The Reign of God in the Rain of Eyes: The Movement of God in the Midst of Our Tears

I am rapidly moving toward the conclusion of our I John series in the Sunday morning worship services at Emmanuel. I am currently working on a new Sunday Morning series entitled The Reign of God in the Rain of Eyes: The Movement of God in the Midst of Our Tears. Scientists can tell us the physiology of tears, but little is known about the spirituality behind our tears. It's interesting to note that no other creature in God's universe sheds tears - only humans. It is my intention to show through this new series that this "singular pecularity of humans," as Freud called it, is in reality closely connected to a movement of God in the soul.

A poet once wrote "The soul would have no rainbow if the eyes had no tears," and the Bible seems to posit similar thoughts. There are 697 places in our Bible where the tears, weeping, and crying of people are mentioned, and in almost every single case there is a movement of God associated with the tears.

The series will begin in the middle of August, and if any of Grace and Truth readers have thoughts, anecdotes or comments about human tears, feel free to offer them! It could very well show up in the new series - with credit of course!

Blessings,

Wade

I Believe Is Not the Same Thing as I Know

My goal in this post is to spark within the reader a thought process that leads to greater fellowship and dialogue among Christians with different beliefs. It is expected that this post will cause reactions within some, but it is written with the simple goal of fostering beneficial responses. For the purpose of illustration I will be open and honest about what I personally believe. My fellowship and relationship with you, at least in my mind, is not dependent upon our mutual beliefs. Rather I am your brother in Christ because of our personal, intimate and experiential knowledge of God - which we hold in common. In other words, my fellowship with you is based upon what we both know, not what we believe.

When we read the New Testament we find that the Apostles John, Paul, James and others made a clear distinction between belief and knowledge. There were just a few things which they "knew" and were absolutely persuaded about by God. The best synopsis of this knowledge is found in Paul's letter to young Timothy when he said,

Nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed" (II Timothy 1:12).

In short, I know what Paul knows. I know God is God and I am not. I know that God is able, and I am incapable. I know that the salvation of my soul is due to His love for me as revealed in the work of His Son on my behalf. These things I know.

But I believe so much more.

The atheist, agnostic and avoider of Christ would deny that I could even "know" the above. They say that at most, what Paul told Timothy he "knew," and what I declare to know, is a matter of faith, not knowledge. To some degree the atheist would be correct. The writer of Hebrews says, "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him." (Hebrews 11:6).

But on the other hand, the atheist is simply missing the key blessing of coming to God through faith in Jesus Christ - the knowledge that God actually exists. Those who seek God will meet God, and will be rewarded with an intimate relationship with their Creator through Jesus Christ our Lord. The atheist has no "gnosis" or personal knowledge of this one true God. Therefore, the intellectually honest atheist can only say, "Atheism is my BELIEF that the most probable number of Gods is zero, and this has a fairly high probability." He is a man of belief. His belief has also led him to a personal and experiential knowledge - there is no God. He knows this as his reality, because the atheist hasn't met God. Yet the prophet declares, "Prepare to meet thy God."

As for us, we would say we know there is a God, for we have met Him. We were trapped in our own failures and inabilities when we heard the good news. We came to faith in the God who made provision for us through His Son, Jesus the Anointed One. Having trusted Him, we have found God true, faithful and able - just like Paul told Timothy.

I know this to be true!

But, again, I believe so much more.

In my ministry I live what I know and I teach what I believe. I teach what I believe with passion. I teach what I believe with conviction. But there is a difference between knowing and believing. My brothers and sisters in Christ who know God can "believe" differently than I and we shall continue in fellowship, for our fellowship is around the Person we know, not the things we believe.

Illustrations of that Which I Believe

(1). I believe Jesus died for a particular people - God's 'elect,' or Christ's 'bride,' or His 'church,' or 'believers,' or however else one wishes to describe the people from every nation, tribe, kindred and tongue who have an inheritance in heaven.

But I don't know Jesus died just for the elect. I have a friend, Paul Young, who believes Jesus died for every single human being who has ever lived, those in hell and in heaven, and as a result, he is a hopeful universalist - holding out hope that somehow, someway, someday, Jesus will empty hell and all of the universe will be redeemed because everyone will see the glory of the Son who actually redeemed them.

I teach what I believe (particular redemption), but I don't "know" that what I believe about particular redemption is true - one day I will find out. My belief in particular redemption is not shaken by those who oppose it. My belief in particular redemption does not form my identity. My fellowship with other believers is not defined by our mutual faith in particular redemption. I don't know that particular redemption is true - but I believe it. I just happen to know that what binds me with others is our mutual knowledge of God through faith in Jesus Christ.

(2). I believe that the earth is a young earth - but I don't know that the earth is young. When I teach through Genesis expositionally, as I have done three times, I teach that God created the earth at most 10,000 years ago - because that is what i believe. However, I don't "know" that God created the earth 10,000 years ago.

I wasn't there.

The Scriptures can be interpreted in various ways regarding the age of the earth. My belief in a young earth is not threatened by those brothers in Christ who believe in an old earth. My fellowship with those who know God through Jesus Christ is not limited to those who believe in a young earth. I am firm in my personal belief in a young earth, but I am honest enough to say I don't "know" the earth is young. One of these days I will "know."

We have teachers in our church who believe in a young earth, we have teachers in our church who believe in an old earth. They are free to teach whatever they believe, they are simply reminded to acknowledge that what they teach is a matter of faith.

(3). I believe that most, if not all, of the prophecies of Scripture have been fulfilled - I am what some would call a partial preterist. Preterism is from the Latin word meaning "having been fulfilled." I believe the prophecies of Revelation were fulfilled in 70 A.D., thus I believe in an early dating of the writing of Revelation. I believe the prophecies of Jesus in Matthew 24 were fulfilled in 70 A.D - within a generation of when they were given. I believe that the prophecies of Daniel were fulfilled through Alexander the Great, the birth of Jesus, and the destruction of Jerusalam.

But I don't "know" that the prophecies of Scripture have all been fulfilled completely. I teach what I believe about eschatology and allow others in our church to teach what they believe about eschatology. In fact, I have taught all four major eschatological positions (premillenialism, amillienialism, post-millenialism, preterism) to the people of Emmanuel - and then I asked them to choose what they believe.

Our fellowship is around our personal knowledge of Christ, not our mutual beliefs in other matters.

(4). I believe that God made women equal to men in authority - and so I see the prophetesses in Scripture prophesying, Priscilla teaching Apollo theology, Deborah reigning over Israel and judging God's people, and I have no problem with women teaching men today, or women holding positions of authority over men today, or believing women are gifted by the Spirit of God just the same as the Spirit gifts men today. Sure, there are different roles for men and women (women give birth, men don't), but the idea that a woman cannot have equal "authority to a man" is completely foreign to my understanding of the Bible and the purposes of God.

But here is where it gets sticky. Unlike my belief in a young earth, particular redemption, and partial preterism, belief in the equality of women has a corresponding action with it - it affects how the believer in gender equality treats women. Am I open for women to be in positions of spiritual leadership? Yes. Can women teach the Bible to men in our church? Yes, and they do. Do I believe women can teach Hebrew to future preachers? Yes.

Again, my view of equality is not based on experience, but on what I believe Scripture teaches. But my interpretation of Scripture is also consistent with my experience. So in some aspects I am like the apostle Paul when he said I am "fully persuaded" by God. My belief has become my personal knowledge.

Could I be wrong? Of course. God may not have given to women equal authority or equal spiritual abilities to men. If that is the case, then my interpretation of Scripture is leading me to place women in a very compromising, uncomfortable and possibly untenable positions. But, again, my actual experience has been just the opposite. Every teacher, every leader, every proclaimer of Jesus Christ who happens to be female seems to me to be just as capable and equal to men.

By the way, it is my desire to maintain fellowship and relationship with my brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree with me on this belief. But I have found that sometimes it is difficult for other Christians to fellowship with me around differing beliefs that lead to opposite, and uncomfortable actions. In other words, one can debate ecclesiology, eschatology, creation, and atonement - but serve the Lord's supper to a non-church member in front of a Landmarker, or put a woman as a teacher to men in front of a patriarch, or do something else that corresponds to, and is consistent with, your Christian beliefs, then the fireworks begin. That is, unless Christians understand the difference between believing something and knowing something.

Our church has been trained to be comfortable fellowshipping with various Christians that have differing beliefs, and in many instances, fellowshipping with Christians whose beliefs have led them to actions or activities that some in our church would refrain from participating in. There is in our church, for lack of a better word, soul freedom.

I freely confess that it would be difficult for me to be a part of a church where men treated women as inferior, or where men were allowed to speak down to women as if they were children, or where women were taught that their places in life were reserved to be a servants to the men. Yet, in no form or fashion would I ever urge a Convention to disfellowship from, or cease to cooperate with, a patriarchal church. Patriarchs are simply living out their beliefs, and they are our brothers and sisters in Christ. We just believe differently than they.

(5). I believe that God is absolutely sovereign - and not one atom, not one molecule, not one event, not one person, not one devil is allowed to move or act without his permission, prohibition, persuasion, or providence. There is nothing that is hidden from God or too hard for God. He does as He pleases, always as He pleases, only as He pleases. His purposes shall be fulfilled, and he shall accomplish everything according to His purposes.

But I could be wrong. God could not know the future because the things of the future do not yet exist and thus are not knowable, as Greg Boyd teaches. God could be dependent upon the will of man as Arminius taught.

But I teach what I believe, so I teach He is sovereign over all things, even the will of man and the future events of the world.

But it doesn't bother me to fellowship with someone who knows God but believes differently regarding His providence. One of these days I am hopeful that those of us who have very specific beliefs will come to the place where we are neither threatened by, nor seek to separate from, those Christians who believe differently than we.

There are so many other illustrations that could be given to show the difference between what we believe and what we know, but I think you get the point.



In His Grace,


Wade

God Made For Man One Equal in Power, Strength and Authority: An Exegesis of Gen. 2:18

The article below is from the brilliant Biblical scholar Dr. Walter C. Kaiser. It was forwarded to me by Pastor Chuck Andrews and reproduced below in its entirety. The article is an exegesis of Genesis 2:18 and proves, definitively in my opinion, that God designed and created women with full equality to men. It should also answer several questions from the previous comment stream.

"Are women inferior to men, merely designed to be their helpers? Is it consistent with the biblical text to view men as the initiators and women as their assistants? Is this what makes women suitable matches for men?

The Creator regarded Adam’s situation as incomplete and deficient while he was living without community or a proper counterpart. The Creator judged Adam’s situation quite negatively: “It is not good.”

Ecclesiastes 4:9–12 expresses this same opinion about aloneness. The wise writer Solomon advised: Two are better than one. … If one falls down, his friend can help him up. … Also, if two lie down together, they will keep warm. But how can one keep warm alone? Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves.

True, in Jeremiah 16:1–9 the prophet Jeremiah is commanded by God to remain alone, but this is meant to be a sign that God’s judgment on the people is so near that it will not be worthwhile to get married. Nevertheless, the full life is a life that finds its fulfillment in community with another person or group of persons.

In the Genesis story we find that God created a woman after he had created the man. This would end Adam’s loneliness and the state that God judged to be “not good.” She was to be his “helper”—at least that is how most of the translations have interpreted this word. A sample of the translations reads as follows: “I shall make a helper fit for him” (RSV); “I will make a fitting helper for him” (New Jewish Publication Society); “I will make an aid fit for him” (AB); “I will make him a helpmate” (JB); “I will make a suitable partner for him” (NAB); “I will make him a helper comparable to him” (NKJV).

However, the customary translation of the two words ˓ēzer keneḡdô as “helper fitting him” is almost certainly wrong. Recently R. David Freedman has pointed out that the Hebrew word ˓ēzer is a combination of two roots: ˓-z-r, meaning “to rescue, to save,” and ǵ-z-r, meaning “to be strong.” The difference between the two is the first letter in Hebrew. Today that letter is silent in Hebrew, but in ancient times it was a guttural sound formed in the back of the throat. The ǵ was a ghayyin, and it came to use the same Hebrew symbol as the other sound, ˓ayin. But the fact that they were pronounced differently is clear from such place names which preserve the g sound, such as Gaza or Gomorrah. Some Semitic languages distinguished between these two signs and others did not; for example, Ugaritic did make a distinction between the ˓ayin and the ghayyin; Hebrew did not (R. David Freedman, “Woman, a Power Equal to a Man,” Biblical Archaeology Review 9 [1983]: 56–58).

It would appear that sometime around 1500 B.C. these two signs began to be represented by one sign in Phoenician. Consequently the two phonemes merged into one grapheme and what had been two different roots merged into one, much as in English the one word fast can refer to a person’s speed, abstinence from food, his or her slyness in a “fast deal” or the adamant way in which someone holds “fast” to positions. The noun ˓ēzer occurs twenty-one times in the Old Testament. In many of the passages it is used in parallelism to words that clearly denote strength or power. Some examples are:

There is none like the God of Jeshurun, The Rider of the Heavens in your strength (˓-z-r), and on the clouds in his majesty. (Deut 33:26, my translation)

Blessed are you, O Israel! Who is like you, a people saved by the Lord? He is the shield of your strength (˓-z-r) and the sword of your majesty. (Deut 33:29, my translation)

The case that begins to build is that we can be sure that ˓ezer means “strength” or “power” whenever it is used in parallelism with words for majesty or other words for power such as ˓oz or ˓uzzo. In fact, the presence of two names for one king, Azariah and Uzziah (both referring to God’s strength), makes it abundantly clear that the root ˓ēzer meaning “strength” was known in Hebrew.

Therefore I suggest that we translate Genesis 2:18 as “I will make a power [or strength] corresponding to man.” Freedman even suggests on the basis of later Hebrew that the second word in the Hebrew expression found in this verse should be rendered equal to him. If this is so, then God makes for the man a woman fully his equal and fully his match. In this way, the man’s loneliness will be assuaged.

The same line of reasoning occurs in the apostle Paul. He urged in 1 Corinthians 11:10, “For this reason, a woman must have power [or authority] on her head [that is to say, invested in her].”

This line of reasoning which stresses full equality is continued in Genesis 2:23, where Adam says of Eve, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” The idiomatic sense of this phrase “bone of my bones” is a “very close relative,” “one of us” or in effect “our equal.”

The woman was never meant to be an assistant or “helpmate” to the man. The word mate slipped into English since it was so close to Old English meet, which means “fit to” or “corresponding to” the man. That all comes from the phrase that I have suggested likely means “equal to.”

What God had intended then was to make a “power” or “strength” for the man who would in every way correspond to him or even be his equal."

Kaiser, W. C. (1997, c1996). Hard sayings of the Bible (92). Downers Grove, Il: InterVarsity.

God Calls Patriarchal Headship A Sinful Desire

We live in a day when the basic family unit is disintegrating. Divorces are rampant. Live-in relationships are the norm, and homosexual unions are being recognized by governments. It is right and necessary for the Christian church to both teach and model the Biblical concept of "family" in this age when the Biblical concept of family is seldom understood. However, one of the problems we face as Christians is misinterpreting what God calls the ideal home. There is a growing patriarchal movement among conservative Christian churches, a movement where men are taught that they should have complete "authority" in the home, and that they should "rule" over their wives and children. Many of these conservative Bible-believing Christians who advocate patriarchy honestly believe they are teaching Biblical truth. It is my intention in this post to show that patriarchy is not God's ideal, but rather, patriarchy is the result of God's curse on Adam and Eve. When God's grace appears in the home, patriarchy is expelled.

When Adam and Eve rebelled against God, God pronounced judgment on them in Genesis 3:16-19. God first began with Eve:

“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Genesis 3:16).

Some conservative Bible scholars take the last phrase of v.16 to mean (1). The wife shall have a “sexual desire” for her husband (i.e. “your desire shall be for your husband”), and (2). The husband is to be the head, authority and ruler of the home (i.e. “and he shall rule over you”). These conservative scholars declare that God’s statement in v. 16 is how the husband and wife “should” relate to each other in the home, and how the home ought to be in terms of headship and governance. The man, they say, is to rule over his home; there should be no equality of authority since God established this patriarchal system from the very beginning.

However, other conservative Bible scholars rightly point out that the woman’s “desire” for her husband in Genesis 3:16 is not, at least linguistically and contextually, a sexual desire. One only needs to turn one chapter over to find the same word teshuqah, in Genesis 4:7, where it is also translated “desire." In the context of Genesis 4:7, teshuqah is used to refer to sin’s “desire” to control Cain. Thus, letting the Bible interpret itself, the word “desire” in both both Genesis 3:16 and Genesis 4:7 means “a desire to control.”

Likewise, the same Hebrew verb mashal, which means “to rule,” is also used in Genesis 4:7, just as it was in Genesis 3:16. Mashal is used in Genesis 4:7 to describe Cain’s efforts to rule over or dominate the sin that is “crouching at his door.” Again, when you let the Bible interpret itself, mashal is used in both Genesis 3:16 and Genesis 4:7 to describe someone who is having to fend off an attack; it carries the idea of warring for control or domination; a battle to see who will be ultimate "ruler."

Using basic principles of interpretation, one comes up with a very simple explanation of the consequence of God's curse on Adam and Eve - a consequence that has infiltrated every home since the beginning of time. Simply put, the woman will desire to dominate or control the man, but the man, perhaps even with superior strength, will fight hard to rule over and dominate the woman. Where the curse is present there is a constant battle for control. This is how things are because of sin, not how things in the home ought to be. The patriarchal societies of the world express the reality of male domination, and in certain western Christian cultures, patriarchy is often said to be ordered by God - as if God designed the home to be this way.

Likewise, in some cultures, such as the Kanu of South America, the women "rule" the home, and the men are the "servants." These women explain their domination of men in the home with the simple phrase - "the gods have made it this way." What both matriarchal and patriachal proponents need to understand, regardless of the culture from which they come, is that any system designed for "domination" or "control" of the other spouse is the result of sin and the curse on sin.

When the God of all grace gets a hold of a man and a woman in a marriage relationship, no longer will there be a fight to see who dominates and controls the other. Rather, there will be mutual submission between husband and wife (i.e. Ephesians 5:21 – “submitting to one another in reverence to Christ”). Mutual submission, with no thought of "control," is God's design for the home. It should be the effort of every Bible-believing church, pastor and teacher to instruct husbands and wives on the sinful nature of any husband or wife seeking to dominate the other spouse.

In fact, I like what Dr. Richard Hess, Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages at Denver Theological Seminary says in his comments on Genesis 3:16. Dr. Hess said all Christians should attempt to pull down any patriarchal (or matriarchal) system of domination and control in the Christian home, and then responds to those who object to any attempt to end patriarchy:

It is no more a sin to end this consequence of the fall than it is to use weed killer to end the promised weeds and thorns in the following verses. No, the emphasis (in Genesis 3:16) is on the terrible effects of sin, and the destruction of a harmonious relationship that once existed. In its place comes a harmful struggle of wills.

I trust that conservative, evangelical churches will continue to proclaim and model God's design for the home. I just pray that we do a good job of understanding the subject ourselves first. Patriarchy is the result of man's sinful desire to control and dominate and should be, by God's grace, avoided at all costs.

In His Grace,


Wade

Loving as Christ Loves Me: An Astonishing Truth

As a follow-up to Monday's post on New Covenant living, I would like to point out an excellent comment given by my father in yesterday's comment stream. The premise of my post Monday was that New Covenant believers are known for our obedience to a "new" commandment from Jesus to "love one another." My father points out just exactly how this commandment in John 13:34 is "new."

The law of "Loving your neighbor as yourself" was the old law given in the Old Covenant as recorded various places including Lev. 19:18. When Jesus said "A new commandment give I you..." [John 13:34] He was NOT giving a new commandment to love, which was already given, but rather (He was giving a new commandment in) HOW to love someone --- " As I have loved you." [Not as you love yourself.]

Think about what Jesus is saying. We have always been commanded to love others - from the very beginning. But in the New Covenant our standard or measurement of loving others is no longer "love people like I love myself," but rather, "love people as Christ has loved me."

The question one should ponder as we think about how we are to love others is clear: How is the love of Christ for my soul different than my own love for my own soul? There many, major differences between self-love and Christ's love for me. But there is one major difference I would like to point out in today's post.

Self-love is powerful and deep - but expected; Christ's love for me is so much more powerful, so much deeper - and unexpected! Thus, my love for others in the New Covenant ought to astonish, amaze and cause people to scratch their head in wonderment and surprise - just as I am astonished, amazed and surprised by Christ's love for me.

Psychologists tell us that self-love is universal. Even those with "low self-esteem" love themselves - or they wouldn't be bothered by whatever problems they perceive they have. Again, self-love is easily understood and explained.

But Christ's love for me hard to explain and understand. His love is so much stronger, and so much more powerful - and unexpected!. Thus, loving people the way Christ loved me is so much deeper, stronger and incredibly more powerful than we imagine. It is also surprising to those being loved! In other words, New Covenant love for others is "astonishing," just as Christ's love for me astonishes me!

Could it be the reason there is so little love among Christians today is because we have ceased to be astonished at Christ's love for us?

Too often we pastors and church leaders want to focus people on "their love for God," but when I read the Scriptures and the prayers of the apostles, their concern was not so much that believers increase in their love for God as it was that believers grow in their comprehension of God's love for them.

"For this reason I bow my knees before the Father . . . that you may have the strength to comprehend . . . and know the love of Christ which surpasses your knowledge" (Ephesians 3:14, 18-19)

Could we with ink the ocean fill,
And were the skies of parchment made,
Were every stalk on earth a quill,
And every man a scribe by trade,
To write the love of God above,
Would drain the ocean dry.
Nor could the scroll contain the whole,
Though stretched from sky to sky.

When we become more and more amazed at Christ's love for us, we then begin to understand that loving people in the New Covenant way is to surprise them with our love as we are surprised by God with His love for us.

In His Grace,

Wade