Formal Church Membership: A Good and Necessary Inference

Over the past twenty or so years in pastoral ministry, I have begun to notice more and more a trend away from stressing any kind of formal church membership in local churches. And I have been increasingly hearing the objection that there just isn't any support for such a concept in Scripture. The idea of formal church membership, I am told, is simply a man-made tradition which needs to be jettisoned if we are ever going to be truly faithful to Scripture in our church practices and relationships. I beg to differ with this assessment, however, and I want to share briefly here some of the reasons why I think that the Scriptures do indeed necessitate the practice of some kind of formal church membership in local churches.

However, before I set forth some of the Scriptural evidence in this regard, I want to remind the readers of a crucial point that must be kept in mind when weighing the evidence, which has to do with what we accept as the authoritative teaching of Scripture and why. Consider, for example, this statement from the Baptist Confession of 1689:

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word, and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed. (1.6, italics mine)

When the Baptist Confession refers to what is “necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture,” it has in mind the same idea that was expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith (upon which it was substantially based):

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence [or inference] may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed. (1.6, italics mine)

These two Reformed confessions both affirm that we must accept as the authoritative teaching of Scripture not only what is expressly stated therein but also what may be derived therefrom by way of good and necessary inference. But this was not a new idea developed in the 17th century churches following the Reformation; it has been a long accepted idea in the history of the Church. Consider, for example, our statement of the doctrine of the Trinity. Although we do not have an explicit statement of Scripture asserting that we must think of God as one essence consisting of three persons, we demand this as an essential statement of the doctrine of the Trinity by way of good and necessary inference. The totality of Scripture teaching regarding the doctrine of God simply demands that we make such a doctrinal assertion.

This is the same kind of situation we are in, I think, with regard to the concept of formal church membership in the local church. I see no explicit assertion of the concept in Scripture, but I do see it as both a good and a necessary inference. In fact, there are a number of lines of Biblical evidence that combine to indicate that this is the case.

Texts Which Speak of Church Relationships

There are a couple of metaphors used of the local church which indicate inclusion in a recognizable and definable group. For example:

1. The Church is a Body

NKJ Romans 12:4-5 “For as we have many members in one body, but all the members do not have the same function, 5 so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another.”

Here we can already see where we get the language of church “membership” in the first place. It is derived directly from the language Paul uses to describe the Church, both universally and locally.

NKJ 1 Corinthians 12:12-14 “For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For by [better with] one Spirit we were all baptized into one body – whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free – and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. 14 For in fact the body is not one member but many.”

Here Paul speaks of the church as a body with many members, and these members are those – and only those – who have been baptized by Christ with the Holy Spirit “into one body” (in fulfillment of the promise given, e.g., in Matt. 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, and Acts 1:5). That is, the members of the body are only those who are true believers in Christ and who have become partakers of the Holy Spirit. Here, then, we are given important information about who it is that we should regard as a member of the body.

John Piper seeks to draw out the implications of this passage for the issue of church membership in a message entitled How Important Is Church Membership? He correctly observes that:

Church membership is implied in the metaphor of the body in 1 Corinthians 12:12-31. The original meaning of the word member is member of a body, like hand and foot and eye and ear. That’s the imagery behind the word member in the text. Verse 12: “Just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ.”

So the question this imagery raises for the local church that Paul is describing in 1 Corinthians 12 is: Who intends to be treated as a hand or foot or eye or ear of this body? There is a unity and organic relationship implied in the imagery of the body. There is something unnatural about a Christian attaching himself to a body of believers and not being a member of the body.

Now, I would be quick to agree that this text does not explicitly assert the concept of formal church membership, but I think it does at least imply that people were formally recognized as a part of the body somehow. This implication becomes even stronger when we go on to consider the totality of the New Testament evidence.

2. The Church is a Family

NKJ Galatians 6:10 “Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household [oikeios] of faith.”

The Greek word translated household, oikeios, means “literally belonging to or standing in relation to a household” and in the New Testament the plural oi oikeioi is used substantivally to refer to the “members of a family, relatives, [or] household” (as in 1 Tim. 5:8). It is therefore used “figuratively, of the members of God's spiritual family, (God's) household” (as in Eph. 2:19) (see Friberg #19389, BibleWorks).

But the point we are interested in here is that Paul expects believers to know who are and who aren't members of their church family, for how else could they obey his command to “do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith”? Just as we have a clear understanding of who is and who isn't a part of our biological family, Paul assumes also that we will have at least some degree of clarity about who is and who isn't a part of our church family. But doesn't this imply some kind of formal church membership, by which certain people are recognized by the church as a definite part of the family and others are not?

Texts Which Speak of Church Gatherings

There are a couple of passages which speak of church gatherings in such a way as to indicate a distinguishable group of believers. For example:

NKJ Acts 15:22 “Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren.” (Italics mine.)

How would they know if the “whole church” agreed with their plan if they didn't know who they were? They must have had some way of ascertaining who they were and keeping track of them.

NKJ 1 Corinthians 14:23 “Therefore if the whole church comes together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those who are uninformed or unbelievers, will they not say that you are out of your mind?” (Italics mine.)

Again, how would anyone know if the “whole church” was gathered if there was no formal understanding of who was or wasn't a part of the church? Again, they must have had some way of ascertaining who they were and keeping track of them.

So, to my mind these passages indicate that the leaders of the churches had to have had some way of knowing who was to be regarded as a part of their respective churches and who was not to be so regarded. They had to have had some way of knowing when they had gathered the whole church together and when they hadn't. And they had to have had some way of discerning when the whole church agreed about something and when they didn't. This implies some kind of formal process of church membership.

Texts Which Speak of Church Growth

There are at least a couple of passages which speak of church growth in such a way as to indicate that a knowable number of people were included. For example:

NKJ Acts 2:41 “Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added [prostíthēmi] to them.”

NKJ Acts 2:47b “And the Lord added [prostíthēmi] to the church daily those who were being saved.”

These texts both speak of people being “added” to the church when they were saved, once again indicating that only believers were so added. But verse 41 also indicates that only those who received the Gospel and were baptized were added to the church. Here we have more help in determining who it is that we should regard as a members of the Church. They should be believers who have been baptized as such. It seems to me that far too many churches these days ignore the implications of this text when considering church membership.

Notice also that in verse 41 we are told that there were “about three thousand souls” added to the church. This means that someone was counting their number and keeping track. But this also indicates again that they had some means of knowing who was included in the church and who wasn't, and we have seen that this was by means of a credible profession of faith followed by baptism.

NKJ Acts 5:11-14 “So great fear came upon all the church and upon all who heard these things. 12 And through the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done among the people. And they were all with one accord in Solomon's Porch. 13 Yet none of the rest dared join [kolláō] them, but the people esteemed them highly. 14 And believers were increasingly added [prostíthēmi] to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women ….”

Luke tells us that believers were being “added” to the Lord, which here means that they were added to the church (vs. 11). But we are also told of some who were not added, namely the ones who dared not “join” them. The Greek word translated join here is informative. It is a strong word that literally means to “join closely,” “glue together,” or “unite” (Friberg #16369, BibleWorks). It may also be used figuratively, however, to describe the closest of relationships between people, such as when Paul uses it in 1 Corinthians 6:

NKJ 1 Corinthians 6:16-17 “Or do you not know that he who is joined [kolláō] to a harlot is one body with her? For 'the two,' He says, 'shall become one flesh.' 17 But he who is joined [kolláō] to the Lord is one spirit with Him.

The word can thus describe sexual union as well as the union of a believer with Christ. But Luke uses it in Acts to describe the union of the individual believer with Christ's body, the church, when he speaks of those who refused to “join” the church in Jerusalem. And that some did not believe and refused to join meant that those who believed had joined the church in Jerusalem when they were added to their number.

So once again we see the close relationship between being joined to Christ and being joined to the church, in this case the local church in Jerusalem. Indeed the Greek word used by Luke also implies a level of commitment deliberately entered into by the people who joined the church, for they clearly made a conscious decision to do so.

Texts Which Speak of Church Leadership

There are several passages which speak of the nature of leadership in the churches which also clearly indicate that they had to have a formal understanding of who was or wasn't under their charge. For example:

NKJ Acts 20:28-29 “Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.”

Here Paul refers to the local church in Ephesus (vs. 17 in the preceding context) as a “flock” that the elders are to shepherd, and he specifies that they are to watch over all of the flock. But this would entail knowing who were included in the flock and who weren't, wouldn't it? It certainly wouldn't seem possible to watch over every member of the flock if one didn't know who was and who wasn't to be regarded as such.

NKJ 1 Peter 5:1-5 “The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: 2 Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; 3 nor as being lords over those entrusted [ton klēron] to you, but being examples to the flock; 4 and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away.”

Here Peter uses the Greek word klēros when speaking to elders of “those entrusted” to them. The Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature says that klēros primarily means “a specially marked object, such as a pebble, a piece of pottery, or a stick, used to decide something, lot,” but that it can also mean “that which is assigned by lot or simply given as a portion or share, portion, share.” It further states of Peter's use of the plural form of klēros that the klēroi “seem to denote the ‘flock’ as a whole, i.e. the various parts of the people of God which have been assigned as ‘portions’ to individual elders or shepherds” (BAGD3 #4273, BibleWorks). Peter is clearly asserting, then, that the elders are responsible for the individual members of the particular flock over which they serve. But once again it is assumed that they will have some idea of knowing who these are.

I think John Piper correctly applies this passage when he says:

“Those in your charge” (your portion, your lot) implies that the elders knew whom they were responsible for. This is just another way of talking about membership. If a person does not want to be held accountable by a group of elders or be the special focus of the care of a group of elders, they will resist the idea of membership. And they will resist God’s appointed way for them to live and be sustained in their faith. (How Important Is Church Membership?)

But Peter also implies that the elders will be held accountable by the Lord Jesus for their work when he says in verse 4 that “when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away.” Is it too much to ask, then, that churches utilize a formal process of membership in order to better enable the elders to do their job?

The author of Hebrews also stresses the accountability of church leaders for those under their charge when he issues these commands to members of the church:

NKJ Hebrews 13:17 “Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.”

Again it is presupposed that elders will have some understanding of who they are or are not responsible for and for whom they must or must not give account. This seems to imply at the very least some means of keeping track. But isn't the practice of formal church membership just such a means of keeping track? And could they keep track without such a means? Could they keep track of the flock without assessing in some way who does and who doesn't give a credible profession of faith, for example? I think not. And can they help the other members of the body to know how to fulfill their obligation to the “household of faith” (as in Gal. 6:10 above) if they themselves cannot keep track of who constitutes this household? Again, I think not.

Texts Which Speak of Church Discipline

The key passages dealing with church discipline also imply a clear understanding of who is and is not a part of the church body. For example:

NKJ Matthew 18:15-17 “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that 'by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.' 17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.”

It is assumed that the church will gather together for the purpose of church discipline and that the church will speak with one voice to the wayward brother, whom they will no longer regard as one of their number (having not “gained” their brother, vs. 15). Again we see that there must be some way of knowing who is in and who is out.

NKJ 1 Corinthians 5:1-13 “It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles -- that a man has his father's wife! 2 And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 6 Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7 Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. 8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 10 Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner -- not even to eat with such a person. 12 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? 13 But those who are outside God judges. Therefore 'put away from yourselves the evil person.'” (Italics mine.)

Without getting into some of the more difficult details of this passage, it is at least clear that Paul expected the believers in Corinth to know who was “inside” and who was “outside” the church (vs. 12). They had to know somehow who was “named a brother” (vs. 11) and who was not.

I think Mark Dever is correct when he argues that:

Paul is calling for the exclusion of this immoral brother, which would imply that it meant something to be included in that church. He would lose the privileges of membership previously conferred upon him. Formal exclusion presupposes formal inclusion. (Biblical Background for Church Membership)

If there is a flaw in his reasoning, I cannot find it.

Conclusion

While it must be kept in mind that there is no passage of Scripture that expressly says the we must practice a particular type of formal church membership, I think we may draw as a good and necessary inference the idea of some kind of formal membership process. However, I think we should avoid being legalistic in the way we practice such membership, given that the Bible offers no details as to how the early churches went about it and gives no clear commands about how it should be practiced. At the very least, though, I think we can say based on the evidence brought forth here that we should require people to be baptized believers in Christ in order to be members of a church. This means that we will also want them to possess a clear understanding of the true Gospel and an orthodox faith in Christ. And it is the elders who will be responsible for seeking to ensure this. The elders are, after all, called to protect the flock by maintaining pure doctrine, and this would not be accomplished by allowing false professors or heretics into the membership (see, e.g., Acts 20:28-32; Tit. 1:7-11). We should just be careful not to make secondary matters the test for membership rather than essential doctrines.

I might also point out some practical reasons for church membership based on the above Scriptural evidence:

1) It helps to maintain the purity of the church's doctrine by helping to make certain that those who are admitted into membership are orthodox believers.

2) It helps to practice church discipline as the Scriptures teach that we should. It seems to me this would be especially true in a large church.

3) In a church that practices congregational involvement in decision making, it helps to vet those who will be voting.

4) It serves to provide a more thoroughly vetted pool from which to select church leaders.

5) It helps to emphasize a Scriptural view of commitment to Christ and His Church. Far too many people today want to say they are committed to Christ but shun commitment to any particular local church. This is not a Scriptural understanding and is detrimental to the believer's growth in Christ as well as to the health of the church.

 © Keith Throop – All rights reserved.

A Solid Critique of Rob Bell From Martin Bashir

For the readers of this blog who may not yet have heard about this story or seen this video, here is the interview of Rob Bell by Martin Bashir.



I recommend checking out Paul Edwards' follow-up interview with Bashir, in which Bashir affirms that he is indeed a committed Christian who attends Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City, the church where Tim Keller is pastor. In the interview, Bashir offers a penetrating analysis of both Rob Bell and the burgeoning Emergent Church Movement.

P.S. Thanks to Richard Barcellos for the link to the Paul Edwards interview.

A Journey in Baptist History is Now Available

I am happy to announce that the latest book in Dr. Richard Belcher's Journey series of theological novels has been published. The book is entitled A Journey in Baptist History and may be purchased at the Richbarry Press website. Here is a description of the book from the website:

Many today, who call themselves Baptists, are totally ignorant of the history and beliefs of their early forefathers! As a result, they mistakenly label those today who are holding historic Baptist beliefs and practices as heretical---or at best they say such people just cannot be Baptists! Ira Pointer, the primary character of our "journey" books, is invited to speak for a number of weeks on Baptist history in a somewhat typical present day Baptist church. And when he teaches the true history and doctrine of the early Baptists, one man especially, the Chairman of the Deacons, tries every way possible to close down the studies.

Ira Pointer, he thinks, is not a Baptist! The other people of the church are also shocked at what they hear, but they are gracious enough to listen to the presentation with open hearts and minds, and then they are shocked at what they had never been taught about Baptist history and doctrine! Much turmoil and danger unfolds in both mystery and uncertainty, as Ira with the backing of Dink and the pastor sets forth his convictions concerning Baptist history!

The idea for the book actually came from the positive response to a 2009 series of articles by Dr. Belcher entitled "An Historical Examination of the Doctrine of the Church Among Baptists With Special Reference to Southern Baptists and Church Purity." This material was originally part of a Th.M. dissertation submitted to Covenant Theological Seminary in 1973, but the response to the articles shows that the material is definitely still applicable to contemporary Baptists in particular. I am certainly glad that Dr. Belcher has once again made such important teaching available and accessible to many who would otherwise struggle to learn history and doctrine. He definitely has a way of putting the cookies on the bottom shelf where we can all reach them! And he also always makes his work available at very good prices. I encourage all to head over to the Richbarry Press website and check out the whole Journey series, as well as the many other good books Dr. Belcher offers.

e-Sword Updated to Version 9.8.2

e-Sword, what I recommend as the best free Bible study software program, has been updated to version 9.8.2. Here is the description of the update from the e-Sword website:

A new Module Downloader is now built into the program. With it you can view all available resources and download any of them directly into e-Sword. You can see which ones you currently have installed and which ones you have yet to install. You can also see if any of the installed modules have been updated.

All of the Search routines have been enhanced, providing even more information for study.

If you haven't already tried e-Sword, I suggest you check it out.

Church-Integrated Families Rather Than Family-Integrated Churches?

This is the issue with which Matthew Kingsbury, pastor of Park Hill Presbyterian Church in Denver, Colorado, deals in an article entitled The Church-Integrated Family. He begins the article by setting forth what he perceives to be the central Scriptural issue:

We are at the beginning of the end of the American family as it has been known for generations and generations. As I've discussed this over the years with other pastors, we can no longer assume husbands and wives know the duties they owe one another, let alone how the Bible defines those duties. Parents do not teach their children basic manners, let alone the catechism. Hence, it seems to me churches and pastors will be increasingly obliged to teach congregation members what they never learned at home (that is, how to be families), or they will never find men who rule their households well to serve as elders (1 Tim. 3:4).

Some have responded to this crisis by moving toward "family-integrated churches," whose purpose is to organize the local congregation so as to inculcate and support healthy families. By implication (and sometimes by flat-out statement), the church exists to support the family. While I share the heartfelt grief over the consequences of cultural sin in the lives of Christian families and the sincere desire to see covenant children grow up in our holy faith, this perspective gets the relationship between the church and family exactly backward. Instead, as I seek to demonstrate in what follows, the Christian family exists to support the Christian church.

The article then goes on to argue from Scripture that the Church is indeed the eternal family that supersedes in priority the temporary earthly families of which we are all a part. The conclusion serves to drive home the point:

Here, then, is the proper relationship of the family to the church: because the church is eternal, the temporary family must work to make its members better church members.

While fathers have authority to rule their families, they do not have spiritual authority over them the way elders of churches do. A father is qualified to rule his family by virtue of impregnating his wife and by the covenant of marriage. An elder is qualified to rule in the church by virtue of possessing spiritual gifts recognized and tested by the congregation and other elders. Thus, families are not, technically speaking, small churches, but gatherings of believers who can either help or hinder one another's Christian walk.

Husbands and wives, parents and children are bound to certain duties within their families by God, but each of these relationships is informed by and subsumed into their eternal Christian-to-Christian relationships. When the Apostle Paul enumerates family duties in Ephesians 5-6, he begins with "[submit] to one another out of reverence for Christ" (Eph. 5:21; he does something similar in Col. 3-4). With all its particularities, the family is just like every other sort of Christian relationship: an opportunity for mutual exhortation and encouragement so that through our labors the Holy Spirit might prepare each of us for the glorious wedding of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, with his bride, the church.

Rather than family-integrated churches, the Scriptures call us to have church-integrated families, in which service to our Lord and faithfulness to his bride are modeled and taught daily. Such families, I believe, will not simply produce elders, but, please God, generations of believers who rejoice in their heavenly citizenship.

I recommend reading the entire article, because I think Kingsbury does a good job of highlighting what is a central point of difference between those in the Family-Integrated Church Movement and those of us who hold to a more traditional view.

Should Christians celebrate Christmas?

This was a question that John Piper sought to answer back in December of 2007, and I find myself in essential agreement with his point of view. So, for your own consideration, here is his response:

I sympathize with those who want to be rigorously and distinctly Christian, who want to be disentangled from the world and any pagan roots that might lie beneath our celebration of Christmas, but I don't go that route on this matter because I think there comes a point where the roots are so far gone that the present meaning doesn't carry the pagan connotation anymore. I'm more concerned about a new paganism that gets layered on top of Christian holidays.

Here's the example I use: All language has roots somewhere. Most of our days of the week—if not all—grew out of pagan names too. So should we stop using the word "Sunday" because it may have related to the worship of the sun once upon a time? In modern English "Sunday" doesn't carry that connotation, and that's the very nature of language. In a sense, holidays are like chronological language.

Christmas now means that we mark, in Christian ways, the birth of Jesus Christ. I think the birth, death and resurrection of Christ are the most important events in human history. Not to mark them in some way, by way of special celebration, would be folly it seems to me.

I remember I lived next door to somebody back in seminary who didn't celebrate birthdays for their kid. The idea was, partly, that all days were special for their kid. But if all days are special then it probably means that there are no special days. Yet some things are so good and precious—like anniversaries, birthdays, and even deaths—that they are worthy of being marked. How much more the birth and death of Jesus Christ!

It's really worth the risk, even if the date of December 25 was chosen because of its proximity to some kind of pagan festival. Let's just take it, sanctify it, and make the most of it, because Christ is worthy of being celebrated in his birth.

There is no point in choosing any other date. It won't work.

This was actually an edited transcription of an "Ask Pastor John" audio file that can be downloaded here.

Dr. Richard Belcher on the Holy Spirit, Prayer, and Revival

I found two terrific sermons by Dr. Belcher at the Sermon Index website that I highly recommend.

Prayer, the Holy Spirit, and Revival Part 1

Prayer, the Holy Spirit, and Revival Part 2

The first message focuses upon the sovereign role of the Holy Spirit in bringing about revival. The second message focuses upon the role of prayer in light of th Holy Spirit's sovereignty.

If you listen to these sermons, you will quickly discover why Dr. Belcher has been so used of God and why he had such an impact on my life as well. It is because he, by the grace of God, has trusted in the Lord rather than in human means to accomplish the work of the ministry. He is himself an example of how the sovereign Holy Spirit takes and uses a man as He wills.

John MacArthur on Catholicism, Billy Graham, and the Trend Toward Universalism

As usual, John tells it like it is, and I couldn't agree with him more on this issue.

Jesus' Model Prayer: The Sixth Petition

In this post I am continuing a series on the Lord's Prayer. What follows are my teaching notes on the text in Matthew. I hope the blog's readers will find it helpful.

Introduction: Illustration: “In a Frank and Ernest cartoon the two characters are standing before a priest and Frank asks, 'How come opportunity knocks once, but temptation beats at my door every day?'” (Swindoll's Ultimate Book of Illustrations and Quotes, p.562).

“Temptation beats at my door every day” the character says, and we find it amusing not because it is foreign to our experience, but because it is so common to our experience. And this is the very thing that Jesus assumes about us as well. We have seen that He teaches us to pray daily for our physical needs and for forgiveness of sin, but He also wants us to pray daily for deliverance from temptation because He knows it beats at each of our doors every day.

NKJ Matthew 6:13a  “And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.”

In order to understand Jesus' meaning here, let's consider the meaning of the Greek noun translated temptation. The Greek word peirasmós has two primary meanings:

1) It is used in a good sense to describe “God's examination of man” and has the meaning test or trial.

2) It is used in a bad sense to describe an “enticement to sin, either from without or within” and has the meaning temptation (Friberg Lexicon #21267, BibleWorks).

The related Greek verbs peirázō and ekpeirázō are also used in Scripture in both this positive and negative sense.

In order to understand how Jesus intends the word to be understood in the Lord's Prayer, we must remember several important points that become clear as we examine passages which use this terminology in both the Septuagint (or LXX, the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) and the New Testament.

First, God does test us.

Let's examine several of the many Scripture passages that demonstrate this truth:

NKJ Exodus 20:18-20 “Now all the people witnessed the understandings, the lightning flashes, the sound of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking; and when the people saw it, they trembled and stood afar off. 19 Then they said to Moses, 'You speak with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us, lest we die.' 20 And Moses said to the people, 'Do not fear; for God has come to test [LXX peirázō] you, and that His fear may be before you, so that you may not sin.'”

We see here that God tests His people in order to help them to learn to trust Him in order to keep them from sin. So His testing is for our good.

NKJ Deuteronomy 8:1-3, 16 “Every commandment which I command you today you must be careful to observe, that you may live and multiply, and go in and possess the land of which the LORD swore to your fathers. 2 And you shall remember that the LORD your God led you all the way these forty years in the wilderness, to humble you and test [LXX ekpeirázō, “to test thoroughly”] you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not. 3 So He humbled you, allowed you to hunger, and fed you with manna which you did not know nor did your fathers know, that He might make you know that man shall not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the LORD…. 16 who fed you in the wilderness with manna, which your fathers did not know, that He might humble you and that He might test [LXX ekpeirázō] you, to do you good in the end....”

Again we see that God tests His people thoroughly for their good. He knows what is best for us in the end, and His tests are designed to bring it about.

NKJ James 1:2-4 “My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials [pl. of peirasmós], 3 knowing that the testing [dokímion] of your faith produces patience. 4 But let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing.”

Although James does not specifically say here that these trials come from God, he appears to assume it as he speaks of the way in which they are designed in order to do the same thing the Old Testament teaches that God's tests are designed to do by helping us to grow in our faith. James certainly knew the Old Testament well, and I cannot imagine he would say such tests come from anyone else! In addition, when we return to this passage later, we will see that James seems to think that his readers will themselves assume such tests are from God, which is why they might mistakenly be led to think that, when they are tempted in the midst of testing, the temptation also comes from God. This leads to the next important point we need to consider.

Second, God does not tempt us.

After Adam fell, he seemed to forget this fact – as fallen human beings often forget it! Notice how he essentially blames God for having given Eve to him, through whose influence he succumbed to temptation:

NKJ Genesis 3:12 “Then the man said, 'The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.'” (Italics mine.)

But it wasn't God who tempted Adam to sin, for He never tempts anyone to sin! James makes this point quite clearly:

NKJ James 1:13-15 “Let no one say when he is tempted [peirázō], 'I am tempted by God'; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.”

Notice how James has shifted to using the terminology in its negative sense. He was using the terminology in a positive sense when he was teaching about testing, but he knows that frequently, in the midst of testing, we may also find ourselves tempted to sin. When this happens, he wants us never to think that God – who tests us for our good – is Himself responsible for the temptations we may experience in the process. No, James says, all such temptation has has its source our own evil desires (as well as satanic or demonic influence, which, as we shall see further on, Jesus has in mind in this model prayer). But this leads to another important point to consider.

Third, God does allow us to be tempted.

Perhaps the clearest example of this is Jesus' temptation in the wilderness:

NKJ Matthew 4:1 “Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted [peirázō] by the devil.

The Apostle Paul also teaches that God allows us to be tempted:

NKJ 1 Corinthians 10:12-13 “Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. 13 No temptation [peirasmós] has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted [peirázō] beyond what you are able, but with the temptation [peirasmós] will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.”

When Paul says that God will not allow us to be tempted beyond what we are able to bear, does he not also indicate that God will allow us to be tempted within what we are able to bear with His help?

Quote: Someone has said, “The will of God will never lead you where the grace of God cannot keep you.” Whoever said this got it right!

Fourth, God does sometimes test us by allowing us to be tempted.

Let's begin again with a couple of Old Testament examples:

NKJ Deuteronomy 13:1-3 “If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, 'Let us go after other gods' -- which you have not known -- 'and let us serve them,' 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the LORD your God is testing [LXX peirázō] you to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.”

Here God's desire is to test the Israelites by allowing them to be tempted by a false prophet. We find a similar situation when we read about God's reason for allowing the pagan nations to remain in Canaan to test the Israelites:

NKJ Judges 2:20-23 “Then the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel; and He said, 'Because this nation has transgressed My covenant which I commanded their fathers, and has not heeded My voice, 21 I also will no longer drive out before them any of the nations which Joshua left when he died, 22 so that through them I may test [LXX peirázō] Israel, whether they will keep the ways of the LORD, to walk in them as their fathers kept them, or not.' 23 Therefore the LORD left those nations, without driving them out immediately; nor did He deliver them into the hand of Joshua.”

God knew these nations would tempt Israel to sin, but he allowed such temptation to remain so that He might test them. God Himself did not in any way tempt them to sin, however, but only allowed them to be tempted. Remember our earlier reading of James, in which he emphatically asserted that  “God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.” In fact, let's take one more look at James 1:

NKJ James 1:12-13 “Blessed is the man who endures temptation [peirasmós, or better “under trial” as in ESV and NASB]; for when he has been approved [dókimos], he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him. 13 Let no one say when he is tempted [peirázō], 'I am tempted by God'; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.”

James is relying upon the dual meaning of the word peirasmós in order to make the point that the very testing of our faith (mentioned earlier in verses 2-4) which God brings about and that leads to our being proved/approved may also become a time of temptation for us. But we should never make the mistake of thinking that this temptation comes from God. God may test us, but if such tests become temptations for us, this is not God's doing!

What does Jesus intend in the Lord's Prayer? Is He referring to testing or temptation?

There are those who think that Jesus is telling us to ask the Father not to lead us into times of testing, but this seems unlikely since we know that God will do so for our own good. However, it may be possible to understand this as a request not to lead us into times of testing that are so severe that we may be tempted to stumble.

On the other hand, there are those who think that Jesus is telling us to ask the Father more specifically not to lead us into times of temptation. This option is reflected in most translations (such as the KJV, NKJV, ESV, and NASB) and is the most likely option given the second half of the petition: "but deliver us from the evil one."

In other words – although God may allow us to be tempted – we are taught by Jesus to ask Him not to let us be tempted such that we might be overpowered by the evil one. But this last part of the petition brings up another question:

Does Jesus teach us to ask God to “deliver us from evil” or to “deliver us from the evil one”?

That is, does Jesus refer to evil in general or to a specific and personified worker of evil, namely the devil. I think He intends to refer to the “evil one” (Satan) for a couple of reasons:

1) He used the article – the evil – as well as the masculine form of the word and thus most likely refers to an evil person or being.

2) Earlier in the context Jesus used a similar Greek construction in a clear reference to a personal evildoer:

NKJ Matthew 5:39 “But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.” (Italics mine.)

This understanding also reflects other Biblical teaching. For example:

NKJ Ephesians 6:10-18 “Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. 11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 14 Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God; 18 praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints....”

NKJ James 4:7 “Therefore submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you.”

NKJ 1 Peter 5:8-9 “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. 9 Resist him, steadfast in the faith, knowing that the same sufferings are experienced by your brotherhood in the world.” (All italics mine.)

So we can see that it makes perfect sense for Jesus to teach us to pray that God will deliver us from the evil one, which is Satan. But He doesn't want us to finish praying on this note. He wants us to finish praying with another reminder of the ultimate goal of our lives, which is to bring glory to God.

NKJ Matthew 6:13b “For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.”

Some manuscripts do not include this last part of the verse, but I think it is best taken as genuine, and it certainly does reflect other Biblical teaching. In fact, it is similar to other doxologies in Scripture. For example:

NKJ 1 Chronicles 29:10-11 “Therefore David blessed the LORD before all the assembly; and David said: 'Blessed are You, LORD God of Israel, our Father, forever and ever. 11 Yours, O LORD, is the greatness, the power and the glory, the victory and the majesty; for all that is in heaven and in earth is Yours; Yours is the kingdom, O LORD, and You are exalted as head over all.'”

NKJ Revelation 5:13 “And every creature which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, I heard saying: 'Blessing and honor and glory and power be to Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, forever and ever!'”

I think Jesus wants us to finish our prayers with such a focus on God's glory because this focus is what should characterize the motives and desires of all true believers. So we don't ask Him not to lead us into temptation but to deliver us from evil simply for our own good. We do it because this is the way we best glorify Him and acknowledge His Lordship over all things.

Conclusion: Quote: As C.S. Lewis once wrote:

No man knows how bad he is until he has tried very hard to be good. A silly idea is current that good people do not know what temptation means. That is an obvious lie. Only those who try to resist temptation know how strong it is …. Christ, because He was the only Man who never yielded to temptation, is also the only Man who knows to the full what temptation means. (As quoted in Today in the Word, November, 1998, p. 24)

This is why I want to conclude with an encouragement to take all our struggles with temptation to Christ, for He knows how to help us:

NKJ Hebrews 2:17-18; 4:14-16 “Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted. 4:14 -16 Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.”

Jesus' Model Prayer: The Fifth Petition

In this post I am continuing a series on the Lord's Prayer. What follows are my teaching notes on the text in Matthew. I hope the blog's readers will find it helpful.

Introduction: When tempted by Satan, Jesus reminded him that “man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4, citing Deut. 8:3). In the Lord's Prayer, He reminds us that man lives not only by daily bread, but by daily forgiveness from God.

Quote: As D.A. Carson has put it:

The first three petitions stand independently from one another. The last three, however, are linked in Greek by “ands,” almost as if to say that life sustained by food is not enough. We also need forgiveness of sin and deliverance from temptation. (EBC, Vol.8, p.172)

Quote: Thomas Watson elaborates on this same point:

As soon as Christ had said, 'Give us daily bread,' he adds, 'and forgive us.' He joins the petition of forgiveness of sin immediately to the other of daily bread, to show us that though we have daily bread, yet all is nothing without forgiveness. If our sins be not pardoned, we can take but little comfort in our food. As a man that is condemned takes little comfort from the meat you bring him in prison, without a pardon; so, though we have daily bread, yet it will do us no good unless sin be forgiven. What though we should have manna, which was called angels' food, though the rock should pour out rivers of oil, all is nothing unless sin be done away. When Christ had said, 'Give us our daily bread,' he presently added, and 'forgive us our trespasses.' Daily bread may satisfy the appetite, but forgiveness of sin satisfies the conscience ….

Daily bread may make us live comfortably, but forgiveness of sins will make us die comfortably. (The Lord's Prayer, first published as part of A Body of Practical Divinity, 1692)

While keeping in mind that daily forgiveness is just as important as our daily bread, let's examine more closely the way Jesus wants us to pray for this forgiveness.

NKJ Matthew 6:12 "And forgive us our debts [opheílēma], as we forgive our debtors [opheilétēs].

Several questions come to mind as I read this verse: 1) What are the debts Jesus says we need to have forgiven? (What does this term debts mean?) 2) In what sense are our debts forgiven as we forgive our debtors? (Does this imply that we earn forgiveness by first forgiving others?) We shall seek to answer each of this questions in our attempt to understand what Jesus is teaching us.

I. What are the debts Jesus says we need to have forgiven?

As most of us are no doubt already aware, the Bible can sometimes describe sins as debts and the forgiving of sins as the forgiveness of a debt. It is figurative language that was well understood by first century Jews. This is why Jesus uses it in this passage and also why – on another occasion when He taught His disciples to pray in a similar fashion – He could refer to debts and sins interchangeably:

NKJ Luke 11:4a “And forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who is indebted [opheílō] to us.” (Italics mine.)

This metaphorical way of picturing sins as debts is also reflected in one of Jesus' better known parables:

NKJ Matthew 18:21-35 “Then Peter came to Him and said, 'Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?' 22 Jesus said to him, 'I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. 23 Therefore the kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24 And when he had begun to settle accounts, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. 25 But as he was not able to pay, his master commanded that he be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and that payment be made. 26 The servant therefore fell down before him, saying, “Master, have patience with me, and I will pay you all.” 27 Then the master of that servant was moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt. 28 But that servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and he laid hands on him and took him by the throat, saying, “Pay me what you owe!” 29 So his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, “Have patience with me, and I will pay you all.” 30 And he would not, but went and threw him into prison till he should pay the debt. 31 So when his fellow servants saw what had been done, they were very grieved, and came and told their master all that had been done. 32 Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, “You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. 33 Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?” 34 And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him. 35 So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses.'”

Quote: Thomas Watson asks the question, “Why is sin called a debt?” and offers this helpful answer:

Because it fitly resembles it. (1) A debt arises upon non- payment of money, or the not paying that which is one's due. We owe to God exact obedience, and not paying what is due, we are in debt. (2) In case of non-payment, the debtor goes to prison; so, by our sin, we become guilty, and are exposed to God's curse of damnation. Though he grants a sinner a reprieve for a time, yet he remains bound to eternal death if the debt be not forgiven. (The Lord's Prayer, first published as part of A Body of Practical Divinity, 1692)

Watson also goes on to ask the question, “In what sense is sin the worst debt?” to which he gives several answers that are worthy of consideration:

(1) Because we have nothing to pay. If we could pay the debt, what need to pray, 'forgive us'?....

(2) Sin is the worst debt, because it is against an infinite majesty....

(3) Sin is the worst debt, because it is not a single, but a multiplied debt. Forgive us 'our debts;' we have debt upon debt....

(4) Sin is the worst debt; because it is an inexcusable debt in two respects; [1] There is no denying the debt. Other debts men may deny. If the money be not paid before witnesses, or if the creditor lose the bond, the debtor may say he owes him nothing; but there is no denying the debt of sin. If we say we have no sin, God can prove the debt.... 2] There is no shifting off the debt. Other debts may be shifted off. We may get friends to pay them, but neither man nor angel can pay this debt for us. If all the angels in heaven should make a purse, they cannot pay one of our debts. In other debts men may get a protection, so that none can touch their persons, or sue them for it; but who shall give us a protection from God's justice?

Indeed, who “shall give us a protection from God's justice”? We know that it is Jesus Christ alone who can pay the debt, “in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins" (Col. 1:14).

II. In what sense are our debts forgiven as we forgive our debtors?

At first glance, one might be tempted to think – as some have thought – that Jesus is teaching that we can somehow merit forgiveness from God through our forgiveness of others, especially given Jesus' explanation of this petition in verses 14-15:

NKJ Matthew 6:14-15 14 "For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."

But does Jesus really intend to say that we merit God's forgiveness through our our forgiveness of others? That our forgiving others is somehow the cause of God's forgiving us? Four considerations militate against such an an understanding of Jesus' teaching here:

First, the form of request the petition for forgiveness takes rules out merit, so that our forgiveness of others cannot be the cause of God's forgiveness of us.

When Jesus tells us to ask the father to "forgive us our debts," He uses the Greek verb aphíēmi, which means “to remit a debt” and also “to forgive a sin” (i.e. in the same manner as one would remit a debt). But to remit a debt is to show grace! No payment is required! If God were dealing with us in accordance with works righteousness, He would demand payment of the debt from us.

Thus, Jesus cannot be saying that God will cancel our debt while at the same time saying we must pay it bit by bit! Such a reading of the text would be absurd.

Second, we must distinguish between the initial forgiveness of our sins when we are justified and the ongoing need for confession and forgiveness in our daily lives.

1) Jesus clearly intends this prayer for those who are already believers and thus already justified and forgiven through Christ.

Recall the opening address of the prayer in verse 9, in which Jesus tells believers to address God as “our Father.”

2) Jesus clearly intends this as an ongoing, daily prayer (sanctification), not as a once for all prayer for salvation and forgiveness (justification).

Recall verse 11, in which Jesus clearly indicates this is to be a “daily” prayer (and see also Luke 11:3, "Give us day by day our daily bread").

This distinction between initial forgiveness and our ongoing need for forgiveness may be found elsewhere in scripture as well. For example:

Initial forgiveness: NKJ Romans 3:21-24 “But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus....”

Ongoing forgiveness: NKJ 1 John 1:8-2:1 “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us. 2:1 My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.”

Third, we must distinguish between our forgiveness of others as the cause of God's forgiveness of us versus our forgiveness of others as the evidence of our having been forgiven by God.

NKJ James 2:14-17 “What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, 'Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,' but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.”

As many Reformed theologians have correctly asserted over the centuries, “We are saved by grace through faith alone, bu the faith that saves is never alone.” Genuine saving faith always results in a changed life that produces fruit in keeping with repentance (as John the Baptist would say it, Matt. 3:8), and one of those fruits will always be a forgiving heart.

Quote: John Stott gets it right when he says:

This certainly does not mean that our forgiveness of others earns us the right to be forgiven. It is rather that God forgives only the penitent and that one of the chief evidences of true penitence is a forgiving spirit. Once our eyes have been opened to see the enormity of our offence against God, the injuries which others have done to us appear by comparison extremely trifling. If, on the other hand, we have an exaggerated view of the offences of others, it proves that we have minimized our own. (The Message of the Sermon on the Mount, p.149-150)

Fourth, we must distinguish between deserts and capacity. Jesus is not saying that God's forgiveness of our sins is the just deserts of our having forgiven others. Rather, He is implying that our forgiveness of others affects our capacity to receive God's forgiveness. This is also consistent with the teaching of the rest of Scripture. For example:

NKJ Psalm 66:18 “If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear.”

So also, when Jesus teaches us to pray daily, “forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors,” He is also giving us a daily reminder that we need to confess our sins to God and to be forgiven by Him. And He is giving us a daily reminder that our relationships with others always affect our relationship with God! We will be hindered in our fellowship with God and will not experience His forgiveness fully if we do not forgive others. But as we see a forgiving spirit within ourselves, then we will be all the more assured of God's forgiveness. For, if God can enable us to forgive those who harm us, then we know with certainly that God Himself can and does truly forgive us!

Conclusion: I will conclude simply by repeating the admonition of the Apostle Paul, one which I hope we will now see in a new light:

NKJ Ephesians 4:32 “And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, just as God in Christ forgave you.”

Veterans Day Remembrance - Every War Has An End

As both a Christian and a veteran, I look forward to the time when all war will end. Isaiah foretold that the Messiah, the Lord Jesus, would usher in such a time:

NKJ Isaiah 2:4 "He shall judge between the nations, and rebuke many people; they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore."

So on this day I am grateful for the sacrifice of my fellow veterans, and I honor their service. But I am infinitely more grateful for the sacrifice of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, for He has won the victory that will one day be manifested in a New Heavens and a New Earth, where there will be no more death at all:

NKJ Revelation 21:1-4 "Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. 2 Then I, John1, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, 'Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. 4 And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.'"

Amen! Come Lord Jesus!

Al Mohler and R.C. Sproul on the "Seeker Sensitive" Movement

I saw this video over at the Reformed Baptist Fellowship blog, and I couldn't help but post it here as well. I think the readers of this blog will see why.

Jesus' Model Prayer: The Fourth Petition

In this post I am continuing a series on the Lord's Prayer. What follows are my teaching notes on the text in Matthew. I hope the blog's readers will find it helpful.

Introduction: In our previous examination of the first three petitions of this prayer – that God's name be hallowed, that His Kingdom come, and that His will be done on earth as it is in Heaven – we focused upon praying for the glory of God. Now we will begin to look at the last three petitions of the Lord's prayer, which are focused on praying for our good. And the first of these petitions is centered specifically upon our physical good.

NKJ Matthew 6:11 “Give us this day our daily bread.”

Although this request seems very simple, it actually has more depth than many realize. So, we will take some time to examine each of the parts of this prayer in order to bring out its significance more clearly. We will focus our attention on four distinct emphases of the prayer.

First, when Jesus teaches us to pray for our daily bread, He is referring to the basic necessities of life, not to luxuries.

Quote: As D.A. Carson puts it, “The prayer is for our needs, not our greeds” (EBC, Vol.8, p.171).

Application: Since we live in such an affluent society and possess so much more than just what we need, we can easily fall prey to the kind of materialism that mistakes wants for needs. For example, we can find ourselves praying for another car or for a bigger house or for better clothes because the culture we live in makes us think we need such things when we really don't.

Illustration: Paul demonstrates the attitude that Jesus wants to be in us when praying this prayer:

NKJ 1 Timothy 6:7-8 “For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. 8 And having food and clothing, with these we shall be content.”

To be sure, praying for our daily bread – our basic needs – and no more is a prayer of contentment!

However, there have been those who have felt that a plea for our daily bread – and thus for our basic physical needs – is too mundane a concern to be included in such a prayer. They have thus sought to spiritualize the meaning. For example, some of the early Church Fathers, such as Tertullian, Cyprian, and Augustine, all interpreted our daily bread as meaning “the invisible bread of the Word of God” (John Stott, The Message of the Sermon on the Mount, p. 148). Some also interpreted it as a reference to the bread of the Lord's Supper, as did Jerome, when in his Latin Vulgate translation he rendered the meaning as “super-substantial bread – that is, as bread that is more than just physical bread" (Stott, p.148).

But there is no good reason in the context to think that Jesus is referring to either the Word of God or the Lord's Supper. These interpretations are simply examples of eisegesis rather than exegesis. That is, they read into the text a meaning that is not there rather than reading out of the text the meaning that is readily apparent to any without a preconceived agenda.

Application: Such misreadings of the passage also miss a very important point, namely that God truly cares about such things as our most basic physical needs. These are not mundane, trivial things to God! And they certainly aren't mundane or trivial to one who lacks food or clothing!

Quote: Kent Hughes drives home the same point when he writes in his commentary on this verse:

God wants us to bring our everyday needs to him, even if they seem trivial. He does not demand that we approach him only when we have raised ourselves to some kind of spiritual elevation above the everyday things of life. The greatness of our God lies in his descending to meet us where we are. (The Sermon on the Mount, p. 183)

Second, when Jesus teaches us to pray that God will give us this day our daily bread, He is giving us a daily reminder that we are a part of a family of believers who also have the same needs as we do.

Jesus does not want us to be selfish in seeking only our own needs from the Lord, but to be mindful of our brothers and sisters in Christ as well.

Remember also that Jesus also commends those who help provide for others who are less fortunate:

NKJ Matthew 25:31-36 “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. 33 And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on His right hand, 'Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me....'”

Jesus identifies true believers as those who care not just about their own needs, but also about meeting the needs of others, and He wants us to remember this in prayer every day.

Quote: Kent Hughes offers a similar insight on this aspect of the prayer:

Every time we pray this prayer from our heart, we are affirming our solidarity with our brothers and sisters. When we pray, “Give us today our daily bread,” we are also making an implicit commitment to help provide bread for needy friends. The prayer is a stretching, broadening petition. We not only depend on God for practical provision – we commit ourselves to be part of God's answer for others in need. (The Sermon on the Mount, p. 183)

Third, when Jesus teaches us to pray that God will give us our daily bread, He wants us to remember that – although we may work to meet our basic needs – all we have ultimately comes as a gift from God.

Jesus does not want us to become self-dependent but to be mindful every day that we are dependent upon our heavenly Father for everything. Such humble dependence upon God runs directly counter to the so called “rugged individualism” and self-sufficiency that our culture prizes so highly!

Of course, the fact that we are to be dependent upon God in no way diminishes our responsibility to work to meet our own needs and the needs of others. For example, Paul admonishes us to work:

NKJ 2 Thessalonians 3:10-12 “For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. 11 For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies. 12 Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread.”

So, the way we can typically expect God to answer this prayer to meet our basic needs is through the provision of work.

Fourth, when Jesus teaches us to pray that God will give us this day our daily bread, He wants us to learn to trust God for each day without giving in to worry about the next one.

This becomes clear as we examine the meaning of the two Greek terms He uses in this context.

First, the Greek word sēmeron means “today,” “this day,” or “this very day.” It clearly focuses upon the very day one is praying the prayer.

Second, the Greek word epioúsios is a more difficult word, with only three undisputed occurrences in known ancient Greek literature, one here in Matthew 6:11, one in Luke 11:3 (recording another teaching of the Lord's Prayer by Jesus), and one in a late first century Christian writing called The Didache (which is quoting the Lord's Prayer, 8:2).

The two primary meanings proposed for this Greek word are 1) for the current day, which means that it refers to “today's bread,” or 2) for the coming day, which means that it refers to “tomorrow's bread.”

In my opinion, Jesus is referring to the food we need on the current day, given His emphasis on “this day” and His admonition later on in the same sermon:

NKJ Matthew 6:34 “Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own things. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.”

Quote: Thus I agree with D.A. Carson, when he writes that the prayer “is for one day at a time ('today'), reflecting the precarious lifestyle of many first-century workers who were paid one day at a time and for whom a few days illness could spell tragedy” (EBC, Vol.8, p.171).

Application: Jesus wants us to live one day at a time rather than to let the concerns of tomorrow cause us to fail to trust God fully for today... and for each and every day. Although there is certainly nothing wrong with making plans for the future, there is something wrong with being so driven by such concerns that we begin to put our trust in our own plans rather than in God. And there is definitely also something wrong with giving in to worry about tomorrow.

Conclusion: I hope that this time spent thinking together about the meaning of this simple petition – “Give us this day our daily bread” – has been a helpful reminder to us all. May God grant us the grace to pray with such a heart every day!