Well, Of Course We Christians Love Christmas

Who wouldn’t love a sweet, innocent little baby born in a barn, cradled in a food trough for animals, worshiped by angels, sought by wise men and targeted for death by despot?

So all of us Christians really want to emphasize this part of our Lord’s Story to charm and beguile those who haven’t heard it all into wanting to hear more.

The problem is, there comes a point where He grows up and he’s no longer just sweet and charming.

He scares his folks to the edge of panic by staying behind in Jerusalem while they’ve gone on toward home after the Feast. And asks them simply, “Shouldn’t I be about my Father’s business?”

He abandons Joseph’s business to pursue a career as an itinerant preacher.

He seeks out his weird, wacked-out cousin in the wild and seems to join his baptismal cult, fasts forty days, has an encounter with the devil, and starts preaching with John the gospel of “Repent! God’s kingdom is almost here!” with a few “… you brood of vipers!” thrown in for good measure.

This is not your typical, nice Jewish boy.

Oh, sure, He’ll impress the winesteward at a poorly-catered wedding, heal some people, feed a lot of people, and preach that people ought to love and respect each other because God loves all of them. But He’ll also thrash a few demons from time to time, fraternize with tax collectors and centurions, and generally antagonize the entire religious establishment, whether Pharisee or Sadducee. Not to mention putting one of the tax collectors in his entourage, along with a potential insurrectionist, a hot-tempered fisherman or two and a few other ne’er-do-wells (including a suspected thief).

Yet He does all these things – by the implication He encourages – because He wants people to accept that He is the Son of God?

What is His deal?

Why couldn’t He just settle for being a peculiar prophet with wise teachings about relationships between people and God; pick up a few seminary students, or pluck the best synagogues, or even schmooze a few Levites? Maybe even a priest?

It’s like there’s no compromise with Him. It’s either His way, or the highway – the broad, broad highway that leads to destruction, in His words.

And it’s not like He’s talking flowery beds of ease for His followers, either. He expects for them to suffer, and especially after He’s murdered. Yes, that’s right. He starts talking about being arrested and tried and crucified.

Then it happens.

He puts up no fight, responds to no accusation, retorts to no insult, curses at no torment, reviles no lash, evaporates no nail hammered into His hands and feet, calls down no angelic army to obliterate His captors, breathes no supernatural breath to hold asphyxiation forever at bay.

He dies while lifted up on that cross.

And draws all men unto Him. Not just a few shepherds. Not just some oriental astrologers. Not even just a dozen or so close friends. All men. We have to pause at the foot of that cross and gawk upward, and wonder …

Who is this Jesus?

What happened to that marvelous Christmas Christ? The King given gold instead of a crown of thorns? The One gifted with myrrh who ends up buried with it? The Child who received frankincense, but became the Man whose innocence was sacrificed as a sweet-smelling savor to God?

Then we discover the tidings of comfort and joy don’t come until three days later … the swaddling cloths are found folded neatly in His empty tomb. It can’t hold Him.

Now it can’t hold us.

That’s what we Christians love about Christmas. It doesn’t end at Easter. It goes on and on and on, as long as life shall last, and then on and on and on.

It’s not just a sweet Story for gullible children; it’s not even a Story for every rational adult.

It’s for those who are willing to suspend incredulity, to truly and deeply believe its irrationality and passion, and who will live that belief from cradle to grave … and then some.

If The Shoe Fits …

Okay, I’m angry. I am ticked off. I’m trying not to be, but every time I think about it, I just get royally you-know-what.

In the past few weeks, I’ve heard it from two godly men whom I respect in my church that there are members who have told them they are not giving – or are giving less – because they don’t agree with what the elders or doing or how they are leading or the direction the congregation is taking or somesuch.

(That, in spite of the fact that there are other members – LOTS of other members – who are giving with extraordinary faithfulness to help meet the deficit between what we promised to give and what we have actually been giving.)

Thankfully, I don’t know who those disapproving members are.

Because I would really like to ask them a few questions. Like,

  • When someone in your family gets sick or has an accident or passes away, do you disagree with the elders visiting and comforting and blessing your family?
  • Do you disagree with them counseling couples who only come to them when they’re on the thin edge of divorce, or letting young single mothers know that they are loved and a treasured part of the church family, or making the rounds of the nursery wards and the nursing homes?
  • Do you disagree with them praying for you and your other brothers and sisters in Christ at our church – all 1,900 of them? Because those things are what most of their time spent as elders involves.
  • How is your position significantly different from the doctrine of Corban?
  • Does the Bible instruct you to vote with your wallet? Or to set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income?
  • Does it ask, “Will a man rob the elders of the people?” Or does it ask “Will a man rob God?”
  • Does it tell you that you watch over your leaders as if you were to give an account for them? Or vice-versa?

I’m not saying elders are perfect. Nobody’s saying that. But they are worthy of double honor, and have authority vested in them by the Lord. They are to teach and help you interpret God’s word – and if there’s anything that God’s word is clear about, it’s giving.

We need to do it. Generously. Gratefully. Unreservedly. Unselfishly.

It’s true for you. It’s true for me.

On this business of giving, we all need to decide whether we’re going to be hot or cold; whether we’re going to be loving or stingy; whether we’re going to fish or cut bait.

Ain’t no half-way about it.

And while I’m on the subject, why not try praying for your elders more and criticizing them behind their backs less? Why not take your complaint to them and pray with them about it? How about just accepting the answer they give you whether you agree with it or not because it just might affect more deeply someone whose relationship to God is less secure than yours?

Whattya say to that, huh?

I’ve said my piece.

If the shoe fits, wear its bootprint on your butt.

Just like I need to.

What Isn’t the Gospel?

I don’t want to draw to a close the comments in the previous post (Lacey, you’ve read all kinds of my declarations of the gospel in this goofy old blog!), but whether you’ve contributed already or not, I’d like you to feel free to go another direction:

What isn’t the gospel?

What are the things that no one in his or her right mind and heart would be likely to put in the comments of the previous blog post as the gospel according to them; the good news of scripture; the core message of God’s Word to man?

Tonight, a young man from my church has found out that his spinal cord was severed in the dirt bike accident he had last weekend.

That is not the gospel.

Yet his church family continues to pray for and over this young man; will conduct a blood drive Sunday in his behalf; and some will fast and some will attend his bedside and some will plead with God on their knees, not knowing him well but loving him as if there were an empty place at their kitchen table that only he could fill.

Why?

Yesterday, I spent the day hearing a case with eleven fellow jurors against the mother of two toddlers and deciding that she was guilty of five of the seven counts against her, two of which involved the endangerment of their lives.

That is not the gospel.

Yet we deliberated long and contentiously, trying to find the benefit of the doubt, because it was obvious that she was not the primary culprit behind the evil that had taken place at her house, and that she had tried to take ineffective steps to protect them. One godly older gentleman not of her race, serving on a jury for the first time, begged on her behalf for us to try to see her life from her point of view at each charge. And at each charge and specification, we tried to gently persuade him of the overwhelming nature of the evidence and testimony. It was difficult for him to vote unanimously with us, for at heart he still felt that those children needed their mother and she needed to be with them.

Why?

I’m convinced that it’s because there is a gospel, a Story unlike any other, a Word of God that gives meaning and purpose and direction to life itself, and that word is love.

Love that powerful and undiluted can temper even the fearsome justice and righteousness of God Himself. Unlimited love is a frightening thing to the faint-of-heart but the bold-of-brain; to those who fear the Lord but are afraid to love the God who is love, cowards and bullies and experts and self-appointed prophets and correctors and straightener-outers who have tried their damnedest to dilute that love with a lot of other things and then bottle it up and sell it as the gospel truth. They’ve been around for a long time, from the first moment that God dared to show His love for mankind until now.

So defy those impostors. Be bold. Be brave. Be specific.

Tell me about the diluting ingredients that have never been and cannot be the gospel.

What Is the Gospel?

Exercise time! Don’t just sit there! Sit there and think!

Give me your best answer in a few words to the question,

“What is the gospel?”

None of that, “Well, it’s God’s word/the New Testament/the Nicene Creed/etc.” No additives or omissions. No embellishments and no illustrative stories. No paste-ins from “Bible Gateway.” No preacher jokes.

No lurkers and no slackers.

C’mon. If you’re a follower of Christ, you know what the gospel is. Right?

So what words would you use to share it?

How long does it take to say it?

Put the gospel according to you in the comments below. Be a witness for the gospel, right here, right now.

Ready!

Set!

GO!

False Teachers

What did the church of century one define as false teaching and false teachers?

Paul

As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God’s work—which is by faith. The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.
We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me. ~ 1 Timothy 1:3-11

I draw from those verses that false doctrines would include myths, endless genealogies which promote controversies – and teaching the law, which Paul in many other writings describes as supplanted by grace through faith. He continues in the same letter:

If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain. ~ 1 Timothy 6:3-5

The primary interest of the false teacher here seems to be instigating quarrels about words, and making a buck by teaching.

This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you. ~ Galatians 2:4-5

And here the heresy seems to be teaching circumcision as a corequisite for salvation.

Peter

But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping. … This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority. Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings; yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord. But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish. They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you. With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed—an accursed brood! ~ 2 Peter 2:1-14

The false teachings Peter describes include made-up stories, destructive heresies – including denying the lord – and teaching by example that greed and adultery and carousing are perfectly all right.

John

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world. ~ John 4:1-4

The false teachings John describes are those which deny the incarnation or will not acknowledge Jesus.

Is there a pattern?

Aren’t these false teachings insisting on something besides the simple gospel of Christ as being just as important and necessary for saving the lost? Or even more important? Whether law, myths, made-up stories, or gnostic notions that the flesh cannot be affected by spiritual perfection – hence, that one can live carnally in the flesh yet still be spiritual; that Jesus could not have actually inhabited a fleshly body because it would have somehow corrupted Him – all of these are teachings which (instead of supplementing) actually deny the gospel. The gospel – the fact of Christ’s blood given, causing belief and penitence and change and transformation by rebirth – isn’t good enough. It isn’t powerful enough. It must be enhanced.

Now I ask you, are there any teachings today that approach that level of insistence on something else that is required for the salvation of a soul seeking God?

Something in one’s heart that must be believed?
Something in one’s life that must be achieved?
Something once done that cannot be forgiven?
Some sum in one’s purse that must be full-given?
Some man-made-up line that must not be crossed?
Some “holy” tradition that must not be lost?
Some interpretation that cannot be wrong?
Some kind of singing or some kind of song?
Something that excludes a gender or race?
Something that simply is false on its face?

New Wineskins Access is Now FREE

Not just for the holidays. Not just for a limited-time trial period. FREE. Now. From here on out.

But I’ll let editor Greg Taylor tell you in his own words:

I’ve been waiting six years to finally say this to you . . .

Wineskins Magazine content is now completely FREE.

A huge part of my job over the last six years has been to make Wineskins Magazine accessible to a whole new generation.

Now, there are no more barriers. Wineskins is worldwide and FREE for all.

Starting now, you don’t need a subscription to access all the great content at www.wineskins.org.

You can read great interviews, articles, and reviews completely FREE. There’s no catch.

How can we do it?

God has graciously upheld the mission of The ZOE Group and Wineskins in many ways through good people like you. We will continue to advertise for your organization on 3 million annual page views and to a list of nearly 10,000 emails, receive your kind donations, and sell great music and book resources at The ZOE Store. These are the streams that will help sustain the ministries of conferences, online resources, worship music, and now the ZOE Growing Deeper and Spiritual Direction programs.

If you’ve subscribed for many years, come to our conferences, given financially, purchased resources from The ZOE Group, THANK YOU. Please keep walking with us as we help one another walk with Christ.

That’s it. Enjoy Wineskins FREE for Christmas, 2008, and beyond.

Blessings,

Greg Taylor
Managing Editor
Wineskins Magazine

So what are you waiting for?

Go! Go!

God and Making Sense

God does not make sense to me.

But, given His existence, everything else makes sense. If He does not exist, nothing makes sense.

So I believe.

The cross does not make sense to me.

But through it, everything else does.

So I believe.

Selflessness and sacrifice of one’s own will to the benefit of others are logical absurdities to me.

Yet, without them, the world becomes a bitter, hateful, cruel, heartless place that eventually no one can survive.

So I believe.

Accepting something on faith that is undefinable, unverifiable, inscrutable, intangible, and inexpressible – well, that’s just doofy on its face.

Still, love itself is undefinable, unverifiable, inscrutable, intangible and inexpressible … and it absolutely must be accepted on faith. Without it, all else rusts and tarnishes and withers and dies and rots. Forever. The end.

So I believe.

I believe in a God who seems self-contradictory; who is love and is also hatred … joy and also anger … mercy and also vengeance … justice and also sovereign enough to have mercy on whom He wills and to harden whom He wills.

I believe in a God who could have drawn all mankind close to Him in any way He chose, yet He chose to do so by letting His own Son be brutally murdered by mankind.

I believe in a God who doesn’t owe us anything yet gives us everything, who made everything and wants us to be grateful to Him for it, yet never left His inimitable autograph on the incredible work of art that is creation – not even a “Slartibartfast” carved into a remote fjord rock cliff or inside a glacier somewhere. (You readers of Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy will know what I’m talking about.)

I believe in a God who wants mankind to accept Him on faith … on the tiniest fragments of hard evidence that would not hold up in a court of law in any land under His heaven.

I believe in a God who answers our great yawping “WHY?” with a shrug and, “Because I said so.”

I’m not sure I really like that answer.

But I haven’t found a better one.

So I believe.

Because if I don’t, not all of the evidence, not all of the logic, not all of the world’s science and fact and proof and conjecture and theory and philosophy will make sense out of the questions that comprise every day of every life of everyone on this planet.

God, squelch my unbelief.

Gonna Need More Fingers

Some time back when I blogged about being “written up” in a neighboring church’s bulletin (it was just a mention, mind you), I didn’t understand at the time that my critiqued comments violated a standard tenet of belief for some of my ultraconservative brothers and sisters in Christ …

Namely, that there are only five acts of worship that are authorized by God in scripture, and any more or less than those, performed in gathered worship, is an abomination guaranteed to incur His displeasure and wrath:

Let me hold my hand up before you and let the palm of this hand represent man’s soul – the soul of man lifted up to commune with God in worship. Just as God saw the palm needed something else, and added the fingers to it, so God in the New Testament, seeing man’s condition, said, “Man’s soul as it reaches up to adore me and my son needs some avenues and I am going to point out what these are.”

He did just this very simply and very clearly. Just as there are five fingers there, so in the New Testament the soul of man reaches up in worship and communion with God through five channels, (1) singing, (2) praying, (3) studying, (4) giving of means, and (5) partaking of the Lord’s Supper. All five of these are specified in the New Testament but these are the only five. And, I am sure we will say that as the One who made the palm best knew how to make the fingers, so the one who made man’s soul knew best the avenues which this soul needed to commune with God.

~ James Baird, “Why Do Churches of Christ Use Only Vocal Music?”,
Oft-Asked Questions, p. 122
(Western Christian Foundation, Inc.; Wichita Falls, Texas)

You’ll find the same view propounded by James E. Laird in the same book of sermons, p. 152: “The Savior … made it clear that their worship should consist of singing God’s praise, giving of their means, praying unto God, teaching his Word and observing the Lord’s Supper. But that worship had not much more than been given until the devil counterfeited it.”

And, of course, you’ll find it on pp. 393-4 of Goebel Music’s Behold the Pattern.

Now I understand why part of my writing in my own church bulletin was criticized. I had said:

Some ways that you worship God are probably really different than some ways I do. A few of mine wouldn’t make sense to you or ‘speak’ to you at all; and vice-versa. My guess is that I don’t have a right to require you to adopt mine any more than you should expect me to adopt yours.

Simple logic and the five-finger rule will lead you to the conclusion that there are five and only five ways to worship, and if you’re not doing all of them or doing more than five of them, you are sinning, so there can’t be ways that I worship but that you don’t.

That’s probably why my partial quote was labeled a “counter-view”; oppositional to the critic’s “truth.” (See this or this and decide for yourself if I’m guessing correctly.)

There’s an attraction, admittedly, to having only five things to do and being able to check them off on one day out of the week and feel confident you have done all that God requires; that you’re right about it; that you’re saved – and that you don’t have to do anything else because you really shouldn’t.

Plus, you can oppose anything you don’t like – pictorial powerpoints or worship leading teams or videos or drama or clapping – because they are not “authorized.”

But worship is not that simple or easy.

If you’ve read my blog for long – especially the post A Life of Worship – you understand that I cannot accept all worship as being limited to the fingers of one hand nor to only one day of the week.

As Christians, I believe, we are to live out our sacrificial worship all the time (Romans 12:1). If we take that literally – and I believe we’re meant to – then whatever we do in word or act, we are to do it in the name of Jesus and with thanksgiving to the Father (Colossians 3:17. That’s the back half of one of the verses quoted so much about singing. Isn’t our service to God also worship?)

Christians of century one met and served and grew daily (Acts 2:45-47, 6:1, 16:5, 17:11, 17:17, 19:9). A single reference, Acts 20:7, suggests Christians met on the first day of the week to break bread but actually celebrated the Lord’s Supper after midnight on the next day; another, 1 Corinthians 16:2, only advises that “each” set aside a sum of money on that first day, not “all together” or “as an assembly.” Meeting on the first day has a special significance, reflecting Jesus’ victory over the tomb, I grant – but it was not the one and only day Christians met in century one.

I read that we are to continually confess His name and offer a sacrifice of praise (Hebrews 13:15). In fact, I believe the verse implies that confessing – both our own sins and His sinlessness; our lacks and His sufficiency – is praise and worship to God.

Romans 15:7 leads me to believe that imitating Christ by accepting each other as He accepted us brings glory to God, too. So it would seem that practicing unity is worship.

You’ll find that fasting is connected with worship in the life of the church as well, whether commissioning missionaries (Acts 13:2-4) or appointing elders (Acts 14:23), as well as being something which the Lord practiced (Matthew 4:2), gave instructions about (Matthew 6:15-17) and predicted that His followers would do (Matthew 9:14-15).

I also believe that, in New Testament scripture as well as Old, worship is a verb which stands on its own, as well as being the intention of other verbs like “to pray” or “to sing” or “to confess/share the word.” People in the Bible sometimes felt compelled to worship – and other than the kneeling or prone posture they took, we have little clue what that might involve. These exceptional moments of intimate, private communion with and obeisance before God may well be worship at its purest, since there are no other words describing them. (The New Testament references alone in which the word “worship” is used without modification are too numerous to list here.)

(And while we’re talking about a posture of prayer, is there anything that is prohibiting us from fulfilling Paul’s desire that at least the men among us lift up holy hands while doing so, in every place, whether a place of worship or not (1 Timothy 2:8?)

In larger measure, though, it makes sense to me that whatever we choose to do, whether we all agree on it or not (like eating and drinking or abstaining, I Corinthians 10:31), we should do all to the glory of God. It makes sense to me that when we use whatever gifts He has given, serving Him in any way, we should – and do – give God glory, and it is therefore worship (1 Peter 4:10-11).

So if we’re going to start enumerating all of the possible “acts of worship,” we’re gonna need more fingers than five.

And more than one day out of each week.

Adding to Scripture

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms (except Psalms 33, 47, 68, 43, 45, 49, 57, 71, 81, 92, 98, 98, 108, 137, 144, 147, 149 which all permit some now-unauthorized musical instrument, and especially 150 which mentions almost all of them), hymns (except the song of Miriam in Exodus 15 because it was accompanied by tambourines and dancing; but Moses’ song is okay), and spiritual songs (except, of course, ones which include clapping like Psalm 47 because that is no longer either fitting nor in order according to I Corinthians 14:40) with gratitude in your hearts to God. ~ Colossians 3:16

I do not (and therefore God does not) permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent (in all assemblies of worship in all places and for all time; except to sing, which is required; or to teach other women only, which is commanded; or to teach children including boys who have not yet become men, which is logical; and men are not authorized to confer the authority to teach upon a woman, only to deny it, except in the case of Aquila and Priscilla who taught together but it was in their home and they taught one person so it was therefore personal work). ~ 1 Timothy 2:12

… women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak (see second annotation in quote directly above – even if it is in a church which doesn’t have a problem with people rudely interrupting the speaker with questions about matters with which they are not familiar) , but must be in submission, as the Law says (because we are still under the Law, but it’s the new Law, the perfect Law of Christ where male dominance is the rule for all time). If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church (forever, in any place, in any circumstance, except as noted above). Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command (forever, in any place, in any circumstance, except as noted above). If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored. Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues (but not forever, in any place, except as noted above because speaking in tongues is no longer authorized). But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way (and permitting a woman to speak in a worship assembly, even one at a time with the permission of all present, would inherently cause an un-fitting and disorderly circumstance). ~ 1 Corinthians 14:34-39

Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me (and has since been conveyed to scripture and thence to every logical, rational-thinking person who will perfectly interpret every detail of it as pattern and law).” ~ Matthew 28:18

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness (and legislating the logical, rational-thinking interpretation of it), so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. ~ 1 Timothy 2:16-17

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book (and/or all of the other books in the soon-to-be-canonized in a couple hundred years Bible): If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book (and/or all of the other books in the soon-to-be-canonized in a couple hundred years Bible). And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy (and/or all of the other books of prophecy in the soon-to-be-canonized in a couple hundred years Bible), God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book (and/or all of the other books in the soon-to-be-canonized in a couple hundred years Bible).

Look, you’ll get no argument from me that this last one is a wise instruction for any and all of God’s word. Let’s just be clear to make the distinction that it’s a principle that’s found in the closing verses of the Revelation to John in an instruction that is specific to that “book of prophecy” – rather than declaring that it commands and includes what it originally did not.

But let’s face it: a lot of the scriptures that we Christians use to prove our points have unspoken additions like these; annotations that one must presume are there in order for them to “prove” those points. Maybe there isn’t anything wrong with saying, “I know that’s not what it says, but I believe that’s what it means.” That’s more honest than saying, “That’s what it says; that’s what it means.”

Still, those additions are simply un-scriptural. They ain’t there.

I’ve got mine. You’ve got yours. Some of them probably overlap.

We can argue about whether they’re necessary inferences until the Lord returns, and still never impress anyone with the love of Christ which can save their souls; it will still never feed hungry mouths or heal broken bodies that generosity and medical science could aid; it will still never cause even an infinitesimal moment of relief in the blight of sin upon mankind.

Is that what God authorized?

Is that what pleases Him?

Law and Sin and Sight

As a marvelous epilogue to the account of Jesus giving sight to a blind man, He tells some Pharisees (who have overheard Him speaking to the man who, after being called before them twice, would not tell them what they wanted to hear):

Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.” Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, “What? Are we blind too?” Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains. ~ John 9:39-41

Then He tells them – and has to explain to them – a parable about the sheep and their shepherd and their gate.

But what does He mean, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains”?

I realize a lot of commentary has been written to the effect that Jesus is refuting their erroneous belief that sin led to the man’s blindness, a belief that His disciples were asking Him to clarify (John 9:1-6). I have no dispute with that. I just want to know if there’s more to it.

Was He also talking about the Pharisees’ attitude – that they felt they knew it all? His phrase is “you claim you can see.” Is there anything more absurd than someone who can’t see claiming that he can? Jesus even makes a dark joke about it on two occasions – in the sermon on the plain (Luke 6:39) and after upbraiding the Pharisees on their finicky insistence on conformance to the tiniest detail of the law (handwashing here, in Matthew 15:14). He uses that term “blind guides” against them two more times, according to Matthew’s gospel: once at the beginning of a good lambasting for their following the letter of the law with regard to swearing by the temple (and ignoring the spirit of it, Matthew 23:16) … then again a few verses later at the end of a lambasting about tithing tiny herbs mint, dill and cummin – while neglecting the payment of justice, mercy and faithfulness to God (Matthew 23:24). That’s followed by an even more preposterous joke, “You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel!”

They thought they knew it all, but they could not weigh out what really matters to God; instead, spending their energies and passions on legislating what God didn’t mean.

Now, to the first part of the original sentence quoted: “”If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin.”

What does that mean?

Does it also mean that if you were blind to the law (which you think you see and comprehend and can perfectly interpret by your legislation, commentary and clarifications) you would not be guilty of sin?

I ask, because that seems to be in harmony with what is said about law and sin by Paul’s powerful treatise on sin and the law to the Christians at Rome:

All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. ~ Romans 2:12

Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. ~ Romans 3:20

… before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. ~ Romans 5:13

For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace. ~ Romans 6:14

For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. ~ Romans 7:5

What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin. !~ Romans 7:24-25

Do you not get the picture from these verses that we are much better off without a mindset based on law; that God intended to replace law (not augment it!) for all time with grace through the gospel of His Son; that all the good we would do and all the evil we would shun would be motivated out of gratitude for what He did on the cross; that the good work we surrender to doing and the resistance to evil work are empowered by one and the same Spirit living within us and working through us?

Law has nothing to offer in comparison with grace. Why do we want to go back to that mindset of obeying a law rather than obeying a gospel? There’s all the difference in the world between them – the law was bad news for us and everyone before us; the gospel is by definition good news for all! We obey not because we are fear condemnation for our inescapable failure, but because we feel obligated by His act of ultimate, self-sacrificial love!

“If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin.”

“But sin is not taken into account where there is no law.”

Yes, it is true that where there is no law, there is lawlessness and injustice and God’s displeasure. Is that all these verses are saying? Is it only saying that people were aware of sin before the law; that awareness of it was in their genetic structure from the time the first couple ate from the wrong tree? Is it also saying that law has fulfilled its purpose when making people aware of sin, and it’s time for the next step – grace?

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit. ~ Romans 8:1-4

So this new “law” – with very few commandments, and very many teachings and personal examples and requests and with blessings built into all of them – this gospel supersedes the “do this; don’t do that” mindset about every conceivable choice or situation or circumstance. It’s replaced with, “Be like Christ.” It’s succeeded by “Do unto others.” It’s matured by “Sacrifice self.” It’s perfected by “Do all to the glory of God.”

Why would anyone want to go back to being blind and yet claiming to see after being exposed to the glorious light of truth in that gospel?

I know that a Damascus-bound Paul didn’t see things that way.

I don’t believe Jesus expects us to, either.