Controversy: Freedom, Tolerance, & the Church

I'm not a person big on getting involved in political issues or controversial issues. But in light of the recent news with the Supreme Court and gay marriage, I do have a few reflections.

We have the freedom to disagree with another. Yet, my freedom to disagree with another (even when I do it respectfully) is now being labeled as "intolerant" and "bigoted" by those who disagree with me. Isn't that contradictory? Wouldn't that then mean by their own logic that those who then disagree with me for disagreeing with them are also being "intolerant" and "bigoted"? But I'm not sure if the majority of people see this fallacy in their logic. Why can't we simply just disagree with each other, and agree to disagree? Why does there have to be negative and divisive labeling? (That was meant to be rhetorical. I'm fully aware sin is at the root of it all).

You know what makes this worse, we in the Church do this to one another (and have been for centuries). Think about this: WHAT IF those outside the Church are simply following the example we in the Church have set---name calling, mocking, sometimes voilent, selfish agendas, labeling one another when we disagree with each other, etc. (And we do this beyond the essentials, so don't attempt to use that defense). WHAT IF the hatred we receive from those outside the Church is not solely rooted in our stance for God's Truth in His Word, but also in our example of operating in "bigotry" and being "intolerant" to one another in the Church (in the name of defending "truth"). I'm not agreeing with it, I'm simply stating a reality: Our hands are not clean in creating the current negative perception of the Church or about Christians. (Again, I am speaking apart from us being condemned/hated for our stance for the Truth in God's Word like Jesus stated we would).

Yes, we can continue to respectfully disagree with others, present our cases on why, argue for what we think is best, and so on because we have the freedom to do so. But if we aren't going to take that same intense approach we have towards "righting" those things going on outside the Church to work on our own home issues in the Church, then we have to admit and accept responsibility for our own hypocrisy and Phariseeism of focusing only on the outside of the cup while neglecting to clean the inside first (cf. Matt. 23:25-28). Again, I'm not saying we can't or we shouldn't speak up or speak out or stand up, I'm just doing my part of holding us accountable to not forget to practice in the Church what we preach to those outside the Church.

"For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?" -1Pet. 4:17

4/1/13

Our Motivation for Worship - The Gospel

Here is a 20 minute version, with background music, of a passionate message on our motivation to worship God. A powerfully packed presentation of the Gospel from Exodus, Ezekiel, and Ephesians.

Is the Sabbath Still Required for Christians?

Is the Sabbath Still Required for Christians?

-Thomas R. Schreiner

EDITOR'S NOTE: The following is an excerpt from 40 Questions about Christians and Biblical Law by Thomas R. Schreiner (Kregel Academic & Professional).

Believers today continue to dispute whether the Sabbath is required. The Sabbath was given to Israel as a covenant sign, and Israel was commanded to rest on the seventh day. We see elsewhere in the Old Testament that covenants have signs, so that the sign of the Noahic covenant is the rainbow (Gen. 9:8-17) and the sign of the Abrahamic covenant is circumcision (Gen. 17). The paradigm for the Sabbath was God's rest on the seventh day of creation (Gen. 2:1-3). So, too, Israel was called upon to rest from work on the seventh day (Exod. 20:8-11; 31:12-17). What did it mean for Israel not to work on the Sabbath? Figure 5 lists the kinds of activities that were prohibited and permitted.

The Sabbath was certainly a day for social concern, for rest was mandated for all Israelites, including their children, slaves, and even animals (Deut. 5:14). It was also a day to honor and worship the Lord. Special burnt offerings were offered to the Lord on the Sabbath (Num. 28:9-10). Psalm 92 is a Sabbath song that voices praise to God for his steadfast love and faithfulness. Israel was called upon to observe the Sabbath in remembrance of the Lord's work in delivering them as slaves from Egyptian bondage (Deut. 5:15). Thus, the Sabbath is tied to Israel's covenant with the Lord, for it celebrates her liberation from slavery. The Sabbath, then, is the sign of the covenant between the Lord and Israel (Exod. 31:12-17; Ezek. 20:12-17). The Lord promised great blessing to those who observed the Sabbath (Isa. 56:2, 6; 58:13-14). Breaking the Sabbath command was no trivial matter, for the death penalty was inflicted upon those who intentionally violated it (Exod. 31:14-15; 35:2; Num. 15:32-36), though collecting manna on the Sabbath before the Mosaic law was codified did not warrant such a punishment (Exod. 16:22-30). Israel regularly violated the Sabbath—the sign of the covenant—and this is one of the reasons the people were sent into exile (Jer. 17:21-27; Ezek. 20:12-24). 

FIGURE 5A: WORK PROHIBITED ON THE SABBATH 

Kindling a fire-                  Exod. 35:3
Gathering manna-             Exod. 16:23-29
Selling goods-                   Neh. 10:31; 13:15-22
Bearing burdens-               Jer. 17:19-27 

FIGURE 5B: ACTIVITIES PERMITTED ON THE SABBATH 

Military campaigns-           Josh. 6:15; 1 Kings 20:29; 2 Kings 3:9
Marriage feasts-               Judg. 14:12-18
Dedication feasts-             1 Kings 8:65; 2 Chron. 7:8-9
Visiting a man of God-       2 Kings 4:23
Changing temple guards-   2 Kings 11:5-9
Preparing showbread and putting it out-   1 Chron. 9:32
Offering sacrifices-            1 Chron. 23:31; Ezek. 46:4-5
Duties of priests and Levites-  2 Kings 11:5-9; 2 Chron. 23:4, 8
Opening the east gate-      Ezek. 46:1-3 

During the Second Temple period, views of the Sabbath continued to de­velop. It is not my purpose here to conduct a complete study. Rather, a number of illustrations will be provided to illustrate how seriously Jews took the Sab­bath. The Sabbath was a day of feasting and therefore a day when fasting was not appropriate (Jdt. 8:6; 1 Macc. 1:39, 45). Initially, the Hasmoneans refused to fight on the Sabbath, but after they were defeated in battle they changed their minds and began to fight on the Sabbath (1 Macc. 2:32-41; cf. Josephus,Jewish Antiquities 12.274, 276-277). The author of Jubilees propounds a rig­orous view of the Sabbath (Jubilees 50:6-13). He emphasizes that no work should be done, specifying a number of tasks that are prohibited (50:12-13). Fasting is prohibited since the Sabbath is a day for feasting (50:10, 12). Sexual relations with one's wife also are prohibited (50:8), though offering the sacri­fices ordained in the law are permitted (50:10). Those who violate the Sabbath prescriptions should die (50:7, 13). The Sabbath is eternal, and even the angels keep it (2:17-24). Indeed, the angels kept the Sabbath in heaven before it was established on earth (2:30). All Jewish authors concur that God commanded Israel to literally rest, though it is not surprising that Philo thinks of it as well in terms of resting in God (Sobriety, 1:174) and in terms of having thoughts of God that are fitting (Special Laws, 2:260). Philo also explains the number seven symbolically (Moses, 2:210). 

The Qumran community was quite strict regarding Sabbath observance, maintaining that the right interpretation must be followed (CD 6:18; 10:14-23). Even if an animal falls into a pit it should not be helped on the Sabbath (CD 11:13-14), something Jesus assumes is permissible when talking to the Pharisees (Matt. 12:11). In the Mishnah thirty-nine different types of work are prohibited on the Sabbath (m. Shabbat 7:2). 

I do not believe the Sabbath is required for believers now that the new covenant has arrived in the person of Jesus Christ. I should say, first of all, that it is not my purpose to reiterate what I wrote about the Sabbath in the Gospels since the Sabbath texts were investigated there. Here it is my purpose to pull the threads together in terms of the validity of the Sabbath for today. Strictly speaking, Jesus does not clearly abolish the Sabbath, nor does he violate its stipulations. Yet the focus on regulations that is evident in Jubilees, Qumran, and in the Mishnah is absent in Jesus' teaching. He reminded his hearers that "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27). Some sectors of Judaism clearly had lost this perspective, so that the Sabbath had lost its humane dimension. They were so consumed with rules that they had forgotten mercy (Matt. 12:7). Jesus was grieved at the hardness of the Phari­sees' hearts, for they lacked love for those suffering (Mark 3:5). 

Jesus' observance of the Sabbath does not constitute strong evidence for its continuation in the new covenant. His observance of the Sabbath makes excellent sense, for he lived under the Old Testament law. He was "born under the law" as Paul says (Gal. 4:4). On the other hand, a careful reading of the Gospel accounts intimates that the Sabbath will not continue to play a significant role. Jesus proclaims as the Son of Man that he is the "lord even of the Sabbath" (Mark 2:28). The Sabbath does not rule over him, but he rules over the Sabbath. He is the new David, the Messiah, to whom the Sabbath and all the Old Testament Scriptures point (Matt. 12:3-4). Indeed, Jesus even claimed in John 5:17 that he, like his Father, works on the Sabbath. Working on the Sabbath, of course, is what the Old Testament prohibits, but Jesus claimed that he must work on the Sabbath since he is equal with God (John 5:18). 

It is interesting to consider here the standpoint of the ruler of the syna­gogue in Luke 13:10-17. He argued that Jesus should heal on the other six days of the week and not on the Sabbath. On one level this advice seems quite reasonable, especially if the strict views of the Sabbath that were common in Judaism were correct. What is striking is that Jesus deliberately healed on the Sabbath. Healing is what he "ought" (dei) to do on the Sabbath day (Luke 13:16). It seems that he did so to demonstrate his superiority to the Sabbath and to hint that it is not in force forever. There may be a suggestion in Luke 4:16-21 that Jesus fulfills the Jubilee of the Old Testament (Lev. 25). The rest and joy anticipated in Jubilee is fulfilled in him, and hence the rest and feasting of the Sabbath find their climax in Jesus. 

We would expect the Sabbath to no longer be in force since it was the covenant sign of the Mosaic covenant, and, as I have argued elsewhere in this book, it is clear that believers are no longer under the Sinai covenant. There­fore, they are no longer bound by the sign of the covenant either. The Sabbath, as a covenant sign, celebrated Israel's deliverance from Egypt, but the Exodus points forward, according to New Testament writers, to redemption in Christ. Believers in Christ were not freed from Egypt, and hence the covenant sign of Israel does not apply to them. 

It is clear in Paul's letters that the Sabbath is not binding upon believers. In Colossians Paul identifies the Sabbath as a shadow along with requirements regarding foods, festivals, and the new moon (Col. 2:16-17). The Sabbath, in other words, points to Christ and is fulfilled in him. The word for "shadow" (skia) that Paul uses to describe the Sabbath is the same term the author of Hebrews used to describe Old Testament sacrifices. The law is only a "shadow (skia) of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities" (Heb. 10:1). The argument is remarkably similar to what we see in Colossians: both contrast elements of the law as a shadow with the "substance" (sōma, Col. 2:17) or the "form" (eikona, Heb. 10:1) found in Christ. Paul does not denigrate the Sabbath. He salutes its place in salvation history, for, like the Old Testament sacrifices, though not in precisely the same way, it prepared the way for Christ. I know of no one who thinks Old Testament sacrifices should be instituted today; and when we compare what Paul says about the Sabbath with such sacrifices, it seems right to conclude that he thinks the Sabbath is no longer binding. 

Some argue, however, that "Sabbath" in Colossians 2:16 does not refer to the weekly Sabbaths but only to sabbatical years. But this is a rather des­perate expedient, for the most prominent day in the Jewish calendar was the weekly Sabbath. We know from secular sources that it was the observance of the weekly Sabbath that attracted the attention of Gentiles (Juvenal, Sat­ires 14.96-106; Tacitus, Histories 5.4). Perhaps sabbatical years are included here, but the weekly Sabbath should not be excluded, for it would naturally come to the mind of both Jewish and Gentile readers. What Paul says here is remarkable, for he lumps the Sabbath together with food laws, festivals like Passover, and new moons. All of these constitute shadows that anticipate the coming of Christ. Very few Christians think we must observe food laws, Passover, and new moons. But if this is the case, then it is difficult to see why the Sabbath should be observed since it is placed together with these other matters. 

Another crucial text on the Sabbath is Romans 14:5: "One person es­teems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind." In Romans 14:1-15:6 Paul mainly discusses food that some—almost certainly those influenced by Old Testament food laws—think is defiled. Paul clearly teaches, in contrast to Leviticus 11:1-44 and Deuteronomy 14:3-21, that all foods are clean (Rom. 14:14, 20) since a new era of redemptive history has dawned. In other words, Paul sides theologically with the strong in the argument, believing that all foods are clean. He is concerned, however, that the strong avoid injuring and damaging the weak. The strong must respect the opinions of the weak (Rom. 14:1) and avoid arguments with them. Apparently the weak were not insisting that food laws and the observance of days were necessary for salvation, for if that were the case they would be proclaiming another gospel (cf. Gal. 1:8-9; 2:3-5; 4:10; 5:2-6), and Paul would not tolerate their viewpoint. Probably the weak believed that one would be a stronger Christian if one kept food laws and observed days. The danger for the weak was that they would judge the strong (Rom. 14:3-4), and the danger for the strong was that they would de­spise the weak (Rom. 14:3, 10). In any case, the strong seem to have had the upper hand in the Roman congregations, for Paul was particularly concerned that they not damage the weak. 

Nevertheless, a crucial point must not be overlooked. Even though Paul watches out for the consciences of the weak, he holds the viewpoint of the strong on both food laws and days. John Barclay rightly argues that Paul subtly (or not so discreetly!) undermines the theological standpoint of the weak since he argues that what one eats and what days one observes are a matter of no concern.[1] The Old Testament, on the other hand, is clear on the matter. The foods one eats and the days one observes are ordained by God. He has given clear commands on both of these issues. Hence, Paul's argument is that such laws are no longer valid since believers are not under the Mosaic covenant. Indeed, the freedom to believe that all days are alike surely includes the Sabbath, for the Sabbath naturally would spring to the mind of Jewish readers since they kept the Sabbath weekly. 

Paul has no quarrel with those who desire to set aside the Sabbath as a special day, as long as they do not require it for salvation or insist that other believers agree with them. Those who esteem the Sabbath as a special day are to be honored for their point of view and should not be despised or ridiculed. Others, however, consider every day to be the same. They do not think that any day is more special than another. Those who think this way are not to be judged as unspiritual. Indeed, there is no doubt that Paul held this opinion, since he was strong in faith instead of being weak. It is crucial to notice what is being said here. If the notion that every day of the week is the same is accept­able, and if it is Paul's opinion as well, then it follows that Sabbath regulations are no longer binding. The strong must not impose their convictions on the weak and should be charitable to those who hold a different opinion, but Paul clearly has undermined the authority of the Sabbath in principle, for he does not care whether someone observes one day as special. He leaves it entirely up to one's personal opinion. But if the Sabbath of the Old Testament were still in force, Paul could never say this, for the Old Testament makes incredibly strong statements about those who violate the Sabbath, and the death penalty is even required in some instances. Paul is living under a different dispensa­tion, that is, a different covenant, for now he says it does not matter whether one observes one day out of seven as a Sabbath. 

Some argue against what is defended here by appealing to the creation order. As noted above, the Sabbath for Israel is patterned after God's creation of the world in seven days. What is instructive, however, is that the New Tes­tament never appeals to Creation to defend the Sabbath. Jesus appealed to the creation order to support his view that marriage is between one man and one woman for life (Mark 10:2-12). Paul grounded his opposition to women teaching or exercising authority over men in the creation order (1 Tim. 2:12-13), and homosexuality is prohibited because it is contrary to nature (Rom. 1:26-27), in essence, to God's intention when he created men and women. Similarly, those who ban believers from eating certain foods and from mar­riage are wrong because both food and marriage are rooted in God's good creation (1 Tim. 4:3-5). We see nothing similar with the Sabbath. Never does the New Testament ground it in the created order. Instead, we have very clear verses that say it is a "shadow" and that it does not matter whether believers observe it. So, how do we explain the appeal to creation with reference to the Sabbath? It is probably best to see creation as ananalogy instead of as a ground. The Sabbath was the sign of the Mosaic covenant, and since the cov­enant has passed away, so has the covenant sign. 

Now it does not follow from this that the Sabbath has no significance for believers. It is a shadow, as Paul said, of the substance that is now ours in Christ. The Sabbath's role as a shadow is best explicated by Hebrews, even if Hebrews does not use the word for "shadow" in terms of the Sabbath. The author of Hebrews sees the Sabbath as foreshadowing the eschatological rest of the people of God (Heb. 4:1-10). A "Sabbath rest" still awaits God's people (v. 9), and it will be fulfilled on the final day when believers rest from earthly labors. The Sabbath, then, points to the final rest of the people of God. But since there is an already-but-not-yet character to what Hebrews says about rest, should believers continue to practice the Sabbath as long as they are in the not-yet?[2] I would answer in the negative, for the evidence we have in the New Testament points in the contrary direction. We remember that the Sab­bath is placed together with food laws and new moons and Passover in Colos­sians 2:16, but there is no reason to think that we should observe food laws, Passover, and new moons before the consummation. Paul's argument is that believers now belong to the age to come and the requirements of the old cov­enant are no longer binding. 

Does the Lord's Day, that is, Christians worshiping on the first day of the week, constitute a fulfillment of the Sabbath? The references to the Lord's Day in the New Testament are sparse. In Troas believers gathered "on the first day of the week...to break bread" and they heard a long message from Paul (Acts 20:7). Paul commands the Corinthians to set aside money for the poor "on the first day of every week" (1 Cor. 16:2). John heard a loud voice speaking to him "on the Lord's day" (Rev. 1:10). These scattered hints suggest that the early Christians at some point began to worship on the first day of the week. The practice probably has its roots in the resurrection of Jesus, for he appeared to his disciples "the first day of the week" (John 20:19). All the Synoptics emphasize that Jesus rose on the first day of the week, i.e., Sunday: "very early on the first day of the week" (Mark 16:2; cf. Matt. 28:1; Luke 24:1). The fact that each of the Gospels stresses that Jesus was raised on the first day of the week is striking. But we have no indication that the Lord's Day func­tions as a fulfillment of the Sabbath. It is likely that gathering together on the Lord's Day stems from the earliest church, for we see no debate on the issue in church history, which is quite unlikely if the practice originated in Gentile churches outside Israel. By way of contrast, we think of the intense debate in the first few centuries on the date of Easter. No such debate exists regarding the Lord's Day. 

The early roots of the Lord's Day are verified by the universal practice of the Lord's Day in Gentile churches in the second century.[3] It is not surprising that many Jewish Christians continued to observe the Sabbath as well. One segment of the Ebionites practiced the Lord's Day and the Sabbath. Their ob­servance of both is instructive, for it shows that the Lord's Day was not viewed as the fulfillment of the Sabbath but as a separate day. 

Most of the early church fathers did not practice or defend literal Sab­bath observance (cf.Diognetus 4:1) but interpreted the Sabbath eschatologi­cally and spiritually. They did not see the Lord's Day as a replacement of the Sabbath but as a unique day. For instance, in the Epistle of Barnabas, the Sab­baths of Israel are contrasted with "the eighth day" (15:8), and the latter is described as "a beginning of another world." Barnabas says that "we keep the eighth day" (which is Sunday), for it is "the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead" (15:9). The Lord's Day was not viewed as a day in which be­lievers abstained from work, as was the case with the Sabbath. Instead, it was a day in which most believers were required to work, but they took time in the day to meet together in order to worship the Lord.[4] The contrast between the Sabbath and the Lord's Day is clear in Ignatius, when he says, "If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death" (To the Magnesians 9:1). Ignatius, writing about a.d. 110, specifically contrasts the Sabbath with the Lord's Day, showing that he did not believe the latter replaced the former.[5] Bauckham argues that the idea that the Lord's day replaced the Sabbath is post-Constantinian. Luther saw rest as necessary but did not tie it to Sunday.[6] A stricter interpretation of the Sabbath became more common with the Puritans, along with the Seventh-Day Baptists and later the Seventh-Day Adventists.[7] 

SUMMARY 

Believers are not obligated to observe the Sabbath. The Sabbath was the sign of the Mosaic covenant. The Mosaic covenant and the Sabbath as the covenant sign are no longer applicable now that the new covenant of Jesus Christ has come. Believers are called upon to honor and respect those who think the Sabbath is still mandatory for believers. But if one argues that the Sabbath is required for salvation, such a teaching is contrary to the gospel and should be resisted forcefully. In any case, Paul makes it clear in both Romans 14:5 and Colossians 2:16-17 that the Sabbath has passed away now that Christ has come. It is wise naturally for believers to rest, and hence one principle that could be derived from the Sabbath is that believers should regularly rest. But the New Testament does not specify when that rest should take place, nor does it set forth a period of time when that rest should occur. We must remember that the early Christians were required to work on Sundays. They worshiped the Lord on the Lord's Day, the day of Jesus' resurrection, but the early Christians did not believe the Lord's Day fulfilled or replaced the Sab­bath. The Sabbath pointed toward eschatological rest in Christ, which be­lievers enjoy in part now and will enjoy fully on the Last Day. 

REFLECTION QUESTIONS 

1. What is the strongest argument for continued observance of the Sabbath? 

2. What evidence in Paul suggests that the Sabbath is no longer required? 

3. How does Hebrews contribute to our theology of the Sabbath? 

4. What is the relationship between the Sabbath and the Lord's Day? 

5. What is your view on observing the Sabbath today? 

__________

Footnotes:

1. John M. G. Barclay, "'Do We Undermine the Law?' A Study of Romans 14.1-15.6," in Paul and the Mosaic Law, WUNT 89 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 287-308. 

2. So Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., "A Sabbath Rest Still Awaits the People of God," in Pressing To­ward the Mark: Essays Commemorating Fifty Years of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, ed. Charles G. Dennison and Richard C. Gamble (Philadelphia: The Committee for the Historian of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 1986), 33-51. Gaffin argues that the rest is only eschatological. I support Andrew Lincoln's view that it is of an already-but-not-yet character (Andrew T. Lincoln, "Sabbath, Rest, and Eschatology in the New Testament," in From Sabbath to Lord's Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation, ed. D. A. Carson [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982], 197-220). 

3. For a detailed discussion of some of the issues raised here, see R. J. Bauckham, "The Lord's Day," in From Sabbath to Lord's Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation, ed. D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 221-50; idem, "Sabbath and Sunday in the Post-Apostolic Church," in From Sabbath to Lord's Day, 257-69. 

4. So Bauckham, "Sabbath and Sunday in the Post-Apostolic Church," 274. 

5. Cf. the concluding comments of Bauckham, "The Lord's Day," 240. 

6. Martin Luther, "How Christians Should Regard Moses," in Luther's Works, vol. 35, Word and Sacrament, ed. Helmut T. Lehmann (general editor) and E. Theodore Bachman (Phil­adelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960), 165. 

7. Bauckham's survey of history is immensely valuable. See Bauckham, "Sabbath and Sunday in the Post-Apostolic Church," 251-98; idem, "Sabbath and Sunday in the Medieval Church in the West," in From Sabbath to Lord's Day, 299-309; idem, "Sabbath and Sunday in the Protestant Tradition," in From Sabbath to Lord's Day, 311-41.  

Copyright 2010 Thomas R. Schreiner. 
Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Kregel Publications
P.O. Box 2607
Grand Rapids, MI 49503

4 Timeless Resolutions

“Oh brother, not another New Year resolutions article.”

Yes, sorry to disappoint. This would be another resolution article. But, this one may be different in comparison to others….key word “maybe”. I know some people have issues with “New Year resolutions”. Some people believe resolutions are a waste of time because the individual never sees it through or why the individual waits ‘til New Years, why not just start the resolution right when you realize it. While there are others who think New Year resolutions are an opportunity for a fresh start in some areas at the beginning of a new year. These see it more as being annually opportunistic.

What if I told you that the Bible endorsed New Year resolutions? Hmmm.

It doesn’t. However, the Bible does endorse making resolutions (i.e. making a firm decision to do something or not do something). It just doesn’t specify a particular point of time of when to start. So, if you choose to make and start your resolution at the beginning of the New Year, that’s cool. If you choose to make and start your resolution right now, or on February 22^nd, or June 5^th, or whenever, that’s cool too. Whatever your view is of New Year resolutions, we all can agree that making resolutions aren’t a bad thing, unless it’s a resolution towards something sinful or ungodly.

Resolutions can be pretty much anything: health, fitness, finances, more discipline, time management, breaking bad habits, etc. And then there’s Apostle Peter’s. Neatly tucked away in Peter’s first epistle is one rich verse with four timeless principles every believer should make as resolutions each year. They’re not your typical resolutions, though they read like resolutions. They will never get old, and they will influence other areas of our life. These four are worthy resolutions:

“Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.” (1Pet. 2:17)

Honor all people – Make a resolution to show respect to everyone, treat all with value. The context does not imply that the honor we show is only to those whom we believe deserve it or those who appear honorable, but to all people.
          One would think honoring all people would be second nature for Christians. Sadly, it’s not. Christians are not known for honoring all people. We’re not even good at showing respect to one another. That’s a hard reality to admit, and many may disagree with me. But let’s imagine if we followed this simple principle. Imagine if we treated everyone with respect and value. How many more people would experience the love of Christ? What kind of further impact could we have in Christ name? How stronger would our relationships be? How better a legacy would we leave for the upcoming generations? Every human is an image-bearer of God. Therefore we are to respect and value them as such.

Love the brotherhood – Make a resolution to love the brethren. Love here is an action. We are to actively love one another just as Christ loves us, which includes the first principle of honoring one another as well.
         You can’t say you love God and not love His Body. You can’t say you honor God and despise His image in those He redeemed. That’s oxymoronic (1Jn. 2:9-11; 3:10-18; 4:7-8). Yes there are times where we drive each other crazy, and get on each other’s nerves. We’re sinners, we’re still incomplete. But that’s not an excuse to ignore Christ’s command to love one another (Jn. 13:34). Our love for one another is one of our greatest witnesses of Christ to the world (Jn. 13:35; 17:23). How more unified would the Church be if we sought to actually love the brotherhood and not just say we do? Therefore, go out of your way to extend yourself and seek to actively love your brethren from different churches and denominations, different theological positions, different races and nationalities, and so on. Love the brotherhood so that others can come to know the Greatest Lover of our souls!

Fear God – Make a resolution to revere God. In context this term “fear” used here (Gr. phobeisthe) is conveying high esteem and humble submission. Peter is instructing us to highly esteem and humbly submit to God.
          This principle is the motivating force behind all the others. If we highly esteem and humbly submit to God we’ll honor all people, love the brotherhood, and honor our governing authorities. If we don’t have a healthy fear of God, then we will not have a healthy view of obedience and pleasing God. If we don’t have a healthy fear of God, then we will not have a healthy view of local church life and greater unity in the Body of Christ. If we don’t have a healthy fear of God, then we will not have a healthy view of personal holistic growth and evangelism. Revering God is the same as loving God. You can’t say you do one and not the other, just like you can’t say you love God and not obey Him (Jn. 14:15, 21, 23-24). If we are God fearing, then we’ll be God revealing.

Honor the king – Make a resolution to respect your governing authorities. This would also take in account respecting the governing laws of your land.
          Many times governing authorities get a bad rap. Some times it is because of their own doing. Other times it could be guilty by association or guilty by generalization. Regardless to what kind of person the governing authority may be, we’re instructed to respect and submit to them so long as it’s not in opposition to God’s law. Mind you, this principle came during a time when the Romans were persecuting Christians and an emperor who in a few years would burn Christians to death. If they were instructed with this, we have no excuse. We respect the governing authorities of the land and their laws out of respect and submission to the Governing Authority of all Creation and His laws.

What I tell you, not your typical resolutions, but very much influential. Are these not resolutions worth keeping? I think they are. And they’re Bible-endorsed. You can start these resolutions in the New Year or whenever you realize you need to tighten up in these areas throughout the year. Not only will these resolutions help us grow, but they’ll also help us to be more winsome for Christ. I believe if we keep these four resolutions we’ll see a considerable difference each year and so will others.

12/29/12

The Newtown Tragedy: A Reflection & A Response

I woke up on Friday morning, December 14^th, to the sounds of my wife gasping as she found out that an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut had been shot up. For the next several hours we sat, mouths open, watching the news.

We cried.

We were angry.

We vented.

We thought of that being our children.

We thought of the parents.

We saw for the first time in our lifetime a President cry on national TV.

We prayed.

We told our children, and then hugged them tight.

The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting is not the first school shooting, nor will it be the last. It is not the first national tragedy, nor will it be the last. There are mass murders of children, young folk, and innocent bystanders everyday in US low-income neighborhoods and in others countries. The only difference is they don’t get as much publicity as this recent tragedy. But that is not a reason to minimalize the Newtown tragedy. Twenty young lives were lost. Eight adult lives were lost (school staff, the gunman, and his mother). This is ample enough reason to be upset and saddened.

The victims and their families

It’s hard to think of dead children. Well, at least it is for me. I have three children. My two youngest are 7 and 5. That’s around the same ages of the kids who died at Sandy Hook Elementary. Thinking of never seeing my kids again makes my heart hurt. I can feel the pain deep in my chest. My children are my offspring. They are mini-mes. So I can only imagine what those parents must be going through. Or to lose my wife, who went to work only never to return. My state of shock and sense of loss would be paralyzing. Next to Jesus, my wife is my life. She is my rib. So I can only imagine what the spouses must be enduring. The pain.

Loss is the greatest knock-the-wind-out-of-your-chest blow. Loss has a way of K-O’ing us. Why? Because when God created us, He hardwired us for relationships and purpose (Gen. 1:26-27; 2:15, 18). Therefore, losing something we dearly love and dearly value never to have it again is the hardest thing for human beings to cope with. It’s the reason why depression and anxiety are so common and deadly. We have a hard time dealing with loss or the thought of loss. All of us then can empathize with these families, and we should. So weep with them and grieve with them. But let not their loss be in vain. Cherish the treasures that matter most: faith, family, and friends. And let not the heroism of the teachers and staff to put others before themselves be in vain. Fight selflessly for what matters most. Let us keep that in mind.

Reflection of a villain

I was humbled. This tragedy is a reminder for us…a reminder for me. As much as we may not want to admit it, this tragedy is nothing more than another confirmation of how mankind’s depravity has no limits. John Piper wrote about this as well,

“…the murders of Newtown are a warning to me — and you. Not a warning to see our schools as defenseless, but to see our souls as depraved. To see our need for a Savior. To humble ourselves in repentance for the God-diminishing bitterness of our hearts. To turn to Christ in desperate need, and to treasure his forgiveness, his transforming, and his friendship.”

If any of us believe that we are somehow different than Adam Lanza (the shooter), we have lost sight of our own depravity. If we remove Jesus from our life, we are no different. All we have to do is read passages like Ephesians 2:1-3, Titus 3:3, Colossians 3:5-9, and Galatians 5:19-21.

I can say personally I was Adam Lanza before Jesus rescued me. I murdered innocent lives with abortion, rape, drug dealing, and street violence…oh and I can’t forget the lives I’ve took with my selfishness, arrogance, deception, rage, and manipulation. I took innocence. I corrupted young minds. I terrorized families. I abused women and children. Adam Lanza is nothing more than a mirror of my old self. And that shook me, because my egregious sins have never been publicized like his. The lives I destroyed have never been nationally prayed for or comforted or mourned. I caused Newtown like tragedies for 16 years, and that’s just before Jesus. That’s not counting tragedies I’ve caused bearing the name of Christ. This is why I was humbled.

What about you? How many tragedies are accredited to your sin and selfishness? Have you forgotten your reflection as a villain before Christ and at times since being in Christ?

What can we do?

The Apostle Peter told us that “the end of all things is at hand; therefore be serious and watchful in your prayers” (1Pet. 4:7, NKJV). We have to pray saints! Pray for those affected by the Sandy Hook school shooting. They need it. But also pray for everyone affected by sin and its effects. The voiceless. The unattended. The disadvantaged. And so on. My wife has a saying, “There is no such thing as a victimless sin.” How true! Sin rampages all of us in some way or another. And as we continue to get closer to “the end of all things”, sin will rampage all the more. Therefore, be serious and watchful in your prayers. Beseech the God of all Creation and watch Him work.

Peter doesn’t end his point with a call to only be intentional in prayer. He ends it with a call to be intentional in love. 

“And above all things have fervent love for one another, for ‘love will cover a multitude of sins.’” (1Pet. 4:8, NKJV)

Our greatest witness to a depraved and dying world is exhibiting God’s fervent, life-giving, sacrificial, undeserving love (Luke 6:27-36). We are to love the victims and the perpetrators. We are to love the abused and the abusers. We are to love sinners and saints. Why? Because we all were once victims, perps, abused, abusers, and sinners guilty before God, and it was His fervent, life-giving, sacrificial, undeserving love that drew us to Himself. Thus, it will be His love through us that will draw another to Himself. It will be His love through us that will help heal and mend the hurt and the broken. It will be His love through us that will help soften the hard-hearted, help settle the angry, help accept and embrace the misunderstood, help possibly rescue another Adam Lanza, or Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (shooters of Columbine), or Seung-Hui Cho (the Virginia Tech shooter). His love rescued me, and I was a killer before these killers.

We’ve all been tossed around, world flipped upside down from the rampages of sin and selfishness---whether that be of our own doing or someone else’s. And those of us who are born-again, who’ve been rescued from sin’s penalty and freed from sin’s enslavement, we therefore have also experienced the comfort of God. Hence, the reason why Paul writes in 2Corinthians 1:3-4 (NLT),

“All praise to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is our merciful Father and the source of all comfort. He comforts us in all our troubles so that we can comfort others. When they are troubled, we will be able to give them the same comfort God has given us.”

As Christians, we’ve been on both sides of tragedies, the pain and the comfort! So we can come alongside those who are victimized and visited with tragedies and flood them with the same comfort we received from God. We can shower them with the fruit of the Spirit---which should sum up our loving manner of interaction, demeanor, and posture when around them. We can, at the right time and in a gentle and gracious manner, share with them the all-satisfying and eternal joy of the Good News of Jesus Christ!

Finally, even though we are not wrong to desire justice to be served when an injustice is present, we cannot forget to remember that our sin and injustices require justice as well. So as God forgave us of ours, so are we to forgive others of theirs. It’s not easy, but it is beneficial to all involved and a reflection of our Savior (and not the old villain in us). We have to forgive Adam Lanza, and any other Adam Lanza’s in our life too.

I hope my reflection and response will be of some help in some way during this time.

“The Lord is a safe place for the oppressed—a safe place in difficult times. Those who know your name trust you because you have not abandoned any who seek you, Lord.” (Ps. 9:9-10, CEB) 

“¹⁸ …God has given us this task of reconciling people to him. ¹⁹ For God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, no longer counting people’s sins against them. And he gave us this wonderful message of reconciliation.²⁰ So we are Christ’s ambassadors; God is making his appeal through us. We speak for Christ when we plead, “Come back to God!”” (2Cor. 5:18-20, NLT) 

12/19/12