Reconciling With a Brother

"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever shall say, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. If therefore you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar, and go your way; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering." (Matt. 5:22-24 NAS)

Can a man be saved who has contempt for and mistreats his fellowman? John says no when he says, "By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother." (1 John 3:10 NAS) Contempt for and mistreatment of a brother is the opposite of love and places one in the devil's camp. Four verses later John says, "We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death."

One is either a child of God or a child of the devil; there is no middle ground, and John declares that the man who does not love his brother is not of God. Such a man abides in death. Thus verse 23 of this passage begins with the words "if therefore" tying what is to come with what has just been said in verse 22 about various attitudes towards and words spoken against a brother.

One cannot on the one hand worship God and on the other hand mistreat his fellowman whom God created and gave a soul to and for whom Christ also died. God does not show partiality, "there is no partiality with God." (Rom. 2:11 NAS) "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Rom. 3:23 NAS) "There is none righteous, not even one." (Rom. 3:10 NAS) The man whose vanity and pride have led him to see himself as being in a better position before God than others, say for example the Pharisee who went up to pray in Luke 18:10-14, fools only himself. Any and all who are saved are saved by grace.

Christians need to be very aware of the great danger they are in at all times as regards this matter. They try their best to be faithful and obedient in all things. There is much evil they would not think of partaking in. We see sin and protest against it as we should. The Pharisee that went up to pray to God and went back unjustified in Luke 18 was not wrong in saying there were swindlers, unjust, and adulterous people in the world for there were and always will be. The Pharisee saw that. He did not partake in those things. He seemed to be faithfully obeying the commands of God, so what was his problem?

He had lost sight of the fact that he too was but a mere mortal, a man in need of God's grace and forgiveness. His obedience in commandment keeping had blinded his eyes to the sins of his heart. He had forgotten or ignored what Jesus called the second greatest commandment of the Law of Moses, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Mat. 22:39 NAS)

Pride had grown up in his heart so much so that he pitied other sinners needing forgiveness but was convinced he had no need for it himself. He had become his own judge. He would judge not only himself but also his fellowman. How did he know this tax-gatherer who was also praying was a sinner extraordinaire? He was ready to take God's place as judge of all. His outward commandment-keeping, the outward observances of such, had led him to judge himself a righteous man in need of no forgiveness.

God judges a man's heart. "But the LORD said to Samuel, '…for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.'" (1 Sam. 16:7 NAS) "I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give to each man according to his ways, According to the results of his deeds." (Jer. 17:10 NAS) "My shield is with God, Who saves the upright in heart." (Psalms 7:10 NAS) It is the pure in heart that shall see God (Matt. 5:8). The Pharisee had a heart problem.

All Christians today who are trying to live faithful obedient lives need to beware of the tendency we all have to become like this Pharisee. If we are faithful in the outward observances of Christianity, the first thing we know, we can find ourselves finding fault in others rather easily. We become the standard by which people are to be judged. We can end up worshiping ourselves rather than God. The Bible says of that particular Pharisee that when he prayed he was "praying thus to himself." (Luke 18:11 NAS)

The man who would do such things as Jesus spoke of in our text in Matt. 5:22 seems to be a man much like the Pharisee of Luke 18 in his attitude toward his fellowman and towards himself. Jesus is telling us in verses 23 and 24 of our text if we have been this way toward our fellowman, have been disrespectful, hurtful, degraded him, or done him wrong in any way, go take care of that problem now. Go to him, own up to your sin, and be reconciled. That has top priority. Do not delay. What a wonderful world it would be if we would all obey God's golden rule—Matt. 7:12—(man gave it the name "golden" but the rule is God's).

"He who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen." (1 John 4:20 ESV)

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

One Church or Thousands

Many older Americans alive today can remember years ago when O. J. Simpson was arrested and put on trial for the murder of his ex-wife and Ron Goldman. I remember a comment I heard on TV at the time that simply astounded me. One lady that was being interviewed, for what reason I no longer recall, made the comment that if she had seen O. J. commit the murder with her own eyes she would not believe it. I guess her idea was that she could not trust herself, she would have to be hallucinating, her mind would have to be playing tricks on her. Assuredly, her mind was made up on the subject and any truth brought to bear upon it contrary to what she wanted truth to be would bounce off it like a rubber ball dropped on a hardwood floor. Truth to her was what she already believed, what she wanted the truth to be, and do not bother me with any contrary facts even if they exist. I will not believe them.

Is it any wonder people cannot or will not accept truth in religion? Is it any wonder they will not accept clear statements made in scripture on various subjects? There was a time in my life when I was yet relatively young and naive that I thought if a person was in error as it related to a religious matter correcting him or her would be as easy as going to the Bible and finding the book, chapter, and verse that told them the truth. I learned over time that the real problem is not a matter of the mind but one of the heart and thus much more difficult to deal with.

The kind of people I am talking about will not be convinced of the truth no matter how many scriptures you show them. They will not accept factual statements or any kind of sound reasoning. Show them a passage like Acts 2:38 on baptism for the remission of sins (add to that Acts 22:16 and 1 Peter 3:21) and they will say the text cannot mean what it says, that would be impossible from their point of view, for like the lady with O. J. it simply cannot be so. It cannot be so for the heart has already made up its mind and evidence will not change it. That was the way it was with Jesus' miracles, even his resurrection did not convince those who had already made up their minds that he could not be the Son of God (Matt. 28:11-14).

In his last recorded meeting with the Jews in Rome during his imprisonment there Paul made this charge against the Jews, not all but some:

“So when they did not agree among themselves, they departed after Paul had said one word: ‘The Holy Spirit spoke rightly through Isaiah the prophet to our fathers, saying, “Go to this people and say: ‘Hearing you will hear, and shall not understand; and seeing you will see, and not perceive; for the heart of this people has grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, lest they should understand with their heart and turn, so that I should heal them.’ ” Therefore let it be known to you that the salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will hear it!’ ” (Acts 28:25-28 NKJV)

Who had closed the eyes of these Jews who would not see? Had God done it? The text says "their eyes they have closed." Why would a person do that? Could it be they did not want to see? Could it be they did not want to know? Well, why would a person not want to see or not want to know? Could it be because he or she was happy and satisfied with where they were at and had no desire to change, did not want change?

But this was not the first time the Jews had done such a thing. Zechariah in talking about the Jews before the Babylonian captivity said of them, "They refused to heed, shrugged their shoulders, and stopped their ears so that they could not hear. Yes, they made their hearts like flint, refusing to hear the law and the words which the Lord of hosts had sent by His Spirit." (Zech. 7:11-12 NKJV) It was not a matter of they couldn't hear but rather that they wouldn't hear.

When Paul says the Gentiles "will hear it" (the reference being to the gospel) it is the same as saying to those Jews to whom he was speaking in Rome "you won't hear but they will." Both could have heard. The only difference between the two parties was the heart. The Jewish heart had grown dull. The New Living Translation uses the word "hardened" rather than the phrase "grown dull." The Jewish heart had been hardened but it was of their own doing, of their own will. Man hardens his own heart and we are warned against doing that, "Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion." (Heb. 3:15 NKJV) The Jewish heart was that way because they were happy with their present state of affairs, their present state of being, and hardened against any disruption of what was satisfying to them. It is hard to get a satisfied person to change.

One also must remember that the human mind, one’s thinking, is influenced strongly by the emotions and will of man. The heart the Bible speaks of consists of a man's mind, emotions, conscience, and will collectively (depending on the context). It is hard for the mind to overcome the emotions. Many marriages that have failed would never have been made in the first place had the mind ruled over the emotions and will. Many have been able to see a failed marriage before the ceremony but the bride or groom couldn't see it for the emotions overrode rational thought and the will was strong. The eyes were deliberately closed.

This brings me to what I really want to talk about. I have recently taken an interest in reading books on the history of Christianity from the first century up to the present. The most recent book I have completed on the subject was a book by Stephen Tomkins who has a Ph.D. in church history from the London School of Theology. In his book entitled A Short History of Christianity, copyrighted in 2005, he states on page 245 that "there are 34,000 Christian denominations worldwide." In doing a little Internet search on the subject of numbers I came up with an even greater number—38,000. The number you come up with will vary due to the criteria you use to distinguish one denomination from another and the number is growing continuously.

Why is it and how is it that when Jesus said "I will build my church" (singular, Matt. 16:18) and when Paul speaking by the Holy Spirit says "there is one body" (Eph. 4:4 NKJV) and has told us in two different places that the church is the body of Christ (see Eph. 1:22-23 and Col. 1:18) that men seem to think that one is equivalent to thirty-some thousand? What kind of new math is that?

How is it we have in the Bible a plain statement of scripture, as plain as anything Paul spoke to the Jews, and yet the eyes are closed today, and the ears are hard of hearing, and the hearts are grown dull, so that the scripture cannot be understood and all mathematical laws are thrown out the window so that one is no longer equal to one but to thirty-some thousand? Yet, we think we are better than the Jews of old. We think we are more rational.

Yes, I know the argument that all the thirty-some thousand different denominations make up the one church. Where do you read that in your Bible? What book is that in? It is not in the parable of the vine and the branches as is sometimes said. That parable is found in John 15. Jesus was talking to individual disciples not denominations. There was not a denomination on the face of the earth at that time. When Jesus said "I am the vine, you are the branches" (John 15:5 NKJV) he was not speaking to a phantom that did not exist.

If it be said that the disciples Jesus spoke to at that time were representative of all future believers even though they are scattered throughout all the denominations I deny it. Why? Because the disciples Jesus spoke to on that occasion were the apostles and the occasion was the Last Supper. Were the apostles divided in doctrine like the denominations? It is the disciples united in doctrine, not divided, who are the branches in that account. It is disciples who are in full fellowship with one another who are the branches, disciples who are unified, not divided.

The one church has one doctrine, not thirty-some thousand different doctrines. When John, Peter, or Paul, or any of the apostles went anywhere preaching one did not contradict what the other one taught for every one of them was guided in his speech by the Holy Spirit (see Matt. 10:19-20, John 14:16-17, 26, 16:13, Gal. 1:11-12, 2 Tim. 3:16, 1 Cor. 7:40, etc.). The idea that we have thirty-some thousand faithful denominations all chockfull of saved Christians is the thinking of hearts that have been hardened to the point they can no longer reason rationally.

If denomination A believes one thing, denomination B believes another, and denomination C believes something else, and yet I have concluded that a man can be saved in any denomination, then the reality is truth no longer matters. Error is as good as truth for one will be saved either way—by believing and obeying truth or believing and obeying error. Hardened hearts no longer think rationally.

It is sometimes said that all that really matters is that one believe in Jesus. That sounds good until you ask people to define what that means. What does it mean to believe in Jesus? Does it just mean that all one must do is believe with the mind that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God? That was the confession Peter made in Matt. 16:16 and Jesus said that he would build his church on that rock. Are all such believers then in the "one church" Jesus built?

If so what do you do with a passage like John 12:42 where John says, "Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue"? (NKJV) Granted this was before the one church was established on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 but just for the sake of our discussion let us say we have a similar group of men, or the same group of men, do the same thing after Pentecost. What then? They are believers that Christ is the Son of God. Is that all that matters? Are they then in the "one church"? Are they saved? The failure to confess Jesus is the same as failing to accept him.

I think you can see you have to be very careful in defining what it means to believe in Jesus when you talk about saving faith or belief. When you begin to define saving faith as something more than just intellectual faith then you are putting yourself into a position where you are admitting that doctrine does make a difference after all. And if doctrine does make a difference then you do not and cannot have thirty-some thousand denominations with different doctrines making up the "one church." The one church most of the denominational world today believes in cannot exist if doctrine matters.

The same process, for want of a better word, that makes one a Christian also adds him to the one church Jesus built. God adds you when you obey the gospel. The Bible says, "The Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved." (Acts 2:47 NKJV)

Well, who was being saved? In Acts 2, in the verses prior to verse 47 (just quoted), we have Peter preaching the first gospel sermon ever to be preached. It was the Day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit that had been promised to the twelve (Acts 1:1-5) had arrived, and Peter, via the Holy Spirit, preached the first gospel sermon ever to be preached by man in which by belief and obedience to it men were saved and added to the one church of which Jesus is the Savior (Eph. 5:23). Added by the Lord.

What did Peter preach? He preached Jesus concluding that part of his sermon with the words "God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." (Acts 2:36 NKJV) Based on the next verse, verse 37, it is clear men were brought to faith in Christ by what Peter had preached. Did Peter then tell them their sins had been forgiven and to go on home and henceforth remain faithful? Had he told them that we could safely conclude the Lord had added them to the one church and that an intellectual faith that Jesus is the Christ, the Lord and Savior, is all that is required for salvation. If that is what had happened then the idea that all who believe in Jesus no matter what denomination they are in are in the one church and are saved would be a truthful doctrine but that is not what happened. He next tells them to "repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38 NKJV)

Here is the point where men who claim to believe in Jesus get their back up and refuse to believe Jesus' words (John 16:13-14) spoken via the Holy Spirit through Peter. So you have a situation where men supposedly believe in Jesus but won't believe what he says. That is why I said earlier you have to be very careful about how you define "belief in Jesus." There is such a thing as belief in Jesus that does not save (see John 12:42 again as just one example). No one wants that kind of faith. We are interested in saving faith, in the faith where the Lord adds us to his one church because of our faith.

Men will generally accept what Peter said about repentance as essential for their salvation but not baptism and that despite as plain a statement as one can find in scripture on any subject. You can point them to other scriptures that say the exact same thing as what Peter said in Acts 2 (Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21, John 3:5, Mark 16:16) but a thousand plain scriptures on the subject will not change their minds. They have closed their eyes and hardened their hearts. It will take far more than a few passages on baptism or a few passages on the one church to get them to believe either. They will only believe "one church" if the number one can somehow be made the equivalent of thirty-some thousand.

I would like to ask a question. Sometimes we cannot wrap our minds around concepts because the concepts are too big for our finite minds to comprehend and when that happens our defensive mechanism is to cast thoughts about such matters aside. Here are some examples: the universe, distances in space, the national debt, our own death, hell, eternity, etc. These are some things that are hard to grasp hold of. These are the kinds of things our minds do not dwell on long because they overwhelm the mind.

Now to my question. Which concept is the hardest for the mind to believe, that there are 30,000 plus churches all of them right and in which a person can be saved in any one of them even though none agree and all teach different doctrines or, on the other hand, that there is only one church? I grant you both concepts are kind of mind-boggling. It is hard to believe there is only one church when the world has such a diversity of churches but is it any harder to believe that than to believe there are 30,000 plus churches all teaching different doctrines and yet it doesn't matter in the least to God and you can be saved in any one of them? Which is the most outlandish belief?

The Bible does not teach what denominationalism teaches on the subject of the one church. I include Catholicism as just another denomination. It is true in the New Testament many of the congregations were not what they ought to be (check out the 7 churches of Asia for both the good and the bad). But this much they all had in common, in every congregation the membership had obeyed the gospel Jesus taught via the Holy Spirit through Peter (on the Day of Pentecost), or through the other apostles and inspired teachers and prophets, and were thus made up of people who were a part of the one church Jesus built. That is simply not true of modern-day denominationalism.

The doctrine taught by the apostles and inspired prophets and evangelists was a unified doctrine. Every congregation was to abide in it. There was no such thing as every man having a church of his choice each differing in doctrine. It is not man's choice to make when it comes to the church. It is God's choice and he has said there is but one church. If that church is not found in your community why not restore it? You will find the pattern for it in the pages of your New Testament, not in a book on the history of Christianity which is more the history of apostasy than of New Testament Christianity.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

 

The Tongue and Hell

"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever shall say, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell." (Matt. 5:22 NAS)

In this article, I will be dealing with the last of the three declarations or warnings Jesus gave as found in Matt. 5:22 regarding man's attitude and speech toward his fellowman. Jesus says that to say to one's fellowman "you fool" puts him in danger of going to hell itself. That is a frightful thought that the words out of one's mouth are enough to condemn a man for eternity, and yet the Bible teaches that.

"You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart. The good man out of his good treasure brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of his evil treasure brings forth what is evil. And I say to you, that every careless word that men shall speak, they shall render account for it in the day of judgment. For by your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned." (Matt. 12:34-37 NAS)

It is important that we remember what was just quoted. If we did so, we would be slow to speak, thinking about what we are about to say before we say it. We would not just blather out thoughtlessly the very first words that come to mind. James tells us, "Let everyone be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger." (James 1:19 NAS)

Words not spoken ordinarily cause no trouble nor lead to condemnation. However, certainly, there are times and places where it is appropriate to speak up and sinful not to. But words spoken that would have been best left unspoken have resulted in murders, hatred, anger, strife, bitterness, and condemnation before God.

For the moment I want to put emphasis on what Jesus said in Matt. 12 quoted above when he said, "For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart." (Matt. 12:34 NAS) Elsewhere Jesus said, "Out of the heart come evil thoughts." (Matt. 15:19 NAS) It is the pure in heart that shall see God (Matt. 5:8). It is the heart that loves God and loves man that is blessed with eternal life and happiness. "He who does not love abides in death." (1 John 3:14 NAS)

The words we direct to our fellowman are a reflection of how our heart feels towards the one to whom we speak. Do we love him/her? Are we kind to the person, compassionate, caring? The words that roll off our tongue are a reflection of the inner attitude we have toward that individual.

To call a man a fool reflects the speaker's heart and lack of love. Even if he was right about the man to whom he was speaking and that man was indeed a fool, it would not get the speaker off the hook for violating the law of love toward one's fellowman.

The Greek word translated "fool" in Matt. 5:22 has been and is highly debated as to its exact meaning. You and I know what the English meaning of the English word fool is without being told, but is that what the Greek word meant that lies behind the English translation in our Bibles? That is the debated question.

Most of the old commentators I consulted (Barnes, Clarke, and Gill) believe it means a wicked reprobate man. Gill says, "The word 'fool' does not signify a man of weak parts, one that is very ignorant in things natural; this the word Raca imports; but a wicked reprobate man; in which sense Solomon often uses the word. The Persic version renders it here 'wicked'." (Gill's Commentary) The translation notes from the NET Bible say, "The meaning of the term moros is somewhat disputed. Most take it to mean, following the Syriac versions, 'you fool,' although some have argued that it represents a transliteration into Greek of the Hebrew term moreh 'rebel.'" Young's Literal Translation uses the word "rebel" rather than the word "fool."

I have no way of knowing the truth on this, but I suspect Gill was correct since Raca means fool, which Jesus had already addressed. Robertson's Word Pictures quotes Bruce as saying the word "more," "more" in the original language, "expresses contempt for his heart and character=you scoundrel".

Vine's An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words says, "'Thou fool;' here the word means morally worthless, a scoundrel, a more serious reproach than 'Raca;' the latter (a reference to Raca--DS) scorns a man's mind and calls him stupid; moros (the word in question--DS) scorns his heart and character." (Page 444) Elsewhere, Vine says in reference to the word translated "fool" (in most translations) it means "a godless, moral reprobate." (Page 915)

Be all that as it may, Matt. 5:22 makes it clear that God has not relinquished his right to be God and handed that right over to me to make me the judge and make proclamation over others. When I call someone a fool, a reprobate, or whatever, I have proclaimed that I myself am not a fool and I am able to judge others, for I am superior. I know these things and you don't is the idea, and I know because I am superior. It is pride and it is arrogance and it is the placing of oneself on God's judgment seat.

Is it true there are no fools and/or godless reprobates on the earth? No, it is not. The book of Proverbs speaks of fools time after time (the word "fool" is mentioned in 40 verses in that book in the NAS and the word "fools" in 21 verses), and enough is said about them so that we can learn quite a bit about who is and who is not a fool. There are many who do not believe in God's existence. David, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, said, "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" (Psalms 14:1, 53:1 NAS)

God has not asked us to be naïve and go around acting like we cannot discern foolish things from things that are rational, and he has certainly not asked us to give up discerning righteousness from unrighteousness. We are not asked to live as though we are blind and see no evil and refuse to recognize evil or foolishness. We know there are evil men in the world; we know there are foolish men in the world. Jesus in the New Testament addressed a certain class of men as "fools and blind men." (Matt. 23:17 NAS) Paul did the same thing in Rom. 1:22. We are told by Solomon, "Do not be a fool." (Eccl. 7:17 NAS) Surely we can know what foolishness is.

That does not mean, however, that we are to take God's place and declare a man a fool, or worse, implying we are not. Have we not all played the role of the fool at one or more times in our life? I doubt I could find a man who would deny it if he has any honesty about himself at all. If we are, and always have been, so perfect, what need do we have for Jesus? Paul said, "For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another." (Titus 3:3 NAS) We have no room to speak of others as being fools.

While the New Testament only uses the words fool and fools 3 times each in the New American Standard Bible (1977), it uses the word foolish in 25 different verses. The first instance is found in Matt. 7:26, "And everyone who hears these words of Mine, and does not act upon them, will be like a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand." (NAS) It is not hard to be foolish; not obeying the commands of Jesus will do it. Jesus and Paul both spoke of foolish men and foolish acts. One of the problems of the man who is inclined to call his brother, his fellowman, a fool is his failure to see that he too falls into the same category. His disregard for Jesus' words spoken in Matt. 5:22 clearly places him in the classification of being "a foolish man" according to Matt. 7:26.

What is needed is mercy and grace, kindness and love, and taking the speck out of our own eye. "And why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." (Matt. 7:3-5 NAS)

There is a "fiery hell." Jesus said so in the passage before us, and he told us of one personality headed there. It is our choice as to whether or not we make the decision to heed the teachings of Matt. 5:22 or disregard them. There is a path that leads away from the fiery hell. Jesus described it when he said, "Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine, and acts upon them, may be compared to a wise man, who built his house upon the rock. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and burst against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded upon the rock." (Matt. 7:24-25 NAS) That is the rock that is higher than I.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

The Sin of Verbal Abuse

"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever shall say, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell." (Matt. 5:22 NAS)

I want to deal in this article specifically with the second clause in this statement of Jesus where he says "Whoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca,' shall be guilty before the supreme court." My main interest is how this applies to you and me today. There is a warning in this teaching that transcends the ages.

A good place to begin is with the word "Raca" which is meaningless to the average reader of the Bible. Consequently, many translations translate the Greek differently using terms or phrases such as "insults his brother" (ESV), "insults a brother" (NET, NRSV is similar), "You good-for-nothing" (NAS update—I used the original NAS in my quote at the top of the page, GNB), and "Empty fellow" (YLT). Vine's An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words says, "It was a word of utter contempt, signifying empty, intellectually rather than morally, empty-headed." Strong's Dictionary described it as "a term of utter vilification." I believe from my study that the YLT (Young's Literal Translation) comes the closest of any of the versions in giving the best translation of the Greek. I also think the word "stupid" or "moron" would fit based on Vine's definition.

When one takes a look at the various translations given above for the Greek and learns the meaning of the Greek word used behind those translations it becomes obvious that we have a sin that can be committed today even though we might use a different word than Raca. The man that would say this kind of thing to a brother not only insults that brother but displays a lack of love and compassion, a lack of kindness for his fellowman. It tells you more about the man speaking than it does about the man he is insulting with such speech. It manifests a feeling of superiority in the speaker's mind and contempt for the other guy.

If you are an American, have you ever wondered why the desperately poor southern white who never owned a slave or had hopes of doing so fought to uphold the slave holding rights of rich southern plantation owners during our Civil War in the 1860s? I am told, through their writings, by those who have studied the subject, that the slave gave them a sense of self-worth in that there was at least one man below them in terms of how society judged its own. They were at least better than the black slave (as they saw it). As long as there were slaves, they were not in society's lowest caste. Take the slave away and then it is a different matter.

One wonders how much of this belittling of one's brother or sister is similar in kind. I insult and belittle you so I can feel better about myself. My low self-esteem leads me to drag you down to raise myself up. And, no doubt, a great amount of this kind of behavior comes not so much from low self-esteem but arrogance in those who speak to another person this way. Full of pride and puffed up, better than another in their own mind, the other guy is mere dust under their feet. But the motive makes little difference. It is the result that matters. One can be a jerk for this reason or that reason but he is still a jerk, if that is his character.

There is a price to be paid for such behavior. In school we call such conduct bullying. School shootings and suicides of young people oftentimes are directly related to some child being continually subjected to such torment by those who would verbally abuse others. When I was a student in high school I saw a young girl tormented (bullied) mercilessly daily (this was back in the early 60s). This was long before schools ever gave a thought of disciplining such conduct. I have always sort of blamed those tormentors of hers for the way her life turned out. I saw what she went through daily. She was going to have a tough go of it at best and needed all the love, friendship, and kindness she could get, but what she got instead was tormentors and bullies who verbally abused her daily and made her life miserable.

In another article on this passage, I talked about anger. We ought to be angry against sin and that would include the sin those engage in who would belittle others, insult them, and call them names. I hate this sin. My dad was an honest man and a hard worker. People thought well of him for that, but Dad had a speech impediment of sorts and had some difficulty pronouncing certain letters or sounds. I could understand him perfectly and everyone did who was around him all of the time but still, he did not quite pronounce some of his words correctly.

Dad never told me this but I learned it later and I never said a word to him, never brought it up to him, but I learned as they were eating lunch one day at work one of his co-workers was making fun of him, evidently mercilessly, and he slapped the man. No doubt Dad was too ashamed to ever tell it. He had to have been tremendously provoked to do that for it was totally out of character for him and hard to believe he had done such a thing.

Certainly, Dad was in the wrong but those who speak hurtful words to others tearing them down to the point of the loss of all dignity--what kind of love do they have in their hearts toward others? Is there any love, compassion, any mercy, any humanity in such speech? If I incite a person to the point it becomes intolerable for them and they just cannot take it anymore, am I guilt-free of sin? Dad knew he could not pronounce his words correctly and never liked to be out in public. No man wants to be embarrassed.

I think one can begin to see that this sin involves more than just words, it involves the heart. The man who would call his brother names and insult him has not only sinned with the words of his mouth but in his heart as well. He certainly has not loved his brother, the one he should have been protecting.

The Bible tells us, "Do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others." (Phil. 2:4 NAS) Does the kind of speech of which we are speaking violate this scripture? This speaking humiliating things to others, putting them down, is a sin on so many levels—a sin of the heart, of the tongue, a violation of all the passages that speak of love, compassion, kindness, and mercy.

"And the tongue is a fire, the very world of iniquity; the tongue is set among our members as that which defiles the entire body, and sets on fire the course of our life, and is set on fire by hell." (James 3:6 NAS)

In closing, it is readily seen that whatever this passage meant in the first century it is still applicable today in that there will be a judgment for such speech. We need not worry about the Sanhedrin, the Jewish Supreme Court in the first century, for a greater than the Sanhedrin is here—Jesus Christ himself, the judge of all, on that special day that has been appointed for that. "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad." (2 Cor. 5:10 NAS)

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

America and Corinth

Solomon said, "There is nothing new under the sun." (Eccl. 1:9 NKJV) When it comes to human behavior it is hard to argue that anything has changed since Solomon's day well over 2,000 years ago. Human pride and arrogance just seem to roll on from one generation to the next endlessly. I was reminded of that today (4/6/2015) when I was reading from 1 Cor. 5, Paul's letter to the church at Corinth.

"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! And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you." (1 Cor. 5:1-2 NKJV)

While America is certainly not a church it seems it has much the same attitude toward sin that the church at Corinth was displaying. There is no mourning in America today over adultery, homosexuality, fornication, lying, deception, malice, drunkenness, you name it. In fact, for some politicians their sins make them more popular with the public. Bill Clinton was one notorious example of that. Bill Bennett's book, The Death of Outrage, was written as a direct response to the public's reaction to that sordid episode.

Being caught in a lie no longer disqualifies one from holding even the highest office in the land. We have lied so much and for so long people no longer think much about it and it no longer seems to taint your character in the eyes of the public at large with but few exceptions. Harry Reid, the senator from Nevada, just admitted lying about Mitt Romney not paying any taxes for 10 years but where is the public outrage? There is very little of it.

There is little difference with other sins. The quickest way for an actress to gain fame and fortune seems to be to take her clothes off and display herself publicly, maybe even get into pornography, and as for drunkenness, why everyone does it do they not? There is no shame in America anymore. If you are on your fifth live-in arrangement, so what? Who really cares? We will tolerate anything in America. Sounds like Corinth to me. We will in the name of toleration tolerate the very things that will lead to our personal and national destruction.

What outrage we do see today is against Christianity, not against sin and evil doing. We are experiencing the evolution of morals in America where we now call evil good and good evil. It is a destructive evolution for God has said, "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness." (Isa. 5:20 NKJV)

But why have we become this way? I think the following remark from Bill Bennett's book, The Death of Outrage, is on the mark:

"Why have we been drawn toward a culture of permissiveness? My former philosophy professor John Silber was correct when he spoke of an 'invitation to mutual corruption.' We are hesitant to impose upon ourselves a common moral code because we want our own exemptions." (Page 120)

We in America like to blame our leaders for our problems as a nation, but the problem lies within us, each of us. We have become proud, puffed up, much like the Corinthians. Add to that we enjoy our own personal sins and do not want to give them up. Living righteously no longer matters to us. We will set our own standards and they are far, far more lenient than God's standards for we like it that way.

The answer to our problems lies within each of us. While it is true "there is none righteous" (Rom. 3:10 NKJV), we are not righteous on our own, don't you think we might all be better off and our nation be better off if we made an attempt to live godly? The desire to do so has been lost but God has given us free will. We can change if we will just will to do it. With God's help, it is not impossible for men and women to live godly, righteous lives. If there is not a change, a sort of national repentance, we are doomed as a nation. On a personal level Jesus put it bluntly, "Unless you repent you will all likewise perish." (Luke 13:3 NKJV) "God is not mocked." (Gal. 6:7 NKJV)

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

Free Will and God's Foreknowledge

Did God know Adam and Eve would sin? The answer is yes, but it is a hard answer for some to accept, for they cannot understand how mankind could keep from sinning if God foreknew they would sin. Did they, Adam and Eve, have free will; that is the question being asked? If God knew we were all going to need Jesus and his blood for salvation even before our existence, what choice did any of us have but sin?

That question does not bother me. Why not? Because God by definition is supernatural. His understanding is infinite. What seems impossible with man is possible with God (creating the universe, the virgin birth, raising the dead to life again, walking on water, walking through closed doors, knowing man's thoughts without being told, disappearing into thin air, etc.). "Is anything too hard for the Lord?" (Gen. 18:14 NKJV) "Is there anything too hard for me?" (Jer. 32:27) "His understanding no one can fathom." (Isa. 40:28 NIV) Because a matter is too deep for my own understanding does not mean it is too deep for God.

Now for the scriptural truth that God did indeed know Adam and Eve would sin, I will just quote the appropriate scriptures and leave it with you.

In 2 Tim. 1:9 the scripture says God has "saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began." (NKJV) You did catch that, did you not—"before time began"? John refers to Jesus as "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." (Rev. 13:8 NKJV)

In Eph. 1:4 Paul says we Christians were chosen "in him before the foundation of the world." (NKJV) The prior verse (verse 3) makes it clear Paul is speaking of "in Christ." In the same book, we read of "the eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Eph. 3:11 NKJV) If it was eternal, it was before the earth was created.

The kingdom was prepared for us "from the foundation of the world." (Matt. 25:34 NKJV) Paul speaks of "the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory." (1 Cor. 2:7 NKJV) Did this wisdom have anything to do with Jesus and salvation from sin? So, yes, this wisdom that was ordained before the ages dealt with the salvation of man.

We read in Titus 1:2 of the "hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began" (NKJV), but, of course, eternal life depends on Jesus and his sacrifice for man, so again, the answer is yes; God did indeed know man would sin before creating man.

Finally, we close with Peter who says Christ was "foreordained before the foundation of the world." (1 Peter 1:20 NKJV)

Our duty before God as believers is to believe and not fret about how God can do things that seem impossible to us. God knew we would sin before we were created. But, don't you think God also knew mankind could love? "God is love." (1 John 4:8 NKJV) We were made in God's image (Gen. 1:26). Perhaps, just perhaps, we were created in part to be loved by God and to love God back. "We love Him because He first loved us." (1 John 4:19 NKJV) Every person desires to be loved. Is God any different?

Jesus said the first commandment, the one with top priority, is, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength." (Mark 12:30 NKJV) Perhaps love is of such great and wonderful value as to be worth some pain. God knew some would reject him and continue on in sin, but he also knew some would love him and be loyal to him. To love God is a wonderful thing. Just maybe it was worth creating man.

I conclude by saying I cannot know God's motives in creating man, and so I have speculated. Take it as that. But, I have to believe that God saw value in the creation of man, or he would not have created us. And, I also know, God could have created a robot rather than a man had he desired to do so. A robot has no choices about love, or hate, or anything else. A robot cannot receive love or give love. It can give no satisfaction to the hearts of spiritual beings.

This is making a case for free will. A robot, I suppose, could be programmed to go through the motions of loving you, but it would all be artificial, programmed into the wiring, without choice. We love God because he chose us (1 John 4:19). We love our husbands or wives because they chose us. That was and is very meaningful. They didn't have to do it. We were not the only man or woman on earth. Their choice of us was special. It had and has real meaning. So, God had to give us a choice if there was to be a meaningful relationship with him. That meant some would not choose him. But for those who did and do, that is special.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

Anger

"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever shall say, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell." (Matt. 5:22 NAS)

When Jesus spoke these words he was speaking to a Jewish audience that was then living under the Law of Moses.  Living today 2,000 years after the fact we read this passage and it brings questions to our minds wondering exactly what he meant in some of the things said here and what if any application the passage might have to us today.  I suspect most of us have at one point in time or another just read over the passage and gone on.  That is what we often do with passages we really do not understand.  Yet, if there is a lesson for us in the passage as there was for those who first heard it we need to learn it.  I begin with the subject of anger, the first clause of this paragraph.

Does Jesus completely forbid anger?  Are we never to be angry?  Some translations add, after the word angry, the words "without a cause."  Most scholars and most translations omit the phrase believing the evidence is against its inclusion.  Be that as it may, the question remains—does God forbid all anger?  Is that what the first clause of this passage teaches?

Jesus was angry in Mark 3:5 with the Pharisees in the synagogue, "And after looking around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, He said to the man, 'Stretch out your hand.' And he stretched it out, and his hand was restored." (NAS)  We are all familiar with the passage in Ephesians 4:26, "Be angry, and yet do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger." (NAS)  The first part of that verse is a quotation taken from Psalm 4:4.  We all experience anger at one point in time or another.  Of course, some grow angry much easier than others and certainly there are degrees of anger.

Does God want us to be angry?  Of course not, but he made a provision for anger so that it would not become sin to us—Eph. 4:26 just quoted.  Do not let anger linger.  Rid yourself of it quickly.  While it is impossible to keep from becoming angry at times one does have the ability to cast it aside and not dwell on it, one has the ability to let go of the anger.  

Does God mean we must literally cease being angry by sunset?  What if you become angry at the midnight hour?  What if someone has just beaten or murdered your son or daughter?  What if your spouse just walked out on you and took the children to go off with another?  Not all anger can be rid of so easily or quickly so I don't think God is telling us there is a time limit on anger like if it is two minutes before sunset when something happens to anger you that you only have two minutes to get over it but I think he is saying rid yourself of it and do so quickly, don't nurture it.  That is my take on the verse as an uninspired man, one man’s thoughts.

The very next verse, Eph. 4:27, reads, "and do not give the devil an opportunity." (NAS)  Eph. 4:26 and 27 are all one sentence and the idea is if you stay angry it is likely going to lead to other things because staying angry is giving the devil an opportunity.  After anger comes hatred, malice, vengeance, and many other evils.  We know this is true and thus we know we cannot remain angry long without worse things to come.  Anger ends up destroying the one who has it for it becomes a cancer within growing into things that destroy the soul and that make life miserable in the here and now.  

Paul closes the 4th chapter of Ephesians from which I have been quoting by saying, "Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice.  And be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you." (Eph. 4:31-32 NAS)  In Col. 3:8 he says to put aside anger.  James says to be "slow to anger" (James 1:19 NAS) and that "the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God." (James 1:20 NAS)  So we come back to our question—is it a sin to be or become angry?  The scriptural answer seems to be it depends on how you handle it.  You cannot retain anger and please God even if you had just cause for indignation.  

Anger held onto becomes sin.  Paul says to put it away and thus if we disobey that Holy Spirit inspired command it becomes sin to us.  And then there is the question of why we are angry and over what?  Often there is no real cause for anger and the problem is not that which comes from without a person to arouse just indignation but a problem from within the person, a problem of personal character flaws and of the heart.  God certainly does not condone unjustified anger even for a short while.  If we have a short fuse and are ready to fight at a moment's notice over the littlest thing, if we are ready to perceive a slight when most men see nothing, then the problem is within us and the anger is totally unjustified.  

The KKK in this country in the days of segregation would lynch a black man occasionally because he was black.  A white man who had done what the black man was alleged to have done would never have been lynched.  Are you angry at a man over the color of his skin?  Surely this is not the type of anger that God would allow a man to hold even till sunset and declare it sinless, so the cause of the anger must also enter into the equation.  Of course, one could argue that this type of thing is not anger but hatred.  I would not debate that for I think you would be right but anger can turn into hatred and thus is be gotten rid of immediately before it is allowed to grow and develop.  Anger can lead to hatred but the hatred may also come before the specific anger (racism being a prime example). 

"Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." (1 John 3:15 NAS)  We ought to run from anger lest it turn into something far worse.  Remember one can become and be angry up to a point without sinning (Eph. 4:26) but there is a fine line we dare not cross. 

We all know we are not happy when angry, when we are mad.  There is no joy in anger.  The wise person will forgive and forget even if the original anger was somewhat justified in that he/she was truly wronged.  By forgiving and letting go of the anger one is allowing themselves to be happy again and is thus doing self a favor as well as doing God's will.

It is good to also remind ourselves of what we already know.  No one likes to be around an angry person.  If we say we can hide our anger I would say I know we may try but it is easier said than done.  When you are mad inwardly, even though you are hiding it, you are generally not much fun to be around, a person of a sour disposition.

We must learn to control our tempers so we do not become angry easily.  As James said, quoted earlier, be "slow to anger." (James 1:19 NAS)  The NKJV uses the word "wrath" whereas the NAS uses the word "anger."  The Old Testament has several passages that teach and warn us about anger:

"Do not be eager in your heart to be angry, For anger resides in the bosom of fools." (Eccl. 7:9 NAS)

"Do not associate with a man given to anger; Or go with a hot-tempered man." (Prov. 22:24 NAS)

"A hot-tempered man stirs up strife, But the slow to anger pacifies contention." (Prov. 15:18 NAS)

"A man of great anger shall bear the penalty, For if you rescue him, you will only have to do it again." (Prov. 19:19 NAS)

"Like a city that is broken into and without walls Is a man who has no control over his spirit." (Prov. 25:28 NAS)

Man can and must learn to control his temper and thus his anger if he is to be happy, if he is to please God, and if he is not going to bring himself to ruin.  Anger destroys love, family, and relationships, and endangers salvation so it must be mastered.

In closing, we ought to deal with this question of how the angry man in our text, Matt. 5:22, shall be guilty before the court.  I used the New American Standard Bible in preparing this article.  Most translations use the word “judgment” whereas the NASB uses the word “court” in Matt. 5:22.  I will just quote it here beginning with Matt. 5:21 going through Matt. 5:22, the verse in question, and do so from the Christian Standard Bible so you can see what I am talking about.

“You have heard it was said to our ancestors, Do not murder, and whoever murders will be subject to judgment.  But I tell you, everyone who is angry with his brother or sister will be subject to judgment … .”  I think that clarifies the matter quite a bit.  Anger is no little thing.  It is a very serious issue in a person’s life if it resides within them.

John Gill (1697-1771) says on this passage, and I quote, "in danger of judgment; not of any of the courts of judicature among the Jews, as the Sanhedrim of three, or of twenty three, or of seventy one, which took no notice of anger, as a passion in the mind, only of facts committed; but of the judgment of God."

Do not allow anger to abide in you for if you do surely it will become sin to you and you will be judged for it.  Anger against another will, if held onto, eventually turn on you and destroy you.  So the Bible teaches.  So it is.

This article was written in view of a person's anger against another individual or individuals.  We ought to be angry against sin and evil every day but love the sinner.  God wants us to hate sin.  You will find no verses in the Bible teaching you to love sin, not one.  We ought always to hate the evil we see being done in the world but have sympathy for the souls of lost sinners and desire their repentance and salvation.  We have all been guilty of sin and it is by God’s grace that anyone can be saved.

I will deal with the rest of this Matt. 5:22 passage in later articles.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

Abuse Of The Old Testament

There are many things practiced in the name of Christianity today that have no scriptural basis in the law of Christ, the new covenant. The Old Testament, at times, is appealed to as the source of authority for things practiced in the churches. Does the Old Testament have the same authority for Christians today as the New Testament? How should Christians today relate to and handle the Old Testament scriptures? These are questions we all ought to be interested in for we are saved by truth, not error.

God has commanded us to rightly divide the truth (2 Tim. 2:15) and Peter says that the scriptures can be twisted to our own destruction (2 Peter 3:16) thus we must be careful and not make assumptions or just give our opinion. We can only rightly divide the word of truth by following what God has said about how to do that. Only then are we on safe ground.

That the Old Testament scriptures have value for us today there can be no doubt for Paul says, "For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope." (Rom.15:4 NAS) We thus learn that we can receive instruction from the Old Testament scriptures and encouragement that combined with perseverance gives us hope.

No better example can be given than what James said in illustrating this point. He says, "Behold, we count those blessed who endured. You have heard of the endurance of Job and have seen the outcome of the Lord's dealings that the Lord is full of compassion and is merciful." (James 5:11 NAS)

Hebrews chapter 11 is another good illustration. We are taught by the examples of Old Testament characters what faith is and what it means to have faith. We are encouraged to persevere as we see what some of those men and women were willing to do and endure to be faithful to God. We compare our trials with theirs and ours seem but little things and we are given the strength to go on and not give up. The Bible speaks of these as being those "of whom the world was not worthy." (Heb. 11:38 NKJV)

We are told to remember Lot's wife (Luke 17:32). We are told, in so many words, that we ought to learn from the fact that "anyone who has rejected Moses' law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses" (Heb. 10:28 NKJV) and consider that in relation to our treatment of the Son of God (Heb. 10:29) where the punishment will be worse. This list could be extended but the point has been adequately made that there is much to learn from the Old Testament as the New Testament reveals lesson after lesson we ought to learn from the more distant past.

Furthermore, much of what we learn about God, who he is, his character, his attributes, his expectations for man, and his purposes are found in the Old Testament. We find in the Old Testament the history of man. We find the history of God's chosen people. We see his eternal purpose set forth both in historical development and in prophecy.

And then there is the book of Psalms. Who is there among God's people who have not gone to the book of Psalms time and again to find comfort and hope, especially in times of sadness and sorrow?

Want to learn how to pray? Read David in the Psalms to see prayer from the heart, and learn how to praise God in prayer, and how to petition him for his blessings. Learn how to thank God. All of this can be learned by close attention in reading the Psalms.

Need wisdom? Go to the book of Proverbs. Many, many New Testaments that one can buy also include, as an addition, the books of Psalms and Proverbs. They are books that are often consulted by men today and rightly so.

I have said many good and true things in praise of the Old Testament scriptures. I believe everything I have said has been scriptural and so much so that I do not believe anyone who calls himself a Christian would disagree with me to this point.

However, we have now come to the time where we need to divide the word—the old from the new--and make a distinction. The Bible is very clear that the Old Testament is not meant for us today as law. We readily see this when it comes to animal sacrifices but we too often want to bring in from the Old Testament other things that should have been left there as well.

The Hebrew writer says, "For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law." (Heb. 7:12 NKJV) Read in context the argument has been that Jesus is now our high priest and he is not of the tribe of Levi as were all the priests under the old Law of Moses. Jesus was of the tribe of Judah.

But, our point is that the inspired writer tells us as clearly as words can make it that the law has changed. There is now a new law. The Law of Moses is gone, fulfilled, completed, and is now history. There is now a new law, the law of Christ. In Gal. 6:2 Paul says, "Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ." (NKJV)

Everyone readily admits that Jesus gave man commandments to obey. A commandment is nothing other than a law to be obeyed. Disobey a law of God and you sin. As the old King James translation puts it in 1 John 3:4, "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." In our day the law that is transgressed, bringing sin, is the law of Christ, not the Law of Moses.

Hear God the Father speak from heaven on the Mount of Transfiguration when Peter wanted to make 3 tabernacles, one each for Moses, Elijah, and Christ. "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!" (Matt. 17:5 NKJV) Christ was not to be put on an equal plane with Moses and/or Elijah. Neither was to be heard any longer as present-day authorities. Henceforth, Christ was the one to be heard and followed.

In Hebrews 3 the Hebrew writer has been talking about Moses and Christ and how Christ is superior to Moses and then in verses 7 and 8 says, "Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says: 'Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts." (NKJV) The day of hearing Moses is over as regards law to be followed. Hear the voice of Christ which is the voice of God. Hear it today. Jesus says, "the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me." (John 14:24 NKJV)

Paul says of himself in Gal. 2:19, "For I through the law (a reference to the Law of Moses--DS) died to the law that I might live to God." (NKJV) He goes on to say "if righteousness comes through the law (Law of Moses again--DS), then Christ died in vain." (Gal 2:21 NKJV) And in Rom. 7:4 "Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law (Law of Moses--DS) through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another--to Him who was raised from the dead." (NKJV)

And, then, in Gal. 3:24-25 he makes it clear enough that an older elementary school student ought to be able to easily understand it. He says, "Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor." (NKJV) The law (the Law of Moses) was our tutor; we are no longer under a tutor, thus no longer under the law. (For that matter the Gentiles were never given the law anyway nor were they under it. The law was for God's chosen people, the Jewish nation.)

Part of the problem the Galatians were having was that they wanted at the very least an admixture of the old Law of Moses with Christ. Paul called it a perversion of the gospel of Christ in chapter 1 verse 7. Some were going so far as to want to go back to the Law of Moses for Paul says, "Tell me, you who desire to be under the law." (Gal. 4:21 NKJV) The desire was wrong. Remember, God said this is my beloved son, hear him, not Moses (the Law of Moses).

Paul goes so far as to say that being under the works of the law (reference to the Law of Moses) is a curse. "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them." (Gal. 3:10 NKJV) He says, "Do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage." (Gal. 5:1 NKJV)

I could go on and on with proof texts for the book of Galatians and the book of Hebrews both deal extensively about the change of the law telling us clearly that we are not under the Law of Moses today. The book of Romans also gives us much the same. But, my main interest is making an application as to how all of this affects us today as Christians and believers.

The idea seems to be prevalent today that the Old Testament gives us authority to worship in ways we please if we can find an example for our practice in the Old Testament. But, does it?

Paul says of certain Galatians, Gal. 5:4 (NKJV), "You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace." They wanted to bring over into Christianity circumcision, a requirement under the old covenant. "Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law." (Gal. 5:2-3 NKJV)

The only way these people could justify themselves, even in their own eyes, was by an appeal to the Old Testament scriptures, justification by Old Testament law. It won't work. Why not? Because it is not a part of the law of Christ, not a part of the new covenant. We do not have a problem with the issue of circumcision today but we often seek to do what that group was doing. We attempt to justify our practice that cannot be found in the law of Christ, the New Testament, by an appeal to the Old Testament.

We are given a choice of whose law and authority we will live by. Will it be Moses' law or Christ's law? We cannot mix them. What Christ wanted from the old law to be observed today he brought with him and had it recorded in the pages of the New Testament. We can go back to Moses or we can move forward to Christ. That is our choice.

There are things that seem so right to a man, how can they be wrong? The writer of Proverbs says, "There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death." (Prov. 16:25 NKJV) God speaking in Isaiah 55:8-9 (NKJV) says, "'For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,' says the Lord. 'For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.'" We greatly err when we think that because a thing pleases us it is automatically going to please God.

We also need to learn from this that we ought not to just accept without question the things that have been handed down to us from men who lived in the past but whose teachings have come to be accepted as a sort of a standard--it doesn't matter whether the man was Calvin, Luther, or the Pope, or whomever it might be. Isaiah said in Isa. 2:22 (ESV), "Stop regarding man in whose nostrils is breath, for of what account is he?" Good question. I think Isaiah answered his own question, did he not?

Nadab and Abihu in Leviticus 10 "offered profane fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them" (verse 1) and the Bible says "so fire went out from the LORD and devoured them, and they died before the LORD." (Lev. 10:2 NKJV) They had no authority from God to use profane fire or as some versions put it "strange fire." (NAS)

What is the application? To Nadab and Abihu worship was worship as long as it was directed to God and meant for his praise. It seemed right to them. Who could object to worshiping God? Well, we found out. God does not think as man thinks.

What Nadab and Abihu did was no different than what we do today when we add to the worship things we cannot find in the law of Christ, the new covenant, the New Testament. Col. 3:17 reads as follows, "And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him." (NKJV) How does one do a thing in the name of the Lord Jesus about which the Lord Jesus spoke nothing?

A careful reading of 1 Chron. 21:18-19 will show you that the phrase "in the name of the Lord" means by the Lord's authority. The angel of the Lord had commanded Gad to go speak to David about building an altar and verse 19 says, "So David went up at the word of Gad, which he had spoken in the name of the Lord." This clearly shows that "in the name of the Lord" means by the Lord's authority and that authority is expressed in his word, not outside it. We are to do what we do "in the name of the Lord Jesus," by his authority found in his word. Now reread Col. 3:17 and you will see this involves everything we do in religion and most assuredly in our worship.

Nadab and Abihu were doing a thing in the name of God which God had spoken nothing about. Nadab and Abihu were not condemned for doing a thing that was written but for what was not written or not given, and doing it anyway, because it pleased them. Do you think for a single moment that Nadab and Abihu thought it would matter? You know they didn't.

Peter says, "If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God." You will need an oracle of God to do that. When you have to go outside the word of God for your practice it is because there is no oracle.

The New Testament tells us exactly how far we are allowed to go. We can go that far and no farther. How far? In 1 Cor. 4:6 Paul says, "not to exceed what is written" (NAS)--"not to go beyond what is written" (ESV). John says, (2 John 1:9 NKJV), "Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God." When we step outside what Christ has said, his written word, we step outside his doctrine and adopt the doctrine of man. On the Day of Judgment you do not want to find yourself trying to explain to God why you did that.

Today all kinds of things have been brought into the typical worship of churches for which man cannot find a New Testament book, chapter, and verse for and we all know that. I am not telling anyone anything they do not know. Most will readily admit it. They say God will not care. It makes no difference. It is still worship to God they say. It pleases him. But what do you do with John 4:24 that says, in part, that worship must be in truth and then John 17:17 which says God's word is truth? You then search the New Testament and cannot find a word about your practice, what then?

Sometimes they say they did it in the Old Testament; Moses did it or David did it so it has to be okay. Instrumental music in worship is an example. Which law did Moses and David live under? Instrumental music was a command of worship under the Law of Moses (see 2 Chron. 29:25), that is to say during that era or under that dispensation of time. Does one seek justification by an appeal to the Law of Moses? God said to those with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration, "This is My Beloved Son. … Hear Him!" (Matt. 17:5 NKJV)

(You are aware that the church we find in the New Testament existed for hundreds of years before man brought the instrument into worship. This in itself tells you where it came from, God or man.)

But, the things brought from the Old Testament over to us today go far beyond just instrumental music. Things like the special robes and/or priestly attire worn by those who are considered to be somewhat in the church, the idea that there are two classes of brethren--one priests and then the rest of us, the ritualism we find often in the churches, and so on all from the days of the Law of Moses and none of which can be justified without an appeal to it. Will we hear Moses or Christ?

So how do we abuse the Old Testament? How is that done? It is by seeking justification from it, especially in the realm of public worship. That is not where you will find justification, not today.

I close with the words of God the Father on the Mount of Transfiguration. "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!" (Matt. 17:5)

[To download this article or print it out click here.]