Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth. ~2 Timothy 2:15

About Me

I am a young man who is following God's call into pastoral ministry. I have been so blessed with the privileges which the Lord has granted me. I am blessed to serve the Mt. Joy congregation in Mt. Pleasant, PA. I am constantly humbled and amazed at what the Lord is doing in my life.

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Creation Controversies

It appears that everything in the Bible promotes controversy. Man with his natural tendency of hatred towards God strives to question everything that He says in His Word. Much like the serpent in the garden, many ridicule, "Did God really say that?" Perhaps no other book of the Bible creates as much controversy as the book of Genesis; especially the first eleven chapters. Scholars and laymen alike have attempted to cast doubt on several things which serve as foundational to the entire Bible, our understanding of God and ourselves, and the very history of redemption. I have already looked at one of these issues with The Necessity of A Literal Adam. As I have begun to lead my Sunday School class in a study of the book of Genesis, I continue to encounter other issues that have spawned no small amount of controversy. However, as I take the time to examine the text closely (as any serious Bible student should do), I find no reason for such controversy. This can be seen in several of the controversies surrounding the creation account in Genesis 1. The length of a day, the issue of evolution, and the so-called discrepancies between chapter 1 and chapter 2 are all easily answered within the text itself.

The Duration of A Day
One issue that has come up regarding the creation account in Genesis concerns the idea of just how long were the six days of creation. Some have suggested that the term day refers to a period of a great amount or age of time since the Hebrew word for day does sometimes refer to a period or age of time such as the day of the LORD. Others have argued that it means 1,000 years based on 2 Peter 3:8. Interestingly, while many modern day scholars and students want to view these days as a much lengthier period of time, several of the church fathers and theologians such as Augustine actually shorten them. In fact, they believed that God created the heavens and the earth in an instant since He stood outside of time.

This mess can be solved just by looking at the text itself. Moses does not leave us hanging as to what he means by the term day in Genesis 1. In fact, he even defines it for us. We are told that each day is categorized by there was evening and there was morning (vv. 5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31). For the Hebrews which would first read this account, what do you suppose would come to mind with the phrase there was evening and there was morning to define a day? The literal 24 hour day that they were accustomed to of course, where there was evening and morning, and another day began with the next evening. (The Hebrews and Jews calculated their days from evening to evening.)And if that itself is not enough to prove that day here means what we commonly understand day to indicate today (pun not intended . . . this time at least), then just look at Exodus 20:11. In giving the command to keep the Sabbath, Moses points back to the account given in Genesis 1 as its basis. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Now to be consistent here, we have to understand Moses to mean the same thing with day in v. 11 as he does throughout Genesis 1 which he refers and in vv. 9-10. If Moses meant 1,000 years with the term day in Genesis 1, this means that he also means that in Exodus 20:11, which means that he also meant that in vv. 9-10. This would indicate then that this commandment states that the Hebrews should work 6,000 years and then rest on the 7,000th year. He has to refer to a literal 24 hour day in all three cases. Otherwise we are faced with something absurd that does not make sense and that does not fit the context at all. So a day, understood from the text itself, refers to a literal 24 hours.

Enter Evolution
Another controversy we find concerning Genesis 1 deals with the THEORY of evolution. (Notice that I highlight that it is a THEORY and not a fact. It has NEVER been proven. The so-called "missing links" are still missing. Questions as to why monkeys still exist after man supposedly evolved from them have yet to be answered.) Genesis 1 does not allow the possibility of macroevolution at all. Genesis clearly states that God made the animals according to their kinds (vv. 21, 24-25). He did not make them according to one kind that evolved into another kind and so on. Furthermore, the author delineates between the species. He explains that God made the fish of the sea and the birds of the air on day five (vv. 20-21) and then the livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth on day six (vv. 24-25). It does not say that God made the great sea creatures which grew legs and wings to become the beasts of the earth or the birds. Instead, He created each species separately and distinctly. Adam is shown not to have been created from the changing of a monkey but instead out of the dust of the ground itself (Genesis 2:7). In fact, the Hebrew name, Adam, comes from the same root of the Hebrew word for ground, adamah. God formed Adam from the adamah, not from any other creature. There is no way to harmonize the idea of Darwinian evolution with the account of creation we find in Genesis.

Dueling Double?
Several have claimed that we actually find two contradictory accounts of the creation narrative side by side in the book of Genesis. They postulate that Genesis 2:4-25 serves as a separate account of creation that we just read in Genesis 1:1-2:3. Some have even went so far as to argue that this indicates multiply authorship of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) instead of the sole author being Moses. As we have noticed with the other two controversies surrounding the creation account in Genesis, a closer examination of the text reveals there to be no problem here at all. The reason for the numerous differences between these two chapters actually stems from them not being the same account. In fact, the author never claims them to be.

Genesis 2:4 actually begins a new section in the book. This is indicated to us by the phrase, This is the account of/These are the generations of _____________. (The Hebrew word used here is toledoth, meaning origins or generations.) Such a phrase occurs in the book a total of 11 times and appears to divide the work into 11 sections. Thus, the first section of the book would serve as the Prologue or Introduction (1:1-2:3), this section would run from 2:4-4:26, the third section would be 5:1-6:8; the fourth 6:9-9:29; the fifth 10:1-11:9; the sixth 11:10-26; the seventh 11:27-25:11; eighth 25:12-18; ninth 25:19-35:29; tenth 36:1-37:1; and eleventh 37:2-50:26. Just a cursory reading of these first two sections in succession should indicate that their context is very different. Genesis 1:1-2:3 gives the overview of God's creation of the heavens and the earth in six days and His resting or ceasing from work on the seventh day. Genesis 2:4-4:26 focuses on the creation of humanity specifically, his start in the Garden of Eden, his fall and degeneration into sin, and the hope found in the seed of Seth. It does not present itself as being a separate or additional account of creation at all. In fact, it serves to fill us in on some details pertaining to the creation of man itself and his start.

Now the question remains concerning the supposed difference in the order of creation in comparing the two sections. Those who have viewed this as double like to point out that the order of what was created here is different. In chapter 1 plants and animals were created before man while here in chapter 2 it is man first and then the animals. However, we must realize again that chapter 2 does not give us an account of the creation of the entire heavens and the earth but only man and his start in the garden. Genesis 1:1-2:3 certainly is chronological as indicated in the progression of the days (day 1 followed by day 2 followed by day 3 and so on) while Genesis 2:4 is topical with man as the center. Everything is described in relation to man. Moses already informed us on the order of God's creation. Now he wants to provide us with more details concerning the crown of God's creation, man. Also, we need to keep in mind that chapter 1 refers to the entire heavens and the earth where here we are focused on one garden within this earth; a place called Eden (2:8). The Garden of Eden serves as the scene from 2:8 until 3:24 when man is kicked out of the garden due to his sin. In fact, the plants that are mentioned are those specific to this garden (2:9). It is not referring to the creation of all the plants of the earth. Thus, this does not reverse the order of the plants being created before man that we read about in chapter 1. So what about 2:18-19 which appears to indicate that God created the animals after His creation of man? The biblical text says no such thing. The Hebrew form of the verb for make in v. 19 is what is called a waw consecutive imperfect, which should be translated as a past tense. It is often used for the "past tense narrative sequence." A good translation of the verse would be something to the effect of out of the ground the LORD God formed [or] had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky. Read properly, no contradiction can be found between the two chapters.

Such controversies are only controversial because of a failure to actually examine what the text of Scripture says. When studying Scripture we must labor to understand what the author originally intended to say. This takes time and work! But if we are concerned about what God has to say to us, then it should be a "labor of love" for us. Let's not continue to make such mistakes but study to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has not need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15).

In Christ,
Soli Deo Gloria!!!

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Why Membership Matters

As I reviewed the new church directory for this upcoming year, I noticed something very interesting. Several names that are listed as members I have never met because they never attend the church or no longer have any connection to the fellowship. On the opposite side I recognized names I see every Sunday who have yet to become members. Does membership to a local church consist of more than just having your name on a roll? What does the Bible indicate that membership actually entails?

Membership Entails Affirmation
In Matthew 16:18, we find the first mention of the term church in the New Testament. Right after Peter gives the proper identification of Who Jesus is, that He is the Christ, the Son of the living God (v. 16), Jesus states that He will use him as an instrument to establish the Church. He will serve as a rock for this living organism that He will build. The other apostles would also help lay this foundation with Christ serving as the chief cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20). Jesus also tells Peter that He will give him the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven (v. 19). This indicates an authority bestowed upon Peter and probably by extension, the other apostles. It is the authority of heaven itself. In a very real sense here Jesus could be indicating that the church that He will establish through the apostles will be the earthly representation of His heavenly kingdom. That the church will serve as an ambassador of heaven. An ambassador communicates the will and decisions of their king while in a foreign land. Any decision the ambassador makes is only the decisions that the king had already made. Thus, whatever the ambassador binds, will be only that which has already been bound by the king. (The Greek phrase used here is unusual. It is a combination of a future verb with a perfect participle. It appears to indicate a future reality that has already been settled in the past. One could translate it as whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven.) We see this ambassadorial work with the apostles as Jesus goes about the business of building His church throughout the book of Acts. When the first group of Samaritans came to faith in Christ, the apostles, representing this new church that had begun construction, had to come to pray for them, lay hands on them, and a visible manifestation of the Holy Spirit occurred (Acts 8:14-17). The question should be raised as to why a few of the apostles had to come from Jerusalem to do this. Why Philip did not take it upon himself to do it. I think the reason actually goes back to the authority that Jesus gave Peter and the apostles as Christ’s ambassadors. We are seeing here the keys and the binding and loosing at work. Peter and John merely affirmed the faith of these new converts through the prayer and the laying on of hands. God had saved them through their reception of the message but this sought to confirm their profession of faith. Likewise, church membership serves as a way that the church affirms one’s profession of faith based on the evidence of the fruit of a changed life which should be visible if one has truly been born again. It does not save but the church acts as God’s authority on earth, under the authority of Christ and His Word, to basically say with receiving one into membership: “We recognize you as belonging as part of us. You too join us in representing Jesus on earth.”

Membership Entails Commitment
God never intended for the Christian life to be lived alone. He does not save anyone individually and expect them to be “free agents,” roaming here and there. His desire is for them to be committed to each other in the context of a local congregation of His followers. How else can one live out all the one another commands in Scripture (Leviticus 19:11; John 13:14, 34, 35; Romans 1:12; 12:10, 16; 13:8; 14:13; 15:7,14; 16:16; 1 Corinthians 1:10; 11:33; 12:25; Galatians 5:13, 15, 26; 6:2; Ephesians 4:2, 16, 32; 5:19, 21; Philippians 2:3-5; Colossians 3:9, 13, 16; 1 Thessalonians 3:12; 4:9, 18; 5:11, 13, 15; 2 Thessalonians 1:3; Hebrews 3:13; 10:24, 25; 13:1; James 4:11; 5:9, 16; 1 Peter 3:8; 4:8, 9; 5:5; 1 John 1:7; 3:11, 23; 4:7, 11, 12)? Perhaps the clearest picture we have of this is found in 1 Corinthians 12:12-31. In this chapter, Paul describes the church using the imagery of a human body made up of its various parts. God’s Spirit has given each believer a specific gift that should be used for the common good (1 Corinthians 12:7). The purpose of any spiritual gift is to edify or build up each other in the faith and to be used to serve one another (1 Peter 4:10). This indicates something that cannot be done at home away from other believers and something that would be difficult to do hopping from one church to the next. Committing to suffer with the members of a local congregation in their suffering and to rejoice with them in their rejoicing can only be done if you have taken the time to, in a sense, live among those members and get to know them (1 Corinthians 12:26). Keep in mind that Paul writes to a local congregation in Corinth when he gives this instruction. Sitting at home and not joining a church really is not an option that the Bible gives (Hebrews 10:24-25).

Membership Entails Accountability
In the second mention of the term church in the New Testament, Jesus explains the accountability the church has upon its individual members. As recorded in Matthew 18:15-20, He lays out the steps in the process of what to do if you notice a fellow member in sin. The first step would be the point out their fault to them individually (v. 15). The hope is that this will lead the believer to see the error of their way and run back to Christ in repentance. However, if he or she refuses to repent and leave the specific sin, we are told to approach them again, this time with two or more witnesses (v. 16). If this still does not result in their repentance, they are to be called before the church and the entire congregation should reach out to them in love, calling for them to leave such a sin behind. However, if they appear to be so hard hearted that he or she still refuses the reproach, drastically they are treated as if they were outside the church and thus do not belong to the body of Christ (v. 17). Jesus then mentions the authority that He has given the church in these matters with the mention once again of them binding and loosing on earth what will have been already bound and loosed in heaven (v. 18) and that He stands with them in such a decision (vv. 19-20) (assuming that the church followed His procedure as He had outlined of course). I must mention here that the goal of such a process is actually restoration. This can be seen in the fact that Jesus’ teaching follows His parable of the shepherd leaving his 99 sheep to retrieve the one that has gone astray (vv. 12-14) and that it precedes Peter’s question concerning forgiveness (vv. 21-35).

When one becomes a member of a local congregation, they are actually saying that they want that body of believers together to hold them accountable for the way in which they are living. If they have an area of unrepentant sin in their life, they want the church to lovingly point that out. Any true believer who desires to live the holy life that Christ saved them for (2 Corinthians 5:15) would want this. Being a member of a local congregation is to say that I submit to this congregation and want them to hold me accountable for my spiritual growth and discipleship. I submit to their teaching and discipline. And discipleship consists of both teaching and correction. As you can visibly see, disciple and discipline are closely related.

So membership certainly consists of more than just having one’s name on the roll at such and such church. It involves having a local congregation affirm their profession of faith and recognize them as one of its own. It includes a commitment given to others in the congregation and their work together for the sake of the gospel. It is submitting to the congregation’s authority, which it enacts under the authority of Christ and His Word, to be held accountable for one’s growth and discipline in grace. Is this true of you as a member of a local congregation? Have you found a good Bible teaching local church in which to join and labor for our Lord? If you have been attending a local church but never made steps to become a member, what might be holding you back? Let’s be obedient to Christ and become members of His body in the localities in which we live for the glory of His name.

In Christ,
Soli Deo Gloria!!!

Monday, January 14, 2013

The Necessity of a Literal Adam

It has become increasingly common today to dismiss much of the historicity of the book of Genesis and instead claim that it is fictional or consisting of mythical stories that serve the purpose of teaching us a lesson. Many people deny the reality of the first man described in the Bible, Adam. I have even had people tell me that it actually doesn't matter whether or not the first 11 chapters of Genesis are literal but instead it is just about how you see Jesus. However, whether or not you believe that Adam is literal DOES matter in how you understand the entire Bible. If you are consistent, and you believe that Adam did not exist or was merely a myth or figurative of something else, then you must also believe that Jesus Christ did not exist or served as only a myth or was figurative. The reality of Jesus rises and falls with the reality of Adam and the historicity of the narratives in Genesis. Just follow this logic:

If Adam was not a literal man, then he could not have had a literal son named Seth. Seth could not have had a literal son named Enosh. Enosh could not have had a literal son named Kenan. Kenan then could not have had a literal son named Mahalalel who in turn could not have had a literal son named Jared, who could not have had a literal son named Enoch, who could not have had a literal son named Methuselah, who could not have had a literal son named Lamech, who could not have had a literal son named Noah (Genesis 5:3-30).

So if Adam was not a literal man then Noah could not be a literal man if one is consistent in such an erroneous interpretation. This would also mean that Noah could not have had a literal son named Shem (Genesis 5:32; 10:1), who could not have grown up to have a literal son named Arpachshad, who could not have had a literal son named Shelah, who could not have had a literal son named Eber, who could not have had a literal son named Peleg, who could not have had a literal son named Reu, who could not have had a literal son named Serug, who could not have had a literal son named Nahor, who could not have had a literal son named Terah, who could not have had a literal son named Abraham (Genesis 11:10-26).

If Abraham was not a literal person since he descended from all others who were not literal people, if Adam is denied being a literal person himself, then he could not have had a literal son named Isaac (Genesis 21:2; 25:19) (And with such detail in the narrative pertaining to God's promise to Abraham and His means of bringing about this child to him and his wife, Sarah, as well as the preserving of his descendants, how one could deny that the author intends for us to understand a literal child promised to a literal man is beyond me), who could not have had a literal son named Jacob (Genesis 25:21-26), who could not have had a literal son named Judah (Genesis 29:35), who could not have had a literal son named Perez (Genesis 38), who could not have had a literal son named Hezron, who could not have had a literal son named Ram, who could not have had a literal son named Amminadab, who could not have had a literal son named Nahson, who could not have had a literal son named Salmon, who could not have had a literal son named Boaz, who could not have had a literal son named Obed, who could not have had a literal son named Jesse, who could not have had a literal son named David who would become a literal king over a literal kingdom known as Israel (Ruth 4:18-22)

With a fictional David, that we would have if Adam is viewed as fictional since a fictional Adam can only produce a fictional son that eventually leads us to a fictional Abraham and so forth, we actually find the reality of Jesus denied in two different ways; through both of His earthly parents. To argue that Jesus is the Messiah promised in the Old Testament Scriptures, who would have to be both the son of David and the son of Abraham as predicted, Matthew traces His legal genealogy through His adopted father, Joseph. We see that the line of the Messiah proceeds through David's son, Solomon. So if David did not exist, which would necessarily follow if Adam never existed, then he could not have had a son named Solomon, who could not have had a son named Rehoboam, who could not have had a son named Abijah, who could not have had a son named Asa, who could not have had a son named Jehoshaphat, who could not have had a son named Joram, who could not have had a son named Uzziah, who could not have had a son named Ahaz, who could not have had a son named Hezekiah, who could not have had a son named Manasseh, who could not have had a son named Amon, who could not have had a son named Josiah, who could not have had a son named Jeconiah, who could not have had a son named Shealtiel, who could not have had a son named Zerubbabel, who could not have had a son named Abihud, who could not have had a son named Eliakim, who could not have had a son named Azor, who could not have had a son named Zadok, who could not have had a son named Achim, who could not have had a son named Eliud, who could not have had a son named Eleazar, who could not have had a son named Matthan, who could not have had a son named Jacob, who could not have had a son named Joseph (Matthew 1:6-16), calling into question the entire reliability of the gospel accounts of this man's adopted divine Son named Jesus.

The same can be seen with Jesus' biological genealogy through His mother Mary. While Matthew provides us with Jesus' ancestry through Joseph, Luke appears to give us Mary's. This would explain the differences we find between the two of them after King David. This would also make sense as Luke shows more knowledge pertaining to things involving Mary than Matthew does in his gospel. After all, he is the one who tells us about her encounter with her cousin Elizabeth and the special birth of John the Baptist (1:5-80) and how she treasured all these things, pondering them in her heart (2:19). He might have used her as one of his sources for compiling the information concerning the life and work of Jesus the Messiah. Jesus is truly shown to be the Messiah since on both sides of His earthly family, He can be shown to be seen the son of David and the son of Abraham. However, again that all depends on the literal understanding of Adam. Luke traces Jesus' genealogy, through Mary, back to Adam himself. If Adam was only figurative and not a literal person then one must conclude that Jesus must be as well! Going the opposite direction than Matthew did in his gospel, Luke begins with Jesus and moves backward to Adam. So in this case, Jesus actually proves the literal existence of Adam! If Jesus was literally born of a literal woman named Mary (which the Bible certainly intends to be taken literally!), then she must have been born of a literal man named Eli and so forth all the way until you get to the man named Adam who in a sense can be called the son of God since God created him and no other humans preceded him (Luke 3:23-38). (I almost began to list all of the names but I think that by now you should be be able to see my point.)

As you can see, how you understand the Genesis narrative and particularly the literalness of Adam, does matter with how you view the rest of the Bible and especially Jesus, His death, and resurrection. Either Genesis is true in what it tells us about Adam or none of the Bible stands as true since it is all connected back to Adam, even Jesus Himself. Everyone must make a choice. You either believe all of the Bible to be God's Word that does not err as it claims itself to be or you believe none of it at all. To deny any part of the Bible to be God's Word would be to deny all of it since Paul clearly tells us that ALL Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17). To call Adam into question really is to call Christ into question.

In Christ,
Soli Deo Gloria!
Sola Scriptura