Judging Others

Judgments are not easy to make. This is especially true when those judgments involve people. Judgments carry the weight of a moral decision. Judgments reflect our understanding of what is right and what is wrong, what is moral and what is immoral. People make right judgments and wrong judgments. Some people choose to refrain from making judgments but the situations and circumstances of life demand that we make judgments whether these involve, as an example, the destructive impact of greed on the environment or the destructive impact of sexual fornication on the marriage in the family home. A correct, moral judgment may come from the lips of an individual with a flawed moral character but that does not invalidate the judgment itself. There’s an important distinction to be made between understanding and conviction as concerns judgments.

Giving an account

Judgments can be made with the solid understanding of the source of authority. The source of that authority to make a judgment may come, for example, from civil law or the scriptures. A judgment with a firm conviction can be morally correct and right. However, without understanding the one making the judgment will find it difficult to give an account of the reasons for his judgment. Yet, it is not invalidated because of lack of conviction. This discomforting position of making judgments is common not only with atheists, (do not mistake this as a judgment atheists are not moral) but with those who profess their morality as being from God. This discomfort, in the absence of any authority or standard, may account for the response of ridicule and mockery from atheists and fear from Christians to situations which demand judgment verdicts.

Just as discomforting and troublesome for some people as to make judgments is to hear other people making a judgment. This is especially true when the person making the judgment is a Christian. The great discomfort in hearing a Christian make a judgment is based on an even greater misunderstanding (see Matthew 7:1,2) Jesus commanded Christians not to judge.

What Jesus commands

Did Jesus command his disciples not to make judgments? A look at his command to his disciples suggests his disciples were to be careful about when and how they make judgments. Disciples are not to make judgments hastily or rashly. Jesus did say he did not judge anyone. Jesus did say He did not come to judge the world. So, did Jesus Himself ever judge anyone?

The gospel according to John in chapter eight relates the account of a woman caught in the immoral act of adultery. It is clear those who brought the woman before Jesus had no interest in making or carrying out a judgment. They did not bring the man caught in adultery with the woman. Invariably, the question whether Jesus judged the woman draws a quick no followed by the clarification Jesus just loved her and did not condemn the woman. However, there’s an implied judgment in his words when He says to her, Go, and sin no more.

This instance involving a woman who had fallen in adultery modeled for the disciples of Jesus when and how we are to make judgments. Jesus modeled the marks of a spiritual: 1) the wisdom to discern, 2) the confidence to judge, and 3) the authority to speak. This characteristic of Jesus to make judgments is a mark of a spiritual. It is vital to judge with understanding and conviction when restoring one who has fallen in sin. (Galatians 6:1,2) The judgment of the woman which Jesus modeled was to save and restore, not to condemn her.

The apostle Paul makes a judgment

The apostle Paul, a disciple of Jesus, modeled what Jesus taught His disciples about making judgments. When Paul learned of the immoral conduct of a so-called brother in the church at Corinth (see I Corinthians 5) Paul judged him. Paul judged the man even though the apostle was not present at Corinth. Paul was neither hasty nor rash in his judgment of the immoral individual. The intent and desired purpose of Paul’s judgment was not to condemn the man, but that the man might repent and be restored. Furthermore, Paul urged the Christians in Corinth to judge the immoral individual themselves. After-all Jesus stated the work of the Holy Spirit was He would convict the world about sin because they don't believe in me. The unbelief which had crept into Corinth was not limited to a single immoral, but it had come to to contaminate and defile the whole body of Christ, that is, the royal priesthood of believers in Corinth.

The church in Corinth did as Paul instructed and judged the immoral individual. The man repented of his immoral behavior. The church did not back down from making the hard but necessary judgment on the immoral. The disciples did not shrug off or dismiss their responsibility in uncertainty and fear saying, no one of us is perfect. The apostle John wrote perfect (meaning, complete) love (I John 4:17-19) in the believer casts out fear. Paul wrote in his second letter to the church for them to welcome the brother back into fellowship now that he was forgiven and restored.

We can avoid the need to make judgments. We can call what is defined as sin by some other term. We can, as previously stated, exempt ourselves claiming we are not perfect. We can claim it's a personal choice, a personal opinion. We can claim a particular behavior is not something we would do, but we're alright if someone else chooses to do act and live that way. In the end our unwillingness and inability to make a judgment speaks more of our selfishness and fear which hide our lack of understanding and conviction. Yet, love desires to bear its fruit in and through each one of us.

Judge a brother, save a brother

Jesus taught and modeled for his disciples how and when to make judgments. He did so in order that those who trust and believe on Him should do so with understanding and conviction. The apostle Paul demonstrated the judgment of the immoral individual at Corinth in the same manner as did Jesus. Furthermore, Paul urged the Christians at Corinth to judge the individual in order that he might repent and be restored to the fellowship of believers in Christ. Once the brother was restored Paul urged the church to, reaffirm your love for him.

Read More

A Properly Baked Cake

Do you ever approach something with the attitude: I just want to get it done. I just want to get it out of the way. What this attitude reflects is a dislike or displeasure, but vital need in doing that something that needs our action.

When we apply this to our faith in God some people have a ready file to show they got it done a while back. It may have been in their childhood. It may be through mere association with others who profess a faith like them. They've taken care of it. It's out of the way. They are, as they understand, free to carry on with their lives.

There are others whose faith in God means an endless, tiresome exhausting task of work. No matter how small or how big the task they are sure to do it and add it to their works account ready for presentation to God at the appropriate time as proof of their faith in Him.

What these two, faith and works, represent are what I call the "alone" extremes to which people go to get the God thing right and out of the way. They are the extremes of "faith alone" and "works alone."

The Jews in Jesus' day came to Him and asked him (John 6:28,29) for the quick, easy work they needed to fulfill the God thing. Jesus replied that they were to believe in him whom God had sent. In other words, as Jesus states, belief is a work. It is something one does. It is not merely a thought between our ears.

Ironically, Jesus' reply to the Jews has resulted in some who take that and run to the "faith alone" extreme. These two, faith and works, are not opposed or contradictory to each other as some mistakenly understand when they read the letters by the apostle Paul to the Romans and by the apostle James in the letter which bears his name are favorites. The "faith alone" group favors Romans for its emphasis on faith and belief. The "works alone" group favors James because of its emphasis on works. This same approach of viewing one better or more important than the other is not limited to these two. It extends to repentance, confession, etc.

As I drink my coffee, cake comes to mind. It may help illustrate the importance and significance of a humble and sincere obedience to the one whom God has sent. Suppose you invited some friends over for coffee and cake. As they sit at the table you serve a bowl of eggs to one of your friends. Another you serve a bowl of shortening. Another receives a bowl of flour. Another one a bowl of water.

You announce, "Enjoy!" They look strangely at you.

Finally, one brave soul informs you this is not a cake. Another joins in and tells you these are cake ingredients. Another tells you these ingredients are to be mixed and baked in the oven to create a delicious cake.

You gather the bowls with ingredients mix them up. Thirty minutes later you remove it from the oven only to realize the bowl of eggs is on your kitchen counter. No problem, you say, as you break the eggs and spread them over the hot almost-cake. You serve it to your friends. After a while another brave soul informs you this is not a properly baked cake.

Which of these ingredients, flour, eggs, etc., is more important in baking a cake? Clearly, it is not a matter of which is more important but that all these ingredients work together to create a cake.

Similarly, to put one's trust of belief in God and put that belief into action is to understand faith. It is no more important than works or belief more important than repentance. The act of breaking and spreading eggs over the almost-cake is to misunderstand not only the importance of all these ingredients in baking a cake, but to misunderstand the importance of belief over confession, etc.

As an example of this scrambled mixup of imitating the New Testament obedience to the gospel there are some who discard one thing over another as being unimportant. Others will state it is important, but it doesn't need to be done. WHAT?!?!?! Specifically, you may have probably heard baptism discarded as something unimportant. Does anyone believe a person could openly confession Jesus as Lord, be baptized and tell him he can repent of his continued fornication or other sin some time later. Is there anyone who would tell him repentance is not important, or it's good to "DO" it, but not important. This teaching is what leads some to think they have gotten the God thing take care of and it's out of the way. Someone took the liberty to wrongfully teach them of their own accord what they thought as being important and what was unimportant.

A life with that approach to belief and obedience of God does not mock God because God cannot be mocked. However, it does lead one to a life of misery and ruin because they are going about their own lives and not, as Paul wrote, "Christ living in me." The God thing, well, that's at home in their hidden file but ready, if they really must, for display. They mistakenly thought believing and obeying the one whom God has sent is something done once and not something they live in love thereafter.

Read More

Khalid Yasin: What Jesus said about Muhammed

Perhaps Khalid Yasin has a better understanding of his new profession of faith in Islam. It appears he was seriously mistaken about the faith he states he once had in Jesus. His professed faith in Jesus may sound good, but it is in total opposition and without substance to what Jesus said and did during his lifetime ministry.


Mr Yasin enumerates four points of what Jesus said to his disciples:

1. I'm going to send you the Admirable one, Muhammed
2. your minds are not prepared for all the questions you have
3. you will know him because he will speak of me
4. that which he hears from God will remain forever

Yes, Jesus did say all these things which Mr Yasin enumerates. However, his efforts to gloss over them and apply these in the manner in which he does is less than genuine. As an example on his first point, and the single point which is the focus of this comment, Mr Yasin makes a deft application of the Comforter/Counselor as a direct reference to Muhammad. I am familiar with the linguistic efforts by some to extract a rendering of "Muhammed" from Jesus' words which he spoke to the disciples concerning the Comforter, that is, the Holy Spirit, in chapters 14 thru 16 of the gospel according to John. Research in the original Greek language is certainly important, but the truth is Christian as well as Islam scholars can be just as convoluted in their extraction of words and meanings which often do little or nothing to clarify for those who hunger and thirst for righteousness.

There are several very clear, simple enlightenments on Mr Yasin's first point in plain English.

First, the terms Comforter/Counselor and Spirit/Holy Spirit/Spirit of truth are used by Jesus in the same sentence, same context, to equate all these as one and the same being of which Jesus speaks.

Second, the grammatical tenses indicate the coming of the this individual being was in the future from the time Jesus spoke these words. Some have stated the Holy Spirit was already present and therefore it cannot be the Spirit/Holy Spirit/Spirit of God. They cite King David and Zacharias and Elizabeth John the baptizer's parents as examples. True. The scripture testifies they spoke through the Spirit/Holy Spirit/Spirit of God in them. However, this does not began to compare with the promise of the Holy Spirit as spoken by Jesus. Jesus reiterated this prophecy of promise as spoken by the prophet Joel and which was fulfiled on Pentecost (Acts 2). This was an outpouring of the Holy Spirit on sons and daughters, on all who believed in Jesus and obeyed him as Lord and Savior when Peter preached that first gospel sermon on Pentecost. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit of promise was no longer, as in the case of King David's or Zacharias and Elizabeth's, to a mere few individuals, but to all who are faith in Jesus.

Third, the present tense use by the apostle Peter in Acts 2 makes it clear to his audience that what they were amazed by was the fulfillment of what Jesus promised. Thereafter in the New Testament, the grammatical tense with reference to the Holy Spirit is of a fulfilled present reality as the One who dwells in the heart of the believer. The coming of the Comforter/Counselor/Spirit/Holy Spirit/Spirit of God, all synonyms of one another, was to accomplish two things, which Mr Yasin acknowledges, in the disciples: 1) to bring to their remembrance the things Jesus had taught them, and 2) to guide them into all truth.

Here's just one simple question to help further clarify the matter of the fulfillment of Jesus' words concerning the Comforter/Holy Spirit:

For John indeed baptized in water, but you will be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days from now. Acts 1:5

Question: What part of Jesus' words not many days from now would lead one to believe He meant His words would be fulfilled six centuries later with Muhammed? Is that the clear, simple understanding of the passage? Does that make any sense? No. It does not make sense.

Mr Yasin is free to take whatever understanding and stake whatever belief he chooses.  However, it is an understanding completely in opposition to the words spoken by Jesus. Regardless of any one reader's belief or conviction the application of the passage by Mr Yasin to anyone other than the Holy Spirit or a time other than the first century in the manner in which Mr Yasin applies it makes no clear, simple sense of the passage.

Read More

Royal Priesthood

The Royal Priesthood of Believers

The apostle Peter calls the body of believers a royal priesthood (I Peter 2:9) It is this priesthood, brothers and sisters of the faith that is in Christ Jesus, who have received a glorious calling to: offer up prayers, praise, edification of the body and the ministry of teaching and preaching. short version article

They proclaim the excellence of the Lord our God who called us out of darkness into his marvelous light. Yet, that is a call, specifically teaching and preaching, which has been fulfilled primarily by brothers in the faith in private and public gatherings.

Certainly, this is not for lack of will on the part of sisters in the faith.

Whether it is fear or lack of understanding; fear of what men and brethren might think and say or a lack of understanding of the scriptures it is not the triumph of the love that casts out fear.

The contributions of word studies, interpretations for and against the opposing views and terminologies are often lost to the preference and influence of culture. Teachers and preachers in the church often fail to see the abysmal shallowness of their default use of the culture trump card with their listeners. Yes, culture was an undeniable component in the first century but too often the reference to culture is to conceal our lack of understanding of scripture, or despite having that understanding, lacking in conviction. For example, gender inclusivity or women preachers rather than familiar, biblical terminology, of royal priesthood of believers. There are Greek language word study contributions which are excellent and abound in good number. Although these have been resourced and consulted they are not the focus of this contribution to the discussion. Readers are encouraged to consult those sources themselves. The apostolic phrase royal priesthood of believers is not bound by function or gender whether feeding widows or proclaiming the scriptures.

The apostles encountered great personal challenges. However, these personal challenges were always secondary to the preaching of the gospel and their concern for the saints. They taught the royal priesthood how we are to conduct ourselves in the assembly and what and how we are to teach and proclaim in the church and in the world. Ephesus represents that world grand stage, the cultural battlefield challenge, between the renown goddess Artemis with her temple priestesses and priests and the young church with her own royal priesthood of believers, her elders and a young minister named Timothy.

What do Paul's writings to Timothy and the church in Ephesus reveal about confronting the worship cult of Artemis for the priesthood of believers?

How does Paul confront the culture and worship of Artemis while building up the royal priesthood of believers?

How does Paul's defense in this match-up of beliefs impact the royal priesthood of believers?
Why did Paul forbid women to teach a man?

Why did he make a point about a woman exercising authority over a man?

The perspective of past and present in this discussion, with some references and allusions to other contributions to this discussion, will be on the church and the scriptures primarily. The authority of scripture and our understanding of that authority, not unsupported thoughts, opinions or sentiments is what produces conviction, confidence and boldness in our faith, life and ministry in the church now and for the future.

The ancient perspective of scripture

(A definition of perspective: The relationship of parts or points, [for example, past, present and future] to one another.) God established an ancient perspective in the Old Testament scriptures with the house of Jacob, the sons of Israel when God chose and called Israel a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. (Exodus 19:6) The selective Levitical priesthood established shortly afterwards under the law of Moses was exclusively all male. They were charged with leading Israel in prayer, praise, offering sacrifices and teaching the commandments and the law to Israel. The perspective of graphic lessons from the past of those who trifled, rebelled or usurped the word of the Lord are preserved in scripture for the royal priesthood.

The death of Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, who offered up strange fire is seared in the minds of those who minister to the people of God before the Lord. Uzzah was struck dead when he presumed to touch the ark of the covenant which not even the priests were permitted to touch. God was greatly displeased when Saul trifled the role of Samuel as the one designated by God to offer sacrifice. Saul offered the sacrifice when Samuel delayed his arrival. Although God was displeased with Saul the consequences were not unlike Moses' failure. Moses failed to honor God at Meribah and lost the honor of leading Israel across the Jordan into the promise land. Saul lost the honor of being king and was stripped of the kingdom. Saul and Moses were not struck dead for their respective failures before God. Lastly, Moses’ sister Miriam predates the Levitical priesthood. She did not die, but God struck her with leprosy because she presumed herself and Aaron on equal footing with Moses before God.

Although all priests were Levites, not all Levites were priests. This stricture as applied to the tribe of Levi precluded men from all other tribes in Israel from the priesthood. Even among the Levites who were qualified to serve in the temple with their brothers their duties were assigned accordingly to the families of Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. The all-male Levitical priesthood of the past was not an open door for all aspiring males. It was no less reverend towards scripture, the commandment of God, in its selection and service than is the present royal priesthood of believers.

The authority of truth in the scriptures

The sons and daughters of God revere the truth and authority of scripture saying, speak where the Bible speaks, keep silent where the Bible keeps silent. The inherent truth in the latter part of that phrase is often overlooked:

There is as much authority in the silence of the scriptures as when they speak

and require no less discernment by the saints.

Others think to determine as greater or lesser the weight of truth and the authority in scripture by the number of times or where that truth appears in the scriptures. Still others rule out study and discussion of what is clearly and indisputably stated in the scriptures. However, indisputable clarity of a passage does not preclude study and discussion of the word of God. The indisputably clear words of Jesus that the disciple is to cut out the eye or hand that causes him to stumble are no less clear than Paul’s words,

But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.

There’s a readiness to examine and explain the clarity of Jesus’ words for meaning, but a dismissal for similar examination and explanation of Paul’s words for their meaning.

It is important to note truth in the scriptures is not determined by the number of times it appears in the scriptures or its location in the scriptures.

The nominal number of times and location of some matters of doctrine in scripture is cited by some to diminish the importance of what the scriptures state. Other efforts to trump one truth over another is (as though the writers of the scriptures competed with each other) touting and positing classifications of historical narrative and doctrinal accounts against each other. Therefore, as an example, in this manner it is no less true that Philip's four daughters who were prophetesses  and (Acts 21:9) of whom the scriptures testify one time in the book of Acts, prophesied.

There is neither male nor female

Jesus did choose all men as apostles whom he sent into the world with an extraordinary task. However, neither their gender nor apostleship is unique in the royal priesthood of believers. What is unique about the apostles is not that they received the Holy Spirit as did the household of Cornelius, too. (Acts 15:8) What is unique about the apostles is that they received the ability to impart that gift through the laying on of their hands. This past perspective of the apostles as servants entrusted with a gift to impart gifts in the royal priesthood. The are reveal as being not unlike the Levites in the Levitical priesthood not for their gender, but in terms of their divine, select, assigned duties. The designation by Luke of Barnabus in Acts 14 and by Paul of Junias in Romans 16 as apostles is as inspired as it is undeniably true. However, the likelihood these individuals were sent by the apostles does not signify extended enrollment with the apostles and to associate the gender and apostle designations of these, Junias particularly, as an authoritative example for women preaching is as much a stretch as it is unnecessary.

It was the indwelling work of the Holy Spirit in these servants of Jesus to bring to their remembrance what Jesus had taught them and to guide them into all truth. The apostles did not exalt themselves on the basis of gender or their apostleship above the saints in Christ to whom they ministered.

What makes the apostles together with all the saints in Christ unique is not in the church herself. It is in the world who beholds this unique marvel of selfless servant love in the royal priesthood of believers it can not comprehend.

This royal priesthood in which there is neither male nor female is not bound or limited to ministry within four walls or only to those who enter those walls like the Levites with Israel. This royal priesthood, particularly in its proclamation, ministers to the church and in the world. The royal priesthood, its shepherds and body of believers, is no less selective than the Levitical priesthood in the matter of discerning those full of the Spirit called to minister before the congregation of the Lord. A divine pattern was established by the apostles when they called for the church to select men who were full of the Spirit, _ to serve widows. The word choice (man from anthros not males as from aner and similarly translated men from anthros in I Timothy 2:4 as meaning mankind) in Acts 6 by Peter is equivalent to calling for a selection of seven persons without regard to gender. The divine pattern was not that the chosen seven were males. Rather it was the prerequisite that they be full of the Spirit; the Spirit who was poured out on sons and daughters as prophesied in Joel 2 and fulfilled on Pentecost in Acts 2. The selection of seven males by the church may be more an reflection of a male-dominant culture and not as per the apostles stern instruction. We know the priority of evangelism by the apostles was not as though by mandate to undue or reverse gender status anymore than to dismantle institutionalized slavery.

Prophesy is for believers

Two key passages in the discussion concerning the ministry of teaching and preaching in and by the royal priesthood of believers are I Corinthians 11, 14 and I Timothy 2. The epistle to the Ephesians is of vital importance, too.

Paul instructed the Christians in Corinth a woman is to keep silent in the assembly. This was equally true and authoritative as when he admonished those with the gift of tongues. If an interpreter was absent to interpret the message for the church they were to keep silent. Prophets were to sit and wait their turn to address the assembly. Paul's reference to the women as wives suggests they were probably directing questions to the prophets, their husbands, who were prophesying before the assembly. It was simply an improper interaction by wives with their husbands in the context of the assembly. It would have been equally improper for the husband to interact with his wife while she was prophesying (see I Corinthians 11:5) before the congregation. It is in response to this situation that Paul says wives can direct their questions to their husbands at home. It would be just as improper for an elder or other male to interrupt the speaker with questions and create a scene of chaos and confusion among those present. Even if the speaker were to deliver a false teaching the leadership can address and instruct the congregation afterwards without grandstanding or making a spectacle.

It is plausible Philip's daughters were of like-mind with their father in matters of the kingdom of heaven. They may well have received the gift of prophesy through the laying of the apostles' hands perhaps at the same time as their father received the gift (Acts 6:5, 8:6,7) to cast out spirits and heal the lame. Furthermore, it is as reasonable to conclude that they prophesied in the assembly of the saints. (see I Corinthians 11:5) Some have wondered whether Philip's daughters exercised their gift of prophecy in the assembly. However, that speculation is contrary to what Paul states about the gift of prophecy.

Therefore other languages are for a sign, not to those who believe, but to the unbelieving; but prophesying is for a sign, not to the unbelieving, but to those who believe I Corinthians 14:22

Paul's point is that the gift of prophecy was to be used among believers. Those believers to whom that gifted person was to prophesy could well have been outside of the assembly. However, the context speaks of the assembly of the royal priesthood and it is here that the one with the gift of prophecy was to speak also. We have decorum in the church. We expect and encourage question and answer and discussion in the Bible study class from men and women, believers and non-believers alike, but not during the preaching of the word. The Corinthian worship assembly tended towards chaos and disorder and it is in this matter that Paul gives his instructions for men and women.

Confronting the cult worship of Artemis of the Ephesians - - Fighting with beasts in Ephesus

Paul was concerned about what non-believers might think about the chaos and disorder of the Corinthian assembly. He was just as concerned about Timothy's challenge in Ephesus. Paul stayed in Ephesus at least two years (Acts 19:10) and became keenly aware of life in that city. That challenge was none other than the culture and worship of Artemis of the Ephesians. It is with these observations and experiences in Ephesus in mind that Paul wrote his epistles. He wrote two to Timothy and one to the same church where Timothy ministered. Timothy ministered in the shadow of one of the seven wonders of the world: The temple of Artemis, huntress and protectress of wild beasts.

The myth and worship which developed around Artemis (or Diana) is too diverse and not the focus here. Historical sources attribute three beliefs in Artemis which were common in various regions, cultures and languages: 1) the succession of kings, 2) savior of virgin girls and women, and 3) she came from heaven. Additionally, in response to the killing of a bear by local citizens Artemis punished the people. The people killed the bear for killing a virgin girl. Artemis retaliated angrily by commanding that thereafter virgin girls were to serve in her temple. The New Testament scriptures testify of the frenzied devotion (Acts 19) of the Ephesians towards Artemis in Asia and the world and that she was regarded as sent from heaven. The following may well be Paul's insights to enlighten the eyes of the hearts of the saints at Ephesus on the Spirit message of the gospel to these Artemis cult beliefs.

Artemis was believed to ensure the succession of kings:

Jesus is the King I Timothy 1:17

Jesus is the blessed and only sovereign King of kings and Lord of lords I Timothy 6:15

The saints are to make intercession for kings and all who are in authority I Timothy 2:2

Artemis was believed to be the savior of virgins and women:

God our savior I Timothy 1:1

Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners I Timothy 1:15

God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved I Timothy 2:3, 4

The wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus II Timothy 3:15

Artemis was believed she fell down from heaven:

The great Artemis, and of the image which fell down from heaven (Acts 19:35)

(Now this expression, “He ascended,” what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.) Ephesians 4:9,10

It is reasonable to expect that with Paul having spent two years in Ephesus, his ties with Timothy in Ephesus and the fellowship of newborn believers of the faith in Christ Jesus in Ephesus that Paul knew he must confront the culture and worship of Artemis. Like the apostle John when he wrote the book of Revelation Paul may have been cryptic in his writings to the Ephesus church praying that the eyes of your hearts may be enlightened so as to not provoke hostilities against the church from wild beasts unleashed by their protectress Artemis against Paul himself.

Paul’s reference to wild beasts (I Corinthians 15:32) is likely a metaphor for men. Artemis’ wild beasts may have been restrained by the city clerk in Acts 19, but it is likely Paul had various encounters with those wild beasts. Whatever Paul suffered at the hands of those wild beasts would have been gladly endured if it meant his brethren in Christ at Ephesus were spared. The city clerk’s testimony of Paul indicates that the apostle was not as iconoclastic in deed as was his preaching and writing against the beliefs of Artemis' worshipers in Ephesus.

The apostle's writings are a prudent, but bold in-your-face confrontation of beliefs in Artemis of Ephesus to build up the faithful in Christ Jesus, (Ephesians 1:1) the royal priesthood of believers.

1. It is Jesus who is the only sovereign King eternal, immortal and invisible, appointed by God, not Artemis or man. There no successors to His throne.

2. It is our Savior Jesus who rose from the dead who desires salvation not for women only, as did Artemis, but for all men (mankind).

Salvation is what Jesus our King obtained for all mankind when he descended to earth, much as Artemis was believed to have fallen or been sent from the god Jupiter.

3. Unlike Artemis, Jesus ascended back to heaven after giving gifts to his church for her ministry in Ephesus and the world.

Paul's writings are lavished with two realities in the life of the believer in Christ which were in sharp contrast to the worship of Artemis: love and temple

The ransom of love

The roots of anger ran deep in the worship of Artemis. It was in anger that she had commanded the devotion and service of virgin girls in her temple. This was her punishment of the people for the killing of a bear. Is it any wonder why Paul makes as many references to anger in the Ephesians letter? What a contrasting message that our Heavenly Father should determine before the foundation of the world our redemption in the Beloved. (Ephesians 1:6-8) This he did while we were murderers of men, not bears, blasphemers and like Paul, persecutors. God demonstrated his love through the ransom (I Timothy 2:6) of our lives through his Son. He ransomed us with his own blood as a royal priesthood, a holy nation for his own possession

A dwelling of God in the Spirit

We focus rightfully, on Ephesians 2 for the abolishing of the law of Moses and believers in Christ becoming children of God and citizens of the kingdom. However, the Gentiles in Ephesus who obeyed the gospel knew the first hand experience of being strangers and aliens. They traveled from distant regions to Ephesus to come worship at the temple of Artemis before coming to know Jesus as Lord and Savior. The apostles' message of grace was as much as an eighth wonder of the world for these wayfaring strangers. They heard salvation as the gift of grace from God and that believers in Jesus were now of God's household . . . growing into a holy temple in the Lord . . . who are being built together into the dwelling of God in the Spirit. (Ephesians 2:19-22)

I Timothy 2 - - During the time of war in the Artemis female-dominated Ephesus

The apostle Paul was not timid about making concessions and taking actions as necessary in the preaching of the gospel. He had a keen sense of himself as a soldier at war. He had Timothy circumcised (16:3) to prevent that from being an obstacle among the Jews. He received money from the churches in Macedonia (see Acts 17:1,14, 18:5, Philippians 4:15) shortly after he arrived in Corinth. (Acts 18:1) Later, this was turned against him for not taking money from Corinth (II Corinthians 11:6-9) when he first arrived there preaching the gospel without charge. Yet, Paul was firm to state he would do it again. (II Corinthians 11:12) It was what needed to be done. Paul’s message to Timothy is in the time of war.

2:8 I desire therefore that the men in every place pray, lifting up holy hands without anger and doubting. 2:9 In the same way, that women also adorn themselves in decent clothing, with modesty and propriety; not just with braided hair, gold, pearls, or expensive clothing; 2:10 but (which becomes women professing godliness) with good works. 2:11 Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. 2:12 But I don’t permit a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be in quietness. 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 2:14 Adam wasn’t deceived, but the woman, being deceived, has fallen into disobedience; 2:15 but she will be saved through her childbearing, if they continue in faith, love, and sanctification with sobriety.

In Ephesus Paul instructed the men to pray lifting holy hands that the saints might live in peace. Ephesus was a spiritual battleground for Paul, Timothy and the church. A gesture of hands raised heavenward was a contrast to the figure of Artemis with outstretched arms as if to receive or as to exert her power to hold down those under her authority.

It is in the context of this war zone dominated by the female cult figure Artemis and her priestesses and priests that Paul speaks concerning women in I Timothy.

The topics of king (ship), salvation and a fall concerning Artemis in these writings were more than mere discussion points. These are the reasons a soldier goes into battle in service to the king, to save his country and topple the enemy.

The Artemis cult was not limited to Ephesus. It represented an enormously, vast, dominant belief among the Gentiles. It required no less wisdom and resourcefulness from Paul than when he preached to the Jews. As a Christian Paul was no longer bound or obligated to the law of Moses. Yet, he maintained respect towards Jewish customs (hair vow, Acts 18:18) and the temple practices being mindful to not cause offense. (Acts 21:26) These measures taken by Paul were not done as under compulsion or as a requirement of faith. These were not without distortions, accusations and repercussions against him from those who did not understand his actions. He was all things to all men in order that he might win some for Christ; to accomplish the greater goal.

I Timothy 2 – Instructing women in the Artemis female-dominated war zone of Ephesus

The foremost problem for Timothy in Ephesus involved men who engaged in discussions and teachings of myths, genealogies and speculations and knew not, Paul said, what they were talking about. It had the potential of turning the Ephesus church into another Corinth in terms of chaos and confusion. His stern instruction to the women at Ephesus was with the prayerful, confident expectation the saints in Christ would understand, especially after reading the Ephesians letter penned by an apostle whose priority in the battle was to topple the Artemis cult.

Under these circumstances this was not the time to include women teachers in the church at Ephesus. The female-dominated Artemis culture could well have produced a scene of chaos and confusion in the church not unlike those Ephesian mob stirred up by Demetrius.

The subjection with which a woman is to learn is not unlike the subjection, or the mutual submission to which all believers are called to live towards one another. Paul elaborates on that in his letter to the Ephesians. The likely reason for this explicit instruction for women to learn in subjection and not to exercise authority over a man is in the context of war. The divine examples of submission from Jesus and the apostles serve to remind our sisters and brothers in the first century and us submission is not only per our initiative or when it is convenient or requested of us, but when it is commanded of us too. The subjection of our sisters in Ephesus represented a showcase display for Artemis worshipers. The display was that submission to the authority of the one sovereign King and to one another is done willingly between men and women. There is no telling the magnitude of the impact their subjection caused, but it is a fact of history the church gained ground on the Artemis cult and triumphed over it eventually.

The common interpretation of a perpetual silence restriction on sisters in the royal priesthood of believers must be viewed and tested and in the light of Paul’s instruction to be silent in the I Corinthians 14, the I Timothy 2 passages, and the Ephesians letter. Paul did not contradict himself because God is not the God of confusion. The Artemis cult situation in Ephesus was external to the church, but addressed internally within the church. The situation in Corinth was internal, but concerned the probable impression on non-believers and was addressed internally in the church.

Note: There is a unique, if not ironic, directive which involved the apostle Paul and Ephesus. It is unique because it is not given by a man (as in the case of the directive against women teaching men given by the inspired apostle Paul in I Timothy) and the directive itself. The directive is stated twice, the first as from the Holy Spirit, the second as from the Spirit of Jesus. It is ironic because it was in Asia where Paul delivered the no less powerful directive against women teaching. Paul and his companions were “forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word . . .” and “. . . the Spirit of Jesus did not permit them . . .” (Acts 16:6,7) to proclaim in Asia the region and location of Ephesus. Although Paul was obedient to the Holy Spirit and passed through Asia without stopping, went on to Macedonia, Athens, Corinth then Ephesus there is no mention in the scriptures of the directive being removed. Yet, we confidently understand and accept the directive was removed. The apostle Paul arrived in Ephesus and began a teaching and preaching ministry proclaiming the gospel and building up the royal priesthood which marked the beginning of the downfall of the Artemis cult.

Paul's indication that women (such as Philip's four daughters) prophesied in the assembly is not nullified or dismissed by the I Timothy 2 passage. It is significant that Paul speaks of the creation and deception of Adam and Eve in the past tense. However, he speaks in the present active indicative that woman has fallen into disobedience, or transgression. That transgression remains to the present as Paul writes. It would be a travesty on the scriptures and upon the royal priesthood of believers were we to conclude this present active indicative is Paul's belabored point of woman’s disobedience is of our sisters in the faith and not of Artemis.

Point: Artemis was a female figure who fell, or was sent, from heaven as was believed by her worshipers, into her own and her worshipers' disobedience against the true living God. It is a disobedience which remains today and cannot be overlooked or underestimated because worship of idols and idolatry is fundamentally disobedience to the living God.

Both the woman and the man are saved from their sins through faith in Jesus, not Artemis. Woman is saved, that is, she is healthy and complete when she bears children, not saved by rendering temple service from her childhood years as a virgin until her temple service was fulfilled, she married and bore children. The mythology of Artemis was that she was born first than assisted her mother with the birth of her twin brother Apollos. Paul sets the record straight. It was Adam who was first created by God. Adam was not birthed by woman. Then came Eve into God's creation. Paul is not interested in putting down ours sisters in the faith by reminding us of the fall of mankind in the garden. He was not interested in denigrating himself and his fellow apostles when he wrote they had been made as the filth of this world. (I Corinthians 4:13) Rather, his point was to accentuate the grace of God and Paul's love for his readers as his beloved children. It may be tempting to read into this some form of requirement for all women to bear children along with endless speculations about barren women, etc. There's no such requirement, no such speculation necessary.

Conclusion

The Pharisees (Matthew 12) condemned the disciples for something as seemingly mundane as picking heads of grain. They were hungry. It was the Sabbath. Jesus challenged the Pharisees on their interpretation of the scriptures. Specifically, Jesus called their attention to the work the priests performed on the Sabbath. The Pharisees' established traditions prohibiting work on the Sabbath had invalidated the commandment of God. Thereby, according the traditions of the Pharisees as interpreted and applied by Jesus, the priests broke the law. Their interpretation of the scripture was at the expense of compassion and mercy towards the hungry disciples.

The disciples unwittingly cast themselves in the same lot with David and his companions. None of them were priests. This lesson concerning priests and priestly duties as put forth by Jesus speaks of the authority of scripture and non-priests in something as seemingly mundane as, _ eating. The lesson is that it is the authority of scripture which exalts man above ritual in his moment of hunger and his need to eat and to be fed. Certainly, this holds true of the bread that perishes as well as the bread that leads to eternal life. The Pharisees, presumably those expected to know the scriptures, had overlooked the disciples' need to feed their hunger.

What is the humble task of the royal priesthood of believers in which there is neither male nor female if it isn't to feed the Word of God to the hungry? How is the condemnation of anyone called to feed the word of God to his people on the basis of gender different than the Pharisees' condemnation of the disciples, and by Jesus' application, of David and his companions?

There were many disciples, men and women, who walked with Jesus alongside those whom he would send as apostles later. It is the apostles who stand out. Mary Magdalene, a woman and a later disciple, stands out. She has the seemingly insignificant designation and honor in scripture of being the first to proclaim Jesus had risen from the dead. This human, worldly response she received from the apostles was no surprise to the Father. The world had done no less with his Son.

When the scriptures are not the principle source for our word choice in forming and conveying our convictions concerning women teaching and preaching in the church we succumb to the preferences and influences of culture. Culture has become the favored, all-nullifying vague buzz word in ministry to cover lack of understanding and conviction in matters of doctrine in the scriptures. The apostle Paul's tactics on the Artemis worship culture in Ephesus represents the ultimate, not counter culture, but Spirit-guided strategy for the church, the royal priesthood, to emulate in her ministry into the cultures of the world. Whether those preferences and influences of culture are right or wrong they cannot and must not be allowed to detract or displace the significance of biblical guidance on the teaching and preaching ministry in the royal priesthood.

Certainly, there are those, like Timothy, willing, trained, competent, and most importantly called to minister before the Lord’s people. Today Timothy would probably not be looked down upon for his youth nor for his gender, _ provided, given our cultural climate, the local church where he ministered practiced and maintained politically correct gender equality. There are, to be sure, church leaders with firm convictions defined not by fear, but unless they possess an ability and willingness to declare their knowledge of those convictions the Spirit is able to reveal what is in the hearts of men. The absence of knowledge and conviction is hardly exemplary of the royal priesthood, of Spirit-filled believers and those who have had the eyes of their heart enlightened.

This is not a matter for the church to allow herself to fall into chaos and confusion. Fulfillment of the call to teach and preach is not limited to the limelight of the Bible study or the worship assembly. There are online resources including blogs, communities, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and more. Teach the scriptures, not culture-speak, to communicate the call to ministry in the body of Christ. Fear and lack of understanding have a way of robbing the heart of its boldness and confidence, first within the four walls of our study and worship gatherings and second, when we go out ill-equipped in the Spirit to minister in the world.

Flooding this discussion with a barrage of unanswerable and unanswered questions and exchanging one-liners can not pass for knowledge or understanding in the royal priesthood. Comparisons on the eloquence or genetic makeup between priests and priestesses or simply feeling called and being self-assured of God's love are hardly fitting responses from anyone who stands before the congregation of the people of God.

Perfect love casts out fear. Every generation must see for itself whether it will be bound by the fears of what men might say or do as or take confidence in Peter's words, Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, judge for yourselves . . .

The Lord bless His people, the royal priesthood of brothers and sisters who offer up prayers, praise, edification of the body and the ministry of teaching and preaching the word of God privately and publicly.

Read More

Book sparks charges of heresy

This is my comment on the CNN Belief Blog on Rob Bell's book.

The thing about firestorm limelight and cloister lighting is neither one is of much use for enlightening, only for igniting the masses to a frenzy. I have not read Bell's book, but I readily reject any teaching which dismisses hell as the place of eternal torment. About as useful as igniting the masses is the use of labels such as Universalism, Conservative, etc.
At best this could represent a mis-guided failed effort to understand the biblical expression which spans the entire history of man in the sight of God: The righteous shall live by faith. At worse, it is a rejection of hell altogether. The stated trend of Bell asking tough questions is as familiar a tactic as it is unconvincing and smacks of flakiness.

This popular tactic is what dazzles and impresses the uninformed that the questioner must surely have the knowledge and understanding on these matters when in fact that could be (and often is) the farthest thing from the truth. This is made evident in the sampling of Bell's own questions regarding Ghandi, billions and billions of people, and, the stark revelation of his own ignorance -a man who stands before the congregation of the Lord- : . . . how do you become one of the few?

Read More

Sorcery and Rebellion: One coin, two sides

A few years ago a shared a little thought with a co-worker. I just shared the same thought at our men's meeting this morning. She was on her way to transfer to UT Austin to continue her study program in pharmacology. I asked her if she was familiar with how the New Testament translates sorcery. I explained that of the works of the flesh listed in by the apostle Paul in Galatians 5 it is the word pharmakia translated in English as sorcery from which we derive the word pharmacy. She was shocked.

My point was not to say or suggest pharmacy or medical drugs are sorcery. Rather, the point is that in God's eyes anything used as a mind-altering substance to induce a state either to escape life's problems or to pursue access to the knowledge of God in ways other than he has given is sorcery. Again, this is not to say a person on anti-depression medication is escaping life's problems or engaging in sorcery. The measure and balance in their use of that medication and their engagement in life is evidence their interest is not in the manner of sorcery.

There is another connection which Samuel (I Samuel 15:23) made with sorcery, or witchcraft. It is rebellion. Our human nature, the flesh, always wants to justify itself among men and before God. For example, someone will say their rare and occassional use of drugs is as prescribed and for a strictly limited time. They do not engage in seances or occult practices. These are not the problem. What is the problem is the rebellion in which they engage. Rebellion may not be towards man, but Samuel said to king Saul the proof of Saul's rebellion, or witchcraft was that Saul had rejected the word of Yahweh. Here again, the flesh, our human nature, speaks up to justify the individual:

I believe in God.

Rebellion is what Adam and Eve, who believed God, engaged in against God. This they did under the lead of the grand Deceiver himself, Satan. He was the first drug (sorcery, pharmakia) peddler when he deceived them (and isn't this the original peddlers' line, "I dare you") to take and eat of the forbidden fruit and not only gain access to God, but become like God.

How does sorcery/rebellion enter the heart of the disciple and and take over his life to ruin and destruction? It begans ever so subtley. It's the old adage, familiarity breeds contempt. What that means is to make light of the word of God so familiar to the disciple. The contempt it breeds is when the disciple has failed to be viligent and diligent with what he has been entrusted: the word of God. Again, isn't this what Adam and Eve did when they listened to Satan? Sorcery and rebellion are as two sides of the same coin. Either way you lose.

The Holy Spirit calls. Listen to him.

Read More

I Am Amazed

I have often stated I am amazed at how similar the staunchest faith fundamentalist and hardcore atheists speak so similarly. What I mean by that is they shoot off the same old ridicule snippets, absurdities which would make their own brethren cringe.

There's something, too, which I find quite similar. It is their common tactic of resorting to "we can't understand" when they find themselves unable to follow-through on their initial one-liners. Each has their favorite what I call "word condiments" to season there speech. You can readily recognize these: faith and belief from one group versus logic and reason from the other. Those of you not familiar with atheists' approach to discussions may be surprised to learn, but you need only read a few online thread discussions to see for yourselves. This may be difficult to imagine given the stereotype many theists have of atheists that they are so intelligent. Intelligence is great and to be desired and attained, but it is no excuse for ignorance and it doesn't cover up ignorance. It only dilutes ignorance.

I want to clarify. As a theist and disciple of Jesus as the Son of God, I too hold many elements of faith in common with these same fundamentalists. I should clarify further my use of the term is only as the world uses it. I would most certainly fit in their description of fundamentalist. What is it than that makes these two so seemingly different mindsets speak so similarly?

I am persuaded many individuals from these different groups merely parrot what they hear, though not necessarily understand, from their revered leaders heavily ladened with academic credentials. Case in point. Last night I was doing some research. I was listening to one such multi-degreed brother in the faith who stated he was currently pursing his doctorate. He stated three generally accepted, well-known approaches to the study of scripture: 1) culture, 2) study of the original text, and 3) overall view our understanding and application of scripture. Yet, after making his point about how people push passages of scripture aside as being of less value than other passages the scholar does the same himself.

Speaking on the passages in I Timothy and I Corinthians on women which he regards as difficult to understand, he falters. He argues these passages to not reveal the nature of God and effectively pushes these passages aside as being of less value than others. There's no telling how many would have/have taken his words to parrot them like good fundamentalists. I would argue an approach which diminishes and devalues the importance of any scripture is seriously questionable.

I like the name Ravi Zacharias has taken for his radio program, "Let My People Think." Preaching need not be a regular delving deeply into original word meanings, but it can, and I would argue, is best when the people of God are taught, encouraged, allowed and challenged to think. This is precisely what Jesus did by teaching the people through parables. Then fundamentalists, or disciples, will be able to speak with conviction and understanding those things they have heard expounded by men and women of God for the instruction and edification of believers. That's more than amazing. That's to the glory of God.

Read More