Over 15 years ago I left church one Sunday morning, frustrated that another Scriptural teaching had been misrepresented from the pulpit. I will say right up front that I don't believe for a minute that a "deliberate lie" was being taught as "truth." I am sure that the speaker (not you, in that instance) was presenting the truth as they understood it. Nevertheless, I am going to use a broader brush as I paint the objection I want to raise today, and that is the Church has been distorting the teaching about the "Old Testament" and the "New Testament" for centuries which has led - not just in my opinion but the opinion of thousands of others - to a distorted view within the 21st century Christian Church in general about what God says in His word and how it applies to all of us as followers of Christ.
I walked out of church that morning, and I walked away from corporate fellowship for several years because I was frustrated and confused - I needed to do more reading and thinking for myself instead of accepting without question what was being taught each week from a pulpit. Eventually, I became involved in a home Bible fellowship with other believers who had come to the same theological fork in the road. Unfortunately, several years into that fellowship, I realized that there would always be a vocal few who had become so disenchanted with established religion that it seemed they mainly wanted to spend our time pointing out the errors in teaching and criticizing those believers who continued to remain in the traditional church, discounting the faith of many who were genuinely following Christ as best as they knew how.
That left me with a dilemma:
Hebrews 10 clearly admonishes let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.
I want and need to be in fellowship. But, does it really matter that, occasionally, teachings from the pulpit misrepresent Scripture? Does it matter that those misrepresentations perpetuate minor errors in doctrine that have snowballed down through the centuries?
Matthew writes: in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
If I’m saying that some teaching misrepresents scripture, am I judging without examining the plank in my own eye?
On the other hand, Peter wrote in his second letter: there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies. And Paul writes in Romans 13 to be subject to powers ordained by God.
But who am I to say that what is being taught is false and destructive? Am I in doing so speaking against those in leadership (or authority?)
And Titus 10 warns against those who stir up division.
Should I just shut up and live with what I see as errors, in order not to spread division?
It’s hard to discern the answer. To my way of thinking, if we are not faithful with the "small things" in doctrine and theology, where does that lead us as people who want to be, and claim to be, followers of Christ? That same Christ who claimed I am in the Father, and the Father (is) in Me. The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me... That same Christ who also said not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. And finally, the same Christ who said I am not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets... [and] not one dot of the Law would be done away with until Heaven and Earth are destroyed.
So what, you may ask, does that have to do with walking away from the church or disagreeing with what has been taught? What are my options when it comes to rightly dividing the Word of Truth? Not that I am overly concerned with what others think about me (because I hardly think "others" even give much thought to me in the first place,) but I don't want to be one who is constantly clanging a cymbal or sowing discord among the believers. Is it better that I just shut up and sit down, shut up and walk out, or take my questions to someone who will listen?
By now, I am sure you are scratching your head and ready to put down this letter, but I will try to get to the point of my frustration.
In the November 20, 2022 sermon about Church History, when explaining the difference between the "Old Covenant" and the "New Covenant", I had to question the validity of several points made. Was it simply a case of over-simplification in order to come up with concise bullet points for a visual? But these are the points that were represented:
Some of these are mostly true:
Yes, the Old Testament was a foreshadowing of Messiah. But Christ himself said that he came to fulfill but not abolish God's commandments. Perhaps a better contrast would be "Foreshadowing > Made Flesh"
Yes, the tablets given to Moses were written on stone, but "external behavior" should be the outcome of a changed heart. Abraham's faith and obedience were counted to him as righteousness; are those not external behaviors?
The “Law” is our Instruction on how to live our lives in accordance with God’s perfect wisdom, as evidence of our being a chosen and set-apart people. Many of His instructions are basic principles that can be applied even when the historical or cultural context no longer applies. Other instructions (like bacon and shrimp) we may not understand the why, but I think it's safe to say the we can (and should) trust God to know what we don't know. (Then you have the rabbis who added "guards" to God's Instructions down through the centuries which then ended up being given more importance than God's original instructions. This was actually a violation of the command to neither add to nor take away from the Instructions God gave. Nowhere does God tell us we can't eat a cheeseburger or have to use two sets of dishes for meat and dairy.)
When Christ came, he lived a life demonstrating how those Instructions or principles were to apply in real life. He called out the rabbis for making their rules more important than God's instructions. When he ascended to heaven after his crucifixion, he gave the Holy Spirit to come alongside and guide us in being his “set-apart” people.
Confusing the issue, it was stated outright in the November 20 presentation that the Old Testament was for the nation of Israel, and that gentiles being included in the faith started in the book of Acts of the Apostles.
I don't believe I am veering too far off track when I question this. (I think what I actually said at the time was, "That's not true!")
Walter Kaiser Jr., President Emeritus of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, wrote Mission in the Old Testament to challenge the idea that mission [to gentiles] is a New Testament development... God promised to bless Abraham and bless all peoples through him. God’s promise of blessing, which also appears in the creation accounts of Genesis, is one of the key themes that make up His promise.
Kaiser's contention is that God didn't forget the rest of the world when He chose Abraham. Instead, God was choosing Israel to be His light and emissary to the rest of the world.
Israel was set apart by God as a nation to emulate. Isaiah 42 says: I, the Lord, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the [nations.] In Exodus, God says that He delivered Israel not only for their own benefit, but so that "the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD."
The Old Testament is full of examples of gentiles who were followers of the God of Israel: Melchizedek, Job, Jethro, Balaam, Rahab, and Ruth, and we are told in Exodus 12 that a mixed multitude left Egypt with the sons of Jacob. Further, in Exodus 12, Numbers 15, Leviticus 24 and elsewhere God states: "One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you.”
Under the Old Covenant, circumcision was the sign of that allowed a stranger dwelling among them to become as a native of the land. It was the physical symbol of God's covenant with Abraham which demonstrated that person had become set apart. Anyone who did not have the sign of the covenant became cut off and could not share in the land inheritance. It has been argued by many that circumcision is a covenant tied to the land of Israel. It is true that by the time of Christ and 1st century Judaism, the Messianic kingdom and land inheritance were tied together.
It is also true that in the 1st century church, the apostles agreed that the minimum standard for gentile converts who were turning to YHVH was to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. (Acts 15:19-20) They were not expected to have all their religious training at the time of baptism. In other words, they were to turn from elements of pagan worship, then be baptized, and then spend time in the word to become familiar with how to live their lives set apart for God as a witness (or light) to others For Peter and James concluded at the Jerusalem Council in verse 21 that "Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath”, which implied that further instruction to the new converts was to be received in weekly teaching from Scriptures (which at that time was the "Old" Testament!)
This is just one small point of doctrine that I want to address. My point being, these differences in how we understand or apply Scripture have led over the years to a theology that teaches "The Church" has replaced Israel, which is anti-Semitic in nature and ignores the fact that God repeatedly says throughout Scripture that He is not finished with Israel, that Christ came to call the Lost Sheep of Israel, and we are grafted in to Israel!
This is my concern: that by saying - or even implying - that the Old Testament was ‘for the Jews’ (which is exactly what many people in Christian churches today say and believe), we are saying that the God who is the same yesterday, today, and forever, the God who gave us the instructions for how we are to live our lives set apart for Him as a witness to the nations, just one day between Malachi and Matthew suddenly decided, ‘Oops, I changed my mind.’ Yes, that sounds like a ludicrous over-simplification, but isn't that the logical conclusion of that teaching?
I think we need to be very careful to rightly divide the Word of Truth, and not simply keep repeating doctrines of men that have been handed down through the years by those in the second and third centuries who sought to distance themselves from "the Jews" when the going got rough after the Bar Kokhba revolt.
But, my bottom line is still this: I don't want to be "that Christian" who is so convinced of his/her own interpretation of Scripture and constantly arguing and finding fault with others. I have walked the tightrope of following the teaching of others even when it didn't seem to line up with what I was reading for myself, and it took decades before I arrived at the place that I was able to give myself permission to disagree. Disagreeing doesn't mean hating, and it does not give me permission to sow discord, but it does mean that I am still left with a dilemma - how do I properly respond and react when I believe that the intent of Scripture is being misrepresented from a position of authority (i.e., the pulpit)?
I know this was not short, but I hope you were able to discern my point, and I trust that you will have some good insight. I very much appreciate you and the heart you have for our assembly and for our region. (And I would not have bothered to bring my concern to you if I felt you do not care about me and what I think.)
