Genesis 24:1-27 - The Servant

Abraham had just buried his wife. Isaac is near 40 years old and needs a wife. How will this old widower take care of his family? Who is this obscure man that is so trusted? What I hope to show this morning is the role and character of a godly servant, a man who foreshadows a greater Servant – the One who was a servant to us and calls us to be servants one to another.

 

The Body of Christ is not "the church"

The Body of Christ is not “the church”

Since YHWH began forming a people for Himself, how man perceives and describes God has been important. In the early post-apostolic years, heresies cropped up regarding the nature of God and the person of Christ. Today, it is settled orthodoxy within the Christian faith that God is a holy trinity and Christ is fully God and fully man.

The doctrine of the trinity was the reason for the Nicaean creed of 325. The Creed of Nicaea (A.D. 325), was written mainly to refute Arianism; the teaching that Jesus was not eternal, but created. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity was at the heart of the Creed of Nicaea. This creed was the product of what was called the First Ecumenical council of Nicaea, convened by Emperor Constantine. The council met to deal with the schism created by Arianism, an over-reaction to the heresy of Sabellius, who believed in a divine nomad which presented itself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Arians saw the Son distinct from God entirely, claiming he was a creature having a beginning: "There was when he was not." The Son was God's first creation Sabellius taught, yet out of nothing and hence has preeminence over the rest of creation. Arianism was an early form of the heresy of Modalism, still favored and taught by One-ness Pentecostals.

The hypostatic union was the doctrine developed by two major creeds, in response to gross errors taught by men who denied Jesus was eternally God and fully man since His incarnation.

The First Council of Constantinople, (A.D. 381), modified the Creed of Nicaea by adding a phrase in support of the eternality and deity of Christ; refuting Apollinarism, which taught that Jesus had but one nature. Apollinaire taught that Jesus did not have a human spirit. His views were based on the platonic tripartite view of human nature. The council condemned this view in order to show that Christ, as truly human as well as truly God, could redeem the whole person.

The filioque clause (clarifying that the Holy Spirit proceeded from both the Father and the Son) is one of the major disagreements between the Eastern Orthodox religion and others which profess Christ. This creed is still recited by some Christians, and is still needed.

The Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) met to resolve the Monophysite controversy, which Eutyches stirred up by denying the existence of two natures in Christ. The two natures of Jesus, fully man and fully God, is a mystery not fully revealed to nor comprehended by man. That we cannot fully understand something given to us in Scripture is no excuse to deny it. The Definition document issued by the council summarizes the Church's teaching on the natures of Christ, and rightly specified the scope of Mary being the "God-bearer" - only as regards Jesus' humanness. Even so, the dispute about the two natures of Jesus continued until The Second Council of Constantinople in 533.

There is another aspect of the nature of God that has not generated the interest that the trinity and hypostatic union have: the body of Christ.

Body of Christ is described in Scripture as “heavenly Jerusalem” (Galatians 4:26; Hebrews 12:22; and Revelations 21:9-27), “living stones … a spiritual house for a holy priesthood” (1 Peter 2:5); “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for His possession” (1 Peter 2:9); “saints” and “faithful brothers” (Colossians 1:2). The list goes on; the point is the body of Christ, with its varied members all purchased by the Lord Jesus; and Christ is the head (Colossians 1:18).

We’ve been duped by the state-church into accepting “church” as the word describing the saints of the living God. The word "church" is not a translation of the Greek word, ekklesia; it’s not even a transliteration of that word. There does not appear to be a clear record of why “church” was chosen, nor of the meaning of this word. The first known use of this word in English Bibles is found in Wycliffe’s Bible, spelled “chirche.” His work was translated from the Latin Vulgate and we have no clear reason for his use of this word. English Bibles after Wycliff translated “ekklesia” as “congregation” – until the Geneva Bible, which gave us “church.”

The Greek word commonly presented as “church” is “ekklesia”. Strong’s Concordance defines “ekklesia” as “compound of <G1537> (ek) and a derivative of <G2564> (kaleo); a calling out, i.e. (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both), assembly, church.”

In Smith's Bible Dictionary from 1884, page 452, we read:

the derivation of the word 'church' is uncertain. It is found in the Teutonic and Slavonic languages and answers to the derivatives of ekklesia, which are naturally found in the romance languages and by foreign importation elsewhere. The word is generally said to be derived from the Greek kyriakos, meaning the lord's house. But the derivation has been too hastily assumed. It is probably associated with the Scottish kirk, the Latin circus/circulous, the Greek klukos, because the congregations were gathered in circles.

Ebenezer Cobham Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase and Fable of 1898 agrees:

The etymology of this word is generally assumed to be from the Greek, Kuriou oikos (house of God); but this is most improbable, as the word existed in all the Celtic dialects long before the introduction of Greek. No doubt the word means "a circle." The places of worship among the German and Celtic nations were always circular. (Welsh, cyrch, French, cirque; Scotch, kirk; Greek, kirk-os, etc.) Compare Anglo-Saxon circe, a church, with circol, a circle.

The first definition in Daniel Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines “church” as “A house consecrated to the worship of God, among Christians; the Lord's house. This seems to be the original meaning of the word.”

When work on the King James Bible began, the king provided 15 rules that the translators had to follow. Rule 3 is of particular interest to this topic:

3. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept; as the word church, not to be translated congregation, &c.

King James was separating from Rome, establishing his own state-church and translating “ekklesia” as “congregation” or “assembly” would have worked against the theology embraced by the state-church. provided us a clearer picture of what God was communicating. Ekklesia rendered as "congregation" or "assembly" shows we are talking about people, not places. Advocates of the state-church have a history of building geo-political empires with ostentatious buildings for their gatherings and sprinkling infants rather than baptizing disciples. Presbyterians equate Old Covenant Israel with the New Covenant saints, providing "cover" for having unconverted children as "junior" members of the local "church." Without the word "church" being properly interpreted as the called ones (or something similar), people can easily be led astray in believing a "church" is something other than the assembly of the redeemed – like a building. Missing completely the meaning intended by God.

As a bare word, “ekklesia” doesn’t describe the purpose for which people are gathered. In Act 7:37-38, Heb 2:11-12, and the gospel accounts (such as Matthew 18:17), “ekklesia” is used to describe God’s covenant people in the Mosaic Covenant community.

In Acts 19:21-41, ekklesia is used three times to refer to townsfolk in Ephesus, showing up in English as “assembly.”

In numerous passages, “ekklesia” refers to the saints, the redeemed in Christ, those translated from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of His glorious light. And we see it English as “church.”

Do professing Christians grasp the meaning of “church” rightly? It’s common for people to talk about “going to church,” or “filling up the church,” or point out “look at that beautiful church!” These and many similar phrases betray a lack of understanding of “ekklesia.” The state-church has succeeded, we have largely lost sight of what constitutes the body of Christ.

Why does this all matter? The ekklesia of Christ is the people of God. Christ gave Himself for His sheep - all and each of them, whether they belong to a local congregation or are awaiting the resurrection of their bodies. He did not give Himself for any building. We who are still in our tabernacles of flesh are to love one another; in this way the world will know we are His disciples. This brotherly love within the local assembly is lost in most, as they have reduced worship to mere traditions and reduced biblical fellowship to a superficial "meet & greet" with an occasional meal. John would accuse us - how can you say you love God, Whom you cannot see, if you do not love the brother you can see? (1 John 4:20) I would add - how can you say you love your brothers and sisters in Christ if all you love are those far away, but not those with whom you rub up against and have disagreements? Jesus did not die only to provide eternal life for us; He also provided His Spirit to guide us in all truth, and in love for one another. We have been bought at a price by the One Who said:

John 15:12 (ESV) This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. John 15:17 (ESV) These things I command you, so that you will love one another.

After all, the Bible is all about the Lord Jesus and we ought to be, also. We rightly argue for and defend the Holy Trinity and the hypostatic union, even though these are difficult mysteries. We should no less careful or concerned about rightly and properly describing His Body. It’s not a building, it’s a redeemed people gathered into a local ekklesia. 

The Old Man Was Crucified

The Old Man/Self: Who Died?

Stuart L. Brogden

I’ve become aware of some who say that Paul was referring to Adam being put to death in Romans 6:6, that the accepted understanding that Paul was referring to something in the Christian being put to death. Here is that verse, in the KJV: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. The argument is that natural man’s federal head is Adam and our “old self” refers to our identity in Adam and Adam’s body was destroyed, not ours – we still have our old bodies! Here’s a quote from an advocate of this view: “It is in this sense only that it can be said that the body of sin is destroyed. It has not been destroyed in us, because as long as we are in this flesh, even as sinners made alive by the Spirit of God, the sinful nature has not, cannot, and will not change, Romans 8:7,8. The body of sin then is the legal condemnation of sin imputed in Adam to our account.”  

There is much in this brother’s statement that is cause for concern, the first is his use of Romans 8:7-8 to refer to the status of Christians. Here’s the larger passage, to provide some context:

Rom 8:5-9 (HCSB) For those who live according to the flesh think about the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, about the things of the Spirit. For the mind-set of the flesh is death, but the mind-set of the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind-set of the flesh is hostile to God because it does not submit itself to God’s law, for it is unable to do so. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. You, however, are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God lives in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.

Paul is contrasting unregenerate (those who live according to the flesh) with the redeemed (those who live according to the Spirit). In verses 7 & 8 Paul describes the condition of the unregenerate: hostile toward God, unable and unwilling to submit to His law, unable to please God. This is not how the redeemed are described in Scripture. We are reconciled to God, equipped by the Holy Spirit to will and to do what pleases Him (Phil 2:13).

The last statement leaves me wondering if the author is aware of the need for our own sin, in addition to the imputed sin of Adam, is worthy of condemnation and needs to be forgiven. He further wrote: “The old man (what we were in Adam), and the body of sin (the legal condemnation by imputation), are destroyed, Christ having borne it away in His obedience unto death.” The “body of sin” which needs to be dealt with is larger than “the legal condemnation by imputation.”

I think part of this brother’s error is his reliance on the KJV, without consultation of other translations. Here’s how the HCSB presents Romans 6:6 - For we know that our old self was crucified with Him in order that sin’s dominion over the body may be abolished, so that we may no longer be enslaved to sin. Note that it is “sin’s dominion over the body” that must be abolished; “the body of sin” (as in the KJV) does not refer to a literal body (like man’s) but to a “body of evidence.” When this body of evidence is rendered impotent by the propitiating death of Christ, it no longer has power over us, having been nailed to His cross (Col. 2:13-14) and cannot condemn us any longer. In Romans 7:2, the wife whose husband has died is freed from the law (i.e., the law of marriage no longer has any power over her, in spite of what she may feel). A similar point seems to be made here.

Back to the “old man/self” that was crucified. The immediate context of Romans 6 sheds some light on this.

Rom 6:5-11 (HCSB) For if we have been joined with Him in the likeness of His death, we will certainly also be in the likeness of His resurrection. For we know that our old self was crucified with Him in order that sin’s dominion over the body may be abolished, so that we may no longer be enslaved to sin, since a person who has died is freed from sin’s claims. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with Him, because we know that Christ, having been raised from the dead, will not die again. Death no longer rules over Him. For in light of the fact that He died, He died to sin once for all; but in light of the fact that He lives, He lives to God. So, you too consider yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Note the tenor of this passage – personal, related to the children of God and their relationship with Jesus. We have been joined with Christ; our old self has died; sin’s rule is finished; we died to sin; we died with Christ; we are dead to sin and alive to God in Christ. If Paul meant Adam had died; how did that death reconcile us to Christ? Our relationship to sin must change in order for us to be reconciled to God. That is the focus of Romans 6!

A quick review of some of the other passages that describe who died to sin should clarify who Paul spoke of in chapter 6 and verse 6.

Rom 6:2 (HCSB) How can we who died to sin still live in it?

Rom 7:6 (HCSB) But now we have been released from the law, since we have died to what held us, so that we may serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old letter of the law.

2 Cor 5:14 (HCSB) For Christ’s love compels us, since we have reached this conclusion: If One died for all, then all died.

Gal 2:19-20 (HCSB) For through the law I have died to the law, so that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.

Eph 4:17-24 (HCSB) Therefore, I say this and testify in the Lord: You should no longer walk as the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their thoughts. They are darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them and because of the hardness of their hearts. They became callous and gave themselves over to promiscuity for the practice of every kind of impurity with a desire for more and more. But that is not how you learned about the Messiah, assuming you heard about Him and were taught by Him, because the truth is in Jesus. You took off your former way of life, the old self that is corrupted by deceitful desires; you are being renewed in the spirit of your minds; you put on the new self, the one created according to God’s likeness in righteousness and purity of the truth.

Col 2:20 (HCSB) If you died with the Messiah to the elemental forces of this world, why do you live as if you still belonged to the world? Why do you submit to regulations: “Don’t handle, don’t taste, don’t touch”?

Col 3:5-11 (HCSB) Therefore, put to death what belongs to your worldly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desire, and greed, which is idolatry. Because of these, God’s wrath comes on the disobedient, and you once walked in these things when you were living in them. But now you must also put away all the following: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and filthy language from your mouth. Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old self with its practices and have put on the new self. You are being renewed in knowledge according to the image of your Creator. In Christ there is not Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, slave and free; but Christ is all and in all.

2 Tim 2:11 (HCSB) This saying is trustworthy: For if we have died with Him, we will also live with Him.

1 Pet 2:24 (HCSB) He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree, so that, having died to sins, we might live for righteousness; you have been healed by His wounds.

There is no denial that we are twice-condemned: 1.) For the sin-nature we inherited from Adam and 2.) for the sin we commit. In being justified, the wrath due us for both of these was poured out on Christ. 2 Cor 5:17 would not be true if Adam’s death was meant in Romans 6:6 or any other of these passages. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away, and look, new things have come. This is true for all who have been born from above! A new creation! Adam’s death didn’t bring us to that state; our death to sin and being made alive to Christ has wrought this.

In Romans 5, Adam is positioned against Christ. Nowhere is the death of Adam held out as our hope for peace with God. In verse 17, we see the condemnation that came from the one man’s trespass contrasted with the abundant grace we from Christ. Since by the one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive the overflow of grace and the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. What is contrasted is consistently the condemnation of Adam with the righteousness of Christ, which is ours when we are given that faith to believe upon Him. Adam’s death plays NO PART in this reconciliation!

In all of these references, what the Spirit is pressing upon us is that a change has been wrought in us. We are no longer slaves to sin because we, being born from above, have died to that master. Just as another’s faith cannot save us, the death of another human (such as Adam) cannot redeem us. The life of the Christian is walked out in tension between who we were in Adam and who we are in Christ. All of the talk in these passages about us dying are exhortations to quit entertaining sin, stop submitting to that master. Read the Scriptures and ask yourself – who is being addressed? Who is the subject, who has “died to sin”? If you are in Christ, a new creation, that ought to be you! 

Genesis 22 - Trust and Obey

 Many years ago, J.I. Packer said, “The Christian moto should not be “Let go and let God” but “Trust God and get going!” Trust and obey.

Genesis 21:1-21 Promise, Joy, & Conflict

No matter our circumstances, God is working out His plan. We can trust Him. We SHOULD trust Him.

 

Genesis 20 - The God of Providence

God has decreed and we can rest on His faithfulness. If He promises something it will be done - either by His own arm or through means. 

 

YOU MIGHT BE A PHARISEE IF...

YOU MIGHT BE A PHARISEE IF...

• You are glad you are better than others.
• Your prayers are more like “self-talk” than speaking with God.
• Your sins seem so small when placed beside the really BIG sins of others.
• You rationalize that Christians who don’t agree with you are all “compromisers.”
• You routinely dismiss anyone who would dare to point out a “blind spot.”
• You verbally rip apart the people who disagree with you.
• You rehearse your virtues when you should be confessing your sin.
• You take delight in checking off your religious “to do” list.
• The standard you use to judge others is “you.”
• Prayer is more about you and your perception than about God and His praise.
• You assume your discipline and “preciseness” indicates true spirituality.
• Your memory is excellent when it comes to remembering your good works.
• You glory more in appearance than in heart.
• You are obsessed with externals, but blind to the internal reality of your own soul.
• Outward righteousness is more important than heart holiness.
• You find it difficult to fellowship with those different from yourself.
• You believe you are superior to others.
• You keep a list of your religious activities on the tip of your tongue.
• You justify yourself by condemning others.
• You build up yourself and your group by tearing others down.
• You despise people who do not hold your convictions.
• Your conscience is silent when you accuse and verbally abuse God’s people.
• You excuse your arrogant behavior because you hold to “the correct position.”
• You call your uncanny ability to catalog the faults of others “discernment.”
• You thank God you are not as other men.
• You really like to hear yourself pray.
• Your sense of self-importance blinds you to the fact of how repulsive you are to others.
• You always come out in a favorable light when you compare yourself with other men.
• You feel your anger is justified because you are right and those you are angry with are wrong.
• You cling to “emotional infallibility” – the belief that whatever you feel in your heart must be correct.
• You believe a person really pleases God by keeping all the rules.
• Your theological “rigidity” is more important than all other factors.
• You feel the trail of broken relationships in your past is due to some fault in the other parties.
• You visually and intellectually comply in order to gain acceptance and approval.
• You are so caught up in your own circle that you will do anything to maintain your reputation.
• You are dominated by the fear of man.
• You are insulted by the notion you may be a Pharisee

Harold Vaughan