Category: Spiritual Growth

Beware Appearances (Part 1)

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

The 2014 issue of Tabletalk from Ligonier Ministries contains an article by John MacArthur entitled “Appearance Is Everything?” MacArthur begins the article recounting a letter received by his ministry from an advertising agency that contained this message: “Let’s face it: appearance is everything. Let us help you enhance your image.” Initially MacArthur thought that the agency must not have realized it was writing to a Christian ministry. After further reflection, though, MacArthur came to this conclusion: “that is precisely the impression many unbelievers get from the state of evangelical Christianity today: appearance is everything.Truth and reality often take a back seat to image.”

That is a sobering thought. When I read it reminded me of something else I read a couple of months ago, so I dug it out. The December 14, 2013 issue of WORLD contains an article by Sophia Lee on the television show The Preachers of L.A. I have never seen the show, but Lee describes it as a reality show on the Oxygen network starring six mega-pastors. According to Lee’s review, “They claim to live for God, His people, and His kingdom. But halfway into an episode, it becomes clear that they are the gods–though they sure do love the people for their adoration, and they’ve built a nice earthly kingdom for themselves.”

MacArthur’s article is not about super-rich pastors of mega churches and I do not intend to turn this post into that, either. Indeed, MacArthur’s focus is more on the appearances Christians tend to present individually in their day-to-day activities. Lee’s article is about the appearance presented by individual mega church pastors but also about the appearance presented by mega churches and parachurch ministries. I would like to address Lee’s point first and MacArthur’s second.

Later in her article Lee mentions three former pastors who now “own a consulting company, called Church Hoppers, which helps struggling churches balance three components: business, marketing and systems.” Interesting, is is not, that the three-fold purpose of this church consulting group includes nothing about biblical principles, sound doctrine or theology. In fact, Lee proceeded to ask one of the partners of Church Hoppers about what they do if the church they are consulting with has a problem that is theological. “We’re not going to go in and try to change their theology,” Lee quoted Jerry Bentley saying. “I think churches are there in the community to meet the community’s needs.” Lee elaborated by explaining that Church Hoppers exists to “help churches give ‘customers’ what they want.”

First of all, there is a real problem when “customers” is the word used to refer to or think of individuals attending church or considering attending a church. This mentality is what led to much of the error of the seeker-friendly movement. This mentality is what leads many churches to put food courts and bookstores and other “amenities” within the confines of the church. Food courts and bookstores and playgrounds and coffee shops are not wrong in and of themselves, I might add, but the motivation for including them must be questioned. Churches need to plan and design their ministries first and foremost based on what people need, not what they want. After all, what people need and what people want are polar opposites if you believe in the total depravity of man. In their sin nature no one wants to hear sermons about sin or hell or the need for a Savior. That is exactly what sinners need, though.

I feel quite certain that the Apostle Paul would have run the other way had anyone suggested to him that he should consider improving his image, that he should carefully consider what the “customers” were looking for. Paul, after all, received the message loud and clear, on numerous occasions, that what he was offering was not what very many people wanted. He never wavered in his mission, though, because he was all about pleasing God not pleasing people. He was so committed to that mission that after being stoned and left for dead he got up and walked back into the town! I rather doubt market analysts would recommend that response.

Church Hoppers focuses on “business, marketing and systems.” I would suggest that churches focus instead on the Basic Message of Salvation. When churches remain faithful to the Word of God they will have effective ministries and their church will grow. The church may not grow in attendance, in offering, in building size or in publicity, but those are not the measures of an effective church. Therein, of course, lies no small part of the image problem–image isn’t really worth much. After all, some of the largest, richest, flashiest and most well-known “Christian” ministries are teaching things and promoting things that are contrary to the Word of God (and not teaching things that are in the Word of God, I might add).

I should state that I am not anti-image. In fact, appearance does matter, I think. I believe that churches and Christian ministries should be good stewards of what the Lord has entrusted them with, and that includes presenting and maintaining a clean, well-cared for and pleasing physical plant, regardless of whether it is new or old, big or small, expensive or cheap. So do not read this to indicate that I oppose nice buildings, comfortable seats, attractive decor or well-manicured lawns. I do not…not by a long shot. Quite the contrary, in fact, I think that Christian ministries should present very impressive appearances if by “impressive” you mean worthy of respect. But the impressive appearance should come as a result of doing all things to the glory of God, not as a result of bringing glory to ones self or ones ministry. When that becomes the motivation the impressive appearance becomes an idol.

Let us remember the old adage that appearances may be deceiving, and appearances must not be where our focus lies.

Next time I will address the appearances MacArthur writes about, the appearances on the individual level….

A childlike faith

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

Last Saturday my family and I went to the South Dakota State Fair. While we were there we walked through several campers that were on display. We are not in the market for a camper, but we thought it would be fun to look at the range of options and features (and prices) that were on display. After looking at several my son, age six, commented, “Next year when we come to the fair let’s bring some money and get a camper.” I had to laugh to myself at his thinking. Here we were in a camper that cost about twice my annual salary and his thought was simply, “This would be cool to have, Dad should get one.” He has a minimal understanding of money–he has been getting a small allowance since he turned five, and he sometimes has to save up his own money to purchase things he wants–but he does not really grasp the fact that his parents have finite resources, too, and cannot just “bring some money and get a camper.”

Now, there is a fair amount of debate about whether or not the Scripture instructs is to have a childlike faith. In Matthew 18 Jesus said to His disciples that unless they became like little children they would never enter the kingdom of heaven. Some interpret that to mean that believers are to have a childlike faith. Others suggest that that is not what Jesus meant at all, since children can be gullible and led easily astray and Scripture makes it clear that believers are to test what they hear and read, both within the church and without, against God’s Word, and that is not something children are prone to do. In advocating this second position I once read someone’s explanation that Jesus was instructing the disciples in the need for humility, and children are “characteristically humble and teachable.” I am not sure I would agree with that statement; having worked with children for the last fifteen years I would not suggest that many of them are naturally or characteristically humble. So I agree that we are not to have a gullible faith, but I would suggest that we are to have a faith that is simple, pure and complete–faith like my son demonstrated at the fair.

In Mark 10 Jesus says, “Whoever whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” So what does that mean? I think it means to have complete and total trust in God like a child does in his parent. As an adult, when hearing my son’s comment about the camper, my mind immediately thinks multiple things–no way can I afford this, I wouldn’t use it enough to justify the expense anyway, what kind of vehicle would I need to pull this thing?, and would I even want to pull it? are just a few of the thoughts my mind covers in a manner of seconds. Similarly, when it comes to faith, the adult mind can quickly think of many questions, objections, obstacles and arguments against the simple (but profound) message that God is holy and demands judgment for sin, He sent His Son to earth as a human being, Jesus lived a perfect life and died on the cross to pay the penalty for my sins and rose again three days later, and only by accepting that can I have eternal life in heaven. A childlike faith, though, is one that accepts that, believes it and embraces it.

Needless to say, I will not be taking “some money” to the fair next year to buy a camper. But it was a touching moment for me to reflect on the faith my son has in me, and it was a powerful reminder of the kind of faith I need to have in my Heavenly Father.

Making church uncomfortable

~ jbwatson ~ 2 Comments

A short article in the May 4 issue of WORLD Magazine entitled “Bleachers vs. Pews” highlights a “new study of declining North American churches.” The study revealed that “the most common explanation for congregational malaise is the ‘secularization of Sunday,’ or the way that other activities, especially childrens’ sports, have reduced attendance at religious services.”

The study was conducted by Stephen McMullin of Acadia Divinity College in Nova Scotia, and while he reports that one pastor in his study summed up this “secularization” by lamenting that many parents will “sacrifice church ‘for the sake of their son or daughter’s sports program,'” McMullin is not convinced that Sunday sports are a determining factor in the decline in church attendance. McMullin observed that many of the churches seeing a decline in enrollment have “internal problems, such as poor quality music, or making little attempt to welcome guests.”

I both agree and disagree with McMullin. I agree that youth sports are not the sole, or even the predominant, cause of a decline in church attendance, and I agree that the number of people opting to pursue youth sports or other leisure activities on Sundays is a symptom of “internal problems” within many churches. I disagree, though, that “poor quality music” is one of those problems. I am not disagreeing that some churches may have poor quality music; some, no doubt do. Rather, I am disagreeing that the quality of music at a church is a determining factor in anyone leaving the church–or, for that matter, regularly attending it in the first place.

This is not a position I am basing purely on gut instinct or a hunch, either. Several years ago Answers in Genesis commissioned Britt Beemer and America’s Research Group to study why young people are leaving the church. Their survey questioned one thousand twenty-somethings who were raised in conservative churches but are no longer attending in order to find out why they are not. One question in the survey specifically asked “Why have you stopped attending church?” The answer “music is poor” was given by only 1% of the respondents; sixteen other reasons ranked above this one. Only four answers ranked below poor music quality in the survey, and those four answers–miscellaneous, unsure of my belief, just quit going, and always ask for money–accounted, cumulatively, for only 1.6% of the responses. So clearly, music–and particularly the quality of music–is not a big factor when it comes to folks making the decision to stop going to church. (To explore this survey further, check out Already Gone by Ken Ham and Britt Beemer).

In my opinion, the increasing number of sports leagues that allow games or practices on Sunday is just another example in a long line of symptoms of the declining importance of church attendance in our country. Many things that used to not happen on Sunday do now, not just youth sports. I am not going to take a position that youth sports cannot be played on Sundays ever, and whether or not Christian parents allow their children to practice or play on Sundays is a decision I think they need to make for their family after prayerful consideration. I am personally not in favor of it, and I would encourage parents to establish from the get-go that their children will not practice or play anytime doing so will conflict with Sunday school or church services. And if they do make that decision, I strongly encourage those parents to abide by that position.

University of Washington religion professor James Wellman commented that “[c]oaches are less and less intimidated by religious norms and conventions and simply see Sunday as yet another day to schedule practices and games.” That may be. But the real problem is why do they see Sunday that way? And the answer is, why wouldn’t they? Too many professing Christians are no longer committed to regularly attending church on Sunday mornings. They may go if they feel like it, get up on time and do not have something better to do, but it is not all that important–it is not a priority for them. And therein lies the heart of the problem. Why is it not a priority, and what are churches doing about it?

One if the biggest reasons I believe it is not a priority is because so few people see church as being “worth it.” Too many churches have weakened their stance on the Bible, too many of them teach only the “feel good” parts, too many have focused on making church attendees feel good and feel welcome than have focused on making sure they hear the life-transforming message of God’s Word and spurring them on to live it out. And yes, too many have focused on making sure they have great music and lots of “ministry opportunities” without making sure that people are hearing, studying and applying the Word. see, when church becomes more about visiting with friends and getting a feel-good message there is no need to make a priority. People can do that at the ballpark or on the boat, they can get that from their radio or computer or television, or even the local bookstore.

So when churches start to wonder why people are leaving perhaps the best thing they could do is look within instead of without; perhaps they need to focus more on making people in church uncomfortable than on making them comfortable, since the Word of God, when accurately examined, will convict–and conviction doesn’t feel good. Perhaps instead of working to improve their PowerPoint presentations they should work to make sure that their presentations of the gospel are presented with power, and making sure people get the point. People will abandon the youth leagues and Sundays on the lake and lingering in their pajamas with the Sunday paper when they realize that their lives are impacted by attending church, studying God’s Word, interacting with fellow believers, and being challenged to apply what they learn and live out their faith in between services. In other words, the church needs to act like the church.

The Day Between

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

Yesterday was Good Friday; tomorrow is Easter. Yesterday we remembered the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; tomorrow we remember his resurrection, the fact that He is no longer dead, and the tomb is empty. But how often do we think about today, the day between? Today it probably has little if any major significance, but imagine what the day between must have been like for the followers of on that very first “day between.” The Gospel accounts tell us nothing of what happened that day other than that His followers “rested according to the commandment” (Luke 23:56), since Saturday was he Sabbath. Interestingly, Matthew records that the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate that day to request a guard for the tomb of Jesus “lest His disciples go and steal Him away and tell the people, ‘He has risen from the dead…'” (Matthew 27:64).

Imagine, though, what that Sabbath day was like. There was nothing the followers of Jesus could do to keep themselves busy and try to keep their minds off of the fact that Jesus was dead, because it was the Sabbath, and activity was strictly regulated, most of it forbidden. It was the day to worship God, and it must surely have been difficult to worship God the day after the One Who had proclaimed Himself to be the Son of God had been crucified on a Roman cross. Today, we can celebrate (solemnly) Good Friday because we know about Easter. The death of Jesus Christ is gruesome and horrific but also fantastic, because we know that through His death He paid the penalty for the sins of all who will ask for forgiveness and accept His free gift of salvation. It is also fantastic because Jesus died in order to conquer sin, hell and death, and we know He was not dead for long. But His followers who were sitting around on that very first “day between” had not understood that He was going to rise again, so there was no excited anticipation for Sunday morning. Instead there must have been dread, incredible sorrow, almost a loss of the will to go on living.

We know this because the Gospels record the fact that Mary and Martha prepared spices and returned to the tomb on Sunday morning, something there would have been no point doing if they knew Jesus would not be in the tomb. Luke tells us that they were “perplexed” when they found the tomb empty (24:4). The angel who appeared to them at the tomb asked them why they were seeking the living among the dead. “Remember how He told you…?” the angel asks in Luke 24:6. Verse 8 says they then did remember, but when they went and told the apostles–the very men who had spent three years living with, ministering with and learning from Jesus–the news of Jesus’ resurrection seemed to those eleven men “an idle tale, and they did not believe them” (24:11).

The hopelessness that must have gripped the followers of Christ on that first day between still grips many people today, and understandably so. After all, if there is no God, there is nothing beyond the here and now, so what difference does it all make? If Jesus was just a good moral teacher, but He died and stayed dead, there is really no difference between Jesus and many other great teachers who have lived throughout the centuries. Paul writes in I Corinthians 15:54 that if Jesus has not been raised from the dead then our faith is in vain. It is useless, worthless and pitiful.

Thank God that the day between was just that, only a day between two incredible and essential events that changed the world and made possible the forgiveness of sins and the gift of eternal life.

Lukewarm

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

Heads up…the basis for this post is a bodily function that most people (myself included) find disgusting. So be forewarned….

Earlier this week I was sick. I don’t mean I wasn’t feeling well or my tummy hurt; I was sick. Violently sick. And, as suggested above, it was disgusting. As I was lying in bed contemplating the reality of my situation, two things went through my mind. One, it boggles my mind to think that there are people who voluntarily and intentionally put themselves through that regularly by drinking too much. Any pleasure or good-feeling that comes from drinking a lot would surely be negated by the time spent over the toilet, in my opinion. Two, Scripture makes it clear that lukewarm Christians make God want to vomit, and that should provoke some serious thought and self-reflection.

In the early chapters of Revelation John presents his vision of the churches and the message for those churches from God. While those churches are in literal places, they are also examples, I believe, of the statuses churches today might be in, and since churches are made up of people, the messages to the churches are also messages to believers. Specifically, to the church in Laodicea, in Revelation 3:15-16, John writes, “‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth'” (ESV). Most translations use the more acceptable words “spit” or “spew,” but the Holman Christian Standard Bible uses “vomit.” The Message presents it this way: “You make me want to vomit!” The Voice also uses “vomit.” The Message and The Voice, of course, are not translations; they present the ideas of Scripture in every day easy-to-understand language but are not particularly concerned with maintaining accuracy with the original wording. Young’s Literal Translation, however, also uses “vomit”: “So — because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to vomit thee out of my mouth.”

So what would cause God to want to vomit? John made it clear; being lukewarm. God does not have any tolerance for Christians who are trying to be godly and worldy. John stated clearly that God would prefer cold to lukewarm; why? Because at least those who are cold have made a commitment and are not faking it. The way I read and understand John 3 is that the church at Laodicea probably said all the right things and went through all the right motions and probably looked quite spiffy to anyone who was watching, but it was mostly just for show. Like the Pharisees of Jesus’ day, they were white-washed sepulchers. Their religion was, as James wrote in James 1:26, “worthless.” Their services were probably well attended and well scripted and impressive. If they had a church bulletin it was probably full of all of “the right stuff.” But when they were away from the church, those Laodiceans were much like the world, doing their thing, doing what worked or was convenient or made them happy. They probably had strong words for those they encountered who were “cold” toward God, and probably considered themselves to be “hot,” at least on Sunday mornings. But the reality is, in God’s eyes they were disgusting, and they made him want to throw up.

Unfortunately, I can think of something even more disgusting than that…and that’s just how often the term “Laodicean” might be accurately be applied to me.

Costly Christianity

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

This past Wednesday the students, faculty and staff of the school where I serve spent time learning about persecuted Christians around the world. Students met together in the chapel and watched a couple of short videos, including one that tells the story of a man persecuted and imprisoned in Laos. (You can find plenty of videos about persecuted believers on YouTube). Afterwards the students went by ones and twos to different homes on campus where the groups talked about a specific country where Christians are persecuted and spent time in prayer. We made everything as much like it was a secret church meeting as possible–we had “police” out to interrogate students found walking outside, secret knocks were used to gain entrance to the homes, and meetings were held quietly and in the dark.

It was tremendously enlightening for me to learn about the persecution faced by Christians in Eritrea…a country I had heard of but knew almost nothing about.

There is no way to artificially create a setting that will feel exactly like Christians around the world feel when they literally risk their lives to own a Bible, share the gospel, or gather together in prayer. As I sat in my home awaiting the students in my group, however, I was struck by the thought that I have been going to church my whole life, and I have never felt afraid to do so. There are probably a couple dozen Bibles in my house. And while I have not been as bold as I should be in my testimony most of the time, I have never felt that my life would be in danger for sharing the gospel.

That caused me to ask the famous two-word question, “What if?” What if I did live in an environment where those dangers existed? What if I did put myself and my family at risk by owning a Bible or professing Christ? Would I be willing to do it? Would I knowingly risk imprisonment and torture to possess even a page of the Bible?

The sad truth is, I don’t know. I hope I would…but I think it would be arrogant to say with absolute certainty that I would. I am blessed to live in a country where I can own Bibles–as many as I want–attend church as often as I want, pray openly, and tell others about Christ. I must be very careful, though, not to let the freedoms that I have become an excuse for casual Christianity. My faith does not cost me anything, but I must never forget that it cost God His Son, and I need to remember in prayer those who have given their lives in His service, and those who are still risking their lives for Him today.

Thank you, Lord, for the freedoms I have. Help me not to take them for granted. Instead, help me to capitalize on that freedom and be a bold witness for You, salt and light in my sphere of influence. Help me to remember the men and women who are in prison right now for naming the name of Christ, and thousands more who live in constant danger because of their faith. Give me the courage that they have, Lord, the courage to live a life shaped by costly Christianity. Amen.

Doers of the Word

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

James 1:22 says, “But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.” I had read this passage numerous times over the course of my life and felt pretty confident that I knew what it meant…and then I read something a few years ago that gave me reason to believe I had never really grasped the full meaning of this instruction. Quite simply, it is this: there is a world of difference between doing and being a doer, and James does not say “do the word.”

To clarify the difference it may be helpful to think about the difference between running and being a runner. Unless there is a physical disability/limitation, every can run. Not everyone can run at the same speed, for the same length of time, or with the same grace, and certainly not everyone wants to run, but if push came to shove almost all of us could. At the same, not nearly everyone is a runner.

Growing up, I played a lot of sports, but I never much enjoyed running. Not running of any great distance, any way. Baseball was my favorite sport by far, and I could run from base to base just fine; those 60 to 90 foot intervals were no problem, and when I needed to, I could cover those distances pretty quickly. But I would never have considered myself a runner, and unless I was on the playing field I never thought about running.

I have a friend who is a runner. He loves to run. He runs just about every day, and he measures his running in miles, not feet. He likes running so much that marathons are not challenging enough for him; he runs ultra marathons. He runs when it’s hot or when it’s cold; he runs in the morning, or in the evening. He even runs over his lunch break! Because he is a runner, though, his running shapes his entire life. It influences his schedule, his diet, his exercise, his clothing, his choice of shoes, his vacations and travel… There are very few areas of his life that are not touched by his running.

This is the same difference between doing and being a doer. Anyone can do the things the Bible says we should do. But James says it is not enough to do things; rather, we need to be doers. Our entire lives should be shaped by the Bible; God’s instructions should penetrate and touch every aspect of our lives. When it comes to doing only, it can just become another thing on our to-do list. It can become a habit, a ritual, a routine…an obligation. In fact, there were some folks in the New Testament who had mastered the doing, but they certainly were not doers; Jesus reserved His harshest words for these men.

We must not allow ourselves to be only hearers–there needs to be action. But we must not settle for action only, either. The Scripture must transform our lives, it must infiltrate every area. If not, as James says, we are deceiving ourselves.

Songs About the Cross

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

My wife likes to joke that I have a jukebox in my head, because there is often some song stuck in my mind, and any number of things can bring a song to my mind at just about any time. This morning I woke up with the lyrics from “How Deep the Father’s Love for Us” running through my head. Specifically, the line, “It was my sin that held him there,” kept repeating. This song was written by Stuart Townend, in my opinion one of the best contemporary hymn writers, and has been recorded by many recording artists. It is a powerful song, one that I enjoy singing and that always makes me stop and consider the cost of my salvation and the immeasurable gift of God’s Son, Jesus Christ.

As I was singing this song to myself this morning, though, I began to think about the fact that the line I mentioned above is not really accurate. It really was not my sin that held him there. That would imply, after all, that sin was powerful enough to keep Christ on the cross–that sin was more powerful than the Son of God–and that simply is not true. Interestingly, as I looked up the lyrics online this morning I found two separate versions of that particular line. Some have it as I learned it, and was singing it this morning. Others, however, have that line as, “It was my sin that left him there.” Unfortunately, Stuart Townend does not have the lyrics for his songs on his own web site, so I could not “go to the source,” as it were to see how he wrote it.

Please note that, whichever way Mr. Townend wrote it, I am not criticizing the song. It is full of powerful and thought-provoking truth, and I am thankful for the song. I also recognize that song writers use some artistic license to craft the lyrics of their songs. I am simply trying to make two points, both of which struck me this morning: (1) I often sing songs without stopping to consider the accuracy of the words, and (2) the death of Jesus Christ on the cross was an incredible sacrifice, but one that was made willingly.

Because I am well acquainted with the story of the death of Jesus Christ, I have sung the lyrics to Townend’s song numerous times (the variation that says “held him there”) without ever even recognizing what I was really saying–because my sin did not hold Jesus on the cross. Since I do have so many songs in my mental jukebox, though, this immediately got me thinking about the lyrics to other songs about the cross. There are many, many such songs, and it took no time at all for several to come to mind.

One such song, that is not nearly as well known as Townend’s, is “Love Did,” by southern gospel singer/songwriter Mark Bishop. This song’s chorus ends with the line, “Nails didn’t keep Him on the cross, Love did.” This is, of course, exactly right. No nail has ever been created that could have held Jesus Christ on the cross had He decided He was unwilling to die there. Not only did He have the power to come down from that cross Himself but, as another great song about the cross says, “He could have called ten thousands angels, to destroy the world and set Him free.”

A number of years ago our church was re-doing the church directory. As part of each member’s profile, the new directory listed favorite hymns. Until I was asked to fill out the questionnaire for that directory I am not sure I had ever stopped to consider my favorite hymn. If I remember correctly, though, it did not take me long to decide on “Jesus Paid It All.” This classic hymn, written the year the Civil War ended, reminds me that the incredible debt that I owed because of my sin was paid in full by the Son of God, Jesus Christ, when He willingly died upon Calvary’s cross. As the chorus says, “Jesus paid it all/All to Him I owe.” I never could have paid that debt myself, no matter how hard I may have tried or what I may have done.

There are so many songs about the cross, and so many of them contain powerful lyrics that cause the singer (or listener) to really stop and consider that incredible sacrifice Jesus paid to purchase redemption for our sins. It is such a powerful event, that has such fantastic ramifications, that there are other songs that refer to “the wonderful cross” and “the wondrous cross.” The cross was designed as an excruciating and humiliating method of carrying out the death penalty. How could that be wonderful? Why would we sing songs about that? Because Christ’s voluntary death on the cross “paid it all.”

Off Limits

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

I think just about anyone who reads the Bible regularly or over an extended period of time has had a moment like I had last night…one of those moments when I read something I know I have read numerous times before, but I see something or catch something that somehow never registered or connected in that way before.

I was reading about Joseph, the one with the fancy coat and the brothers who hated him. This is a familiar story, even to many who are not regular readers of Scripture. But as I was reading about the events that resulted in Joseph being thrown into an Egyptian prison a similarity to the circumstances surrounding the very first sin caught my attention.

In Joseph’s case, after being sold into slavery by his brothers, he becomes the head of Potiphar’s house, second only to Potiphar himself in overseeing and administering the various elements of the household. Potiphar’s wife takes a liking to Joseph, and she tries repeatedly to seduce Joseph. Joseph resisted these efforts, and in so doing he said to Potiphar’s wife, “Behold, because of me my master has no concern about anything in the house, and he has put everything that he has in my charge. He is not greater in this house than I am, nor has he kept back anything from me except yourself, because you are his wife. How then can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?” (Genesis 39:8-9, ESV).

Now, read these verses from Genesis 3: “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, ‘You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die'” (Genesis 3:16-17, ESV).

The similarity I had never before noticed was that Adam and Eve and Joseph were placed in settings in which they had complete, unrestricted access to absolutely everything and anything with one exception. For Adam and Eve they literally lived in paradise. There was no need for them to do any work, they were given an incredibly beautiful place to live, and they had free access to the fruit of every tree but one. Similarly, Joseph had complete control and access to every aspect of Potiphar’s estate, save only his wife.

In both instances, Satan used the one thing that was off limits as a source of temptation. I do not think that this was the only possible source of temptation, either; Adam and Eve could have sinned in ways other than eating of that tree, and Joseph could have been tempted to sin against Potiphar (and God) in other ways than having an affair with Potiphar’s wife. The reality is, we tend to always be attracted to whatever it is that is off limits. Maybe we get bored with what we already have, maybe we just want to know what the forbidden is like, maybe we just have a rebellious streak and don’t like to be told no; whatever the reasons, we have a tendency to forget all that we have, and focus instead on what we don’t have or, in these instances, have been told we cannot have.

There were two different reactions in these situations, too. Eve, after having God’s commands questioned by the serpent, saw that the tree was “good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise.” So she ate its fruit, and gave some to Adam. The thing is, I feel confident that only the third of those reasons really motivated Eve. After all, I am sure that the other trees and their fruit were a delight to the eyes, and we know they were good for fruit, so it was really only the ability to become wise “like God” (the serpent said) that enticed her. Joseph, on the other hand, resisted. I suspect that Potiphar’s wife was physically attractive, and the Bible makes it clear that she was making herself available to Joseph. Like the fruit in the garden was to Adam and Eve, Potiphar’s wife was available to Joseph. In both instances there had been instruction against “partaking,” but there was nothing preventing Adam and Eve or Joseph from doing so. Just like with me, and with you, the only check against yielding to temptation was a submission to God and a commitment to doing what was right in the face of overwhelming temptation.

Notice in Joseph’s response to the advances of Potiphar’s wife he said he would be sinning against God. This, no doubt, is what gave Joseph the conviction necessary to resist her. When we are tempted, may we remember that, as with these Old Testament scenarios, we have so much that is not off limits, there is no need to go after that that is, and may we also remember that when we do cross those boundaries and go after that which we have been told we cannot have, we are in fact sinning against God.

Rightly Dividing

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

Anyone who grew up participating in AWANA, as I did, has memorized 2 Timothy 2:15, which reads, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth” (ESV). I originally learned it in the King James Version, which says, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” And while I don’t mind losing the “shews” and “needeths” of the KJV, there are still some verses that I prefer in that translation, and I think this would be one of them. While “rightly handling” makes a lot of sense, I think “rightly dividing” paints a clearer image of what the verse is about.

It reminds me of another verse many of us have memorized, Hebrews 4:12: “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (ESV). God’s Word is like a scalpel, able to make precision cuts, separating what to the naked eye or finite mind may seem inseparable.

Both of these verses serve to remind us of the extreme care with which we should handle God’s Word. Just as a surgeon wields his scalpel carefully, so too must we be wise and discerning in our use of God’s Word, because careless use and application of the Scripture can do damage.

Interestingly, I was attending a Bible conference some months ago in which the speaker’s stated aim was this idea–the careful and proper handling of the Bible. Yet, during the course of the conference the speaker himself was handling it with less precision than I thought prudent. Example: he, several times, made reference to David raping Bathsheba. I had never heard that before, so I turned to that passage in my Bible and read it again. I failed to see in that passage (2 Samuel 11) any indication that David had forced himself upon Bathsheba. There were plenty of other things that were wrong in that story–perhaps all of them on David’s part–and the story is powerful enough without adding to it something that is not there. So, when it came to Q and A time, I decided to ask the question.

I worded it like this: “You have mentioned several times the importance of using the Bible accurately and of not reading into it things that are not there.” (Speaker is nodding his head, no doubt pleased that I have been paying attention). “Yet, you have also referenced two or three times David raping Bathsheba. I have never heard that before, and I don’t see it in the passage, so I was wondering if you could tell me why you have used that term.”

He proceeded to tell me (and the entire audience, since this was an open forum Q and A) that he used that term intentionally and after careful forethought. He acknowledged that the Bible does not say that David raped Bathsheba, but that it is a reasonable conclusion to make from the text. After all, David sent a soldier to bring her to him, the speaker said, and if that is not force then what is? And the Bible does not say that David did not rape her, he said.

Hmmmm. I have several problems with this reasoning. The first one is relatively minor, by way of comparison. That would be that my Bible (an ESV) says David sent “messengers,” not soldiers. I see the same word choice in the ASV, AMP, CEV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NIV and NKJV, so I think replacing “messengers” with “soldiers” is careless and inaccurate. Depending on the translation it says that the messengers “took her” or “brought her” or that “she came to him,” so I think it would be a stretch even to say that Bathsheba was taken to David by force.

Second, none of the translations referenced above say that David forced himself on Bathsheba. Most of them say something along the lines of “he slept with her” or “he lay with her.” And I think it is careless to suggest that the Bible would not have clearly stated that David raped Bathsheba if that was, in fact, what he had done. After all, just a few chapters later, in 2 Samuel 13, the Bible makes it clear that Amnon raped Tamar, so it cannot even be suggested that the Bible was attempting to be discreet or to avoid unnecessarily graphic details in the account of David and Bathsheba. In fact, I raised this point with the speaker at the conference, and he said that he stood by his assertion, and gave several, in my opinion, absurd reasons for not stating rape in chapter 11 but doing so in chapter 13.

Third, and perhaps most important of all, is the incredible danger of arguing that something happened simply because there is no clear evidence that it did not. Arguing from a lack of evidence is a dangerous place to be, and no one would want to be on the receiving end of such an argument. To say that David raped Bathsheba is plausible because Scripture does not say that he didn’t makes no sense. If that kind of logic would hold water, imagine how far that could go… It would be fairly easy to overcome in the present, since anyone accused with such reasoning could then issue the apparently-required denial, but when dealing with historical accounts of individuals who are no longer living, there would almost no end to the ways in which history could be manipulated. This reminds me of a line given by a witness in an old episode of Perry Mason; when asked if anyone could confirm that she was home alone at the time of the murder, she quipped, “If I had known I was going to need an alibi, I would have arranged to have company.” After all, people are “home alone” all the time, and think nothing of it. The fact that someone claims to have been home alone during a murder cannot be used as proof that he or she actually committed the murder unless there is additional evidence that he or she did so. In other words, there must be evidence of the crime in order to convict; an absence of contradictory evidence is not sufficient.

Let’s keep the example of David and Bathsheba in mind. The Bible is God’s inspired Word, and while it has been translated and it is available in a multitude of versions, that is no excuse for asserting that it claims something that it does not. Most importantly, the fact that the Bible may not say something did not happen is no evidence for claiming that it did. There are some things God decided we do not need to know, and He gave us everything that we do need to know. We need to study carefully, and apply accurately, but there is no excuse for carelessly swinging our scalpels.