Babel and Bacon

A church member asks:

Q. “According to Genesis 10:5, the descendants of Noah were divided into lands according to everyone’s own tongue, but according to Genesis 11:1, the whole earth spoke as with one language and speech. So, what does tongue mean in verse 5?”

A. Excellent question! In short, it means the same thing in both verses. The key to understanding here is to notice the structure of Genesis. With the exception of the very first part of Genesis, which begins “In the beginning,” each new section of Genesis is noted by the Hebrew word “toledah,” which is usually translated, “These are the generations of.” The section about what happened after the flood begins with an overview genealogy and general statement of what took place (i.e. Chapter 10). Then, in Chapter 11, we’re taken back a bit and shown what happened in detail.

The Israelites first reading the Torah in the wilderness would have wondered something like, “If only one family came off the ark, and all these nations are descended from it, where did all these languages come from and how did we all disperse into these various lands?” Through Moses, God answers that question by giving the genealogy which shows where everyone went, and then telling how they got there through the story of Nimrod and his “Tower of Confusion.”

When you read Genesis, just remember that not everything is a “this and then” ongoing narrative. The story unfolds for a while, and then we’re alerted to the fact that the story is moving on to another section with the “generations” phrase and often a genealogy. Then the story picks up (sometimes backtracks) and moves forward again.

A second question:

Q. “The Old Testament Scriptures are ‘for our learning’ (Romans 15:4). With that in mind, Deuteronomy 14 lists ‘unclean’ animals the Law forbade Israel to eat. Should we eat animals that were unclean to Old Testament people?”

A. Another good question. These days a lot of people search for some unrevealed reason why God may have forbidden Israel to eat certain animals in those old days. They assume there must be some hidden health reason why God labeled them unclean. I am convinced they were unclean because of their specific animal natures that often paralleled physical uncleanness among mankind according to the Law. Forbidden animals were those that wallowed in the mire, would eat corpses, etc. God revealed the real reason to Peter in a dream, written down in Acts 10. Unclean animals symbolically stood for unclean people (Gentiles) and Israel’s separation from them represented the split in humanity between Jew and Gentile. The Acts 10 text reads:

The next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. And he became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. And there came a voice to him: ‘Rise, Peter; kill and eat.’ But Peter said, ‘By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.’ And the voice came to him again a second time, ‘What God has made clean, do not call common.’ This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven. Now while Peter was inwardly perplexed as to what the vision that he had seen might mean, behold, the men who were sent by Cornelius, having made inquiry for Simon's house, stood at the gate and called out to ask whether Simon who was called Peter was lodging there (Act 10:9-18 ESV).

The dream demonstrated to Peter that the unclean foods according to the Law were no longer unclean in Christianity. That symbolized the fact that Gentiles were no longer unclean in Christ. They did not have to keep the Law (i.e. become Jews) before they could come to Christ. Not only so, but even though Peter and the Jewish believers still did not fully understand it at this point, Jews didn’t have to be Jews (i.e. keep the Law of Moses) to be acceptable to Christ either (see Galatians 3:28).

As a final point, Mark reveals that, while his disciples did not catch it, Jesus had already declared all foods clean during his public ministry (Mark 7:19).

The Old Testament is for our learning, and even though many of its commandments are no longer binding, every last letter has immense value and even authority for Christians. We simply must interpret it as having its fulfillment in Christ, and then it will be for our learning.

So, to answer the question plainly, we are not forbidden to eat the formerly unclean animals, because according to the New Covenant in Christ they are no longer unclean. Pass the bacon!

---JLP

"In the Closet"

The influence certain sinful people and their practices have had on society over the last several decades is apparent when we think of phrases like “in the closet.” Most of us are well aware that I’m not talking about where you hang your coat. The early church was so influential on society that, slowly, certain formerly secular terms came to mean to everybody else what they meant to the church—repentance for instance. Also, things that are not necessarily spiritual in nature came to be named after the church, since the church practiced those things. For instance, vocal music without the accompaniment of musical instruments isn’t necessarily spiritual. Think of barber shop quartets, school choruses, etc. However, the term we use to describe vocal music is accapella, which is simply Latin for “church style.” You can tell how influential a group is over society by how widely its language comes to be used, and whether society at large gives such language legitimacy.

With this in mind I want to encourage us (the church) to begin exercising the power God has given us to influence the world (Daniel 7:18, 22, 27; Romans 1:16; 1 Corinthians 4:20; 2 Corinthians 6:7, 10:4, 12:9; Ephesians 1:19; 2 timothy 1:7, 3:5) to redeem the language people use every day. In Matthew 6:6, Jesus said, “But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.” We need to be a people who are “in the closet” with God.

Jesus was stressing the importance of praying to God out of a sincere desire to be with and speak to him, rather than praying simply so that others will praise you for your spirituality. Whoever goes into his closet to pray, is praying to be seen (and heard) by God alone. The Lord’s body needs revival, and revival comes by the power of God through prayer. We need to become a people of prayer again. We need to be “in the closet” with God. From now on, in our language, let the phrase mean exactly that.

Will We Know One Another In Heaven?

A question I’ve heard asked all my life is, “Will we know one another in heaven?” Recently I’ve been asked the question several times, and I promised to put something together in answer to it. I’m happy to do it, and happy to post it here, since this sort of thing is the primary reason I started this blog. So, here goes, and I invite your further questions and comments after you read.

Before I start, let me say that I think the question exists primarily due to a single factor: Misplaced love for unsaved loved ones (which I’ll address in more detail before I’m done here). I’m going to answer the question in three steps. First, I’ll write about a few passages directly. Then, I’ll simply reason through some related issues. Last, I’ll tell you why I think many people disagree and offer them some solutions that I hope will guide them into a fuller acceptance of the truth.

Please read Luke 16:19-31, then Revelation 6:9-11. While neither of these passages directly addresses conditions after the resurrection, they do reveal something about the state of man after death. Both the rich man and Lazarus maintained their identities and personhood after death. They knew who they were, and still knew the life situations and loved ones they had left behind. So also, the souls of the martyrs, figuratively shown to be resting beneath the altar (i.e. they had given their lives in sacrifice to the Lord by being willing to die for their faith), had not forgotten who they were, or what evils had been perpetrated against them. They all were aware of their identities and in the cases of the rich man and Lazarus knew and could recognize each other. This point is very important, so remember it, and I’ll revisit it in a moment.

Now, please read 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. This passage shows that there will be some believers alive on the earth when Jesus returns. The purpose of the passage is to show that we need not grieve as if we’ve lost our (faithful) departed loved ones for good, because Jesus is bringing them back with him. These believers fortunate enough to avoid experiencing physical death will still be changed to have the same kind of body and life the resurrected dead will have. “Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed” (1 Corinthians 15:51-52 ESV). My point is this: If we won’t recognize one another post resurrection, how does 1 Thess 4 offer any comfort? Also, if it is true that we’ll all lose our identities, where and when does the memory wipe take place? Certainly it doesn’t happen at death, because the rich man and Lazarus maintained their identities, and 1 Thess promises a great family reunion in the sky, so it doesn’t happen then. When does it happen? Truth is, the Bible doesn’t teach that it will happen at any time, or anywhere!

Why do I bring up a question about memory wipe? I could reference every passage in the Bible and all of them speak of us knowing who we are in this life, after this life in death, and after the resurrection. Never anywhere is there ever any mention of any of us not knowing who we are. You see, for us not to know one another in heaven, we must not even know ourselves, for if I know myself, I can introduce myselt to you even if my appearance has changed, and vice versa, and so on until we all meet each other all over again and know each other. For us not to know one another in heaven, there must be an entire memory wipe of the whole population. That idea is never even hinted at in the Bible. In fact, it’s contrary to what the Bible both says and implies.

Now let’s reason together. Eternal life is the reward for faithfulness to God in this life. A reward is only a reward if there is the remembrance of what it stands for. If I cannot remember the victory or honorable deed that deserved rewarding, then what I have is no reward at all, it’s just something I have. Unless there is the memory of this life, of the things experienced; joys and sufferings, trials and tribulations, successes and failures, etc.—all of which contribute to the totality of the person I am—heaven has much less greatness about it. Don’t get me wrong, having something good is good in itself, but it’s even better when you can relate to not having it, or having something bad instead. Part of the greatness of the eternal reward is being able to appreciate what we’ll have in all that glory by remembering when we didn’t have it; when we had the troubles and sorrows of this life. Everything the Bible says about how great we’re going to have it with the Lord someday is based in the understanding (the Bible takes this for granted) that we remember who we are, what we did, and what we knew and did not know in this life. If I remember all that, I remember who I am. If I remember who I am, you’ll remember who you are, and so, even if we don’t initially recognize each other, we’ll have eternity. We’ll get reacquainted. We’ll know one another in heaven! I’ve talked about rewards, but what about punishments? Does it seem just to you for one to suffer in hell with no memery of why he’s there? You see, the idea that we won’t know one another in heaven just isn't a well-reasoned premise.

Notice what Jesus said about life after the resurrection: “I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 8:11-12 ESV). Will we know Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in heaven? If we don’t, how will we know that this great prophecy has been fulfilled and rejoice in the experience? To try and make this long story short (too late, I know), why do I believe we’ll know one another? Because, that is what the Bible implies in every case and the concept of losing one’s identity in resurrection is so against what one would expect that we would need a clear statement from the Scriptures to believe otherwise. The burden of proof is upon those who say we won’t know one another, and well, there’s no Bible for it (1 Peter 4:11).

Now, why do many believe we won’t know one another in heaven? There may be several reasons, but in my experience, one has come up more often in conversations than any other. “I just don’t see how I could possibly be happy in heaven if my husband… wife… son… daughter… father… mother… so on, and so on isn’t there.” In all kindness, that isn’t a credible Bible reason. It’s just emotion; perhaps understandable, but mere emotion nonetheless. What many fail to realize is that with this view, not only does the eternal destiny of our lost loved ones not change, but in addition we basically eternally lose all our loved ones. If we understand memory loss to be so, so sad in this life, why would we think it a good thing in the next?

Ok, I’ll grant you that the idea of living in bliss while dearly beloved ones suffer away from the presence of God is presently unpleasant (as much as it is to God), nor do I ever expect it to be a pleasant idea. Know, though, that the Bible never (to my knowledge) says that we will forget all unpleasant memories in eternity, only that we will have been exalted to a state in which we will have transcended all that. In a state of victory, and revelling in God’s glory we’ll be above it! I urge you to be on God’s side. Don’t allow improperly prioritized love for those among mankind who refuse to honor God to make you doubt how good the reward will be. I expect that when you see God, there will be no room in your heart for choosing any lost one over him. On Judgment Day, the lost will be so because of their choices. Do your best to get them saved while there is still time, and trust the God who is both just and merciful to do what is right toward those who’ve already passed on. Prepare yourself to say, “Amen!” to God’s pronunciations of judgment upon any and everyone you know. Whatever he says will be right, and I suspect that we’ll understand when the time comes.

1 Timothy 2 Q & A

I thought I’d post this little Q & A exchange that came up following my lesson from 1 Timothy 2 last Sunday morning. I’m sure the questions are those many have asked and are asking, so I post this here for your benefit. Here is the exchange:

“Okay I have 3 questions regarding your lesson on Sunday. Forgive me for not having my Bible in front of me.”

Q. “In vss. 8 or 9 (I think) where it says men lift up holy hands...why is that not literal? Why are men not supposed to literally lift up their hands in prayer?”

A. There is certainly nothing wrong with a man lifting his hands heavenward to pray. It is not essential that he do so, because various passages also speak of people bowed in prayer, prostrate in prayer and so on. So, we interpret all the prayer passages in harmony to conclude that the posture is not the issue. The point in 1 Timothy 2:8 is not the "position" of the hands, but the "condition" of them (i.e. "holy," and "without anger or quarrelling"). So, whether a man leads a prayer with his hands raised, clasped in front of him, or behind his back, etc., what matters is that he does so with no animosity toward his brethren, with no axe to grind, and with the right relationship to God.

Q. “It is very clear to me a woman's role in the church, however, how do the other religions (ones with women preachers and such) justify doing so? Do they just not read that part of the Bible?”

A. No, they read that part of the Bible, they just interpret it differently. I would say, wrongly. They read things into the text and misinterpret it. I'm sure that most of them are very sincere, but they make one of a variety of mistakes. One such mistake is to misread Galatians 3:28 and then interpret all the other texts about women accordingly. Galatians 3 speaks of the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham to provide him with numberless descendants coming not through the Law (of Moses), but through faith (in Christ). Paul shows that the church is the ultimate fulfillment of that promise and leads to the conclusion that, so far as salvation is concerned, all are on equal terms. No faithful Christian man is any more saved than a faithful Christian woman, as no Christian master was any more saved than his Christian slave. In Christ, all are equal. We affirm that wholeheartedly! However, read the book of Philemon and you'll see that Paul didn't understand this principle to mean that Onesimus didn't have to go back to his master. It did mean that masters had to treat their slaves as people of equal intrinsic value (Ephesians 6:5-9; Colossians 3:22-24, 4:1). So it also is between men and women. Whereas pre-Christian society usually did not view women as equal in intrinsic value to men, through Christ we understand that men and women are created equal. But, equality does not mean that we all have the same function or role (Romans 12:4). Read Ephesians 5 and you’ll see that a wife must obey her husband as the Lord, but the husband is not permitted to “lord it over her” as if he is superior to her. He must lead with sacrificial love. 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2 make it very clear that, at least in the assembly, we also do not have the same roles.

A second mistake some make is to make unwarranted assumptions about Paul's reasons to write chapters like 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2. Some assert that since Corinth had the temple to Aphrodite (and pagan female clergy) and Ephesus (where Timothy was) had the temple to Artemis/Diana (and pagan female clergy), that the culture of those cities was influencing Christian women to misbehave. They continue by saying that Paul only forbade the women to lead in those places--that it was a local, cultural prohibition. Some cite 1 Tim 5:13 as evidence of this, but I find nothing convincing in their case. I would respond by saying that it is pretty ugly doctrine to say that God forbade some women from using gifts they were (supposedly) free to use otherwise, due to the misbehavior of a few. Seems pretty unfair to me! I think it at least as strong a position to say that since these two cities had women leading and teaching among the pagans (which was an exception to the general rule in ancient Greco-Roman society), Paul (by the Spirit) was especially careful to point out that it was not to be so in the church. In both texts (1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2), Paul clearly ties his doctrine to the Law (1 Corinthians 14:34) and to the way of things even before the Law came (1 Timothy 2:13-14) proving that these prohibitions against women leading, teaching or preaching to men in the assemblies of the church were not cultural, but based in principles of God's will that have been around since the Beginning, and will be so until Jesus reappears.

To answer your question simply, they read these texts, but misinterpret them as mere cultural prohibitions that do not apply today.

Q. “About the women and the head covering....This has always baffled me. You (not literally you) used other resources, history and such to come to the conclusion that passage was directed at women of a different time and culture and the reasoning behind it. What if we did not have the luxury of those extra sources? If we only had the Bible, Would we (women) be covering our heads to worship? I know this is a big what-if but to me it kinda falls into the same category as the music...don't add to or take away from. Are we not taking away from????”

A. Excellent question. First, let me point out that 1 Corinthians 11 does apply to us today. The passage indeed was originally addressed to women of a different time and culture, but the principles of every passage apply with full force even if the specifics of a cultural application of it do not. Rather than addressing this question here, I’ll refer you to a complete thing I wrote about the passage some time ago which explains why I believe the head-covering command was a cultural command that doesn’t necessarily apply to every woman today. By reading it, you’ll also learn a little bit about how we recognize certain commands as having limited, “cultural” application, while others, like 1 Timothy 2 are binding even to the specific precedents. Find it here.

Thanks for the questions. Good questions by the way!

---JLP

A New President

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God” (Romans 13:1 ESV).

A few days ago, many Americans, in fact, many people around the world were thinking about the inauguration of a new President of these United States. I can't help but wonder what the next four years will be like. I believe what Bible passages like Daniel 4:25b teach us: “The Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will.” God has a plan. He's in control. It will all work out to bless his people in the fullness of time (Romans 8:28). Though I feel compelled to say that I heartily disagree with many of Obama's points of view, I respect him as one God has set up as an authority. I pray that God will use President Obama's leadership as a means to secure “quiet lives in all godliness and dignity” (1 Timothy 2:2) for Christians everywhere.

I suppose this is as good an occasion as any to discuss politics. The buzz word in the ol' U.S. of A., these days, is “separation of church and state.” For the Christian there is no such thing as separation of “church” from anything. We are Christians in everything we do, politics included! What does that mean, though? Many Christians understand this to mean that they should seek to further kingdom goals through actual involvement in the political process. I may or may not agree, depending on what they mean by “actual involvement.” I do not involve myself in politics at all, except through prayer. I pray for the U.S. and all the nations, and all national leaders, and all people everywhere. In my spiritual-political views, I have come to see things in a way very similar to the late, brother David Lipscomb (whose book on Civil Government you can read in its entirety here).

I cannot separate my faith from any decision I make, so there are some "political" activities I cannot in good conscience partake of. What I do recognize is a separation between politics and society. I heartily believe that Christians must be active in society.

Though I cannot in good conscience become part of civil government myself, neither can I condemn those who do as if it were inherently sinful. There are Christians in many local political offices that I deem righteous men, and I think they do well. However, I am convinced that no one can rise far in politics without becoming corrupt. Call me cynical if you will, but that's my observation. As for patriotism, I am genuinely thankful to have been born a citizen of the United states of America. It's the best civil government that I know of in the world today. Republican democracy is the best form of civil government in the world today. However, my patriotism is reserved for my true county (Hebrews 11:13-16). My citizenship is in heaven, and from it I await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ (Philippians 3:20).

It is a prevailing view of Christians that the first social institution God set up was the home, and the second, civil government. In a way, that is correct. But, we must note that while God created the institution of the home, the institution of civil government was initially created by man, apart from God, and as we read of it in Genesis 11, we find its first project was an act of rebellion against God. The form of government God instituted was himself as ruler over the hearts of free men, and that is the only truly good kind of government that can last for very long. As for government by mere men, Thomas Paine said, “Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.” I couldn't agree more. May God preserve for us a government that maintains our freedoms, and stays out of our lives as much as possible until his Son returns, under whose righteous, and bearable rule I long to live for eternity. Amen!

The Working Man

This morning I borrowed my aunt's copy of this old photo and scanned it. It's of my maternal grandfather, James E. Mitchell, Sr. The photo was taken sometime in the 1930s, but we don't know much more about it. Behind my grandfather is my great-uncle Bud. They're walking to work in downtown Nashville, TN. I can't help trying to imagine the scene as it was in life, and what was on the minds of those taking the picture, and in it.

Physically, my grandfather was an impressive man. There was just something about him. That's hard to miss even in this old pic. Spiritually, he had his strengths and weaknesses. He was a passionate man. Perhaps, I inherited that from him. However, he was prone to anger, and, at times, it got the better of him. He was a Christian; at one time an elder in the church of Christ. He was an intelligent man with a deep knowledge of the Bible; a working-class man, the son of a share-cropper who worked on freight docks, eventually becoming a Teamster's Union representative. He fathered ten children, nine of whom lived to adulthood (my mother being the youngest). I never knew him. He died shortly after I was born in 1975. I've always been fascinated by stories about him. His blood flows in my veins, and his faith, along with that of his dear wife, my beloved "Granny," has passed to me.

Speaking artistically, the photograph has a great composition. It's a bit dark, but there is enough contrast with the lighter areas to make it very interesting. I've decided to use it as a drawing exercise to sharpen my abilities, and might make it the inspiration for more artwork in the future.

I'll end this post by encouraging you to take pictures and save them. Your children and grandchildren and so on will appreciate it. Pictures like this one help us to visualize the past and have a better vision of our roots.

"Crowded Out"

I have a piece of scrap paper in my car with the words, "crowded out," scribbled accross it. I originally jotted the note down to keep from forgetting that I want to explore the idea in an upcoming class about spirituality that I intend to teach this Spring. Needless to say, I don't need the note any more, but I'm leaving it there anyway. Getting in and out of the car for days, I've had the idea running through my mind almost like an obsession. We all want to have a personal relationship with the Father. We want it to be more than just accepting intellectual facts that we've learned. We want an intimate relationship with God; to feel his presence, and see the effects of his work in our lives.

Why don't we have it? Well, let me just say, it isn't God's fault! He wants intimacy with us more than we want it with him. He's willing. Also, I suppose I should say that some of us experience God's presence in our lives more than others. Why? Could it be that you've crowded God out to some degree or another? Too much work, too much play, games, clubs, hobbies, TV, internet, appointments, too tired, not enough time, bla, bla, bla. You get the idea. The culture around us never sleeps. It's a 24/7 on the go society. The default state of our existence is to dive in and go with the current. At some point, if you want to be close to God, you have to unplug, and be devoted to him. It's not too late to make a resolution about it. For you all at Highland, we'll pick this thread up in the Spring, Lord willing.