work out” – “to strengthen the things that remain”

Point III: There is a necessity to remember and repent (3:3-6)

1. It’s necessary to remember the past – “remember therefore how you have received and heard” (3:3a)

2. It’s necessary to recognize the present – “hold fast and repent” (3:3b)

3. It’s necessary to refocus on the future

a) Many sleepers will be surprised by Christ’s judgement – “If you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you” (3c)

b) A few saints will be satisfied by Christ’s approval – “You have a few names even in Sardis who have not defiled their garments” (3:4a)

To these faithful but few saints, Christ promises…

- “They will walk with Me in white for they are worthy. The one who conquers will be clothed int white garments.” (3:4b-5a)

- “I will never by any means blot their names out of the Book of Life” (3:5b-c)

Conclusion: “He who has an ear let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches” (3:6).

Related Topics: Pastors

The Net Pastor’s Journal, Eng Ed, Issue 36 Summer 2020

A ministry of…

Author: Dr. Roger Pascoe, President,
Email: [email protected]

I. Strengthening Biblical Interpretation
“How To Read And Understand The Bible” (Pt. 3)

Introduction

This is Part 3 of our continuing study of “Strengthening Biblical Interpretation: How to Read and Understand the Bible.” In the last edition of the NET Pastor’s Journal, we concluded with a discussion on “The Impact of Culture on our Understanding” – both ancient culture and contemporary culture. In this edition, we are going to look at more aspects of biblical interpretation (hermeneutics) that impact our understanding of the text as we study the Bible in preparation for preaching.

In addition to the differences between the ancient culture and our contemporary culture, which greatly affect how we read and understand the Bible, there is also the issue of what practices in the Bible are limited to the ancient culture (i.e. “cultural”) and what are applicable for all cultures at all times (i.e. “transcultural”). First, let’s consider…

Two Extremes

The two extremes which impact our understanding of Scripture are: (1) Every practice in the Bible is transcultural and prescriptive. In this view, every biblical practice is timeless and binding on all people for all times. (2) Every practice in the Bible is cultural and non-prescriptive. In this view, every biblical practice is limited to its culture and time and, therefore, only prescriptive for those to whom it was written - i.e. it is culture and time bound.

My conviction is that somewhere in between those two extremes is the correct position – namely, that some practices in the Bible are permanent and unchangeable while other practices in the Bible are temporary or changeable. Our task is, first, to distinguish between “cultural” and “transcultural” practices, customs, and traditions; second, to discover the timeless principles that the ancient cultural practices reflect; and third, to determine how those principles can be expressed in ways that are meaningful in our culture today.

Be aware, this task is not easy. That’s why there have been many books written and why there continues to be much debate over this issue. One of the big problems with this issue in biblical interpretation is that, as cultures and worldviews change over time, pressure arises within the Christian community to change our interpretation of the text to conform with those changing cultural views. Examples of this would be modes of dress (1 Pet. 3:3-5), forms of worship (instruments, songs etc.), and the role of women in public ministry in the church.

While there may be an argument, from time to time, to change certain practices (if they are cultural and non-prescriptive) in order to better communicate those abiding principles, we are never authorized to change our interpretation of the text simply to suit our culture. Therein lies the problem. To help you understand this cultural vs. transcultural issue further, let me give you…

Two Examples

Example #1: Foot Washing (Jn. 13:14). This is practised by some Christians but not by others. There are three possible interpretive options on this matter. Option #1: No principle and limited cultural practice. This interpretive option argues that this instruction and practice was limited to 1st century Palestine because of their dusty roads and the practice of washing people’s feet when they entered your home. Option #2: Transcultural principle and universal practice. In this view, foot washing is both the expression of an abiding principle and the prescribed method of practising that principle – i.e. foot washing is prescribed as an abiding practice regardless of culture, one that should be practised by all cultures throughout all times. Option #3: Transcultural principle and varying cultural practices. According to this interpretive option, foot washing is merely the cultural expression of an abiding principle, which may be expressed in different ways from culture to culture and from time to time, ways that are relevant to the contemporary culture and time.

In seeking to resolve this issue, we need to ask two questions: Question #1: What is the timeless, abiding principle? Answer: The principle is that we should express humility and servant-hood to one another. Question #2: How is the principle expressed in practice? Answer: In first century Palestine it was expressed practically by washing one another’s feet because (a) this was one of the household’s lowliest jobs (and, thus, expressed humility) and (b) because they wore sandals and walked on dusty roads (and, thus, expressed servant-hood). But in other cultures the principle may be expressed in other more relevant, meaningful, understandable terms – i.e. it is a practice that, in other cultures, would be better reflected in customs that are relevant to that culture. Thus, in this instance I would lean towards interpretive option #3 above.

Example #2: Head coverings for women (1 Cor. 11). Here there are also three possible interpretive options (see R.C. Sproul, Knowing Scripture, 107). Option #1: No principle and limited cultural practice. This interpretive position argues that this instruction is limited to the 1st century Palestinian culture in which Christian women were to be subordinate to men and they showed their subordination by the 1st century Palestinian custom of veiling their heads, which practice showed (a) their modesty, and (b) their submission to the men. However, in our contemporary culture, women are not required to veil their heads, nor are they considered subordinate to men.

Option #2: Transcultural principle and universal practices. This interpretive position argues that this instruction represents a transcultural principle, which requires that Christian women anywhere and everywhere at all times demonstrate their submission to men by veiling their heads. But is it true that in all cultures at all times, women veiling their heads indicates their submission to men? I think not. In fact, in western cultures not only would that practice be considered strange, but it might communicate the exact opposite of what is intended, by women drawing attention to themselves.

Option #3: Transcultural principle and varying cultural practice. According to this interpretive option, the submission of Christian women to men is a transcultural principle (based on creation order), but how that is expressed in practice may vary from culture to culture – i.e. it may be a head covering but not necessarily a veil, or may not necessarily be a head covering at all. I would lean towards this interpretive option.

The subject of women’s head coverings has been and, in some Christian spheres continues to be, a divisive issue. The exegesis of the passage is hotly debated, largely because it contains some difficult language. At one point Paul seems to say that a woman’s hair is her head covering, so why does she also need a veil (e.g. 1 Cor. 11:15)? And the application is hotly debated. In some cultures today, women (whether Christian or not) still wear head coverings of various sorts (e.g. full veiling for Muslim women; babushka head scarves for eastern European women).

While many of these cultural vs. transcultural issues do not impact fundamental doctrinal beliefs, they nonetheless can be and are, in some circles, divisive. So what do we do to unravel this dilemma of understanding and interpreting cultural vs. transcultural practices in the Bible?

Obviously, a good starting point is to know something about ancient practices, history, worldview, and communication (or, at least, have resources that we can consult to find out about them). In addition, we need some guidelines to help us correctly and consistently understand and interpret these culturally influenced texts.

Four Interpretive Guidelines

These four interpretive guidelines will help you in understanding and interpreting cultural issues in the text (adapted from R.C. Sproul, Knowing Scripture, 108ff.).

Guideline #1: Examine the Bible itself for changing customs. This guideline is particularly helpful in identifying changes from the O.T. to the N.T. Though many of the O.T. practices and requirements (e.g. dietary laws, sacrificial system, modes of dress, language, money) changed in the N.T., the principles were still valid. These changes were not necessarily due to cultural changes (e.g. the change from the O.T. Jewish culture to the N.T. Gentile culture), but, sometimes, to the progress of revelation in God’s redemptive plan.

We need to make a distinction between God’s laws (e.g. sacrificial), which he himself changed, for they were not intended to be permanent (cf. 2 Cor. 3:7, 11, 13; Heb. 8:7ff.), and cultural institutions (e.g. marriage, slavery). Some have argued that since the attitude to slavery was already changing in the N.T. (e.g. Onesimus was not to be put to death but treated as a brother), is it not legitimate to conclude that the marriage relationship is also subject to change (e.g. the wife is not under the authority of the husband) and that the role of women in the church is also changeable (e.g. women can be pastors of the church)? But as R. C. Sproul points out, “we must be careful to distinguish between institutions the Bible merely recognizes as existing, such as ‘the powers that be’ (Rom. 13:1, KJV), and those which the Bible positively institutes, endorses and ordains” such as marriage. He goes on to say that, “the principle of submission to existing authority structures (such as Roman government) does not carry with it a necessary implication of God’s endorsement of those structures but merely a call to humility and civil obedience. God in his ultimate secret providence may ordain that there be a Caesar Augustus without endorsing Caesar as a model of Christian virtue. Yet, the institution of the structures and authority patterns of marriage are given in the context of positive institution and endorsement in both Testaments. To put the biblical structures of the home on a par with the slavery question is to obscure the many differences between the two. Thus, the Scriptures provide a basis for Christian behavior in the midst of oppressive or evil situations as well as ordaining structures that are to mirror the good designs of creation.” (Sproul, Knowing Scripture, 109).

So then, be alert to “changing” customs in the Bible - those which God himself changed (e.g. abandoning slavery, since the N.T. indicates that it was not an abiding principal but a cultural practice) and those which sinful human beings changed.

And, be alert to “unchanging” customs in the Bible such as (1) being submissive to governmental authority, even though it may not reflect Christian values (provided, of course, that such submission does not bring us into conflict with the principle of “obeying God rather than man”); (2) maintaining marriage as God's abiding practice for the union of one man and one woman, and not subject to changing cultural practices.

Guideline #2: Don’t try to read into the biblical text 1st century cultural practices that the author may not have had in mind.

For example, you will sometimes hear preachers say that Paul’s instructions on women’s hair and head coverings were motivated by his desire that Christian women be distinctive from the temple prostitutes of that day in that culture. But, as R.C. Sproul points out (see Knowing Scripture, 110) that is to read back into the text what is mere speculation by some scholars as to what may have been the reason behind the instruction. In fact, in this case, such a reading back into the text is erroneous as Paul states that his instruction concerning the submission of women to men (1 Cor. 11:8-11) stems from the precedent of creation, which was expressed in the 1st century by head coverings. It had nothing to do with the temple prostitutes, even though, undoubtedly, they did show their brazen behaviour by not only uncovering their heads but shaving them bald (cf. 1 Cor. 11:5b-6).

We need to recognize that some of the 1st century Christian practices must have been very counter cultural (i.e. not culturally conforming) since they were so persecuted for their practices and beliefs. Thus, we need to respect the fact that the 1st century Christians had their own practical distinctives, which were unique to their situation and not prescriptive for other cultures.

Guideline #3: Whenever the author refers to creation as the basis of his instruction, he is stating a timeless, transcultural, universal principle.

Practices that are rooted in creation can never be rationalized as cultural. To do so is to make irrelevant the very foundation of our existence. “The laws of creation are not given to man as Hebrew or man as Christian or man as Corinthian, but are rooted in basic human responsibility to God” (Sproul, 110-111).

Paul appeals to creation in his argument for head coverings to denote the submission of the women to the men in the church (as noted above, 1 Cor. 11:2-16) and again in his argument for female silence and submission in the church (1 Tim. 2:11-15).

Jesus also appeals to creation when answering the Pharisees’ question on divorce (Matt. 19:4-6) by taking them back to what God intended for marriage when he created us. Even though Moses had granted divorce because of the hardness of the human heart, nonetheless, Jesus maintains God’s intended standard for marriage relationships from the beginning.

Therefore, we can draw two conclusions: (1) Teaching that is rooted in creation is transcultural unless, in the course of progressive revelation, it is later modified in Scripture (Sproul, 111); (2) Though these appeals to creation are transcultural as to their principle, the manner in which that principle is put into practice may be cultural.

Guideline #4: When in doubt about whether a biblical instruction is cultural or transcultural, err on the side of transcultural.

When in doubt, it would be better to interpret a custom as a principle rather than a principle as a custom. I am not recommending legalism, which manifests itself in: (1) A rigid attitude and practice of a non-biblical system of rules and regulations that demands the interpretation and application of cultural practices (whether in Scripture or not) as transcultural principles; (2) The elevation of certain practices (such as dress, diet) to the level of biblical doctrine (i.e. raising practices to precepts; making forms into functions), particularly in reference to gaining favour with God for salvation or spiritual growth (i.e. by the law and not by grace) by doing certain things and abstaining from other things.

On the contrary, rather than writing them off as irrelevant and redundant legalism, I am recommending submission to those biblical practices about which we are not certain as to their interpretation and application (cultural and situational; or transcultural and universal). This is not ideal, but is a recommendation for those texts that we find too difficult to categorize as to their practice in today’s culture.

II. Strengthening Biblical Leadership

Spiritual Growth And The Impact Of Pastoral Ministry: An Exegetical Study Of 1 Thess. 1:1-10”

As you read this exegetical study of 1 Thess. 1:1-10, I hope that you will see how your pastoral leadership can have a tremendous impact on the spiritual growth of your church. I came across this cute poem about the perfect church:

“If you should find the perfect church without one spot or sore, for goodness sake, don’t join that church! It won’t be perfect anymore.

If you should find the perfect church where all anxieties cease, then pass it by, lest you join it, and mar the masterpiece.

But since no perfect church exists with perfect men and women, let’s stop looking for that church and start loving the one we’re in.”

While none of us belongs to a perfect church we certainly want to be the church God intends us to be and we certainly want to try to emulate a model church. That’s the subject of the text we are studying: the picture of a model church. What kind of people are the model church? What do they look like? What do they do? Simply put a model church is comprised of godly people who demonstrate the gospel in their walk and talk.

The church at Thessalonica was a fairly new church. They had recently been converted from pagan, idol worship, as a result of which they were being persecuted for their faith. So, Paul reminds them of their spiritual roots. He reminds them that their spiritual roots were “in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (1:1a). They shared a common life in God, a life rooted in the Father and the Son. The church lives “in” God; He is both the spiritual sphere and the divine source of our existence and apart from God the church has no life and no reason for existing. To know that we are in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” should give us a great sense of security and protection from opposition to the truth, persecution, and ridicule. No matter what opposition we face, we are safe and secure in God whose life we share.

Paul also reminds them of their spiritual blessings: “Grace to you and peace” (1:1b). God’s sovereign favor rested upon them because they had found “grace” in Christ, and His “peace” rested upon them because they had been reconciled to God through Christ. This is what a true church of God is! People whose spiritual life is rooted in God and whose spiritual blessings flow from the God of grace and peace.

Paul can’t stop thanking God for them (1:2) as he remembers their demonstration of true spirituality because they were gospel-centered people. Like Paul, we should give thanks for such people. So, how do we recognize them?

1. Gospel-Centered People Are Known By What They Do (1:3).

The fruit of the Spirit is evident in them. Faith, love, and hope do not lie dormant in godly Christians. These characteristics are the external evidence of the internal residence of the Holy Spirit. They are the practical outworking and expressions of the gospel. This is the product of our new life in God. They are not invisible traits like some sort of religious DNA, but they are active expressions of who we are as God’s people.

The gospel in its essence is “faith” in Christ, which is expressed in “love” for God and our neighbor, and which assures us of “hope” for eternity.

Notice that gospel-centred people demonstrate our faith through our works. Remembering before our God and Father your work of faith”(1:3a). Christian faith produces good works for God. As James says: “Faith without works is dead” (James 2:20). If you say you have faith but your works don’t show it, it’s questionable whether you are truly born of God. We must demonstrate our faith by good works done for God. Christian faith radically changes the way you live so that you live to serve God with works that bring praise to him. Gospel-centered people demonstrate our faith through our works and…

Gospel-centered people demonstrate our love through our service. “Remembering your labor of love” (1:3b). Love motivates us in untiring service to others. It’s easy to say you love someone but unless that is translated into active service for them, it is hollow and means nothing.

Our love for God energizes us in serving others, even when the work is hard, laborious, toilsome, because we serve out of sacrificial love that seeks the good of others and because we toil as before our God and Father” and on his behalf. Gospel-centered people demonstrate our faith through our works, our love through serving, and...

Gospel-centered people demonstrate our hope through our perseverance. “Remembering… your steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ”(1:3c). Perseverance is born out of a steadfast hope.

One Chinese Christian had all her belongings confiscated six times because she hosts a church in her home. She is reported as saying: “Nothing will stop us. Not persecution, not when they take everything we have!” Why? Why don’t they just give it up? Because they have a steadfast hope rooted in an unshakeable faith, so that when conflicts and opposition arise they respond out of unrelenting perseverance despite the obstacles.

The Christian life is sustained by an enduring hope. Our hope is not an “in-your-dreams” kind of hope, not a “Christmas wish-book” kind of hope, not a hope that is crushed by overbearing circumstances. Someone has said that “Christian hope is the certainty of a reality not yet experienced” (Alistair Begg). Ours is the hope of the gospel, the security of our salvation, the expectation of the sure and imminent return of our Saviour. Ours is the hope of those who once had no hope but now have a hope that supersedes discouragement and opposition.

It’s the future orientation of hope that motivates us. When we are focused on a sure and certain future we can more easily deal with the problems of the present. If you have no hope of future improvement or relief or fulfillment, then how can you persevere, how can you carry on?

Faith, love, hope. Those are the hallmarks of gospel-centered, spiritual people, people who by their lifestyle are the presence of Christ on earth. How are these characteristics expressed in your life? That’s the emphasis here - not on passive concepts but on active expressions of who we are, on the daily outworking of the fruit of the Spirit in our lives. What do these spiritual virtues look like in your life? Do your works adequately and accurately express your faith? Does your service for others express your love for them? Does your perseverance express your hope in God? Is your life the practical expression of the presence of Christ on earth? Is your church gospel-centered, people who are known by what you do? Godly people demonstrate the gospel in their walk and talk. Are you people who demonstrate your faith in your works, your love in your service, and your hope in your perseverance?

We give thanks for gospel-centered people who demonstrate true spirituality. Gospel-centered people are known by what they do. And, second...

2. Gospel-centred people are known by who they are (1:4-6).

Paul’s intimate relationship with these believers is expressed in his continually making mention of them in prayer (1:2), in his remembrance of what they did and how they lived (1:3), and in his knowledge of who they were in Christ (1:4). They were authentic Christians, living out their faith in practice and known far and wide by the testimony of who they were. No wonder he continuously gave thanks for them. And we too should give thanks for gospel-centered people who are true portraits of spirituality. We give thanks that they are known by what they do and for who they are.

First, we are living testimonies to the saving power of the gospel.

The saving power of the gospel is evidenced in (1) the exercise of God’s sovereignty in election: For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you” (1:4). You cannot be gospel-centered people if you are not ”chosen” by God – God’s beloved, elect people. Election is a biblical doctrine, whether you understand it or not, whether you like it or not. Election is the term used to describe God's sovereign choice of certain persons for salvation (cf. Eph. 1:4; Rom. 9:11; 11:5, 7, 28; 2 Pet. 1:10).

Why is election necessary, you ask? Because if God did not choose us and draw us to himself no one would ever be saved. No one would be saved because we are all, by nature and practice, incorrigible sinners, who would never turn to God in saving faith unless we are drawn by his Spirit. That’s why election is necessary.

Why, then, did he choose us, you ask? Not because we are more righteous than other people for “none is righteous, no, not one” (Rom. 3:10), but the Lord chose us because he sovereignly set his love upon us. We are his beloved, elect people and that is the basis of our persevering hope. God chose us because he loved us and will never let us go! We are saved for eternity because of his great love in saving us.

Gospel-centered people are those who are chosen by God and who, by virtue of what they do and who they are, present a true portrait of spirituality, living testimonies to the saving power of the gospel. The saving power of the gospel is evidenced in (1) the exercise of God’s sovereignty in election and…

The saving power of the gospel is evidenced in (2) the activity of God's Spirit through his Word. The God-ordained means of communicating the gospel is by preaching and that entails the use of words. But preaching is much more than words, for words alone do not transform a life. Through words we express the truth of God and through the Spirit we experience the power of God. Paul says: “Our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit” (1:5a).

The saving power of the gospel is when the word of God is applied by the Spirit of God, for the Word of God and the Spirit of God go together. John Stott writes: “Words spoken in human weakness need to be confirmed with divine power… We must never divorce what God has married, namely his Word and his Spirit. The Word of God is the Spirit’s sword. The Spirit without the Word is weaponless; the Word without the Spirit is powerless.” (John Stott, The Gospel and the End of Time, The Message of 1 Thessalonians, 34).

Only the Holy Spirit can change lives by his divine power. Only the Holy Spirit can convince a hardened heart of the truth of the gospel so that you are transformed through faith in Christ. Only he can illumine a blinded mind so that you can understand the message of the gospel and trust the Saviour.

Paul knew that the Thessalonians were God's elect people because the gospel message had been effective in them; it had powerfully changed their lives. Had they not been God's chosen people, the gospel would have fallen on deaf ears. But in their case, the message was Spirit-empowered, life-transforming. That’s the birthmark of God’s elect, beloved people. Our lives are radically changed by the life-transforming power of the gospel.

So, the saving power of the gospel is evidenced in (1) the exercise of God’s sovereignty in election, (2) the power of God's Spirit through the Word, and in (3) the credibility of God's servants through their preaching. The message the Thessalonians heard had a powerful effect in changing their lives because the word of God was applied by the Spirit of God, and because the messengers, who preached the gospel to them, were convincingly credible. The gospel derives its power from the Holy Spirit and its credibility from Christians who believe it and live it!

The apostles who preached to the Thessalonians were convincingly credible messengers because they were completely confident in their message: Our gospel came to you…with full conviction” (1:5b). They were completely convinced of the truth of their message, totally controlled by the Spirit’s anointing on their ministry. They were absolutely assured that the word they preached was God's word and that it would achieve God’s purpose.

They were completely confident in their message, and they were completely consistent with their message. “You know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake” (1:5c). “Our lives were no secret,” Paul says. “How we lived was perfectly consistent with the message we preached. You knew that what we said was true just by the way we conducted ourselves.” The apostles were incarnational preachers. The word of God was manifested in their lives. They walked and talked the gospel in their character and conduct. There was perfect consistency between what they said and how they lived. That’s powerfully credible! Their message was powerfully life-changing because they were Spirit-filled, gospel-centered preachers whose message was delivered with Spirit-induced conviction and received with Spirit-transforming power. And that’s powerfully and convincingly credible.

Only when the Holy Spirit is operative in you is the message powerfully transforming in others. You cannot be effective in communicating the gospel if your life is not consistent with your message. What you say and believe must conform to how you live. You cannot be effective in communicating the gospel if you are not fully assured of its truth and power. Only the Holy Spirit can take your words and deliver them to the hearts and minds and consciences of others with life-transforming power such that they say: “What must I do to be saved?” Powerful preachers speak the truth of God from the word of God with conviction as to its truth, all of which stem from the filling and activity of the Holy Spirit.

Godly people demonstrate the gospel in their walk and talk. We are known by what we do and we are known by who we are. Who are we? First, genuine Christians are living testimonies to the saving power of the gospel and...

Second, we are living testimonies to the transforming power of the gospel (1:6-10).

Notice that (1) the gospel transforms us into living examples of Christ: You became imitators of us and of the Lord” (1:6a). The apostles were living examples of Christ to the Thessalonians and, as a result, they became imitators of the apostles. It’s natural that when you receive the gospel you would imitate those who brought the message to you, isn’t it? When your life is so radically changed, you want to be like them. Like them you want complete confidence in the message and, like them, you want complete consistency in your life. That’s the kind of people we want to be like - consistent, credible Christians whose lives prove that our words are true! So, the Thessalonian Christians began to imitate Paul and the other apostles. They began to live out the gospel as they did. They didn’t just receive the apostles’ message, they also imitated the apostles’ example.

Christianity is not merely a profession of faith but a changed life. When we become Christians we become examples of Christianity. It’s not just an internal change but an external change as well. And the obvious example that we begin to imitate is that of other Christians whose lives are credible, influential. It’s not enough for us to merely tell someone the way of salvation. We have to live it out so that they imitate us. That’s what it is to be the presence of Christ on earth.

Notice that the Thessalonian Christians didn’t only imitate the apostles but more importantly they became imitators “of the Lord. As they imitated Paul, so their lives imitated “the Lord” because Paul’s life pointed them to the life of Christ. Just as Paul was the presence of Christ to them so they became the presence of Christ themselves: they became examples of the Lord.

That’s what spiritual leadership and mentoring is all about, isn’t it? That’s how spiritual growth is generated in those we minister to. Christian leadership and mentoring is about teaching others, from our knowledge and life experience, what the Christian life is all about, so that what they see in us draws them to Christ and they become followers of the Lord, imitators and examples of him to others.

So, as pastors and church leaders, we must all live our lives before others in such a credible, Christ-like way that what they see in us they put into practice. This can take place in a Sunday School class, or a small group Bible study, or in your home with your children, as well as in church gatherings as a whole.

Similarly, we must make sure that those we follow model the message of the gospel in speech and conduct so that by imitating them, we imitate Christ and thus become the presence of Christ on earth. But be warned: To be an imitator and example of Christ involves suffering for the gospel as Christ did. When you are closely identified with the Christ of the gospel you will suffer for the gospel, you’ll run into opposition to your beliefs and lifestyle. That’s what happened to the Thessalonians - they received the word in much affliction” (1:6b). They were persecuted for their faith.

We may not suffer persecution like the Christians in China, Sudan, Vietnam, Cambodia and many other places. But we will face the ridicule of atheists and evolutionists, the outright wrath of gays and radical religious groups, the antagonism of those who oppose the notion of absolute truth and the exclusive claims of the gospel.

You may have experienced that already in your life. Perhaps at school or college, other students have ridiculed you for abstaining from sex outside of marriage because of your faith in Christ. Perhaps at work your colleagues have shunned you for not watching pornographic movies or going out drinking after work because of your faith in Christ. Perhaps in your retirement community or neighborhood others despise your faithful attendance at church because of your faith in Christ. There are all kinds of ways in which we experience suffering for the gospel.

But Christian suffering is paradoxically accompanied by joy. God’s people are able to sustain ridicule and opposition “with the joy of the Holy Spirit” (1:6c). This is the paradoxical result of receiving the gospel. On the one hand, we experience suffering and yet, on the other hand, “joy” that surpasses the suffering, joy that comes from the sustaining power of the indwelling Spirit.

That’s who gospel-centered people are. People who are known by what we do and by who we are. We are living testimonies to the saving power of the gospel and we are living testimonies to the transforming power of the gospel. (1) The gospel transforms us into examples of Christ, and...

(2) The gospel transforms us into examples to others (1:7-10). …so that you became an example to all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia (1:7). By imitating the example of the apostles, the Thessalonians also became examples to others.

We become examples to others by our contagious faith (1:8-9a).8For not only has the word of the Lord sounded forth from you in Macedonia and Achaia, but your faith in God has gone forth everywhere, so that we need not say anything. 9For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you” (1:8-9a).

Everybody hears about the faith of a gospel-centered church. The word of the Lord (the gospel) rings out from it so that everyone hears it near and far, because they walk and talk the gospel. Everybody knew what happened in Thessalonica. Instead of persecution hampering their testimony it actually prospered it! Others heard about their conversion and they began to say: “Do you know what happened over there in Thessalonica? Do you know that when they received the gospel, they began to suffer persecution and that they actually rejoice in it?”

This is where the grapevine becomes a lifeline for the gospel. We hear that all the time in personal testimonies, don’t we? Someone gets saved and first thing you know others are saying: “Did you hear what happened to so and so. He’s become religious. She’s found God!” Everyone talks about gospel-centered people who are living testimonies to the transforming power of the gospel. No one has to promote a genuine work of the Spirit of God. It’s self-evident and compelling. It’s a contagious faith.

When God began to work in the Brooklyn Tabernacle in New York, the news spread around the world. Is that true of you in your community? Is your church a bold example for God of contagious faith? Are you living testimonies to the transforming power of the gospel?

We become examples to others by our contagious faith, and we become examples to others by our radical conversion (1:9b-10). Radical conversion means (1) a complete change in direction: “…you turned to God from idols…” (1:9b). The very people who had once worshipped idols now turned completely away from paganism and turned their lives over to God. That’s a total turnaround in direction. Radical conversion means turning “to God” in faith and turning away from idols.” True believers cannot worship God and idols. So, radical conversion means a complete change in direction.

And radical conversion means (2) a complete change in action. They began to serve the living and true God” (1:9b). That’s the evidence of genuine repentance - turning away from Satan and sin and turning to God and holiness. A complete change in action means you begin to “serve” God. You are set free from slavery to sin, from the superstitious paralysis of idol worship, from the power of sin, and released into the glorious liberty of serving God. That’s what gospel-centred people do – they serve the living and true God.” What a bold life-transforming change!

You serve the “living” God. Not dead statues of wood and stone, but the living God, the One who is life in himself, in whom we live and move and have our being, the one who gives to all people life and breath. And you serve the “true” God. Not false gods who deceive you, but the true God who cannot lie. Not counterfeit gods of materialism, pluralism, relativism, hedonism, narcissism, but the only true God.

Radical conversion means a complete change in direction, a complete change in action, and radical conversion means (3) a complete change in expectation. Our expectation changes because (a) our future is certain: “...to wait for (God’s) Son from heaven” (1:10a). That’s what gospel-centred people do – they wait in certain hope for the return of Christ from heaven, when death will be swallowed up by life.

Our expectation changes because our future is certain and our expectation changes because (b) our future is secure. “God has raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come” (1:10b). The Jesus who walked this earth in history is the Son of God himself, whom God raised from the dead. Christ is alive at God’s right hand, waiting to take his beloved, elect people to heaven. That’s why our future is secure, because Christ’s resurrection guarantees our resurrection. Just as God raised Christ from the dead so He will raise us up.

When we experience radical conversion, our expectation changes because our future is certain, our future is secure, and our expectation changes because (c) our future is settled: Jesus delivers us from the wrath to come” (1:10c). Those who are Christ’s don’t fear God's wrath because Christ, our Deliverer and Savior, has rescued us from the judgement of God by paying the price of our sins with his own blood on the cross. The wrath of God in judgement is coming and it’s certain. All who trust Christ are delivered from his wrath but all who reject Christ will be condemned under his wrath. The crying need of the world is deliverance from coming wrath through the Christ of the gospel. What a comfort to know that when we turn to God in faith our future is settled, our eternal destiny in heaven is secure.

People don’t like to hear about the wrath of God. They just want to hear about the love of God because, they argue, a loving God would never condemn them. You see, subconsciously they are trying to escape the judgement of God but the truth is that “God will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained” (Acts 17:31), the Lord Jesus Christ. God's wrath is not an impersonal concept for philosophers to debate but a tangible reality for sinners to face. Praise God, then, that as the redeemed people of God we have been saved from coming wrath.

Now we wait with eager expectation for Christ’s imminent return from heaven (cf. Phil. 3:20-21). Now we wait with eager expectation for him to complete our redemption by the transformation of our bodies and our transfer to heaven. We can’t hasten the coming of Christ, we can’t change the date or the manner of his coming, but we eagerly look for him as we wait and work. The imminent, bodily return of Christ is the continuing hope of gospel-centred people. It’s an essential part of living the gospel. We don’t hear much about that anymore. Much of the contemporary church has lost sight of “the blessed hope and the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ” (Tit. 2:13). Churches today seem to be more focused on the bountiful present than the blessed future. Christians seem to want to hear about our lives, our families, our needs, our well-being instead of Christ’s glorious coming in majesty and power when he will restore all things to God the Father in their resplendent beauty.

Is this what you preach? Is it your expectation? Is it your hope? Is your future certain, secure, and settled? Are you trusting yourself, your good works, your money, your dreams in this world? Or, are you eagerly expecting the return of Christ?

Concluding Remarks

This, then, is a portrait of true spirituality, authentic Christianity: Godly people who demonstrate the gospel in their walk and talk.” Gospel-centred people are known by what we do - people who demonstrate our faith through works, our love through serving, and our hope through persevering. And gospel-centered people are known by who they are - people who are transformed by the gospel into examples of Christ and examples to others.

This is what we, as church leaders, must preach and this is how must live, so that our people grow spiritually through our leadership. We must live the gospel in such a way that others see Christ in us. Does that describe you? Do others see Jesus in you? Do they imitate you because you are a godly person who walks and talks the gospel?

III. Sermon Outlines

To listen to the audio version of these sermons in English, click on these links: Link 1 - Rev. 2:18-20; Link 2 - Rev. 2:20-23; Link 3 - Rev. 2:23-29.

Title: Letters to the Seven Churches: Thyatira – Progressing but Corrupt

Theme: The subtle deception of sin in the church

Point 1: Christ commends the church for its progress (2:19)

Point 2: Christ condemns the church for its corruption (2:20)

Point 3: Christ cautions the church if it is unrepentant (2:21-23)

Point 4: Christ confirms to the church his grace (2:24-29)

Related Topics: Pastors

The Net Pastor's Journal, Eng Ed, Issue 38 Winter 2021

A ministry of…

Author: Dr. Roger Pascoe, President,
Email: [email protected]

I. Strengthening Expository Preaching
“Preaching Hebrew Narratives” (Pt. 1)

In this edition of The Net Pastors Journal, I want to introduce the topic of preaching Old Testament narratives, which I will develop in the following edition.

First, I need to make some introductory comments about the abiding significance of the Old Testament. Note what the Scriptures say about the O.T. For example…

Romans 15:4, “For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.”

1 Cor. 10:11, “Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction.”

2 Tim. 3:16-17, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

Luke 24:27, “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.” Here, Jesus, the living Word, opened up and explained the written word of the O.T. concerning its testimony to himself.

Second, let me just outline the three sections that make up the structure of the O.T. …

1. The Torah / Law (Genesis to Deuteronomy). This covers the period from the beginning of time to the entrance to the promised land.

2. The Prophets:

a) The Former Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings). This section covers the period from the entrance to the promised land to the exile.

b) The Latter Prophets. This is made up of 31/2 major prophets (incl. ½ Daniel) plus 12 minor prophets = 15½ in total as follows:

Pre-exilic: Jonah, Amos, Hosea, Micah, Isaiah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Joel (9 in total)

Exilic: Ezekiel, Obadiah, Daniel, Jeremiah (3½ in total)

Post-exilic: Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (3 in total)

3. The Writings:

Little Scrolls: Ruth, Esther, Lamentations

Theological History: 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, ½ Daniel.

Wisdom: Job, Proverbs, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes

Poetry: Psalms

I. Introduction To Hebrew Narrative

What is a narrative? Simply put, a narrative (or, story) is a chronicle of connected events that take place over a certain time period. As such, a narrative’s primary characteristic is movement, a chronological and experiential movement (i.e. not a photograph but more like a movie). Stories do not merely relate the occurrence of events in time, they also link these occurrences of events together – each action in the story gives rise to another action or response. This sets up a chain of events that ultimately reaches a conclusion, which is a very important part of the story because it finishes the story. The conclusion spells out the consequences of the series of actions that took place.

So, every story has a beginning, a middle, and an end, just like a sermon, and each of these sections is interdependent on each another. The beginning describes the situation, the need, the problem. The middle describes what action is taken in response to the situation, need, or problem outlined in the beginning. The end develops from the middle in that it tells you the results from the action taken in the middle. Thus, the end also relates to the beginning (as well as the middle), in that it resolves the need, the situation, the problem that the story started out with.

Stories, then, not only describe events that happen in time, they are designed to organize these events, to give “logical meaning and shape to the otherwise incoherent occurrences of events” so that life as portrayed in a story is not “a meaningless jumble of disjointed experiences” (Tom Long, Preaching and the Literary Forms of the Bible, 72). In fact, the whole of life is a narrative, not one that “signifies nothing”, as Shakespeare asserted, but one that has purpose and meaning because God is in control, working out his sovereign purposes. This is why personal testimonies are so powerful.

There are several types of narrative. For the purposes of this article, when we speak of narrative we mean “historical” narrative with historical referents (i.e. real stories that took place within history), unless the intention of the writer can be shown to be otherwise. Thus, there is real history behind the Bible. O.T. history as we have it is, in fact, literary history. It may have an oral background in parts, various sources may be discovered in certain sections, but we have literature containing narrative that is rooted in history.

It is always good to remember that, like the N.T. authors, the O.T. authors were not only theologians but skilful writers, as Tom Long points out:

“The biblical writers were literary artists of considerable skill and sophistication who were not unacquainted with the creative, even playful, possibilities of language. These artistic tendencies were nor given free reign, however, but were disciplined by the larger theological purposes which governed the writer’s work…This high theological purpose placed the biblical writers…in the middle of an interplay between two forces. On the one hand, they believed in the unwavering character of God’s will, the constancy of the divine promise, and were certain that God had a harmonious plan for creation. On the other hand, they knew that human history was actually disorderly, human freedom was random, and human beings were stubborn and resistant. Narrative became a particularly apt literary form for capturing the fullest possible range of the interplay between these opposing forces…In short, the biblical writers produced narratives not in a vacuum, but out of the struggle to produce a fit between the literary form and their theological world view” (Thomas Long, Preaching and the Literary Forms of the Bible, 67).

II. General Characteristics Of Hebrew Narrative

1. Hebrew Narrative Is Scenic.

This is the most common characteristic (e.g. David and Goliath). The action is broken up into a series of scenes in various settings. Usually there is a special relationship between the action, the characters involved in the action, and the setting. Setting creates a distinct atmosphere. So, when you preach O.T. narrative, take note of…

(a) The characters. How are they described (their status, name, origin)? Who is involved? How do they interact? The authors employ various techniques in characterizing the people they write about:

(i) Description. Hebrew narrative gives very little detail; just general descriptions. Hebrew narrative is less interested in presenting the appearance of a character than in guiding the reader into a discovery of what kind of a person the character is.

(ii) Interiorization. The narrator supplies the reader with windows into the mental or emotional state of a character. The narrator may comment on a character’s thought or opinion (e.g. Gen. 8:11b; Ex. 2:24, 25). For example, the narrator may quote extensively a character’s thoughts (e.g. Ex. 2:14; Ex. 3:3).

(iii) Direct dialogue. This is the preferred method in Hebrew narrative for sustaining the action within the plot – who said what to whom.

(iv) Actions. Actions can be narrated without speech. Such speechless accounts of action highlight character. They serve as unannounced commentary on a character’s speech (e.g. Gen. 30:33-34).

(v) Contrast. By placing characters in juxtaposition, an author highlights character traits - e.g. Deborah and Barak (Judged 4-5). Deborah is always decisive; Barak is hesitant.

(vi) Point of View. The author may present information through the voice and eyes of the omniscient narrator or any one of several characters within the narrative - e.g. David and Bathsheba (2 Sam. 11). This narrative begins with background information by the narrator (v. 1). Then the reader sees what David sees (v. 2). The third perspective is that of a messenger (v. 3). In the remaining verses of the chapter, the author shuttles the reader from one character’s perspective to another’s – David’s, Uriah’s, Joab’s, the messenger’s, and Bathsheba’s. It ends with the readers being directly addressed by the narrator: “But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord” (v. 27b). It is important to always figure out who is speaking.

(b) Dialogue. Be careful not to psychologize what is said. Often the first words said indicate the core of the event. This is where motives and thoughts are revealed.

(c) Plot (i.e. the sequence of events). The development of the plot may be simple or complex, but they all have action that progresses through a beginning, middle, and end. Some type of conflict occurs at the beginning, becomes complicated through the middle, and is finally resolved at the end.

(d) Pace. How does the narrative move along?

(e) Narrator. The narrator might be omniscient, hidden, or anonymous. He may express a direct point of view. He may even come through one of the characters.

2. O.T. Narrative Is Succinct.

O.T. narratives are compressed. Therefore, pay attention to arrangement and detail. Be aware of how the author has selected his material. His selection is usually dependent upon the point he intends to convey – i.e. he only includes what we need to know in order to make his theological point. Don’t try to supply the details that the author has not told us unless they are obvious by implication or from another passage.

3. O.T. Narrative Is Subtle.

O.T. narrative shows more than it tells. Great statements may be made in a subtle comment, event, or description. “Only occasionally will the narrator disclose God’s point of view to his readers” (Sidney Greidanus, Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text, 207). Generally the point of view has to be deduced. The narrator typically speaks through the words and actions of the characters in the narrative. They are his conduit for conveying his message. He himself usually remains hidden, at least as far as direct, critical statements are concerned.

III. Literary Structure And Devices In Hebrew Narrative

1. Repetition. Key words, phrases, sentences, recurring motifs (e.g. stones in the Jacob narrative, water in the Moses story), and themes.

2. Recurring patterns, structures, and sequences. For example, in Judges Israel did evil…God gave them over…God provided a deliverer…they recovered…they did evil again.

3. Word plays. These are sometimes hard to pick up in our translation but would have been obvious to the original readers or hearers.

4. Poetic lines in narrative contexts (heightened speech). For example, “To obey is better than sacrifice and to listen than the fat of rams” (1 Sam. 15:22).

5. Bookends (inclusios and chiasms). These literary devices are very commonly used to form the narrative structure.

Inclusios are bookends. They show how or where the narrative begins and ends. You see this clearly in the Jacob narrative (Gen. 28:10-32:31) where, first, “the sun set” on Jacob (Gen. 28:11) and later “...the sun rose upon him” (Gen. 32:31). Why did the writer see fit to include this detail? Two reasons:

(1) The two expressions bookend this section – Gen. 32:31 where “the sun rose” connects us back to Gen. 28:11 where “the sun had set.” These two phrases form an inclusio.

(2) The material between 28:11 and 32:31 forms a significant “spiritual cycle” in Jacob’s life, in which he is moving from spiritual darkness (the sun setting – this is probably the darkest period in his life when he had been ejected from his home and had nowhere to stay) to spiritual light (the sun rising – Jacob has turned a significant corner in his relationship with God after all these intervening years and experiences).

Chiasms focus the readers attention on the apex of the narrative. You see an inverted chiastic structure very clearly in the book of Ruth (see Tom Long, 82-86):

The beginning (1:1-22). The downward spiral of Naomi’s and Ruth’s life situation.

The middle:

a) The development of Ruth’s relationship to Boaz (2:1-23)

b) Naomi’s scheme and Ruth’s response (3:1-18)

c) The upward trajectory and climax – Boaz’s response (4:1-12).

The end (4:13-22). Boaz’s redemption. Ruth and Naomi are blessed. Hope is restored.

6. Analogy and Contrast or Comparison. O.T. narratives frequently make use of analogy in the form of figures of speech such as metaphors, similes, hyperbole, personification (or anthropomorphisms). In this way, the author describes the reality he is talking about in the narrative in terms that appeal to our senses and imagination.

Similarly, contrast and comparison are frequently used by O.T. narrative authors. For example, in 1 Samuel, the author wastes no time in introducing us to the contrast between Hannah (and her son, Samuel) and Eli (and his sons, Hophni and Phinehas). She and her son go on to be blessed by God, while Eli and his sons go on to be judged by God. Similarly, you have the extended, stark contrast between Saul and David in which Saul acts as a foil for David – i.e. Saul’s character traits are the complete opposite of David’s and serve to highlight David’s character.

In the next edition of this Journal, I will outline some suggestions for studying and preaching Hebrew narratives.

II. Strengthening Biblical Leadership

If you thought that your marriage vows were the only time you would pledge to “honour and obey” someone, I have news for you - it should also be the pledge of a healthy church to its leaders. In this article, I would like to develop the subject of “Honoring Church Leaders” based on Hebrews 13:7-8 and 17-19.

The N.T. says little about this subject of the relationship of a church to its leaders, but what it does say is vitally important. This passage in Hebrews 13 teaches us that “A healthy church honors its godly leaders.” The writer to the Hebrews gives three exhortations that define the honor of a congregation for its leaders.

I. We Honour Our Godly Leaders When We Learn From Their Faithful Example (13:7-8)

“Remember your leaders / rulers” (13:7). We are to “remember” our leaders - those who ministered among us, those who influenced us and formed us into who we are today (how we think and act, and what we believe). The writer to the Hebrew Christians is saying: “Think about who they were, what they said and did, the legacy they left, how they influenced your lives. Reflect upon their ministry among you.” This is a profitable exercise, not for nostalgia’s sake but to remember their example of faithfulness and consistency and in so doing to fall in step with their example. They are our heroes, our mentors to whom we look up. They are the primary influencers in our lives, those whose lives are paradigms for Christian living, those about whom we might sometimes wonder: “What would they have said, done, or thought about such-and-such? What did they teach about that? How would they have reacted? What counsel would they have given us in this situation?”

We’re living in an age that pays little respect to leaders, especially those of a previous generation. “Once they’re gone, they’re gone,” they say, “and we move on to newer and better things. The old was alright for that day and age, but we’re more progressive now, things have changed.” This writer to the Hebrews says: “No! On the contrary, remember the old landmarks, the tried and true paths. Remember those who established you in the truth. Remember those who were formative in your faith. Remember those who labored among you, acting in faith, pioneering with the gospel.” The apostle exhorts us to learn from them…

1. We Are To Learn From The Example Of What They Taught (13:7a).

“...who spoke the word of God to you…” (13:7a). The Word of God was the subject of their conversation, their teaching, their preaching. They didn’t talk or preach about frivolous matters. They didn’t preach the latest “how-to” sermons. They preached the gospel to you. They edified the church, built you up in your most holy faith. Their teaching and conversation was the bedrock that underpinned the church. If you dig down beneath the surface, you’ll find that their teaching still lives on. They may not be here physically but they are certainly here spiritually.

We honour them when we learn from their faithful example. We are to learn from the example of what they taught. And...

2. We Are To Learn From The Example Of How They Lived (13:7b-8).

“Considering the outcome of their conduct, imitate their faith”(13:7b). Their “faith” refers to what they taught, believed, and lived. It undoubtedly refers both to the truth of Scripture which they believed and the personal trust in God that they practiced. These Hebrew believers that are being addressed here were tempted to renounce their Christian faith, to go back to their old Judaistic practices and beliefs. So, this exhortation was particularly appropriate…

(a) Imitate their faith in the trustworthiness of God - the faith by which you live in dependence on God; the faith by which you trust God to provide for all your needs according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus; the faith by which you face the future, not knowing where it may lead.

(b) Imitate their faith in the truth of God, the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3), the inspired Scriptures which contain all that we need for life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3), the faith which constitutes that body of truth that we believe, trust, and teach.

“Imitate” their faith. This doesn’t mean blindly following them just because they are part of your history, or just because you have an emotional attachment to them. But follow them “considering the outcome of their conduct.” After carefully weighing their life and teachings, after closely examining the outcome of their lives, after noting the fruit of their testimony, after repeatedly looking at the successful legacy of their lives, after considering the totality of their lives (from beginning to end, from top to toe), after observing how they spent their lives, then follow their example! Imitate their faith, live as they lived, speak as they spoke. Be steadfast in the faith as they were.

And lest you think that church leaders can be unreliable (some are good, some are bad; some stay, some leave; some have left a good taste in your mouth, others a bad taste), then, consider and emulate the head of the church, our supreme leader and the ultimate example of faith, “Jesus Christ”, the One who “is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (13:8). He is unchanging, immutable, perfectly consistent. He is “Jesus”, the Saviour, the One who saves his people from their sins. He is “Christ”, the anointed One, the Messiah, the sent One, the Son of God. He is the changeless One, the One who is “the same yesterday, today, and forever.”

Jesus Christ is the same “yesterday” because he is the God of the past, the God of creation, and the God of redemption, the One who died and rose again. He is the same “today” because he is the God of the present, the One who intercedes for us at God’s right hand, our great high priest (5:6; 6:20; 7:17, 21, 24-25, 28; 9:24). He is the same “forever” because he is the God of the future, the eternal Lord before whom every knee in the universe will one day bow (Phil. 2:10-11).

And because He is always the same, you can depend on him. He is “the One who was and is and is to come” (Rev. 1:8). He is the God of the O.T. and he is the God of the N.T. He is the Lord of the church. If ever there was a ruler / leader whom we can implicitly trust for time and eternity it is Jesus Christ. Human leaders may fail us, but he never fails. Human leaders may come and go, but he never leaves us. Godly leaders point us to Him because He is our full and perfect and changeless example to follow. He never changes. You can always depend on him. “Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You will endure. Yes, they will all grow old like a garment; like a cloak You will change them, and they will be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will have no end.” (Ps. 102:25-27). “For I am the Lord, I do not change” (Mal. 3:6).

As you consider the end of those church leaders who have influenced you for good, remember that they only do so to the extent that they are a reflection of our great, eternal, true, and changeless Saviour.

So, we honour our godly leaders when we learn from their faithful example. And notice also, verse 17...

II. We Honour Our Godly Leaders When We Yield To Their Pastoral Rule (13:17).

Today’s society doesn’t like to yield or submit to anyone. The spirit of our age is: “I’ll do it my way. No one is going to tell me what to do.” Sadly this attitude infiltrates the church sometimes. But such lack of mutual submission, such disrespect for authority creates chaos, anarchy, division, disunity and ultimately the effectiveness of the church is weakened and Satan gains an advantage. But the apostle exhorts us to “Obey those who rule over you and submit to them” (13:17a). Why? Because...

1. They Are Vested With Divine Authority.

This exhortation would have had special significance for these Hebrew believers who were tempted to give up Christianity and return to Judaism. If ever there was a time they needed to obey their godly leaders, it was now. Evidently they had not learned to imitate their leaders and an attitude of independence was prevalent in the church.

But, we must “obey” godly church leaders as to their governance – in their teaching, decisions, and direction of the church. And we must “submit to them” as to their authority, for their authority is derived from the Lord of the church (as well as from the congregation itself).

Authoritative leadership is essential for unity, harmony, and effectiveness. Obedience infers submission, yielding. This doesn’t mean blind, unthinking submission. This doesn’t mean submission that shirks responsibility. This doesn’t mean submission that conflicts with Scriptural teaching or direction, otherwise the admonition in Hebrews 13:9 about “strange doctrines” would be pointless. This doesn’t mean a cult-like submission where you stop thinking, give up your convictions, or blindly follow others. Rather, this is intelligent, discerning submission to godly leaders whose speech and conduct are exemplary. We honour their position and authority while at the same time we engage in thoughtful, respectful dialogue about matters of concern, all in submission to the Lord of the church.

Those whom God calls into church leadership, who have the appropriate gifts, who have earned the respect of the congregation, who meet the biblical qualifications, and whose speech and conduct are pure and compelling, are those who rule with divine authority, whom we are to obey and to whom we are to submit (cf. 1 Thess. 5:12-13). That’s what the text says: “Obey...and submit!” Obviously, corrupt leaders are not in view here (cf. Ezek. 34) - those who lead others in the wrong direction, those who teach false doctrine, those whose lives are not morally pure. That’s not who the apostle is writing about. There is a process and there is divine authority vested in the church to deal with corrupt, sinful leadership (e.g. 1 Tim. 5:20). But that isn’t the issue here. The issue here is evidently that the Hebrews had not submitted to their leaders who were godly men, whose faith they should follow, and whose lives testified to their spirituality. That’s precisely why the writer exhorts them to imitate their leaders, obey them, and submit to them.

We need to make sure that the spirit of the age does not infiltrate our churches, and that our relationship with our church leaders is healthy, transparent, and mutually submissive. We need to submit to godly leaders as we submit to the Lord of the church. Failure to do so is failure to submit to Christ himself and that puts a congregation in grave danger.

We are to yield to their rule because they are vested with divine authority. And we are to yield to their rule because...

2. They Are Accountable For Our Pastoral Care.

“... for they keep watch over your souls as those who will have to give an account” (13:17b). They aren’t dictators who demand unquestioning submission based on fear. They are caring shepherds whose daily concern is for the welfare of the flock of God (cf. Ezek. 3:17-18). This is the responsibility of church leaders – to be vigilant in the oversight of the spiritual and physical well-being of their people. They “watch over your souls” (lit. “they stay awake over you”), “as those who will have to give an account” – an account to the church and, more importantly, an account to God himself.

Godly church leaders are shepherds. They feed the flock of God. They protect the flock from danger. They lead the flock in the right direction. They care for the flock’s welfare. So, for your sake, church leaders bear a heavy responsibility. The greater the care they provide, the greater is our debt to them of allegiance and obedience.

We are to yield to our godly church leaders because (1) they are vested with divine authority, because (2) they are accountable for our pastoral care, and because...

3. They Are Deserving Of Joyful Service.

“... in order that they may do this with joy and not groaning” (13:17c). We are to honour them with obedience and submission so that they may carry out their responsibilities “with joy and not groaning.” The work of the shepherd ought never to be a burden because of rebellious, unthankful, disrespectful, cantankerous sheep. Our obligation is to lighten their load, to render their ministry a joy and not a burden.

You can tell those churches that are not in step with, and do not honour, their leaders. They are constantly complaining (like the children of Israel who just about killed Moses with the burden). They viciously criticize their leaders, tearing them down. This ought not to be. How you treat your leaders determines whether they rule with joy or grief. You bring them joy when you obey, submit, respect, and honour them, not because they get their own way but because they see God’s people happy, productive, and united.

Our churches should be characterized by “joy” not “groaning”, churches comprised of (1) contented people, who are joyful in the Lord, who honour their leaders and gladly follow them, and (2) happy leaders, who are delighted to lead God’s people into an ever deeper relationship with Christ and each other.

There is a blessing for a church which is united, forward thinking, active in serving God, loving others, enjoying each other, growing in the truth, using their gifts to glorify God. Those are the kind of churches others want to be part of, where unbelievers fall down and say, “Truly God is among you” (1 Cor. 14:25). We must always remember that this is not our church. It is Christ’s church – he is sovereign over his church. We are responsible to him. Our leaders are responsible to him. To make their task onerous is to destroy that for which Christ died.

It is “unprofitable for you” (13:17d), the writer says, to make your leaders groan under the burden of rebellion, opposition, and arguments. These are unprofitable activities which wear out your leaders and cause them to lose heart. This can be devastating to the church.

Many pastors leave ministry because it is a burden. When I used to teach at the Stephen Olford Center in Memphis, pastors came to us from all over the world, many on the verge of quitting because they couldn’t take it anymore, disheartened because they were disillusioned about ministry. What they thought would be a joy had become the source of groaning. Everybody loses when that happens. The pastor and congregation alike lose their joy and fruitfulness in the Lord.

Do we need sometimes to make changes in leadership? Yes! And there is a way to do that. But that isn’t the issue here. The issue here is normal, healthy church life – God’s people living together in happy harmony and mutual submission.

So, we honour our godly leaders when we learn from their faithful example and yield to their pastoral rule. And...

III. We Honour Our Godly Leaders When We Pray For Their Ministry Challenges (13:18-19)

This epistle makes obvious certain things about this church. This Hebrew church was not respectful of its leaders and this church was not growing spiritually. That’s why they needed repeated, stern rebukes, and admonitions. Something had happened in the relationship between this pastor (church leader) and the congregation. Perhaps this was one of those congregations that thinks it can get more done by criticism than prayer and dialogue. In any event, this church leader doesn’t beat them over the head with a stick. He doesn’t berate them for their attitude. Rather he exhorts them to “Pray for us” (13:18a).

Why must we pray for our church leaders? Because...

1. They Need Our Prayers To Deal With The Challenge Of Criticism.

“Pray for us; for we are confident that we have a good conscience, in all things desiring to live commendably”(13:18). Apparently, the Hebrew believers were critical of this leader’s conduct. That’s why he has examined his “conscience” and that’s why he affirms his determination “to live commendably in all things.” Instead of responding in anger or retaliation to their fault-finding he asks them to “pray” for him. For a leader to ask his people to pray for him is an act of humility, an expression of dependence, an admission of need.

What better way to respond to criticism than in humility. “I need your prayers” he says, prayers of encouragement and intercession, for wisdom and grace. I don’t know everything. I don’t have all the answers. I don’t always act or speak properly. I need your supplications to God for me to help me in ministry. I feel the attacks of Satan constantly in this ministry. So I need the protection of your prayers. Please pray for me.”

Surely, such a humble request for prayer is restorative. It is the catalyst to restore unity. It is the stimulus for renewed love for him. It is the olive branch to induce them to willingly accept his instructions and admonitions and to diffuse their criticism. In any event, whatever had happened, his conscience is clear “...for we are confident that we have a good conscience.” Despite their evident criticism of him, his own conscience is clear. Undoubtedly, some of his teachings were radically new for these Jewish believers. Perhaps his teaching that the O.T. rituals and sacrifices and the Levitical priesthood had been fulfilled in Christ and were now set aside was too much for them to absorb. Nonetheless, he reassures them that he has examined his actions, attitudes, motives, and teachings, so that he is “confident / persuaded” in his own mind and conscience that his teaching is accurate and loving, his admonitions are needed and appropriate, his motives are pure and open. He knows of nothing that he has said or done that needs to be withdrawn or apologized for, or that was just cause for their attitude toward him. Nor does he bear them any grudge for what had happened. He is not haughty about his position. He is not lording it over them. Rather he is acting humbly before them, “...in all things desiring to live commendably.”

It appears that their criticism of him was about his conduct and after examining himself, he says: “I desire in all things to live honorably, commendably.” His appeal to them reminds us of Paul’s appeal to the Corinthians: “O Corinthians! We have spoken openly to you, our heart is wide open. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted by your own affections. Now in return for the same (I speak as to children), you also be open to us... Open your hearts to us. We have wronged no one, we have corrupted no one, we have cheated no one. I do not say this to condemn you; for I have said before that you are in our hearts, to die together and to live together” (2 Cor. 6:11; 7:2-3). And again, “I will very gladly spend and be spent for your souls; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I am loved.”(12:15). What a contrast between the grief Paul suffered from the Corinthians and the abundance of joy he received from the Philippians (1:3-4) and Thessalonians (1 Thess. 2:19-20; 3:9).

This is a challenge to us, isn’t it? I have been in pastoral ministry for many years and I’ve had my fair share of criticism. I know whereof I speak. And now I teach and mentor so many pastors whose ministry is a grief and not a joy because of criticism. They love the Lord and desire only good for God’s people. They give of themselves over and over, taking the low place, setting themselves at the disposal and mercy of the congregation, only to be rebuffed by opposition and false accusations and have their hearts torn out over disputes and tensions.

Soon they begin to lose heart. They think that they are inadequate, that perhaps God didn’t call them to pastoral ministry after all, that someone else would be better leading this congregation. Sometimes that may be necessary, but often it is not. Usually these men are true servants who diligently minister to God’s people.

Church leaders are not perfect. There may be times when you legitimately disagree with them. But continue to respect them and deal with them kindly. They deserve our encouragement and support in prayer, when they take the low place, when their consciences are clear, when they live commendably before us.

We honour our godly leaders when we pray for their ministry challenges. They need our prayers to deal with the challenge of criticism and...

2. They Need Our Prayers To Deal With The Challenge Of Disunity.

“But I especially urge you to do this, in order that I may be restored to you more quickly” (13:19). This is a specific, urgent, heart-rending plea. I don’t know what happened among these Hebrew believers but this pastor begs them to pray so that he can see them again soon and so that he can enjoy their fellowship again. I don’t know if their criticism had led to their estrangement or whether other circumstances had led to it. Whatever had happened he urges them to pray so that this distance, this schism, may be healed and unity, harmony, peace, joy, and fellowship may be restored.

Disunity is a great burden to godly church leaders for they know “how good and how pleasant it is for God’s people to dwell together in unity” (Ps. 133:1-3). They know that disunity was the plague of the church that Jesus’ foresaw and prayed for in John 17.

Final Remarks

So, you can see, from this passage, that “A healthy church honors its godly leaders.” We honour our godly leaders in three ways: (1) by learning from their faithful example; (2) by yielding to their pastoral rule; and (3) by praying for their ministry challenges.

At the end of the day it all comes down to prayer. So, let’s covenant together to pray for our pastors, staff, and church leaders. They need, want, and deserve our prayers. They are faced daily with the burdens and care of the church. Let me encourage you to become actively involved as a prayer partner in your church, holding up the arms of your leadership team just as Aaron and Hur did for Moses in Exodus 17. You can be an “Aaron and Hur Prayer Partner” who prays for your leaders when they meet together to discuss the spiritual and practical affairs of the church. Pray that they will have wisdom, compassion, discernment, and faithfulness to the truth.

Above all, may we honour our leaders by learning from their faithful example, by yielding to their pastoral rule, and by praying for their ministry challenges. It’s the only solution for the church and the world.

III. Sermon Outlines

Title: Letters to the Seven Churches: Laodicea – The Sickness of Prosperity (Rev. 3:14-22)

Theme: A church that becomes independent of Christ may become redundant for Christ

Point 1: Christ knows the attitude of every church (3:15-17)

1a) He knows when a church is self-satisfied (15-16)

1b) He knows when a church is self-deluded (17)

Point 2: Christ knows the need of every church (3:18-19)

He knows that we need…

2a) … his riches to cure our spiritual poverty (18a)

2b) … pure garments to cover our spiritual nakedness (18b)

2c) … healing eye salve to correct our spiritual blindness (18c)

2d) … his chastisement to cause our spiritual repentance (19-21)

Conclusion: “He who has an ear let him hear what the Spirit says to the church” (3:22)

Related Topics: Pastors

La Revue Internet Des Pasteurs, Fre Ed 38, Edition de l’hiver 2021

A ministry of…

Author: Dr. Roger Pascoe, President,
Email: [email protected]

I. Renforcement De La Prédication Par Exposition
“La Prédication Des Récit Hébreux “(Pt. 1)

Dans cette édition du Net Pastors Journal, je veux introduire le sujet de la prédication des récits de l’Ancien Testament, que je développerai dans la prochaine édition.

Dans un premier temps, je dois faire des commentaires introductifs sur le sens fondamental de l’A.T. Par exemple…

Romains 15 :4, « Or tout ce qui a été écrit d’avance l’a été pour notre instruction, afin que, par la patience, et la consolation que donne les Ecritures, nous possédions l’espérance. “

1 Cor. 10 :11, “Ces chose leurs sont arrivées pour servir d’exemples, elles ont été écrites pour notre instruction. »

2 Tim. 3 :16-17, “Toute Ecriture est inspirée de Dieu, et utile pour enseigner, pour convaincre, pour corriger, pour instruire dans la justice, afin que l’homme de Dieu soit accompli et propre à toute bonne œuvre. »

Luc 24 :27, “Et commençant par Moïse et par tous les prophètes, il leur expliqua dans toutes les Ecritures ce qui le concernait. »

Deuxièmement, permettez-moi de d’esquisser les trois sections que comprend la structure de l’A.T. …

1. La Torah / la Loi (de Genèse à Deutéronome). Elle va de la période du commencement jusqu’à l’entrée dans la terre promise.

2. Les Prophètes :

a) Les Anciens Prophètes (Josué, Juges, Samuel, 1 et 2 Rois). Cette section couvre la période de l’entrée dans la terre promise jusqu’à l’exile.

b) Les derniers Prophètes. Elle comprend 31/2 de prophètes majeurs (y compris ½ de Daniel) plus 12 prophètes mineurs = 15½ au total comme suit :

Préexilique : Jonas, Amos, Osée, Michée, Esaïe, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonie, Joël (9 au total)

Exilique : Ezéchiel, Abdias, Daniel, Jérémie (3½ au total)

Postexilique : Aggée, Zacharie, Malachie (3 in total)

3. Les Ecrits :

Les Petits Rouleaux : Ruth, Esther, Lamentations

Histoire Théologique : 1 et 2 Chroniques, Esdras, Néhémie, ½ Daniel.

Les Livres de Sagesse : Job, Proverbes, Cantique des Song of Solomon, Ecclésiaste

Les Livres Poétique : Psaumes

I. Introduction Au Recit Hebreux

Qu’est-ce qu’une narration ? Sommairement parlant, une narration (ou un récit) est la chronique d’évènements liés, qui ont lieu sur une certaine durée de temps. En tant que tel, la caractéristique première de la narration est le mouvement, l’évolution chronologique et expérimentale (par exemple plus semblable à un film qu’à une photo). Les récits ne relatent pas simplement l’avènement des évènements dans le temps, ils relient aussi ces avènements aux évènements - chaque action dans l’histoire occasionne le commencement d’une autre action ou réponse. Cela déclenche une chaine d’évènements, qui atteint une conclusion, qui lie ces avènements d’évènement ensemble. La conclusion implique les conséquences de la série d’actions qui ont eu lieu.

Ainsi, chaque histoire a un début, un milieu, et une fin, tout comme un message, ces sections sont interdépendantes les unes des autres. Le début décrit la situation, le besoin ou le problème. Le milieu décrit l’action qui est entreprise en réponse à la situation, le besoin ou le problème esquissé au début. La fin se développe à partir du milieu, en ce sens qu’elle vous dit le résultat issu de l’action entreprise au milieu. De cette manière, la fin aussi est liée au début (tout comme elle est liée au milieu), en ce sens qu’elle résout la situation, le besoin, le problème avec lequel le récit a commencé.

Ainsi, les récits, décrivent non seulement les évènements qui ont lieu dans le temps, mais ils sont également élaborés pour organiser ces évènements, pour leur donner « un sens logique et donner forme aux avènements des évènements incohérents», de manière que la vie, telle que dépeinte dans l’histoire ne soit pas « un tohu-bohu sans sens ou d’expériences disparates » (Tom Long, Preaching and the Literary Forms of the Bible, 72). En fait, la vie entière est un récit, non pas un récit qui « ne signifie rien » comme l’a déclaré Shakespeare, mais un récit qui a un but et un sens, parce que Dieu est au contrôle, réalisant ses desseins souverains. C’est pourquoi les témoignages personnels sont si puissants.

Il y a plusieurs sortes de récits. Pour le but de cet article, lorsque nous parlons de récit, nous entendons un récit « historique » avec des référents historiques (par ex. des histoires vraies qui ont lieu dans temps), à moins que l’intention de l’auteur indique le contraire. Ainsi, il y a une vraie histoire derrière la Bible. L’histoire de l’A.T., comme nous la possédons, est une vraie histoire littéraire. Elle peut avoir un arrière-plan oral en parties, des sources variées peuvent être découvertes dans certaines sections, mais nous avons une littérature contenant un récit enraciné dans l’histoire.

Il est toujours bien de se rappeler que, comme les auteurs du N.T., les auteurs de l’A.T. n’étaient pas des théologiens, mais des écrivains talentueux comme Tom Long le met en exergue :

“Les écrivains bibliques étaient des artistes littéraires de talent et de sophistication considérable, qui n’étaient pas ignorants des possibilités créative et théâtrale de la langue. Cependant, ces tendances artistiques n’étaient pas le fruit du hasard, mais disciplinées par les desseins théologiques plus larges qui dirigeaient le travail de l’écrivain… Ce but hautement théologique plaçait les écrivains bibliques…au milieu d’une réciprocité entre deux forces. D’une part, ils croyaient au caractère immutable de la volonté de Dieu, la consistance de la promesse divine, et ils étaient certains que Dieu avait un plan harmonieux pour la création. D’autre part, ils savaient que l’histoire humaine était vraiment désordonnée, que la liberté humaine était hasardeuse, et les êtres humains obstinés et résistants. Le récit est devenu un genre littéraire particulièrement apte à capter le plus complètement possible la gamme de réciprocité entre ces forces opposées… En résumé, les auteurs bibliques ont produit des récits, non pas dans le vide, mais à partir d’une lutte pour produire une concordance entre la forme littéraire et leur vision théologique du monde” (Thomas Long, Preaching and the Literary Forms of the Bible, 67).

II. Les Caracteristiques Generaux Du Recit Hebreux

1. Le Récit Hébreux Est Scénique.

C’est la caractéristique la plus ordinaire (ex. David et Goliath). L’action est divisée en une séries de scènes dans des endroits différents. Habituellement, il y a une relation spéciale entre l’action, les personnages impliqués dans l’action et l’endroit. L’endroit crée une atmosphère distincte. Ainsi, lorsque vous prêchez sur un récit de l’A.T, notez …

(a) Les personnages. Comment les décrit-on (leur statut, nom et origine) ? Qui est impliqué ? Comment interagissent-ils ? Les auteurs emploient des techniques variées pour décrire les personnages dont ils écrivent :

(i) La description. Le récit Hébreux donne très peu de détail ; c’est plutôt juste des descriptions générales. Le récit Hébreux est peu intéressé à présenter l’apparence du personnage plutôt qu’à la découverte de quel genre de personne le personnage est.

(ii) L’intériorisation. Le narrateur ouvre une fenêtre sur l’état mental ou émotionnel du personnage au lecteur. Un auteur peut faire un commentaire sur la pensée ou l’opinion du personnage (ex. Gen. 8 :11b ; Ex. 2 :24, 25). Par exemple, le narrateur peut citer de façon extensive les pensées du personnage (ex. Ex. 2 :14 ; Ex. 3 :3).

(iii) Le dialogue directe. C’est la méthode préférée du récit Hébreux pour soutenir l’action dans la scène – qui a dit quoi à qui.

(iv) Les actions. Les actions peuvent être relatées sans discours. Un tel récit sans discours éclaire sur le personnage. Elles servent de commentaire non annoncé sur un discours du personnage (ex. Gen. 30 :33-34).

(v) Le contraste. En plaçant les personnages en juxtaposition, un auteur met en lumière leurs traits de caractère – ex. Déborah et Barak (Juge 4-5). Déborah est toujours décisive tandis que Barak est hésitant.

(vi) Le point de Vue. L’auteur peut présenter des informations par la voix et les yeux du narrateur omniscient ou l’un quelconque des nombreux personnages dans le récit – ex. David et Bathsheba (2 Sam. 11). Ce récit commence avec des informations d’arrière-plan par le narrateur (v. 1). Puis, le lecteur voit ce que David voit (v. 2). La troisième perspective est celle d’un messager (v. 3). Dans les versets restants du chapitre, l’auteur oscille de la perspective d’un personnage à celle d’un autre – celle de David, d’Uri, de Joab, du messager et de Bathseba. Cela finit par un discours directement adressé par le narrateur aux lecteurs : “Ce que David avait fait déplut à l’Eternel “(v. 27b). Il est toujours important d’identifier celui qui parle.

(b) Le dialogue. Faites attention pour ne pas prendre trop psychologiquement ce qui est dit. Souvent, le premier mot dit indique la base de l’évènement. C’est là que les motifs et les pensées sont révélés.

(c) La scène (c.-à-d. la séquence des évènements). Le développement de la scène peut être simple ou complexe, mais ils ont tous une action progressive à travers un début, un milieu et une fin. Certains types de conflits arrivent au début et deviennent compliqués par le milieu et sont finalement résolus à la fin.

(d) La célérité. Comment le récit évolue-t-il ?

(e) Le narrateur. Le narrateur peut être omniscient, caché, ou anonyme. Il peut exprimer son point de vue. Il peut même être l’un des personnages.

2. Le Récit De L’a.T. Est Succinct.

Les narrations de l’A.T. sont comprimées. Pour ce faire, faites attention à l’arrangement et au détail. Prenez garde à la manière dont l’auteur sélectionne son matériel. Sa sélection dépend habituellement du point de vue théologique qu’il entend véhiculer – par ex. il y met uniquement ce dont nous avons besoin pour comprendre sa ligne théologique. N’essayez pas de suppléer aux détails que l’auteur n’a pas dits, à moins qu’ils soient évidents par implication ou à partir d’un autre passage.

3. Le Récit De L’a.T. Est Subtile.

Le récit de l’A.T. montre plus qu’elle n’en dit. Les grandes déclarations peuvent se faire dans un commentaire, un évènement ou une description subtile. “C’est seulement occasionnellement que l’auteur laisse transparaître le point de vue de Dieu aux lecteurs “(Sidney Greidanus, Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text, 207). Généralement, le point de vue doit en être déduit. Le narrateur parle typiquement à travers les mots et les actions des personnages dans le récit. C’est à travers eux qu’il dévoile son message. Lui-même, il reste habituellement caché, les déclarations critiques sont au moins aussi lointaines que directes.

III. La Structure Et Les Outils Litteraires Dans La Recit Hebreux

1. La Répétition. Les mots-clés, les expressions, les phrases et les motifs récurrents (ex : les pierres dans le récit de Jacob, l’eau dans l’histoire de Moïse), et les thèmes.

2. Les motifs récurrents, les structures et les séquences. Par exemple, dans Juges Israël à fait le mal…Dieu les a livrés…Dieu leur a envoyé donné un libérateur…ils ont été restaurés…ils ont fait le mal encore.

3. Les jeux de mots. Ils sont parfois difficiles à saisir dans notre traduction, mais auraient été évidentes pour les lecteurs et auditeurs initiaux.

4. Les lignes poétiques dans le contexte du récit (discours augmenté). Par exemple, “L’obéissance vaut mieux que les sacrifices, et l’observation de sa parole vaut mieux que la graisse des béliers “(1 Sam. 15 :22).

5. Les serre-livres (inclusios et chiasmes). C’est outils littéraires sont très ordinairement employés pour former la structure du récit.

Les Inclusios sont des serre-livres. Ils montrent comment et où commence le récit. On voit cela clairement dans le récit de Jacob (Gen. 28 :10-32 :31) où, premièrement, “le soleil était couché » (Gen. 28 :11) et plus tard “...Le soleil se levait » (Gen. 32 :31). Pourquoi l’auteur juge convenable d’inclure ce détail ? Il y a deux raisons :

(1) Les deux expressions encadrent la section – Gen. 32 :31 où « le soleil se levait couché » nous relie à Gen. 28 :11 où « le soleil était couché. “Ces deux expressions forment une inclusio.

(2) le matériel entre 28 :11 et 32 :31 forment un “cycle spirituel” significatif dans la vie de Jacob dans lequel il passe de l’obscurité spirituelle (le coucher du soleil – c’est probablement la période la plus ténébreuse de sa vie, quand il fut éjecté de chez lui et n’avait nulle part où demeurer), à la lumière spirituelle (le lever du soleil – Jacob a changé un coin significatif de sa relation avec Dieu après toutes ses années et expériences qui sont intervenues).

Les Chiasmes attirent l’attention du lecteur sur le point culminant du récit. On voit très clairement une structure de chiasmes inversée dans le livre de Ruth (voir Tom Long, 82-86) :

Le début (1 :1-22). La chute vertigineuse de la situation de Naomi et de Ruth.

Le milieu :

a) Le développement de la relation entre Ruth et Boaz (2 :1-23)

b) L’intrigue de Naomi et la réponse de Ruth (3 :1-18)

c) Le trajectoire inverse et le point culminant – la réponse de Boaz (4 :1-12).

La fin (4 :13-22). La rédemption de Boaz. Ruth et Naomi sont bénies. L’espoir est restauré.

6. Analogie et Contraste ou Comparaison. Les récits de l’A.T. utilisent fréquemment l’analogie en forme de figures de style comme les métaphores, les comparaisons, l’hyperbole, la personnification (ou anthropomorphismes). De cette manière, l’auteur décrit la réalité dont il parle dans le récit en terme d’appel à notre sens de l’imagination.

Similairement, le contraste et la comparaison sont fréquemment utilisés par les auteurs de l’A.T. Par exemple dans 1 Samuel, l’auteur ne perd pas du temps pour nous introduire dans un contraste entre Anne (et son fils Samuel) et Eli (et ses fils Hophni et Phinées). Son fils et elle continue d’être bénis par Dieu, tandis qu’Eli et ses fils continue d’être jugés par Dieu. De même, vous avez le contraste étendu et net entre Saül et David dans lequel Saül agit comme une mèche à papier pour David – ex : les traits de caractère de Saül sont totalement le contraire de ceux de David et servent à mettre en exergue le caractère de David.

Dans la prochaine édition de ce Journal, je vais esquisser quelques suggestions pour l’étude et la prédication sur les récits hébreux.

II. Renforcement Du Leadership Biblique

Si vous pensiez que votre mariage était la seule fois où vous avez promis “d’honorer et d’obéir” à quelqu’un, j’ai des informations pour vous – ça devrait également être la promesse d’une église en bonne santé pour ses leaders. Dans cet article, je voudrais développer le sujet suivant : “Honorer les Leaders de l’Eglise “. Il est basé sur Hébreux 13 :7-8 et 17-19.

Le N.T. parle peu de ce sujet des relations entre l’église et ses leaders, mais ce qu’il dit est d’une importance vitale. Ce passage d’Hébreux 13 nous enseigne qu’”Une église en bonne santé honore ses leaders pieux”. L’auteur des Hébreux donne trois exhortations qui définissent l’honneur d’une assemblée pour ses leaders.

I. Nous Honnorons Nos Leaders Pieux En Apprenant De Leur Exemple Fidele (13 :7-8)

“Souvenez-vous de vos conducteurs / responsables” (13 :7). Nous devons nous “souvenir” de nos conducteurs - ceux qui ont servi parmi nous, qui nous ont influencé, qui ont façonné en nous ce que nous sommes aujourd’hui (la manière dont nous pensons et agissons et la manière dont nous croyons). Celui qui a écrit aux chrétiens Hébreux dit : “pensez à qui ils étaient, à ce qu’ils ont dit et fait, à l’héritage qu’ils ont laissé, à comment ils ont influencé vos vies. Réfléchissez à leur ministère parmi vous. » Cela est un exercice profitable pour vous souvenir de leur exemple de fidélité et de constance, et pour emboîter leur pas en faisant cela, non pour la nostalgie. Ils sont nos héros, nos mentors auxquels nous regardons. Ils sont les premiers influenceurs dans nos vies, ceux dont les vies sont des paradigmes pour la vie chrétienne, ceux dont nous pouvons parfois nous demander : “Qu’auraient-ils fait, dit ou pensé de ceci et de cela ? Qu’ont-ils enseigné sur cela ? Comment auraient-ils pu réagir ? Quel conseil nous auraient-ils donné dans cette situation ?”

Nous vivons dans une époque où l’on respecte peu les leaders, spécialement ceux d’une génération précédente. “Une fois qu’ils s’en sont allés, c’est fini” dit-on, “et on évolue vers des choses plus nouvelles et meilleures. Les anciens sentiers étaient juste bons pour leur temps, mais nous sommes plus progressistes maintenant, les choses ont changé. “Cet auteur des Hébreux dit : “Non ! Au contraire, souvenez-vous des sentiers passés, les sentiers éprouvés et trouvés vrais. Souvenez-vous de ceux qui vous ont établi dans la vérité. Souvenez-vous de ceux dont la contribution a été décisive dans votre foi. Souvenez-vous de ceux qui ont travaillé parmi vous, agissant dans la foi, et faisant œuvre de pionniers avec l’évangile. » L’apôtre nous exhorte à apprendre d’eux …

1. Nous Devons Apprendre De L’exemple De Ce Qu’ils Pensaient (13 :7a).

« ...qui vous ont annoncé la parole de Dieu “(13 :7a). La Parole de Dieu était le sujet de leur conversation, de leur enseignement, de leur prédication. Ils n’ont pas prêché les sermons du “comment faire “qui sont en vogues actuellement. Ils vous ont prêché l’évangile. Leur conversation et leur prédication étaient le fondement qui a étayé l’église. Si vous creuser sous la surface, vous verrez que leur enseignement vit encore. Il se peut qu’ils ne soient plus là physiquement, mais ils sont sûrement là spirituellement.

Nous les honorons en apprenant de leur exemple fidèle. Nous devons apprendre de ce qu’ils ont enseigné ; et…

2. Nous Devons Apprendre De L’exemple De Comment Ils Ont Vécu (13 :7b-8).

« Considérez quelle a été la fin de leur vie, et imitez leur foi » (13 :7b). Leur “foi “renvoie à ce qu’ils ont enseigné, cru et vécu. Cela renvoie sans doute à la fois aux vérités de l’Ecriture qu’ils ont enseignées et à la confiance personnelle en Dieu qu’ils ont pratiquée. Les croyants Hébreux auxquels cette exhortation est adressée étaient tentés de renoncer à la foi chrétienne, de retourner aux pratiques et aux croyances du Judaïsme. Pour cela, cette exhortation était particulièrement appropriée…

(a) Imitez leur foi en matière de confiance en Dieu –la foi par laquelle vous vivez en totale dépendance de Dieu ; la foi par laquelle vous faite confiance à Dieu pour pourvoir à tous vos besoins selon les richesses de sa gloire en Christ-Jésus ; la foi par laquelle vous affrontez l’avenir sans savoir où, il pourrait vous conduire.

(b) Imitez leur dans la vérité de Dieu, la foi qui a été autrefois transmise aux saints (Jude 3), les Ecritures inspirées qui contiennent tout ce dont nous avons besoin pour la vie et la piété (2 Pet. 1 :3), la foi qui contient le corps de vérité que nous croyons, auquel nous avons confiance et que nous enseignons.

« Imitez » leur fois. Cela ne veut pas dire de les suivre aveuglement juste parce qu’ils font partie de votre histoire, ou juste parce que vous leur êtes émotionnellement attachés. Mais suivez-les en « considérant la fin de leur conduite. » Après avoir prudemment pesé leur vie et leurs enseignements, après avoir examiné de près la fin de leur vie, après avoir noté le fruit de leur témoignage, après avoir regardé de façon répétée l’héritage de réussite de leur vie, après avoir considéré l’entièreté de leur vie (du début à la fin, de la tête au pied), après avoir observé comment ils ont vécu leur vie, suivez donc leur exemple ! Imitez leur foi, vivez comme ils ont vécu, parlé comme ils ont parlé. Soyez fermes dans la foi comme ils l’ont été.

Et de peur que vous ne pensiez que vos dirigeant ecclésiastiques ne sont pas fiables (certains sont bons, d’autres mauvais ; il y en a qui restent et d’autres qui partent ; certains vous ont laissé un bon goût dans la bouche, d’autres, un mauvais goût), considérez et imitez alors la tête de l’église, notre leader suprême, et notre exemple ultime de foi, “Jésus-Christ », Celui qui « est le même hier, aujourd’hui et éternellement “(13 :8). Il ne change pas, il est immuable et parfaitement constant. Il est « Jésus », le Sauveur, Celui qui sauve son peuple de leurs péchés. Il est « Christ », L’oint, le Messie, l’Envoyé, le Fils de Dieu. Il est Celui qui ne change pas, Celui qui est le « le même hier, aujourd’hui et éternellement. »

Jésus-Christ est le même “hier “parce qu’il est le Dieu d’autrefois, le Dieu de la Création, et le Dieu de la rédemption, Celui qui était mort et qui vit maintenant. Il est le même aujourd’hui, parce qu’il est le Dieu du présent, Celui qui intercède pour nous à la droite de Dieu, notre souverain sacrificateur (5 :6 ; 6 :20 ; 7 :17, 21, 24-25, 28 ; 9 :24). Il est le même “éternellement” parce qu’il est le Dieu du future, le Seigneur éternel devant lequel tout genoux dans l’univers fléchira un jour (Phil. 2 :10-11).

Et parce qu’Il est toujours le même, vous pouvez compter sur lui. Il est “Celui qui est, qui était, et qui vient” (Apoc. 1 :8). Il est le Dieu de l’A.T. et aussi le Dieu du N. Il est le Seigneur de l’église. S’il y a eu un dirigeant / un leader en qui nous pouvons implicitement faire confiance pour le temps et l’éternité, c’est bien Jésus-Christ. Les leaders humains peuvent nous tromper, mais lui, il n’échoue jamais. Les leaders humains peuvent venir et partir, mais lui, il ne nous abandonne jamais. Les leaders pieux conduisent les gens vers Lui parce qu’Il est notre exemple parfait et inchangeable à suivre. Il ne change jamais. Vous pouvez toujours dépendre de Lui. “Tu as anciennement fondé la terre, et les cieux sont l’ouvrage de tes mains. Ils périront, mais tu subsisteras ; ils s’useront tous comme un vêtement ; Tu les changeras comme un habit, et ils seront changés. Mais toi, tu restes le même et tes années ne finiront point. » (Ps. 102 :26-28). “Car je suis le Seigneur, je ne change pas “(Mal. 3 :6).

En considérant la fin de ces leaders ecclésiastiques qui vous ont influencé pour de bon, souvenez-vous qu’ils ont ainsi agi pour être une extension, un reflet de notre grand Sauveur, éternel et inchangeable.

Donc, nous honorons nos leaders pieux en apprenant de leur exemple fidèle. Remarquez aussi le verset 17 …

II. Nous Honorons Nos Leaders Pieux En Nous Soumettant A Leur Autorite Pastorale (13 :17).

La société d’aujourd’hui n’aime se soumettre à personne. L’esprit de ce siècle est : “j’agirai comme bon me semble. Personne ne me dira ce que je dois faire ». Cette attitude infiltre tristement l’église parfois. Mais un tel manque de soumission et de respect à l’autorité crée le chaos, l’anarchie, la division, la désunion, qui porte atteinte à l’efficacité de l’église et qui profite à satan. Mais l’apôtre nous exhorte à obéir “à vos conducteurs et ayez de la déférence pour eux » (13 :17a). Pourquoi ? Parce que…

1. Ils Sont Investis De L’autorité Divine.

Cette exhortation aurait dû avoir une signification spéciale pour ces croyants Hébreux qui étaient tentés d’abandonner le christianisme et de retourner dans le Judaïsme. Il y a eu un temps où ils ont eu besoin d’obéir à leur leader, c’était bien alors. Evidemment, ils n’avaient pas appris à imiter leurs leaders et une attitude d’indépendance prévalait dans l’église.

Mais, nous devons “obéir” aux leaders ecclésiastiques pieux dans leur gouvernance – dans leur enseignement, leurs décisions, et dans la direction de l’église. Et nous devons nous “soumettre à eux” en ce qui concerne leur autorité, parce que leur autorité provient du Seigneur de l’église (et aussi de l’assemblée elle-même).

Le leadership autoritaire est essentiel pour l’unité, l’harmonie et l’efficacité. L’obéissance induis à la soumission. Cela ne veut pas dire une soumission aveugle, non réfléchie, ni une soumission qui esquive la responsabilité, encore moins une soumission qui est en porte-à-faux avec l’enseignement et la direction des Ecritures ; autrement dit une admonition dans Hébreux 13 :9 sur « des doctrines diverses et étrangères “seraient vains. Cela ne signifie pas une soumission cultuelle au nom de laquelle vous arrêtez de réfléchir, abandonnez vos convictions, ou suivez aveuglement les autres. C’est plutôt une soumission intelligente avec discernement aux leaders pieux dont le discours et la conduite sont exemplaires. Nous honorons leur position et leur autorité, tandis qu’en même temps nous engageons un dialogue réfléchi et respectueux sur des sujets d’intérêt, le tout dans une soumission totale au Seigneur de l’église.

Ceux que Dieu appelle au leadership ecclésiastique, qui ont les dons appropriés, qui ont gagné le respect de l’assemblée, qui remplissent les qualifications bibliques, et dont le discours et la conduit sont pures et astreignants, sont ceux-là même qui dirigent avec l’autorité divine, ceux-là même auxquels nous devons obéissance et soumission (cf. 1 Thess. 5 :12-13). C’est que dit le texte : “Obéissez…et soumettez-vous ! “Evidemment, les leaders corrompus ne sont pas concernés ici (cf. Ez. 34) – ceux-là dirigent les autres dans la mauvaise direction, enseignent des fausses doctrines, et dont les vies ne sont pas normalement pures. Ce n’est pas de ceux-là que l’apôtre écrit. Il y a un processus et il y a l’autorité divine dont l’église est investie pour traiter le leadership corrompus et pécheur (ex. 1 Tim. 5 :20). Mais, ce n’est pas le sujet ici. Le sujet c’est qu’il est évident que les Hébreux ne s’étaient pas soumis à leurs leaders qui étaient des hommes pieux, dont ils devaient suivre la foi et dont les vies ont témoigné de leur spiritualité. C’est précisément pourquoi l’auteur les exhorte à imiter leurs leaders, à leur obéir et à se soumettre à eux.

Nous devons nous assurés que l’esprit du siècle présent n’infiltre pas nos églises, et que notre nos relations avec nos leaders sont saines, transparentes, et mutuellement empreintes de soumission. Nous devons nous soumettre aux leaders pieux comme nous nous soumettons au Seigneur de l’église. Echouer à le faire équivaudrait à échouer à nous soumettre au Seigneur lui-même et ferait courir un grave danger à l’assemblée.

Nous devons nous soumettre à leur direction parce qu’ils sont investis de l’autorité divine. Et nous devons nous soumettre à leur direction parce que…

2. Ils Sont Responsables De Nos Soins Pastoraux.

« …car ils veillent sur vos âmes comme devant en rendre compte » (13 :17b). Ils ne sont pas des dictateurs qui nous demande une soumission aveugle basée sur la peur. Ils sont des bergers qui prennent soin de nous, et dont le souci quotidien est dirigé vers le bien-être du troupeau du Seigneur (cf. Ez. 3 :17-18). C’est ça la responsabilité d’un dirigeant ecclésiastique - d’être vigilant dans la surveillance du bien-être spirituel et physique de ses fidèles. Ils « veillent sur vos âmes “(lit. « il ne dorment pas afin de veiller sur vous »), « comme devant en rendre compte » – redevabilité vis-à-vis de l’église, et plus important encore, redevabilité à Dieu lui-même.

Les dirigeant ecclésiastiques pieux sont des bergers. Ils nourrissent le troupeau de Dieu. Ils protègent le troupeau du danger. Ils conduisent le troupeau dans la direction juste. Ils prennent soin du bien-être du troupeau. Pour votre bien donc, les leaders ecclésiastiques portent une lourde responsabilité. Plus leur prise en charge à notre égard est grande, plus notre dette d’allégeance et d’obéissance à leur endroit est grande.

Nous devons nous soumettre aux leaders pieux de nos églises parce que (1) ils sont investis de l’autorité divine, (2) ils sont redevables pour notre prise en charge pastorale, et parce que…

3. Ils Méritent D’avoir Un Service Joyeux.

« ... afin qu’ils le fassent avec joie et non en gémissant » (13 :17c). Nous devons les honorer avec obéissance et soumission pour qu’ils puissent accomplir leur responsabilité “avec joie et non en gémissant. “Le travail du berger ne devrait jamais être un fardeau à cause de brebis rebelles, irrespectueuses et querelleuses. Notre obligation est d’alléger leur fardeau, pour faire de leur ministère une joie et non un fardeau.

Vous savez comment se conduisent ces églises qui ne sont pas en phase avec leurs leaders, et qui ne les honorent pas. Ils se plaignent constamment (comme les enfants d’Israël qui ont presque tuer Moïse avec leurs fardeaux). Ils critiquent les leaders vicieusement, les démolissant. Il ne devrait pas en être ainsi. La manière dont vous traiter vos leaders détermine s’ils dirigent avec joie ou tristesse. Vous leur apportez la joie, si vous si vous leur obéissez, vous vous soumettez à eux si vous les respectez et les honorez, non pas parce qu’ils en font à leur tête, mais parce qu’ils voient le peuple de Dieu heureux, productif et unis.

Nos églises devraient être caractérisées par la « joie » et non le « gémissement », des églises qui comprennent (1) des gens contents, qui sont joyeux dans le Seigneur, qui honorent leurs leaders et les suivent avec allégresse, et (2) des leaders heureux, qui prennent plaisir à diriger le peuple de Dieu dans une relation plus profonde avec Christ et les uns avec les autres.

Il y a une bénédiction pour une église qui est unie, pensante et sert Dieu activement, dont les membres s’aiment mutuellement, mettant leurs talents au service de la gloire de Dieu. C’est là le type d’églises dont les autres voudraient être membres, où les incroyants tombent sur leur face te déclarent, “Dieu est réellement au milieu de vous “(1 Cor. 14 :25). Nous devons toujours nous rappeler que ce n’est pas notre église. C’est l’église de Christ – il est souverain sur son église. Nous sommes redevables à lui. Rendre leur travail difficile, c’est détruire ce pour quoi Christ est mort.

Ce qui « ne vous serait d’aucun avantage “(13 :17d), dit l’auteur, c’est-à-dire faire gémir vos leaders sous le fardeau de la rébellion, de l’opposition et des querelles. Ce sont là des actions non-profitables qui usent les leaders et l’amènent à perdre courage. Cela peut être dévastateur pour l’église.

Beaucoup de pasteurs abandonnent le ministère parce que c’est un fardeau. Quand j’enseignais à Memphis au Stephen Olford Center, les pasteurs venaient vers nous, de partout le monde, la plupart sur le point de quitter parce qu’il n’en pouvait plus, découragés parce qu’ils étaient désillusionnés à propos du ministère. Ce qu’ils pensaient être une joie était devenu une source de gémissement. Tout le monde perd quand cela arrive. Le pasteur tout comme l’assemblée perdent leur joie et leur productivité dans le Seigneur.

Devons-nous de temps en temps faire des changements au niveau du leadership ? Oui ! Et il y a une manière pour le faire. Mais ce n’est pas cela notre sujet ici. Le sujet ici, c’est la vie normale d’une église en bonne santé – le peuple de Dieu vivant ensemble dans une joyeuse harmonie et dans la soumission mutuelle.

Ainsi, nous honorons nos leaders pieux si nous apprenons de leur exemple fidèle et nous soumettons à leur autorité pastorale. Et …

III. Nous Honorons Nos Leaders Pieux En Priant Pour Les Defis De Leurs Ministeres (13 :18-19)

L’épître met à nu certaines choses dans cette église. Cette église d’Hébreux n’était pas respectueuse de ses leaders et elle ne croissait pas spirituellement. C’est pourquoi, ils avaient besoin de représailles vertes et répétées. Quelque chose s’est passé dans la relation entre ce pasteur (dirigeant d’église) et l’assemblée. Peut-être c’était l’une de ces assemblées qui pensent qu’ils peuvent mieux arranger les choses par la critique, plutôt que par la prière et le dialogue. Dans tous les cas, ce leaders d’église ne les tape pas à la tête avec un bâton. Il ne les admoneste pas pour leur attitude. Il les exhorte plutôt à “Priez pour nous » (13 :18a).

Pourquoi devons-nous prier pour nos dirigeants ecclésiastiques ? Parce que …

1. Ils Ont Besoin De Nos Prières Pour Faire Face Aux Défis De La Critique

« Priez pour nous, car nous croyons avoir une bonne conscience, voulant en toute chose nous bien conduire “(13 :18). Apparemment, les croyants Hébreux critiquaient la conduite de ce leader. C’est pourquoi, il a examiné “sa conscience” et affirme sa détermination de vouloir “en toute chose bien se conduire ». Au lieu de répondre à leur découverte erronée avec la colère et la vengeance, il leur demande de “prier » pour lui. Qu’un leader demande à ses gens de prier pour lui est un acte d’humilité, une expression de dépendance et l’admission d’un besoin.

Quelle meilleure voie que de répondre à la critique avec humilité ! “J’ai besoin de vos prières “dit-il, “de vos prières d’encouragement et d’intercession, pour la sagesse et la grâce. Je ne sais pas toutes choses. Je n’ai pas toutes les réponses. Je n’agis pas, ni ne parle toujours convenablement. J’ai besoin de vos supplications à Dieu pour m’aider dans le ministère. Je sens les attaques de satan dans ce ministère. J’ai donc besoin de la protection de vos prières. S’il vous plaît, priez pour moi ».

Surement, une telle requête humble de prière est restauratrice. Elle est catalyseur pour restaurer l’unité. C’est le stimulus pour un amour renouvelé à son endroit. C’est la branche d’olivier pour les induire à accepter volontairement ses instruction et admonitions et à diluer leurs critiques. Dans tous les cas, quel que soit ce qui est arrivé, sa conscience est tranquille “car nous croyons avoir une bonne conscience ». Malgré leurs critiques évidentes à l’encontre de sa personne, sa propre conscience est tranquille. Sans doute, certains de ses enseignements sont radicalement nouveaux pour ces croyants Juifs. Peut-être ses enseignements selon lesquels les rites et les sacrifices et la prêtrise Lévitique ont été accomplis en Christ et qu’ils sont maintenant mis de côté, étaient trop difficiles à digérer pour eux. Toutefois, il les rassure qu’il a examiné ses actions, ses attitudes, ses motivations et ses enseignements de telle sorte qu’il est « confiant / persuadé » dans sa propre pensée et conscience que son enseignement est exact et plein d’amour, ses admonitions sont utiles et appropriées, ses motivations sont pures et ouvertes. Il ne voit rien qui doive être rétracté de ce qu’il a dit, ou pour lequel il faille s’excuser, ou que cela a été simplement une juste cause pour leur attitude envers lui. Il ne garde non plus aucune rancune contre eux pour ce qui était arrivé. Il ne prend pas des airs de supériorité sur eux. Il agit plutôt humblement à leur égard, « …voulant en toute chose nous bien conduire ».

Il apparait que leurs critiques à son encontre concernaient sa conduite et après s’être examiné, il dit : “Je désire en toutes chose me conduire honorablement et convenablement”. Son appel à leur endroit nous rappelle l’appel de Paul à l’endroit des Corinthiens. « Notre bouche s’est ouverte pour vous, Corinthiens, notre cœur s’est élargi ! Vous n’êtes point à l’étroit au dedans de nous ; mais vos entrailles se sont rétrécies. Rendez-nous la pareille (je vous parle comme à mes enfants) élargissez-vous aussi…Donnez-nous une place dans vos cœurs ! Nous n’avons fait tort à personne, nous n’avons ruiné personne, nous n’avons tiré du profit de personne. Ce n’est pas pour vous condamner que je parle ainsi ; car j’ai déjà dit que vous êtes dans nos cœurs à la vie et à la mort » (2 Cor. 6 :11 ; 7 :2-3). Et encore, “Pour moi, je dépenserai très volontiers et je me dépenserai moi-même pour vos âmes, dussé-je, en vous aimant davantage, être moins aimé de vous. “(12 :15). Quel contraste entre le chagrin que Paul a souffert des Corinthiens et l’abondance de la joie qu’il a reçu des Philippiens (1 :3-4) et des Thessaloniciens (1 Thess. 2 :19-20 ; 3 :9).

C’est un défi pour nous, n’est-ce pas ? Je suis dans le ministère pastoral depuis plusieurs années et j’ai eu ma part de critiques. Je sais de quoi je parle. Et maintenant j’enseigne et coach un très grand nombre de pasteurs dont le ministère est un sujet à tristesse et non une joie à cause des critiques. Ils aiment le Seigneur et désirent seulement le bien du peuple de Dieu. Ils se donnent encore et encore, prenant la position inferieure, se mettant à la disposition et à la merci de l’assemblée, pour ne rien recevoir d’autre que le rejet par l’opposition et les fausses accusations, et leurs cœurs sont déchirés à cause des disputes et des tensions.

Très tôt, ils commencent à perdre courage. Ils pensent qu’ils sont inadéquats, que peut-être Dieu ne les a pas vraiment appelés au ministère pastoral après tout, que quelqu’un d’autre aurait été un meilleur conducteur pour cette assemblée. Parfois, cela peut être nécessaire, souvent ça ne l’est pas. Habituellement, ces hommes sont des vrais serviteurs qui mènent diligemment leur ministère en servant le peuple de Dieu.

Les leaders ecclésiastiques ne sont pas parfaits. Il peut arriver un moment où vous êtes légitimement en désaccord avec eux. Mais continuez de les respecter et de les traiter gentiment. Ils méritent notre encouragement et notre soutien dans la prière, lorsqu’ils prennent la position d’abaissement, lorsque leurs consciences sont tranquilles, lorsqu’ils vivent convenablement devant nous.

Nous honorons nos leaders pieux en priant pour les défis de leurs ministères. Ils ont besoin de nos prières pour faire face aux critiques et…

2. Ils Ont Besoin De Nos Prières Pour Faire Face Au Défi De La Désunion

« C’est avec instance que je vous demande de le faire, afin que je vous sois rendu au plus tôt » (13 :19). Ceci est un cri de cœur spécifique, urgent. Je ne sais pas ce qui s’est passé parmi ces croyants Hébreux, mais ce pasteur les supplie de prier pour qu’il puisse les revoir dans les meilleurs délais et pouvoir jouir de leur communion encore. Je ne sais pas si leurs critiques avaient conduit à leur séparation ou si d’autres circonstances l’ont fait. Quel que soit ce qui était arrivé, il les exhortait à prier pour que cette distance, cette séparation soit résolue et que l’unité, l’harmonie, la paix, la joie et la communion fraternelle soient restaurées.

La désunion est un grand fardeau pour les leaders ecclésiastiques pieux, parce qu’ils savent jusqu’à quel point « il est agréable, … doux pour des frères de demeurer ensemble ! “Ils savent que la désunion était la plaie de l’église que Jésus anticipé dans Jean 17.

Remarques Finales

Ainsi donc, vous pouvez voir à partir de ce passage qu’une « Eglise en bonne santé honore les leaders pieux ». Nous honorons nos leaders pieux de trois manières : (1) en apprenant de leur exemple de fois ; (2) en nous soumettant à leur autorité pastorale ; et (3) en priant pour les défis de leurs ministères.

En conclusion, tout se résume à la prière. Ainsi, prenons l’engagement ensemble de prier pour nos pasteurs, nos responsables et dirigeants ecclésiastiques. Ils ont besoin de nos prières, ils les veulent, et les méritent. Ils font quotidiennement face à des fardeaux et aux soins de l’église. Permettez-moi de vous encourager à vous engager activement comme un partenaire de prière dans votre église, tenant les mains de votre équipe de leaders comme Hur et Aaron l’avaient fait pour Moïse dans Exode 17. Vous pouvez être un “Partenaire de Prière comme Hur et Aaron », qui prie pour vos leaders, lorsqu’ils se rencontrent pour discuter des affaires spirituelles et pratiques de l’église. Priez pour qu’ils aient la sagesse, la compassion, le discernement et pour qu’ils soient fidèles à la vérité.

Au-delà de tout, nous honorons nos leaders en apprenant de leur exemple fidèle, en nous soumettant à leur autorité pastorale, et en priant pour leurs défis ministériels. C’est la seule solution pour l’église et pour le monde.

III. Esquisses De Messages

Titre : Lettres aux sept églises : Laodicée – la Maladie de la Prospérité (Apoc. 3 :14-22)

Thème : Une église qui devient indépendante de Christ pourrait devenir redondante pour Christ

Point 1 : Christ connait l’attitude de chaque église (3 :15-17)

1a) Il sait quand une église est auto-satisfaite (15-16)

1b) Il sait quand une église se trompe elle-même (17)

Point 2 : Christ connait les besoins de chaque église (3 :18-19)

Il sait que nous avons besoin de…

2a) … ses richesses pour soigner notre pauvreté spirituelle (18a)

2b) … vêtements purs pour couvrir notre nudité spirituelle (18b)

2c) … le baume guérissant pour œil afin de corriger notre cécité spirituelle (18c)

2d) … Son châtiment pour nous amener à la repentance (19-21)

Conclusion : “Que celui qui a des oreilles entende ce que l’Esprit dit aux Eglise » (3 :22)

Related Topics: Pastors

Jurnalul Electronic Al Păstorilor, Rom Ed 38, Ediția de Iarnă 2021

A ministry of…

Author: Dr. Roger Pascoe, President,
Email: [email protected]

I. Consolidarea Predicării Expozitive
„Predicarea Din Narațiunile Istorice Ebraice” (Partea I)

În prezenta ediție a acestui jurnal, vreau să introduc subiectul predicării din textele narative din Vechiul Testament, pe care îl voi dezvolta în ediția următoare.

În primul rând, trebuie să menționez câteva lucruri despre semnificația Vechiului Testament. Observați, vă rog, ce spun Scripturile despre Vechiul Testament. De exemplu…

Romani 15:4: „Și tot ce a fost scris mai înainte a fost scris pentru învățătura noastră, pentru ca, prin răbdarea și prin mângâierea pe care o dau Scripturile, să avem nădejde.”

1 Cor. 10:11: „Aceste lucruri li s-au întâmplat ca să ne slujească drept pilde și au fost scrise pentru învățătura noastră.”

2 Tim. 3:16-17: „Toată Scriptura este insuflată de Dumnezeu și de folos ca să învețe, să mustre, să îndrepte, să dea înțelepciune în neprihănire, pentru ca omul lui Dumnezeu să fie desăvârșit și cu totul destoinic pentru orice lucrare bună.”

Luca 24:27: „Și a început de la Moise și de la toți prorocii și le-a tâlcuit, în toate Scripturile, ce era cu privire la El.” Aici, Isus, Cuvântul viu, a deschis și le-a tâlcuit cuvântul scris al Vechiului Testament și mărturia acestuia despre El.

În al doilea rând, permiteți-mi să schițez cele trei secțiuni care formează structura Vechiului Testament…

1. Tora / Legea (de la Geneza până la Deuteronom). Tora cuprinde perioada de la începutul timpului până la intrarea în țara promisă.

2. Profeții:

a) Profeții timpurii (Iosua, Judecători, Samuel, 1 și 2 Împărați). Această secțiune cuprinde perioada de la intrarea în țara promisă până la exil.

b) Profeții târzii. Această secțiune este compusă din 31/2 profeți mari (inclusiv ½ Daniel) plus 12 profeți mici = 15½ în total, după cum urmează:

Profeți pre-exilici: Iona, Amos, Osea, Mica, Isaia, Naum, Habacuc, Țefania, Ioel (9 în total)

Profeți din timpul exilului: Ezechiel, Obadia, Daniel, Ieremia (3½ în total)

Profeți post-exilici: Hagai, Zaharia, Maleahi (3 în total)

3. Scrierile:

Scrierile mici: Rut, Estera, Plângerile lui Ieremia

Cărțile de istorie teologică: 1 și 2 Cronici, Ezra, Neemia, ½ Daniel.

Cărțile de înțelepciune: Iov, Proverbe, Cântarea Cântărilor, Eclesiastul

Cărțile poetice: Psalmii

I. Introducere În Narațiunile Istorice Ebraice

Ce este un text narativ? Pe scurt, un text narativ (sau o istorisire) este o cronică a unor evenimente care au avut loc într-o anumită perioadă de timp. Prin urmare, principala caracteristică a unui text narativ este mișcarea, o mișcare cronologică și experiențială (i.e. nu ca o fotografie, ci mai degrabă ca un film). Narațiunile relatează modul în care evenimentele au avut loc în timp, dar fac și legătura între ele – fiecare acțiune determină o altă acțiune sau un răspuns. Astfel, se formează un lanț de evenimente ce conduce, în cele din urmă, la o concluzie, aceasta fiind o parte foarte importantă a narațiunii, deoarece încheie narațiunea. Concluzia arată consecințele înșiruirii de evenimente ce a avut loc.

Așadar, fiecare narațiune are o introducere, un cuprins și o încheiere, ca și predica, iar toate aceste secțiuni sunt interdependente. Introducerea descrie situația, nevoia, problema. Cuprinsul descrie acțiunea care vine ca un răspuns la situația, nevoia sau problema prezentată în introducere. Încheierea decurge din cuprins, pentru că ne spune ce rezultă din acțiunea care a avut loc în cuprins. Astfel, încheierea se leagă și de partea de introducere (ca și de cuprins) prin faptul că rezolvă nevoia, situația sau problema cu care a început narațiunea.

Narațiunile, așadar, nu doar descriu derularea evenimentelor în timp, ci scopul lor este să organizeze aceste evenimente, să dea „o semnificație și o formă logică înșiruirii de evenimente, care altfel nu ar avea coerență”, pentru ca viața, așa cum este descrisă în narațiune, să nu fie „o învălmășeală fără sens de experiențe separate” (Tom Long, Preaching and the Literary Forms of the Bible [Predicarea și formele literare ale Bibliei], 72). De fapt, întreaga viață este o narațiune; nu una care „nu înseamnă nimic”, după cum spune Shakespeare, ci una care are scop și semnificație, pentru că Dumnezeu este în control, ducându-Și la îndeplinire planurile Sale suverane. De asta mărturiile personale sunt atât de puternice.

Există câteva tipuri de narațiuni. În acest articol, când vorbim despre narațiune, ne referim la narațiunea „istorică”, ce conține referiri la evenimente istorice (i.e. povestiri adevărate care au avut loc în istorie), cu excepția cazurilor când poate fi demonstrat că intenția autorului a fost alta. Așadar, Biblia se bazează pe istoria reală. Istoria Vechiului Testament, așa cum este scrisă, este, de fapt, o istorie literară. Poate că pe alocuri este de proveniență orală, iar în anumite secțiuni descoperim diferite surse, însă este o literatură ce conține narațiune înrădăcinată în istorie.

Întotdeauna este bine să ne amintim că autorii Vechiului Testament, ca și cei ai Noului Testament, nu au fost doar teologi, ci și scriitori talentați, după cum arată Tom Long:

„Autorii inspirați ai Bibliei au fost artiști literari foarte talentați și sofisticați, cunoscători ai limbajului creativ. Totuși, aceste tendințe artistice nu au căpătat frâu liber, ci au fost ținute sub control de scopurile teologice majore care au guvernat scrierea… Acest scop teologic major i-a pus pe autorii biblici… în mijlocul unei interacțiuni între două forțe. Pe de o parte, ei credeau în caracterul neschimbător al voii lui Dumnezeu, în credincioșia promisiunii divine și erau siguri că Dumnezeu avea un plan bun și coerent pentru creația Sa. Pe de altă parte, ei știau că istoria umană era dezordonată, libertatea umană era aleatorie, iar ființele umane erau încăpățânate și împotrivitoare. Narațiunea este forma literară ce poate să surprindă cel mai bine interacțiunea dintre aceste forțe potrivnice… Pe scurt, autorii biblici au scris narațiunile nu într-un vid, ci încercând să armonizeze forma literară cu perspectiva lor teologică despre lume și viață.” (Thomas Long, Preaching and the Literary Forms of the Bible [Predicarea și formele literare ale Bibliei], 67).

II. Caracteristici Generale Ale Narațiunii Ebraice

1. Narațiunea Ebraică Este Alcătuită Din Scene Succesive.

Aceasta este principala caracteristică a narațiunii ebraice (ex. David și Goliat). Acțiunea este împărțită într-o serie de scene, care au loc în decoruri diferite. De obicei, există o relație specială între acțiune, locul acțiunii și personajele implicate în acțiune. Locul acțiunii creează o atmosferă diferită. Așadar, când predici din narațiunea Vechiului Testament, ține cont de…

(a) Personaje. Cum sunt descrise (statutul lor, numele, originea)? Cine este implicat în acțiune? Cum interacționează personajele? Autorii folosesc diferite tehnici literare pentru a-i caracteriza pe oamenii despre care scriu:

(i) Descrierea. Narațiunea ebraică oferă foarte puține detalii, doar descrieri generale. Narațiunea ebraică este mai puțin interesată de descrierea înfățișării unui personaj; ea mai degrabă îl conduce pe cititor, ajutându-l să descopere ce fel de om este personajul respectiv.

(ii) Privirea în interiorul personajului. Naratorul oferă cititorului ferestre prin care să vadă starea mentală sau emoțională a personajului. Naratorul poate să facă observații despre gândurile sau părerile personajului (ex. Gen. 8:11b; Ex. 2:24, 25). De pildă, poate cita gândurile unui personaj în mod extensiv (ex. Ex. 2:14; Ex. 3:3).

(iii) Dialogul. Aceasta este metoda preferată în narațiunea ebraică de a susține acțiunea intrigii – cine ce a spus și cui.

(iv) Acțiunile. Acțiunile pot fi narate fără folosirea dialogului. Astfel de relatări ale unor acțiuni fără folosirea dialogului scot în evidență personajul. Ele sunt ca un comentariu neanunțat despre un personaj (ex. Gen. 30:33-34).

(v) Contrastul. Așezând personajele în juxtapunere, autorul scoate în evidență trăsături de caracter - ex. Debora și Barac (Judecători 4-5). Debora este întotdeauna hotărâtă, pe când Barac este ezitant.

(vi) Punctul de vedere. Autorul poate prezenta informații prin vocea și ochii naratorului omniscient sau prin ai unui din personajele din narațiune - ex. David și Batșeba (2 Sam. 11). Această narațiune începe cu informații contextuale din partea naratorului (v. 1). Apoi cititorul vede ceea ce vede David (v. 2). Cea de-a treia perspectivă este cea a unui mesager (v. 3). Apoi, până la sfârșitul capitolului, autorul îl face pe cititor să penduleze între perspectivele diferitelor personaje – perspectiva lui David, a lui Urie, a lui Ioab, a mesagerului și a Batșebei. În încheiere, naratorul se adresează în mod direct cititorului: „Fapta lui David n-a plăcut Domnului” (v. 27b). Este important ca întotdeauna să ne dăm seama cine vorbește.

(b) Dialogul. Ai grijă să nu psihologizezi ceea ce se spune! Adesea, primele cuvinte rostite exprimă esența întâmplării. Aici ies la iveală gândurile și motivațiile.

(c) Intriga (i.e. ordinea evenimentelor). Dezvoltarea intrigii poate fi simplă sau complexă, însă întotdeauna există o acțiune în desfășurare, care are o introducere, un cuprins și o încheiere. Uneori conflictul apare în introducere, se dezvoltă de-a lungul cuprinsului și se rezolvă în încheiere.

(d) Ritmul. Cum progresează narațiunea?

(e) Naratorul. Naratorul poate fi omniscient, ascuns ori anonim. Își poate exprima în mod direct punctul de vedere. De asemenea, poate chiar să apară în narațiune prin unul din personajele sale.

2. Narațiunea Vechi-Testamentară Este Concisă.

Narațiunile Vechiului Testament sunt comprimate, de aceea trebuie să fii atent la detalii și la aranjare. Fii atent la modul în care autorul și-a selectat materialul! Selectarea materialului depinde de obicei de ceea ce autorul dorește să transmită – i.e. el include în narațiune doar ceea ce trebuie să știm pentru a înțelege mesajul său teologic. Nu încerca să oferi detalii pe care autorul nu ni le-a dezvăluit decât dacă acestea reies în mod clar dintr-un alt pasaj!

3. Narațiunea Vechi-Testamentară Este Subtilă.

Narațiunea vechi-testamentară arată mai mult decât spune. Un comentariu subtil sau un eveniment ori o scurtă descriere pot transmite niște afirmații foarte importante. „Arareori autorul va dezvălui cititorilor săi punctul de vedere al lui Dumnezeu” (Sidney Greidanus, Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text [Predicatorul modern și textul antic], 207). În general, punctul de vedere trebuie dedus. De obicei, naratorul vorbește prin cuvintele și acțiunile personajelor din narațiune. Ei sunt mijlocul prin care el își transmite mesajul. Autorul rămâne, de obicei, ascuns, mai ales atunci când se fac afirmații directe și critice.

III. Structura Și Mijloacele Literare În Narațiunea Ebraică

1. Repetiția. Cuvinte-cheie, expresii, propoziții, motive recurente (ex. pietrele în narațiunea despre Iacov, apa în povestea lui Moise) și teme.

2. Tipare, structuri și episoade recurente. De exemplu, în cartea Judecători, poporul Israel făcea ce era rău…Dumnezeu i-a dat pe mâna dușmanilor…Dumnezeu le trimitea un eliberator…poporul își revenea…și din nou făcea ce era rău.

3. Jocuri de cuvinte. Acestea sunt uneori greu de observat în traducerea noastră, însă erau evidente pentru primii cititori sau ascultători.

4. Versuri poetice în contexte narative (limbaj elevat). De exemplu: „Ascultarea face mai mult decât jertfele și păzirea cuvântului Său face mai mult decât grăsimea berbecilor” (1 Sam. 15:22).

5. Marcatori ai structurilor narative (inclusio și chiasme). Aceste mijloace literare sunt adesea folosite pentru a forma structura narativă.

Inclusio (repetarea începutului la sfârșitul narațiunii) este un marcator al structurii narative. Acestea arată cum sau unde începe și se termină narațiunea. Vedem mai clar lucrul acesta în narațiunea despre Iacov (Gen. 28:10-32:31) unde, mai întâi, „asfințise soarele” deasupra lui Iacov (Gen. 28:11), iar mai târziu „...răsărea soarele” peste el (Gen. 32:31). De ce a găsit cu cale autorul să includă acest detaliu? Din două motive:

(1) Cele două expresii marchează începutul și sfârșitul acestei secțiuni – Gen. 32:31 unde „răsărea soarele” face legătura cu Gen. 28:11, unde „asfințise soarele.” Aceste două expresii formează un inclusio.

(2) Secțiunea cuprinsă între 28:11 și 32:31 formează un „ciclu spiritual” semnificativ în viața lui Iacov, în care el trece de la întuneric spiritual (apusul soarelui – aceasta este probabil cea mai întunecată perioadă din viața lui, când a fost alungat din casa lui și nu are un loc unde să stea) la lumină spirituală (răsăritul soarelui – Iacov a făcut un pas important în relația sa cu Dumnezeu, după toți acei ani și toate experiențele prin care trecuse).

Chiasmele atrag atenția cititorilor asupra punctului culminant al narațiunii. În cartea Rut vedem foarte clar o structură chiastică inversată (vezi Tom Long, 82-86):

Introducerea (1:1-22). Spirala descendentă a situației de viață a lui Naomi și Rut.

Cuprinsul:

a) Dezvoltarea relației lui Rut cu Boaz (2:1-23)

b) Planul lui Naomi și răspunsul lui Rut (3:1-18)

c) Traiectoria ascendentă și punctul culminant – răspunsul lui Boaz (4:1-12).

Încheierea (4:13-22). Răscumpărarea lui Boaz. Rut și Naomi sunt binecuvântate. Speranța este reînviată.

6. Analogia și contrastul sau comparația. Narațiunile vechi-testamentare folosesc analogia sub forma figurilor de stil, cum ar fi metaforele, comparațiile, hiperbolele, personificarea (sau antropomorfismele). În felul acesta, autorul descrie realitatea despre care vorbește în narațiune în termeni care fac apel la imaginația și simțurile noastre.

Tot așa, contrastul și comparația sunt folosite frecvent de autorii narațiunilor vechi-testamentare. De exemplu, în 1 Samuel, autorul nu pierde timpul vorbind despre contrastul dintre Ana (și fiul ei, Samuel) și Eli (și fiii săi, Hofni și Fineas). Ana și fiul ei sunt binecuvântați de Dumnezeu, pe când Eli și fiii săi sunt judecați de El. La fel, avem contrastul puternic între Saul și David, în care Saul acționează ca termen de comparație pentru David – i.e. trăsăturile de caracter ale lui Saul sunt exact opusul trăsăturilor de caracter ale lui David și scot în evidență caracterul lui David.

În următoarea ediție a acestui jurnal, voi schița câteva sugestii pentru studierea și predicarea din narațiunile ebraice.

II. Consolidarea Conducerii Biblice

Poate crezi că atunci când ți-ai rostit jurămintele de cununie a fost singura dată când ai jurat să „respecți și să asculți” pe cineva, însă vreau să îți spun că acesta ar trebui să fie și angajamentul unei biserici sănătoase față de liderii săi. În acest articol, aș vrea să discut despre „Respectarea liderilor bisericii”, pe baza versetelor din Evrei 13:7-8 și 17-19.

Noul Testament nu vorbește prea mult despre relația dintre biserică și liderii săi, însă puținele lucruri pe care le spune sunt de o importanță vitală. Acest pasaj din Evrei 13 ne învață că „O biserică sănătoasă își respectă liderii evlavioși.” Autorul epistolei către Evrei ne dă trei îndemnuri ce definesc modul în care o biserică își respectă liderii.

I. Ne Respectăm Liderii Evlavioși Atunci Când Le Urmăm Exemplul De Credincioșie (13:7-8)

„Aduceți-vă aminte de mai marii / liderii voștri” (13:7). Noi trebuie să ne „aducem aminte” de liderii noștri – de cei care au slujit printre noi, care ne-au influențat și ne-au format, făcându-ne să devenim ceea ce suntem astăzi (cum gândim și acționăm și ceea ce credem). Autorul epistolei către Evrei spune: „Gândiți-vă cine au fost ei, ce au spus și au făcut ei, ce moștenire v-au lăsat și cum v-au influențat viața! Gândiți-vă la slujirea lor în mijlocul vostru!” Acesta este un exercițiu bun, însă nu unul nostalgic, ci unul care să ne aducă aminte de exemplul lor de credincioșie și perseverență și care să ne facă să le urmăm exemplul. Ei sunt eroii noștri, mentorii pentru care avem un mare respect. Ei sunt cei care au avut o mare influență în viața noastră, cei care sunt exemple de viață creștină, cei cu privire la care ne întrebăm uneori: „Ce ar fi spus, ce ar fi făcut sau ce ar fi gândit despre cutare sau cutare lucru? Ce ne-au învățat ei despre asta? Cum ar fi reacționat? Ce ne-ar fi sfătuit în situația asta?”

Trăim într-o epocă în care se arată foarte puțin respect liderilor, în special celor din generația precedentă. „Ei nu mai sunt printre noi, iar noi trebuie să mergem mai departe înspre lucruri mai noi și mai bune. Cele vechi au fost bune pentru vremea aceea, însă noi suntem progresiști și lucrurile s-au schimbat.” Autorul epistolei către Evrei spune: „Nu! Dimpotrivă, aduceți-vă aminte de vechile pietre de hotar, de căile încercate și adevărate! Aduceți-vă aminte de cei care v-au așezat în adevăr! Aduceți-vă aminte de cei care au avut un rol important în formarea credinței voastre! Aduceți-vă aminte de cei care au lucrat între voi, prin credință, făcând o muncă de pionierat pentru a vă aduce evanghelia!” Apostolul ne îndeamnă să învățăm de la ei…

1. Trebuie Să Le Urmăm Exemplul Cu Privire La Ce Au Vestit Ei (13:7a).

„... Care v-au vestit Cuvântul lui Dumnezeu…” (13:7a). Cuvântul lui Dumnezeu era subiectul discuțiilor lor, al învățăturii și al predicării lor. Ei nu vorbeau și nu predicau despre lucruri fără importanță. Ei nu predicau predici de tipul „cum să…”, ci predicau evanghelia. Ei zideau biserica și te zideau în credința cea mai sfântă. Învățătura și discursul lor erau temelia pe care se zidea biserica. Dacă vei cerceta mai în profunzime, vei vedea că învățătura lor există și astăzi. Poate că ei nu mai sunt astăzi cu noi în mod fizic, însă cu siguranță sunt cu noi din punct de vedere spiritual.

Noi le arătăm respect liderilor noștri evlavioși atunci când le urmăm exemplul de credincioșie. Trebuie să le urmăm exemplul cu privire la ce au vestit. Și…

2. Trebuie Să Urmăm Exemplul Lor De Trăire (13:7b-8).

„Uitați-vă cu băgare de seamă la sfârșitul felului lor de viețuire și urmați-le credința”(13:7b). „Credința” lor se referă la ce i-au învățat pe alții, la ce au crezut și au trăit. Fără îndoială, se referă și la adevărul Scripturii pe care l-au crezut și la credința personală în Dumnezeu pe care au practicat-o. Credincioșii evrei cărora li se adresează această epistolă erau ispitiți să renunțe la credința lor creștină și să se întoarcă la credințele și practicile lor evreiești. Așadar, aceste îndemnuri erau foarte potrivite…

(a) Urmați-le credința în credincioșia lui Dumnezeu – credința care te face să trăiești în dependență de Dumnezeu; credința care îți dă încrederea că Dumnezeu se va îngriji de toate nevoile tale potrivit cu bogățiile slavei Sale în Hristos Isus; credința care te ajută să înfrunți viitorul, chiar dacă nu știi unde te va duce.

(b) Urmați-le credința în adevărul lui Dumnezeu, credința dată sfinților odată pentru totdeauna (Iuda 3), Scripturile inspirate care conțin tot ceea ce avem nevoie pentru viață și evlavie (2 Pet. 1:3), credința care constituie acel adevăr pe care îl credem, în care avem încredere și pe care îl proclamăm.

„Urmați” credința lor! Aceasta nu înseamnă să îi urmăm orbește doar pentru că fac parte din istoria noastră sau doar pentru atașamentul emoțional pe care îl avem față de ei. Dar urmați-i, uitându-vă „cu băgare de seamă la sfârșitul felului lor de viețuire.” După ce vă uitați cu băgare de seamă la viața și învățătura lor, după ce priviți cu atenție la sfârșitul felului lor de viețuire, după ce vedeți care este roada mărturiei lor, după ce vedeți în mod repetat că moștenirea vieții lor este încununată de succes, după ce vă uitați la tot cursul vieții lor (de la început și până la sfârșit), după ce vedeți cum și-au trăit viața, urmați-le exemplul! Urmați-le credința, trăiți ca și ei, vorbiți ca și ei! Fiți statornici în credință, așa cum au fost și ei!

Și dacă crezi că liderii bisericii nu sunt demni de încredere (unii sunt buni, alții sunt răi; unii stau, alții pleacă; unii ți-au lăsat un gust plăcut, pe când alții ți-au lăsat un gust amar), atunci privește la capul bisericii și imită-L pe El, liderul nostru suprem și exemplul suprem de credință, „Isus Hristos”, Cel care „este același ieri și azi și în veci” (13:8). El este neschimbător, imuabil, consecvent în mod desăvârșit. El este „Isus”, Salvatorul, Cel care Își salvează poporul de păcatele sale. El este „Hristos”, Unsul, Mesia, Cel trimis, Fiul lui Dumnezeu. El este Cel care nu se schimbă, Cel care este „același ieri și azi și în veci.”

Isus Hristos este același „ieri” pentru că El este Dumnezeul trecutului, Dumnezeul creației și Dumnezeul răscumpărării, Cel care a murit și a înviat. El este același „azi”, pentru că El este Dumnezeul prezentului, Cel care mijlocește pentru noi la dreapta lui Dumnezeu, marele nostru Preot (5:6; 6:20; 7:17, 21, 24-25, 28; 9:24). El este același „în veci”, pentru că El este Dumnezeul viitorului, Domnul cel veșnic, înaintea căruia orice genunchi din acest univers se va pleca într-o zi (Fil. 2:10-11).

Și pentru că El este întotdeauna același, poți să ai încredere în El! El este „Cel ce este, Cel ce era și Cel ce vine” (Rev. 1:8). El este Dumnezeul Vechiului Testament și Dumnezeul Noului Testament. El este Domnul bisericii. Dacă a existat vreodată un conducător / lider în care să putem avea încredere absolută tot timpul și pentru totdeauna, atunci acela este Isus Hristos. Oamenii ne pot dezamăgi, însă El nu ne va dezamăgi niciodată. Oamenii vin și pleacă, însă El nu ne va părăsi niciodată. Liderii evlavioși ne vor îndrepta privirea către El, pentru că El este exemplul absolut, desăvârșit și neschimbabil pe care trebuie să-l urmăm. El nu se schimbă niciodată. Întotdeauna te poți baza pe El. „Tu ai întemeiat în vechime pământul, și cerurile sunt lucrarea mâinilor Tale. Ele vor pieri, dar Tu vei rămâne; toate se vor învechi ca o haină; le vei schimba ca pe un veșmânt, și se vor schimba. Dar Tu rămâi Același, și anii Tăi nu se vor sfârși” (Ps. 102:25-27). „Căci Eu sunt Domnul, Eu nu Mă schimb” (Mal. 3:6).

Când privești la sfârșitul vieții acelor lideri evlavioși ce au avut o influență bună în viața ta, nu uita că lucrul acesta s-a întâmplat doar în măsura în care ei L-au reflectat pe Salvatorul nostru măreț, etern, adevărat și neschimbător.

Așadar, îi respectăm pe liderii evlavioși atunci când le urmăm exemplul de credincioșie. Și observați, de asemenea, versetul 17...

II. Ne Respectăm Liderii Evlavioși Atunci Când Ne Supunem Conducerii Lor Pastorale (13:17).

Societatea din zilele noastre nu agreează deloc ideea de supunere. Spiritul vremii noastre este: „Fac ce vreau! Nimeni nu poate să-mi spună ce să fac.” Din păcate, această atitudine se infiltrează și în biserică uneori. Însă această lipsă de supunere reciprocă, această lipsă de respect pentru autoritate creează haos, anarhie, dezbinare, lipsă de unitate și, în cele din urmă, eficiența bisericii este slăbită, iar Satan câștigă teren. Însă apostolul ne îndeamnă astfel: „Ascultați de mai marii voștri și fiți-le supuși” (13:17a). De ce? Pentru că...

1. Ei Sunt Învestiți Cu Autoritate Divină.

Îndemnul acesta avea o semnificație deosebită pentru acești credincioși evrei care erau ispitiți să renunțe la creștinism și să se întoarcă la iudaism. Acum era cel mai potrivit moment pentru ei să asculte de liderii lor evlavioși. În mod clar, ei nu învățaseră să urmeze exemplul liderilor, iar în biserică prevala o atitudine de independență.

Însă, trebuie să „ascultăm” de liderii evlavioși și să ne supunem conducerii lor – să ascultăm de învățătura lor, de deciziile lor și să urmăm direcția pe care o dau bisericii. Și trebuie să ne „supunem” autorității lor, căci autoritatea lor vine de la Domnul bisericii (și chiar și de la biserică).

Conducerea cu autoritate este esențială pentru unitatea, armonia și eficiența bisericii. Ascultarea implică supunere. Nu e vorba despre o supunere oarbă, pe negândite. Nu e vorba nici despre o supunere ce se sustrage de la responsabilitate. Nu este vorba despre o supunere care intră în conflict cu învățătura sau direcția Scripturii, căci altfel avertismentul din Evrei 13:9 despre „învățături străine” nu ar avea sens. Aceasta nu înseamnă nici o supunere sectară, care te face să acționezi fără să gândești, să renunți la propriile convingeri sau să îi urmezi orbește pe alții. Mai degrabă, este vorba despre o supunere inteligentă, cu discernământ, față de lideri evlavioși care au o vorbire și un comportament exemplar. Arătăm respect față de poziția și autoritatea lor, dar în același timp ne angajăm într-un dialog respectuos și bine gândit pe subiecte importante, toate acestea făcându-le în supunere față de Domnul bisericii.

Cei care sunt chemați de Dumnezeu să fie lideri ai bisericii, cei care au darurile necesare, care au câștigat respectul bisericii, care întrunesc calificările biblice și care au un comportament și o vorbire curată și puternică, sunt oameni care conduc cu autoritate divină, iar noi le datorăm ascultare și supunere (cf. 1 Tes. 5:12-13). Asta spune textul biblic: „Ascultați... și fiți-le supuși!” În mod clar, aici nu este vorba despre liderii corupți (cf. Ezechiel 34) – cei care îi duc pe oameni într-o direcție greșită, le dau o învățătură falsă și care nu trăiesc o viață curată din punct de vedere moral. Apostolul nu vorbește aici despre astfel de lideri. Biserica este învestită cu autoritate și are o procedură anume pe care trebuie s-o aplice în cazul liderilor păcătoși și corupți (ex. 1 Tim. 5:20). Însă nu despre asta este vorba aici. Apostolul vorbește despre evreii care nu s-au supus liderilor lor, care erau oameni evlavioși, a căror credință ar fi trebuit s-o urmeze și a căror viață era o mărturie a spiritualității lor. De aceea autorul îi îndeamnă să urmeze exemplul liderilor lor, să îi asculte și să li se supună.

Trebuie să avem grijă ca spiritul vremii să nu se infiltreze în bisericile noastre, iar relația cu liderii bisericii să fie o relație sănătoasă, transparentă și de supunere reciprocă. Trebuie să ne supunem liderilor evlavioși, așa cum ne supunem Domnului bisericii. Dacă nu facem asta, înseamnă că nu ne supunem lui Hristos Însuși, și în cazul acesta biserica se află într-un mare pericol.

Trebuie să ne supunem conducerii lor pentru că sunt învestiți cu autoritate divină. Și trebuie să ne supunem conducerii lor pentru că…

2. Ei Vor Da Socoteală Pentru Grija Lor Pastorală.

„... Căci ei priveghează asupra sufletelor voastre, ca unii care au să dea socoteală de ele” (13:17b). Liderii evlavioși nu sunt niște dictatori care pretind supunere oarbă bazată pe frică. Ei sunt păstori care se îngrijesc zilnic de turma lui Dumnezeu (cf. Ez. 3:17-18). Aceasta este responsabilitatea liderilor bisericii – să vegheze la bunăstarea spirituală și fizică a oamenilor ce le-au fost încredințați. Ei „priveghează asupra sufletelor voastre” (lit. „ei stau treji peste voi”), „ca unii care au să dea socoteală” – vor da socoteală bisericii și, mai important, vor da socoteală lui Dumnezeu Însuși.

Liderii evlavioși sunt păstori. Ei hrănesc turma lui Dumnezeu, o protejează de pericole și o conduc în direcția bună. De asemenea, se îngrijesc de bunăstarea turmei. Așadar, liderii bisericii sunt responsabili de tine. Și cu cât grija lor e mai mare, cu atât mai mult le datorăm loialitate și ascultare.

Trebuie să ne supunem liderilor bisericii pentru că (1) sunt învestiți cu autoritate divină, pentru că (2) vor da socoteală pentru grija lor pastorală și pentru că...

3. Ei Merită Să Slujească Cu Bucurie.

„... Pentru ca să poată face lucrul acesta cu bucurie, nu suspinând” (13:17c). Noi trebuie să ne respectăm liderii, arătându-le ascultare și supunere, pentru ca ei să își poată duce la îndeplinire responsabilitățile „cu bucurie, nu suspinând.” Munca păstorului nu trebuie să fie niciodată o povară din cauza oilor rebele, nerecunoscătoare, nerespectuoase și arțăgoase. Datoria noastră este să le ușurăm sarcina, să fim o bucurie pentru ei, nu o povară.

Se recunosc ușor bisericile care nu își respectă liderii și nu sunt pe aceeași lungime de undă cu ei. Membrii acestor biserici se plâng mereu (precum copiii lui Israel care l-au împovărat atât de mult pe Moise încât aproape l-au omorât). Își critică mereu liderii cu răutate, dărâmându-i. Însă nu așa trebuie să fie! Conducerea cu bucurie sau cu suspin depinde de modul în care te porți cu liderii bisericii tale. Ei se bucură atunci când tu asculți, te supui, îi respecți și îi cinstești, însă nu pentru că așa pot să facă ce vor, ci pentru că în felul acesta poporul lui Dumnezeu este fericit, roditor și unit.

„Bucuria” ar trebui să caracterizeze bisericile noastre, și nu „cârtirea”. În bisericile noastre ar trebui să fie (1) oameni mulțumiți, care se bucură în Domnul, care își respectă liderii și îi urmează cu bucurie și (2) lideri fericiți, care conduc cu bucurie oamenii lui Dumnezeu înspre o relație tot mai profundă cu Hristos și unii cu alții.

O biserică unită, care gândește în perspectivă, Îl slujește pe Dumnezeu în mod activ, o biserică în care membrii ei arată dragoste față de ceilalți și se bucură unii de alții, crescând împreună în adevăr și folosindu-și darurile pentru a-L glorifica pe Dumnezeu, este o biserică binecuvântată. Dintr-o astfel de biserică își doresc oamenii să facă parte și într-o astfel de biserică necredincioșii cad cu fața la pământ spunând: „Dumnezeu este în mijlocul vostru” (1 Cor. 14:25). Trebuie să ținem minte întotdeauna că biserica nu este a noastră. Este biserica lui Hristos – El este suveran peste biserica Sa. Iar noi suntem responsabili în fața Sa. Liderii noștri sunt responsabili în fața Sa. A le împovăra slujba înseamnă a-i nimici pe cei pentru care a murit Hristos.

Nu este „de niciun folos” (13:17d), spune autorul, să-i faci pe liderii tăi să suspine sub povara răzvrătirii, a împotrivirii și a certurilor. Aceste lucruri care nu sunt de niciun folos îi istovesc și îi descurajează pe lideri, iar lucrul acesta este devastator pentru biserică.

Mulți pastori renunță la lucrare pentru că este prea împovărătoare. Când predam la Stephen Olford Center în Memphis, veneau acolo pastori din toată lumea, iar mulți dintre ei erau pe punctul de a renunța la lucrare, pentru că nu mai puteau suporta. Erau descurajați și dezamăgiți de lucrare. Ceea ce credeau că va fi o bucurie s-a transformat într-o sursă de suspine. Iar când se întâmplă asta, toți au de pierdut. Atât pastorul, cât și biserica își pierd bucuria și rodnicia în Domnul.

Se întâmplă uneori să fie nevoie de schimbări în conducere? Da! Și există un mod în care se poate face lucrul acesta. Însă nu despre asta este vorba aici. Noi discutăm acum despre o viață bisericească normală, sănătoasă – oameni ai lui Dumnezeu care trăiesc împreună în armonie și supunere reciprocă.

Așadar, ne cinstim liderii evlavioși atunci când le urmăm exemplul de credincioșie și când ne supunem conducerii lor pastorale. De asemenea...

III. Ne Respectăm Liderii Evlavioși Atunci Când Ne Rugăm Pentru Provocările Ce Le Întâmpină În Slujire (13:18-19)

Epistola scoate în evidență câteva lucruri despre biserica aceasta de evrei, care nu își respecta liderii și nu creștea spiritual. De asta aveau nevoie de sfaturi și mustrări serioase și repetate. Ceva se întâmplase în relația dintre pastor (liderul bisericii) și adunare. Poate că biserica își imagina că pot rezolva mai multe prin critică decât prin rugăciune și dialog. În orice caz, liderul bisericii nu le dă cu bâta peste cap și nu îi mustră pentru atitudinea lor, ci mai degrabă, îi îndeamnă: „Rugați-vă pentru noi” (13:18a).

De ce trebuie să ne rugăm pentru liderii bisericii noastre? Pentru că...

1. Au Nevoie De Rugăciunile Noastre Pentru A Face Față Criticilor.

„Rugați-vă pentru noi; căci suntem încredințați că avem un cuget bun, dorind să ne purtăm bine în toate lucrurile”(13:18). Se pare că acești credincioși evrei criticau comportamentul liderului bisericii. De asta el și-a cercetat „cugetul” și își afirmă hotărârea de a se „purta bine în toate lucrurile.” În loc să răspundă cu mânie sau într-un mod răzbunător, el le cere să se roage pentru el. Când un lider le cere oamenilor săi să se roage pentru el, acesta este un act de smerenie, o expresie a dependenței și o recunoaștere a nevoii sale.

Nu există un mod mai bun de a răspunde criticilor decât cu smerenie. „Am nevoie de rugăciunile voastre”, le spune el, rugăciuni de încurajare și mijlocire, rugăciuni pentru înțelepciune și har. Eu nu le știu pe toate și nu am toate răspunsurile. Nu mă port și nu vorbesc întotdeauna așa cum ar trebui. Am nevoie să vă rugați pentru mine ca Dumnezeu să mă ajute în lucrare. Simt mereu atacurile lui Satan în lucrare, și am nevoie de protecția rugăciunilor voastre. Vă rog, rugați-vă pentru mine!”

O astfel de cerere de rugăciune smerită are, cu siguranță, un rol vindecător. Este catalizatorul restabilirii unității și stimulează reînnoirea dragostei bisericii pentru liderul său. Este ramura de măslin care îi face să accepte învățăturile și sfaturile sale de bunăvoie și, de asemenea, alungă criticile. În orice caz, orice s-ar fi întâmplat, conștiința lui este curată, „... căci suntem încredințați că avem un cuget bun.” În ciuda criticilor lor, conștiința lui este curată. Fără îndoială, unele din învățăturile sale fuseseră cu totul noi pentru acești credincioși evrei. Poate că învățătura sa despre preoția levitică și despre jertfele și ritualurile vechi-testamentare care s-au împlinit în Hristos și nu mai erau acum necesare, era prea mult pentru ei. Totuși, el îi asigură că și-a cercetat faptele, atitudinile, motivațiile și învățăturile și este „încredințat / convins” în cugetul și conștiința sa că învățătura sa este corectă și plină de dragoste, că sfaturile sale sunt necesare și binevenite și că motivațiile sale sunt curate și deschise. El nu știe să fi spus sau făcut ceva ce ar trebui să retragă sau pentru care să își ceară scuze sau care să fi cauzat atitudinea lor față de el. De asemenea, le spune că nu le poartă pică pentru ceea ce se întâmplase. Nu este arogant din cauza poziției sale și nu îi ia de sus, ci vine cu smerenie înaintea lor: „... dorind să ne purtăm bine în toate lucrurile.”

Se pare că oamenii criticaseră comportamentul liderului bisericii, iar acesta, după ce s-a cercetat, spune: „Vreau să mă port bine în toate lucrurile.” Rugămintea pe care le-o adresează ne amintește de rugămintea pe care Pavel le-o face corintenilor: „Am dat drumul gurii față de voi, corintenilor! Ni s-a lărgit inima. Înțelegeți-ne bine! N-am nedreptățit pe nimeni, n-am vătămat pe nimeni, n-am înșelat pe nimeni. Nu spun aceste lucruri ca să vă osândesc, căci am spus mai înainte că sunteți în inimile noastre pe viață și pe moarte” (2 Cor. 6:11; 7:2-3). Și din nou: „Și eu voi cheltui prea bucuros din ale mele și mă voi cheltui în totul și pe mine însumi pentru sufletele voastre. Dacă vă iubesc mai mult, sunt iubit cu atât mai puțin?”(12:15). Ce contrast era între suferința îndurată de Pavel pentru corinteni și bucuria pe care i-o făcuseră filipenii (1:3-4) și tesalonicenii (1 Tes. 2:19-20; 3:9)!

Ce provocare pentru noi, nu-i așa? Sunt implicat în lucrarea pastorală de mulți ani și am avut și eu parte de critici, deci știu despre ce vorbesc. Acum predau și mentorez mulți pastori a căror lucrare este o povară, și nu o bucurie, din cauza criticilor. Ei îl iubesc pe Domnul și vor ce e mai bun pentru oamenii lui Dumnezeu. Ei se dăruiesc pe ei înșiși mereu și mereu, luând locul cel mai de jos, punându-se la dispoziția și la mila bisericii și primesc în schimb respingere, împotrivire și acuzații false. Inimile lor sunt astfel rănite din cauza certurilor și a tensiunilor.

Curând se descurajează și încep să creadă că nu se descurcă, sau că Dumnezeu poate nu i-a chemat de fapt la lucrarea pastorală, sau că poate ar fi mai bine ca altcineva să conducă biserica lor. Uneori este necesar lucrul acesta, însă adesea nu este. De obicei, acești bărbați sunt slujitori adevărați care slujesc cu hărnicie poporul lui Dumnezeu.

Liderii bisericii nu sunt perfecți. Se poate întâmpla uneori ca, pe bună dreptate, să nu fii de acord cu ei, însă trebuie să le arăți respect în continuare și să te porți blând cu ei. Merită să-i încurajăm și să îi sprijinim în rugăciune atunci când se smeresc, când au conștiința curată și când se poartă bine în toate lucrurile.

Ne respectăm liderii evlavioși atunci când ne rugăm pentru provocările pe care le întâmpină în lucrare. Ei au nevoie de sprijinul nostru în rugăciune pentru a face față criticilor și…

2. Au Nevoie De Rugăciunile Noastre Pentru A Face Față Lipsei De Unitate.

„Mai ales vă rog cu stăruință să faceți lucrul acesta, ca să vă fiu înapoiat mai curând” (13:19). Aceasta este o cerere specifică, urgentă și sfâșietoare. Nu știu ce se întâmplase între acești credincioși evrei, însă pastorul lor îi imploră să se roage ca să se poată întâlni și să aibă părtășie din nou cât mai curând. Nu știu dacă criticile lor sau alte împrejurări duseseră la această înstrăinare, însă orice ar fi fost, el îi imploră să se roage ca această distanțare, această ruptură să fie reparată și să fie restaurate unitatea, armonia, pacea, bucuria și părtășia.

Dezbinarea este o mare povară pentru liderii evlavioși, pentru că ei știu „ce plăcut și ce dulce este să locuiască frații împreună” (Ps. 133:1-3). Ei știu că dezbinarea este o problemă a bisericii pe care Domnul Isus a prevăzut-o și pentru care s-a rugat în Ioan 17.

Observații Finale

Așadar, din pasajul acesta, vedem că „O biserică sănătoasă își respectă liderii evlavioși.” Ne respectăm liderii evlavioși în trei moduri: (1) urmându-le exemplul de credincioșie; (2) supunându-ne conducerii lor pastorale; și (3) rugându-ne pentru provocările ce le întâmpină în slujire.

În cele din urmă, însă, totul se reduce la rugăciune. Așa că, haideți să ne angajăm cu toții să ne rugăm pentru pastorii noștri, pentru cei implicați în slujire și pentru liderii bisericii! Ei au nevoie de rugăciunile voastre, le doresc și le merită. Ei poartă zilnic poverile bisericii și grija pentru biserică. Te încurajez să te implici activ în rugăciune în biserica ta, sprijinind brațele liderilor bisericii, așa cum au făcut Aaron și Hur pentru Moise în Exod 17. Poți fi un „partener de rugăciune ca Aaron și Hur”, care se roagă pentru liderii săi, atunci când ei se întâlnesc ca să discute despre lucrurile spirituale și practice ale bisericii. Roagă-te pentru ei să aibă înțelepciune, compasiune, discernământ și credincioșie față de adevăr!

Mai presus de toate, haideți să ne respectăm liderii urmând exemplul lor de credincioșie, supunându-ne conducerii lor pastorale și rugându-ne pentru provocările pe care le întâmpină în lucrare. Aceasta este singura soluție pentru biserică și pentru lume.

III. Schițe De Predici

Titlul: Scrisori către cele șapte biserici: Laodiceea – Boala prosperității (Apoc. 3:14-22)

Tema: O biserică ce devine independentă față de Hristos poate deveni inutilă pentru El

Punctul 1: Hristos cunoaște atitudinea fiecărei biserici (3:15-17)

1a) El știe când o biserică ajunge mulțumită de sine (15-16)

1b) El știe când o biserică se auto-amăgește (17)

Punctul 2: Hristos cunoaște nevoia fiecărei biserici (3:18-19)

El știe că avem nevoie de…

2a) … bogățiile Lui pentru a ne vindeca de sărăcie spirituală (18a)

2b) … haine albe pentru a ne acoperi goliciunea spirituală (18b)

2c) … alifie pentru ochi ca să ne vindecăm de orbire spirituală (18c)

2d) … pedeapsa Lui care să ne ducă la pocăință spirituală (19-21)

Concluzie: „Cine are urechi să asculte ce zice bisericilor Duhul” (3:22).

Related Topics: Pastors

Журнал для пасторов Net, Rus Ed 38, Зимнее Издание 2021

Служение…Института Библейского Проповедования

Усиливая церковь через библейское руководство и проповедь

Автор: Професор Роджер Паскоу, Президент,
Email: [email protected]

I. Усиливая Описательную Проповедь
“Проповедуя Ветхозаветные Повествования” (Ч. 1)

В этом издании The Net Pastor’s Journal я хочу представить тему проповеди ветхозаветных повествований, которую я буду развивать в следующем издании.

Во-первых, мне нужно сделать несколько вводных замечаний о непреходящем значении Ветхого Завета. Обратите внимание на то, что Священное Писание говорит о Ветхом Завете. Например…

Послание к Римлянам 15: 4: «Ибо все, что писано было прежде, написано нам в наставление, чтобы мы терпением и утешением Писаний сохраняли надежду».

1 Кор. 10:11: «Все это происходило с ними, как образы, а описано в наставление нам».

2 Тим. 3: 16-17: «Все Писание Богодухновенно и полезно для научения, для обличения, для исправления и для наставления в праведности, да будет совершен человек Божий и подготовлен ко всякому доброму делу».

Луки 24:27: «И начав от Моисея из всех пророков, он изъяснял им сказанное о Нем во всем Писании». Здесь Иисус, живое Слово, открыл и объяснил написанное слово Ветхого Завета. относительно его свидетельства о Самом себе.

Во-вторых, позвольте мне просто описать три раздела, которые составляют структуру В.З. …

1. Тора / Закон (от Бытия до Второзакония). Она охватывает период от начала времен до входа в землю обетованную.

2. Пророки:

а) Ранние Пророки (книга Иисуса Навина, книга Судей, 1-2 Царств, 3 и 4 Царств). Этот раздел охватывает период от входа в землю обетованную до пленения.

б) Поздние Пророки. Они состоят из 31/2 главных пророков (включая ½ книги Даниила) плюс 12 второстепенных пророков = всего 15½, а именно:

До пленения: Иона, Амос, Осия, Михей, Исайя, Наум, Аввакум, Софония, Иоиль (всего 9)

Во время плена: Иезекииль, Авадия, Даниил, Иеремия (всего 3½)

После пленения: Аггей, Захария, Малахия (всего 3)

3. Писания:

Малые свитки: Руфь, Есфирь, Плач Иеремии

Теологическая история: 1 and 2 Паралипоменон, Ездра, Неемия, ½ Даниила.

Мудрость: Иов, Притчи, Песня песней, Екклесиаст

Поэзия: Псалмы

I. Введение В Ветхозаветные Повествования

Что такое повествование? Проще говоря, повествование (или история) - это хроника связанных событий, которые происходят в течение определенного периода времени. Таким образом, основной характеристикой повествования является движение, хронологическое и основанное на опыте движение (то есть не фотография, а скорее фильм). Истории не просто связывают возникновение событий во времени, они также связывают эти события вместе - каждое действие в истории порождает другое действие или реакцию. Это создает цепочку событий, которая в конечном итоге приводит к заключению, что является очень важной частью истории, потому что именно оно и завершает историю. В заключении изложены последствия произошедшей цепочки действий.

Итак, у каждой истории есть начало, середина и конец, как и у проповеди, и каждый из этих разделов взаимозависим друг от друга. В начале описывается ситуация, нужда, проблема. В середине показано, какие действия предпринимаются в ответ на ситуацию, нужду или проблему, описанную в начале. Конец развивается из середины в том смысле, что он сообщает вам результаты действий, предпринятых в середине. Таким образом, конец также относится и к началу (и к середине), поскольку он отвечает на нужду, ситуацию, проблему, с которых и началась история.

Таким образом, истории не только описывают события, происходящие во времени, но они предназначены для организации этих событий, чтобы придать «логический смысл и форму бессвязным в других отношениях событиям», чтобы жизнь, изображенная в истории, не была «бессмысленным беспорядком разрозненных переживаний» (Том Лонг, «Проповедь и литературные формы Библии», с.72). На самом деле вся жизнь - это повествование, не то, что она «ничего не означает», как утверждал Шекспир, но то, что у него есть цель и смысл, потому что Бог все контролирует, реализуя Свои суверенные цели. Вот почему личные свидетельства имеют такую силу.

Есть несколько типов повествования. В целях данной статьи, когда мы говорим о повествовании, мы имеем в виду «историческое» повествование с историческими моментами (то есть реальные истории, имевшие место в истории), если только намерения писателя не являются противоположными. Таким образом, за Библией стоит настоящая история История Ветхого Завета в том виде, в каком она у нас есть, по сути, является историей литературной. Частично она может иметь устную предысторию, в определенных разделах могут быть обнаружены различные источники, но у нас есть литература, содержащая повествование, уходящее корнями в историю.

Всегда полезно помнить, что, как и новозаветные авторы, ветхозаветные авторы были не только богословами, но и искусными писателями, как отмечает Том Лонг:

«Библейские писатели были литераторами значительного мастерства и изысканности, которым были известны творческие, даже игривые возможности языка. Однако этим художественным тенденциям не было дано полной свободы, но они были дисциплинированы более крупными теологическими целями, которыми руководствовался писатель ... Эта высокая теологическая цель поставила библейских авторов ... в центр взаимодействия двух сил. С одной стороны, они верили в непоколебимый характер Божьей воли, постоянство божественного обетования, и были уверены, что у Бога есть гармоничный план творения. С другой стороны, они знали, что человеческая история на самом деле была беспорядочной, человеческая свобода была случайной, а люди были упрямыми и стойкими. Повествование стало особенно подходящей литературной формой для охвата максимально полного диапазона взаимодействия между этими противостоящими силами... Короче говоря, библейские писатели создавали повествования не в вакууме, а в борьбе за соответствие литературной формы и их богословского мировоззрения» (Томас Лонг “Проповедь и литературные формы Библии”, с. 67).

II. Общие Характеристики Еврейского Повествования

1. Еврейское Повествование Сценично

Это наиболее распространенная характеристика (например, Давид и Голиаф). Действие разбито на серию сцен в различных условиях. Обычно существует особая связь между действием, персонажами, участвующими в действии, и обстановкой. Обстановка создает особую атмосферу. Итак, когда вы проповедуете Вехий Завет, обратите внимание на…

а) Персонажи. Как они описаны (их статус, имя, происхождение)? Кто причастен? Как они взаимодействуют? Авторы используют разные приемы для охарактеризования людей, о которых пишут:

1) Описание. В рассказе на иврите очень мало деталей; просто общие описания. Повествование на иврите меньше заинтересовано в представлении внешности персонажа, чем в том, чтобы направить читателя к пониманию того, что это за человек.

2) Интернационализация. Рассказчик открывает читателю окно в ментальное или эмоциональное состояние персонажа. Рассказчик может комментировать мысли или мнение персонажа (например, Бытие 8: 11б; Исх. 2:24, 25). Например, рассказчик может подробно цитировать мысли персонажа (например, Исх. 2:14; Исх. 3: 3).

3) Прямой диалог. Это предпочтительный метод в повествовании на иврите для поддержания действия в сюжете - кто кому и что сказал.

4) Действия. Действия можно показать без речи. Такие безмолвные рассказы о действиях подчеркивают характер. Они служат в качестве необъявленного комментария к речи персонажа (например, Быт. 30: 33-34).

5) КонтрастContrast. Помещая персонажей рядом, автор выделяет черты характера - например, Девора и Варак (судьи 4-5). Дебора всегда решительна; Варак колеблется.

6) Точка зрения. Автор может представить информацию голосом и глазами всеведущего рассказчика или любого из нескольких персонажей в повествовании - например, Давид и Вирсавия (2 Царств 11). Это повествование начинается с предыстории рассказчика (ст. 1). Тогда читатель увидит то, что видит Давид (ст. 2). Третья перспектива - посланник (ст. 3). В оставшихся стихах главы автор переводит читателя с точки зрения одного персонажа на точку зрения другого: Давида, Урии, Иоава, посланника и Вирсавии. Оно заканчивается тем, что рассказчик напрямую обращается к читателям: «И было это дело, что сделал Давид, зло в очах Господа» (ст. 27б). Важно всегда понимать, кто говорит.

б) Диалог. (Будьте осторожны, чтобы не психологизировать сказанное. Часто первые сказанные слова указывают на суть события. Именно здесь раскрываются мотивы и мысли.

(в) Сюжет (т. е. последовательность событий). Развитие сюжета может быть простым или сложным, но оба они имеют действия, которые проходят через начало, середину и конец. Конфликты определенного типа возникают в начале, усложняются в середине и, наконец, разрешаются в конце.

г) Темп. Как продвигается повествование?

д) Рассказчик. Рассказчик может быть всеведущим, скрытым или анонимным. Он может выражать прямую точку зрения. Он может даже пройти через одного из персонажей.

2. Ветхозаветное Повествование Краткое

Ветхозаветные повествования сжаты. Поэтому обратите внимание на аранжировку и детали. Поймите, как автор выбирал свой материал. Его выбор обычно зависит от того, что он намеревается передать, то есть он включает только то, что нам нужно знать, чтобы изложить его теологическую точку зрения. Не пытайтесь предоставить детали, которые автор не сообщил нам, если они не очевидны по смыслу или из другого отрывка.

3. Ветхозаветные Повествования Проницательны

Ветхозаветные повествования показывают больше, чем говорят. Великие заявления могут быть сделаны в тонком комментарии, событии или описании. «Только изредка рассказчик раскрывает точку зрения Бога своим читателям» (Сидней Грейданус, «Современный проповедник и древний текст», с. 207). В общем, точка зрения должна быть выведена. Рассказчик обычно говорит словами и действиями персонажей повествования. Они являются его каналом для передачи его послания. Сам он обычно остается скрытым, по крайней мере, в том, что касается прямых, критических высказываний.

III. Литературная Структура И Устройства В Еврейских Повествованиях

1. Повторение. Ключевые слова, фразы, предложения, повторяющиеся мотивы (например, камни в повествовании об Иакове, вода в повествовании о Моисее) и темы.

2. Повторяющиеся модели, структуры и последовательности. Например, в книге Судей Израиль творил зло ... Бог дал им ... Бог дал избавителя ... они восстановились ... они снова сделали зло

3. Игра слов. Иногда их трудно уловить в нашем переводе, но они были бы очевидны первоначальным читателям или слушателям.

4. Поэтические строки в повествовательных контекстах (возвышенная речь). Например: «Послушание лучше жертвы и послушание лучше тука овнов» (1 Цар. 15:22).

5. Завершения книг (включения и хиазмы). Эти литературные приемы очень часто используются для формирования повествовательной структуры.

Включения – завершение для книги. Они показывают, как и где начинается и заканчивается повествование. Вы ясно видите это в повествовании Иакова (Быт. 28: 10-32: 31), где сначала «солнце зашло» над Иаковом (Быт. 28:11), а затем «… солнце взошло над ним» ( Быт.32: 31). Почему автор счел нужным включить эту деталь? Две причины:

1) Два выражения завершают этот раздел - Быт. 32:31, где «солнце взошло», связывает нас с Быт. 28:11, где «солнце зашло». Эти две фразы образуют инклюзию (включение).

2) Материал между 28:11 и 32:31 образует значительный «духовный цикл» в жизни Иакова, в котором он движется из духовной тьмы (закат - это, вероятно, самый темный период в его жизни, когда он был изгнан. из своего дома и негде было остановиться) к духовному свету (восход солнца - Иаков превратил

Хиазмы сосредотачивают внимание читателя на вершине повествования. Вы очень ясно видите перевернутую хиазмическую структуру в книге Руфь (см. Том Лонг, с. 82-86):

Начало (1: 1-22). Нисходящая спираль жизненной ситуации Ноемини и Руфи.

Середина:

а) Развитие отношений Руфи с Воозом (2: 1-23)

б) План Ноемини и ответ Руфи (3: 1-18)

в) Восходящая траектория и кульминация - ответ Вооза (4: 1-12).

Конец (4: 13-22). Искупление Вооза. Руфь и Ноеминь благословлены. Надежда восстановлена.

6. Аналогия, контраст или сравнение. Ветхозаветные повествования часто используют аналогии в переносном значении слов, таких как метафоры, сравнения, гиперболы, олицетворения (или антропоморфизмы). Таким образом, автор описывает реальность, о которой он говорит в повествовании, в терминах, которые обращаются к нашим чувствам и воображению.

Точно так же противопоставление и сравнение часто используются ветхозаветными авторами в повествовании. Например, в 1 Царств автор, не теряя времени, познакомил нас с контрастом между Анной (и ее сыном Самуилом) и Илием (и его сыновьями Офни и Финеесом). Она и ее сын получают благословение от Бога, в то время как Илия и его сыновья подвергаются суду от Бога. Точно так же у вас есть расширенный, резкий контраст между Саулом и Давидом, в котором Саул действует как фольга для Давида, то есть черты характера Саула являются полной противоположностью Давиду, и служат для подчеркивания характера Давида.

В следующем издании этого журнала я изложу некоторые предложения по изучению и проповеди повествований на иврите.

II. Усиливая Библейское Руководство

Если вы думали, что ваши брачные клятвы были единственным случаем, когда вы пообещали «почитать и повиноваться» кому-то, у меня для вас новость - это также должно быть залогом здоровой церкви перед ее лидерами. В этой статье я хотел бы развить тему «Почитание руководителей церкви» на основе книги Евреям 13: 7-8 и 17-19.

Новый Завет мало говорит об отношениях церкви с ее лидерами, но то, что там говорится, жизненно важно. Этот отрывок из послания к Евреям 13 учит нас, что «здоровая церковь чтит своих благочестивых руководителей». Автор Послания к евреям дает три увещевания, определяющие честь собрания для его руководителей.

I. Мы Почитаем Наших Благочестивых Руководителей Когда Мы Учимся Из Их Верного Опыта (13:7-8)

«Помни своих вождей / правителей» (13: 7). Мы должны «помнить» наших лидеров - тех, кто служил среди нас, тех, кто повлиял на нас и сформировал нас такими, какие мы есть сегодня (как мы думаем и действуем, и во что мы верим). Автор письма христианам из евреев говорит: «Подумайте о том, кем они были, что они говорили и делали, какое наследие они оставили, как они повлияли на вашу жизнь. Поразмышляйте об их служении среди вас». Это полезное упражнение не для ностальгии, а для того, чтобы вспомнить пример их верности и последовательности, и при этом идти в ногу с их примером. Они наши герои, наши наставники, к которым мы обращаем свой взор, и с кого берем пример. Они оказывают наибольшее влияние на нашу жизнь, те, чья жизнь является образцом христианской жизни, те, о которых мы можем иногда задумываться: «Что бы они сказали, сделали или подумали о том-то и том-то? Что они учили об этом? Как бы они отреагировали? Какой совет они дали бы нам в этой ситуации? »

Мы живем в эпоху, когда мало уважают лидеров, особенно представителей предыдущего поколения. «Как только они ушли, они ушли, - говорят они, - и мы переходим к более новым и лучшим вещам. Старое было подходящим для того времени и возраста, но сейчас мы стали более прогрессивными, все изменилось ». Этот автор послания к евреям говорит: «Нет! Напротив, помните старые вехи, проверенные и верные пути. Помните тех, кто утвердил вас в истине. Вспомните тех, кто формировал вашу веру. Помните тех, кто трудился среди вас, действовал с верой, служил первопроходцами с Евангелием ». Апостол призывает нас учиться у них ...

1. Мы Должны Учиться На Примере Того, Чему Они Учили (13: 7а)

«… Который сказал вам слово Божие…» (13: 7а). Слово Божье было предметом их разговоров, их учений, их проповедей. Они не говорили и не проповедовали о несерьезных вещах. Они не читали последние практические проповеди. Они проповедовали вам Евангелие. Они назидали церковь, укрепляли вас в вашей святейшей вере. Их учение и беседы были основой церкви. Если копнуть глубже, вы обнаружите, что их учение все еще живо. Возможно, их здесь нет физически, но они определенно здесь духовно.

Мы чтим их, когда учимся на их верном примере. Мы должны учиться на примере того, чему они учили. И...

2. Мы Должны Учиться На Примере Того, Как Они Жили (13:7б-8)

«Принимая во внимание результат их поведения, подражайте их вере» (13:7б). Их «вера» относится к тому, чему они учили, верили и жили. Это, несомненно, относится как к истине Писания, в которую они верили, так и к личному доверию Богу, которое они практиковали. У этих верующих-евреев, к которым здесь обращаются, было искушение отречься от своей христианской веры и вернуться к своим старым иудаистским обычаям и верованиям. Так что это увещевание было особенно уместным …

a) Подражайте их вере в их надежде Бога - вере, благодаря которой вы живете в зависимости от Бога; вера, которой вы доверяете Богу обеспечить все ваши нужды, согласно Его богатству в славе через Христа Иисуса; вера, с которой вы смотрите в будущее, не зная, к чему оно может привести.

б) Подражайте их вере в истину Божью вере, однажды переданной святым (Иуда 3), вдохновенным Священным Писаниям, содержащим все, что нам нужно для жизни и благочестия (2 Пет. 1: 3), вере, которая составляет эту суть истины, которой мы верим, которой мы доверяем и которой учим.

«Подражайте» их вере. Это не означает слепого следования за ними только потому, что они некогда передали веру святым (Иуда 3), вдохновенные Писания, содержащие все, что нам нужно для жизни и благочестия (2 Пет. 1: 3), веру, составляющую часть вашей истории, или просто потому, что вы эмоционально привязаны к ним. Но следуйте за ними, «учитывая результат их поведения». После тщательного взвешивания своей жизни и учений, после тщательного изучения результатов своей жизни, после наблюдения за плодами своего свидетельства, после неоднократного рассмотрения успешного наследия своей жизни, после рассмотрения всей своей жизни (от начала до конца, с ног до головы), понаблюдав за тем, как они прожили свою жизнь, следуйте их примеру! Подражайте их вере, живите, как они жили, говорите, как они говорили. Будьте стойкими в вере, такими же, какими были они.

И чтобы вы не думали, что руководители церкви могут быть ненадежными (некоторые хорошие, некоторые плохие; некоторые остаются, некоторые уходят; некоторые оставили приятный привкус во рту, другие - неприятный), тогда подумайте и подражайте главе церкви. Церковь, наш верховный лидер и высший пример веры, «Иисус Христос», Тот, Кто «вчера, сегодня и вовеки тот же» (13: 8). Он неизменен, неизменен, совершенно последователен. Он «Иисус», Спаситель, Тот, кто спасает свой народ от их грехов. Он «Христос», Помазанник, Мессия, Посланный, Сын Божий. Он неизменный, Тот, Кто «вчера, сегодня и вовеки тот же».

Иисус Христос тот же «вчера», потому что Он - Бог прошлого, Бог творения и Бог искупления, Тот, Кто умер и воскрес. Он тот же «сегодня», потому что Он Бог настоящего, Тот, Кто ходатайствует за нас одесную Бога, наш Великий Первосвященник (5: 6; 6:20; 7:17, 21, 24-25, 28; 9:24). Он тот же «вовеки», потому что Он - Бог будущего, Вечный Господь, перед которым однажды преклонится каждое колено во вселенной (Фил. 2: 10-11).

А поскольку Он всегда один и тот же, вы можете на Него положиться. Он - «Тот, Кто был, и есть, и Кто грядет» (Откр. 1: 8). Он - Бог Ветхого Завета, и Он – Бог Нового Завета, Он - Господь церкви. Если когда-либо и существовал царь/лидер, которому мы можем безоговорочно доверять время и вечность, то это - Иисус Христос. Человеческие лидеры могут подвести нас, но Он никогда не подведет. Лидеры-люди могут приходить и уходить, но Он никогда не покидает нас. Благочестивые руководители указывают нам на Него, потому что Он - наш полный, совершенный и неизменный пример для подражания. Он никогда не меняется.

На Него всегда можно положиться. «В начале Ты основал землю, и небеса - дело рук Твоих. Они погибнут, но Ты пребудешь, и все они, как риза, обветшают, и как одежду Ты переменишь их, и они изменятся. Но Ты тот же, и лета Твои не кончатся». (Пс. 102: 25-27). «Ибо Я Господь, Я не изменяюсь» (Мал. 3: 6).

Когда вы думаете о том как завершили свой путь церковные лидеры тех времен, которые навсегда повлияли на вас, помните, что они делали это только в той мере, в какой они являлись отражением нашего великого, вечного, истинного и неизменного Спасителя.

Итак, мы чтим наших благочестивых руководителей, когда учимся на их верном примере. Также обратите внимание на стих 17 ..

II. Мы Почитаем Наши Благочестивых Лидеров, Когда Мы Подчиняемся Их Пасторскому Руководству (13:17).

Современное общество не любит никому уступать или подчиняться. Дух нашей эпохи таков: «Я сделаю все по-своему. Никто не скажет мне, что надо делать». К сожалению, такое отношение иногда проникает в церковь. Но такое отсутствие взаимного подчинения, такое неуважение к власти порождает хаос, анархию, разделение и разобщенность, и в конечном итоге эффективность церкви ослабляется, и сатана получает преимущество. Но апостол увещевает нас: «Повинуйтесь наставникам вашим и будьте покорны им» (13: 17а). Почему? Потому что...

1. Они Наделены Божественной Властью.

Это увещевание имело особое значение для верующих-евреев, которые испытывали искушение отказаться от христианства и вернуться в иудаизм. Если когда-нибудь им и нужно было повиноваться своим благочестивым руководителям, так это сейчас. Очевидно, они не научились подражать своим лидерам, и в церкви преобладала позиция независимости.

Но мы должны «повиноваться» благочестивым церковным лидерам в их управлении - в их учении, решениях и руководстве церковью. И мы должны «покориться им» в отношении их власти, поскольку их власть исходит от Господа церкви (а также от самого собрания).

Авторитетное руководство необходимо для единства, гармонии и эффективности. Послушание подразумевает подчинение, уступчивость. Это не означает слепое, бездумное подчинение. Это не означает подчинение, уклоняющееся от ответственности. Это не означает подчинение, которое противоречит библейскому учению или указаниям в Писании, иначе увещевание в Евреям 13: 9 о «странных учениях» было бы бессмысленным. Это не означает культовое подчинение, когда вы перестаете думать, отказываетесь от своих убеждений или слепо следуете за другими. Скорее, это разумное и проницательное подчинение благочестивым руководителям, чья речь и поведение являются образцовыми.

Мы уважаем их положение и авторитет, и в то же время ведем вдумчивый и уважительный диалог по интересующим их вопросам, подчиняясь Господу церкви.

Те, кого Бог призывает к руководству церковью, которые обладают соответствующими дарами, которые заслужили уважение собрания, соответствуют библейским требованиям, и чьи речь и поведение чисты и убедительны, - это те, кто правит с божественной властью, кем мы являемся подчиняться и кому мы должны подчиняться (ср. 1 Фес. 5: 12-13). Вот что сказано в тексте: «Подчиняйтесь ... и будьте покорны!» Очевидно, здесь не рассматриваются коррумпированные лидеры (ср. Иез. 34) - те, кто ведет других в неверном направлении, те, кто проповедует ложные учения, те, чья жизнь не является морально чистой. Апостол не об этом пишет. Есть процесс и божественная власть, наделенная церковью, чтобы бороться с коррумпированным, греховным руководством (например, 1 Тим. 5:20). Но проблема не в этом. Проблема здесь, очевидно, в том, что евреи не подчинялись своим лидерам, которые были благочестивыми людьми, чьей вере они должны были следовать, и чьи жизни свидетельствовали об их духовности. Именно поэтому автор призывает их подражать своим лидерам, подчиняться им и быть в послушании им.

Нам нужно убедиться, что дух века не проникает в наши церкви, и чтобы наши отношения с нашими церковными лидерами были здоровыми, прозрачными и взаимно подчиненными. Нам нужно подчиняться благочестивым лидерам, как мы подчиняемся Господу церкви. Неспособность сделать это - отказ подчиниться Самому Христу, и это подвергает собрание серьезной опасности.

Мы должны подчиниться их власти, потому что они наделены божественной властью. И мы должны подчиниться их власти, потому что ...

2. Они Неусыпно Пекутся О Душах Наших.

«... ибо они бдят ваши души, как те, кто должен будет дать отчет» (13: 17б). Они не диктаторы, которые требуют беспрекословного подчинения, основанного на страхе. Это заботливые пастыри, которые ежедневно заботятся о благополучии Божьего стада (ср. Иез. 3: 17-18). Это обязанность церковных лидеров - быть бдительными в отношении духовного и физического благополучия своих людей. Они «наблюдают за вашими душами» (букв. «Они бодрствуют над вами»), «как те, кто должен будет дать отчет» - отчет церкви и, что более важно, отчет самому Богу.

Благочестивые церковные лидеры - пастухи. Они пасут стадо Божье. Они защищают стадо от опасности. Они ведут стадо в правильном направлении. Они заботятся о благополучии стада. Итак, ради вас руководители церкви несут большую ответственность. Чем больше они заботятся о нас, тем больше мы в долгу перед ними в верности и послушании.

Мы должны подчиняться нашим благочестивым церковным руководителям, потому что 1) они наделены божественной властью, потому что 2) они несут ответственность за нас, и дают нам пасторскую заботу и потому что ...

3. Они Заслуживают Радостного Служения.

«... чтобы они делали это с радостью, а не воздыхая» (13: 17в). Мы должны чтить их послушанием и покорностью, чтобы они могли выполнять свои обязанности «с радостью и не воздыхая». Работа пастыря никогда не должна быть обузой из-за мятежных, неблагодарных, неуважительных, сварливых овец. Наш долг - облегчить их ношу, сделать их служение радостью, а не бременем.

Вы можете определить те церкви, которые не идут в ногу со своими лидерами и не уважают их. Они постоянно жалуются (как дети Израиля, которые почти что убили Моисея бременем). Они злобно критикуют своих лидеров, отвергая их. Этого не должно быть. От того, как вы относитесь к своим лидерам, зависит, будут ли они править с радостью или со стоном. Вы приносите им радость, когда подчиняетесь, подчиняетесь, уважаете и почитаете их не потому, что они поступают по-своему, а потому, что они видят Божий народ счастливым, продуктивным и сплоченным.

Наши церкви должны характеризоваться «радостью», а не «стенаниями», церкви, состоящие из 1) довольных людей, которые радуются о Господе, которые чтят своих лидеров и с радостью следуют за ними, и 2) счастливых лидеров, которые рады вести народ Божий к еще более глубоким отношениям со Христом и друг с другом.

Это благословение для церкви, которая едина, дальновидна, активна в служении Богу, любит других, наслаждается друг другом, растет в истине, использует свои дары для прославления Бога. Это такие церкви, частью которых хотят быть другие, где неверующие падают и говорят: «Воистину Бог среди вас» (1 Кор. 14:25). Мы всегда должны помнить, что это не наша церковь. Это церковь Христа - Он суверенен над своей церковью. Мы несем ответственность перед Ним. Наши руководители несут перед Ним ответственность. Сделать их задачу обременительной - значит разрушить то, за что умер Христос.

Автор говорит, что «вам неполезно» (13: 17в) заставлять ваших лидеров стенать под бременем бунта, противодействия и споров. Это невыгодная деятельность, которая утомляет ваших лидеров и заставляет их падать духом. Это может иметь разрушительные последствия для церкви.

Многие пасторы оставляют служение, потому что это тяжкое бремя. Когда я преподавал в Центре Стивена Олфорда в Мемфисе, к нам приезжали пасторы со всего мира, многие были на грани того, чтобы оставить церковь, потому что они больше не могли это терпеть, были разочарованы, потому что они разочаровались в служении. То, что они думали, будет радостью, стало источником стенаний. Все проигрывают, когда это происходит. И пастор, и собрание теряют радость и перестают приносить плоды в Господе.

Нужно ли нам иногда менять руководство? Да! И есть способ сделать это. Но проблема не в этом. Речь идет о нормальной, здоровой церковной жизни - Божьих людях, живущих вместе в счастливой гармонии и взаимном подчинении друг другу.

Итак, мы чтим наших благочестивых руководителей, когда учимся на их верном примере и подчиняемся их пасторскому управлению. И...

III. Мы Почитаем Наших Благочестивых Руководителей, Молимся За Их Вызовы Служения (13: 18-19)

Это послание делает очевидными некоторые вещи об этой церкви. Эта еврейская церковь не уважала своих лидеров, и эта церковь не росла духовно. Вот почему им требовались повторяющиеся суровые упреки и увещевания. Что-то произошло в отношениях между этим пастором (лидером церкви) и общиной. Возможно, это была одна из тех церквей, которые думают, что с помощью критики можно добиться большего, чем с помощью молитвы и диалога. В любом случае, этот церковный лидер не бьет их палкой по голове. Он не ругает их за отношение. Напротив, он увещевает их «молитесь за нас» (13: 18а).

Почему мы должны молиться за руководителей наших церквей? Потому что...

1. Им Нужны Наши Молитвы, Чтобы Справиться С Вызовом Критики.

“Молиться за нас; ибо мы уверены, что у нас чистая совесть, потому что во всем желаем вести себя честно »(13:18). Судя по всему, верующие иудеи критиковали поведение этого лидера. Вот почему он исследовал свою «совесть» и вот почему он подтверждает свою решимость «вести себя честно во всем». Вместо того, чтобы ответить гневом или возмездием на их обвинения, он просит их «молиться» за него. Для лидера просить свой народ молиться за него - это акт смирения, выражение зависимости, признание нужды.

Нет лучшего способа ответить на критику, чем через смирение. «Мне нужны ваши молитвы, - говорит он, - молитвы ободрения и ходатайства, за мудрость и благодать. Я не все знаю. У меня нет ответов на все вопросы. Я не всегда поступаю ли говорю правильно. Мне нужны ваши молитвы к Богу, чтобы помочь мне в служении. Я постоянно чувствую атаки сатаны в служении. Так что мне нужна защита ваших молитв. Пожалуйста, помолитесь за меня.”

Несомненно, такая смиренная просьба о молитве восстанавливает. Это катализатор восстановления единства. Это - стимул к новой любви к Нему. Это - оливковая ветка, которая побуждает их охотно принимать его наставления и увещевания и рассеивает их критику. В любом случае, что бы ни случилось, его совесть чиста, «... поскольку мы уверены, что у нас чистая совесть». Несмотря на их очевидную критику в его адрес, его собственная совесть чиста. Несомненно, некоторые из его учений были радикально новыми для этих верующих евреев. Возможно, его учение о том, что ветхозаветные ритуалы, жертвоприношения и левитское священство были завершены с приходом Христа, и теперь они были не так важны, и они никак не могли это понять и принять. Тем не менее, он заверяет их, что он изучил свои действия, отношения, мотивы и учения, так что он «уверен / убежден» в собственном уме и совести, что его учение является точным и полным любви, его наставления необходимы и уместны, его мотивы чисты и открыты. Он не знает ничего из того, что он сказал или сделал, за что нужно уйти в себя или извиняться, или что это могло быть лишь причиной их отношения к нему. И он не питает к ним никакой обиды за то, что произошло. Он - не высокомерен в своем положении. Он не господствует над ними. Напротив, он смиренно действует перед ними: «... во всем желая поступать честно».

Похоже, что они критиковали его за его поведение, и после проверки он говорит: «Я во всем желаю жить достойно и честно». Его обращение к ним напоминает нам обращение Павла к коринфянам: «О коринфяне! Мы открыто говорили с вами, наше сердце расширено. Вам не тесно в нас, но в сердцах ваших тесно. В равное возмездие — говорю, как детям,- распространитесь и вы (я говорю как детям), распространитесь и вы…. Вместите нас. Мы никого не обидели, никому не повредили, ни от кого не искали корысти. Не в осуждение говорю: ибо я прежде сказал, что вы в наших сердцах, так чтобы вместе умереть и жить вместе »(2 Кор. 6:11; 7: 2–3). И еще: «Я охотно буду издерживать свое и истощать себя за души ваши; несмотря на то, что чрезвычайно любя вас, я менее любим вами» (12:15). Какая разница между горем, которое Павел испытал от коринфян, и обилием радости, которую он получил от филиппийцев (1: 3-4) и фессалоникийцев (1 Фес. 2: 19-20; 3: 9).

Это вызов для нас, не так ли? Я много лет занимаюсь пасторским служением и получил свою долю критики. Я знаю, о чем говорю. И теперь я обучаю и наставляю так много пасторов, чье служение - это горе, а не радость из-за критического отношения к ним. Они любят Господа и желают для народа Божьего только добра. Они отдают себя снова и снова, занимая “низкое” место, отдавая себя в распоряжение и милосердие общины, только для того, чтобы получить удар от оппозиционеров и ложные обвинения, и их сердца разрываются из-за конфликтов и напряжения.

Вскоре они начинают унывать. Они думают, что они неадекватны, что, возможно, Бог, в конце концов, не призывал их к пасторскому служению, что кто-то другой лучше бы руководил этим собранием. Иногда это может быть необходимо, но часто это не так. Обычно эти люди - настоящие слуги, которые прилежно служат народу Божьему.

Руководители церкви несовершенны. Бывают случаи, когда вы законно с ними не согласны. Но продолжайте уважать их и относиться к ним по-доброму. Они заслуживают нашего ободрения и поддержки в молитве, когда они занимают “низкое место”, когда их совесть чиста, когда они достойно живут перед нами.

Мы чтим наших благочестивых руководителей, когда молимся о вызовах, с которыми они встречаются в служении. Им нужны наши молитвы, чтобы справиться с критикой и ...

2. Им Нужны Наши Молитвы, Чтобы Разобраться С Расколом В Церкви

«Но я особенно призываю вас сделать это, чтобы я мог быстрее вернуться к вам» (13:19). Это конкретная, срочная, душераздирающая просьба. Я не знаю, что произошло среди этих верующих-евреев, но пастор умоляет их молиться, чтобы он мог вскоре снова увидеть их и снова насладиться общением с ними. Я не знаю, привела ли их критика к отчуждению или к этому привели другие обстоятельства. Что бы ни случилось, он побуждает их молиться, чтобы это расстояние, этот раскол могли быть исцелены, а единство, гармония, мир, радость и общение могли быть восстановлены.

Разобщенность является большим бременем для благочестивых руководителей церкви, поскольку они знают, «как хорошо и как приятно жить вместе народу Божьему в единстве» (Пс. 133: 1–3). Они знают, что разобщенность была бедствием церкви, которую Иисус предвидел и молился в 17-й главе Иоанна.

Последние Замечания

Итак, из этого отрывка вы можете увидеть, что «Здоровая церковь чтит своих благочестивых руководителей». Мы почитаем наших благочестивых руководителей тремя способами: 1) учась на их верном примере; 2) подчиняясь их пасторскому управлению; и 3) молясь о вызовах их служения. В конце концов, все сводится к молитве. Итак, давайте вместе заключим завет, чтобы молиться за наших пасторов, сотрудников и руководителей церкви. Они нуждаются в наших молитвах и заслуживают их. Они ежедневно сталкиваются с бременами и заботами о церкви. Позвольте мне призвать вас принять активное участие в качестве молитвенного партнера в вашей церкви, поддерживая руки вашей команды лидеров, как это сделали Аарон и Ор для Моисея в Исходе 17. Вы можете быть «партнером в молитве Аарона и Ора», который молится за ваших лидеров, когда они встречаются, чтобы обсудить духовные и практические дела церкви. Молитесь, чтобы они обрели мудрость, сострадание, дар различения духов и верность истине.

Прежде всего, можем мы почитать наших лидеров тем, что будеи извлекать уроки из их верного примера, подчиняться их пасторскому управлению и молиться о проблемах их служения. Это - единственное решение для церкви и мира.

III. План Проповеди

Название: Послание семи церквям: Лаодикия – Болезнь процветания (Отк. 3:14-22)

Тема: Церковь, которая становится независимой от Христа, может стать ненужной для Христа

1: Христос знает отношение каждой церкви (3: 15-17)

а) Он знает, когда церковь самодостаточна (15-16)

б) Он знает, когда церковь вводит себя в заблуждение (17)

2: Христос знает нужды каждой церкви (3: 18-19)

Он знает, что нам нужно…

а) ... Его богатство, чтобы вылечить нашу духовную бедность (18а)

б) … чистые одежды, чтобы прикрыть нашу духовную наготу (18б)

в) … исцеляющая глазная мазь для исправления нашей духовной слепоты (18в)

г) ... Его наказание, чтобы вызвать наше духовное покаяние (19-21)

Related Topics: Pastors

4. “Who Am I?” New Testament Women In The Bible

Related Media

Encourage children to learn some fun facts about women in the New Testament. Use this short worksheet to introduce your children or class to a few of the women in the New Testament, who they were, and what they did. As your children read the Scripture and answer the question, “Who Am I,” discuss with them facts about each woman, such as her purpose and her character. If desired add additional questions along with Scripture references to introduce other women in the New Testament for extended learning.

This facts sheet can be used as an addition to any home school curriculum, Sunday school curriculum, or Christian school curriculum.

For additional activities, use these questions to play a family game of trivia. Serve popcorn and enjoy!

Ages: 8-12

What you Need:

NET Bible or computer with access to download the NET Bible version

Questions:

1. I was the mother of Jesus. Who am I? (Luke 1:26-31)

__________________

2. I was the wife of Zechariah and the mother of John. Who am I? (Luke 1:13)

__________________

3. My sister was Mary and my brother was Lazarus. Who am I? (John 11:1-2)

__________________

4. I was the sister who sat at Jesus feet during his visit. Who am I? (Luke 10:38-39)

__________________

5. I took spices to Jesus’ tomb along with Mary the mother of James. Who am I? ( Mark 16:1-2)

__________________

6. I was one of the women along with Mary Magdalene and Mary mother of James who told the disciples about the resurrection of Jesus after visiting the tomb. Who am I? (Luke 24:10)

__________________

7. I was the daughter of Phanuel who was a prophetess from the tribe of Asher. Who am I? (Luke 2:36)

__________________

8. Jesus told me about living water. Who am I? (John 4:4-26)

__________________

9. I was healed by Jesus. My name begins with S. Who am I? (Luke 8:3)

__________________

10. My dad was a synagogue ruler who asked Jesus to heal me. Who am I? (Mark 5:21-23)

__________________

11. I gave two copper coins as an offering. Who am I? (Mark 12:41-44)

__________________

12. I did good deeds and charity in the town of Joppa. Who am I? (Acts 9:36))

__________________

13. I was a slave girl who heard Peter’s voice at the outer gate door. Who am I? (Acts 12:13-14)

__________________

14. I was a believer and the mother of Timothy. Who am I? (Acts 16:1; 2 Timothy 1:5)

__________________

15. I was the mother of Eunice and the grandmother of Timothy. Who am I? (2 Timothy 1:5)

__________________

16. I was from the city of Thyatria and a dealer in purple cloth. Who am I? (Acts 16:14-15)

__________________

17. I was the wife of Aquila. Who am I? (Acts 18:2)

__________________

18. I was a servant of the church in Cenchrea. Who am I? (Romans 16:1-2)

__________________

19. Because of my faith and my ability to hide the spies, I did not perish when I died. Who am I? (Hebrews 11:31)

__________________

20. We were believers and served Jesus Christ. Who were we? (Philippians 4:1-3)

__________________,
__________________.

Answers:

Euodia, Mary, Samaritan Woman, Daughter of Jairus, Lois, Syntyche, Elizabeth, Martha, Eunice, Anna, Phoebe, Mary sister of Martha, Priscilla, Mary Magdelene, Joanna, Susanna, Widow, Dorcus, Rhoda, Lydia, Rahab

1

Related Topics: Children, Children's Training Resources, Parent Resources

Wisdom Concerning The Secret And Revealed Things

“‘For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways,’ declares the LORD. ‘For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts. For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return there without watering the earth, and making it bear and sprout, and furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eater; so shall My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it’” (Isaiah 55:8-11).

God Has Spoken

Behold one of the most basic and important truths of Scripture: God is infinite, we are not. And given our inability to comprehend God as infinite Spirit, we could never know Him if He did not stoop to reveal Himself to us. Yet, stoop He did, and then some—God has spoken. He spoke and made the universe and everything in it, including you and me. He spoke and revealed all we need to know of His infinite excellence and our purpose and place in His world. He spoke to save us by the person and saving work of Jesus Christ, the Word become flesh, to satisfy the requirements of His justice on our behalf.

Truth And Intimacy With God

Truth, then, comes from God and remains unaltered by human opinion. “First of all…no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Peter 1:20-22). “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). God bridged the gap. “Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence” (2 Peter 1:2-3). Through Christ we know the infinite and unknowable God in a most personal and loving way.

Scripture, rightly understood by the work of the Holy Spirit through faith, escorts us beyond the veil into God’s inner circle and personal confidence, to know and love what cannot be known apart from Christ. Wonders once hidden by darkness thrill the soul by His light. Truth unknown or suppressed in willful ignorance appears to the humble heart of love and trust in Him.

And though our knowledge of God’s excellence will forever increase, mystery will always confront our smallness before God’s infinity. “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever” (Deuteronomy 29:29), even in heaven. Our sight in glory will never be dark or dim, but neither will we ever exhaust what can be known of our inexhaustible God.

Wisdom Toward Scripture

Until then, wisdom forsakes reading things into Scripture, contriving things about God He has not revealed, or dismissing His authority by making mysteries out of explicit and obvious truth. Such errors often stem from a neglect of God’s Word, or a rejection of God’s explanation of reality from an unwillingness to submit to God’s will. And while Scripture remains clear and understandable, it does bring us to deep waters with things “hard to understand” (2 Peter 3:16). Yet, in its sacred pages God has provided all we need to know for our good and His glory. Christians, then, should ever be prayerful and diligent students of Scripture. And where God stays silent, we hold fast to the things revealed and rest in His perfect character, “that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen” (1 Peter 4:11).

Related Topics: Devotionals

Q. Should an Unbeliever Partake of Communion?

Answer

Brother *******,

I don’t think that one should require that a person be a believer to attend a Bible study (church related or not), or even to attend a church (i.e. preaching or teaching) service. It seems to me that when the New Testament Epistles were written, it was assumed that there would be some folks present who were not believers (1 Corinthians 14:22-25; 2 Corinthians 13:5). And what better opportunities to hear the gospel (and see it in action)?

It does seem dishonest for this fellow to privately confess that he is an atheist, and yet continue to give the appearance he is a believer. He seems to want to have his cake and eat it too. If this fellow has been a principled “man of integrity” it might be good to challenge him concerning his integrity, because his actions are hypocritical (Jesus, and Paul, had much to say about -- Matthew 23; Galatians 2:11ff.).

If he were to confess his unbelief to those in the study, it will be a challenge to the believers to deal with him in love, and in a way that draws him toward faith. And it will be difficult for him as well.

If he is really an unbeliever, then he is not subject to discipline, as would be the case for a believer (1 Corinthians 5:9-13).

A friend of mine, with even more years of ministry experience, has told me that sometimes a person “renounces his faith” because of some serious sin in his life. This might happen, but I’m not so sure it is the most common reason for renouncing one’s faith. [I have seen one fellow who had professed to be a believer renounce his faith so that he could then pursue an illicit relationship, outside his marriage. I think he really was an unbeliever, who grew up in a Christian home and played the role of a believer for a time.]

The communion issue is perhaps the most troublesome one. I don’t recall a specific text which clearly forbids an unbeliever to partake of the bread and cup. These texts get as close as one can:

27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly (1 Cor. 11:27-29).

In the context, and given the particular language used, Paul’s emphasis here is not on one’s spiritual state, as much as it is on the manner in which on participates at communion. In Corinth, some of the believers were “drunk and disorderly” when they partook (1 Corinthians 11:20-22). Surely this is an “unworthy manner” of participating.

[I might add, somewhat parenthetically, that John the Baptist did seem to refuse to baptize those whose sincerity was in question:

Then Jerusalem was going out to him, and all Judea and all the district around the Jordan; 6 and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, as they confessed their sins. 7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 “Therefore bear fruit in keeping with repentance; 9 and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father’; for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham. 10 “The axe is already laid at the root of the trees; therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire (Matthew 3:5-10).

“I say to you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.” 29 When all the people and the tax collectors heard this, they acknowledged God’s justice, having been baptized with the baptism of John. 30 But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John. (Lk. 7:28-30 NAU)

Having said this, I would think that this man should have the integrity to refrain from partaking of the bread and the cup, knowing that his partaking of them does not symbolize his relationship with Christ. Thus, I would hope that when the cup was passed, he would refrain from partaking. Naturally, this will likely raise some questions (and some eyebrows). At this point, he would likely need to declare his unbelief.

To persist in partaking of the elements, knowing you don’t believe in what they symbolize seems wrong to me.

I guess that I would encourage this fellow to keep coming to the study, but to be honest about his atheism, and thus to refrain from partaking of the bread and wine when passed to him.

Since I can’t precisely cite a biblical text for this, it should probably be regarded as my opinion, and should be regarded as such (1 Corinthians 7:25, 40).

Blessings,

Bob Deffinbaugh

Related Topics: Issues in Church Leadership/Ministry

Pages