Racial Prejudice?

There is an occasion when Jesus is reported (shockingly) as saying to a Canaanite woman: "It is not good to take the food for the children and give it to the dogs." Clearly in the context the statement was referring to the request she had made for help for her demon-possessed daughter. While such a saying may not have seemed strange to those who were already prejudiced against the Canaanites it does rather hit us in the face who have been taught that racial prejudice is wrong.

Were Jesus' words really an indication of the kind of prejudice which led to the Holocaust - prejudice which springs from a superiority quite out of step with those who consider themselves followers of Jesus and Paul? In other words was Jesus really prejudging the Canaanites? Was his epithet as vicious as it might be if used by one of us? To answer that question we need to understand Jesus' motive for the question.

He told the woman he had come in order to seek and save the lost children of Israel. He had previously had an altercation with the Scribes and Pharisees. He had, as a result, explained to the disciples the difference between a false view of defilement (by not carrying out ritual cleansings) and real defilement - that which comes from the heart. It was after that incident that he withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon where they met up with the Canaanite (Syro-Phoenician) woman. It seems significant that Matthew records only one incident (her request) from that visit to the region. Were there no Israelites there who felt the need for the Savior's touch? Or was it her response that the Savior wanted to draw to our attention?

She comes to him - a Canaanite seeking help from a Jew! Such an event was uncommon in itself. At this point all the disciples would have been watching - they had just been reminded that it is what comes from the heart which defiles. Now they see their Master reject her request! He didn't merely say politely: "I'm sorry I didn't come to help anyone but the Israelites ..." That would have been acceptable to the modern ear. He said it insultingly. "It is not right to give food, reserved for the children, to the dogs!" Plainly he was likening the Canaanite to a dog - the kind of animal which slinks around the table attempting to steal the food belonging to the people of the house.

Her response was humble and an unexpected acceptance of his apparent denigration. "True, Lord," she responds, "but even the dogs are allowed the crumbs which drop from the table." Was there an implied rebuke in her words as if to say she was (after all) better than the dogs? I believe not. On the contrary it would appear she was prepared to place herself lower on the scale than the very dogs to which Jesus referred. The obvious interpretation is that, such was her love for her daughter, she would accept any insult, any denigration if only it would be a benefit to her daughter.

Jesus, however, read more in this than merely love for her daughter. He saw the faith she had in him. He saw she was prepared to accept any assessment he wanted to make of her. In comparison with his glory she was nothing, less than the dogs which were given the right to feed on the crumbs. She was prepared to ask for that which was theirs by right, and of one who was capable of giving so much more than just food for the body. Do you consider this an exaggeration? Is this reading more into the text than is there? Then hear the words of the Lord himself: "Woman," he said, "Your faith is great, be it done for you as you wish." And, Matthew records, her daughter was immediately healed.

So, was Jesus racially motivated? The words he used certainly seemed to indicate that was true. But his willingness to recognize her faith and declare it as great proves his words were for the disciples' benefit. He had not yet finished teaching them that it is what comes from the heart which defiles - even when it appears the language shows something different. That they left the region without any other recorded event indicates that was the way Matthew saw it for, as soon as they return to the Sea of Galilee, Jesus was healing the people again - and we read of the feeding of the four thousand who had been with him for three days and had no food. This view of the incident is entirely consistent with Jesus' treatment of the Samaritan woman at the well (who was surprised that he, being a Jew would even talk to her) and the Gentiles who came to him for help.

One cannot but conclude that Jesus' whole purpose in going to the region was just to find this lady and help her while, at the same time, reinforcing a valuable lesson for his disciples. His words were designed to evoke the kind of response which comes from humble faith, the kind which bows to God's judgment, even when it is unflattering to the recipient. Such faith ought to characterize all those who have been given the privilege of being called the children of God.

The Regulative Principle and Freedom

I was reading an excellent summation of the Regulative Principle of worship given as a paper at the International Council of Reformed Churches and reported in "The Ordained Servant" a paper of the OPC. I am not intending to add anything directly to what was said by the author, G.I. Williamson, but I did want to deal with an issue which has been raised against the idea of the principle when it comes to worship.

The issue is explained as God requiring a different set of standards in his worship from that which he requires everywhere else in life. Everywhere else, goes the argument, God lays out the principles and lets us decide how we are going to apply them. In worship (suppose the regulative principle is correct) he not only lays out the principles but (it is implied) even tells us how to apply them. This means (the conclusion) that the regulative principle must be wrong, there is no freedom in it. So, is there freedom in the regulative principle of worship? Looking at just the issue of what we sing for the present:

Suppose we were to set aside the principle. When we come to worship we would have to accept the decisions taken by the Church leaders as to whether the particular songs we sing were acceptable to God. The Old Testament shows us that there are eternal consequences hang on such choices - if a pair of well-meaning young men can be struck dead because they offered an incense which God did not commend - we had better be certain those leaders have chosen carefully. Then the way we find out what choice has been made is the songbook we will sing from. Ordinarily, that means we are limited to the songs in that book. Then, significantly, as time goes on such books tend to have fewer and fewer of the Psalms in them (at least that seems to be the common experience of those who use such books).

Now, the intent of those who wish to make changes to the regulative principle may not have been to exclude the Psalms but such is the sinful heart of man that the effect is the same as if it had been. Sin will always push us to avoid the word of God - even in his worship. So, God provides us with a song book and requires us to sing from it when we come to worship him. The leaders of the Church do the same, but they provide a different song book. If it comes to a choice, I know which will be mine, especially when I know that what I sing will be used to "teach and admonish" me. I would rather know that what I was learning about spiritual matters and attitude of mind was taught by God's book rather than the book of a man (however well respected he might be).

Then there is a matter of the tunes. God did not supply us with tunes. The would seem to imply we are free to make tunes as we will or (in the same way as he had preserved the Bible) we would still have the tunes of David, Moses and the others. The question of what musical instrument(s) should be used to accompany the singers is less important than the way it(they) is(are) played. Guiding the melody in order to keep the singers in tune should be the role not providing a show.

A Capella is always possible, though, God is less concerned about the beauty of the music and more concerned about the intent of the singer. Tunes and musical insruments have been assumed to be matters of circumstance rather than elements of worship (like the time we gather and the location) so are matters God leaves to our discretion. A case, however, can be made for the practice of the Scottish Reformers who set out a number of tunes which were taught over a period to all congregations and which would match the versions of the Psalms which had been set to meter. The result was (with a good, strong singer to lead the congregation) every Presbyterian Church in Scotland, no matter the size, sang the same songs and used the same tunes. And none felt they were limited in their ability to worship God. They were free from the tyranny of men and free from the need to buy the fancy musical instruments so beloved by the cathedrals of the Romanists.

The best thing about the regulative principle is that I am free to choose any one of the selections in the song book and know they are not going to lead me astray. There is freedom. And, were Churches all over the world to use the same song book (as was the intention - if the regulative principle is applied correctly) I would have the freedom to enter any church and join in the worship knowing the singing is pleasing to God. In the end it is what pleases God which matters - and shouldn't he be to one who has the choice about what is acceptable worship?

God's Plan - Step III Bringing them home.

We remember the things we have established so far.
First - The problem of sin: Instead of walking with God as his image and friend. sin makes us enemies and rebels against God. We distort the truth which reveals the glory and nature of God so clearly that everyone will be unable to deny that they knew God even when they worshiped and served someone or something else. That sin affects absolutely everyone. Because we sin, we all die.

Second - God made a Plan: His plan was to provide a way of escape sufficient that every single human being could, if they are willing, avoid the punishment due because of sinful human nature and the actual sins they commit themselves. This plan also overcomes sinful nature, establishes a trusting relationship with God and brings some of the human race to enjoy the final blessings of that relationship.

Third - Step I; Paying for Sin: The first step was to ensure the payment due for sin was paid. That required someone who was free of the taint of Adam's sin, who never committed sin and who would lay down his life on behalf of man. No one was able to do that but God, Himself. So, Jesus came and did all required of him including the death of a criminal, though he did no wrong.

Fourth - Step II; Step II; Gathering the Sheep: The second step was to ensure that some of those who were headed for Hell are turned around. This is truly life from death and, as such, God's work. Saints from both Old and New Testaments are saved the same way. And, though unable to be proved, the language of the New Testament implies more will be saved than lost.

Step III; Bringing them Home: Here we have to deal with one of the realities of life. Some of those who begin as Christians do not continue to the end. Persecution puts some off and the cares, pleasures and worries of the world distract others. This is the reason Paul exhorts his readers to strive hard to make their calling and election sure. He reminds them that the prize doesn't go to the starters of the race - you have to finish it. Jesus told the story of the man who went out to hire laborers for his field, it was those who worked (no matter how long) who earned their pay at the end.

Once again we need to remember, when thinking through our salvation, God ordains what will come to pass and so it does. Yet, at the same time, man is responsible for the consequences of every choice he makes. God is not the author of our sins, we are. We may not understand this fully - we may even ask "So why does God still find fault? Who has ever resisted his will?" We should understand that God is like the potter and we are clay - he may do with us exactly what he wills and complaints are not an option. In the same way as each step in executing God's plan has a Godward and a manward aspect and both are true so it is here.

As, for example, conversion is a co-operative thing; the person has to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (even though, seeing the stakes by the work of the Holy Spirit, it seems impossible to do anything else) so it is with becoming Christlike. From our perspective we are required to fight against our sinful tendencies. It's not enough to imagine all we have to do is know Bible teaching, we have to use that teaching to guide our behavior. We need to desire to express our gratitude to God for his wonderful work in saving us. And we need to do it all understanding that some who begin with us do actually make shipwreck of their faith.

It is God's plan, however, that every one of his children will persevere to the end. In the prayer of John 17, Jesus makes a distinction between the eleven faithful disciples and "the son of perdition" Judas. He makes it clear that God had given the eleven to him and he had lost none of them. This does not mean he didn't hold them responsible for the things they did, and thought about, wrongly. He certainly rebuked them and called them "ye of little faith." But he did acknowledge they did have faith, they just needed to use it properly.

So the Holy Spirit works with our spirit guiding our desires so that we love God and wish, above all other things, never to cause a rift between us. He makes the pleasures of this life seem far less important than they once were and even enables us to endure suffering and pain by considering the purpose of it all. The wonderful thing is that, though it is really the work of the Holy Spirit that keeps us following Christ, God counts the works we do as worthy of praise.

Significantly, the distinction between the Christian and the non-Christian pretender becomes clear at this point. The pretender looks at his works and imagines they are worthy of God's praise. The Christian only sees the failure of everything he does to measure up to the standard set by his Lord and Savior. This makes him strive the harder where the pretender, if he even notices that failure, becomes disheartened.

God's Plan - Step II: Gathering the Sheep

We remember the things we have established so far.
First - The problem of sin: Instead of walking with God as his image and friend. sin makes us enemies and rebels against God. We distort the truth which reveals the glory and nature of God so clearly that everyone will be unable to deny that they knew God even when they worshiped and served someone or something else. That sin affects absolutely everyone. Because we sin, we all die.

Second - God made a Plan: His plan was to provide a way of escape sufficient that every single human being could, if they are willing, avoid the punishment due because of sinful human nature and the actual sins they commit themselves. This plan also overcomes sinful nature, establishes a trusting relationship with God and brings some of the human race to enjoy the final blessings of that relationship.

Third - Step I; Paying for Sin: The first step was to ensure the payment due for sin was paid. That required someone who was free of the taint of Adam's sin, who never committed sin and who would lay down his life on behalf of man. No one was able to do that but God, Himself. So, Jesus came and did all required of him including the death of a criminal, though he did no wrong.

Fourth - Step II; Gathering the Sheep: At this point, it is important to remind ourselves that God is not like us. We are bound by time, God is not. We understand events in a linear fashion, God does not. At least two things make this quite clear. Describing himself Jesus says: "Before Abraham was, I am." Abraham's existence is conceived by Jesus differently from us, showing that he does not see time the way we do. Then when he turned water into wine he showed he is able to control the forces of nature even compressing time if need be, to achieve the effect he wanted.

Life from death: So, when we consider the valley of dry bones and God's question to Ezekiel: "Son of man can these bones live?" we already expect the result we see. What we do not expect is that God has Ezekiel pronounce the command which brings the bones to life. So the question becomes, was it God's power that brought the bones to life or Ezekiel's command. The answer depends on what element we are considering at the time, but simply put it was both God's power and Ezekiel's command (at God's behest). The bones represent the two parts of Israel but the principle applies to those who are long dead in sin and with no ordinary hope of ever living again.

This is the picture the Apostle uses when he says we are dead in trespasses and sins. Dead means no life and no ability to do anything. Like Ezekiel's bones sinful people can do nothing to help themselves they are totally unresponsive to anything spiritual. This is the reason why John tells us that when Jesus came to his own, his own did not receive him then goes on to describe why some actually did. He says they were those who were born ... of God. Jesus calls this being born again in his discussion with Nicodemus.

Old and New Testament: What was true of the Old Testament saints who were the "heroes of the faith" is true also of those in the New Testament. The Holy Spirit makes us alive as he did, for example, to those who heard Peter preach on the Day of Pentecost, and the inevitable result is they hearers repent and believe. Debates have gone on whether it was the power of God or Peter's sermon changed the hearts of the hearers but it's like thinking about the dry bones all over again. Is there a difference between Old and New Testaments here? In terms of the way the hearers are saved? No. In the people who were to be saved, yes! That's why the Church was given the sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit - so they would recognize it was no longer going to be only Jews added to the flock. God was now gathering his people from every tongue and tribe and nation.

The final extent: One of the things it is heard to find agreement about among Christians today is whether God intends the whole human race to be saved or just a few. Some would agree with those who limit it to 144,000 (on the basis of the Book of Revelation) but I think the language of the New Testament allows us to be more hopeful than that. Paul reminds us that when Jesus ascended on high he took his seat on the throne where he will reign "until all his enemies are put under his feet." The story of the kingdom heaven which Jesus reminded us is like a sower going out to sow implies the seed will fall mostly on prepared ground.

We are not given any more than a hint of these things for a very good reason. God wants us to concentrate on the work we have been given to do. This part of Scripture is designed to remind us that, God's plan will be successful - his sheep will be gathered (all of them), that those sheep include those from Old and New Testaments, from every tribe of man over the whole earth, and that, in the end all will acknowledge Christ is Lord to the glory of the Father.

God's Plan - Step I: Paying the price

Where we are so far:
First we talked about the Problem - sin. Because all sin, all deserve punishment and according to God's Justice that punishment has to be borne by each sinner. God's mercy, however, also needs expression. So God planned to save some from their deserved punishment. In order for this to be just (everyone is guilty) there has to be no distinction made on the basis of anything intrinsically a part of the one saved. Today we look at the first step in applying God's plan.

Foreshadowed payment: From the beginning God showed that he was prepared to accept a blood sacrifice in place of the sinner's own life. This was not because the blood of an animal actually took away sin - a fact that some ancient people showed they understood by offering the death of another human being. They showed they truly understood their blood-debt to God and that he would accept a substitute - the point of the symbolic death of an animal. Their concept was right - the substitute, however, was to be sinless in God's eyes.

In the Old Testament God revealed the requirements of an acceptable sacrifice. It had to be without blemish, it had to be accepted as a substitute by the sinner, and it had to be acceptable to God. In the Passover festival all these elements were clearly demonstrated. God appointed the form the sacrifice was to take; a lamb or kid in place of the family. They were to choose an unblemished animal and follow a particular set of rules for the sacrifice to be acceptable. The blood was to mark the entrance to the house and no one was to leave that house till morning. If all these things were done as God commanded the household would be safe from the destroyer.

In reality the Passover lamb was to be a symbol of Jesus the Christ. He was the unblemished "lamb of God." He was chosen by the people (the purpose of the entry into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey) and was - being sinless - acceptable to God. By his death he purchased the lives of those who are covered by his blood from the destroyer - the life of one who is sinless on behalf of each person who is sinful. This is the plan God offers to man - either pay the price yourself or accept Jesus as a substitute for that life.

Now it is apparent that, because Jesus is God, himself, the price is sufficient for every single man woman and child that has ever lived. And were we mere puppets that would be all there is to it. But God ordained that man's choices would have consequences - so when Adam sinned the race died. Since that is the case our salvation rests on a decision which we make concerning Christ's actions. We have to choose to accept that sacrifice on our behalf.

Now remember the significance of this choice. God makes the provision out of his merciful and loving character. He makes it to those who are acknowledged criminals and rebels. It is his own beloved son who dies to earn the salvation of everyone who believes the offer is genuine. To reject such an offer makes things very much worse because it is choosing to trample on the graciousness of God. Yet, to accept such an offer is to acknowledge God's unbelievable kindness and the extreme viciousness of sin.

It is to say "I am wrong to rebel against you, God; I deserve to die and I can do nothing about it, please forgive me and let me claim the death of your son on my behalf." In the same way that Adam had to be forced to face the implications of his actions (which he never truly took responsibility for) so also does man today. Left to ourselves this wonderfully generous provision is something no one will ever accept. We love our sin too much. We are slaves to our lusts and would rather deny God's goodness than accept anything from his hand. Such is the attitude of those who are Hell-bound.

So, Step 1 seems to leave us no closer to salvation. God has made the provision - that's what the Easter festival is all about. It reminds us of the provision God has made. But, such is our sin that we would happily join those who scourged Christ, who jammed the crown of thorns down on his head, who gambled for his clothes and who gathered to jeer at him as he hung in agony on the cross. The good news is that God even made provision for this result. And that is what we look at tomorrow.

Five Points: II God's Plan

Last time we looked at the problem of sin and how, were God only a God of justice we would all be condemned to eternal damnation. At that point I remarked that, since God is also a God of love and mercy this is a problem for him as well. It is not his intention that the whole human race be wiped out. Even when he decided in the past that the wickedness of man was such that he would act against that sin he saved one family - Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives. At that time he set a rainbow in the sky, promising the world would never be destroyed again in the same way.

So, remembering what our wickedness has earned us in the sight of God it would be perfectly just for him to destroy us all. And, however few he decided to save would be a testament to his mercy and love. But that is not God's intention this time. The first destruction and subsequent events are designed to teach us that, such is sin, fear of destruction is not enough to restrain it in any way. In fact our nature is such that even the flood itself is denied along with all the evidence, clearly visible, of God's wrath against sin and his eternal Godhead and Divinity.

God determined that, this time, there would be some who would definitely be saved. Some who, as a result, would be holy and righteous; hating sin and seeking after God so that they might serve him faithfully. He planned to provide an atonement for their sins and also that they would be changed within so that sin would no longer have dominion over them. These he would gather, starting with an obscure man from Ur and, working through his family, would make his name known among the nations. They would be the ones who (though few in number to begin) would be distinct enough so the nations would be faced with his claim on them.

Because this was a matter of mercy, he determined that there would be nothing to distinguish those he chose to receive the atonement, from those who would be lost because they rejected it. As in the Garden of Eden, God determined our choices would have consequences. The details of this plan were in accordance with his justice and mercy - justice because all are as guilty as each other; and mercy in that his choice is made from the totally guilty without regard to any intrinsic worth in those chosen.

This plan we deduce from the way God has dealt with man since the fall and from the clear statements of the Apostles, especially Saint Paul in his letter to the Romans. God's choice becomes the ultimate reason why some will become children of God and some not. It's the ultimate reason because sin, as it did with Adam in the Garden of Eden, prevents any of us from seeking God, or confessing our sins or even accepting God's gracious provision for our salvation. Sin is rebellion and rebels do not make terms with the enemy. God knows this and has made provision in his plan even for that fact.

There is one final point which ought to be mentioned, though not able to be clearly proven from Scripture, the language with which the Kingdom of Heaven is described for our era leaves the impression that those to be ultimately saved do not represent a small number of mankind. This would be in accordance with God's mercy and justice especially as Romans 11:11-32 indicates. Though this may be true, our concern today is to remember that God did not ignore the problem of sin, he has made a plan, involving particular people, which will lead to the salvation of mankind. In the next few days we will consider that plan in more detail.

Five Points: I - the Problem

When it comes to being saved the are at least five things we should consider. In this post we consider the first - The Problem

Adam was created in God's image. He walked with God in the cool of the evening and he was actively doing God's will during the time he was not with him. In a word, he was perfect, but he was alone. So God made a woman as a helper fitted for him, from his rib, and left her to Adam's guidance. They both disobeyed God by eating of a forbidden fruit. Adam's sin was instrumental in the destruction of the whole human race. Death is the result of sinning against God and all die, therefore (says the Bible) all have sinned.

But, that is not all. The Bible reminds us that we add to Adam's sin with sins of our own. Cain killed Abel. The situation got so bad that God destroyed the ancient world in a worldwide flood. The Noah got drunk and two of his sons mocked him. Then there was: Abram who lied to Pharaoh and to Abimalech. Laban who stole from Jacob who stole right back. The record goes on ... even David (the man after God's own heart) had a man murdered in order to hide his affair with the man's wife. Jeremiah describes the situation as: "The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately wicked." And the Preacher agrees.

We do not believe the heart of man is as wicked as it could be - God restrains us, even as he did in the time of Noah. But we do believe that every part of man is affected by sin. The body decays and dies. The mind is used to deny what the creation teaches us about God. And we choose to worship and serve something other than God. The desires of our hearts are even turned to self-gratification rather than the service of God and man.

We demonstrate our own hypocrisy by condemning others for the things we do ourselves. And, knowing that the judgment of God falls upon those who do such things we not only do them but we delight in those who do them as well. And there's the nub of the problem. God's justice is impartial and his sentence is: "The soul that sins will die." We receive a partial fulfillment of that sentence at the end of this life, but the ultimate result is banishment from the realm of the blessed.

So, with perfect justice every single human being who has ever lived is guilty of sin and all deserve to perish eternally. I said this was a problem and the problem is that God is not justice alone. He is a God of love and mercy as well. Sin demands his justice punish the sinner for his actions. This is what God has determined will happen. And that leaves every person (with only one exception) under the condemnation of the Law of God.

Easter shows us it is not enough that God's justice is met; there has to be some way he can show mercy and love. And, next time, we begin to look at God's solution to the problem of sin.