Thursday, March 17, 2016

The Lord's Prayer #7 - Lead Us Not Into Temptation, But Deliever Us From Evil

by Pastor Eric Chang, 
Here the prayer in Matthew 6:13, in fact, is one which you have so often uttered: “And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil.” What does that mean? We look today then at the sixth and the seventh lines in the Lord’s Prayer, and we ask: Just what does it mean?
Concerning The Conclusion Of The Lord’s Prayer
Now, I should mention before I go on that the Lord’s Prayer, as the Lord Jesus teaches it, concludes at this point. But you are used to hearing the Lord’s Prayer with the conclusion: “For Yours is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory”. [Matthew 6:13b-KJV] You will notice that there is no such conclusion in the New Testament, and perhaps you wonder why this is so. The reason is simply this: that in the prayer of the Jews, there were two ways of concluding a prayer. One of these was an open conclusion, and the other a closed one. Here in the NT, in the Lord’s teaching, we have this prayer which is left open; there is no seal as a closing. You must put your own seal to it, [that is] what the Jews called “the hatima”, the seal. And so, this was an open prayer, that is, it did not conclude at that point. You had to go on. You could go on and conclude the prayer just as the Holy Spirit led you to pray on. So, the prayer, really, puts all the main substance there, but the conclusion is yours to formulate.

I said also right at the start that the Lord’s Prayer was not meant to be simply repeated automatically, but it was to tell us what are the main items, the most important things that we have to pray for. And then, at the close of that, you conclude as the Holy Spirit leads you to conclude, for all prayer must be prayed in the Spirit if it is to be true prayer. So, you conclude the prayer according to your own words.

The question [then] is: How is it that we have today that the prayer usually concludes with the words: “Yours is the kingdom, the power and the glory”? How is that so? Quite simply, that by the end of the First Century, the church had already added on its own conclusion, because the church felt that a prayer should not end with the word ‘evil’, i.e., “...deliver us from evil”. That does not seem to be a good way to conclude a prayer. And so, they went on and added the words: “Yours is the kingdom, the power and the glory.”

Of course, at first, it was not quite like this. In the Didache; which is the teaching, a very early Christian book that we still have today which dates from the end of the First Century, or in its present form, the Second Century, the words conclude with: “Yours is the power and the glory”; it does not have “Yours is the kingdom”. But later on, the words “Yours is the kingdom” was also added on. 

All these words come actually from a summary of 1 Chron. 29:11-13. If you look at that prayer, you will see, there the whole idea of “Thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory” comes. So, the church then used the idea of that prayer as the conclusion [to the Lord’s Prayer] and summarized it in this way.

Avoid Becoming Fossilized With Rituals And Formalities In Christian Life

I mention this because here is an important lesson. It shows that in the Christian life, there is a tendency and a danger to formalize things. I am worried about the ‘formalizing’ of the Christian life. The Christian life must always remain flexible and free. It must not be frozen into rituals and into formalities. The Christian life must always remain free and flexible. That is why I worry when things begin to follow a very set pattern, when we begin to get into a rut, and are stuck in that rut. For example, you notice immediately that at every Communion, it tends to be always the same Scripture passage that is read, the same pattern is repeated, without any kind of deviation. It becomes the same routine. Now, where does the routine come from? Certainly it is not from the Bible. The Bible does not give us this kind of routine. But somebody started the routine and other people just keep following, which shows you the danger of all Christian life is the danger of becoming fossilized, of losing the original flexibility. In fact, in Liverpool I somehow surprised the people by serving the wine first before the bread. They came to me and said, “We thought the bread comes first!” Why should you think the bread comes first? Who told you the bread must come first? In fact, when you look at Luke, the order is in fact reversed. So, we find that there is this danger in all Christian life to settle into a fixed pattern.

When we pray, you will notice that some people pray always according to a fixed pattern. You could almost predict the prayer. It is going to be like this. It is going to come like this. It even gets so bad that some preachers fall into the same rut. Every time, you can predict exactly the sort of message that is going to come next week. It is one of the five texts in five messages; it is going to be either no. 1 or no. 2 or no. 3. So, if he starts reading out his text, [you would know]. I knew a preacher whom I could predict exactly what he was going to preach that Sunday the moment he read his text because I knew that that text would fit into one of these five ruts. He was completely stuck in a rut that it always tended to be the same sort-of-formalized message.

It is important in the Christian life always to remain flexible. As soon as you begin to feel that you are being fossilized, you are beginning to repeat a dead pattern, change it! Whatever you do, just change it. Change the pattern. Just deliberately change it to learn to be flexible. If you are always used to praying in one position, just change it. Pray in another position. If you are always used to following a dead, rigid pattern, just change it, even if it is very good at that time, change it for one or two days, so that you do not become fossilized.

So we must see God’s wisdom in delivering us from falling into what we may call something that is a habitual, traditional, ritualized prayer. You can see what happens in the Catholic Church, for example. Any church with a long tradition has a way of falling into the rut. They just do things week by week, by sheer repetition. It is so absolutely boring. The same danger applies to the Church of England. 

You notice, and I have seen people who have done this in the Church of England, they do not have to look at the prayer book. They stand there and just mutter whatever comes next. They know exactly what is going to come next. They have said it a thousand times since they were knee-high to a grasshopper. You do not need to use your heart, you do not need to use your mind, you just stand there and behave like a religious robot.

So, we see that Jesus wants us to avoid precisely that danger; He wants us to be flexible, to be different. I think it is so good that in the churches we have different sorts of churches. I find it very refreshing sometimes to go to a Brethren meeting. It is very different. Everything is different. They have great weaknesses. Every system has very great weaknesses. The Brethren system has a great weakness; the lack of teaching; like so many churches, because nobody is trained to teach; nobody really knows what to teach or how to teach. And so, they fall into the same rut in due time.

But we must see that there is value in all the different forms of worship. The different forms of worship prove to us the flexibility of the Christian life. It is itself the evidence that there is no one form that has to be right. Every form is good. You sometimes find the Anglican worship helpful. If it helps you, just go ahead to an Anglican worship. In fact it may help you, so long as you do not begin to find you are falling into that rut again. Now this is one point.
Pray In The Spirit - Learn To Be Open To The Holy Spirit’s Guidance
Now, let us come and ask the question: Having seen that the Lord did not give us a fixed conclusion, remember then: pray always from the heart, pray in the spirit. There is no true prayer that is not prayed in the spirit. What does it mean to “pray in the spirit”? To pray in the spirit is to pray in such a way by which the Holy Spirit is the One guiding you in prayer. We will see that in Romans Chapter 8, where even the Apostle Paul says, “We don’t know what to pray for, and we do not know how to pray for anything, as we ought to pray,” [v26] and so the Holy Spirit enables us; guides us on.

This is something very important in prayer that I would like to share, which is connected with the fact the Lord leaves the prayer open. That is to say, when you pray, learn to be open. And that means let the Holy Spirit move you in prayer. That is to say, prayer is a living work, a fellowship, a living operation, a co-operation, you might say, with the Holy Spirit, in which you operate and the Holy Spirit is praying with you. That is what Romans Chapter 8 tells us, “The Holy Spirit utters groanings that we are unable to utter,” prays with us.

So our prayer must always be open. That is to say, never stick [to a pattern], i.e., you must not follow a pattern. It must always be: “Lord, what do You want me to pray?” Then you will find that the Holy Spirit will lead you to pray for some particular person that, left to yourself, you will not even have thought about. Suddenly the Lord says, “Pray for this person,” and you pray for this person. The Lord may say, “Pray for that person”, and you pray for that person. You are flexible. You are ready to move. You do not know which person is in need at any particular time. If you just followed a fixed pattern, you would never pray for the person at the right time, even though you may pray for him, but not at the right time. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are always open to pray. Suddenly you will find, “I don’t know why I’m praying for this person,” but you suddenly find that the Spirit is leading you to pray and the reason He leads you to pray is because your spirit is open. Suddenly you may just find you want to worship God; you want to thank Him; you want to praise Him. This means that prayer is part of the Christian life, the ‘openness’ of the Christian life. Just as the Lord Jesus left the prayer open, so our whole Christian life must be open to God.
“Lead Us Not into Temptation” - A Matter Of Survival In The Christian Life
Now we come to this question of the Lord’s Prayer: “...lead us not into temptation”. The question is: What exactly does this mean? What does it mean to say, “...lead us not into temptation”? What are we praying? As I have said before, so many times I have asked Christians, “What is it that you pray when you ask these things?” They do not know what they are praying for. What is the use of repeating the Lord’s Prayer when you do not even know what it means? Now think how many times in the past month or past years you have prayed the Lord’s Prayer. What for? You pray a prayer the meaning of which you do not even know!

What does it mean then also here to say, “...lead us not into temptation”? I tell you right now, from the start, that we are dealing in this prayer with something extremely important, which we can summarize in one word, which is this: the survival of the Christian. There is no theme more important than this, and I wonder again why it is so seldom preached. The fact is that no one has been in the church for very long without realizing that many Christians simply do not survive. They have become Christians at one stage or another. They have actually been baptized. They have made a profession of faith and no one will doubt that it was genuine at the time it was made. But they do not survive!

Look, I have been in the Lord’s work for quite a while and the casualty rate that I have seen in some churches is really something. They go down by the dozens and by the hundreds, not by the ones and twos. And then, within ten years or so, you will find that the original people in the church who were once active Christians, bible study group leaders, and whatever they were, they have fallen by the wayside; they have spiritually collapsed. They are gone. They have been destroyed by the power and the skill of the enemy.

But nobody, of course, thought it right to warn them of these dangers because there was some doctrine going around that nobody ever falls away. In the face of solid, hard facts, we are being told that such things do not happen. I just do not understand what is going on in the church sometimes. I do not understand when we look at solid facts, and say, “No, it doesn’t happen,” or “These people never became Christians in the first place.” But they did become Christians, because I was there in some cases; I saw that. You say, “Well, you can’t see what goes on in their hearts.” I have no reason to doubt their sincerity, any more than I have reason to doubt the sincerity of any other Christian. Why should we think that they were lying when they committed their lives to Christ in the first place?

So we are dealing with this subject of survival, this matter of temptation, the matter of evil. Let nobody deceive you, brothers and sisters. My prayer is that in this church people do not collapse. Because we have been a bit aware of this danger - and I have warned the brothers and sisters in Liverpool - our collapse rate is very, very low in Liverpool, thanks be to God, compared to the collapse rate, the casualty rate in some churches, which really is frightful. Multitudes of people that were baptized in a church that I know of in London, England, i.e., the casualty rate and the fallout rate is so high that I wonder whether even 20% of those who came to the Lord are still Christians today.

The most dangerous thing is that these people will go out and say, “Well, once, I used to be a Christian.” How more can God’s name be dishonored than when people say, “I used to be a Christian, but I am not a Christian anymore!” These kinds of people do the most damage to the church and the fault lies with the church. They have not been warned, as I say.

I thank God that in Liverpool our fallout rate is so low. I think it is right to say that it is very close to zero. I think that out of 30 people who were baptized, taking a figure that I have come to within a period of time, we know of only one who has had a relative backsliding, and two or three others who are wavering on the borderline. But a total collapse I am not sure that we have one yet, and I hope it will never come. It is because we are on the alert! We know the danger and we warn people of the danger, because the Word of God warns us. Do not rest on some phony doctrine that has no Biblical foundation, because you are going to pay for it with your soul, and that kind of price is too high to pay. 

We must have ‘assurance’, but an ‘assurance’ that Romans Chapter 8 tells us about, that comes from the Holy Spirit, not from alleged doctrine, but it is an ‘assurance’ that comes from the witness of the Holy Spirit within you. That is the only kind of assurance that Scripture allows us to have.
Temptation Is Common To Man - How Can We Pray Not To Be Tempted?
Coming back then to this precise matter of exposition, what exactly does this mean then when we pray, “Lead me not into temptation”? What exactly is the Lord saying to us? In 1 Cor. 10:13, a well-known verse, the Apostle Paul says this: “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man,” and “God... will with the temptation make (for you) a way (of) escape”. [KJV] If this is so, to ask “Lead me not into temptation” must be an utter impossibility because the Apostle Paul says explicitly in 1 Cor. 10:13 that temptation is common to man; it is the very nature of this world. It is because of the forces of evil in this world that you are bound to be tempted all the time. This is a fact of life. You cannot have gone past the last week without having been tempted many times. I have been tempted. Certainly, you must have been tempted, unless I live in a different world from yours. You see, the enemy is all around. 

The Apostle Paul says in Ephesians Chapter 6, “we wrestle... against principalities (and) powers” [v12] - spiritual powers designed to destroy you. Their intention is to destroy you. They are there working with the intention and the desire to destroy you!

Thus, we are being tempted all the time. That is what Paul is saying. And we know what he says is true from experience, when he is saying that temptation is common to everyone. You have not suffered any temptation which other people have not suffered; they all suffered the same things that you suffered. You endure the same things which they do. It is common to man. It is a common experience of man. Therefore he goes on to say, “But God will make a way out for you...”. Because you are His child, He is going to protect you. He will work a way out for you, provided, of course, you do your part following Him. He works a way out, you follow behind Him; otherwise, you stay where you are! But if that is so, how can we make any sense to pray, “Lead me not into temptation”, when temptation is all around me. I am already in temptation. I am in a world that is full of temptation. So what do you think? How do you understand this?
We Must Not Ask For Temptations Or Trials To Come
The first thing we can observe right away as to what it means not to be led into temptation. The first conclusion we can draw is this: We must never ask for trouble. We must never ask for temptations to come or trials to come. On this point I think I have warned some of you before. When you pray, remember this: you are talking to the Living God. If you ask for something, you are going to get it. So, be careful what you ask for, and you never know what you are asking for.

There are some Christians, who, because they think their life is too easy, ask for trouble. They ask for trials and for temptations. They think that by fighting temptation, they will get stronger. Let me tell you this: do not ask for more trouble than you have already got. Let me tell you this: there will be always enough temptation to keep you busy. I do not understand those people who do not think they have enough problems to cope with, so they say, “Lord, give me more problems. I’m having it too easy now. Give me a rough time. Smash me! Beat me! Crush me! Mold me!” My, oh my! Every time I think of those prayers, it just makes me shake with fear. That is one prayer I dare not ever pray. And some people think it is such a pious prayer: “Lord, just break me up.” Huh! If you asked for it, then do not moan when it comes. The strange thing is that once the Lord starts breaking them up, they say, “Hey, Lord, what are You doing?” Obviously, they do not believe that God actually hears and answers prayer. Why do you ask for the things you do not believe in?

This is not only the problem with Christians today. I found this is the same thing with early Christians. We must not idealize them too much; they also had their faults. You notice that case in Acts; I will never forget that; they prayed that the Lord would deliver Peter from prison. They said, “Lord, deliver him from prison. With Your great power and might, bring him out!” And the Lord did! Peter was standing in front of the door; the girl opened the door; took one look and closed it quickly, and said, “It can’t be him!” Do you know what the girl said to the others after she opened the door? She said, “I just saw Peter, or rather, I saw his angel. I think I saw his ghost just now.” They said, “Where?” She said, “In front of the door!” They said, “You must be mad.” The same people who had been praying for Peter to be released from prison, when he was released, would not believe it! So, you see, brothers and sisters, God often answers us in spite of our little faith, our little belief. If God always answered us when we had mighty faith, we probably would never have a single answer to prayer. These Christians prayed for Peter’s release, and they got it! And they could not believe it when they got it, which shows that they did not really believe what God could do in the first place, isn’t it?

Thus, I say to you from the other point that you might say, “Lord, smash me, mold me, break me” and think, “Ah, God never does such things.” Well, why did you ask Him? And when He does it, you say, “Hey, hey, Lord, no, I did not ask for this. I did not mean it like this.” Well, what do you mean by the word ‘smash’? From what I understand the word ‘smash’ to mean, it means take a hammer and smash [something with] it! You asked for it. It is like cracking a nut. If it is a hard nut and you cannot crack it, you take a hammer and you smash it. Does the word ‘smash’ have any other meanings? If you asked to be smashed or mashed, maybe, then you are asking to be like mashed potatoes. So, be careful what you pray.

The first thing that we see from the Lord’s Prayer is this. The Lord is teaching us: “Don’t pray, ‘Lead me into temptation’” [as if to say], “Look, I am mighty and strong. I can take on the enemy. Just bring him on. I’ll twist the devil’s neck.” No, no! The Lord says, “Do not be foolish. Just pray this, ‘Lord, don’t lead me into temptation. I am weak, Lord.’” Recognize that the enemy is strong and you are weak. The Lord is strong, too. Sure! But the problem is not whether the Lord is strong; it is whether you are strong. Recognize that you are weak.
Temptation Is Designed To Destroy Us Spiritually
The second thing we need to learn, and learn well, and what too many Christians do not understand well enough, is the dangerous nature of temptation. Learn well the fact that the reason why we ask the Lord not to lead us into temptation is because temptation is exceedingly, exceedingly dangerous. It is not something to be fooled around with. It is not a training exercise. Temptation is designed to destroy you. The tempter is not there to give you some spiritual exercise; he is there to tear you apart, like a roaring lion. And so Peter says [1 Pet. 5:8], watch out, for your enemy, the devil, goes about like a roaring lion. A roaring lion will not come around to give you a show as in a circus; it has come to tear you apart. That is what its intention is. So, if you are asking for temptation, when you get into temptation, that is putting your head into the lion’s mouth; you are asking for trouble. Understand the exceedingly great danger of temptation. Temptation is there designed to destroy; it is designed to make sure, as far as the devil is able to do so, that you never enter into the Promised Land. That is exactly where the Israelites in the wilderness failed and perished. They never got to the Promised Land. They fell into temptation. They were there! They were really led towards the Promised Land, but because of their disobedience, they went into temptation, instead of into Promised Land. They perished in the wilderness. So, be careful. Understand the great danger of temptation. As Paul says in 1 Cor. 10:11, “These things were written for your warning.” As they perished in the wilderness, do you think you cannot perish in the wilderness? The enemy is exceedingly skillful and dangerous.

We saw at the conference in Trent, on one occasion we were talking about that. We mentioned the fact that Paul said, “We know the enemy.” Paul said, “We are not ignorant of the devil’s devices.” He is a skillful, intelligent, cunning enemy. But the way Christians go about, I can see that they do not even have a clue how skillful is the enemy they are up against. I once wrote down notes trying to predict what Satan would do in any given situation, and I was amazed just how accurate my predictions were. You see, in spiritual warfare, part of the whole purpose of war is to predict what the enemy will do next, so that you can counter him. That is Christian life. You have got to know, observe what the enemy is likely to do next, so that you can counter him. It is like a good chess player. You do not wait for the next person to move, and then you say, “Ah! Oh, I didn’t know you were going to do this!” And he says, “Checkmate!” and you are finished! You are there to try and think in several moves ahead. The better a chess player you are, the more moves you will think ahead, of what you are going to do and how you are going to control him. Now, if you do that in a game of chess, how much more in life, when it is a matter of death and life, when your whole spiritual survival is at stake!
The Enemy Always Attacks Us At Our Weakest Point
I have often been able, as I said, to predict what Satan will do next if he is going to attack. He is going to attack in that quarter, so I move our spiritual forces around to be ready, and sure enough, he comes in and attacks. The reason why I know he is going to attack there is because this is a very easy principle. He always attacks at your weakest point. It is a basic principle in military science that you do not attack the enemy where he is strong; you are going to attack him where he is weak. That is true of all warfare, whether it is in boxing or in judo or in all things. You do not attack him where he is strong; you attack him where he is weak. Satan would always look for the weak point. If you have a church, you observe and you will get to know, so-and-so is going to come into trouble, so-and-so is going to come into trouble, because these are the weak points in the church. Satan is going to attack through them. Time and again, of course, you do not have to be an expert, you do not have to be a genius to know that to be right. He attacks exactly at that point. And that is why, like a good boxer, like a good general, you are aware of where your weak positions are and you make special provision for it.

Thus, you must understand the danger of the enemy. The person who prays “Lead me not into temptation” is also the person who watches and prays that he does not fall into temptation. That is a boxer; he watches. He does not just pray. You have to pray and watch. Watch and pray! That is to say: you have your responsibility, and that is to watch, and God will do His part when you pray. That is to say prayer is not an excuse for carelessness. Prayer is not an excuse to be negligent and say, “Well, that is all God’s job, I can go around. I have prayed, so I have become bulletproof. When the enemy shoots me, nothing will happen.” The boxers who have tried that already [and said], “He is bulletproof” [saw that] it did not work. Obviously, this idea of being bulletproof does not work too well. The point here is this: you have got to watch, and God will do His part, you can be sure.

Again, as we saw a moment ago, all this shows to us that the question of spiritual survival is a very real one. Again I say to you, let no false teaching lead you, lull you into a sense of sleep, that you are secure: once saved, you are always saved. That kind of doctrine is neither scripturally founded nor founded on the basis of experience. Nothing has done the church so much disservice. It is designed to give assurance to Christians, but in fact proves their spiritual disaster. Assurance, I repeat one more time, comes only from the inner witness of the Holy Spirit, when the Spirit witnesses with your spirit that you are a child of God. And that only comes when you are walking with the Lord. You are never secure when you are not walking with God.
Two Kinds Of Temptation
Now we must press on with the question. You say, “Have we not yet answered your original question?” We have seen some of the meanings that can be derived from this. We have said already that we should not ask for temptation. We have seen that temptation is dangerous. All this is true. But you raised an objection right at the beginning by saying, “We are already in temptation; how then can we pray that we do not be led into it?” Here we come then to this next point and that is to understand the nature of temptation, the kind of temptation that Jesus is talking about here. There are two different kinds of temptation. And that is why, in understanding the Word of God, we must understand a word in all its aspects. If you understand only one aspect, you are going to be confused.

Temptation has two distinct meanings both in the teaching of the Lord Jesus and in the teaching of the Apostle Paul, or in fact, throughout the New Testament. We must distinguish clearly between these two different aspects of temptation. The one kind of temptation is the one in which I quoted in 1 Corinthians 10:13. That shows you that when a person does not understand the Bible well, he thinks that he has seen a contradiction. The contradiction is in you, from your ignorance. There is no contradiction in the Bible; the contradiction is due to your lack of understanding.

So many people like to attack the church and say the Bible is full of contradictions. I met a man in London. I always remember that he was the one who put it to me so forcefully. He used to be a general in the Nationalist Army and he became a friend of mine. In one of our conversations; he was very friendly to me, by the way; he was not quarrelling with me or anything like this, he was very friendly — he said to me, “How come a person like you, a person that I regard as intelligent, believe in the Bible that is full of contradictions?” I said to him, “General Chan, where do you see the contradiction? Kindly quote me one single instance of a contradiction. Just one! I don’t ask you [for several though] you say that it is full of contradictions, which is a very big statement. Okay, I accept one example. Just give me one example.” He could not think of a single example. So, we can see that there is this kind of statement, that [the Bible] is full of contradictions. But sometimes we find what appears to be, on the face of it, a contradiction. (These contradictions I am better at finding than he is because I know the Bible, he does not; that is why he could not think of a single one to come up with. You have this kind of contradictions, but I can tie up Christians in these contradictions because, of course, I know where they are.) But the point here is this: there is a contradiction and you will find it from time to time when you study the Bible because you do not understand it well.

Now then, there are two kinds of temptation in the Bible. They are very different, and it is very important to distinguish between them. They are related to each other. That is why they can possibly both be called ‘temptation.’ But one is the ongoing process of temptation: temptation in the plural. It is general in that sense; it is always used in the plural. That is how you can distinguish between the two of them. The other one is temptation which is used in the singular. And so you can always distinguish these two things by watching whether the word ‘temptation’ is in the plural or in the singular.

When in the plural, it refers to temptations in general, the kinds of things that we find in experience. And [in 1 Cor. 10:13, Paul says that] there is no temptation; there are many temptations, but no particular one has taken you; which is not common to man. So, Paul is talking about temptations in general, the kind of temptations we face in everyday life. The Lord Jesus uses this same kind of temptation in this sense in Luke 22:28, when He says to His disciples, “You are those who have continued with Me in My temptations.” The Lord Jesus was all the time also in temptations; the enemy was tempting Him all the time. In fact, when you look at the gospels, you will find it specifically says: “A certain scribe (or a certain lawyer) came to Jesus and tempted Him, saying...”[Matthew 22:35] Jesus was being tempted all the time, just as we are being tempted. So Hebrews says, “He was tempted in all points, just as we are”. [Hebrews 4:15] That is why He can be a merciful High Priest; a High Priest! because He was tempted just as we are. These are referring to the general temptations of life.

But there is another sense in which temptations come, and that is when the word ‘temptation’ is used in the singular, as here in the Lord’s Prayer, “lead us not into temptation;” not “into temptations.” We cannot pray, “not into many temptations”, but we can pray not to be led into ‘temptation’; the temptation. Now, why is it used without the article? It refers to this specific type of temptation. It is very common to use it in such a way, to denote a particular thing. Just as you say “the temptation” in English, in Greek it does not have to use the article. But it does indicate, when used in the singular, a particular type of thing. What kind of temptation then are we talking about here? We are talking about temptation which is in the sense of bringing you down spiritually, of destroying you spiritually.

Now, ‘temptation’ in the sense in which Jesus was tempted in Matthew Chapter 4 and Luke Chapter 4, “the Temptation”; that temptation was not the kind of temptation in which, for example, the scribe came and tempted Him with a difficult question, trying to trip Him up. But in the temptation of Jesus, it was designed to destroy Him spiritually, to knock Him out with a spiritual torpedo once and for all. It is temptation in the ultimate sense, not in the trials of everyday life, which are temptations, that is to say, that can cause you to sin, but they do not cause you to sin in such a way that you leave God. They do not cause you to sin in such a way that you apostatize. They do not cause you to sin in such a way that your faith collapses. It is because you always repent from such sins; you turn back again to the Lord. Now we all experience this kind of temptation everyday. But this temptation; the ‘temptation’ in which you are in a very specific kind of situation which is designed that you are not going to come out of it in one piece, if the devil can help it; God must bring you out, or see to it that you never get into it.

This kind of temptation then we find also in Paul. In fact you will find it in several places. Let me give you an example. In 1 Tim. 6:9, you find Paul listing temptation out in a very specific sense - the specific sense of spiritual disaster. It reads like this: “But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation”; notice singular; “into a snare, into many senseless and hurtful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction.” Notice here the temptation is designed to plunge you into ruin and destruction, from which there is no turning back. It is a fearful thing that is referred to in Hebrews Chapter 6, that once you fall into that, it is virtually impossible to renew you again spiritually. That is the temptation, the ultimate temptation, the temptation from which there is no return. That, of course, is what Satan tried to achieve at the temptation of Jesus, to destroy Him once and for good. This ultimate sense, in which Paul says so specifically, is referring to that “ruin and destruction”; it is not just falling into the sin from which there is not ruin and destruction. You just repent; you may be a little bit hurt, but you can come out of it again.

Let me read another example of this to you in 1 Thessalonians 3:5. Here again it is used of temptation in the ultimate sense: “For this reason, when I could bear it no longer, I sent that I might know your faith, for fear that somehow the tempter had tempted you and that our labor would be in vain.” Notice: Paul was not afraid that they would be tempted in the general sense. He said already, everybody is going to be tempted; there is no exception. But he was afraid of one particular type of temptation, “that you should be so tempted by the tempter,” that is, the devil, that you would be spiritually destroyed, so “that our labor would be in vain.” That means to say, “We have worked and labored to bring you to Christ for nothing, because you left the Lord. You have been spiritually torpedoed. You have been spiritually destroyed.

Notice then that Paul himself uses the word ‘tempted’ in these two very different senses. They are related by the fact that both of these activities are basically carried out by Satan. But the difference is the power of the weapon that is used. There is a difference between a blow in a karate chop that one can knock you down, one can stun you for a long time, but another one is designed that you never stand up again. It is particularly well placed in the back of the neck. One such chop can mean you are finished once and for good. You never get up again. So, there are different kinds of chops. One can slow you down a lot. One across the throat, of course, can stop you for about 10 minutes very effectively, so long as it is well placed. Another attack can just put one of your arms out of action, if necessary. It depends on what type of weapon you use. And Satan uses a particular type of weapon if you give him a chance to do so. So, for example, ‘riches’ that we just saw in 1 Timothy is a weapon that Satan can use very effectively so as to cripple you that you are not going to get up again. And he did so well, didn’t he? He did it on Judas; he did it on Demas. We know of two people who had been knocked out and finished, never to get up again. Judas certainly never got up again, and Demas, we are told in 2 Timothy 4:10, was spiritually crippled and finished. He fell in love with the world and he deserted the Lord. He came under the big gun. He fell into temptation.

Thus, notice this. There is a danger, a desperate danger that we face in temptation of this particular kind when Satan is given the opportunity. You open up the gap, and he comes in with his whole might to smash you to pieces. That is what he tried to do to Peter, too. The Lord said to Peter, “Peter, Peter, Satan has desired to have you that he might sift you as wheat...” — to tear you apart; like taking the kernel and the shell apart, he will tear you to pieces — “ but I have prayed for you...” that you will not be torn apart. [Luke 22:31-32] You know, this is the kind of thing that Satan wants to do, if you give him half a chance. And Peter nearly went, didn’t he? He nearly fell into that ultimate temptation. He did deny the Lord, but he came back. He nearly went under, but he came back. The Lord sustained him yet one more time. His heart did not close completely to the Lord.

Notice then, we find ‘temptation’ in these two very distinct senses. Now we can see what Jesus is saying. When He says, “Lead me not into temptation...”, we are not talking about the temptations that are surrounding me, but into that temptation from which there is no return. You go into that one and you do not come out again. So, that is the prayer that we have got to pray: “Lord, please don’t take me into that. See to it that I don’t fall into this, that I’m not brought into that situation” and how we need to pray for deliverance.
Would We Be Able To Withstand Temptation In The Form Of Persecution?
You know, when we look ahead in the Christian life, I think all of us who love the Lord have fear in our hearts; as Paul says, “in fear and trembling” [Philippians 2:12]; knowing that we are weak and that we might be brought into a situation where we wonder whether we can stand. Think of it: those brothers and sisters in China. If you were one day brought into a situation of persecution, could you stand? Could you stand? If you were subjected to physical and mental torture, could you stand? 

Pray, “Lord, do not lead me into that situation, because I am weak” and then you will know that if you ever come into that situation that God only allowed you into that situation because He knows you will come through because He will bring you through. Christians in China have been tortured, not physically so much by hard labor, which is a physical torture. And I want to say this: when I say these things, I do not want anyone to think that I am anti-government, or I am anti-Communist. I do not want anyone to think like this. I love the Communists because they need Christ. I want to say this very clearly. Whenever I say something that sounds anti-Communist, I want you to understand: I do not hate the Communists. A Christian has no right to hate the Communists; he never should do that. I love them because they need Christ as much as anyone else does. But we have to talk about the facts.

My dear friends, today, one or the other, they are all in jail. Most of them have all been in jail at one time or another. Had I stayed in China long enough, I would have been there, too. But they have been subjected to tremendous pressure. Thanks be to God I have not heard one collapse under those pressures! And I have so prayed that I will never be the one to collapse under those pressures. Think of it. If you were in that situation, would you survive? Will you be able to survive? That is why I always say to people: It is no point telling people to become Christians on an easy course; when they come under pressure, they cannot stand.

Think of this kind of torture that I was told about in China. The Christian is put in a cage and the food is put just outside his reach. He is not physically tortured, but the food is just [out of his reach]; you stretch your arms to the bars and you can just touch the bowl there a little bit, but it is just put out of your reach; you cannot get it. You are left to be hungry. [You get] hungrier and hungrier day after day after day. And they tell you, “Look, you just deny Jesus. Just say, ‘I am not a Christian anymore. I don’t believe in Jesus’ and we’ll just give you the bowl. So easy! Why make it so hard for yourself? One simple word: ‘I don’t believe in Jesus’ and you have got the bowl!” Let me ask you: Would you stand? Would you be able to look at that food, with your stomach growling inside of you, and you say, “I’ll just say, ‘I don’t believe in Jesus’ and I can have that food!”? Will you be able to stand? Think about it. I think I would think about it, too. I think: “Lord, what would I do if I were in the position of such a person? What would I do?” You are slowly starved to death looking at the food or just say, “I don’t believe” and have the food? You can say, “Well, I can cheat them. I believe in my heart. Really, I do. But I’ll just say to them ‘I don’t believe, and give me the food.’” I can get out of the trouble. That is what Peter did. He said, “See, I really believe in my heart, but if you put me in jail, I don’t know, I don’t know who Jesus is. I’m just bluffing you, ha, ha. You see, I believe.” How about being like this? In this case you do not even have to go to jail. When they grab you, you say, “Hey, I’m not a Christian. You’ve got the wrong man!” If I can stay on, I can do more work for the Lord, you see. I just need to cheat the Communists; that is all I have to do. Do you think you can do like this?

No one who has studied church history would have failed to realize how much the early Christians suffered under persecution. When I read the books of early church history, for example, of the trials and the torture of the Christians in Lyons, France, in the Second Century, I tell you it makes you all perspire just to read the account, never mind being there yourself. You just read the account and you already begin to perspire. There was this girl who was tortured for seven full days; tortured day after day after day for seven days to break her; and she did not break. She was physically completely crippled. Her bones were broken; she was a physically cripple. And she was dying, but she was not dead. For seven days, they tortured her. They inflicted pain upon the wounds that had already been inflicted on her, so that there was no more skin left intact on her body. And she could not deny the Lord. When I read about this, I said, “Could I survive this? Could I survive this kind of handling?”

In fact there were two of them, but [I am now] referring particularly to the one who was pregnant. She was going to have a baby soon, and the persecution started. They took her and they put her at the shore and slowly the tide came up. They said, “Well, if you deny the Lord, we will cut you free. If at any moment, you deny the Lord, we will cut you free.” Human beings are masters at inventing cruelty, aren’t they? The human mind is so fertile to invent this kind of thing. Slowly the tide of water came up. And you know how slow the tide comes in? Slowly, it came up to her chin, up and up and more. Think about it. She might have said to herself, “For the sake of the baby, I’ll deny the Lord. Maybe for the sake of my husband, [I’ll deny the Lord].” She went through [this] until the water went over her. She never once asked to be released. She drowned by the slow process of drowning. Her baby was never born, needless to say. But through her death, thousands of people turned to the Lord. They said, “If a person loves the Lord that much and the Lord is so much worth loving, then He must be worth believing in.” In other words, she had far more spiritual children. She would have had one physical child or maybe more, but she had spiritual children instead.

But that is temptation! It is designed to put you under such pressure as to break you spiritually, unless each one of us [prays], “Lord, don’t lead me into temptation. I am weak. Don’t bring me into this kind of situation. But if one day You do bring me into it, if one day You consider me strong enough to endure it, then bring me through to the end.”
The Battle For The Soul Is Being Fought In All Earnest
Our time is going quickly and I need to say one thing. The battle for the soul is being fought in all earnest. I hope that each one of you, brothers and sisters, knows that the enemy of our soul is fighting for it in earnest. He means business. If you do not mean business, then it is too bad for you. He means business. Thus, if he means business and you do not, he is going to get you.

That is why Paul says to the Ephesians in Ephesians Chapter 6: “Put on the whole armor of God,” [v11] and “having done everything, stand.” [v13] We put on the armor of God not to be able to advance and smash the enemy up. Paul nowhere says that. He knows the enemy is very powerful and we are weak. He said, “When you have done everything, make sure that you stand as a Christian. You see, Paul is speaking in terms of spiritual survival. He is not yet talking of advancement to the Ephesians, which is one of the best churches that Paul ever had; the Ephesian church was a wonderful church; and yet, to them he was concerned that they stand.

What is the opposite of ‘standing’? Well, you can see what it means. The opposite of standing is to fall. To fall in battle means to be killed, to be destroyed. That is why Paul is concerned that they do everything to stand: “Put on the whole armor of God.” Now here again, there is an insidious teaching which tells you that you are always safe and secure anyway. I beg to ask of you: What do we need the armor for? There is no Scriptural teaching that tells us that you are always secure. Paul says, “Put on the armor because your life depends on it. Do everything so you may stand.” Hold the sword in your hand because the enemy is going to come at you. That sword will not be for display; you are going to have to use it. So, you had better learn how to use it and use it well. The Word of God is the sword of the Spirit.
We Must Pray “Deliver Us from Evil,” That Is, From The Two Kinds Of Temptation
Notice then, the battle for the soul is being fought in all earnest. So we have to pray, “Deliver us from evil.” Deliver us from evil — what does this mean? The word ‘deliver’ means to ‘rescue’, to ‘preserve’, to ‘save out of’ evil. Now notice here it is immediately presumed that evil has already surrounded us. Do you see that these two aspects of evil: the one, the temptation that is designed to destroy, and [the other,] the continuing surrounding evil that is round about us? Both are presumed here in the perfect teaching of Jesus. Nothing is missed out. You see, here it is presumed that evil is all around us, and we need to be delivered out of evil. In the midst of evil, we need to be saved.

What does this mean more precisely? When I look into the Psalms, I find the same word in the Greek Old Testament occurring 62 times, that is, the word ‘deliver.’ And when I checked out its use, I found in the OT that it is used with the utmost frequency in the Psalms. The Psalms, of course, were the prayers of the saints, and 62 times in the Psalms you find this word, “deliver me” or a prayer of thanks for deliverance. So, we can see the connection of this word in the Lord’s Prayer to the prayer in the Psalms. He is saying to us, “Pray as the man of God in the Psalms did pray. Pray for deliverance from evil, the evil of all kinds, the pressure that is round about you. Look at all these 62 instances in the Psalms and you will have an exact idea. Of course, I have not got the time to give you all the instances. There is the deliverance from death, “Deliver me from death,”; death here referring not only to physical death, but spiritual disaster. Or the [Psalmist] speaks of: “ the sinners, the pressure of evil men are round about me, trying to destroy me spiritually.” Thus, we are in the midst of evil. The Bible tells us that the whole world lies in the wicked one. So we need to be delivered all the time from this constant threat to our spiritual existence.
As We Pray For Deliverance, We Must Guard Against Our Weaknesses
The word ‘save’, ‘deliver’ or ‘rescue’ from evil; this Greek word; is used in the Old Testament to translate 10 different Hebrew words. What all this means is simply this: that this word is used in the widest sense of ‘save.’ “Save me”, in other words, is every sense in which I need saving; from evil, from the power of evil, the destruction of evil. And so, you see the picture here that the Lord Jesus is showing us. You are a disciple; you are God’s representative in the world; you are the light in the midst of darkness, and the darkness is trying to engulf you. We read in John, “the darkness did not overcome it” [John 1:5], but it tried. The darkness now is trying to overcome us, too. And so we are to pray, “Deliver me in the midst of this evil.” We are fighting for our spiritual survival. We have got to win! If we do not win, we are finished. Thus, I said a moment ago, the devil attacks us at the weakest point. That is why evil is going to press upon your weakest nerve. Learn what it is. Find out what it is. Make sure that you keep it far from the attack of the enemy.

I think we all know that the diamond is the hardest stone, the hardest substance there is. It is so hard that it can cut glass, which is very hard. You can do lots of things with diamonds. It can cut through the hardest substances. But I am also told this: that the diamond, though it is so hard, has a weak point. If you know what it is and you strike the diamond from the right angle, you will crack the diamond. And you can crack it with something quite soft. For example, you can hit it with a lead hammer; lead is a very soft metal, as you know. You can take a lead hammer, and provided you hit it from the right angle, you will crack the diamond. That soft substance can break the hardest of all substances, if it hits it from the right direction and gets it at the weak spot. In the same way, every Christian has a weak spot, a weakness in your system. The devil knows that he does not have to be very strong to break you, if he hits you at that right point.

If you look at the Bible, you will see this same thing, that every mighty man of God had a certain weakness, and Satan, without fail, would try to hit him at his weakness. Take David. David was a mighty man of God, a man after God’s own heart. But he had a great weakness, a weakness which is common to many people, a weakness for beautiful women. And you know how it turned into disaster. It was precisely because of that weakness, in which he looked out of the window, and he saw this beautiful woman there and his heart went out longing after her. Satan used that! He said, “That’s right, David!” and bang! He hit him with one shot, and David fell apart. That hard, steel-like substance, that diamond cracked. Incidentally, a diamond is such a good picture of a Christian, isn’t it? The Christian ought to be like a diamond, reflecting the glory of God. The Christian ought to be like a diamond, which is transparent, letting the light through. The finest Christian is a transparent Christian; you can see right through him. He lets the light through; he does not block the light. So, we find here then, the Christian, though he is so much like a diamond in many ways, a jewel for God’s crown, but if he is hit and he is not careful, he can be cracked.

We can see the same problem with Augustine. Augustine had the same weakness, this craving for women, and it drove him almost to desperation. Augustine knew that was his weak point, and did he run as fast as he could to keep his weak point out of the devil’s reach. In fact, he locked himself in a monastery to make sure that Satan could not get him there. I am not sure that is a very good way to do it, but it is one way of doing it.

Then there are others. We find Peter, for example. Peter was a man of great self-confidence. That is a dangerous gift to have. Some people are so self-confident and they are easy to get down. They are not difficult to get down; as Peter went down, and how badly he went down. Or you find other people. Solomon had a weakness, too. Solomon’s weakness was his learning. He was such a learned man, so he made a fool of himself. It is strange, isn’t it? He can be so learned yet become so stupid. Thus we find that he became so learned, so wise, and full of the wisdom of the world, that he could be struck from that angle and in the end the good man did not know where he was. Spiritually in the end, Solomon was a spiritual loss. In fact, in the end, you do not even know whether Solomon is saved or not. If you ask me, “Is Solomon saved or not?” I cannot tell you the answer. I can only tell you that on that Day, we shall find out, at the Day of Judgment. This man, who gave us the book of Proverbs, or at least some part of it, and the book of Ecclesiastes, which was full of teaching to others, he himself fell away! Now you understand why Paul said, “Lest I myself, having taught others, having preached to others, become myself a cast away, and I become disqualified.” [1 Corinthians 9:27] The preacher is every bit as vulnerable to attack as anyone else, and he will even be with less excuse.

Thus we find that each person has a weakness that Satan is going to make use of, if we are not careful. Then there are others. We have mentioned now Judas and Demas, people who love money. The love of the things of this world: the flashy car, the nice houses; how many people have not got a weakness for that? And Satan gives you one little bang there and you go right over the edge, like Demas, who was a full-time Christian worker, was finished. Judas was one of the twelve apostles and he was knocked out, too. When you see men of that caliber, men who have already gone so far in the Christian life, collapsing spiritually, you can only say, “Lord, lead me not into temptation, but deliver me out of evil, because I know that evil is all around trying to crush me. Bring me out of it!”

Wednesday, March 16, 2016

Saint: One Appointed to Rule

by Anthony Buzzard

Christians sometimes spend so much time bewailing their inadequacy and lack of spirituality that they forget why they are Christians in the first place. Followers of Jesus Christ are called “saints.” The title “saint” in the New Testament applies to every true believer. True believers are those who obey Jesus (Heb. 5:9; Jn. 3:36, 12:44ff. etc. Luke 8:12; Acts 8:12). It is not reserved for a special class of Christians who demonstrate a holiness superior to the run-of-themill disciple.

In fact, there cannot really be any run-of-the-mill believers, because a saint is one appointed to the royal family of Israel. A saint is one selected by God to rule with Jesus. A saint is one invited to kingship. Christianity is the call to kingship in the kingdom of God. The saints are to be God’s choice people. They are in training to manage the world (I Cor. 6:2).

Most of the great truths of the Christian faith are rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures. The notion of the saint and his role in God’s plan is found there too — and in a chapter of Daniel which all Christians should practically have memorized. This critically important section of the Old Testament contains a veritable blueprint for the Abrahamic/Davidic faith revealed in Christ (cp. Gen. 12, 13, 15, 17; 2 Sam. 7; Gal. 3:29).

Daniel 7:13-14 describes an investiture with royal office. The recipient of this authority to rule is the “Son of Man,” a figure who, in the interpretation given by the angel (7:18, 22, 27), signifies the saints of the Most High. Son of Man is the favorite self-designation of Jesus. He is THE human person, and he has others with him. Naturally so, for he reckoned himself, as Messiah the King, to be the chief of the body of saints. The saints are the ones appointed to rule in the future kingdom. This is made clear throughout the seventh chapter of Daniel. Jesus is the new Adam, reversing the failure of the first Adam to rule for God.

The point to be noted is this: The saints receive the kingdom, possess the kingdom, and all nations serve and obey them. Some translations are shy of the shocking (as they think) notion that human beings, Christians, should be destined to rule as kings. To some that sounds regrettably “political,” and so the whole promise to the saints that they are to rule the world with Jesus is often toned down, sentimentalized and obscured. It is much more palatable to think that “souls go to heaven” where they cannot make much of an impact on the earth!

Daniel knew of no such evasions of plain truth. The saints are to possess the kingdom “under the whole heaven” and to rule in it forever. All nations are to be subject to them as immortal kings (Dan. 7:14, 18, 22, 27). See also Rev. 1:6; 2:26; 3:21; 5:10; 20:1-6; Isa. 32:1.

What a world it will be! Isa. 7:14.

“But the court will sit for judgment and his [the Antichrist’s] dominion will be taken away forever. Then the sovereignty, the dominion and the greatness of all the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be given to the saints to the Most High. Their kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom and all dominions shall serve and obey them” (Dan. 7:27, RSV, NEB, GNB, and Jewish Publication Society Translation).

Paul used the prospect of royal office as a spur to his converts to conduct themselves worthy of royalty. I Thess. 2:12 is a miniature statement (just like Ps 110:1) of the whole NT: “You should walk worthy of the God who is calling you into his own kingdom and glory.” In other words, act now as befits a king in training. Reflect daily on the amazing honor that God desires to bestow on you by inviting you to share royalty with Jesus. Could any destiny be calculated to stir within us the determination to do our best for the Messiah and for his kingdom?

If the prospect of royal office seems to be remote from reality, then study and meditate on the books of Samuel and Kings, and observe the reverence which is due to the king. He is God’s agent in the theocratic kingdom. I Samuel 16 has to do with the choosing of an ideal king. God looks on the heart, the personality (I Sam. 16:7), as he selects the one who will rule for Him. Watch the trials and tests of David, as God prepares him to shepherd his people Israel. This is the model and pattern of NT Christianity.

Note that the book of Proverbs is really ruling principles, or a manual of wisdom for those who desire to be found fit to be king. Solomon’s failure to measure up to the divine standard, his missing the mark in regard to God’s appointment of him to be king, is recorded as a warning for us. In the NT God sows the seed of the kingdom gospel message through Jesus (Matt. 13:19) and invites candidates for royal office to leave their previous wicked lifestyle and come forward for training. Jesus promises that the new covenant ratified and sealed in his blood is the promise of future rulership in the kingdom. “You are the ones who have stood by me in my trials and just as my Father has granted me (actually “covenanted with me”) a kingdom, I now covenant with you that you may eat and drink in my kingdom. You will sit on twelve thrones to administer the twelve [regathered] tribes of Israel” (Luke 22:28-30).

The reward offered and promised to the church by Paul is patterned after Jesus’ promise to all his followers: “Don’t you understand that the saints are going to manage the world” (I Cor. 6:2, Moffat).

“If we suffer with him we shall also rule as kings with him” (II Tim 2:12).

This primary theme is developed further in Revelation 2:26, 27, 3:21, 5:19 (not KJV), 20:1-6. In each of these verses, and many more, we see God’s plan to establish justice on earth, through an inspired government—the first ever—led by Messiah and his companions, God has “subjected the inhabited earth of the future” to Christ and his faithful saints (Heb. 2:5). To inherit or possess the kingdom (see Ps 37) means much more than simply being in the kingdom. The word kingdom has a dynamic sense. It means the reign of God through Jesus, or God ruling. That rule will be conducted by the saints, of whom Jesus is the pioneer and example. Jesus has already passed through death and been exalted to glory (Ps 110:1). The Christians are on the same path and will be resurrected to immortality in the kingdom when Jesus comes back, at his parousia [second coming] I Cor. 15:23; Luke 14:14; Rev. 11:15-18, etc.).

I wish that believers everywhere could come to see that the whole genius of the Christian faith is concentrated in the word kingdom. “Kingdom,” however, does not mean a vague sense of the lordship of Jesus in the heart. It means the challenge and invitation to sainthood, the call to kingship, to function as a royal executive with Messiah. We are to enter the service of the Christ now. He is the king of Israel and of the whole world. We are also to share now in the colossal task of making known his intention to return to the earth to inaugurate his kingdom worldwide.

At the same time we are now to conduct ourselves as the royal family of spiritual, international Israel (Gal. 6:16; Phil. 3:3), the spiritual children of Abraham, to whom rulership of the world has been promised (Rom. 4:13). “If you belong to Christ, then you count as Abraham’s descendants and are heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3:29).

Daniel 7 is key to all good preaching of the gospel. It deserves the widest press as compulsory background reading to the Christianity of the New Testament. In that chapter, however, you will find that the saints will have to suffer in order to gain their crowns (cp. Acts 14:22, “through much suffering we are destined to enter the kingdom”). The future antichrist, the “little horn,” struggles to wear down the saints of the Most High (v. 25). He actually appears to defeat them, because as Satan’s tool, he is determined to put an end to their gospel message (cp. Luke 8:12), But that is not the end of the drama. The saints (the holy ones) reappear as inheritors and possessors of the coming kingdom. “The Ancient of Days came and judgment was passed in favor of the saints of the Highest One and the time arrived when the saints took possession of the kingdom (Dan. 7:22).

All this is the substance of the New Testament faith in the gospel as Jesus preached it (Mark 1:14, 15). “Through much tribulation we must enter the kingdom of God,” Paul says to his flock (Acts 14:22). Daniel had said the same thing earlier. Jesus spoke constantly about giving up life now, in order to gain the life of kingship in the kingdom. It is called “the life of the age to come,” poorly and vaguely translated as “eternal life” (Dan 12:2, “the life of the age” to come).

How could the loss of life now be compared with the possible loss of the saints’ destiny? That future life is worth sacrifice now. “What does a man gain if he loses out on that future life, “ Jesus said. “Gaining the whole world now would be pointless if one loses out on immortality.” A saint is one appointed to rule in the kingdom when Jesus comes back. He or she is now an heir. Then he or she will be an inheritor and possessor (cp. Matt. 5:5; Jer. 27:5). “Flesh and blood [human beings as presently constituted] cannot inherit the kingdom” (I Cor. 15:5). However, equipped with a new “spiritual body,” a body driven by spirit, a body suitable for life in the age to come of the kingdom, the saints will be competent to reign and rule with Messiah in the renewed earth (Rev. 5:10; 20:1-6). The millennium, when Satan will have been arrested, imprisoned and thrown into the abyss (Rev 20:1-6) will be the first stage of the kingdom of God of the future. Some mortals will survive to form the new society of many nations (Isa. 19). There will be a great depopulation of the world at the second coming, as at the flood (See Isa. 24). People dying at a 100 years old in that future time will be considered as a short life span (Isa 65:17ff.)

One caution: Don’t try to implement your kingship over the world in advance of the coming of Jesus. That was the great mistake of some of the over-enthusiastic 16th - century Anabaptists, who thought that the kingdom could be established with the sword, prior to the arrival of Jesus. The same error has led some to believe that the theocratic kingdom, the government of God, can be achieved through the American political system. This will not happen. The governments of the present nation-states will be replaced by the kingdom of God and of His Messiah only at the future 7th trumpet, which marks the resurrection of all the faithful dead (Rev 11:15-18). Until then “walk worthy of the God who is inviting you into His kingdom and glory” (I Thess. 2:12). Whenever you read about the saints (holy ones) in the New Testament, remember that the saints are those appointed to rule and reign according to Daniel 7: 14, 18, 22, 27—all nations will serve and obey them (see RSV, etc.)

Further reading at Anthony Buzzard's site restorationfellowship.org. Articles on Kingdom. Also my book The Coming Kingdom of the Messiah: A Solution to the Riddle of the New Testament. Our Fathers who Aren’t in Heaven: the Forgotten Christianity of Jesus the Jew. (at 800-347-4261 or from Amazon) www.restorationfellowship.org

Friday, March 4, 2016

The city of Ephesus and the Nicolaitans

By Dr. Eli lizorkin-Eyzenberg and Peter Shir

The city of Ephesus was one of the most remarkable jewels of the ancient world. It contained the third largest population in the Asia Minor (around 150,000 people). When, in 27 BCE, Emperor Augustus moved the proconsul of Asia from Pergamum to Ephesus, the great period of political and financial prosperity for the city of Ephesus officially began. Years later, Strabo, an important Roman historian, stated in his writings that Ephesus was a city second in greatness only to Rome itself. (Strabo, Geography, Vol. 1-7, 14.1.24.)

Like other cities of the ancient world this city too was a religious institution. The Ephesians were the protectors of the cult of Artemis the Great (Acts 19:35), a Greek mother goddess of prosperity, well-known and adored throughout the Greek lands. She in turn was thought to be supremely concerned with the well-being of the city of Ephesus, and by extension, anyone who paid her homage from any other place in the Greco-Roman world. The Temple of Artemis was so magnificent that it was counted among the seven wonders of the ancient world.

It is interesting that, although no archeological evidence of a Jewish synagogue was found in Ephesus as per the description in Acts 19:8 (“Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God), on the steps of the magnificent Library of Celsus one can see, even now, a picture of the Jerusalem temple menorah engraved into the stone. This shows that the book of Acts’ testimony about a Jewish presence in Ephesus was accurate.

The city of Ephesus also had a very interesting and rich history of the followers of the lord Jesus connected to it. Apostle Saul Paul lived and worked there, proclaiming the Gospel unhindered for several years (Acts 19:10). Sometime in the mid 60s Paul wrote his first letter to the Corinthians, and also several other letters, from there. There Saul Paul stated: “…I will stay in Ephesus until Pentecost, for a wide door for effective work has opened to me, and there are many adversaries.” (1 Corinthians 16:7-9) Luke stated in Acts 19:17 that “Jews and Greeks living in Ephesus… were all seized with fear, and the name of the Lord Jesus was held in high honor.”

This outcome was in response to an evil spirit’s rebuke to some Judeans residing in Ephesus who used the name of Jesus and Paul for purposes of healing and exorcism (Acts 19:15-17).
What was their first love?

Revelation 2:4: But I Have This Against You: You Have Departed From Your First Love! 5 Therefore, Remember From What High State You Have Fallen And Repent! Do The Deeds You Did At The First; If Not, I Will Come To You And Remove Your Lampstand From Its Place - That Is, If You Do Not Repent.

The traditional interpretation of this verse among Christians today has to do with the accusation of Jesus against the believers in Ephesus that the original emotional passion they had when they first encountered the Living God was no longer present in their lives. However, this does not fit the line of thought here at all. If this was so, then after the words: “You have departed from your first love! Therefore, remember from what high state you have fallen and repent”, Jesus ought to have said something like: “Revive the passion you once had!” Instead he called them to Do The Deeds They Once Did. So whatever it was that Christ was confronting the believers in Ephesus about, it was certainly not the lack of emotional engagement that once characterized their faith. Something else was in view here:

He confronts them, not about their emotions, but rather about the deeds they no longer practiced; not living out their convictions as they once did.

The congregation in Ephesus was one of the seven lampstands of the Heavenly Menorah of God among which Jesus, the Heavenly High Priest, was seen walking (Revelation 1:12-13). Hence, if it was no longer representing the heavenly life of God in the world, Christ threatened to come and remove their congregation from its place. This is a serious warning. However, there was also an encouragement that followed, and it is this encouragement that provides us with a considerable amount of clarity about the content of the criticism itself, although it is particularly difficult to understand.

Nicolaitans

6 But You Do Have This Going For You: You Hate What The Nicolaitans Practice - Practices I Also Hate. (Rev 2:6)

The encouragement had to do with the Jewish Christ’s affirmation that the believers in Ephesus hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans. In order to understand what those deeds may have been, we need to see what John was asked to write to the congregation in another great Roman city in the Asia Minor – the City of Pergamum. We read in Revelation 2:13-15:

“I Know Where You Dwell, Where Satan’s Throne Is… I Have A Few Things Against You, Because You Have There Some Who Hold The Teaching Of Balaam, Who Kept Teaching Balak To Put A Stumbling Block Before The Sons Of Israel, To Eat Things Sacrificed To Idols And To Commit Acts Of Immorality. So You Also Have Some Who In The Same Way Hold The Teaching Of The Nicolaitans.” (Revelation 2:13-15)

In these verses we see reference to the evil deeds of Balaam in teaching Balak to entice Israel to sin. The treachery concerned two things 1) eating foods sacrificed to idols and 2) engaging in sexually immoral acts (Num. 22-24), and these things being somehow connected with the evil teachings of the Nicolaitans.

Incidentally, the decision of the Jerusalem Council, as expressed in their letter to the Gentile followers of Jesus, while exempting the non-Jews from all kinds of burdens of observance obligatory to Jews, set forth a concrete set of food-related prohibitions for Gentiles as well. We read in Acts 15:28-29:

“For It Seemed Good To The Holy Spirit And To Us To Lay Upon You No Greater Burden Than These Essentials: That You Abstain From Things Sacrificed To Idols And From Blood And From Things Strangled And From Fornication; If You Keep Yourselves Free From Such Things, You Will Do Well. Farewell.”

It is not hard to notice that out of four behaviors forbidden to Gentiles, two had to do with Nicolaitans and Balam/Balak issues (eating food sacrificed to idols and sexual immorality). It is also important to see that this combination of food and sex-related offenses was particularly important for the Jewish Apostles and elders to address in their letter to the Gentile converts to the the lord Jesus the anointed one.

This was not a comprehensive list, but these issues brought up at the Jerusalem Council (consuming food sacrificed to idols, blood, and illicit sex), seem to constitute the central challenges that the Gentile followers of the Jewish Christ encountered in their daily lives in the Roman Empire.

In the Roman world, an overwhelming proportion of the meat sold in the market was first offered -dedicated to one or another deity. The only exception to this was the Judean/Jewish population, who were isolated from the bulk of the Roman population, and who had their own slaughter rules and privileges. Most Jews residing in the Roman Empire were part of the network in which food consumption did not follow the normal route of offerings to Roman gods.

The writings of the Apostle Paul to the nations (all the letters Saul Paul ever wrote that made it into our New Testament) clearly show that these issues continued to plague the believers enough for him to address them in considerable detail (1 Corinthians 8-10).

Judging from Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians; 1 Corinthians 5:9), some Gentile followers of Jesus Christ felt they could continue to consume meat that was, prior to market delivery, sacrificed to a pagan deity.

Apostle Paul, while agreeing with them that these gods (idols) are nothing, sides with the Jerusalem Council in forbidding all the Gentile followers of the lord Jesus from eating food associated with Greco-Roman worship rituals in any way (1 Corinthians 8:1-13).

Having considered this important issue, let us return to the discussion of the Nicolaitans.

Nicolaitans as a Hebraism

Who were the Nicolaitans and what is the origin of this word that first appears in Revelation 2:6 and is then repeated in Revelation 2:15? The main traditional attempt to understand the etymology of the word is often tied to diaconal appointee, Nicolas, in Acts 6:5:

“The proposal pleased the entire group, so they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, with Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, a Gentile convert to Judaism from Antioch.”

Presumably at some later stage Nicolas began to teach what was eventually defined as the Evil Deeds Of The Nicolaitans although the matter is quite obscure.

However, there is another, often overlooked option, suggested many years ago by the great Jewish Christian Hebraist, John Lightfoot. It allows one to continue reading the Book of Revelation as a thoroughly Jewish anti-Roman document. He hypothesizes that perhaps deacon Nicolas was a wrong trail to follow. He suggested instead, that Nicolaitans was a Hebraism (in this case something originally said in Hebrew but spelled with Greek letters). What did he have in mind?

In Hebrew, in order to say “we will eat”, the verb נאכל (Nokhal) would have been used. We read in Isaiah 4:1, “And seven women shall take hold of one man in that day, saying, ‘We will eat (נֹאכֵ֔ל) our own bread and wear our own clothes, only let us be called by your name; take away our reproach.’” If this Hebrew word נאכל (Nokhal) is transferred into Greek, it can be used as a term describing the “we will eat” people. In a sense, this was their motto, their sentiment – “we will eat” the food that others think is forbidden (food offered to pagan deities). Thus τῶν Νικολαϊτῶν (ton nikolaton) “the Nicolatians” as a group or teaching could originate from the Hebrew נאכל (Nokhal) “we will eat”, making a cohesive connection to the context of Balaam and Balak and the incident in the book of Numbers referred to in Revelation 2:13-15.

7 The One Who Has An Ear Had Better Hear What The Spirit Says To The Churches. To The One Who Conquers, Will Permit Him To Eat From The Tree Of Life That Is In The Paradise Of God.’

“The one who has an ear, let him hear” is also a Hebraism that is used on a number of occasions in the Gospels by Jesus himself. For example, in the parable of the seed falling on the good soil and producing various quantities of fruit (Mark 4:1-20). The basic meaning of this Hebraism is this: “if one is able to hear it, one must obey it.” In this case (Revelation 2:7) what the Holy Spirit is saying to the followers of the lord Jesus in the congregations of Asia Minor is so important that if one hears it, one must obey it.

Thursday, March 3, 2016

The Virgin Birth: Fact or Fiction?

by Greg Deuble

This article tackles a few more obstacles that Jews (and Gentiles for that matter) appeal to when rejecting the NT witness that Jesus was supernaturally conceived in Mary by the power of God. To a lot of folks talk of the Virgin Birth sounds more like a fairy tale than historical reality. On the other hand, the NT grounds the nativity of Messiah Jesus in literal history.

So let’s get down to tin-tacks. What are some of these specific objections to what purports to be apostolic Christianity?

1. The Virgin Birth is not Found in the Rest of the New Testament.

On his website Torah of Messiah, A.B. (Bruce) Barham expresses his doubts about the validity of the Virgin Birth narratives in Matthew and Luke this way:

“IF Messiah was born of a “virgin” with no earthly father, why is it so rarely mentioned in the New Testament? IF such an event occurred, it would have been an astounding miracle and a subject of frequent discussion! Yet, the New Testament authors virtually never even mention it! This fact alone makes its actual occurrence unlikely.

1. It is NEVER mentioned in ANY of the epistles.
2. It is NEVER mentioned by Yeshua (Jesus) the Messiah.
3. It is NEVER mentioned in ANY recorded presentations of the “gospel” in Acts or the epistles.
4. It is NEVER mentioned ANYWHERE as part of a necessary belief a person must accept! EVER!
5. The ONLY place it is mentioned, or even hinted at, is in the alleged (and contradictory) birth accounts of Matthew and Luke!
6. Yet Christianity, counterfeit Messianism, and many monotheistic Messianics consider it a crucial doctrine even though Scripture most certainly shows it to NOT be crucial!” (Emphases original).

http://torahofmessiah.org/the-birth-of-yeshua-messiah-jesus-christ

These are typical denials and must be honestly faced by anybody wanting to ground their faith in fact, rather than fiction. So, is it right to say the Virgin Birth, “is NEVER mentioned in ANY of the epistles”, or “even hinted at” apart from the contradictory birth accounts of Matthew and Luke? We looked at some of the alleged contradictions in the birth accounts of Matthew and Luke in the previous article, Jesus’ Genealogy …

Let the Genie Out of the Jar! We found that Matthew and Luke write complimentary accounts from different perspectives of the same history.

A History Lesson

Even if we did not have any of the New Testament itself, we would still know the First Century Church believed in the Virgin Birth of Jesus. How so? Well, the earliest Baptismal Creed is the Old Roman Creed. It has been dated to 100 AD, give or take a decade or so either way. This is the confession candidates for baptism recited:

“I believe in God the Father Almighty; And in Christ Jesus His only Son our Lord; Who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary; Crucified under Pontius Pilate and buried; The Third Day He rose from the dead; He ascended into heaven; He sits at the right hand of the Father; Thence He shall come to judge the living and dead. And in the Holy spirit, the Holy Church, the Remission of sins, the Resurrection of the flesh.”

When it comes to creeds the rule is, the further we get from Jesus and his apostles, the further we are from the Jewish roots of the NT faith they delivered. To be blunt, the further from the days of Jesus, the more Greek philosophy and non-Bible ideas infiltrate Christianity. (1)

However, this extra-canonical source; the Old Roman Creed; is very early indeed. It is fair to say this Old Roman Creed seems unembellished by later church debates and councils.

The salient point is that the clause affirming belief in the Virgin Birth appears in the days when the last apostle John was still living, or had just died. There were folk still living who had known and been taught by the apostles themselves. Therefore, we may be reasonably sure that belief in the Virgin Birth was universally believed by the early First Century Christians, having been taught by the apostles.

It is logical to conclude that if this is the case, then we will find mention of the virginal conception of Jesus in the NT even outside of the two Gospels that specifically address the issue. Barham asserts it is NEVER mentioned (his emphasis) or even “hinted at” outside the nativity accounts of Matthew and Luke? In Jewish law a matter was established by two or three witnesses. Let’s see.

The Gospel of Mark

The majority of NT scholars are of the opinion that Mark’s Gospel was written by John Mark who was the personal assistant of the apostle Peter. (2)

Does Mark give any “hints” that Jesus was born differently to all others? It is possible, for Mark records the people in Jesus’ hometown synagogue asking this question:

“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not his sisters here with us? And they took offense at him” (Mark 6:3).

To our modern ears there is nothing unusual about this question. We often say for instance, that Jack is the son of his mother. 6 However, in Jesus’ day no Jew would have ever referred to a man as “the son of his mother.” You may ask, “But what if Joseph was already dead? Wouldn’t Jesus then be called the son of his mother Mary?” No. Universal Jewish custom was that whether a man’s father was dead or alive, he was always named from his father. (3)

Furthermore, it seems the townsfolk of Nazareth further distinguished Jesus from the rest of his (half) brothers and sisters by this unique description. He and he alone was “the son of Mary”!

Now, I am not suggesting the people of Nazareth knew anything at all about the Virgin Birth (at this stage anyway). But it is clear they knew the “brothers” of Jesus were not to be called the sons of Mary! Did Mark thus give just a hint that it was common knowledge that there was something different about Jesus’ birth? Let’s not be dogmatic here. Let’s consider more evidence.

A Grammar Lesson… Sorry!

The apostle Paul wrote much of the NT and when he speaks of the “birth” of Jesus Christ we notice a very unusual thing. He avoids the only verb ever used of human birth in the entire New Testament, the verb gennaoo (4).

When Paul speaks of the birth of Messiah he uses a description unique to the NT. He uses derivatives from the verb ginomai, which means ‘to come into existence, to be created, to exist by creation, to arise, to occur, to become’.

Here is more than a “hint” that something extraordinary about the birth of Messiah is being taught. Let’s demonstrate the contrast between these two words for “born” where they appear in Galatians chapter 4. Speaking of the birth of Abraham’s sons Ishmael and Isaac, Paul writes:

“But the son by the bondwoman was born (gegenneetai … “has been born” from gennaoo) according to the flesh…” (Galatians 4:23).

“But as at that time he who was born (genneetheis …”was born” from gennaoo) according to the flesh …” (Galatians 4:29)

This is the way every normal birth is described in the NT. Now see how Paul describes Jesus’ birth in the same chapter:

“But when the fulness of time came, God sent forth His son, born (genomenon from ginomai) of a woman, born (genomenon) under the Law” (Galatians 4: 4).

English readers would not pick up here how unusual Paul’s description of Jesus’ birth is. Of the six hundred and sixty cases where the verb ginomai occurs in the NT it always means, “to be, to come into existence, to become, etc.” Paul is making a distinction between normal human births and the birth of Jesus Messiah.

What Paul actually wrote was, “But when the fullness of time came, God sent forth His Son, who came into existence from a woman, came into existence under the Law.” 

This is even more remarkable because in the same chapter the births of Ishmael and Isaac are spoken of in the usual way. Elsewhere Paul similarly writes:

“…concerning His Son, who was born (genomenou, that is, who came into existence!) of David’s seed …” (Romans 1:3).

The fourth time Paul alludes to the birth of Jesus reads:

“He took the form of a servant and came into existence (genomenos) in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2:7).

Is it not passing strange that when Paul speaks of the “birth” of Christ he does not say “born” in the usual manner? (Of course, Matthew and Luke in their nativity accounts use the ordinary word for the birth of Jesus (gennaoo) because their object is to explain the process by which Jesus was supernaturally begotten in the virgin Mary.)

Thus, four times over when speaking of his birth, Paul says Jesus the Messiah “came into existence”, that is, he began to be, was caused to exist.

To repeat: When speaking of Jesus’ birth Paul uses language which is in the whole NT never used of any other birth!

The Theological Necessity of the Virgin Birth

Well may we ask why Paul would make such a graphic distinction? The answer is that he not only understood the historical reality of the virginal conception of Jesus, but he also knew its theological necessity.

The apostle Paul taught that every human born into this world inherits the consequences of Adam’s sin, which is death (e.g. see Romans 5:12; I Corinthians 15:22.) Paul regarded the natural union of a man and a woman to be a death sentence for every human baby born into this world. “In Adam all die.” We confirm this fact by our own willful choices to sin and disobedience.

Paul’s answer to this Adamic death sentence on every single human being is that God has begun a new humanity, a new creation, in Christ - the anointed one - Jesus.

If Jesus had been conceived and born the usual way he too would have inherited Adam’s mortality. This is why Paul is very careful to say Jesus came “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Romans 8:3). (5)

From the moment of his miraculous conception Jesus was free from the drag, the bias, the ballast of Adam’s legacy of death operating in him. Of course Jesus must constantly walk by faith and obedience to his Father if he was to maintain that condition of innocence free from death and to avoid Adam’s mortality.

The Virginal conception of Jesus was therefore essential if he was to avoid entering this world as a man already under the reign of death!

The fact of the matter is this: If Jesus had been born of natural processes, he could not be our Saviour for he would have been “in Adam” and unfit to be the Head of God’s new and redeemed humanity.

So where did Paul get this teaching that the natural man is born with an already defeated and cursed nature in desperate need of supernatural salvation? Why, his lord and master Jesus of course! Had not Jesus himself taught, “that which is of the flesh is flesh”? Had not Jesus said, “Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again”? (John 3: 1-15). According to Jesus every single human born on this planet must be born a second time if we are to see God. But there was and is only one exception to this rule … guess who?

Jesus made it quite clear then, that ordinary birth can never achieve the kind of relationship with God that a man must have in order to ‘be saved’ and to inherit ‘eternal life’, which is the life of the Age to come.

Why then, did Jesus himself not need to “be born again”? In contrast to every human born “of the flesh” from Adam onwards, Jesus describes himself as the first one whose origin is “from above”. He was born of ‘the Spirit’ of God.

At what precise point in time and history did Jesus begin to exist? From whence his generation and origin? How could this man be born without inheriting Adam’s death? The angel Gabriel declared Jesus would be “begotten” by the overshadowing of God’s Spirit in Mary (Luke 1:35). (6)

When Paul speaks of the birth of Jesus in unique terms he is showing he understood Jesus’ own teaching about the nature of “the flesh” of all natural-born men and the necessity that Jesus be not born like the rest of us.

Those who deny the imperative for a supernatural generation of Jesus in the womb of his mother Mary are (whether they realize it or not) denying the possibility for a supernatural regeneration in their own lives by the power of God through Christ Jesus, for on this count, Jesus would have been as cursed by Adam’s death-nature as the rest of us.

The Text Has Been Tampered With!

It is common amongst those who deny the miraculous conception of Jesus in Mary by the Spirit of God to allege the NT has been corrupted at this point.

Personally, I only use this argument as a last resort, when all other evidence seems to point that way. It is my humble opinion that a first resort to textual corruption to prove a doctrine smacks of a priori and subjective motives. It is usually a dead giveaway of circular reasoning. My starting position with any difficult text is that the NT Scriptures are trustworthy and reliable and we must deal with the general consensus of textual evidence before darting off to a minority report purporting textual corruption. (7)

Does this mean I deny that the NT suffers from some scribal corruptions, whether by careless or deliberate attention? Not at all. But in reality we mostly know where these corruptions occur due to the huge numbers and antiquity of the NT Greek manuscripts.

In our current discussion as it relates to the Virgin Birth, we need to realize the argument of possible textual corruption can run both ways. Let me illustrate.

John 1:11-13

I propose that the scribal corruptions are actually biased against the Virgin Birth. I propose that the miraculous conception of Jesus was a later embarrassment to some within the early church and that some scribes deliberately tried to expunge from the NT the idea of Jesus’ miraculous birth.

Let me demonstrate one clear case where this is almost certain to have occurred. Our modern translations read:

“He came to his own, and those who were his own did not receive him. But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in his name, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:11-13).

As this reads, and as traditional commentary has it, these verses are talking about the new birth Christians experience through faith in Christ. That is, our relationship with God through Christ is not something of human origin, or human desire and will-power, or human genius. Our salvation is all of God’s doing through His Son.

However, this is almost certainly not what John originally wrote. We know these verses were the subject of much early debate. For example, Tertullian accused the Valentinian Gnostics of having altered the text to read as you just did above. According to Tertullian the plural verb “were born” should actually be the singular verb “was”. This means the verse should read:

“But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become the children of God, even to those who believe in his name, who was born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”

As you can see, this singular verb changes the sense completely: Instead of it being the Christians who are born by God’s will, it is now Messiah himself who is born by God’s will and initiation.

Tertullian thus accused the Gnostics of trying to eliminate the idea of Jesus’ miraculous birth (“who was born”) by making it relate to their own experience (“who were born”).

In support of this understanding, Irenaeus and Justin Martyr argue for the singular verb. A strong point in favour of this reading is that these references to the singular verb antedate any of our extant NT manuscripts. Also of interest to my Jewish friends, the Jerusalem Bible supports the singular verb here!

Whenever I read John 1:11-13 now, I confess the plural verb is incongruous, even though it is in keeping with the Bible’s general tenor that our salvation is entirely of God’s grace. Surely the more natural sense is to understand this as a reference to the birth of Jesus without human intervention?

If we take it as plural (that is, that it speaks of the new birth of Christians) it points out in a puzzling manner the blatantly obvious --- that the believer’ spiritual birth “of God” has nothing to do with sexual intercourse, fleshly craving, or male will! On this reading, we must ask who would have supposed it did anyway?

The more it is pondered, the more baffling it becomes that John should have three times over differentiated spiritual regeneration from physical generation in his introduction. Yes, it is true that later in John’s Gospel this difference is discussed with Nicodemus.

In John chapter 3 Jesus discusses spiritual regeneration vis a vis natural birth plainly indicating he himself was not born of “the flesh” like everybody else (see above pg.11- 12).

Is there a clue as to how John wants us to understand his introduction at John 1:11-13? Is he referring to the spiritual birth of all believers or is he referencing the unique way Jesus entered the world via the virgin birth? I think there is.

I John 5:18:

“We know that those who are born of God do not sin, but the one who was born of God protects them.” (NRSV)

John is talking about two classes of people, and he uses two different tenses for the one verb used to differentiate the two classes.

The first group, literally, “everyone having been begotten of God”, refers to all Christian believers. And how have they/we become Christians? John uses the Greek perfect tense – “having been born” – to say our new birth by God began at a point in the past but the effects of that new birth are on-going. That is, the one who is born of God does not habitually practice sinning. John’s phrase, “those who are born of God” has been used already 6 times in this epistle to refer to the believer, and each of those 6 times the verb is in the perfect tense.

 The second class John mentions has only one person in it – “the one begotten of God”. As he describes this one man, in a class all on his own, John uses a unique turn of phrase, and he employs the Greek aorist tense. Think of the aorist tense like you took a photo, a snapshot, of some family member years ago. You hold in your hand a reference to a once and for all, never to be repeated event from the past. And what snapshot does John hold up for us to look at here? The one who “was born of God”, that is, Jesus.

John is explaining the birth of Jesus as a once and for all, never to be repeated, event. Jesus “was begotten of God” (which by the way, is a statement contradicting Trinitarian belief that Jesus is the “eternal Son of God” and did not come into existence!).

So, let's put John’s two statements together. One statement from his Gospel and one from his epistle: John 1:13 in the singular --- “Who was born of God” matches the “He who was born of God” in I John 5:18!

Therefore, John 1:11-13 is an exact statement of the Virgin Birth, for Jesus was born “of God” without human initiation, will, or natural craving.

The birth of Jesus was a “birth of God” because it was initiated and brought about by God’s power outside of the normal human pairing needed for the rest of us.

The Uniquely Begotten Son

Jesus called himself “the only begotten Son” (monogenees) (John 3:16, 18). John says Jesus was “the only begotten of God” (John 1: 14,18; 1 John 4:9). The word means exactly that, only or uniquely born of God.

Defining monogeneses the prestigious New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis states:

“The meaning of the compound is ‘of a single kind’ … [and] To be sure, the identification of Jesus as monogenees does allude to his origin as Son of God (cf. esp. John 1:14,18) and possibly also to the notion of begetting …” (8)

Attempts are made to explain away this straight forward and easy definition. Some say that “only begotten” does not mean uniquely born, but rather specially chosen, loved, called or favored. Appeal is made to the description of Isaac being called Abraham’s “only begotten” in Hebrews 11:17. Abraham had two sons, and his firstborn was Ishmael. So Abraham had more than one son born from his fathering.

We do not deny that the description “only begotten” also carries the idea of the son being the object of the father’s delight and choice, however a little reflection will prove this is not the primary meaning of the term.

Isaac, being born to Abraham and Sarah in their old age according to God’s promise, was unique in his birth. Ishmael was produced by Abraham’s union with the handmaid Hagar. He is described as being born “according to the flesh” (Galatians 4:23,29). So, far from deflecting the primary meaning of Isaac’s unique birth by promise through Sarah, this example actually confirms it.

Abraham had one uniquely born son “according to the promise” whom he greatly loved and favoured (Galatians 4:28).

When we read that Jesus stopped the funeral procession of the grief-struck widow of Nain and raised her “only begotten son”, the obvious message is that this woman had only one single boy (Luke 7:12). Yes, because he was her only born son, she had put all her hopes and affections upon him.

Likewise, Jairus dead daughter whom Jesus raised again to life is described as monogenees … “only born” (Luke 4:42). And also the demon-possessed son is ”my only born” (Luke 9:38). Greatly loved these “only born” sons and daughter were, yes. But the primary intention is to tell us they were their parents’ only son or only daughter.

We are now in a position to make up our own minds as to whether Barham’s assertion that the Virgin Birth of Jesus is never mentioned in any of the epistles, or anywhere else in the NT for that matter. Well, the writings of Mark might, but Paul and John certainly do! And the evidence is convincing that Jesus himself believed his origin and birth to be unique among men.

A Question For My Jewish Friends

Why does a miraculous creation by God’s holy Spirit preclude Jesus from being a real human being? Luke’s genealogy makes the point that every ancestor of Messiah is traced all the way back to the original First Adam who is called “the son of God” (Luke 3:38).

In the case of Adam a supernatural creation is obviously no bar to him being genuinely human. God breathed into the lifeless clay and the first Man came into existence. So, if the First Adam comes directly by a special and supernatural creation by God, on what basis is Jesus the “second Adam” precluded from being genuinely human because he also came into existence by Divine fiat?

If it took God’s miraculous creation to bring the first Man into being, on what logical basis is a miracle-born Jesus precluded from also being a genuine man and indeed, the Son of God (cp. Luke 1:35)?

As the second Adam, Jesus was taken from the ova of Mary and God miraculously fathered her child. Both Adams were brought into being using natural materials already present: In the case of Adam, the lifeless clay was infused by the breath (Spirit) of God; and in the case of Jesus, the rich genetically and genealogically inherited ova of Mary was overshadowed by the Spirit (Breath) of God. (9) Ipso facto a supernatural beginning does not disqualify either of these two men from being truly or fully human, surely?

Adam is the type. Messiah is the antetype. Like the man Adam, the man Jesus had a unique origin. This is not mere fiction, but fact woven into the theology and Christology of the entire Scriptures. (TBC)

FOOTNOTES

1. I confess I have a strong aversion to creeds. It’s my Churches of Christ training, I’m sure. In my book They Never Told Me This in Church! I trace the development (is that the right description?) of the various Church creeds (80pp).
2. The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: An Illustrated Encyclopedia, Abingdon Press, New York, 1962, vol. 3, 266pp.
3. You see this practice at work when Salome, the mother of James and John, is twice described in Matthew’s Gospel as, “the mother of the sons of Zebedee” (Matt. 20:20; 27:56). Neither is there an exception in the OT when Joseph is said to pasture the flock “along with the sons of Bilhah and the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives” (Genesis 37:2), for this description differentiates Joseph from his half-brothers. Note the phrase, “his father’s wives”! On the other hand, Mary the mother of Jesus had but one husband.
4. Gennaoo - to father, to generate, to beget - is the causative form of ginomai - to be, to exist, to become, to occur.
5. “In the likeness of sinful flesh” is an interesting phrase. Theologians have wondered whether Adam & Eve before their rebellion actually had some kind of glow about their bodies. After all, God had made every animal with a covering of fur, feathers, hair, scales of some sort. It is unthinkable that Adam & Eve - the pinnacle of God’s creation and the bearers of His image and likeness – should have no covering. Could it have been that Adam & Eve were created with bodies that shone in some way? Was their covering an emanation of some kind? One thing is for sure, once they sinned they lost their covering of innocence. They knew they were naked. Something had evidently been lost. Their bodies now were “sinful flesh”, that is, flesh now ruled by death with the bias towards sin.
6. Gabriel announces Jesus would be “fathered” (“generated”) by the overshadowing power of the Most High God and that ‘on that account’ (dio kai) he would be “the holy offspring”. That is to say, Jesus the Christ would be generated by the direct act of God and as a result Mary would conceive her baby without a human father.
7. Textual corruption is alleged to have occurred by scribes copying the original manuscripts when they either deliberately or innocently subtracted from, added to, or altered in any way what the author first wrote.
8. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis, Vol. 3, Moises Silva, Revision Editor, Zondervan,Michigan. 2014. Monogeneses, p. 334.
9. In Hebrew & Greek the words “spirit” and “breath” are interchangeable.

IMMANUEL: GOD WAS ONE OF US?

by Greg Deuble

“Therefore Yehovah Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin (Hebrew almah; Greek parthenos) will be with child and bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14 NASB).

Our Jewish friends insist no Jew in the First Century CE ever expected the Messiah to be virginally begotten. They allege the story of the virgin birth entered Christianity via a miss-translation of the Hebrew word almah in Isaiah 7:14. Almah, meaning maiden or young woman, is not the specific Hebrew word for “virgin” (betolah). But when almah was translated into the Greek text as parthenos (which does always mean ‘virgin’), the way was opened up for the Christian ‘myth’ of the virgin birth of Jesus. This has been the consistently held narrative of Jews down to this present day.

It is also suggested this process; either knowingly or innocently; was assisted and abetted by surrounding Gentile culture that abounded with many legends of miraculous births of their own superheroes such as Achilles and Hercules and Atlas et al.

So, are we the victims of scribal corruption that has altered the sacred text? I am the first to acknowledge the disastrous infiltration Hellenistic (and therefore pagan!) philosophy has had on the Christian Church. Within the first couple of centuries this parasitic process was well and truly under way. So, it is an excellent question to ask whether the Virgin Birth may not be another case where Gentile doctrine has been smuggled into the Jesus story. (1)

We have to be alert to the possibility that our received “traditions” may be contrary to the word of God. Jesus himself warned of the possibility of “invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down” (Mark 7:13). These objections to the virgin birth of Jesus therefore need to be taken seriously and with respect. 

Immanuel the Signature Name

Isaiah 7:14 does not sit in glorious isolation. It is embedded in historical context. It was a prophecy delivered by Isaiah to king Ahaz at a time of threatened national calamity around 735 BC. Let’s take a look at this background.

An unholy alliance between Syria and the apostate northern kingdom of Israel (Samaria) had just failed to capture Jerusalem (Isaiah 7:1). But Ahaz feared a fresh attack from his enemies. Indeed, the king’s heart and the hearts of the people of Jerusalem “shook as the trees of the forest shake with the wind” (v. 2). So God sent Isaiah to give the people of Judah an encouraging prophetic word: God was with Ahaz. God was on Judah’s side …

“Again Yehovah spoke to Ahaz, ‘Ask for a sign from Yehovah your God; let it be as deep as Sheol or high as heaven.’ But Ahaz said, ‘I will not ask, and I will not put Yehovah to the test!’ Then he 4 [Isaiah] said, ‘Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little a thing for you to weary man, that you weary God also? Therefore Yehovah Himself shall give you a sign: Behold a young woman [Hebrew almah] will be with child and bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken. Yehovah will bring on you, on your people, and on your father’s house such days as have never come since the day that Ephraim separated from Judah, the king of Assyria” (Isaiah 7:10-17).

Isaiah’s prophecy was meant to reassure king Ahaz that the kings of Syria and Samaria would be defeated. But how soon would this be? Well, God gave king Ahaz a timeline, a benchmark, a sign to look out for. A child would be born to an almah and 5 this young mother would call him by the name “Immanuel”. The birth of this child would give Ahaz the timeline to confidently estimate when the prophecy of his enemies’ demise would be fulfilled.

Scholars have debated as to whether he was the son of Ahaz but this is not critical, for Immanuel is a symbolic name given to a boy born at that time to an almah. And before this child would be old enough to say “mama” or “dada”, Ahaz’s enemies would be defeated, and Ahaz would know that God was with him.

The story continues into chapter 8 (where incidentally Immanuel’s name appears again in verses 8 & 10). Remember there are no chapter breaks in the original scripts. And chapter 8 reveals there is to be another child born, also with a symbolic name. This second baby will be born to the prophet Isaiah himself! When he understood God’s programme, we read that Isaiah “approached the prophetess” his wife, (a euphemistic way of saying they ‘made love’) and “she conceived and gave birth to a son” (Isaiah 8:3). Make sure your false teeth are firmly in when you come to pronounce this little fellow’s name: Maher-shalal-hash-baz! (Aussies would have just called him ‘Bazza’!) This boy’s name means, ‘haste-spoil, speed-booty’ (Isaiah 8:1).

Thus, there were two boys with prophetically significant names. Each boy’s name functioned as a sign of the reverse fortunes of the two sides in the conflict. On Judah’s side, Immanuel would be the sign God was with Ahaz and certain deliverance was his. On the enemies’ side, “Bazza” (forgive me!) was the sign of God’s judgment against Ahaz’s enemies. The lads’ names symbolised God’s promise that the calamity about to befall the kings of Syria and Samaria would be the exact opposite of the good outcome awaiting Judah and Jerusalem.

All this background means we can now ask the big question in context: Is Isaiah 7:14 also a prophecy of Christ’s virgin birth as claimed in Matthew 1:22-23? Jewish commentary says no. Their objection is based in large measure on the meaning of the Hebrew word almah. Should it be translated ‘virgin’ when its primary meaning is ‘young woman’? It is argued that Hebrew has a specific word for ‘virgin’ (betolah) and it is not the word Isaiah uses.

When almah is used in the Hebrew Bible (Genesis 24:43; Exodus 2:8; Proverbs 30:18; Psalm 68:25; Song of Solomon 1:3; 6:8), it speaks of young women of sexual maturity and marriageable age. But does this mean they cannot be virgins as well? I would encourage you to read all these references and see which nuance best fits the contexts; ‘young woman’ or ‘virgin’? As always, context is king, and should determine the best fit. But on purely linguistic grounds, it is true that none of these instances demands the meaning ‘virgin’, but neither do they deny it. Remember too, that young unmarried women in ancient Hebrew culture were assumed to be virgins on their wedding night.

The Septuagint

In the 2nd and 1st centuries BCE, the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek for the first time by Jewish rabbis. The Septuagint (LXX for the Roman letters for the 70 translators) was the result. The rabbis translated almah as parthenos, i.e., "virgin." With no inherent belief in a "virgin birth," Jewish rabbis translated almah in Isaiah 7:14 as "virgin," not "young woman"! This proves "virgin" is a possible, even likely, meaning of almah.

All NT writers frequently quoted the Greek Septuagint in support of their writings. It’s been estimated that 75% of the Old Testament quoted by the apostolic writers was from the Septuagint. Indeed, when specifically writing to Jewish Christians in danger of denying their faith in Messiah, the writer of the book of Hebrews appealed to the Greek LXX every single time he cited an OT Scripture!

Matthew in his Gospel is no exception. When he quoted Isaiah 7:14 to explain the miraculous birth of Jesus he used the Greek Septuagint. 9 Matthew said Mary was a parthenos- a virgin- not just a young unmarried maiden. (Many young maidens are not necessarily virgins!) Thus the Septuagint was many decades before Messiah’s birth and was properly quoted by Matthew. There is therefore, no linguistic or contextual ground for thinking 'virgin' is an inaccurate reading of the Isaiah text. (2)

Double Entendre?

Back to Isaiah 7:14: Is this an instance of prophecy having a double fulfillment? Could it have primarily referred to the situation King Ahaz was facing, but secondarily to the coming Messiah who would be the ultimate deliverer?

No matter how our Jewish friends may dismiss this possibility, they must know of the extensive practice in their own tradition called Midrash. Midrashic narration is a common rabbinic homiletic tool used to search out the inner significance and principles of their Bible. So, why cannot Matthew who was in the inner circle of the Twelve under Rabbi Yeshua, not be allowed to make his own eye-witness Midrashic commentary? Indeed, why not?

“Dual prophecies" are common in Scripture and they are called "near fulfillment" and "far fulfillment." The "near fulfillment" in view here is that the sign of a lad called Immanuel was fulfilled in the days of Ahaz. In fact, a brief time frame is given to assure king Ahaz.

"He will eat curds and honey at the time he knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken" (Isaiah 7:15-16).

It is quite clear a “near fulfillment” will take place during the reign of King Ahaz. And this first lad was not virgin-born! He was born of a natural union of a man and a young almah. So is it a case of special pleading to say Jesus was born of a virgin in the “far fulfillment”?

Furthermore, once it is realized that the birth of this first child will occur during the life of Ahaz, it should also be clear that it is impossible to interpret Immanuel, "God with us," to mean that the God of Israel would Himself come down from heaven to be located geographically in that little body of flesh and blood. The child born during the days of Ahaz was not called "Immanuel” because he was God Himself. No. The child with the symbolic name Immanuel signified God was with them in plan, promise and purpose and power to save.

It is perfectly clear the first and “near fulfillment” of Isaiah 7:14 must refer to the birth of a child contemporaneous with King Ahaz. That child will be named "Immanuel" or "God with us." Note, Immanuel does not mean, “God one of us”! The child named Immanuel was a sign, a symbolic name guaranteeing salvation, that is, deliverance for king Ahaz.

God With Us

The idea of God being "with" someone in a functional sense rather than a spatial sense is a common expression in the Scriptures (e.g. 2 Chronicles 15:2; 20:17; 32:8, Psalm 46:7,11). For God to be with Israel meant He was with them in plan and purpose as opposed to being against them or abandoning them to their fate.

When it comes to the “far fulfillment” in Matthew 1:23, we are told how Jesus fulfills God's plan and purpose: He will save Israel from their sins through Jesus the Messiah (Matthew 1:21). As Simeon so vividly declares to the God of Israel as he holds the baby Jesus in his arms, "Mine eyes have seen Your salvation" (Luke 2:30). And Zachariah proclaimed:

“Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for He has visited us and accomplished redemption for His people, and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of David His servant” (Luke 1:68-69).

It should be quite clear what is intended by the name, "God with us." The Lord God of Israel is with his people by giving them a son from the House of David to redeem them from their sins. This exegesis is taken straight from Isaiah’s definition of Immanuel:

“Then it will sweep on into Judah, it will overflow and pass through, It will reach even to the neck; And the spread of its wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel. Be broken, O peoples, and be shattered; And give ear, all remote places of the earth. Gird yourselves, yet be shattered; Gird yourselves, yet be shattered. Devise a plan, but it will be thwarted; State a purpose, but it will not stand, For God is with us" (Isaiah 8:8-10).

Obviously the name Immanuel was intended to mean "God with us" in plan and purpose. Definitely not that God Himself was the human child born for Ahaz!

David the psalmist says that although he walks through the valley of the shadow of death he fears no evil, because God is "with him" (Ps 23:4). These references all mean that God is with His people in plan, promise, purpose, power and presence.

When we come to the New Testament, and explore what it has to say concerning Jesus, this becomes even more abundantly clear. Nicodemus remarks that God was "with" Jesus as his miracles attested (John 3:2).

Peter also tells us plainly that God preached the good news and did miracles through Jesus, for “God was with him” (Luke 8:39; 24:19; Acts 2:22; 10:36,38). Or, to put it in the apostle Paul’s words, “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself”. He did not say: “God was as Christ reconciling the world to Himself” (2 Corinthians 5: 19).

So, God was with Israel in the sense that he was with them in plan and purpose through the activity of His agent and Son, Messiah Jesus. There isn't any reason whatsoever to think Matthew did not intend this meaning either. The name "Immanuel" or "God with us" refers to what God was doing rather than where God Himself was Personally located.

Conclusion

The name Immanuel primarily applied to a child contemporaneous with Ahaz and Isaiah. It is impossible to interpret this child's name to mean the child was God locating Himself “in the flesh” in the days of Ahaz. Or perhaps Jesus was born in history twice? My “orthodox” Christian friends can’t have that cake and eat it too!

On this score Jews are right to deny the Virgin Birth proves Jesus is “God in the flesh”. You can search the entire NT record but you won’t find the apostles believed that Jesus was God because he was born of a virgin. That part of the ‘Christian’ story is a pagan myth, no doubt. The apostolic witness was that Jesus is the Messiah, God’s anointed one, Israel’s king, to bring salvation. In good midrashic style Matthew says Jesus’ birth is the fuller fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14.

Finally, the precious Hebrew Bible has neither been wittingly nor innocently
mistranslated at Isaiah 7:14. The Jewish charge that it was Gentiles who invented a pagan myth of Jesus’ virgin birth is patently wrong. It was Jewish rabbis long before the birth of Jesus who translated their own Hebrew almah as parthenos. The young maiden of the “far fulfillment” was going to be a virgin!

The immediate context of Isaiah chapters 7 & 8, the linguistics of almah and parthenos, and the overall tenor of Scripture, demand we understand the name Immanuel, "God with us", in the sense of plan and purpose. Immanuel speaks of God's modus operandi, not His own geographic location.

The Jewish apostles of Jesus were convinced Jesus was born of the virgin (parthenos) Mary. They believed he is the Messiah through whom God is with us. The question left for today’s Jewish friends is whether this was by the holy Spirit’s inspiration or by unholy scribal corruption.

FOOTNOTES

1. In They Never Told Me This in Church! I have devoted an entire chapter to the ‘Trojan Horse’ (i.e. Hellenism) that Christianity imbibed into the Church. See the chapter Another Cover Up.

2. Some scholars would debate this point. Some allege the LXX before Christ only consisted of the first 5 books of the OT (the Tanak) with snippets from some of the Prophets and Writings. They argue the rest of the LXX was probably not translated until the 1st century CE. However, we have evidence that by 132 BC the entire translation was complete, for when the grandson of Ben Sirach wrote the Prologue to the apocryphal book Ecclesiasticus he wrote, “the law and the prophets and the rest of the Bible” existed in Greek translation. (Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible under sub-heading 3 in main article on “The Septuagint”).