Why pastor search committees are wrong

Well, after my last post I had some wonderful friends, and my beloved father, discussing various points with me.  One of my friends asked the all important question: Why is it wrong for churches to add qualifications to pastor?  I really wanted to tackle this question already, and in part I wanted to address it in the way churches look for pastors (at least many churches), which is through a pastor search committee.  The reason I want to tackle it in this fashion is because the way a church looks for a pastor will end up being determined by their view of who their pastor should be.  Ergo the issue of whether a church should have the right to add qualifications will necessarily work itself out in the manner in which a church chooses to look for a pastor.

So, I've already tipped my hand to the fact that I think the way most churches do this is just wrong.  The question really becomes one of "Why?"  Allow me to back up one minute here and note first of all that I intended my title to be a little too all-encompassing.  I recognize there are some churches that do form biblical pastor search committees.  However, I recognize also that these churches are few and far between and that the vast majority (and I do mean the vast majority) do not form biblical search committees.

So, why do I say pastor search committees are wrong?  Well, first of all because in many churches there should be no need for a pastor search committee.  Beyond that point the individuals chosen for the pastor search committee are often ignorant of what they should be looking for, and thus should not be there in the first place.  Finally, because of the second point, the qualifications chosen by most pastor search committees (this ties into the last post) are not biblical and thus the pastor search committee ends up making decisions based more on feeling than biblical reasoning.  Most pastor search committees are wrong because they are simply not biblical or biblically literate.

I know I sound like I'm throwing some harsh barbs here, but let me be clear: my only goal is that the church would be conformed to the pattern laid out in Scripture, in order that we might grow into the fullness of him who fills everything.  I'm laying out my charges clearly and bluntly so that there can be no mistake with what I am saying.  I recognize that I am destroying my own future of finding a church, as any who would read this blog would immediately reject me as I have rejected their model of finding a pastor.  In other words I'm arguing I should be taken seriously because I am figuratively throwing away any hope I have of being a pastor by posting so public a complaint against modern church polity.  (In case you think I'm exaggerating, trust me, by my own experience I can well guarantee you I'm not.)

Okay, so let's take these issues in the following order:  What qualifications should a man meet to be a pastor?  Who should be on a committee considering a man for the position of a pastor?  How should a church find a pastor?  If we address these three questions, starting with the first, then we will be able to lay out a biblical model for a pastor search committee.

So, to the first question: What qualifications should a man meet to be a pastor?  Here we have a very easy answer: the bible gives us the list of qualifications.  Let us look to the two passages that explicitly answer this question: Titus 1:6-9; and 1 Timothy 3:1-7.  Looking at these two sections, taken as a composite, what we read is:

"The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task[, so] if anyone is above reproach, sober-minded the husband of one wife, he manages his own household well, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination (for an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?); he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered, quarrelsome, or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, respectable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, gentle and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction (able to teach) in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil." (Titus 1:6-9 and 1 Timothy 3:1-7 modified from the ESV)

Note that Paul states in Titus "if anyone..." and goes on to explain the qualifications of an elder.  Note also that in 1 Timothy Paul says that a man who desires to be an overseer must meet these qualifications, and then goes on to list the qualifications he must meet.  But, in neither case does Paul say that the church has a right to modify this list or add to it.  Okay, but some will respond that the bible does not prohibit them from modifying the list.  But does it?

If we look to the opening verses of 1 Timothy we see that Paul tells Timothy to charge those in the church not to deviate from Paul's doctrine in the gospel.  Well, part of the doctrine of the gospel is that Christ is the one who sets up the church and provides for her the various leaders and members she needs.  So we read in 1 Corinthians 12:28, "God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, various kinds of tongues."  What we see is that it is God who appoints a man to be a preacher, a teacher, or any other role within the church.  Therefore, when the church considers, "Who should we call to be our [fill in the blank]?" the answer will be, "Who meets the qualifications God has laid out for that role?

For a church to assume the authority of adding qualifications to this role would be to assume that their understanding of who would be right for their congregation is more authoritative than Scripture.  So, for instance, a man might say, "You are looking for a pastor, I meet all the qualifications to be a pastor, and I am willing to come and serve at your church."  For a church to say to such a man, "We are not interested in having you, we want someone with different qualifications" would be tantamount to that church saying that they do not care that Scripture says he is qualified, they themselves want to determine who is truly qualified.  In many ways this would be like the ancient Israelites ignoring those who fulfilled the true office of prophet in order to listen to the other false prophets of the day.

But, what if a church needs a pastor, and there are a bunch of guys who all meet the qualifications of being a pastor, as laid out in Scripture, and all of them want to be the pastor of that church?  We'll get to that when we talk about a church actually calling a pastor.  For now let's address one issue at a time.  The simple fact is that Scripture lays out the qualifications, and Paul says that no one in the church is to deviate from the doctrines of the gospel, and one of those doctrines is that God is the only one with the authority to raise up and appoint the leadership of the church because it is the body of Christ.  Therefore, no church has the right to modify the doctrine of who is qualified to be an elder, either in relaxing the qualifications, or in making those qualifications more strict.

Okay, so with that out of the way (I hope it is out of the way, if not I'll write more on it once you, my gracious reader, let me know that I failed to carry my argument) let us get on to the matter of who should be on a committee considering a man for a pastor?  The answer to this question is actually the fuzziest of all the questions we'll be looking at in this post.  The answer is quite simply whoever is biblically informed, mature, doctrinally sound, and capable of exercising the discretion needed to make sure a man meets the qualifications as listed.  On this matter a church should exercise wisdom and discretion.  However, this is accepting the church as it is currently, not addressing the situation as it would be ideal.

The ideal answer to this question is: whoever the other elders are.  In other words the pattern laid out in Scripture is that there should be multiple elders in most churches.  Thus these men should be the ones determining who meets the qualifications of an elder, and they should be the ones to bring these men before the congregation.  From the perspective of doing a thorough review of the person the best option would be to then allow the congregation to verify the fitness of the man through asking whatever questions may be necessary (they may know of a weakness that the elders do not, or they may wonder themselves if the elders addressed all the potential weaknesses).  Thus the elders, recognizing that God has called a man to serve as an overseer, interview that man, examine his life, and once satisfied make that recommendation to the church.  The church then has the opportunity to interview that man and should, unless there is a flaw found in him, accept him as an elder based upon his meeting the qualifications as laid out in Scripture.  In this way the church, through the officers God has provided her, acknowledges the call of God.  (No, I'm not going to cite specific Scripture here because there is no specific Scripture that lays this method out, rather this is a biblical theology based upon reading Acts, 1 Timothy, Titus, and following the thread of God's calling through the Old Testament.  If you have a better method that actually fits with Scripture you are welcome to argue for it.)

Okay, but that last section certainly opens the question of when a church should call a new elder.  After all, if you already have three elders, how many more do you need?  And if we are addressing the question of when we also need to address the question of how the church finds this new elder.  It is great if we know the mechanics of how the church should verify a man as an elder, but how do they even find the man?  And what if, as I noted before, there are a lot of men all applying for the same position of elder?

To the first question we can apply the answer that many churches want to apply too frequently: It is up to the church.  Clearly you need to call an elder when you have no elders, but in a larger church the obvious answer seems to be, "Whenever the need arises."  For instance, no deacons were called in the church until that role was needed, and when the role was needed the church chose as many as was necessary to fulfill the role.  If you have a church of 50 members you probably don't need more than a couple of elders (perhaps one, but two is safer, we'll discuss why shortly), but if you have a church of 2500 you probably will need several elders to make sure the spiritual needs of the flock are being met.  Since it is the role of the elder to care for the flock spiritually you need as many elders as it takes to do so.

So, how does the church find this elder, and what if there are multiple men who all want to be elder at the same time?  Okay, let's address the first question in two ways, the first being the ideal, and the second being the real world.  In the ideal situation the way the church finds the new elder is through the body.  That is, if there is a need for an elder in the church, then it is reasonable to suppose that the same God who organized the body will provide for the needs of that body by raising up a member of the body to fulfill the role of elder.  A sign of a healthy church is that it is producing spiritually mature men who fulfill the requirements of being elders and is thus self-replicating.  In reality most churches couldn't function like this because most churches are not that healthy and haven't trained their members to be elders.

So, in reality the way a church finds an elder is through putting out word that they are looking for such a man.  Here the fact is there is no one right way to do things because the church has already failed in what should have been one of its primary tasks.  (I recognize that in persecuted churches things are different, but you probably aren't reading this post if you are in a church where your pastor was recently arrested in the middle of the night and the government has threatened to execute the remaining members. I'm not joking, we really need to be in prayer for our persecuted brothers and sisters.)  So, the best way to find a qualified man is to look where there are a multitude of qualified men: seminaries, larger churches, bible colleges, etc.  God has given Western churches a great blessing by establishing institutions where you can find a large number of men who meet the qualifications for being an elder in one place.

The problem is that "large number" part.  If a church is looking for an elder they are likely to draw a large number of men who all meet the qualifications of being an elder.  But how then does the church determine who the "best" man would be?  Well, again, there is no one simple answer to this, there are, however, multiple wrong answers.  One potential answer would be to follow the footsteps of the apostles and gamble.  If you read Acts 1 you'll note that the apostles replaced Judas by casting lots, accepting that there were multiple men who met the qualifications to be an apostle, and yet they only had one position to fill in order to complete the 12.  Thus it seems that it is perfectly biblical for a church to draw a name out of a hat or do some other random means of determining which of the multiple candidates God would call to serve them.  (I can see some people getting really upset at this already, but I'm standing on Scripture on this one unless you can show me I'm reading it wrong.)

The second option would be to limit the time frame and then simply do a "first come" sort of call, basically simply saying that the first man who meets the qualifications gets the call.  Or you could say the one who is closest because he would already know the community.  Basically there are a number of ways a church can make their decision, but they should have all of this ironed out before they even begin considering elders or else they and all those they consider will be in for one long headache.  (This is a major reason a church should seek to have multiple elders, so that if one leaves, dies, or can no longer serve for any reason the church is not without leadership while it looks to replace that man.  Thus at least two elders should be preferable for any church, so that the body may continue to function when faced with these kinds of issues.) 

But, most significantly, there are even more ways that a church may not determine who should be the elder.  No church, in any circumstance, has the right to add qualifications to the elder.  No church has the right to say one man has more education and therefore would be better, or more experience, or a larger family, or any other non-biblical attribute.  As we have already covered, the bible gives the qualifications for who may be an elder, and it is not in the purview of the church to change those qualifications even for the purpose of limiting the potential applicant pool.  A church who has failed in two tasks,of properly organizing itself with multiple elders so as not to be without an elder in the case of one leaving the church and of being self sustaining and generating elders within its body, does not rectify its failure by then failing in yet a third task and adding to the qualifications God has established in order to determine who may serve as elder of such a body.

Ecclesiology and Hierarchy

I really wanted to do this post about another topic altogether, that being pastor search committees and their place in the church.  However, I realized before I could do a post on search committees I would first need to explain the proper role and function of a pastor.  After all, how could we form a committee to search for a pastor if we do not know what a pastor is?  And then I realized that before I could even speak to what a pastor is I would need to lay out some ground work on basic church ecclesiology in general with a specific examination of the hierarchical structure of the church.

Everyone with me so far?  No?  Oh, well I guess I should explain some of the words I'm throwing around so we can all be on the same page then.

What do I mean by ecclesiology?  Well, ecclesiology is basically a fancy term for the structure of the church. I'm sure that's about as clear as mud, so let me explain it a little further.  Ecclesiology is the study of what the church as a body or group should look like.  So ecclesiology addresses questions such as who can be a member of the church, should the church have certain rules, can the church kick someone out, who is the head of the church, how should authority be concentrated in the church, etc.  All those questions that people tend to think aren't really very important until their church goes and does something crazy like try and replace the carpet because the deacons thought it would be good to go with pile carpeting instead of shag are basically covered in ecclesiology.

And, because I'm using the term a little different than others, I want to take a minute to define "hierarchy" as well.  What I mean by hierarchy is really just the issue of roles and authority.  I do not mean to intimate that there is necessarily someone who is higher up the chain of command in a church, but rather what roles are there and who fills those roles.  The issue of roles may very well mean that someone is higher up the chain of command than someone else, for instance the Catholic Church is very much organized with different levels of command.  In other churches, such as some Baptist churches, the pastor may have very little to no real authority outside of his preaching, teaching, and visitation (we'll act like it's the same thing as counseling, but we won't use that term so that people don't get all flustered thinking their pastor is judging their psychiatric state).

So, here's the million dollar question (And since I'm going to answer it, you can feel free to send me a million dollars. No, really.): Does the bible contain instructions on ecclesiology that are binding on all churches in all times and in all places?

Some people argue that the bible does not contain instructions on ecclesiology, or at least the instructions are flexible.  That is to say, if the bible does not explicitly forbid something then that must mean it is okay.  This argument basically says that while God has given the Christian some instructions (for instance the basic qualifications for deacons and pastors) these instructions will look different in differing social and cultural contexts.  Whether we have one pastor or two, whether the pastor is the sole decision maker in the church or whether the deacons make the decisions, these are all cultural questions left up to each church if this argument is correct.

But, the other side of the argument is that the bible contains explicit instructions on church make up.  That is to say that God has voiced a definite order for the church and the church is only healthy when it conforms to that order.  If this argument is correct then that means the role and function of a deacon is described in the New Testament and to add to or modify the responsibilities of those who serve as deacons is not the right of the churches, for God designed the body and only he has the right to say how each part should function.  This position says that roles such as pastor and deacon are not culturally determined and do not change based on social context.

Now, I've divided the arguments rather woodenly, the fact is that both sides would agree there must be some cultural adaptation, and there must be some absolutes that do not change.  Every church agrees that this is true, and it is necessary to accept this to even have church.  For instance whereas a Reformed Baptist and a Traditional Presbyterian church would both agree on issues such as election, the sovereignty of God, the depravity of man, and many other issues as well.  These two churches may agree on eschatology, soteriology, Christology, theology, and pneumatology, but they will disagree on ecclesiology.  For the Presbyterian the covenantal nature of the church indicates that the children of the covenant people are part of the body, for the Baptist the regenerate nature of the church indicates that only professing believers should be a part of the body.  This is an ecclesiological difference that results in a situation where the two would be hard pressed to worship together because they would see the body of Christ very differently.  (Which is why we have Baptists and Presbyterians today.)

So, why do I say that everyone agrees there must be some cultural adaptation?  Simply because it is true.  There are fringe groups who say that churches are not mentioned in the New Testament, therefore Christians should only meet in homes and the only valid churches are house churches.  However, most Christians agree that there is no prohibition against building churches and that the development of church buildings set aside as specific meeting places is a natural and acceptable development based on the way Christianity has grown throughout the centuries.  Likewise we do not see guitars, organs, snare drums or didgeridoos mentioned anywhere in the bible as musical instruments available for use in worship, yet most Christians would agree such instruments are perfectly acceptable. (I really have no intention of arguing for what most people already agree on.)

Okay, so we have to have some cultural adaptation.  It would be nearly impossible to practice Christianity without cultural adaptation in some way.  I don't speak Greek and would have a hard time understanding a pastor who only gave his sermons in Greek.  In fact I don't even understand Koine Greek well enough to be able to follow someone reading the Greek New Testament without pausing fairly often to interpret it so I can understand.  (And that's reading, just listening is harder still.)

So, to go back to our million dollar question (got that check book out yet?): Are there rules given on ecclesiological structure that are non-negotiable?  To this question I believe we can give a firm and absolute, "Yes!"  In fact I think not only that there are definite rules on ecclesiology, but that the vast majority of churches today are in violation of those rules.  I will address what churches should look like, starting with hierarchy, but from this point on I want to make clear that I am addressing this from a very particular view.  I am a Baptist, by choice and tradition both.  I am not going to make the argument for why a Baptist ecclesiology is right and any other ecclesiology is wrong.  I am going to begin with the assumption of a Baptist ecclesiology and build from there.  There will be significant overlap with all churches who agree to a regenerate membership only, and there will be significant overlap with other traditions as well, but I am not here going to lay out why the Baptist ecclesiology is right.  Thus the applications from this point on will be somewhat more limited depending on whether you are examining other non-Baptist traditions (the majority of Christianity).

So, from a baptist perspective, what can we say about the hierarchy, that is the defined roles and positions within the church?  And what evidence can we find in Scripture to show us whether these roles are non-negotiable or culturally dependent?

First, let us address pastors.  The term "pastor" is not used in the New Testament.  However, the terms "Elder" and "Overseer" are used.  In the ESV the term "Elder" is used in the New Testament in the following places: Acts 14:23, 1 Timothy 5:17, 19; 1 Peter 5:1; 2 John 1:1; and 3 John 1:1.  The term overseer is used in: 1 Timothy 3:1; 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:7; and 1 Peter 2:25.  So, what can we learn about these two terms from these passages?

The first thing we see is that it appears that "elder" and "overseer" are interchangeable, depending on context.  So Paul says in 1 Timothy 5:17 that elders who rule well are worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.  Without going into the issue of "ruling elders" vs. "preaching and teaching elders" we can see that all elders were expected to "rule" in some sense.  In the context the only thing they could be ruling over would be the church.  In 1 Timothy 3:5 we see that overseers are to be those who "care for God's church" in the same context as people who "manage" their own households.  Thus the overseer is to be one who manages the church.  Finally in Titus 1:7 we see that Paul says an overseer is God's steward.  Thus the overseer and the elder are the same thing: those who manage or rule the church, given to teaching and preaching the word of God and caring for his people.

But, we see more than just that.  If we look closely at 1 Peter 5:5 we see something more.  Throughout 1 Peter the term "elders" is used, mostly in the plural.  Now, the letter itself was a circular letter, that is it was intended to be read by many churches.  In many cases the term could be plural because Peter was speaking to multiple churches and wanted to make sure that everyone understood he was speaking to all churches, not just one elder who was in one of the churches.  However, in 1 Peter 5:5 we see that Peter says, "Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders."  This indicates that Peter was assuming that each church would have multiple elders.  Peter could easily have said, "you who are younger be subject to your elder" if he intended to indicate that each church should have one and only one elder.  By stating that the "younger" should be subject to the "elders" he assumes there are multiple "elders" each "younger" person should be subject to.  Likewise in Acts 14:23 we see that Paul and Barnabas appointed "elders" in "each church."  Explicitly in Acts we see the idea that there are multiple elders being appointed in "each church."

What's my point?  Well, the indication in Scripture is that the proper ecclesiology for a church, when we are discussing pastors/elders/overseers/bishops (yes the term "bishop" is a valid interpretation as well) is that there should be more than one in most churches.  On top of that, the role for an elder is fairly well defined: they are the shepherds, overseers, rulers, and stewards of God for the church.  The elder is to preach and teach, to visit the sick, to care for God's people, to counsel, and to watch over the church in general.

But wait, there's more!  Not only is the office well defined, and not only do we see indications that it is expected that multiple elders would be over most churches, but the qualifications are well defined too!  Paul tells Timothy and Titus both exactly what they should be looking for in an elder.  Paul doesn't say things like: "He must have a degree in theology, have at least 5 years experience as a leader in another congregation, be between 35-45 years old, be creative in his preaching, smile when he speaks, and be a good problem solver."  Paul gives an explicit list containing the attributes that God says are the qualifications for an elder, and none of the ones I listed above are on that list.

Yes, and? Okay, if we add any additional qualifications to an elder, for instance saying he cannot drink at all, or he cannot smoke at all, or he cannot wear tennis shoes, or he has to have a certain accent, what we are saying is that God's list is not sufficient for our church.  We are saying that though God gave a list of qualities for what we should be looking for in a pastor, we know better than God who would fit in our church.  We can justify this in any way we want, but that's what we are saying.  If we accept that God is the sovereign ruler of his church then we must also accept that anyone who meets his qualifications should be allowed to serve as the overseer of his church, even if that person isn't who we would have thought would be the best fit.

Our justifications (for instance saying, "Well the older people in our community won't accept a pastor who drinks a beer with his steak") do not hold muster when compared to the light of Scripture.  If we say only a certain man who meets a list of 50 qualifications can lead our church and grow it because of our local community, what we are saying is that the growth of the church is not dependent on the gospel or on God's adding people daily, but rather upon us having the right man who will speak with the right vocabulary and be eloquent enough to convince people to join.  This goes against everything we see in Scripture.

Most of our churches do not have a biblical ecclesiology when it comes to this first rung of hierarchy.  Most churches have one pastor.  In many churches the deacons are actually the rulers of the church.  In churches that have multiple pastors usually one is the "Senior" pastor and the others are "associates," having no real authority but to advise and carry out the orders of the "Senior pastor".  We do not see such divisions in Scripture, but rather see all elders treated equally, and held to the same standards.  If we would worship God rightly and expect him to bless us, we should first begin by aligning the body of God with his word, after all, what is the worship of our mouths if we deny his word with how we live?

A couple of additional (and better laid out) arguments on the issue of plurality of elders:

From a Southern Baptist Perspective

And another SBC perspective making the argument

Why 2 Chronicles 7:14 doesn't mean what you think it does

A lot of Christians quote Chronicles 7:14 as a verse that enjoins us to pray for our nation with the understanding that God will hear such a prayer and heal our nation from whatever evil besets us.  The verse itself reads, "if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land." (2 Chronicles 7:14 ESV)  This seems a very straight forward verse, God clearly says that if his people who are called by his name (we Christians believe we are the people of God, and we are called by the name of Christ) humble themselves, pray, seek his face, and turn from their wicked ways (we like all of these things) then God will hear from heaven, forgive our sin, and heal our land.  That seems like a done deal.  So why am I saying it doesn't mean what you think it does?

As much as I want to agree and give a hearty, "Amen!" to the idea of Christians praying for our land and seeking God's healing upon our land, I cannot agree that this verse is the one to hold to for that point.  If I were to point to any verse I would much rather point to 1 Timothy 2:1-2, wherein we are specifically told what, or who, to pray for.  In this case we are told directly to pray for those in authority, and with the specific goal that we may lead godly quiet lives.  Such verses have great value in that we are instructed first to pray, second to pray for certain people, and third to pray for a specific goal.  The Christian who lifts up prayers on behalf of his rulers with the goal that he wants to live in peace in his community quietly doing the will and work of God knows that this prayer is in line with the will of God.

Okay, so I agree that we should be praying for our communities, so what's my beef with 2 Chronicles 7:14? Simply put, it is a matter of exegesis.

Recognizing that this passage results in a conditional statement of action the questions that must be asked are the following:  Who is this command written to?  When is the condition of the command met so that it goes into effect?  What are individuals commanded to do when the command goes into effect?  The argument most commonly put forward among Christians is that this command was written to Israel, and is written to the church today, so that when God brings judgment on the nation (i.e. when bad things happen), then Christians should be the first to repent of the wickedness going on in their culture and should pray to God, with the result being that God will heal the nation.

My argument is that this exegesis misunderstands who the command is written to, and thus today misunderstands the proper application of this verse.  By misunderstanding the "who" of the command the "what" and the "when" of the command are also misunderstood.  (This is not to argue for a causative relation, one could very well have misunderstood the "when" of the verse and thus misunderstood the "who" of the verse based on application.)  In order to demonstrate a full understanding of the "who" of this verse I am going to first attempt to explain the "when" and the "what" of this command.  Once we understand when this command goes into effect and what this command entails in terms of the action of the people under the command, then we will be in a position to better understand who this command applies to.  Once all of that is done then we can understand what the result of obedience was, and thus have a full understanding of the verse that will then allow us to understand how to apply this verse today.

So, as to the "when."  When should this command be applied?  Well, the verse indicates that God will heal the land, so that implies that the command goes into effect when the land needs healing.  But, if we back up one verse to 2 Chronicles 7:13 we see that this command applies specifically to when God causes drought, sends locusts, or brings pestilence upon the land.  This is not to say that God would not also hear prayers in other situations, but rather that God made specific reference these events.  But so what?

Well, if we want to know "so what" let us go to Deuteronomy.  Specifically let us read Deuteronomy 28.  If you notice in this chapter God discusses the curses that he will bring upon Israel when they disobey him and fail to keep his law.  He starts with pestilence (Deuteronomy 28:21), then discusses drought (Deuteronomy 28:22, 23-24), and then talks about locusts (Deuteronomy 28:38).

The point of looking at Deuteronomy is that we see the situation God is describing in 2 Chronicles is a reference to the rebellion that is about to start in Israel after the time of Solomon (even during the time of Solomon as his idolatrous wives are said to have turned his heart away from God).  God warned Israel that when they forsook his commandments and his law that he would bring about a series of judgments involving pestilence, drought, and locusts.  Included in these judgments was also the fact that Israel would suffer exile and be brought out from the land. In reference to the exile God made a promise in Deuteronomy 30:1-3 that he would hear the cries of the exiles and would bring them back to their land, but there was no promise of forgiveness prior to exile, only the continuing harshness of judgment up to and then throughout the exile itself.

What we see in 2 Chronicles 7:14 is the gracious act of a kind God choosing to modify the covenant he made with Israel hundreds of years prior in Moab.  When God renewed the covenant with Israel in Moab they agreed, acting on behalf of their children, to take on all the blessings and all the curses of the covenant.  Thus the children of those men found themselves living in a time when the curses could finally come to fruition.  They finally had a king over them, one they had chosen and God had consecrated, and the full weight of the curses could be executed, and they had no way to escape the coming curses once they began to slide into immorality.  Yet, God, in his love for his people, by making this promise, gave his people a way to escape the curses once they began and forestall the utter destruction of their kingdom.  Once the curses began, if the people acknowledged that they had broken God's laws and had transgressed the covenant, then they could humbly come to God and pray to him, and he would forgive them this transgression and heal the land of the pestilence, the drought, or the locust, and thus forestall the exile.

When understood this way we see that this command had a special application under the covenant relationship that God had established with Israel.  But, this opens up a very interesting dilemma for us.  If I have understood the "when" correctly, and the "what" correctly (when the people realize they have transgressed the covenant, what they must do is pray for God's forgiveness), along with understanding the result correctly (God will forgive them and hold back the exile for a time), then the "who" of the command stands out in rather stark relief.  The only "who" this can apply to is the people of Israel during the time of the Old Testament.  The reason why is quite simple: This command was dependent upon the Old Covenant which was renewed at Moab as recorded in Deuteronomy, the Old Covenant has been done away with, it has been replaced by the New Covenant made by the blood of Christ.

Understanding the New Covenant opens up multiple problems for the direct application of this command.  For instance, as this was a command that reflected the judgment of God during the Old Covenant upon those who broke his law, it would be impossible to apply such a judgment to those in the New Covenant who do not live under the law and instead live under grace.  Likewise, as this was a command that developed by way of rebellion, we would be hard pressed to argue that the New Covenant people could live lives that would require repentance and turning from their wickedness.  Prior to being people of the New Covenant, most certainly, that is how we all lived, but now being in the New Covenant, having the Spirit of God, being filled with the love of Christ, to live in such a way seems impossible.  The idea of a New Covenant individual, much less a great number of individuals making up the New Covenant community, living in such wickedness certainly seems foreign to Scripture.  If indeed we are living such wicked lives that are not marked by regular repentance and a continual turning from wickedness, then I would honestly question whether any of us has a right to call ourselves "Christian" as such lives do not match up to the pictures of the saints we see in the New Testament.

So what do we do with this verse then?  I believe 2 Timothy 3:16 to be true.  Therefore I look to this verse and say that it was breathed out by God and that it is applicable to the Christian today.  But how shall we apply it, being as I have already said it cannot be directly applied?  We apply it through the atoning work of Christ, for all of God's promises are "yes" in Christ Jesus.

In Christ we recognize that we are in covenant with God, just as the people of Israel were.  In Christ we recognize that we have dire need for constant repentance, and that we are fully deserving of the wrath of God, of pestilence, drought, and locust.  And in Christ we recognize that the fullness of God's amazing forgiveness has been applied to us, so that our sins are forgiven and God is not waiting until some future date to pardon us.  Once we see all of this in Christ we look to our land and realize that we, like Abraham do not have a land here on earth.  Our country, our city, our neighborhood, none of it is our "land" in any final sense.  Israel was in the promised land, and we are waiting for the land promised to us.  Where God promised to heal the land stricken by curses for Israel we look forward to the land that will never be judged again, the New Jerusalem that comes down from heaven, and we acknowledge that all of this, our forgiveness, our claim to this land, our hope in a bright future where the curse is totally done away with, is all because of Christ Jesus, our Lord and Savior forever more.

2 Chronicles 7:14 does not apply to us in promising that God will heal our country, because we are not the people of Israel in the Old Covenant, rather we are the true Israel, adopted by Christ in the New Covenant. We, like our father Abraham look for the land we shall inherit, and we recognize that we are but sojourners in the land here on earth.  We are not those who need to turn from wickedness, but rather we are those who have turned, and who daily take up our crosses and follow after our Lord.  We are not those who must humble ourselves, but rather those who recognize in full humility that we are objects of mercy, having nothing of our own we may brag about, though we must be reminded about this fact regularly.  The promise of 2 Chronicles 7:14 is bigger for us, it is a promise of an undefiled land, a land beyond the curse, a perfect land.  And to this promise we say, like Job, that though we die, we will see our redeemer, we ourselves and no other, with our own eyes, for our redeemer was slain and he lives.

The death of dreams

What does life look like when dreams die? I'm asking this question because I find myself there. You see, though I can't place when it happened, my greatest dream has died. For years, since I was in high school, my goal was to be a teacher of the Word of God. Really what I wanted was to be a preacher, in an expository fashion, of the Word, but I didn't know that's what I wanted until I was exposed to expository preaching in seminary; but that's all come and gone.

That which animated my life for the longest has now become but a bit of background noise. I devoted my life to fulfilling my dream. The courses I chose at college, the groups I associated with, developing my skills and reading books on subjects that I thought might make me better, all of this was geared to one goal. When I graduated college I took a job I didn't like with one goal: to spend time there to put money aside to pay for seminary. Then I chose a seminary I thought would be the best to help me achieve the dream of teaching God's people.

At seminary I chose the course of training that I thought would give me the most rounded education and the ability to serve Christ's church the best. You see, at Southern the Biblical and Theological Studies track is one of the most challenging (not that any are easy!) but is also very well rounded, requiring the student to be familiar with both the Old and New Testaments, with Greek and Hebrew, and with a multitude of theological approaches. That was what I wanted, to be as familiar with the Bible as I could be, to be as well equipped to serve the church as a pastor as I could possibly be. My goal was to do this as fast as possible, so I could go from school and preparation to service as quickly as I could. So my wife and I sacrificed what we could, we sold what we could to get the money we needed, and I finished school in three years. All of this had one goal in mind: to be a preacher of the Word and an effective servant of the church and of Christ.

After seminary my wife and I moved in with her grandmother. I thought it would be temporary, lasting only a few months. After all, I'd already had my resume out for several months. I'd sent my resume to dozens of churches already, so there was no way I wouldn't hear from someone soon. But, lest we think we are the architects of our own destiny, life tends to turn out differently than we expected. After not hearing from any church for a year, I started looking for a job in the secular world.

My goal was simple: find a temporary secular job, keep looking for a church, and just help make enough money so that we could afford our own place. Well, things didn't work out that way. I found a temporary job, but due to various events, we could never really set enough money aside to move out on our own.

Well, since I've been out of seminary, 2 years now, I've heard from three churches who asked me to come and preach for them, and many, many more who didn't need my preaching to tell them they weren't interested in me. (Oh, and one search committee who asked me to set up an evening preaching engagement at a local church so they could come and hear me, but they never contacted me again, so I can only assume they found someone else.) Basically, its been a long and very frustrating two years. I've complained to God, I've asked those in my church whether I may have misunderstood the calling of God in my life, and I've gone to the depths of depression, seeking nothing more than darkness and solitude. Through it all though, I've continued to hope that there was a church out there, somewhere, that needed me, that wanted me to come and be their pastor. But now... now I don't really care any more.

It's surprising to hear myself say that, and to know I'm being honest. It's surprising because even now I'm in the first semester of an Ed.D. Program from Southern. I began this program hoping to get a doctorate so I would be even more prepared for the church. I figured a doctorate in education would make me even more useful, and would help me to be even more prepared to teach in the church. I still have a lot of work to do, but it's only 6 semesters long, and I'm almost 25% of the way through the course work now. But as I said, I don't really care about it any more.

You see, the temporary job I found has become more than temporary. I've been offered a full-time salaried position. It isn't a lot, but it is enough for me to care for my family, to provide a roof for my wife and daughter, and to be out on our own. I know I won't ever wake up saying, “I can't wait to go to work today!” but at the same time I don't wake up saying, “I hate this job.” While I may not be thrilled about what lies before me, I don't dislike it. It is, for all intents and purposes, sufficient.

Looking back, I've spent half my life trying to find a way to be a teacher of the Word, to serve the people of God. My hope was to be a pastor, with all that entails: counseling, visiting, preaching, praying, teaching, encouraging and rebuking, I wanted to do it all. So I spent years studying, learning, being a student of what I wanted to teach. And perhaps, in some small way, I have done that which I desired. I've taught classes, I've preached the Word, I've encouraged the discouraged, I've rebuked the foolish, I've counseled the hurting, I've visited the sick, and I've prayed through all of it.

In looking back at what I've done and what I've been I can honestly say that I haven't accomplished my dreams. Yes, in some small way I did a little of everything I hoped to do, but I never served in the capacity I had hoped for. In looking forward at what God has laid before me I see little to no reason to think the future will be any different than the past. But, perhaps there is something here in the present, something I never expected to find while I was dreaming about a future that never happened. Perhaps, where I am today, though there is no excitement, there is contentment.

The death of dreams is not an awful thing, it is not a depressing thing, not is it a part of life to be raged against. The death of dreams is perhaps the birth of contentment. Depression, anger, frustration, and bitterness in regards to life occur because the dreams of life have not died. In the midst of the dream, when I could not have what I desired, when I could not accomplish what I was seeking, no matter how hard I tried, there I found depression, there I was angry, there I was frustrated and bitter. Now, now that the dream is dead, I'm not depressed about it, I'm not angry, I'm resigned to the realization that this is life, and I'm content with that.

Paul says that if we have food and clothing, with this we should be content. He said to Timothy that godliness with contentment is great gain. So I am content to be where I am. Instead of raging about what I want, instead of sinking to depression thinking I'll never accomplish my dreams and desires, I'm at rest, content that this is what my life is.

Do I still desire to be a pastor? Yes, most certainly. Would I take a position if one was offered to me and it was sufficient to support my family? Again, of course I would take such a position. But I'm okay with what I have, I'm okay with the fact that I will never be a pastor, that I will always be a “layman” and that I will never serve the church in an “official” capacity.

My dream was to change the world for Christ. To preach the Word with boldness and see many come to know the amazing love of God that sent his Son to die for sinners such as me was what I wanted. I wanted to be great in the kingdom of heaven, to use the gifts the Lord had given me to really make an impact in my generation. I wanted to be like Paul, saying that I worked with all the might that God had given me, and yet not I but the Spirit who lived within me. But God's plan was something different.

Maybe I'll impact the world, maybe I won't. Maybe I'll preach the Word and see many come to Christ, and maybe I won't. Regardless of what I accomplish in the future I know this: I've impacted the lives of those around me. I've preached Christ to friends and family, to co-workers and strangers as I've had opportunity. More important than anything else though, I know I still have my ministry to my family, and no matter what else may happen, this is the ministry I have to focus on.

So while my dreams may be dead, I'm content with where I am. I've given up thinking I'll be a pastor, but I know I'll never stop being a husband and a father. I'll never change my nation, but I can change the lives of my wife and daughter for the better. This ministry, the opportunity to serve my family and love them no matter what, is worth a few dead dreams. In this I am content.

To God be the glory, amen.

Food for Thought

Before I actually get into typing up this blog post, I wanted to say "Thank you" to my dear brother, Cody Kelton.  He gave me permission to use a question he posted on Facebook in this post.  There are not enough kind words in the English language to express my feelings for him, so I want to simply say, "Thank you, Cody.  I love you."

And now, on to the post:

Cody wrote:  "It appears that God says [the Hebrews] can eat any animal they want, and then later He appears to change His mind and tells them they cannot, in fact, eat all of those animals... So what does this mean?"

 Cody wrote a much longer post than this, and I have removed these two sentences from the concluding section of a passage that was several paragraphs in length, so there is some material missing from the overall thought that went into this point.  In way of paraphrasing, the actual point was that at the flood you have eight people and a bunch of animals in an ark.  God tells Noah how many of each animal to save, the Bible making clear that this is a distinction between the clean and the unclean (God tells Noah save seven pairs of everything clean but only one pair of everything unclean).  After the flood God changes the food law, allowing men to eat animals as well as plants (prior to that God said man could eat every green thing) and thus sets us a system where all food is permitted.  But, then later, God restricts what the Hebrew people could eat.  So from this comes the above question.

I already wrote a brief response to Cody (so if you are one of his or my Facebook friends and have already read that post, you have my apologies, some of this will be repetitious), but I would like to write a more developed response because his question got me thinking about the whole issue of the food laws and how modern Christians should regard to those laws.  My views on the matter are not cutting edge or new, and I'm not going to tell people to empty all the bacon out of the fridge, but I think there are some theological and Christological implications in the food laws that are worth considering.  On the whole I think that the food laws point to the greatness of God's grace, they set up a system whereby men might understand their uncleanness before God, and they served as a very real divider between the people of God and those outside of his covenants.  If all of these points are understood, and if we can see that Scripture indicates these points are correct, then we are drawn to the redemption offered by Christ as he is the door by which we enter into the grace of God, the one who cleanses us from all unrighteousness, and the one who joins us as a people and reconciles us to God.

I think the following passages of Scripture are relevant to this study: Genesis 9:3-6, Leviticus 1:3, 10; 11 (focusing on verses 24, 27, 36, 39, 43, 44-47), Numbers 23:19, Malachi 3:6, Mark 7:19, Acts 10, Romans 7:7-10 (8-25 is good also, but 7-10 is the focus), Galatians 2:11-21; 3:19-26, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, and James 1:17.  There are probably other verses that we could include in this list, but the argument I want to follow touches on all of these verses, and so with these I hope I can lay out my point sufficiently.  Some of these verses I use only to illustrate the same point from multiple writers, so as to make that point (hopefully) clearer.  (We could, along with these verses bring in 1 Corinthians 8 and go even further in examining how the Christian should react to food in general.)

Where do we begin then?  Well, we can begin with what Cody stated he already knew at the intro to his letter: God does not change his mind.  We see this in Numbers 23:19, Malachi 3:6, and James 1:17.  Each of these verses is clear, God does not change his mind.  What he has stated is true, and will be true.  We could add to this other verses, such as Hebrews 13:8, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever."  The point being that while Scripture says that God is grieved over a thing, or that God relents, or we see an instance where God says one thing, but then says because of an act of faith he will not actually do what he has said, we are also told, in no uncertain terms, that God does not change his mind.  Thus, if all of Scripture is true, we are left with situations that require us to exercise some additional thought, so that we can see how it can be that God has remained consistent when he gives changing requirements or does not bring about a promised judgment.  So then, how can it be that God has not changed his mind in regards to the human diet, but we see at least 3 different dietary commands in the Bible?  And what does all of this have to do with Christ?

Here we need to begin with understanding the purpose of the law.  We see in Leviticus 11:44-47 that the purpose of the food laws is to mark the Israelites as holy.  Holiness means that which is separate, that which is set apart.  In terms of human holiness we understand this as meaning that we are set apart to and for God.  When we speak of God's holiness it is an expression of his uniqueness, his transcendence over all of creation.  He is more holy than anything else, better, above, separate in a good way.  Because God is holy, his people are also to be holy, and one of their marks of separation was to be their food.

Thus we read in Leviticus 11:24, 27, 36, 39, and 43 that to touch the carcass of an unclean animal would render the one who touched it unclean.  Not only were the Israelites forbidden to eat the unclean, they were forbidden to have contact with the unclean.  To be separate, to be holy, meant to have no contact with that which was considered unclean.  So the food law given to the Israelites showed them how they were to be uniquely holy before God by telling them what they could and could not eat.  No other nation could claim to have this law, to have this knowledge; holiness was given to those in covenant with God, not to those outside the covenant.

This unique covenant relationship was established not through Noah or Adam, but through Abraham.  Abraham was the first Hebrew, and he was originally an Aramean.  God did not establish a special covenant relationship with Noah and his sons, instead he gave them a general command as regards the food they ate: do not eat meat with the blood in it, everything else is fine. (Genesis 9:3-6)  But, when it came to Abraham, God established a special relationship, giving rules for that covenant so that Abraham and his children would be able to always say that they were called by God to a special relationship that no one else could have.  But, if God had given the dietary restrictions to Abraham, then Ishmael could have passed those laws down to his children (just as God did bless Ishmael because of Abraham, even if Ishmael was not the son of the promise).  If God had given the dietary restrictions to Noah, then what would have set Israel apart in their diet?  In setting up a covenant with Israel, God made clear that he wanted a holy people who would be set apart from any other people, and so he did not give dietary restrictions to others because then the point of the restriction would have been lost: those who did not belong to the covenant would have had the same dietary restrictions as those who did belong to the covenant thus weakening a unique covenant sign that would set God's people apart from others.

But, at the same time, the purpose of the dietary law was to enforce the clean/unclean standard that God had already applied to himself upon his people.  If this seems an odd statement, then consider that Noah was told to save seven pairs of clean animals and one pair of unclean animals.  What would clean and unclean have meant to Noah?  Prior to his receiving the command that he could eat of the flesh of animals, it would have been unclean for Noah to eat any flesh at all, so the clean animals could not have indicated a dietary restriction for Noah.  However, considering what we see early on in Genesis, where Able is offering God a sacrifice from his flock, and reading that men began to call upon the name of the Lord, it is reasonable to assume that some form of ritualistic worship was common (or at least known) on earth during the time of Noah.  This assumption is further buttressed by the fact that Noah built an altar and made an offering to God of some of every clean animal when he and his family exited the ark.  Thus, for Noah, clean and unclean would have simply indicated those animals that were acceptable to use for offerings and sacrifices.  Now that same understanding, that there are some animals acceptable and some unacceptable, applies not only to sacrificial and religious events, but to the every day events of having dinner or burying a carcass from the fields.

Here we have our first, and I would argue incomplete, answer of why God gave Noah and Moses different food laws.  The food laws were part of the larger body of the Mosaic Law given to the Israelites.  This body of laws was given so that the Israelites would know what it meant  to be holy.  Only by following this law perfectly could anyone be holy.  Ergo, it did not make sense to give this law to all humans at the time of Noah because God was not establishing a special covenant relationship with all humans wherein he would show them how to be holy.  God, in his mercy, chose to reveal the requirements of holiness to the Israelites, in order to accomplish his purposes.

But, what purpose would God have in revealing the requirements of holiness to the Israelites?  In examination of this question I argue that we must now turn to the New Testament, where we find not only this answered, but also a more complete answer to the first question as to why God would give different food laws at different times.

The first section I want to look at is Acts 10, where we see Peter visiting a Gentile and we get a resolution to the differences brought about by the dietary laws as given above.  In Acts 10 Peter sees a vision from God in which he is told to take and eat from the unclean things set before him.  Peter gets this vision three times, and then end up visiting Cornelius and realizing that God is speaking about the Jews and Gentiles, calling the Gentiles clean.  Here we have some indication of the distinction that God set up by giving the dietary law in the first place.  The Gentiles were unclean not only because they were outside of the covenant of God and his people, but also because of what they ate (granted what they ate was directly related to the fact they had no relationship to God).  But, God, through Christ, was so merciful that not only could he draw back the covenant people to himself, he could go even further and draw those to himself who had no covenant relationship with him at all.  Cornelius was a God fearer, but he was not Jewish and does not seem to have taken any of the steps necessary to become a Jew, so he had no claim to a covenant relationship with God, but, through Christ, God set aside the limitations of the old covenant and its legal obligations and established a new covenant in which all men could come to God through faith.  The old laws of clean and unclean animals no longer served to divide people, but now showed the immeasurable power of God's grace.

The distinction between Jew and Gentile is made even clearer when we consider Paul's testimony in Galatians 2:11-14.  Here Paul recalls a time when he stood up to Peter because Peter was being a hypocrite.  Peter withdrew from Gentile believers because a group of men who came from James in Jerusalem.  Thus even in the early church the distinction between Jew and Gentile persisted, and it seems that this remained an issue of the clean versus the unclean.  Paul's complaint against Peter was that Peter was denying the gospel, living like a Gentile and telling the Gentiles that they had to live like Jews.  Thus unless they engaged in the steps necessary to become ritually clean, living like Jews, Gentiles were considered unclean by some Jewish Christians in Paul's time.  So the Law, as it became a part of Jewish culture, did exactly what it was supposed to in drawing a clear distinction between those who followed it and were considered clean, and those who did not and remained unclean.  Yet, as we complete the story by reading through to verse 21 we see that Christ set aside the law, because in and through Christ we have all died to the law, even if we did not know it originally, so that we can live in the righteousness of God.  So Christ set aside the distinction between Jew and Gentile, and part of the Gospel is that God has one people, all joined to him through Christ.

We can say then that God gave the Law to the Israelites in order to draw a distinction between them and those around them, but he also gave the Law in order to show the power of his mercy and grace in Christ.  The Israelites strained to reach perfection by punctiliously following a set of written rules and obligations, even going so far as to add to them to create barriers so they would not accidentally cross any forbidden lines.  But Gentiles were alienated from God, having no conception of God's holiness and no access to the law by which they might have been made aware of the righteousness of God.  Yet, in Christ, neither the Jew nor the Gentile can claim any advantage, for Christ made all equal, bringing the righteousness of God to those of us who could not attain it on our own, and were not aware of what righteousness really looked like in the first place.  The law makes the grace of God all the more amazing.

But there is more yet.  In order to understand God's purpose for the law, we must understand the law.  In order to understand the law, in general, we can turn to Galatians 3, Romans 7:7-25, or 1 Timothy 1:8-11.  What we see in Galatians 3:19-26 is that the law was given in order to imprison all things under sin, in order that we might believe in Christ.  Paul makes clear that the goal of the law was not to cause sin, but the law showed sin, and thereby gave sin power, but also pointed us to Christ.  This point is also demonstrated in Romans 7:7-10, in which we read that the law is not sin and is not evil, but that sin uses the law to condemn us and kill us, making our sins all the worse because now we sin not ignorantly, but knowing that what we do is wrong.  And, in case we missed it the first couple of times, Paul makes clear to Timothy that the law is laid down not for the righteous but for the unrighteous; the law is good because it applies to those who are law breakers, not the just.  So then, the law is there to reveal the sinfulness of humanity, so that in seeing our sinfulness we might be made fully aware of our need for a savior, and so we might come to place our faith in Christ for salvation.

What we see in understanding what Paul says about the Law is that the Law convicts us all.  And since we are all convicted under the Law, if we understood it rightly, we would understand what a need we have for a savior.  Consider what we read in Leviticus 1:3 and 10.  We see that God requires the burnt sacrifices brought to him to be without blemish.  God does not accept a sacrifice with blemish or defect.

When we think of this in relation to the food laws we see that anything that is unclean is automatically not fit for sacrifice.  God will not accept a perfect and unblemished pig as part of a burnt offering any more than he would accept a blind and lame goat.  And if God will not accept that which is unclean, then how can we ever be perfect offerings to him?  If the food law shows us how to distinguish between the clean and unclean animals, not only to know what we can eat but also to know what we can offer as part of our sacrifice, then we should know that anything that would be unclean as a matter of diet cannot be an acceptable offering to God.  And, if we read the law thoroughly and understand it rightly, we see that we are in need of perpetual cleansing.  If we are in need of perpetual cleaning, recognizing as Hebrews says that the blood of animals cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, then we know that we cannot procure righteousness on our own.  Thus understood the food laws served as a part of the greater Law in reminding those who attempted to be righteous that they could not achieve righteousness on their own, ultimately men would have to rely on some grace from God to perfect us because we could not perfect ourselves.  This then points us back to Christ, for God would have to provide a perfect sacrifice, an unblemished sacrifice, for the sins of humanity if we were to be made righteous and holy as God is, and as God calls us to be.

The Israelites should have understood through the food laws how uncleanness does not come from outside, but from inside.  Jesus in Mark 7:19 declares all food to be clean, saying that it is not what goes into the mouth that makes one unclean, but what comes out of the mouth.  The Jews were given the food laws so that they could understand how unclean they were internally, no so that they would hold that as unclean which is external.  If the food laws were given so as to set up a distinction between the Jews and Gentiles, shouldn't that have caused the Jews to reflect on how much more of a chasm existed between them and God?  Because we tend to focus on simply following rules we miss the fact that the Law of God exists also to challenge us to consider how his rules reveal our own unrighteousness.  Again, this makes the grace of God amazing, because we who are unclean internally can be called clean, not because of following laws, but because of faith.

The food laws served to distinguish God's people from those around them.  The food laws served to show the holiness of God so that his people would be reminded of what they were called to be.  But, understood through Christ, the food law shows the magnitude of God's mercy, that those who were unclean could be called clean through the blood of Christ.  Those who strived to be clean, knowing they were always unclean, always falling short of the Law, could find redemption in a perfect sacrifice.  God did not change his mind in changing what food should be eaten, but he wanted to reveal to us how wondrous his grace his, how holy he himself is, how unclean we are, and how we can draw near to him and be made righteous through his Son.

Thoughts on Genesis and Jesus

So, I know it has been a while since I've written anything, most of that is just because I haven't really felt like writing anything.  But, I wanted to share something I was talking about with my father.  In reading back through Genesis and considering how I would approach different passages to preach about them, I began to consider Genesis 3:17-19.  I thought about the curse that God placed on man, that the ground would only yield to hard labor.  And I thought about how that passage should be understood in relation to the Christ event.

While perhaps there is some modification of this passage in Genesis 8 where God says he will no longer curse the ground for man's evil disposition, yet we never see anything that indicates that the curse of work has been done away with.  (Here I wish to make some distinction between the curse of work and the blessing of work.  What I mean by the curse of work is not just that we must work for our food, man was always supposed to be a creature of work, but the fact that work would be toilsome, would require difficulty, and would be painful.  Work itself is a blessing from God, but the hardness of work, the pain that comes with work, these are aspects of the curse.)  So, throughout the rest of Scripture we see men who work the land, from planting fields to caring for flocks.  Jacob, in his reasons for leaving Laban, discusses the hardships of being a shepherd, and those who have worked the ground for farming or gardening know that while there can be joy in the results, the work is also hard and can be painful.  So, while God may not curse the ground (more likely he is discussing cataclysmic judgments like the flood) he has not rescinded the curse of labor.

Man must work for his food, and man only eats his food by the sweat of his brow.  So even Paul says that if a man will not work, then he shouldn't eat.  2 Thes. 3:10  Our command remains that we are to work to have something to give to others, and we are to work so we can eat with a clear conscience.  Even if we are not working, or cannot work, we are to be willing to work, if able.

But, what are we working for?  We work for food, with which we nourish our bodies, satisfy our appetites, and have energy to do more work.  We work so that we do not go hungry, so that we can be happy.  But all we can nourish with the results of our work is the flesh and blood body that breaks down with age and injury, and will not last long.  Beauty fades, strength passes, and health gives way to sickness in time.  Death is inevitable.

Yet, while we work for our bodies, consider what we read in Matthew 26, "Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, 'Take, eat; this is my body.'  And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, 'Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.  I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.'" (Matt 26:26-29)  Here Jesus and his disciples had gathered to partake of a meal, they had gathered to partake of the work of the sweat of their brows, and Jesus invites his disciples to go deeper.  Not only does Jesus want his disciples to partake of a meal, he wants them to partake of a meal that he will share with them again in heaven, a meal that celebrates the redemption of sins that he will purchase through his blood.  So the eating of bread becomes more than simply the reward for hard work, it becomes symbolic of the redemption that is offered through Jesus.


Here we see a beautiful contrast begin to develop.  Where the meal we are invited to partake of reminds us of the curse of work, the meaning of the meal points us to the grace of God.  What Paul says to us in Ephesians should be noted here: "For by grace you have been saved through faith.  And this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."  (Ephesians 2:8-9)  So Jesus invites us to partake of bread, a reminder of the curse of work, but as he does so he changes the interpretation of the event, so that the bread becomes his body, and the wine becomes his blood, bringing to mind the salvation we have received, for which we have not worked.  So our labor becomes a reminder of that for which we have not labored.


Here I wish to spell out, in part, a way we might see this contrast: We have worked for our meal, but we have not worked for our salvation.  We come, reading in Genesis that by the sweat of our brow we will eat our bread, but finding that Jesus has invited us to a meal that we have not worked for at all.  Christ has done the work, being perfect in accordance with the Law of Moses, and now we are invited to eat at his table, where he will celebrate with us one day in Heaven.  Though we eat of earthly bread, we are brought to fellowship with heavenly hosts.  The contrast could not be more beautiful, or more meaningful: We come sweaty, we come exhausted, we come having labored for our bodies, and we find that Christ has labored for our souls.


While we have fed our bodies with the sweat of our brows, we need spiritual food for our souls.  And how can we labor for spiritual food?  God fed the Israelites with manna, but even that did not satisfy their souls, as they regularly failed to obey the Word of the Lord.  If manna from heaven is not sufficient to satisfy our souls, then what earthly food might we find that will accomplish this task?  Christ answers this for us as he reveals that only he is sufficient for our hunger.  We who were dead in sin desire the food of life, and his body is that food.  Yet we cannot labor for this food, because we can never do enough to deserve to draw near to that which is perfect, being imperfect ourselves, and so we become dependent on him to give us what we could not take for ourselves.


So, Genesis 3:17-19 becomes a passage that leads us to Christ by way of contrast.  We see in Genesis 3 why we need Christ.  We come from the dirt, and we labor in the dirt.  We feed ourselves through our labor, and when we eat our bread we should be reminded of the hardships of life.  Yet, earthly bread does not address spiritual concerns, and cannot satisfy the longings of the soul.  For this we need spiritual bread, and in Christ alone do we find that bread offered.  In Christ alone do we find that we are invited to a meal for which we have not labored, a meal which maybe we never even wanted, but a meal that is more important than any other we will ever eat: a meal prepared for those who have not labored but have found rest in the Son of God.

Merry Christmas!

A thousand people have said it better, and there are a thousand other articles worth reading on the meaning of Christmas and why we should be celebrating, so I'll say only one thing: Merry Christmas!  May the meaning of this day, that God was born, a child in the manger was the incarnate Lord himself, and that he lived, walked, died, and rose again for the glory of God and the forgiveness of sins, live in your heart now and forever.  Though the holiday feelings may pass, may the truth remain, firmly established in your mind, that he alone is worthy of worship, and whoever has faith in him will be forgiven their sins.  May the time with family and friends, if you are so blessed, be joyous and fill your heart with compassion and prayers for those who cannot be with those they love at this time of year, and always.  May the Lord bless you, as you have a very, merry Christmas!