Leviticus Archives - Page 8 of 8

Refugees and Apostles

Christ Church on October 30, 2009

Introduction

As we seek to live our lives as faithful Christians, informed by the Word of God, we soon discover that it is not a simple process. It is not as though the Spirit gave us a rule book, in outline form, fully indexed. He gave us laws, principles, stories, and parables, strewn across various ages and cultures of men. What are we to do with it all?

The Text

“Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood: neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe times . . .” (Lev. 19:27-29 ).

“Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world . . . ” (1 John 2:15-17 ).

For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe . . .” (Heb. 5:13-14 ).

Summary of the Texts

These texts before us provide us with a good snapshot of the difficulty. First, consider this. The ancient nation of Israel was told to keep themselves distinct from the pagan nations round about. There were many aspects of this. They were not to eat blood (Acts 15:20 ), use enchantments (Gal. 5:20 ), or observe times (Gal. 4:10 ). They were not to round the corners of their heads (huh?), or trim their beards (what?). They were not to mutilate their flesh, or get tattoos (see?). Because the Lord was their God, they were not to prostitute their daughters (1 Cor. 6:9 ), which would defile the land. The question is which things in this list should we obey, and why? Christians obey some things on this list, ignore others, and have arguments about a third category.

The apostle John tells us that root of sin is an attitude, that of loving the world. If we are wise, we don’t work from a list of prohibited items to the attitude, but rather we deal with the attitude, knowing that it will necessarily entail a list. He breaks out what this love of the world looks like—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. These three things, as it happens, were part of the temptation in the Garden. The forbidden fruit was good for food, delightful to the eyes, and able to make one wise (Gen. 3:6 ). None of this is of the Father, but is rather of the world. And the problem with the world is that it is transient, while the one who lives out the will of God lives forever.

As these are difficult issues, they should not be sorted out by those who have been Christians for a year. These are not problems to be handed over to the nineteen-year-olds. Those not yet weaned are unskilful in the Word. But those who are mature understand the Word, and through long practice in sorting out these kinds of issues, know how to distinguish good from evil when a judgment call is needed. All Christians know some things, but not all are mature.

Some Practice Exercises

In this current climate, it is not possible for Christians to go more than fifteen yards without encountering some new practice commended, urged, or demanded by the world, and it is necessary to deal with the resultant questions from your teenagers. “Can I, can I, huh? Why not?” You can keep life simple (for a time) by always saying no, for no particular reason, but that is no worldview. What about temporary tattoos? What about getting permanent tattoos? What about reading vampire fiction for teens written by a Mormon? What could possibly be problematic about that? What about metal music that sounds like a troop of cavalry going over a tin bridge? What about those fetching lip rings and tongue studs? As G.K. Chesteron once put it, art, like morality, consists of drawing the line somewhere.

Questions to Work Through

Begin by distinguishing the basic question—always an easy one—from the more complicated ones. Is this an expression of love for God and His Word or is it being filed under the category of, “Well, God never said I couldn’t“? This basic question is another form of asking whether you are being worldly or not. There is another question right next to this basic question. Think of all the people you know who are saintly and are at least twenty-five years older than you are. Do you want to ask them their advice on this or not so much? Is it because you already know what they will think and you don’t want to do it? An honest motive check would fix about 90 percent of our problems, and enable us to talk intelligently about the remaining 10 percent.

Once you have resolved to not be worldly, you still can’t go through life saying, “just because.” You should have reasons for what you say and do. Why are tattoos not in the same category as temple locks? Because of the flow of the whole story. Look at all the piercings and cuttings, and what they mean. Even the one required cutting in the Old Testament is replaced with baptism in the New. What is wrong with vampire fiction? The question should be answered by Christians who know the history of European literature, not to mention sexual diseases. The whole thing is a metaphor for immorality and syphilis. So what could be problematic about sweet Christian girls being taught to be drawn to a dangerous lover? Is this a trick question? What is wrong with music that celebrates rebellion? Why do we even have to ask?

Refugees and Apostles

But as we are interacting with the world (which we must do), we have to make a distinction between refugees and apostles. The twin businessees of the church are birth and growth. Evangelism must not exclude discipleship, and discipleship must not be allowed to exclude evangelism. So in this culture, robust evangelism means welcoming refugees from the world. That means, in the current culture, that we should want our churches filling up with tattooed people, those with memorials of who and where they used to be. But this should not be used as cover for receiving apostles of the world. We must not receive them, or give them the time of day.

God takes us all where we are, and not from where we should have been. If He only took those who were where they should have been, we would all of us be lost. Evangelism means that nonbelievers will be brought into the church. And they will track things in. So? Didn’t you track things in? Did God kick you to the curb?

Penitential Seasons

Christ Church on March 16, 2008

Introduction:
We are nearing the conclusion of the historic season of Lent, the preparation season for the celebration of Easter. This is Palm Sunday, the day in which we mark and celebrate the Lord’s Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem. As we are trying to orient ourselves by and with a Christian year, instead of the secularized civic year, we are certainly taking a step in the right direction. But this does not mean that there are no pitfalls as we move in this direction. We have to remember that the Church has been here before, and we have stumbled before.

The Text:
“And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, In the seventh month, in the first day of the month, shall ye have a sabbath, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, an holy convocation. Ye shall do no servile work therein: but ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD. And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement: it shall be an holy convocation unto you; and ye shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD” (Leviticus 23:23-27).

Overview:
In Leviticus 23, the Lord revealed the festivals of Israel to Moses. The weekly sabbath was first (v. 3). The other feasts (Passover/Unleavened Bread, Pentecost, and Tabernacles) were all celebratory in nature—they were feasts. And in our text, we come to the singular Day of Atonement. On this day, the Israelites were commanded to “afflict their souls.” God required this of Moses (v. 23). The day was set aside as a holy convocation, as a high sabbath, and was marked on a particular day (v. 24). Work was proscribed, as on a regular sabbath, and an offering of fire was required (v. 25). The Lord speaks again (v. 26), and He required the Israelites to afflict their souls (v. 27). There were other times of fasting, obviously, but these appear to have been occasional or individual. In the liturgical calendar of Israel, before the advent of the Messiah, one day out of 365 was set apart for the nation to afflict their souls. The rest of the commemorations were gratitude-soaked and celebratory.

A Weekly Resurrection Day:
In the early Church, celebration of the resurrection was instantaneous. From the very beginning, Christians celebrated and worshipped God on a weekly basis, and they did so moving their observance from the seventh day sabbath of the Jews to the first day of the week, the Lord’s Day. This was done because this was the day on which the Lord rose from the dead. “Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first . . .” (Mark 16:9; cf. Matt. 28:1; Luke 24:1; John 20:19). From the pages of the New Testament down to the present, Christians have been observing the first day of the week as a weekly “Easter.” “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them . . .” (Acts 20: 7). “Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come” (1 Cor. 16:2). “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet” (Rev. 1:10).

There are two striking meanings of this new day, this Day that the Lord has made. The first is the obvious meaning, which is that it marks the day of the resurrection. The Lord came back from the dead on the first day of the week (Mk. 16:9), appeared to His disciples on that same day (John 20:19), and then appeared to them again on the following Sunday (John 20:26). But what is the second meaning? This meaning is that God has recreated the heavens and earth. In the old covenant, the seventh-day sabbath was anchored to the old creation in an everlasting way. That seventh-day observance was clearly going to last as long as that created order did. Nothing would suffice to change that day unless it were a change of the created order, unless it were the establishment of a new created order. And this is just what we find. “There remaineth therefore a [sabbath] rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his” (Heb. 4:9-10).

Penitential Seasons?:
Lent began as a period of preparation for Christian baptism—many of the baptisms in the early Church were performed on Easter Day. Over time, as a system of work-righteousness began to establish a deeper hold on the minds and hearts of many professing Christians, the church calendar began to reflect a false understanding of the nature of the gospel. Now we want to return to an explicitly Christian understanding of our days and years, which they certainly had, but we want to do this without making the same mistakes they did.

Traditionally, both Lent and Advent are penitential seasons—not times of overflowing celebrations. This is not something we have sought to cultivate at all, even though we do observe a basic church calendar, made up of what the Reformers called the five evangelical feast days. Our reluctance to adopt the penitential approach to these seasons of the year is not caused by ignorance of the practice. I want to present three arguments here for a rejection of this practice.

First, if we were to adopt this practice, we would be in worse shape than our Old Covenant brethren, who had to afflict their souls only one day out of the year. Why would the time of anticipation of salvation be so liturgically celebratory, while the times of fulfilled salvation be so liturgically glum? Instead of establishing a sense of longing, it will tend to do the reverse.

Second, each penitential season keeps getting interrupted with our weekly Easters. Many who relate exciting movies they have seen to others are careful to avoid “spoilers.” Well, these feasts we have, according to God’s ordinance every seven days, spoil the penitential mood.

And last, what gospel is implicitly preached by the practice of drawing out the process of repentance and forgiveness? It is a false gospel. Now I am not saying that fellow Christians who observe their church year in this way are preaching a false gospel, but I am saying that lex orandi lex credendi—the law of prayer is the law of faith, and over time, this liturgical practice will speak very loudly to our descendants. If we have the opportunity to speak to our descendants, and we do, then I want to tell them that the joy of the Lord is our strength.

Christmas and Easter:
So as we prepare our hearts and minds, along with our families, for the annual celebration of our Lord’s resurrection next Lord’s Day, one other comment should be made. The Incarnation was a glorious event, and we don’t want any diminution of that celebration. But the resurrection of the Lord was what remade the cosmos, and we should strive over time to have our celebration of Easter far surpass the glory of Christmas. We are currently more than a little lopsided—and we shouldn’t try to fix this by reducing what we do at Christmas.

The Forgotten Duty

Christ Church on January 20, 2008

Introduction:
Forgiveness of sin is forgiveness of sin, not redefinition of sin (Rom. 13:8-10). “Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven” contains a glorious truth. But, misapplied as it frequently is, it also represents a travesty of biblical living.

The Text:
“And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the Lord, and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath deceived his neighbour; or have found that which was lost, and lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein: Then it shall be, because he hat sinned, and is guilt, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found, or all that about which he hath sworn falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offering. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest: And the priest shall make an atonement for him before the Lord: and it shall be forgiven him for any thing of all that he hath done in trespassing therein (Lev. 6:1-7).

Overview:
God is the only ultimate owner of anything. The earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof (Ps. 24:1; 1 Cor. 10:26). This is why property sins and crimes are sins against the Lord (v. 2). This is what God Himself says (v. 1). Property sins of various kinds can be perpetrated by means of deceit or by violence (v. 2). They can also occur through a windfall, with lying as a follow-up (v. 3). All the kinds of things that men do are covered here (v. 3). The thief must restore what is not his (v. 4). Whatever means he used to filch it, he must return it, along with an additional 20% (v. 5). He is to bring a trespass offering to the Lord (v. 6), and the Lord will forgive him for this kind of sin (v. 7).

Basics of Restitution:
In the Old Testament, restitution was accompanied by the guilt offering. In the New Testament, the fact that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross fulfills the guilt offering does not mean that it fulfills the restitution.

Second, when God prohibited adultery in the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20: 14), this presupposed that He had established and defined the institution of marriage. When He says not to steal, this means that He has established and defined the idea of private property (Ex. 20:15). We reject the Enlightenment idea that property rights are somehow held autonomously—whether by individuals or the state. We “own” only what God has given us stewardship over—but if God has granted that stewardship then it cannot be abrogated by man. Attempts to do so are called stealing.

Third, men are stewards not just of “stuff” but are also stewards of time, and the fruitfulness that time makes possible. There is no such thing as static wealth. So when a thief restores the property, he must also restore the time it was gone. This, presumably, is why the twenty percent is not a constant. Sometimes the thief had to pay double (Ex. 22:4,7).

Yeah, but…
We can certainly come up with all kinds of reasons why restitution is not practical for us. For example, we might say that restitution would make the future inconvenient for me. To which the answer should be so? If a thief cannot pay the amount back, the Scriptures allow for slavery (Ex. 22:3). We might say that we did not mean to harm our neighbor’s goods. But the Bible requires restitution for culpable negligence (Ex. 22:5-6), not just for deliberate theft. We have scriptural contingencies that distinguish between borrowed and rented (Ex. 22:14). We might say that we can’t make restitution because it is simply impossible to do so. If so, then the money goes to the Lord (Num. 5:5-8). We don’t get to keep it. We might say that the coming of Jesus has wiped the slate clean. And so it has, making restitution a joy (Luke 19:10).

Time does not make that twenty dollars yours. The blood of Christ does not make that twenty dollars yours. Forgetfulness does not make that twenty dollars yours. A deficient view of the Old Testament does not make that twenty dollars yours. The fact that you swiped it from your mom does not make it yours. The fact that the person you took it from never missed it does not make it yours. “Fools mock at making amends for sin, but good will is found among the upright” (Prov. 14:9, NIV).

Property Rights Are Human Rights:
When economic libertarians try to ground property rights in the autonomous individual, without any reference to Christ, they are making an idol out of property. Whatever good things they might say about economics do not keep this from being an idol, and behaving as idols always do. And one of the things that idols always do is destroy that which is idolized. Those who worship sex destroy it. Those who worship wine destroy it. Those who worship mammon destroy our ability to enjoy it as a very fine fellow creature (1 Tim. 6: 17). We refuse to worship property, and this is why stewardship-property can be secure. With autonomous property as the rope, atomistic libertarians will always lose their tug of war with the state. When we compare the secularist (economic) libertarians with the secularist statists, we are looking at the difference between a competent businessman who loves money and an incompetent businessman who loves money. We have no reason to cheer for one over the other.
Christians are to see property as an incarnational and God-given way to love other people (Rom. 13: 8). And this leads to our last point, the most important one, really.

One More Thing:
“Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth” (Eph. 4:28). Hard-line theonomists can pound the text—“take the money back, you antinomian!”—and miss the point of the law, which is love. What is the greatest commandment? That you love God. What is the second? That you love your neighbor. When the thief repents, he is to get a job— but not so that he can become a fat cat. He is to labor with his hands . . . why? So that he might give.
Whenever anyone puts property ahead of people, he is assaulting the reason God gave property to us in the first place. But when others foolishly react to this error, putting people ahead of property, they have abandoned the only material God gave us for loving others. One of the best ways to recover this understanding is to recover wisdom about restitution.