IT SAID WHAT?

Why pastors tend at times to gray prematurely.....

It is sometimes easy to lose perspective - particularly when in the pursuit or promotion of one's own ideas and understanding. Hence the confusion frequently attendant that which some allege Scripture to affirm. For example:

We were once advised by a totally serious parishioner that Scripture sanctions the cohabitation of unwed couples so long as they eventually marry. In support of his assertion he then quoted from I Corinthians 7:28: "If you marry, you have not sinned." If ever need existed for demonstrating the perils of Scripture removed from context, this had to qualify as a prime example.

There is, of course, no end to distortions of this nature. Thus the persuasion of many during the height of the "wealth and prosperity" teaching that by "leaving one's house, wife, parents, children or farms for my sake and for the Gospel's sake" (Matt. 19:16-24; Mark 10:29,30; Luke 18:29,30) one became entitled to a hundred fold increase. Predictably, this phenomenal return was often avowed and emphasized in association with appeals for financial support in relation to various ministries and endeavors.

In focusing primarily upon financial or material remuneration, the fact that Jesus had included brothers, sisters, parents, wives and children in the resultant enlargement was typically ignored. While personally doubtful as to the interest of many in acquiring another hundred or more children (depending on the number left behind), we did at times tend to wonder as to the appeal an additional hundred wives might have held for some! Well, anyway.....

The whole of Jesus' pronouncement was in answer to that which had taken place immediately prior. Having dealt with a man so driven by materialistic concerns and ambition as to preclude his forsaking all to follow Christ, our Lord had subsequently observed, "How hard it is for those who trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God."

At this point Peter drew Jesus' attention to the fact that, in contrast to the preceding individual, "We have left everything and followed you. What therefore shall we have?" It was then that Jesus addressed the theme of multiplied family and resources.

What was the meaning of Christ's pronouncement? Simply that a family relationship so exists within the community of faith that should one's commitment to Christ and divine cause cost him everything in terms of family relationships and temporal well being, he will be neither alone nor impoverished. As a member of the "family of God" (to quote the well known song), he will rather have gained that body's love, acceptance, concern and sense of familial identity - a hundred times over.

One final illustration in relation to context and intent: Lest our frequently exaggerated view of early Christian maturity and perceptiveness indicate a need for for at least minimal readjustment (the New Testament epistles should themselves clarify much at this point), we would here focus upon one prominent individual from the early Church era. The eminent scholar and theologian Origen became so taken with Jesus' metaphoric allusion to those having foregone marriage "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" as having "made eunuchs of themselves" (Matt. 19:12), that he personally castrated himself.

Simply stated, context and underlying intent will explain many things in Scripture and in so doing contribute much to one's avoidance of confusion or, as Origen later came to recognize - at least with regard to his self inflicted mutilation - profound regret.

Burl Ratzsch

"LEFT BEHIND...?"

Most will recall the prophetically related "Left Behind" novel and movie of some years ago in which those unprepared for Christ's return and translation of the faithful to heaven are "left behind" to undergo the rigors of outpoured judgment upon the earth.

Despite the objections of more than a few biblical scholars and, indeed, eventual acknowledgement by at least one of the work's authors as to having misappropriated Christ's words at this point, one yet hears the phrase "left behind" frequently quoted in the preceding sense. Scripture itself will clarify much of the confusion here.

The theme of the passage is "the days of Noah" - that which characterized the world of his time prefiguring a coming day of similar maleficience wherein Christ shall return (Matt. 24:37-41; Luke 17:34-37). Insensible to the times, those of the Noahic era "knew not until the flood came and took them all away" (Matt. 24:38-39). At Christ's return, many shall again be taken "as in the days of Noah."

Luke recounts that at this point of discourse, our Lord's Disciples asked as to the destination of those thus "taken." Jesus replied with a proverb: "Where the corpse is the vultures will gather" (Luke 17:37). By what stretch of imigination one is to discern a "Rapture of the Church" in these terms is little explained by those of such persuasion. It is not the righteous but unrighteous who are "taken," not to heaven but rather destruction - the presence of vultures constituting a consistent biblical metaphor for doom.

The foregoing again demonstrates the vulnerability of a "proof text" approach to Scripture wherein statements or verses are removed from context in the interests of predetermined premise. That such has often taken place in relation to Christ's pronouncement concerning the "days of Noah" becomes increasingly evident when examined in relation to Scriptural design and intent as a whole.

One might accordingly note, for example, that "the first resurrection" - which the Pre-tribulation school itself equates with Christ's return - includes those martyred for resisting the Antichrist and refusing his mark (Rev. 20:4-6). It is thus "the one who endures to the end...who shall be saved" (i.e., delivered; Matt, 24:13), etc.

What then is faith's answer? As per a once common slogan of the late "Jesus People" movement, the following applies:

"Keep the faith, baby!"

Burl Ratzsch

"EYE HAS NOT SEEN"

I Corinthians 2:9 ("eye has not seen, nor ear heard...) is oftentimes quoted as relating to heaven. Such, however, was not the apostle's intent. Indeed, few verses of Scripture are more taken out of context. To what then does both verse and passage relate?

Drawing upon Isaiah's observation that in bringing Israel out of Egypt, God had demonstrated His power in ways never before seen, heard or known ("as it is written," see Isa. 64:4), Paul stresses that present spiritual realities are similarly unknown to the faculties of natural human perception. Indeed, "the things of God" do not "enter the heart of [unregenerate] man." Only by agency of the Spirit, who not only "knows the things of God" but makes such known to believing faith (I Cor. 2:10-16), is one enabled to grasp divine truth and its meaning - in this instance, the believer's oneness with Christ, "who of God is made to us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification and redemption" (I Cor. 1:30 in expansion upon vs. 24. The subsequent chapter division is unfortunate in its division of thought).

The apostle's words here reiterate Jesus' earlier declaration to Nicodemus that God's kingdom (in its present manifestation, the essence, character, and outworking of divine purpose and will upon earth - further defined by Paul in terms of "righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit," Rom. 14:17) is comprehended only as experientially "seen" within the context of the new birth. Herein lie the otherwise unknown realities of divine grace (again, "the things of God" as manifested in wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption) "prepared for" (2:9); "revealed unto" (vs. 10); and "freely given to" (vs. 12) the believing Body as "those who love [God]."

As with John 3:3, I Corinthians 2:9 need only be read within context. In keeping with Scripture at large, it should be remembered that with limited exceptions (portions of the Law, considerable of the Book of Proverbs, I Thess. 5:16-22, for example), Scripture is not a composite of isolated affirmations, admonitions and injunctions. While its chapter and verse divisions (of Medieval era origin) greatly facilitate one's referencing of various passages, themes and/or pronouncements, their addition has oftentimes been conducive as well to the perception of God's Word as a somewhat disjointed series of faith related dicta, claims, assurances and warnings. Such tends to considerably undermine its ends and objectives as a whole.

Simply stated, apart from those instances wherein scriptural pronouncement exhibits a decidedly self-contained sense of meaning (e.g., "Thou shalt not steal"), defining intent will derive from context. Apart from such, misunderstanding frequently ensues.

Burl Ratzsch