The Silence of the Scriptures

From a book entitled A Short History of Christianity, by Stephen Tomkins, I quote as follows: "The basic difference between Zwingli and Luther was in their attitudes to the Bible. Zwingli saw it as a precise blueprint for church life. For Luther, what is not forbidden is permitted; for Zwingli, what is not permitted is forbidden." (page 141) Both Zwingli and Luther lived in the Age of Reformation, often referred to as the Protestant Reformation, and both men were leading figures in its beginnings.

The subject of this article is the issue that separated Luther from Zwingli, namely, the silence of the scriptures. While I will be concentrating primarily on issues related to worship practices in this article, the principles enunciated extend beyond what happens inside the doors where we meet for worship weekly. Does the silence of the scriptures permit a practice or forbid it in Christianity?

This can only be answered by an appeal to the scriptures, to which we will go, but before doing so it would be good to make this point--some have answered this question without an appeal to scripture at all. Authority within the Roman Catholic Church, for example, resides in the church itself, the Magisterium, not in scripture. However, I suppose, if one was forced to put them in either Luther's camp or Zwingli's camp, they would have to be placed with Luther.

When one takes the position Luther took, one cannot complain too much, and be consistent, about wild innovations in the church. If what is not forbidden is permitted, then pretty much anything goes. On what basis could you forbid it?

But what do the scriptures teach for those desiring to know? If there was only one passage one could use to settle this debate as it relates to worship, it would be, for me, John 4:24, "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." (NKJV) It is easy to overlook a very important word in this passage, the word "must." That means neither you nor I have any choice in the matter. It is, we "must." It is the only worship God will accept, that which is in spirit and truth, or else the word "must" is a word without meaning.

We know what is meant when we are told we must worship in spirit. I think we all agree about the meaning of that part of the passage. That leaves only the word truth and the question about that revolves around what is truth, where it's found, and how you can know it. The Bible tells us.

"Truth came through Jesus Christ." (John 1:17 NKJV) Whatever Jesus spoke was "truth." In prayer to the Father, Jesus said, in John 17:17, "Your word is truth." (NKJV) The words Jesus spoke, whatever, wherever, to whomever, were truth. He spoke the words the Father had given him. Hear Jesus, "I have not spoken on my own, but the Father himself who sent me has given me a command to say everything I have said." (John 12:49 CSB) And, again, "I speak just as the Father has told me." (John 12:50 CSB)

All the words of the New Testament, red letter or not, are the words of Jesus, the words of God the Father, the words of truth. After Jesus' death and ascension, when the Holy Spirit was given to men, the Holy Spirit did not speak independently of Jesus and the Father. Jesus referred to the Spirit calling him "the Spirit of truth." (John 14:17, 15:26 NKJV)

Jesus further speaking of the Holy Spirit said, "He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you." (John 16:13-15 NKJV)

To worship in truth, then, involves worshiping by the word of God. That means, and it seems so obvious that I do not see how men overlook it, that if there is no word from God there is no truth in matters religious. If God has not spoken on a practice how does man practice that thing, whatever it be, and say he is worshiping in truth?

Additionally, how can we have faith in a worship practice if there is no word from God when "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Rom. 10:17 NKJV) And, again, "Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus." (Col. 3:17 NKJV) If there is no word from Jesus (God) how do you practice an activity in worship "in the name of the Lord Jesus"? Perhaps it would be more accurate to say we are doing it in our own name.

There is such a thing as the teachings of men. Listen to Jesus again, "Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: …'And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'" (Matt. 15:7-9 NKJV) Paul says in Titus we are to not give heed "to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth." (Titus 1:14 NKJV) A worship practice that does not have a book, chapter, and verse for it in God's word is a commandment of men, an invention of men, and is certainly not worship in truth for if it was, book, chapter, and verse could be provided.

Now I know many are with Luther on this—if a practice or act is not specifically forbidden then it's permitted. If he was right then truth, God's word, does not matter and one can on his own authority, man-made and man-given, institute worship according to one's desire.

Paul's rebuke of the Corinthians regarding the Lord's Supper provides further evidence that what is not clearly revealed in scripture is prohibited. The Corinthians had been taught about the Lord's Supper or else they would not have been observing it, correctly or incorrectly. Furthermore, Paul comes right out and tells us they had been taught when he says, "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you." (1 Cor. 11:23 NKJV) That is past tense. Since he had last met with them they had obviously made some changes in the way they were partaking of the supper. I ask--on whose authority did they do so?

Note the principle Paul is establishing. He is telling the Corinthians to do what you are told to do, by inspiration, and do not make changes, or additions, or subtractions. To do so is to change the word of God and is to go outside of truth for one's worship.

In the book of Deuteronomy, we find Moses addressing the children of Israel, acting as God's spokesperson. Hear what he has to say, "You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." (Deut. 4:2 NKJV) Upon what evidence do you think that principle has changed today? Do you think that God today does not mind us adding to his word or taking from it?

We recognize the principle of silence being prohibitive in human wills and legal documents. Why do we not recognize the same principle in the last will and testament of our Lord and Savior, the New Testament? What was left out of that will was left out for a reason.

If a doctor writes you a prescription for drug X then you cannot use it to get drug Y in addition to drug X. The silence of the prescription prohibits that. And there is no substitution unless it is specifically written on the prescription that it is allowed, normally to a generic. Silence has meaning. Silence prohibits and does not authorize. It is impossible to gain authority from silence.

The police need a search warrant to search your home. That warrant does not give them the legal right to search your neighbor's home. Why not? Because the warrant is silent, it does not speak about your neighbor's house. You cannot have faith in silence no matter how strongly you may feel about what ought to be. Our faith must be in what is written, not in the unsaid.

We cannot change what is written in the New Testament (the guide for Christians and Christ's last will and testament). If we add to it we do so without having the authority to do so and thus do so as men, using man's authority, not God's. If we take away from what is written, ignoring it, then we may as well take a pair of scissors and cut it out of the biblical text. Who would dare do that? There is a Day of Judgment when men must stand before God and tampering with his word is not something you want to do when you contemplate that fearful day.

A practical application of all of this, because it is such a widespread practice, is that of the use of instrumental music in worship. It was allowed under the law of Moses. Why? Because there was word from God commanding it (see 2 Chron. 29:25). It is prohibited, even though commonly practiced, under the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2, 1 Cor. 9:21) under which we live today. Why? There is no command for it. The scriptures are silent. You can only bring it into New Testament worship by adding to the words of Christ.

The secular history of the church is such that it can be proven instrumental music was not used in the New Testament church for a few hundred years after the first century. Most historians date it to the late seventh century. The Jews were a people well versed in the use of harps and other musical instruments. One must ask why Jewish Christians did not use them in the earliest years of the church. I think the answer is self-evident.

I close this by reiterating what I have already said. If the silence of the scriptures allows freedom to do as we please, there is no end to the man-made innovations that men can dream up and bring into the church. Who can believe we can do anything and everything with God's approval? 

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

More on Willful Sin—Can Anyone be Saved?

While I have written on this subject, willful sin, in the past, I thought it worthwhile to write a follow-up as this is a subject that troubles many Christians. There is material here that was not in the first article.

The passage that troubles people is Heb. 10:26-31 but more specifically verses 26 and 27. "For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries." (NKJV) I want you to hear the words of Albert Barnes, perhaps the best-known of all English Bible commentators, in his comments on the willful sin of this passage. He says:

"It is not to be construed here strictly, or metaphysically (here Barnes is talking about the word 'willfully'), for all sin is voluntary, or is committed willingly, but must refer to a deliberate act, where a man means to abandon his religion, and to turn away from God. If it were to be taken with metaphysical exactness, it would demonstrate that every Christian who ever does anything wrong, no matter how small, would be lost."

You will be hard-pressed to find a commentator anywhere who would disagree with Barnes’ statement. Virtually every commentator will tell you that the passage has reference to one whose intent is to leave the faith altogether. That person willfully chooses to go another direction.

I do not think this person is one who necessarily ceases to believe. I say that because of verse 27 where there is with this individual "a certain fearful expectation of judgment." (NKJV) However, I grant that the phrase could be taken to be merely descriptive of the judgment and how awful it will be and that is Barnes’ take on it for he says, “The ‘fearful apprehension’ or expectation here does not refer so much to what would be in the mind itself, or what would be experienced, as to what must follow.” Philip Schaff in his commentary agrees for he says, “It describes not what is expected, but what will certainly be, and in truth what is already in reserve—‘a reception of judgment.’” They may well be correct.

We all know Christians who have fallen away simply because they enjoyed sin more than righteousness. They preferred "the pleasures of sin for a season" (Heb. 11:25 KJV) over an eternity of bliss. They did not go into another religion but into a sinful life.  

Here are some words from Neil Lightfoot's commentary on the passage. "He speaks not so much of an act of sin but of a state of sin, for the force of the verb is repeated action—'if we go on sinning,' 'if we continue to sin,' 'if we persist in sin.'" That this is true can be seen from some of the newer Bible translations of the passage. "For if we willfully persist in sin after having received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins." (Heb. 10:26 NRSV) "Dear friends, if we deliberately continue sinning after we have received knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice that will cover these sins." (Heb. 10:26 NLT) The passage is not talking about a single act of sin but a determination to live a life of sin after becoming a Christian.

The New Testament never envisioned Christians ever reaching the point in this life where they would never sin. Yes, that is the goal but the apostle John said, in talking to Christians, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." (1 John 1:8 NKJV) Well, then, what is the Christian to do about his sin? John tells us in the very next verse where he says, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:9 NKJV) Finally, he says, "If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us." (1 John 1:10 NKJV)

The Christian who sins needs to confess their sins to God after having become penitent. "Now I rejoice, not that you were made sorry, but that your sorrow led to repentance. For you were made sorry in a godly manner, that you might suffer loss from us in nothing. For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death. For observe this very thing, that you sorrowed in a godly manner: What diligence it produced in you, what clearing of yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what vehement desire, what zeal, what vindication! In all things you proved yourselves to be clear in this matter." (2 Cor. 7:9-11 NKJV) The Corinthians were Christians who had sinned and considering the sins they committed as we read about them in the book of First Corinthians one has to think "they knew better" before committing some of them.

John says he wrote to his little children, as he calls them, "that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." (1 John 2:1 NKJV) I assure you a penitent Christian can be forgiven of sin. Not a doubt in the world about it as far as scripture goes and Jesus will be your advocate. Before the Christian era began, we all recall from scripture that Peter denied Christ and lied about being his disciple and even said he did not know the man (Matt. 26:72). Was this a willful sin? Did Peter not know he was lying? Was Peter forgiven? Could Peter be forgiven but you can't be? Who can believe it?

"Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need." (Heb. 4:16 NKJV) There is grace and mercy for the Christian. Grace and mercy are not just reserved exclusively for the alien sinner who comes to God.

It is true we may always feel sorrowful about what we have done and have long lingering regrets but I am not so sure that is a bad thing if it helps us to determine to never ever again even entertain the thought of doing such things. I often think of David and Absalom which is a heart-wrenching story. Where did David go wrong with his son who he loved so deeply? This whole thing with Absalom tore David's heart out. Then think about what he had to live with in having had Bathsheba's husband murdered and his adultery with her. Many of us are men and women of sorrows but we have to lean on the only hope we have, a true hope, one that will forgive—Jesus. Yes, Jesus will forgive you and save you.

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

What Is Baptism—Sprinkling, Pouring, or Immersion

It may be that no Bible subject has caused more confusion among people than the subject of baptism. What is baptism? What is its purpose? Who should be baptized? Why? It would be good to study all of these questions, but for the present, for the purpose of this article, I will confine myself to the question, what is baptism?

Most people assume that the words found in our New Testaments are English words translated from the original Greek. You may be surprised to learn that the word "baptize" and its derivatives are not English words at all, not at first. They are Greek words that were transliterated. That is they were never translated into English at all but with the passage of time came to be English words through usage.

Dictionary.com online defines transliterate as follows: "to change (letters, words, etc.) into corresponding characters of another alphabet or language." Thus, those men who translated our New Testaments from the Greek into English decided not to translate the Greek word "baptize" at all, they just changed the Greek letters into English letters. In doing so they made a new English word.

To translate from Greek to English is to give the meaning of the Greek word in English. That they did not do. It was a new English word to which you gave the meaning, the meaning your culture decided upon. Meta A.I. says transliterate "means to convert text from one writing system into another, letter by letter or sound by sound, without translating the meaning."

Why would they do that? That is a good question. It is a question with an easy answer. The Greek word means to immerse completely. My hardback copy of Vine's, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, says of baptism, "consisting of the processes of immersion, submersion and emergence." If the reader will do a little of their own research they will quickly see that most all Greek scholars readily admit that in the first century the word was used of immersion only, that is what the Greek word meant to those people.

The Bible confirms this to be the case for Paul says, "Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death." (Rom. 6:4 NKJV) Baptism is a burial, a burial in water when used in a religious context. Paul says again in Col. 2:11-12 (NKJV), "In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." One is not and cannot be buried by pouring or sprinkling.

The truth of the matter as to why the Greek word was transliterated and never translated is to be found in the fact that by the time the Bible came to be translated into English man had decided on his own initiative that sprinkling would do just as well as immersion. If you translate the Greek and are honest in your scholarship you will have to use the word immerse, or dip, or submerge. If you do that, what will that do to your doctrine of sprinkling? It will destroy it. That cannot be allowed to happen. What is the solution? Don't translate the Greek, transliterate it, producing a new English word that because it is new you can make it mean what you desire it to mean.

The first time after the establishment of the church in Acts 2 that anyone was sprinkled or had water poured on them rather than be immersed was approximately 250 years later. In about 250 AD, a man named Novatian became ill and fearing for his life wanted to be baptized. Too ill for immersion his friends poured water on him. By that point in time there was not an inspired man alive to cause problems over this substitution. Inspiration had ended. The apostles were dead.

One had to go outside the pages of the New Testament to get pouring (affusion) or sprinkling, showing little respect for what was written. What was written was not sufficient for a man (or his friends) who felt he was at the point of death, and knowing he had not been obedient to the command to be baptized (immersed), was desperate. What he needed was a change in the ordinance. He needed pouring as a substitution and if he or his friends had to add a new law or change an old one to get it in then so be it. Evidently, they had never read the passage, "There is one Lawgiver." (James 4:12 NKJV) Either that or they were just going to ignore it.

Thus, we see the kind of attitude that brought sprinkling and pouring into what the world calls "Christendom." One ought to be able to see the evil of that kind of attitude toward God's word; if I can't find what I want in the word I will find a work around.

In 1311, the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Ravenna officially adopted pouring (affusion) and sprinkling (aspersion) of water as valid baptism. The Greek Catholic Church would not accept this but the Roman Catholic Church did and it exercised dominance in the West where the English-speaking people resided and where English Bibles were to be produced. This was more than 100 years before the printing press was invented making mass production of Bibles possible. Tyndale's New Testament of 1526 was one of the first to use the word baptism or baptize consistently in an English Bible.

The long and short of it was that the doctrine of sprinkling was brought to us by a deliberate failure to translate a Greek word and giving the transliterated word any meaning you wanted. That is why if you look up the word "baptize" or "baptism" in a modern-day dictionary it will give you meanings related to the way the word is used today, thus giving you options--sprinkling, pouring, or immersion.

Even so I was surprised to see that my Webster's New World Dictionary Third College Edition, the last copyright listed being 1988, while listing 3 common meanings of the word "baptize" as used today, gives before those listings the Greek meanings and I quote here from it--"to immerse," "to dip." Honesty in scholarship is a great thing.

Most all scholars will agree on the meaning of the original Greek word baptize as meaning immerse or dip, but you will probably never see again a major translation that will translate the Greek word baptize that way. Why? With the vast multitude of people who have now come to wholeheartedly embrace sprinkling how many Bibles do you think they would sell? You can still learn the truth on this topic through your own study but you will get no help from most Bible translations. One exception is the Literal Standard Version translation but how many people do you know who have this translation? It is not a major one.

What is sad is that some will read what I have written here, they will then go and do their own research, find out that what I have said is the truth, and yet it will not make a bit of difference in their view of the subject for they have by tradition had pouring and sprinkling handed down to them in their particular faith. This holds for many Protestants as well as Catholics.

Pouring and sprinkling for baptism came to us from man, not God. It has now become a tradition of men. Jesus once said to the scribes and Pharisees, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?" (Matt. 15:3 NKJV) God's commandment to us is to be immersed. Everyone agrees that was the original commandment and historically was done exclusively for a couple of hundred years after the church was established. When I substitute pouring or sprinkling for immersion how can I say anything other than I have done the very same thing these scribes and Pharisees did?

I have transgressed the commandment of God because of my tradition preferring to keep my tradition (pouring and/or sprinkling) over his word (immersion). I have made the commandment of God of no effect by my tradition handed down to me by those who came before which I have accepted wholeheartedly.

Then Jesus also does a comparison and contrast in talking to the scribes and Pharisees. He says, God says (Matt. 15:4), then says "but you say." (Matt. 15:5). Again, it is hard to not see a parallel. I, God, have said immersion, but you say sprinkling.

Then we also have to ask, since pouring and sprinkling came from man being 200 to 1300 years after the writing of the New Testament, depending on whether you want to start your count with Novatian or the Council of Ravenna, how it can be said that God had anything to do with bringing affusion or aspersion into the faith? How can it be anything other than "teaching as doctrines the commandments of men"? (Matt. 15:9 NKJV)

The only way one can get around the difficulties associated with accepting pouring and sprinkling is to say the New Testament is insufficient as a guide for man today. It must be amended. This smacks of the utmost arrogance. It is to say God was not able, not capable, of producing a guide that could stand the test of time and stand on its own two legs. It is to say that we men of dust need to help God stay up to date. It is to say we still have inspired men able to amend the teachings of the New Testament.

The Catholic Church accepts both—inspiration through the Magisterium and the Pope, and the need for God's word, the New Testament, to be amended and added to from time to time by new decrees for want of a better word. They abandon the written word or replace it with their own, their teaching and tradition. Just combine it all and claim the totality to be "God's word."

But the truth is this is the approach the vast majority of those who call themselves Christians take whether they are Catholics or Protestants. They are putting their trust in men rather than in what is written. The idea seems to prevail that their tradition (or practice if you will) regarding baptism, whether begun in 250 AD or in the Middle Ages, or even more recently somehow trumps the New Testament and amends it. And, yet, they think it is of God.

I don't know whether you ever thought about it this way or not. What we are saying when we add to God's word is that it alone is insufficient to save men. We need more. Yes, there was a time when immersion alone was sufficient but not so today. Men need options God did not give. It is too hard to have to do what he said way back then. Getting all wet is too big an inconvenience. What was once sufficient is no longer so. Who said so? We did. Who could fairly question us who have made ourselves the authority?

Hear the words of Jesus, "He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him--the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day." John 12:48 (NKJV) The word of Jesus in the New Testament is be immersed.

Today we need to make a choice. Will we believe and practice those things that came into our midst religiously hundreds of years after the establishment of the church and which, as a result, came obviously from man, not God, or will we return to the New Testament as our sole guide in our faith and practice? We need to choose. We ought to say as for me and my house I will follow the words of the Lord as recorded in the New Testament and leave the ideas, opinions, and innovations of man to those for whom the New Testament is not good enough.

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

Spiritual Mirages

It is so easy to be misled in life. Things appear to be a certain way, but the reality is they are not at all what they seem to be. They are a mirage. Ask any young man or woman or husband or wife who has been deeply in love and then found out to their utter dismay that the love they felt sure was mutual between them and their beloved was all just an illusion and the object of their affections was in reality ready to desert them. The first reaction is one of shock and disbelief. Only later are they able to look back and perhaps pick up on some signs that should have clued them in all along, signs which at the time were hidden from their eyes. Sadly, this sort of thing happens all the time and when one comes to the knowledge of the truth in such matters it is never pleasant.

In the realm of religion, just as in the realm of personal relationships, there are mirages. People think they see things that are in reality only illusions. One such example is found in the book of Jeremiah. Jeremiah, God's prophet, had been prophesying for years to Judah to repent and amend their ways lest God send a foreign force to their country for their destruction and ruin. They never listened and so God did indeed send the Babylonians resulting in death for many and Babylonian captivity for those that were left alive. Only the very poorest of the land were left in Judah to till the land under the leadership of a man appointed by the king of Babylon, Gedaliah.

Due to some outside intrigue by the king of Ammon men were sent to assassinate Gedaliah which mission they accomplished.  This put great fear into the Jews left in the land fearing that the king of Babylon would return and punish them over the affair even though they were not involved in it. The desire was to flee to Egypt for safety. (Read the account in Jer. 40:13-41:18.) Before leaving for Egypt, however, they consulted with Jeremiah asking him, on their behalf, to seek God's will in the matter. Having done so and received from God an answer they were instructed and warned not to go to Egypt.

"Then hear now the word of the LORD, O remnant of Judah! Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: 'If you wholly set your faces to enter Egypt, and go to dwell there, then it shall be that the sword which you feared shall overtake you there in the land of Egypt; the famine of which you were afraid shall follow close after you there in Egypt; and there you shall die. So shall it be with all the men who set their faces to go to Egypt to dwell there. They shall die by the sword, by famine, and by pestilence. And none of them shall remain or escape from the disaster that I will bring upon them.'" (Jer. 42:15-17 NKJV)

The people did not believe Jeremiah, accused him of lying (Jer. 43:2), and left for Egypt dragging Jeremiah along with them. Once there, they continued their idol worship (Jer. 44:8) and continued ignoring Jeremiah's prophetic warnings (Jer. 43:8-Jer. 44:14). We now get to the lesson I want to emphasize for this article. The people respond to Jeremiah's prophecy by saying:

"As for the word that you have spoken to us in the name of the LORD, we will not listen to you! But we will certainly do whatever has gone out of our own mouth, to burn incense to the queen of heaven and pour out drink offerings to her, as we have done, we and our fathers, our kings and our princes, in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. For then we had plenty of food, were well-off, and saw no trouble. But since we stopped burning incense to the queen of heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have lacked everything and have been consumed by the sword and by famine." (Jer. 44:16-18 NKJV)

Here is the spiritual mirage, the illusion, the incomprehension, the self-deception, and herein lies the lesson we all must learn and take to heart. There is a great tendency on man's part to believe that if he is actively involved in spiritual affairs, sincere in its belief and practise, and if his life as it pertains to this world seems to be going relatively well that is an indication God is pleased with him and his religion and that God is with him blessing him as a result of his spiritual life. 

Just because things are going reasonably well for us in our lives does not mean things are well with us spiritually. Just because we have a spiritual life, one we are actively involved in, does not mean it is the right religion or pleasing to God. As far as I am able to tell from reading the New Testament the Pharisees of Jesus' day were doing just fine as far as the blessings of this world were concerned but they were experiencing their own spiritual mirage as much as those Jews in Jeremiah’s day.

The Jews with whom Jeremiah was dealing could not have been more wrong than they were with regard to their concept of cause and effect. While they may have "had plenty of food, were well-off, and saw no trouble" the cause was not because they were worshipping "the queen of heaven" to whom they attributed it. They were involved in a spiritual illusion, a spiritual mirage, and one which man is very easily led into even today. We easily deceive ourselves just as was the case in Jeremiah's time. 

The God of heaven is generally patient with man although no man should sin thinking God will give him time to repent. God is under no obligation to give man time to repent from sin. One can readily come up with many examples from the Bible where sinners were struck down immediately upon committing sin.

Nevertheless, it seems most are given time as God "is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9 NKJV) One sees this not only in the book of Jeremiah where Jeremiah urged repentance and a turning back to God for years before tragedy finally struck but it is a common Old Testament theme as apostasy was common among God's people throughout most of Old Testament history and the prophets were continually calling for repentance with God giving time and opportunity.

Romans two, verse four, helps us see God's patience and longsuffering with sinful man. I quote it here from the New Living Translation. "Don't you see how wonderfully kind, tolerant, and patient God is with you? Does this mean nothing to you? Can't you see that His kindness is intended to turn you from your sin?" (Rom. 2:4 NLT) The NKJV reads, "Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?" (NKJV)

The Jews of Jeremiah's day were attributing God's goodness and longsuffering, meant for their repentance and salvation, to blessings from the idol they were worshipping--the queen of heaven. While we do not worship idols today, save for a few places in the world, aren't we in danger of doing something very similar to the Jews with whom Jeremiah was dealing? Everything is going well; we see no need to repent thinking our life is pleasing to God and we are being blessed because of our godly life all the while knowing we cannot read specific Bible passages without them condemning us--our life, our faith, our conduct. We like the Jews of old will not listen to God's specific word. We convince ourselves, in one way or another, that things have changed today and the passage or passages that prick us are no longer relevant to modern-day life and religion.

We feel Christianity has evolved and things that once were are no longer true or binding on us. God has changed, seems to be the thinking, even though he has specifically said, “I change not.” (Mal. 3:6 KJV) We either do that or we twist passages to make them mean what we wish they said.

The church at Laodicea can serve as an example of how we can delude ourselves and see mirages. They were saying to themselves, "I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing." (Rev. 3:17 NKJV) However, what does Jesus say about them? He says they do not know that they “are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked." (Rev. 3:17 NKJV) His message to them ends up being "be zealous and repent." (Rev. 3:19 NKJV) Yet, that was the very thing they saw no need of, for they were saying among themselves, “I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing.” (Rev/ 3:17 NKJV) They were pleased and satisfied and yet Jesus says their eyes needed to be anointed with eye salve so they could see (Rev. 3:18). They were seeing a mirage.

I am convinced people today are just as easily misled into erroneous thinking about their status with God as they were back in Bible times. A person can look at their life and see all kinds of blessings and think God is being so good to me and therefore he must be pleased with my religious life. That is not necessarily the case at all. One’s financial and social status, one’s blessings in this life, tell us nothing about how God sees us. The beggar in the account of the rich man and Lazarus had no money, no status or standing in this world of men, but went to paradise upon his death.

That kind of reasoning that correlates this world’s blessings with godly approval would lead to the conclusion that Paul was displeasing to God and living an ungodly life for he spoke about what he had experienced when he said, "From the Jews five times I received forty stripes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods; once I was stoned; three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been in the deep; in journeys often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils of my own countrymen, in perils of the Gentiles, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; in weariness and toil, in sleeplessness often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness … ." (2 Cor. 11:24-27 NKJV)

Blessings from God do not necessarily equate with God being pleased with you and the way you are living your life. It is a spiritual mirage to think God is pleased with me because of all I have, all I have done, and accomplished. Jesus himself, while living on earth, had little to nothing of this world's goods. He once said he had no place to lay his head (Matt. 8:20). 

The same point that is being made about individuals can also be said of religious groups. Do not be misled by size and appearances. If one wants to please the masses, it can be done. There are ways to tear down the old building and build bigger and fill the parking lot up (how this is done is no secret) and then say God blessed you as a religious body. If you have been observant, you know how it is done as well as I do. The question that has to be answered, however, is what brought them in—God or the appeal to the fleshly man? Was it an appeal to faith and duty or an appeal to that which satisfies the natural man?

The conclusion of the matter is this—while all blessings come from God and we should be thankful for every one of them, we ought not to jump to conclusions about why we received them. Many a man blessed abundantly in this life will be found in hell in the next one for the goodness of God in his case did not lead him to repentance while the poor widow (Luke 21) having given up even her two mites along with the beggar Lazarus (Luke 16) will be there in heaven. (One assumes the poor widow continued faithful until death.)

It continues to trouble me greatly how people just assume, make assumptions, all of the time in the realm of religion. All seems to be well with them and God, in their mind, just because they feel it is so. Their religion is based on emotion, on feeling, and is purely subjective. It is a matter of how I feel about it (just as in Jeremiah's day) versus book, chapter, and verse from God's word. When the choice is between the actual word of God as can be quoted versus their emotions, God's word will take second place. That is living life based on a spiritual mirage, an illusion that will be shown up for what it is on the last day. Jeremiah spoke the word of God. The Jews should have heard it. They paid the penalty for doing it their way. We will pay the penalty for doing it our way unless our way has the word of God behind it. 

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