Does God Still Speak to Us Today?

Christians have many different views on how God speaks to His followers today.  Let's look at four ways God has spoken to His people, and I'll share my opinions on whether each of those still happens today.  I encourage you to pipe in via the comments section - there are certainly many additional ways God speaks to us, and plenty of relevant verses for those and the ones listed here.  Stories of personal experience are also welcome. :-)

His Word (the Bible)

Obviously, all of us here agree that God speaks to His followers through the Bible - His direct revelation to mankind - so we don't need to substantiate this one.

In addition to hearing what He has to say by reading each passage quite literally, sometimes while reading Scripture, a verse or passage will jump out as applying to our own situation, even if it's a different context - that's the Holy Spirit drawing our attention to a lesson He has for us.  So, the Bible can do double-duty.

When "hearing" from God in any other capacity (prophecy, dreams, etc.), the Bible should always be the standard by which we judge the accuracy of what we hear.  All other means besides the Bible have the possibility of external/subjective faults, but the Bible stands.  If something does not line up with Scripture, no matter how much you think it's from God, reject it.  See Romans 16:17.

Prophecy

Some Christians believe that the Church no longer includes prophets, and that the gift of prophecy was only for the Early Church since they did not yet have an actual Bible through which to hear from God.  I respectfully disagree.

First off, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation are accepted as the last New Testament books written.  1 John 4:1 refers to false prophets, and Revelation's letter to Thyatira, which was written literally to a then-contemporary church, also references a specific false prophetess.  Note that neither of these portray listening to prophets as wrong, but rather listening to prophets without testing them to make sure they're really from God.  In other words, it is 100% reasonable to interpret it that there were, indeed, genuine prophets when these letters were written.  Add to this that, since those books were written last (and significantly later than the others, at that), that means the Christians had access to all the rest of what we call the New Testament!  So, in my mind, prophets serving only as a temporary replacement for yet-nonexistent Scripture doesn't fly.

Second, Joel 2:28-29 foretells: "It will come about after this That I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind; And your sons and your daughters will prophesy, Your old men will dream dreams, Your young men will see visions.  Even on the male and female servants I will pour out My Spirit in those days."  In Acts 2:14-18, Peter signals that the initial fulfillment of that prophecy had just occurred.  Because of this and some references by Jesus, many Bible teachers classify the "End Times" as starting with Jesus's first coming to Earth - meaning, no matter how far away the actual end of the world is, we are living in the End Times (which the above prophecy also refers to) right now.  So, since the Old Testament prophecy guaranteeing prophets was initially fulfilled in the early church and we're still under that same criteria, I say there are still true prophets in the Church.

However, tread carefully - the Bible has much to say about the dangers of false prophets, and how careful we need to be in testing false prophets!

Dreams

Does God still speak to us in dreams?  Well, since the Joel prophecy above also mentions dreams, yes. :-)

However, in both the Old and New Testaments, dreams were not common by any means.  There are plenty of recorded instances, yes, but God spoke that way to a few individuals, not everyone by any means.  It also wasn't like He spoke to those individuals that way frequently.  So even though God could still speak through dreams today, that doesn't mean it will happen often, or to all believers.

Some people, pulling from the story of (the Old Testament) Joseph where both he and Pharaoh have seemingly random dreams and it turns out it's God speaking to them, think that all dreams come from God.  I disagree.  In the other Scriptural instances where God speaks to someone in a dream, it is extremely apparent that it is a vision from God, not just some random dream for them to read into.  With that context, I believe the dreams in the Joseph story had very apparent spiritual causes to the people involved, but were more symbolic in nature than some of the cut-and-dry dreams, like those of the New Testament Joseph.

So, my personal opinion is that if God's speaking to you in a dream, you'll know it; you shouldn't take every dream you have and try to read some spiritual meaning into it.

Speaking "Verbally," in our Hearts

Some Christians, myself included, believe that since the Holy Spirit lives inside us, giving us a far greater connection to God than the people in the Old Testament, we can sometimes "hear" God's voice speaking to our hearts by praying and then just waiting in His presence for Him to speak to us.  What is "heard" can be a non-worded sense of the correct course of action, or sometimes even words such as Scriptures the Holy Spirit brings to mind.

The above is (in my opinion) totally in line with Scriptural principle, and it is further supported if you take literally John 10:27-28, "My sheep [us] hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand."

However, some take this to an extreme I don't agree with - every person in a church having a "word" from God to share with the congregation each week.  It's one thing to set apart a time in a church service for people to share what God has taught them each week (that's wonderful!); it's another to cross the line into thinking every person is a prophet.  Approach such situations with wariness to be sure it hasn't crossed that line.

What about you?  What stories can you share of God speaking to you through these - or other - ways?  What views do you have, and relevant Scriptures can you think of, that relate to the topics above?  What other means can you think of through which God speaks to us?

Are All Types of Christian Music Okay?

Here in the West, there are two divisions of Christian music: "Traditional Christian Music," including hymns and even really old stuff like Gregorian chants, and "Contemporary Christian Music," including rock, rap/hip-hop, and metal with specifically Christian lyrics.  A lot of people have their personal favorites and get kind of nasty toward others who don't share their view.  Let's look at some pros and cons of a prominent example from each division.

Hymns - Pros

Many hymns' lyrics are theological statements, which serve to teach the worshippers while they're worshipping, and solidify those truths in their minds.

Hymns lyrics are usually focused on God, not on the singer's emotional interactions with that God - causing some people to feel that hymns are more humble worship.

Hymns - Cons

Hymns are sometimes hard for modern people to relate to, since activities they reference and vocabulary they feature don't mesh with modern life - distracting the worshippers.

The hymns most often chosen to be sung are often...kind of...indistinguishable.  Many have the exact same message, phrased very similarly.

Christian Rock - Pros

The fast beat and emphasized lyrics are powerful, evoking passion in the worshippers.

These songs are easy to learn, and are more likely to be played in other circumstances besides church (such as on a worshipper's iPod or in a Christian-owned business), meaning more worship time and more opportunity for unbelievers to hear them.

Christian Rock - Cons

For some people, the music itself creates a false emotional experience, turning worship of God into pseudo-idolatry.  This is complicated by rock's roots in some very anti-Christian bands (although many hymns are set to tunes that were originaly bar songs, so depending on your perspective, rock's roots may be an non-issue).

Christian rock is often centered on the singers' emotional interactions with God instead of on God Himself, which is good for emphasizing relationship, but the frequency causes a loss of reverence.

My firm opinion is that neither division of Christian music is right or wrong - it is 100% a heart issue.  The pros or cons of either division can completely disappear in an individual's case depending on their heart.

Ideally, we should be able to worship God no matter if the music playing is "our taste" or not - because if the music affects our ability to worship, then we're not truly worshipping God.  But that certainly doesn't mean we can't have preferences!   

The big thing is to absolutely not judge another believer for their Christian music preference - ever!  (See Romans 14.)  And I mean that for both sides of the spectrum!  You don't know their heart, motivations, or reasoning.

Personally, I notice that we are told to sing to the Lord a new song, but that we are also given examples in the Psalms of old songs eternalized in Scripture.  There is also quite a range of emotion in the Psalms, from joyous praises to gut-wrenching pleas.  With all of this in mind, I personally enjoy and worship to songs from all across the spectrum - hymns and Christian metal are interwoven in my playlists.

Here's one final loop to throw into this issue: the doctrine of Common Grace.  It gained prominence with the Protestant Reformation, and its basic idea is just that since God created everything, and that "every good and perfect gift is from above," anything good (and pure) in the world is a picture of God's goodness and is cause for giving glory to Him.  This meant that everyday activities such as going to work were honoring to God, and that something like a painting, piece of technology, or song could be a cause to glorify God.  For example, some of the great classical symphonies put me in a very worshipful mood, not because I'm idolizing the composer, but because I'm so in awe of the God who created the existance of beauty and created the human mind to create and appreciate it.  Some people like this doctrine, others don't, and once again, I think it comes down to where your heart is at - people who cannot view it in that light shouldn't be judged, and neither should those who can.

What are your thoughts on this topic?  Can you think of more pros or cons to either division?  What type of Christian music is your favorite?  How does common grace "sit" with you?
(Please remember to be considerate toward whatever view is opposite of yours, regardless of whether or not you share my view.  I don't accept rudeness and judgmentalism even if I agree with the other points behind it.)

Sensitive Issues with Demons - : Matthew 17:14-21

The Scripture Passage

 

14 When they came to the crowd, a man came up to Jesus, falling on his knees before Him and saying,

 

15 "Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is a lunatic and is very ill; for he often falls into the fire and often into the water.

 

16 "I brought him to Your disciples, and they could not cure him."

 

17 And Jesus answered and said, "You unbelieving and perverted generation, how long shall I be with you?  How long shall I put up with you?  Bring him here to Me."

 

18 And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him, and the boy was cured at once.

 

19 Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, "Why could we not drive it out?"

 

20 And He said to them, "Because of the littleness of your faith; for truly I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.

 

21 ["But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting."]

 

Was He Really Possessed, or Just Crazy?

 

The boy in this story was a "lunatic" - someone completely out of his mind and who was a danger to himself.  Because the Bible identifies the source of his insanity as a demon, some people take one of two extreme views (both of which are Biblically inaccurate) of the situation.

 

First, some claim that New Testament people misunderstood psychological illness as demon possession, that this mistake was further committed by the Gospel writers, and that Jesus either (as a man living at that time) believed the same or just went along with their belief that it was a demon even though he knew it wasn't.  However, there are a couple major problems with this view: (1) One of the central beliefs of genuine Christianity is that the Bible is fully inspired by God and has absolutely no errors (see 2 Timothy 3:16-17).  Therefore, to say that the Gospel writers made a mistake would be to wander into dangerous, cultish territory.  (I won't spend much time on whether or not Jesus, in His human state in which He temporarily gave up His power to know everything, could have made such a mistake because exactly how much Jesus did and did not know while on Earth is an endless debate...I'll just leave it at: I personally do not believe such a mistake would have been possible for Him because, although He gave up His ability to know everything, He maintained deep knowledge of spiritual matters, and this falls into that category.)  (2)  If you read through the accounts of healings and castings-out in the Gospels, some maladies are identified as actual physical problems, in which case Christ healed them, and other maladies are identified as demonic manifestations, in which case Christ cast the demon out.  The distinction is made in Scripture, so clearly, some illnesses (physical or psychological) are truly caused by demonic possessions.

 

The Second dangerous viewpoint is that all psychological problems are caused by demons; in other words, the view is that if you suffer from depression, or obsessive compulsive disorder, or schizophrenia, or epilepsy, or bipolar disorder, or have a clown phobia, or whatever, you are possessed by a demon.  I take extreme issue with this view, as well.  (1) In the Gospels, demons aren't just the cause of psychological maladies, they also cause physical illnesses and handicaps.  So, to say demons cause all psychological problems would require you to say that they cause all physical problems - and that circles back to what we discussed above, how Scripture makes it absolutely clear that some problems are caused by demons, and others are not.  The fact of the matter is, we live in a fallen world where people get diseases and handicaps and disorders because humanity is sinful and fallen, not because of demons.  (2)  Plenty of believers have psychological problems.  As I have mentioned a few times before, there is not a single Scriptural indication I'm aware of that Christians can become possessed, and I think there are even direct hints in Scripture that it cannot happen.  If all psychological problems were the result of demonic possession, no Christian would ever suffer from them.

 

So, to sum up: Some problems really are caused by demons (so don't just write these accounts off as an antiquated, pre-medical way of thinking), but all of them certainly are not (so if someone you know is suffering from a psychological malady, don't think they're possessed).

 

When Should a Christian Cast Out a Demon?

 

The issue of casting out demons itself is another issue of stark polarity, ranging from, "We don't really see a lot of possessions in America...and it scares me, so I just don't want to think about it!" to "Every single problem in every person's life is caused by demons, so I cast 'em out five times a day!"  It's an issue I've mulled over in my mind and searched out in Scripture for about the past four years, and I've finally focused on a couple of indications in Scripture that seem to be really relevant guidelines.

 

First, in every case in the Gospels I can find where Jesus casts out a demon, it is specifically stated that the possessed person's friends or relatives brought that person to Jesus to get the demon cast out.  The only exception to this that I'm aware of is in Mark 5:1-20, in which the possessed man sees Jesus from a distance and runs up to Him specifically to talk to Him.  So, it doesn't seem like every time Jesus saw a possessed person, He cast it out - rather, they or someone they loved seemed to desire for release from the demon, and then He cast it out.  It's kind of like how in Luke 11:24-26 if a person gets a demon cast out of them and there's no change in their life, the demon will just come back.  Think about it - if a demon is cast out of a Satanist, and they keep worshipping Satan, of course it makes sense that they'll just get possessed again.

 

Another telling example is in Acts 16:16-18, in which a demon possessed girl follows Paul for a number of days, shouting as he tries to preach - and he doesn't cast the demon out until he becomes "greatly annoyed" at the end of "many days."  Now, wouldn't you think that if we were supposed to cast out demons whenever we encountered them (instead of when someone specifically asked for the casting-out), Paul would have cast out the demon right away?  But he didn't.  He only did, finally, when it seems the demon possessed person was impeding his ministry.

 

So, the tentative conclusion I've arrived at so far is this: Believers are not intended to cast out any demon they encounter willy-nilly, but rather in cases where the possessed person or their friends/family specifically wants freedom from the demon, or where the demonic possession is interfering with a ministry.

 

Can a Demon Possess a CHILD?

 

In this story, the son's age is not indicated - he could easily be an adult (the same is true in Matthew 15:21-28).  So, with the vagueness in those examples, we have no Biblical indication that children either can or cannot become demon possessed.

 

But here's the thing.  Although different Christian branches and denominations hold to specific "ages of accountability" at which point a child becomes old enough to comprehend issues like sin and salvation, no such age appears anywhere in Scripture.  Now, that doesn't mean that the principle isn't perhaps valid (here is a fascinating discussion of that issue at GotQuestions.org), just that it is absolutely wrong to assign some specific man-determined age.  I personally have seen some children seem to grasp the Gospel as five and others not able to until they were just into their double-digits - it seems to vary from person to person.

 

So, if a child can make a decision to trust Christ as Savior, it follows that they could make the conscious decision to dabble in the demonic realm.  If a kid is playing with a Ouija board or Tarot card deck or "playing pretend" as a wizard or fortune teller, I think it's entirely possible they could become possessed.  We don't know - so let's not risk it.

 

Why Couldn't the Disciples Cast Out the Demon?

 

The problem here is lack of faith.  While there are plenty of Scriptural examples of the person who seeks to be healed needing faith in order for the healing to succeed (for example, Matthew 9:27-29), there are also places where the healer (or demon-caster-outer) must have faith, such as here and in James 5:15.  Although this is tangential to the main point, I find it interesting that heretical televangelists always blame failed miracles on the other person's faith instead of on themselves...

 

Anyway, why did the disciples lack adequate faith in this case?  I mean, they'd cast out demons before (see Matthew 10:1-8, and the parallel passage in Mark 6:7-13 which records their success).  Perhaps they were scared since this seemed to be quite an extreme case of demonic possession (lunacy and trying to kill the man, as opposed to more minor manifestations such as demons causing blindness).  Or, perhaps their lack of faith in God was a result of too much faith in their own abilities - i.e., they had grown arrogant in their power to cast out demons.  This latter case would explain Jesus's harsh reaction, and especially why He told them they had to fast and pray to cast out the demon.  Fasting and praying focuses us back on God's provision, not our own abilities.

 

What About That Verse in Brackets?

 

You may have noticed that verse 21 is in brackets - this is because it appears in some of the original source manuscripts, but not all of them.  Different translations will approach such verses in different ways: Some put them in brackets, or italics, or in the footnotes, and some pick and choose which such verses to include and reject without any indication to the reader that they did so (the NIV does this, which is one of the reasons I'm not a big fan of that translation - but please don't be offended if you prefer the NIV).

 

How do such discrepancies appear in Scripture?  Well, if you think about the process by which the "books" of the New Testament were copied, it was all by hand, a lot by largely uneducated men, and probably quite often in a hurry.  So, even though the original writing was inspired by God, there's no reason to think that every single act of copying it was guided directly by God, as well.  So, that would explain why some verses don't appear in some manuscripts (a person could have mistakenly skipped over it).  In addition, the New Testament books were not all necessarily regarded as Scripture the minute they were written, so a copier who had something they remembered or thought to add would have seen no moral reason not to write that in (which explains why some verses do appear in some manuscripts but not in others.  And, with both of these, one addition or subtraction would be carried on to the copy of that copy, and the copy of the copy of the copy, and on and on exponentially.

 

So how does this mesh with our belief in the inerrancy of Scripture?  Personally, I don't see a conflict.  The fact that we're aware of where the discrepancies are and that none of them have to do with anything important (like being the basis of a doctrine) demonstrates to Me that God protects His Word even amidst human mistakes.  In that light, the discrepancies support the idea that the Bible has remained the same, not the opposite.

 

Now, every Bible teacher you talk to will probably have a different approach to how to handle these "bracketed" verses.  Some reject them all, some accept them all, and some go with a case-by-case approach based on some criteria.

 

I myself fall within the case-by-case category.  My personal method is to check if it's the King James Version Bible.  Even though I am definitely not the type of person who insists that the KJV is the only or even most accurate English translation of Scripture (as evidenced by the fact that I frequently pull from the NASB, ESV, NKJV, and AMP translations), I personally choose to treat it as the authority in the specific issue of "bracketed" verses.  Why?  Let's look at history...

 

The KJV was translated from 1604-1611 using the same Greek source texts as were used for the Latin versions.  The primary Latin version accepted at the time was the "Authorized Latin Version," which was translated by St. Jerome in the 400s.  Before him, Latin versions were translated from the same texts as early as the 100s (about as close to the original time period as you can get).  Therefore, those specific Greek texts were what gave the entire continent of Europe their New Testament for 1500 years.  Personally, I believe that God is powerful enough to not have an incomplete or flawed Word for 1500 years!!!  So, when I encounter a "bracketed" verse, I check to see if it's in the KJV - if so, I treat it as Scripture, if not, I treat it as something that is perhaps true but not Scripture.

 

But, again, that is my personal method.  I'm not saying it's the only way or the best way to approach such verses - it's just my way.

 

An Important Reminder and Questions for You

 

If you want to read through the Bible in 2013, check out the "Weekly Scripture Readings" tab above for a Through the Bible in a Year plan I developed, or check out this past weekend's post referring you to some other plans to best fit your needs.  Make sure you find some way to dive into God's Word every day in 2013!!!

 

What is your approach (or thoughts on an approach) to the "bracketed" verses?

What's your take on the issue of whether or not children can become possessed?

Anything else you'd like to add or ask?

 

 

 

All Images courtesy of Sweet Publishing.  Used by permission.

 

Is Self-Defense Biblical?

Is it Biblical to defend yourself if you're attacked?  I say YES - but (1) this answer kind of changes in the specific situation of persecution, and (2) we must always still love and forgive the attacker.  Now, let's dive into the Scriptures and explore this issue.

The Most Commonly Slung Passages in This Debate

Let's start with one of the most often cited verses when this issue is brought up, Matthew 5:38-9: "You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.'  But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also."  The problem with applying this verse to modern self-defense is that, while slapping someone in the face may count as physical assault in American culture, in Jewish culture at the time of the New Testament (and in many other cultures throughout history), slapping someone in the face was just an insult.  Furthermore, if you read the entire passage for this verse as context, none of the examples have to do with physical danger; the theme that emerges is that even when someone does something unjust to you (in this passage, the examples are insulting you with that slap, suing you in court, and the Roman government demanding extra work from you [kind of like a physical tax]), you are not to retaliate.  Now, if - and I mean IF - other Scripture established the notion that this principle also applied to someone trying to murder your or rape you or beat you to a bloody pulp so they could steal your wallet, this passage would be highly relevant.  But since I don't believe Scripture does that (as I will demonstrate with Scripture throughout this post), this verse simply doesn't apply to the specific issue at hand: self-defense from a physical attack.

Another passage that pops up frequently in debates about this topic is Luke 22:35-38: "And He said to them, 'When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?'  They said, 'No, nothing.'  And He said to them, 'But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.  For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, "AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH THE TRANSGRESSORS"; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.'  They said, 'Lord, look, here are two swords.'  And He said to them, 'It is enough.'"  [Notice that this is a reversal of Jesus's command to the disciples found in Matthew 10:5-14, Mark 6:7-13, and Luke 10:1-12 - because the situation had changed from Jesus's initial ministry to the Jews to worldwide evangelism in a world where Jesus had been crucified.]  Proponents of both sides of this issue actually use this passage to support their polar-opposite positions!  I'll simply say that this is what I see in it:

• This issue is all about BALANCE.
• We are given permission to provide for and defend ourselves because we are living in a very, very dangerous world (i.e. we are living among transgressors).
• But we are still, above all else, to go out among the world and preach the Gospel - the sword (weapon) is one tool to help us carry out that mission (by keeping us alive), but our focus, our purpose, and our intent is to serve Christ above all else - that's made explicit by what He's referring to in referencing His previous instructions upon sending them out.  The sword is not the main point of this passage, so when examining that one facet, we must keep the main point in mind.
• From the entirety of Scripture, we find that we are to both act ourselves and depend on God fully.  When you are unable to (in this case) take measures to defend yourself, trusting God to protect you demonstrates admirable faith - but if you refuse to because you "trust" God to protect you, that very well could be putting God to the test (see Matthew 4:5-7), and His plan might be to not protect someone who treats His providence so flippantly.  Yes, God can protect anyone even if they are an unarmed cripple against an army of a million, but they way He chooses to protect someone in a given situation very well may be to use human beings, even that human being trained or armed or whatever, to bring about that protection. (Psalm 18:34)
• We are NOT to engage in "Holy War" (see John 18:36).  Defending your own life or the life of another is totally different from going out and threatening to kill people if they don't "convert."  Additionally, "Holy War" is pointless - you simply cannot force someone to come to genuine faith in a loving God by holding a gun to their head.  It's stupid, it's pointless, and it's utterly evil.
• Finally, I want to address why Jesus said, "It is enough."  My personal interpretation is that He was saying those two swords were enough for that specific situation they found themselves in at that moment (Gethsemane), because (1) obviously, they didn't exactly have time to go buy more right then, (2) evidenced by the fact that they yanked out swords the instant He said that, the disciples apparently got a bit freaked out and were preparing for a conflict right then, and (3) branching off of that, Jesus did not intend Gethsemane to turn into a battlefield because being crucified was His very purpose for coming to Earth.

Scattered Examples

 

More potentially applicable material can be found in Ephesians 5:25-33, which lists off how husbands should treat their wives, including "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and also gave Himself up for her...So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies."  In this, it seems to say that husbands should be willing to die to protect their wives (and, given the culture in which that was written, it was not meaning in the context of joining the military).  Consider that defending your family is an issue that pops up frequently in American discussions of self-defense.

 

In the Old Testament, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah (in which the captive Israelites are rebuilding Jerusalem and its temple) provide examples of how, in a non-war context, men arm themselves to defend themselves and their families from persecutors.

 

This latter case is where I believe the common Biblical warning of "Live by the sword, die by the sword" comes into play: If you have a warrior mentality that prompts you to defend others, you won't necessarily receive supernatural protection - your calling, which you are willingly following, may be to give your life for others.  It's Biblically identified as a noble sacrifice.  So don't confuse the line "Live by the sword, die by the sword" (which is used in multiple contexts, as are other Biblical sayings) as always being a bad thing.

 

So What About Persecution?

 

There definitely needs to be made a distinction between fighting back against a murderer and a persecutor - i.e., why they're attacking you: because of your faith, or for some other reason.

 

Biblically, I don't see any reason at all why you can't defend yourself in a non-persecution situation (in fact, I see some indications that you are definitely allowed to).  But, as for situations involving persecution, I can understand why there's a debate.

 

I mean, because the New Covenant changed the rules of how we are to relate to unbelievers, Old Testament examples don't hold much weight in this case.  And there isn't a single New Testament example of a Christian fighting against persecutors (fleeing, yes, but not engaging in combat with a persecutor).  And, we know that persecution is good for the Church because the examples of the saints (by willingly bearing persecution by loving the persecutors and not fearing death) are so powerful.

 

So, when it comes to persecution, I won't tell you that you can't defend yourself, but I won't tell you that you can, either.  Study this issue out for yourself, and follow the leading of the Holy Spirit.

 

What are your musings and insights on this issue?  Share your thoughts by leaving a comment.

Tackling Binding and Loosing - Matthew 16:15-19 (and 18:15-19)

The Scripture Passages

 

In our last study post, we arrived at the point where Jesus mentions the issue the American Church knows as "binding and loosing."  I saved the topic for its own post because it is a very complex, important issue to address.  It is only mentioned twice in Scripture, both in Matthew; we will look at both of those occurences, along with some surrounding verses to provide context (which is critical for their interpretation).  Like some other sayings of Jesus that appear multiple times, this phrase can have multiple different (albiet related) meanings in different contexts.

 

Matthew 16:

 

15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

 

16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

 

17 And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

 

18 "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

 

19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

 

Matthew 18:

 

15 "If your brother sins, go and who him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.

 

16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.

 

17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

 

18 "I truly say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

 

19 "Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that theyu may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven."

 

The Controversy

 

Different denominations, doctrinal groups, and scholars interpret the issue of binding and loosing to mean many different things.  What follows will be my personal view on the matter, a view backed up by two solid Bible teachers whom I trust.  However, I do not stand as firm on this issue as I do many of my other stances precisely because there are so many views, and so little Scriptural material from which to derive and understanding of this matter.

 

One interpretation of "binding and loosing" that I do stand against with firmness is the idea that every time a believer is tempted to do something, he can "bind Satan" for tempting him.  There are multiple Scriptural and logical flaws with this:  (1) Satan will not be "bound" until Revelation 20, at the end of the Tribulation; (2) if Christians have to keep binding him, clearly he keeps getting free...so clearly, it doesn't work and is not backed up by God's authority by which he grants Christians power to command demons; and, (3) it ignores that fact that, in addition to being tempted by Satan and his demons, we are also tempted by our own fleshly natures and by the world (Matthew 13:22, 1 Corinthians 2:12, Galatians 4:3, Ephesians 6:12, etc.).  I think this practice also has the negative consequences of denying personal responsibility, distracing Christians from God because they're obsessed with the demonic realm, and damaging Christians' witness to unbelievers since it appears "crazy."

 

That said, however, again, what follows now is very much just my view on binding and loosing.  Everything I post on this blog except the core of the Gospel I identify as my opinion, but this matter I am less firm in my stance than other issues.

 

Yay, Grammar (but it's Important)!

 

I really like how the NASB translates these verses, because rendering the verb tenses correctly, even at the cost of easy readability, is imperative when it comes to this matter's interpretation.  Let's look at Young's Literal Translation (which stives for pure literalness, not readability at all), and then a modern rendering of it from another Bible teacher I trust:

 

...whatever thou mayest bind upon the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever thou mayest loose upon the earth shall be having been loosed in the heavens.

 

...whatever you shall bind on earth shall have been bound already in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall have been loosed already in heaven.

 

Now, let's look in the original Greek:

"Bind" is deo, meaning to bind or forbid.

"Loose" is luo, meaning to loose or allow or destroy.

So that gives us:

 

...whatever you shall bind/forbid on earth shall have been bound/forbade already in heaven, and whatever you shall loose/allow/destroy on earth shall have been loosed/allowed/destroyed already in heaven.

 

And finally circling back to interpreting our Scripture passages... :-)

 

Matthew 16

 

As we discussed last time in a bit more detail, Jesus was stating that Peter's faith was remarkable, that that type of faith would be the basis of Christianity, and also that Peter would be a Church leader.  That genuine type of faith would never be overcome by the devil.

 

In Matthew 16, I believe binding and loosing refers to Jesus transfering His authority and backing to those with Peter's faith in their witnessing efforts - basically, He's saying He is pleased with that faith, and was planning to use it to further His kingdom.  Where do I get this?  Context, and a whole lot of verses using the same wording, such as these examples:

 

Acts 2:24 KJV

God has raised up, having loosed the pains of death.

 

Psalm 147:3

He heals the brokenhearted and binds up their wounds.

 

Ezekiel 34:16

I will seek the lost, bring back the scattered, bind up the broken and strengthen the sick.

 

So, God is the ultimate One who looses pains, cords, chains, etc., allowing them to go free, and binds  up their wounds, forbidding their sin to rule them.  With the literal renderings of today's verses, He has already done these, but will use us to accomplish that on earth.

 

Matthew 18

 

In Matthew 18, the context is about Church discipline - if you see a Christian living in sin (not struggling with it - living in it), you're to approach him about in alone first; if he doesn't repent, bring a couple other solid believers with you, and if he doesn't repent after that, bring the matter before the Chruch (not in a gossippy manner - with the American Church setup, I personally, generally recommend bringing the matter to the Church leadership, who can bring the manner before the Church in a more controlled manner than a layperson can).  If he doesn't repent even then, fellowship is cut off (he's "excommunicated" - no longer treated as a believer).  This process is outlined repeatedly in the New Testament.

 

Forbidding and allowing obviously fit in here, pertaining to partaking of fellowship with other believers - you allow or forbid them to continue fellowshipping with believers.  So, this variation of the same issue is that when God cuts off His own relationship with someone because they openly reject him by unabashedly living in unrepentant sin, He gives His Church the authority to cut off fellowship as well, and when He has a relationship with someone, the Church is to welcome them as well.

 

Tying Them Together

 

So, binding and loosing in both Matthew 16 and 18 are different variations of the exact same issue: When God creates or cuts off a relationship with a human, He gives authority to His followers to manifest physically/on this Earth what He's already done.

 

Questions for You

 

That's my take - but what are your thoughts?  I want to know! :-)

 

Or, if you haven't really thought about this issue before (because, admittedly, the verses are a bit easy to gloss over in reading), was there anything I didn't make clear?

The Sower: A Parable, and So Much More - Matthew 13:1-23

Setting the Scene

 

1 That day Jesus went out of the house and was sitting by the sea.

 

2 And large crowds gathered to Him, so He got into a boat and sat down, and the whole crowd was standing on the beach.

 

We open with Jesus taking a little daytrip to the beach.  It could be that He needed some time to be alone with God and His thoughts, as we see Him do elsewhere, but when the crowds showed up He chose to minister to them anyway - as we also see elsewhere.  Or, it could be that He wanted to preach to a large crowd, and knew that houses could only hold a small number of peole (usually 30-35 maximum, at this time).

 

Now, what about that boat?  We see elsewhere in Scripture that Jesus has to get on a boat just to create a little distance so the crowds don't crush him in their effort to be in the "front row."  Here's another cool thing - open water acts as a microphone.  If you've ever been on a really big lake, you know how well this works (I saw it in action this past summer at the Great Salt Lake).  So, getting out on the open water would have been a way for Jesus to ensure that the entire crowd could hear Him.

 

Okay, so we've got some ideas as to what Jesus is doing and why.  Let's look at the first parable itself, now.

 

This is a long passage with related information separated by large spans, so for organizational purposes, we'll look at: < 3 > < 4, 19 > < 5-6, 20-22 > < 7, 22 > and < 8, 23 > to join the parable and Jesus's explanations together, and then we'll come back to the part in the middle < 9-18 > for His discussion with the disciples.

 

Fair warning: We're going to skim the surface of some very controversial issues today - predestination, losing your salvation, the role of good works, what happens to those who don't comprehend the Gospel, and God hardening people's hearts.  Yeah...we've got our work cut out for us, eh? :-)

 

The Sower

 

3 And He spoke many things to them in parables, saying, "Behold, the sower went out to sow;"

 

A sower is a planter whose job it is to scatter seeds on the ground.  In this case, the seeds are the Gospel, and the sower is God (God as Jesus or God as the Holy Spirit, in different cases and depending on your view).

 

There's something fascinating here: God scatters the seed - extends the Gospel, His offer of forgiveness - to every single human being.  What determines whether or not the seed takes root is what kind of soil they are - that is, the state of their heart.  If God predestined certain people to follow Him and certain people to go to hell, why would He bother scattering the seed to everyone?  Just a thought.  No, the answer is that the choice to accept or reject His offer is all on us.  We'll revisit this when we get to verses 9-18.

 

By the Road and Eaten by Birds

 

4 and as he sowed, some seeds fell beside the road, and the birds came and ate them up.

 

19 When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart.  This is the one on whom seed was sown beside the road.

 

Here we see some people who God reaches out to, but they don't understand His message.  Then, the devil encourages them to not bother wasting time thinking about something too "difficult" for them to understand.

 

Here's the thing: We know that every person, even those in far-off countries who have never heard the Gospel in their live, has access to God if they're willing to respond to His presence, and He promises to reveal Himself and His forgiveness to them if they just seek Him.  I've actually heard of this in action in some Muslim countries - people have no access to Bibles or missionaries or anything like that, but God speaks to them in a dream and they come to accept Jesus from that.  God really, truly is not limited by human access - He can call anyone to Him, anywhere.

 

So, it is clear that He hasn't made some vague philosophy that require years of contemplation to catch a glimpse of like some Eastern religions.  "Understanding" here does not mean mental capability.  Rather, it is meant in the sense we will see in verses 19-23, and in the sense of John 1:5, "The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it." - a refusal to understand.  God reaches out to everyone, but some people refuse to accept that they're wrong about anything, and don't want to consider the possibility that their worldview is incorrect because that is guaranteed to cause some serious changes in their life.  When these people refuse to let the Word inflitrate their hearts, Satan capitalizes on the situation and encourages them not to consider what God is trying to reveal.  Simply, they had the opportunity, and they refused to take it.

 

(Remember the < birds = Satan and his demonic forces > thing; we'll see that in another parable!)

 

On the Rocks

 

5 Others fell on the rocky places, where they did not have much soil; and immediately they sprang up, because they had no depth of soil.

 

6 But when the sun had risen, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.

 

20 The one on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, this is the man who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy;

 

21 yet he has no firm root in himself, but is only temporary, and when affliction or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he falls away.

 

These people are fair-weather friends to God.  They want the happy part - forgiveness and blessings - but they're not willing to accept the persecution, the laying down your life (physically and in daily actions and interactions) for Christ.

 

Thomas a Kempis commented on this when He said, "Jesus hath many lovers of His heavenly kingdom, but few bearers of His Cross.  He hath many desirous of consolation, but few of tribulation.  Many love Jesus so long as no adversities befall them."

 

They sprouted plants - they were genuinely saved - but once they figured out that allowing God to transform you into becoming like His Son (the ultimate goal of salvation!) isn't easy, they decided it wasn't for them.  Yes, it is possible to lose your salvation by choosing to reject God - see Romans 11:17-24 and Hebrews 10:26-31.

 

It is NOT that your good works earn you salvation, it is that if you genuinely want forgiveness, that means you want to genuinely be like God - so if you refuse the ways He is using make you like Him (trials, tests, and tribulations), then clearly you don't really want to be like Him with all your heart.

 

In the Briar Patch

 



7 Others fell among the thorns, and the thorns came up and choked them out.

 

22 And the one on whom seed was sown among the thorns, this is the man who hears the word, and the worry of the world and the decietfulness of wealth choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful.

 

These thorns are anything that distract us from God to the point that we put them above God - these are idols - it may be wealth, or fame, or power, or security, or a romantic relationship, or a group of friends, or a lifelong dream.

 

Now, please note, as we've discussed before, that this is not talking about struggling with sin - that's "growing pains," it's to be expected and is evidence of trying to overcome your sinful nature and become like Christ.  Rather, if you ever get to the point that you say, "I know it's wrong, but I want it anyway," that is when you need to honestly be concerned for your soul.

 

This parable could certainly apply to people who won't accept the Gospel because they like their current lifestyles too much, but it also applies to Christians who refuse (not struggle to give up - refuse) the idols in their lives.  The latter seems closest since verse 22 mentions it becoming unfruitful.

 

Healthy Plants

 

8 And others fell on the good soil and yielded a crop, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty.

 

23 And the one on whom seed was sown on the good soil, this is the man who hears the word and understands it; who indeed bears fruit and brings forth, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty."

 

Finally!  The optimistic one! :-)

 

We see here that those who are true believers consider the Gospel and decide to accept it, are willing to act on it, and because they're willing to act on it, good results.

 

This good - the hundreds, sixties, and thirties bit - may be in the form of sharing the gospel with others, or discipling others, or ministering to others, or accomplishing work for God's kingdom in some other capacity.  It has absolutely nothing to do with numbers - it's just saying that when you strive to follow God, good will eventually come of it, even when you can't see it.

 

Those Aren't Exactly Uplifting Odds!

 

In this parable, there are three broad groups of people who ultimately reject Jesus, and one group that accepts Him and chooses to follow Him with all their heart.  That's not to say that exactly 25% of humans are saved; it's the point out how few there really are.  Jesus did say in Matthew 7:13-14, "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.  For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it."  You may have heard statistics of the number of "Christians" in the world that seems to contradict this, but remember, not everyone who claims to be a Christian really is, whether they're lying to you or to themselves.

 

So, I ask you today: Which type of soil are you?  Have you accepted God's forgiveness?  And have you stuck with it, or have you allowed difficulties or any idols in your life to pull you away?  Repent TODAY, and turn to God!  If you would like to learn how to accept Jesus as your Savior and as the Lord of your life, click here or click on the tab above titled, "How to Receive Salvation."  Is English not your first language?  Click here to learn the Gospel in other languages, as well!

 

More on the Parable, Besides the Parable

 

9 "He who has ears, let him hear."

 

10 And the disciples came and said to Him, "Why do You speak to them in parables?"

 

11 Jesus answered them, "To you it has been granted to know the mystery of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted.

 

12 "For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him.

 

13 "Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

 

14 "In this case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says, 'YOU WILL KEEP ON HEARING, BUT WILL NOT UNDERSTAND; YOU WILL KEEP ON SEEING, BUT WILL NOT PERCIEVE;

 

15 FOR THE HEART OF THIS PEOPLE HAS BECOME DULL, WITH THEIR EARS THEY SCARCELY HEAR, AND THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES, OTHERWISE THEY WOULD SEE WITH THEIR EYES, HEAR WITH THEIR EARS, AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEM AND RETURN, AND I WOULD HEAL THEM.'

 

16 "But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and you ears, because they hear.

 

17 "For truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see wha you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it."

 



The whole point is that those who genuinely want to understand what God has to say will be rewarded with understanding, and those who don't care or are offended by what God has to say will stop of their ears (psychologically, not physically).  I  love how the Amplified version of the Bible phrases Mark 4:24: "And He said to them, Be careful what you are hearing.  The measure [of thought and study] you give [to the truth you hear] will be the measure [of virtue and knowledge] that comes back to you - and more [besides] will be given to you who hear."  The disciples (remember, this isn't just the 12; disciples means His followers) are probing deeper because they want to understand - they're asking questions.  Because of their diligence, dedication, and hunger for the truth, Jesus is blessing them with understanding.  While there were surely some among the crowd that day who genuinely wanted to follow Jesus, it seems the vast majority of them were just there for the show - they had no interest in hearing talk of laying down their lives, difficulties, and tribulation.

 

A quick clarification: Verse 12 sounds horrible when taken out of context, but within the context of this passage, it's simply saying that those who have a little understanding of God's Word (presumably) through their own efforts will be given more by God, spiritually, but for those who don't bother learning what God has to say, He will ensure they have no udnerstanding at all.

 

We learn two lessons from this: (1) We need to be diligent to contemplate and study God's Word if we truly want to understand the riches it holds.  (2) We need to be willing to truly hear what He has to say, even if it's not something pleasant.

 

Finally, look at how beautiful verse 17 is!  God waited until 2000 years ago to reveal His Messiah; before then, many godly men like the prophets yearned to meet the Messiah in their lifetimes, but could not.  We should consider it an immense blessing that we were born into a time when God's ultimate plan for salvation is clear, and when we can have our own Bibles and not have to rely on a priesthood for the source of all communication with God.

 

Talk to Me!

 

What types of soils have you been at different points in your life?

 

Do you have anything you'd like to ad?

 

Is there anything I didn't make clear, or did today's post spark other questions?

 

Giving Credit Where It's Due

 

Image Number One: Representation of the Sower's Parable from Sts. Konstantine and Helen Orthodox Church in Romania.  Photograph by Sulfababy.  Wikimedia Commons.  Public Domain.

 

Image Number Two: Two ravens standing guard at the Tower of London.  Photography by Cj005257.  Wikipedia.  Used by permission.

 

Image Number Three: The rocky side of a mountain creek near Orosi, Costa Rica.  Photograph by Dirk van der Made.  Wikipedia.  Used by permission.

 

Image Number Four: Rose Prickles.  Photograph by JJ Harrison.  Wikipedia.  Used by permission.

 

Image Number Five: Traditional apple orchard in Eastwood, Essex.  Photograph by Graham Burnett.  Wikipedia.  Used by permission.

 

Image Number Six: Image of a human ear showing vestigial muscles.  By Thomas Woolner.  Wikipedia Commons.  {{PD-1923}} Pubic domain in the United States.

The Unforgivable Sin - Matthew 12:22-35

22 Then a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute was brought to Jesus, and He healed him, so that the mute man spoke and saw.

23 All the crowds were amazed, and were saying, "This man cannot be the Son of David, can he?"

24 "But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "This man casts out demons only by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons."

25 And knowing their thoughts Jesus said to them, "Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself will not stand.

26 "If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand?

27 "If I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? For this reason they will be your judges.

28 "But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

29 "Or how can anyone enter the strong man's house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder the house.

30 "He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters.

31 "Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.

32 "Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.

33 "Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for the tree is know by its fruit.

34 "You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart.

35 "The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and hte evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil.

Instead of moving chronologically, let's address this topically: (1) The unforgivable sin/blasphemy of the Holy Spirit; (2) a deeper look into this specific casting-out-a-demon scenario; (3) the chunk about the power of words.

The Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit

 

People get into all sorts of fights about what this unforgivable sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit is - some claim suicide, or adultery, or a million other things that simply have no Biblical basis as being "unforgivable."  Rather, the only unforgivable sin is: not being saved.  How do I get this?  Here's my logic, and bear in mind that the vast majority of Protestant theologians have the exact same view, so it's not just me. :-)

 

(A) John 15:26 shows us that the Holy Spirit is the One who leads us to Christ.  (B) John 16:8-9 shows us that the Holy Spirit convicts us and shows us we are sinners.  (C) John 16:13-14 shows us that the Holy Spirit directly draws us into faith in Jesus.  (D)  Notice in verse 32 of today's passage the wording of "speaks a word against the Son of Man" versus "speaks against the Holy Spirit" - the first is temporary (i.e., whatever blasphemies we utter against God that we ask forgiveness for will be forgiven, but the second is a continued state of blaspheming unrepentantly - spitting in God's face.  (E) So, the Holy Spirit's job is to pull us out of rejecting and blaspheming Jesus, but if we keep rejecting and blaspheming the Holy Spirit, we can never get to that point, and thus will never be saved and thus cannot be forgiven.

 

So, whatever blasphemies we say, think, etc. can certainly be forgiven, but the "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" - the continual rejection of the Holy Spirit (e.g. relabeling our conscience as "societal prejudices" prevents us from coming to know Christ, which means we won't ask for His forgiveness.

 

So...what's this got to do with the context of this passage?  Well, the Pharisees had just seen so much proof that Jesus came from God (we'll get to that more in a minute), and refused to accept Him as such because of their pride.  The Holy Spirit was demonstrating Jesus's deity, and they refused to believe it.  That's blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, right there.

 

Satan Casting Out Satan?

 

I wanted to make a clarification about this section of today's passage.  Is Jesus saying that anyone who is able to cast out a demon is from God?  No - Matthew 7:21-23 and Mark 9:38-39 directly discuss the presence of non-Christians casting out demons.  Also consider how shahmans, witch doctors, and pracitioners of other religions are sometimes able to seemingly control demons and cast out sicknesses and such - in these cases, I believe the demons are playing along with the act to trick those people into thinking their religion is real.

 

The issue here is that the Pharisees were holding Jesus to an unequal standard than "their sons" (i.e. other Jews who cast out demons), and - here's the big thing - they were ignoring all the other evidence that Jesus was from God.  Also consider how wide-spread the healings and casting-outs of demons that Jesus was performing were, and the fact that he was setting all these people free, permanently.  If that really were Satan playing a trick by ordering his own demons out, then it absolutely would be detrimental to his demonic kingdom!

 

So, the point here is: Look at the fruit!  Jesus Himself points this out here in this passage, in verse 33-35.  Matthew 7:16 tell us, "You will know them by their fruits," and Galatians 5:22 lists the fruit of the Spirit as: "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control."  If these are present, as they were in Jesus, then the work is by the Holy Spirit.

 

I don't have any official discussion-starting questions for you today, but if you have any questions, or comments, leave them below. :-)

 

Giving Credit Where It's Due

 

Image: Woe unto You, Scribes and Pharisees by James Tissot.  Wikimedia Commons. {{PD-1923}} Public domain in the United States.  {{PD-old-100}} Public domain in countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years or less.