Policy on Charity (2-2)
Regarding the question of who are these widows who are indeed widows, and who are these widows who are really in need, we now have our answer. Paul is referring to those women whose husbands have died and left no relatives to support them. But if there are close relatives who can support them, such as the children or grandchildren, then the church is not to be burdened with them. Thus these widows must first go to their children or grandchildren for financial and material support, or better, the children or grandchildren should actively and eagerly offer their support. Once the women's husbands have died, the widows should not have to beg for the help that is owed them.
If these children or grandchildren refuse to put their faith into practice, and if they abandon their widowed parents and grandparents, then these women would become widows who are indeed widows, widows who are really in need, widows who are really alone and destitute. In that case, verse 3 would apply to them, and these widows would become eligible for the churches support. As for the children or grandchildren who refuse to care for these widows, Paul will have something to say about them in just a few verses later.
And if these children or grandchildren are non-Christians, they might still decide to support their parents and grandparents out of ordinary human affections and a natural sense of responsibility, so that these widows would not be widows who are left alone and destitute, and they would not be eligible for the church's support. But if they are abandoned by the children or grandchildren, then of course verse 3 would again apply.
There is a related biblical teaching that we should bring up at this point. Besides giving us a better understanding of our passage, it will also serve as an example of why it is important to understand any biblical teaching in the light of the entire Bible. I am referring to what Paul says in 2 Corinthians 12:14. There, he writes, "After all, children should not have to save up for their parents, but parents for their children." We have no time to look at the full context, but if you look at the passage in your spare time, you should be able to see the relevance. Also, the idea expressed here is not found in an isolated part of Scripture, but it is taught throughout the Bible, both explicitly and implicitly, that the parents are to take care of the children and leave them an inheritance. Ideally, the children should not have to take care of the parent's financial and material needs.
That said, our passage in 1 Timothy 5 is not talking about the ideal situation. It is talking about a situation in which after her husband has died, a widow is left without the necessary finances to survive. She may be in such a state because her husband had squandered their earnings when he was alive. She may be in such a state because her husband had failed to make the necessary plans for her. Or, she may be left in such a state simply because her husband could barely earn enough for them to survive while he was alive, and could not save up anything for her. In the days of Paul, certainly there were many who could not leave their widows enough to sustain them for the rest of their lives.
Therefore, the children or grandchildren are to take care of these widows. Nevertheless, we must not undermine or discard the biblical teaching that,, if at all possible, the parents are to save up for the children, and not the other way around. Paul says that "children should not have to save up for their parents." We may not always be able to attain the ideal, but we must always keep it in mind; otherwise, we will forget about it and never attain it, and the second-best will become the norm.
This teaching addresses something crucial to the development of a family. There is the pressure in some cultures and traditions for children to start giving money to their parents once they begin to earn their own incomes even when the children are struggling and the parents are not. The children are expected to give part their income to the parents as a matter of principle, and not because the parents are suffering and in need.
While we can admire the intention of gratitude and the acknowledgment of a debt owed to the parents, this practice can often cripple a developing family, and inflict damage upon even the next generation, that is, the grandchildren. Even if this new family receives an inheritance from the parents afterward, fewer resources would have been devoted to establishing this new family during the grandchildren's developing years, perhaps when they needed these resources the most.
In 1 Timothy 5:4, the teaching refers to how the children or grandchildren should take care of their parents and grandparents who are, as verse 3 indicates, "really in need." So verse 4 does not apply when the parents are richer than the children. Of course, the children and grandchildren must still put their religion into practice, and they must still acknowledge their debt to the parents and grandparents in some way. Furthermore, it is also true that their needs are not only financial, but they have spiritual and social needs as well.
But it would be senseless to give part of the income to the parents when the parents have no need of it, and especially when the children need it much more. This is not an excuse for the children to abandon their parents, since the teaching is undeniable that if the widows, and verse 4 mentions even parents and grandparents, are in need such that they cannot survive without help, then the children or grandchildren must care for them. If you are a parent, know that you are entitled to your children's support when you are old, but if it is at all possible, you should make sure that this will not be necessary when the time comes.
(to be continued)
Policy on Charity (2-1)
We began by noting that, according to James, a religion that is pure and faultless before God the Father is one that looks after orphans and widows in their distress. A person may consider himself a religious or spiritual man, and a great friend of God, but if he does not extend compassion to the needy, then he deceives himself about his own spiritual condition. He is not spiritual, but he is yet carnal and selfish.
Since the specific purpose of James is not to give detailed instructions on performing charity, but to expose spiritual self-deception, he does not tell us how Christians ought to help or support orphans and widows. So last time we turned to a passage in 1 Timothy, written by the apostle Paul. We read from chapter 5, verses 3-16. But rather than starting our exposition from verse 3, we had to divide the passage into two or even three parts. Verses 3-8 form one section, verses 9-15 form the second section.
Then, depending on how you interpret the rest, verse 16 either suddenly goes back to the first section, that is, verses 3-8, or if my position is correct, verse 16 is a summary of Paul's teaching in this entire large section that goes all the way from verse 3 through verse 15. In our study, we will not spend time dealing with verses 9-15, but we will focus our attention on verses 3-8.
Now we are ready to begin our exposition from verse 3. It says, "Give proper recognition to those widows who are really in need." A literal translation would be "widows who are really widows" or "widows who are widows indeed," and this is how it is rendered in the KJV, NKJV, NASB, and the ESV. The phrase, of course, refers to those widows who are truly alone and destitute, and so the NIV translates the verse according to its meaning, and says, "widows who are really in need."
Paul says that we are to give these people, that is, widows who are truly alone and destitute, the "proper recognition." The other versions give us the word "honor." What does this mean? The context makes the meaning unmistakable: Paul is primarily referring to the financial and material needs of these widows. The widows who are truly in need are those who cannot care for themselves, and who require the assistance of other people to survive. So the question now, is who should take care of them, and how.
In verse 3, Paul is instructing the church on how it should relate to widows in need, or more precisely, he is giving Timothy instructions on what he should teach the people and how he should operate the church, how the church should relate to these widows, and how the church should use its resources. He says that the church should give "proper recognition," that is, to give financial and material support to widows who are indeed widows, or to widows who are really in need.
Who are these widows who are indeed widows, and who are these widows who are really in need? The expression that Paul uses already tells us this. He says that the church should support widows who are indeed widows, and this means that not every woman whose husband has died is a widow that the church should support. That are some widows who are not really "widows," not truly left alone and destitute. Widows who qualify for the church's support must be truly alone and without help.
The next verse elaborates: "But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God." In other words, a widow who is indeed a widow, a widow who is really in need, is a woman whose husband has died, and is left without close relatives to support her. This means that if woman whose husband has died has children or grandchildren who can supply her needs, then it is up to these relatives to support her, and not the church.
Notice what Paul says about these relatives. They are "children or grandchildren." For them to support their parents and grandparents who are left alone and destitute, and who requires financial and material support to survive, is a matter of putting "their religion into practice." James offers the very same reason for Christians to take care of widows and those who are in need – for him it is a matter of putting faith into practice as well. We may stumble in our faith, but a faith that is consistently denied expression suggests that there has never been any faith in this person to express in the first place.
Also, Paul speaks of the children or grandchildren who support their parents and grandparents as "repaying" them. This means that when children or grandchildren support their parents and grandparents, it is not so much a matter of charity, as it is an act of gratitude and repayment. It is an acknowledgment of a debt, a debt to those who with patience and endurance raised us into adulthood.
The acknowledgement of this debt and its repayment is also part of putting our faith into practice. Thus the ultimate reason for Christians to acknowledge this debt is their faith and not their filial piety, even in this matter of taking care of our own parents and grandparents. The Christian position is God-centered and not man-centered. It is based on God's precepts and not human welfare or a social bond. To acknowledge this debt and to do it on the basis of our faith, Paul says, is "pleasing to God."
(to be continued)
Policy on Charity (1-2)
Then, there is the argument that Paul has already finished talking about the widows who are in need of financial support by the end of verse 8, and so to say that in verse 9 Paul continues to talk about the characteristics of those who are eligible for the church's assistance would be to say that he brings up the same topic again right after he has just finished discussing it.
But this argument also begs the question. Rather, if verse 9 continues what Paul started in verse 3, then it means that he has not finished discussing the topic at the end of verse 8. It begs the question to say that verse 9 begins a new topic because verse 8 has ended the previous topic, and therefore verse 9 must be the beginning of a new topic. No, rather, if verse 9 does not begin a new topic, then verse 8 is not the end of what Paul started in verse 3.
One should consult the commentaries for additional details and arguments, but I am mentioning these examples precisely because many commentaries assert their position on this passage with these fallacious arguments. We should consider the arguments offered and make sure that they are sound before accepting the position proposed. As there is no clear and sharp transition between verse 8 and verse 9, it is more natural to assume that verse 9 does not begin a new topic, or a discussion about a separate group of widows. Instead, verse 9 continues with what Paul started in verse 3.
This position is reinforced by verse 16, which says, "If any woman who is a believer has widows in her family, she should help them and not let the church be burdened with them, so that the church can help those widows who are really in need."
One commentator has just finished explaining why he thinks that verse 9 begins a new topic, that is, a discussion about a group or an order of widows different from those mentioned in verses 3-8. But then when he comes to verse 16, he has to say that Paul suddenly returns to the previous topic, about widows in need, or those mentioned in verses 3-8. But as there is no clear transition between verse 8 and verse 9, and as there is no clear transition between verse 15 and verse 16, it is much more natural to read verse 3 all the way through verse 16, as if Paul is talking about the same group of widows, only that from verses 9-15, Paul is giving specific instructions concerning which widows that the church should regard as eligible for support.
Now if one wants to argue that Paul is indeed talking about different group of widows, or an overlapping but clearly distinguishable group of widows, then he may still do so. However, he will have to offer better arguments than those typically proposed, that do not so obviously beg the question. One must not use a standard of judgment that does not come from the text itself, or for that matter, that does not come from anywhere in Scripture, and on that basis assert that Paul cannot mean something, and therefore he does not mean something. Well, if he does mean something, then he can mean it.
So arguments of this kind do nothing other than to impose one's standard of judgment upon Scripture, and then on that basis determine what certain passages can mean or cannot mean. Rather than an interpretation of Scripture, in which one carefully draws out the meaning of the text, this is a subversion of Scripture, and imposes one's non-biblical beliefs and standards upon Scripture, artificially restricting and manipulating the text.
To summarize, my position is that from verses 3-8, Paul discusses the general principles that govern how Christians should treat the widows who are in need, and who cannot support themselves. Then, from verses 9-15, Paul lists a number of specific principles and conditions that further limit the number of those eligible for such support. Finally, in verse 16, he summarizes his teaching on the subject.
Since verse 16 presents a straightforward and unmistakable summary of Paul's teaching, it must govern our interpretation of verses of 3-8. And if we are correct about verses 9-15, then verse 16 must govern how we interpret that portion also. However, since we will focus our attention only on verses 3-8, this is all that we need to emphasize for our study. That is, for our purpose, we only need to keep in mind that verses 3-8 and verse 16 go together.
We will not begin our main exposition of this passage until the next session, so I will just leave you with one thought about the purpose and the uses of this study. Those of us who have a basic understanding of biblical teachings realize that our main task is not charity or social outreach, but to preach a spiritual gospel. Of course, it is a gospel that carries implications about our physical needs and social relationships. However, it is still first a spiritual gospel, designed to save us from our sins and restore fellowship with God.
Again, that our primary interest is people's spiritual needs and spiritual concerns does not mean that we ignore their physical welfare. In fact, according to James, a faith is dead, false, and hypocritical if we will say to someone who is hungry and suffering, "I will pray for you," but then do nothing to help that person with his needs. As John says, "If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?" (1 John 3:17).
So, our purpose is first spiritual, and our message is first not a social but a spiritual gospel, although it is one that carries social implications. That is the way to look at it. Our question then, and the reason for this study, is to find out how we are to implement and carry out these social implications generated by our spiritual faith. Our passage for this study will tell us about our responsibilities, and it will also tell us how to prioritize our charitable works. We will see that the biblical teaching does not excuse a lack of compassion on our part, but at the same time, it will not tolerate idleness and licentiousness in those who request support and charity.
(to be continued)
Policy on Charity (1-1)
In James 1:27, the apostle writes, "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." In these several sessions, we are not going to say anything about orphans, but we are going to say a lot about widows. However, I have a broader purpose, and that is, in relation to the biblical verses that we will talk about, and in the context of discussing how the church ought to help widows in need, we will be also considering some general principles regarding church policy on charity. We will have no time to be exhaustive, but I hope that as individuals and as church leaders, you will take what I say and further investigate the subject from Scripture.
James does not give us the details as to how we must take care of the widows – he just says that we are to do it. For more instructions, we will have to turn to something that Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 5. We will read verses 3-16:
Give proper recognition to those widows who are really in need. But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God. The widow who is really in need and left all alone puts her hope in God and continues night and day to pray and to ask God for help. But the widow who lives for pleasure is dead even while she lives. Give the people these instructions, too, so that no one may be open to blame. If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband, and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the saints, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds. As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to. So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander. Some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan.
If any woman who is a believer has widows in her family, she should help them and not let the church be burdened with them, so that the church can help those widows who are really in need.
This is a large passage, and we are not going to cover every verse. Instead, we will focus our attention on verses 3-8, and will structure our discussion around that passage. I read all the way through verse 16 because there are some issues of interpretation that I would like to address first.
If you have a pen or pencil, I would like you to put a small mark after verse 8 and before verse 9, and then I would like you to mark off verse 16 from the rest. If you are reading from a version like the NIV, then that is already done for you. In the NIV, verses 3-8 form a paragraph, verses 9-15 form two paragraphs, and verse 16 stands by itself as a separate paragraph.
In verses 3-8, Paul offers some general but clear-cut instructions on how the church is to treat widows in need, and then he mentions "the list of widows" in verse 9. Some writers think that from verse 9 Paul begins a discussion about a separate group of widows, a group that is different from those he mentions in verses 3-8. According to them, in verses 3-8 Paul is talking about widows in need, but in verses 9-15, he is talking about a special order of widows, widows who are dedicated to the service of the church.
However, so far I remain unconvinced by the arguments that try to establish such a sharp transition between verses 3-8 and verses 9-15. Instead, it seems most natural to understand verses 9-15 as a continuation of verses 3-8, further limiting the number of those qualified for the church's support. That is, in verses 3-8, Paul talks about the general principles governing how a church must treat widows. But in verses 9-15, he enumerates some specific qualifications for those who are eligible to obtain the church's financial aid.
I will not mention all the arguments with which some writers try to assert that Paul begins to talk about another group of widows starting from verse 9, but I will just mention several examples of these arguments and why they can be immediately dismissed. The first example comes from verse 9, where Paul says, " No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty." Some commentators argue that if in verse 9 Paul is still talking about those widows who are eligible for the church's support, then it would be too harsh to require a widow to be over sixty before she becomes eligible for such assistance. Then, on the assumption that this is too harsh, and on the further assumption that Paul would not be so harsh, the argument then concludes that Paul must be talking about another group of widows beginning from verse 9.
The argument begs the question, assuming the very premise that must be proved. Why do these writers think that it would be too harsh for the church to withhold support from those under sixty? Where does this assumption come from, and what is its justification? Then, if this requirement is harsh, why do they think that Paul would never be so harsh? Rather, if in verse 9 Paul is indeed continuing with what he started in verse 3, then this requirement is not too harsh, or if you insist that it is a harsh requirement, then this shows that Paul would indeed be so harsh.
(to be continued)
Policy on Charity (0)
Coming up is a transcribed exposition on 1 Timothy 5:3-16. To be more precise, it is an exposition on 1 Timothy 5:3-8 and 16, with a brief explanation on verses 9-15 and their relationship to the rest of the passage.
The series studies Paul's instructions to the church concerning its policy on supporting widows. This is an important and relevant topic in itself, but it also carries broader applications for determining the church's policy when it comes to performing charitable works, as well as applications for determining the proper attitudes and practices that individual Christians must adopt.
The first part will most likely appear on Wednesday.
Christ and the Powers
The following is taken from Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Ephesians (PDF, p. 60–62):
In Christ's exaltation, God has placed him "far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come" (v. 21). Some commentators observe that Paul's readers reside in a region where idolatry, the occult, and various superstitions run rampant (Acts 19:17-19, 24-28), and they suggest that the apostle is possibly concerned to show that "none of the powers they were prone to fear could compare with Jesus."16 Although our struggle is "against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms" (6:12), Christ has been exalted above all of them, and God has fully equipped us to stand our ground (6:13-17).17
Paul wants to make it very clear that there is no exception but that Christ is over "all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the age to come." It matters not who, what, or when these entities are, but Paul says that "God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything" (v. 22). Christ rules with God on his right hand, and there is nothing above him or equal to him. Christ's authority in turn secures our protection and victory, because it is "for the church" (v. 22) that God has so exalted him, so that Christ's ultimate authority directly benefits and empowers God's people.
Some of us will tend to think that this biblical revelation of God's power and Christ's exaltation is less relevant (or even totally irrelevant) to the church today as when Paul wrote this letter. Surely there is no room for serious consideration of "the powers of this dark world" and "the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms" in this modern scientific era! But this is not so. Besides the fact that science itself is irrational18 and superstitious19, our present struggle is still against "the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient" (2:2).
Much of the world's population is blatantly idolatrous and superstitious, and most of the rest (including the scientific community) is not essentially better, but only more sophisticated in their idolatries and more "scientific" in their superstitions. Divination and even necromancy are just as popular as ever among westerners; the main difference seems to be that they have added eastern religions and superstitions to their repertoire.
Even some professing Christians affirm that their lives may be governed by planetary and other natural forces, when Scripture explicitly condemns such a belief. And some of these so-called believers even think that if they will rearrange their furniture according to the Feng Shui manual, then wealth and fortune will more easily come their way.
Now, regular scientists may deride the disciplines of parapsychology and paranormal research as pseudo-sciences, but they have yet to establish their own disciplines of natural sciences on rational grounds by a tenable philosophy of science. The scientific method cannot even tell me why my pencil drops to the floor when I let go of it, still less can it refute Feng Shui.
In contrast, the biblical doctrines of the sovereignty of God, the predestination of men, and the exaltation of Christ constitute the definitive answer to all idolatries and superstitions. Because God is sovereign over all things, because he has predestined all men (either for salvation or for damnation), and because he has exalted Christ over all powers, we stand upon a rational and infallible foundation when we deride idolatries and superstitions, condemn all non-Christian religions and philosophies, and refute the scientific method.
The missionary preaching in the jungle has no reason to fear the witch doctors, and the believer living in the city has no reason to fear that his window is facing the wrong direction. Likewise, the college student studying at the university has no reason to think that his professor's irrational and superstitious method can learn any truth, let alone refute his faith.20 The convert from a culture that is prone to ancestor worship is now free (and obligated to) abandon the blasphemous and forbidden practice. Whether we are speaking of ancient idolatries or modern superstitions, pantheistic mysticism or atheistic science, they are all irrational nonsense. Therefore, "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ" (Colossians 2:8).
In fact, the biblical worldview does not answer only "adult" superstitions, but it also provides a direct answer to children's fear of ghosts and monsters. Non-Christians may simply tell their children that there are no such things as ghosts and monsters, but how do they know this? On the basis of empiricism, it would be impossible to comfort a child who thinks that he has seen a monster, that is, unless he is as irrational as the empiricist when it comes to epistemology, and thus inconsistently applies the empirical theory. Perhaps the empiricist should stop telling his son, "Believe only what you can see and feel," and instead tell him, "Believe only what I tell you I can see and feel"!
On the other hand, Christian parents can tell their children that even if there are things like ghosts and monsters, Christ is above them all, and he will protect and vindicate those who trust him. Of course, we can (and should) teach our children a comprehensive course in biblical demonology to dispel false ideas about the supernatural, but even before we do that, the sovereignty of God and the exaltation of Christ already provide us with a broad and yet direct answer to all things concerning the "powers."
Thus we do not act like theologians when we need doctrinal information and then change to act like mystics when we need divine power. A theology that is biblical is also a theology that is powerful. Thus Paul is, in effect, praying that his readers might become better theologians, not greater mystics and charismatics. For the church to lay hold of God's power for this generation, it needs a fresh and accurate understanding of the sovereignty of God, the predestination of men, and the exaltation of Christ.
Notes
16 Turner, p. 1228.
17 Clinton Arnold, Power and Magic: The Concept of Power in Ephesians; p. 52-56.
18 Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions and Presuppositional Confrontations.
19 Bertrand Russell, Sceptical Essays, "Is Science Superstitious?"
20 Gordon H. Clark, The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God; The Trinity Foundation, 1996.
"Pure Religion" in PDF
"Pure Religion" is now available in PDF at:
http://www.vincentcheung.com/other/purereligion.pdf
Recommended:
Pure Religion (2-3)
Now, if you read only the first part of this verse, which says that a pure religion is one that takes care of orphans and widows, and then you throw away the rest of the Bible, then you will end up with a humanistic religion, a social gospel that has no spiritual and saving power. Instead of a pure and faultless religion, you will end up with the antithesis of one.
There is a context, a background, behind all the charitable works that the church performs. and this background is faith in Jesus Christ. It is a grave error – a damning error – to suppose that Christianity is primarily a system of ethics, or that it is mainly a call to social justice and charitable works. To interpret the gospel of Jesus Christ as purely, or even mainly, a social gospel is to distort its message and rob it of its power. Good works do not make a pure religion, but it is the pure religion that produces these good works. This distinction must be maintained.
Some people are seemingly so eager to reach certain types of people that they would transform themselves so much to adapt, that there remains hardly any noticeable difference between them and the people that they are trying to reach. If they are so like those people, then why do they need to convert at all? If they go to these people and use the same slangs, wear the same kind of clothes, make the same kind of dirty jokes, sing and listen to the same worldly songs, and do pretty much everything that the unbelievers do, then these people have already been polluted.
James says that a pure and faultless religion does not only look after orphans and widows, but it also keeps oneself from being polluted by the world. This reinforces the idea that Christianity is not a social gospel. The biblical philosophy of ministry and of evangelism is to remove any unnecessarily entrances without going to ridiculous lengths to do it. What is ridiculous, you say? One actual example is to paraphrase the entire New Testament into "street talk." When a believer goes to the "street" with this, right from the start he gives the impression that God does not care about the purity of his words, or at least he does not care about it.
Again, the biblical philosophy of ministry is to remove any unnecessary hindrances, but the misguided philosophy that we are now talking about believes that the way to reach the world is to show the unbelievers that we are not so different from them after all. From the perspective of effectiveness in ministry, faithfulness to the word of God, and from the perspective of maintaining a pure and faultless religion, if this is our philosophy of ministry, then we might as well let the orphans and widows starve.
What I am saying is that we cannot let social concerns drive our faith and practice, and we cannot let our message become a merely social gospel; otherwise, our entire enterprise will become powerless and meaningless. Our work will become one that saves the stomach but starves the soul. In fact, if the church becomes a merely social institution, an organization to promote charity work and natural human welfare, then it loses its very reason for existence.
Now, the world would welcome such an institution, and it would love nothing more than for the church to become humanistic and powerless, rather than to hear it preach a message from heaven that also has ethical and social implications. Thus our social and charitable work must be driven by spiritual concerns and biblical principles. It must be a fruit of true faith and pure religion, and not the ultimate object, nature, or purpose of our faith.
(end of series)
Better Than "Ex Lex"
Someone sent me a passage from John Frame's Apologetics to the Glory of God in which he argues against a point made in Gordon Clark's God and Evil. I read Frame's book a long time ago, and if I remember correctly, I am not sure if Frame fully understood Clark in the first place or whether he represented him correctly. In any case, it is unimportant whether or not this has anything to do with Clark.
According to Frame, to argue that God is "outside the law" is not a biblical response to the problem of evil, because to argue this way would be to ignore or deny the premise that God's laws come from and are consistent with his own immutable nature.
The following is my response:
I have time to give you only a short answer. I certainly cannot come at it from every possible angle or qualify everything that I say about it. But you should be able to take it further and apply it as needed.
The argument, whether used against ex lex or not, is just plain irrelevant. For the sake of discussion, let us first agree that the moral laws that God has imposed upon humanity come from his immutable nature. From this, let us suppose further, whether it is true or not, that God is actually bound by these moral laws. As is so often the case, the matter is closed when we ask, "So what? What does one thing have to do with another?"
From the above, it follows that "You shall not murder" applies to God. But so what? Frame would say that therefore God is not ex lex. What he fails to note is that this is a command with definite content, and not just some undefined X. What is murder? In the Bible, murder is a deliberate termination of a human life without divine sanction. We may add that this must be done by a human, or at least by a rational mind, since animals cannot really "murder" in the same sense, even if the killing is deliberate. Now, unless God can ever kill someone without his own approval, in which case he would be schizophrenic (so that our problem would be much greater than ex lex), the command will never actually apply. The same goes with "You shall not steal." There is nothing for God to steal, because he has made everything, and he owns everything.
Frame is considering the problem of evil, or how God can cause or "allow" evil and still remain holy, just, and righteous. But given the above, so what if God even directly causes evil? What moral law is there that says he must not? Where is it in the Bible? And if found, does it really apply, even if we say that God is "bound" by it?
So my position is not exactly ex lex, but that the greatness and transcendence of God is such that he does not even need to be ex lex.
The passage in question comes from a large section in John Frame's book on the so-called problem of evil. He goes through a number of options but is dissatisfied with each, and must finally conclude that the issue is a "mystery" to some extent. In the same book, Frame includes a response from Jay Adams in which he rebukes Frame for both rejecting the Bible's clear answer on the issue and for wanting more than what the Bible reveals. The problem is not that Clark is unbiblical (whether he is or not), but that Frame rejects the biblical answer.
You can also read my own answer to the problem of evil. Briefly, in addition to what I have stated above, my position is that there is no problem of evil for Christianity. The argument can never be formulated in a way that is logically intelligible. If we pretend to understand the objection, then we can say something about the subject, but there really is no objection to answer at all. The objector never knows what he is asking when he raises the problem of evil, and no one can logically understand him. So the "problem of evil" is defeated on several levels at the same time. Again, you can read my article for further explanation.
Recommended:
Gordon Clark, God and Evil
Gordon Clark, Predestination
Jay Adams, The Grand Demonstration
Vincent Cheung, The Problem of Evil
Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology
Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Ephesians
Vincent Cheung, The Author of Sin
Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions
Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations
Pure Religion (2-2)
We are discussing what makes a truly religious man, and by "religious," of course, we mean to have the kind of faith and life that the Bible teaches. Right now we are not using the word in a negative sense. A truly religious man, or a man who practices a pure religion, a religion that is faultless before God the Father, is one who listens to the word of God and then does what it says. But the one who falsely thinks that he is religious is one who merely listens to the word, but does not do what it says.
You see, many Christians think that a religious man, a spiritual man, is one who prays all the time, who studies all the time, who meditates in the word all the time, who is uninhibited in worship, and who possess boldness to preach the gospel. These are indeed some very good indications of a spiritual man, and a truly religious man would possess these qualities. But what does he do when he comes across an orphan in need? And how does he react to a struggling widow? Our faith, if genuine, ought to produce good works and reflect the compassion of Christ.
The Corinthians were endowed with various spiritual gifts, and because of this they thought they were spiritual. There are many who think the same way today, and you do not have to be a charismatic to be one of them. You may be gifted in theological understanding. You may be gifted in preaching. You may be gifted in administration. You may be gifted in finances. But if, like the Corinthians, you make a gift of God the basis for strife, for division, for jealousy, and for competition, then Paul says that you are carnal, not spiritual, no matter how gifted you are, or think that you are. Your faith may look pretty to others, and especially to yourself, but it lacks reality and substance.
James gives us a concrete illustration of this in the second chapter of his letter. He writes, "What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, 'Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,' but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead" (2:14-17).
It is fine to say to the needy person, "I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," because a truly compassionate heart will indeed wish this person well, and will indeed wish this person to keep warm and well fed. However, a pure religion, a truly spiritual person, would do more than this. James is saying that you should also show that you mean what you said, and do something about this person's needs.
And so back in 1:27, James says that a pure religion, one that is faultless before God the Father, is one that will "look after orphans and widows in their distress." On another occasion, perhaps using another text, I would like to discuss how a church can implement works of charity. James here is talking to the church, and we should not interpret what he says from a perspective of extreme individualism. So I would like to talk about how a church can implement works of charity, why it needs rules and policies, and what kind of rules and policies the Bible would teach and support.
But while we are saving that for another time, the final words in this verse lead to an important warning about implementing works of charity in the church. There are right ways to do it, and the wrong ways to do it.
(to be continued)