Born Again (7)
John 3:2 (D)
Putting all of this together, the implication is that these miracles were bursting forth from Jesus in such a concentrated fashion that they were constantly happening, one after another, or even many at the same time. His ministry was characterized by miracles on top of miracles. It seems legitimate to infer that he must have performed tens of thousands of miracles during his ministry. The exact number is unimportant, but what is important is to realize that there were so many miracles coming from Jesus that these miracles were happening left and right, and literally spilling forth all over the place around him. This explains why his miraculous power had become one of his distinguishing marks even at the earliest point of his ministry.
Nicodemus perceives the significance of these miracles, and says, "For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him." Nevertheless, we must recall how John concludes the second chapter of his Gospel: "Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing and believed in his name. But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all men. He did not need man's testimony about man, for he knew what was in a man." So we cannot infer too much about the spiritual condition of Nicodemus from 3:2.
His statement implies a generally positive view about Jesus, but in itself, it falls far short of a full appreciation for who Jesus is, and it fails to reflect an understanding of the heart of his mission. At least Nicodemus could infer that the magnitude and the abundance of miracles that Jesus is performing imply that he has come from God. However, what he says does not tell us how much he understands about spiritual operations. At the most, it tells us that he is aware of the outward effects of spiritual power in the ministry of Christ, and to him this means that Jesus has come from God as a teacher.
From what John says at the end of chapter 2, we can be certain that Jesus knows exactly what is in the heart of Nicodemus, his concerns and motives, what he lacks and what he needs. So the exact condition of Nicodemus remains to be seen from how Jesus interacts with him, from what is coming up in this conversation.
(to be continued)
Born Again (6)
John 3:2 (C)
As for the statement, "For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him," this is not necessarily a statement of flattery, but it could be his honest opinion as to why he thinks that Jesus has come from God as a teacher. Considered in itself, there is nothing wrong with this statement. The New Testament writers readily describe the ministry of Jesus as one characterized by the miracles that he performs, as well as the abundance and magnitude of these miracles.
We read in Acts 10:37-38, "You know what has happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached – how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him." Peter uses the same language to explain why Jesus could perform all the miracles that he performed. It was because "God was with him."
Then let us also take a look at the final verse in the Gospel of John. There, John writes, "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written" (21:25; see also 20:30). This statement refers to everything that Jesus did, and not only to the miracles that he performed, although his miracles are certainly included, since this statement refers to everything that he did. Not only are his miracles included in everything that he did, but as we have just noted, they are a significant part of his ministry. And here John tells us, "If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."
Even if we regard this statement as a hyperbole – that is, as an obvious exaggeration not intended to deceive but used as a literary device, and for effect – the image that John presents to us is still significant. He does not say, "If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even a whole room would not have the space for the books that would be written." If this is what John says, we would already be impressed with the idea that Jesus accomplished a great number of things, for how many people could perform so many things that if these things were all recorded in writing, the books would fill even a whole room? Even if all our significant deeds were to be recorded on the scrolls that the New Testament writers used at the time, they might still not be enough to fill a large room. But John says that if all the things that Jesus did were recorded in writing, even the whole world might not have room for the books that would be written.
In other words, Jesus must have done many, many things, and he must have done many, many miracles, so that if they were all written down, even the whole world would not have the room to contain all the books that would be written. Again, even if we regard this statement as an exaggeration, and even if only a small fraction of these "many things" were miracles, it would still mean that Jesus performed an overwhelming number of miracles. It would still mean that he performed an outright ridiculous number of miracles. We must also remember that the ministry of Jesus spanned only several years, and it was during these several years that he did these "many things," including his miracles.
(to be continued)
Born Again (5)
John 3:2 (B)
So Nicodemus comes to Jesus at night and says to him, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him." Now let us consider what Nicodemus says in this verse. First, he states, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God." A more literal translation is, "We know that you have come from God as a teacher" (NASB). The reason Nicodemus gives for this belief is, "For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him."
Because he uses the word "we," some suggest that Nicodemus comes to Jesus as a representative of a number of Pharisees who hold the same generally positive view toward Jesus, and who wish to inquire of him, to know more about his teaching, his mission, and what he has to say about their greatest concerns. We need not speculate about whether there are others among the Pharisees whose thinking are similar to Nicodemus, although this is probably the case, for at this moment we are interested in what we can clearly derive from what he says.
What we notice is that Nicodemus is very different from most of the other Pharisees, who would accuse Jesus of performing miracles by the power of the devil. Of course, Jesus would refute such an accusation when it is brought up (Matthew 12:24-37), but here the important thing is to note that Nicodemus does not hold the same attitude as these malicious Pharisees. He is not out to destroy Jesus, and what he says to Jesus here presents no apparent criticism.
Some commentators think that there is a note of either condescension or flattery, or condescending flattery, in how Nicodemus approaches Jesus. As Nicodemus is a rabbi himself, it seems incredible to these commentators that he would have so much respect for Jesus that he would call him one of his own. But this is what he says to him: "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God." So it seems to them that he must be saying this out of a condescending attitude, or as flattery to disarm Jesus. However, this is an inference from what the commentators assume about Nicodemus, and not an inference from the text itself. The text offers no evidence that would support such an interpretation, and thus it is nothing more than speculation.
(to be continued)
Born Again (4)
John 3:2 (A)
Then, John continues, "He came to Jesus at night and said, 'Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him.'" With his distinguished background, education, wealth, and power, it is remarkable that he would come to Jesus at all. What is his reason for coming? What is his motive? Does he come to mock Jesus, to test him, to entrap him? From what we read here, it appears that this is not the case, but it seems that he comes to Jesus to inquire of him, to learn more about him and his teaching, to discuss theology with him.
As I mentioned, Nicodemus appears two more times in the Gospel of John, and in both instances he stands on the side of Jesus. We have already read from chapter 19 where he invests his money and effort to give Jesus a proper burial. Previous to that in chapter 7, when his peers are ready to condemn Jesus, Nicodemus warns them against drawing a hasty conclusion, and says, "Does our law condemn anyone without first hearing him to find out what he is doing?" (v. 51). So it is natural in chapter 3 to understand that Nicodemus comes to Jesus because he has an interest in what Jesus has to say. And as he is himself a prominent teacher in Israel, surrounded by other prominent teachers and religious leaders, it is remarkable that he would come to Jesus at all.
John says that Nicodemus comes to Jesus "at night." It is common for people to assume that he does so because he is afraid of being seen by others and being associated with Christ. Because of his teachings and his miracles, Jesus has been generating controversy and drawing much attention from the public. Religious leaders who are eager to retain their traditions and their control over the people regard him with suspicious, if not outright malice. So it is suggested that Nicodemus comes at night under the cloak of darkness. Although this is possible, it is by no means clear from the text. John does not say that this is his reason for coming at night, nor is this the necessary implication derived from anything in our passage.
There is another possible explanation. The rabbis think that the best time to study and discuss theology is at night when they could read, think, and converse for hours undisturbed. So for one rabbi to visit another at night is a common practice, and does not demand any deeper reason or motive to explain it. Yet a third possibility is that this is just one of the details that John chooses to include as he recalls this incident. At any rate, whatever the reason, we cannot insist that Nicodemus comes by night for fear of persecution or embarrassment.
(to be continued)
Born Again (3)
John 3:1 (C)
Now, the external is not unimportant or irrelevant in religion. God's commands pertain to both our thoughts and our actions. But what defines a person's spiritual condition and drives his actions is the heart, his thoughts and his motives. The evil things that come forth from a man's heart are what make him unclean in God's sight (Matthew 15:18-20). Jesus perceives the evil and the malice in the hearts of the Pharisees, as well as their outward disobedience to God's Law. Although they appear extremely pious to some people, and certainly to themselves, their religion is dead. They bring spiritual bondage and condemnation to the people, and they have become the enemies of God.
Nicodemus is a Pharisee. From what we read in chapter 3, as well as his subsequent appearances in the Gospel of John, we can agree that he is better than the typical Pharisee. But still, it is from this background and this mentality that he comes to inquire of Jesus. Also, we can assume that he is at least outwardly religious, that he is respected by the people, and that he is very educated. Later in the passage, Jesus even calls him "the teacher of Israel" (v. 10, NASB).
But there is more to him. Verse 1 also refers to him as "a member of the Jewish ruling council." This means that he is a member of the Sanhedrin, the supreme ruling body among the Jews. The council is headed by the high priest, and has religious, civil, and criminal jurisdiction over the people. Of course, its power is limited while Israel is under the rule of foreign nations at various times in history, but its authority is nevertheless considerable. Among its powers and duties, the council is responsible to investigate and deal with those whom they suspect to be false prophets and heretics. Other New Testament characters who are also members of the Sanhedrin include Joseph of Arimathea (Mark 15:43) and Gamaliel (Acts 5:34).
In addition, something that John writes elsewhere suggests that Nicodemus must be a wealthy man. Nicodemus also appears in chapters 7 and 19 in this Gospel. In chapter 19, after Jesus had died on the cross, Nicodemus accompanies Joseph of Arimathea to bury the body of Jesus. Verse 39 says, "Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds." Only a wealthy man could bring all of this, and as one scholar comments, Nicodemus brings such a large amount of myrrh and aloes that it is as if he is preparing for a royal burial.
(to be continued)
Born Again (2)
John 3:1 (B)
Anyway, at this time we are only concerned with the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus, and we see that John makes a strong connection between 2:25 and 3:1. Right after stating that Jesus "knew what was in a man," John introduces the first of a series of events in the life of Jesus, starting with Nicodemus, and writes, "Now there was a man," that is, Nicodemus, who comes to visit with Jesus.
To read verse 1 in full, it says, "Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council." Although there is no way for us to know everything about the motives of Nicodemus and the circumstances surrounding his visit, the verse does offer us several details that would shed light on the significance of the things that we will read in the subsequent verses.
The Pharisees are those who have dedicated their lives to a meticulous observance of the Law of Moses. Paul says that they belong to "the strictest sect of our religion" (Acts 26:5). Although their purpose and philosophy appear noble, by the time of Jesus they have become unbearably legalistic.
For example, on the surface they jealously observe and guard the Sabbath. It is to be a day of rest, and in which work is forbidden. However, they have imposed upon it a large number of rules by which they define what constitutes "work" on the Sabbath, allegedly to ensure strict obedience to this law. The problem is that, not only have they added to the word of God, but these rules are such that they subvert the Sabbath itself, defeating its very purpose and intent. In the end, they are not really observing God's commandment concerning the Sabbath, but the rules that they have made and imposed upon the commandment, and which in many ways oppose the spirit and letter of God's intent for such a commandment.
Jesus sees through the sham and says to them, "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!" (Mark 7:9; also 8 and 13). On another occasion, he says, "You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel" (Matthew 23:24). By this he means that they are careful to follow certain external rules, especially those that they have created for themselves, and by the observance of which they claim to please God, but at the same time, they would break the greatest of the commandments, and would violate the very essence and weightiest matters of the Law.
This is why Jesus calls them hypocrites. They present themselves as one kind of people when in reality they are the very opposite. Their religion has become external, man-centered, and even man-made. And in following this religious system, they have become self-righteous and self-assured. In reality, God's approval has become irrelevant, since they would justify themselves and one another. Thus in one place, Jesus says, "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean" (Matthew 23:27).
(to be continued)
Born Again (1)
John 3:1 (A)
There is a well-known story in the Bible about a conversation between Jesus and a man named Nicodemus. It begins in the third chapter of the Gospel of John, but to better appreciate what happens in the conversation, we should first take a look at the verses that come immediately before chapter 3, since they give us the background against which John presents us with the story.
So we will start from 2:23-25: "Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing and believed in his name. But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all men. He did not need man's testimony about man, for he knew what was in a man." Here John tells us that many people have seen the miracles that Jesus did in Jerusalem and so they believe in him. But although they trust him, Jesus, on the other hand, does not trust them. The HCSB is correct where it translates, "Many trusted in His name…Jesus, however, would not entrust Himself to them."
John gives us an interesting explanation for this, and that is, he says that Jesus did not entrust himself to these people because "he knew all men," and that "he knew what was in a man." It is with this in the background that John proceeds to recount several examples from the life of Jesus showing that the Lord knew the circumstances and even the very hearts and secrets of the people he encountered. He saw their motives, perceived their needs, and even their sins were transparent to him. Then, like a master physician of souls, he would deal with them in ways that precisely addressed each person's unique condition.
In chapter 3, John tells us about the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus. This is what we are about to discuss, and so we will come back to it in a moment. Then, in chapter 4, John tells us about an encounter between Jesus and a Samaritan woman. This woman is very different from Nicodemus – in fact, they are opposites on many points – but Jesus also sees into her background and her heart. He speaks to her accordingly, and with as much skill and insight as when he deals with Nicodemus in the previous chapter. In verse 29, when the woman returns to her town to tell the people about Jesus, she says, "Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did. Could this be the Christ?"
After that, in chapter 5, John relates an incident in which Jesus heals a person who has been an invalid for thirty-eight years. Jesus approaches him and asks, "Do you want to get well?" (v. 6). Certainly, the story demonstrates the power of Jesus to heal, and the fact that he performs this healing on the Sabbath carries important implications. But there is still more to it, for if we will keep in mind what John says in 2:24-25, then we will also perceive the significance of what he records in 5:14, where Jesus says to the man who has just been healed, "See, you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you." Jesus knows this man's background, and he is aware of a connection between his spiritual condition and his physical condition. Jesus does not merely assume this connection, but he perceives it, since he offers a different explanation for "a man blind from birth" in chapter 9. He has supernatural insights into people.
(to be continued)
Born Again (0)
Coming up is a revised and expanded transcript of an exposition on John 3:1-21:
Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him."
In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."
"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"
Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."
"How can this be?" Nicodemus asked.
"You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things? I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven — the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life."
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.
Although the Gospel of John contains as many deep teachings and points of interest for Christians as any other biblical book, John tells the reader that the Gospel is written "that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (20:31). For this reason, it is a mistake to always expound the Gospel of John as if we are speaking only to believers, that is, to confirm and mature their faith. Rather, we must speak from this Gospel with the unbelievers in mind as well. This does not imply that there must be no in-depth expositions of the passages, since as God draws his elect, even some unconverted individuals will take interest in hearing the Gospel thoroughly expounded.
We can find an example of a technical issue even from the verse just quoted (20:31). There is a variant in the text so that the phrase "that you may believe" is either in the aorist subjunctive or the present subjunctive. Now, even an unbeliever might tolerate a sermon or an article that mentions this point, but to discuss technical details like these one after another will soon make the whole presentation unbearable to one who is still dead to the things of God. Moreover, many preachers and commentators discuss technical issues in the text in such a manner as to rob from their message — and to the unbelievers as well as the believers with weak faith, from the biblical text itself — all power and certainty.
My point is that it is desirable and even necessary to have different kinds of expositions, dealing with the biblical text from various perspectives and on various levels. This is true, of course, not only of the Gospel of John, but of the whole Bible. A preacher can, as I do, take comfort in the fact that he is not the only one who has expounded the passage, but many others have addressed the text and many others will address the text. Otherwise, we might be crushed by the pressure to offer an exhaustive exposition, as if this is possible, or failing that, we might be gripped by a sense of overwhelming inadequacy. I say "overwhelming" because a sense of inadequacy is always there, or should always be there. Thus the only reason why we stand up to speak at all is because God has called us and filled us with his Spirit. God has made us adequate and competent (2 Corinthians 3:5-6).
The first part of this series on John 3 will appear on Tuesday or Wednesday.
"Policy on Charity" in PDF
"Policy on Charity" is now available in PDF at:
http://www.vincentcheung.com/other/policycharity.pdf
Recommended:
Policy on Charity (4-2)
The apparently compassionate thing to do is not always the right thing to do. Here the church made the most superficial decision possible. When the head of the house dies, the family is supposed to suffer loss. Things are supposed to change. The wife and children are supposed to sense the void that he has left. The church can do a lot to help alleviate their pains and their needs, but it cannot just pick a man from another family and plug him right into the bereaved family, telling him to take on all the roles of the deceased husband except that of a sexual companion to the woman. And the church cannot expect the wife of this man to share her husband with another woman, even if supposedly in a non-sexual way.
What a disgrace. What a shameful, stupid, stupid, stupid decision. What an abomination and dishonor to the Body of Christ. This church probably ushered this man right into the bed of this new widow, and thus destroyed two families at one stroke. And what were the elders going to do if the man had committed adultery with the widow? Discipline them? Excommunicate them? They were the ones who told the man to spend hours and hours over at the widow's place. They would have to excommunicate themselves along with them.
The church could have chosen from a great number of options in helping this bereaved family, any one of these options or any combination of these options would have been far superior to sending one man alone into a widow's home day after day. The church could have sent different couples to take turns in helping the family. It could have encouraged greater participation of this family in the church's various activities. What this church tried to accomplish by sending this one man into the family could only be done by the widow's remarriage to another man. This man would then properly function as a father figure to the children, and to perform all the functions that the deceased husband used to perform. And there would be no adultery, no scandal, no confusion. If the widow had refused to remarry, then she would have needed to raise the children by herself, with the help of the church and the community, but without a husband or a father, and certainly without a husband or a father borrowed from another family.
This theologian relates his story as something that he is proud of, and as something that he wishes other churches would emulate. He thinks that what the church did was intelligent, compassionate, and effective. But I am ashamed of him. Paul says that we are to be beyond reproach, but this was a scandal in the making. It robbed one family of its husband and father (or at least half of him), injected temptation and confusion into the bereaved family, placed the man in the difficult position of caring for two families (to be a husband and father to one, but then a friend and father to another), tainted the widow's image and reputation, and thus also insulted her deceased husband.
I wonder what these elders would have done for a family whose wife and mother had died, that is, if they would have suggested that another family share a woman with the widower and his children. That would have been at least as dangerous and scandalous, if not more so. As such a community develops, there would be other widows and widowers, and I wonder if they would order the same to be done in each case. And if so, what they would end up with is mass spouse sharing, deep strain and suspicion in marriages, and numerous cases of adultery practically arranged by the church.
Can you understand why we need a biblical policy when it comes to charity, and helping orphans and widows? It is because, on the one hand, people can be selfish, and on the other hand, they can be very stupid and a little insane, as in this case. The Bible has given us a policy to follow, and church leaders ought to be firm and decisive in teaching it and implementing it. And please, if you are going to sin and defy the Bible, as least do not pair up people to commit adultery with one another!
A biblical policy will do more than to prevent abominations such as the one in our illustration. Since such a policy has been derived from Scripture, believers can follow it with confidence, knowing that they are obeying the will of God as they do so. This in turn protects them from doubt as to whether they are doing the right thing, from the subjective guilt of thinking that they are not doing enough, from the objective guilt of really not doing enough, and also from the manipulation of swindlers, and from many unbearable and unnecessary financial burdens.
On the other hand, since the biblical policy is a moral mandate imposed upon Christians by God, it also serves to protect the rights of orphans, of "widows who are really in need," and of others who are to receive help and support.
Finally, a biblical policy, while compassionate, is also intelligent and righteous. It does not encourage sloth or tolerate licentiousness, but it insists on both charity in those who give, and godliness in those who receive.
(end of series)
Policy on Charity (4-1)
Let us review what we have covered so far. I have been speaking from 1 Timothy 5:3-8. First, we discussed the relationship between this passage and verses 9-15, as well as verse 16. But other than affirming a continuation from verse 8 to verse 9, and then all the way to verse 16, we have not discussed the content of verses 9-15. Instead, we have focused our attention on verses 3-8, and also verse 16.
Verse 3 says that we must "Give proper recognition to those widows who are really in need." We proceeded to consider who these widows are. Verse 4 indicates that a widow who is truly a widow, or a widow who is really in need, is one who is without children or grandchildren to take care of her. In such a case, the church should intervene and supply for her needs, that is, provided that she also fulfills the other conditions mentioned in our passage. In addition, this verse indicates that the children and grandchildren are to take care of their parents and grandparents because this is to "put their religion into practice" and to repay the debt that they owe to their parents and grandparents, "for this is pleasing to God."
Then, in verses 5 and 6, Paul mentions two different kinds of widows. The first one is really in need and left all alone. She puts her hope in God and continues night and day in prayer, and to ask God for help. She walks in faith and godliness. The second one lives for pleasure. She is self-indulgent and wallows in luxurious living. The money enables her to live in such a licentious manner comes, if not by prostitution, then probably from immoral relationships with other men. A wealthy widow who has inherited her money from the deceased husband still falls under Paul's description if she is self-indulgent, wallows in luxurious living, and lives for pleasure. She is "dead even while she lives."
Verse 16 gives us Paul's practical reason for insisting that the church follows his policy in taking care of widows and in performing charity. He says that the church should not be "burdened" with those who are not really in need, and with those who have other people to take care of them. But there is a spiritual reason as well, and that is stated in verse 7 and 8 where Paul says that the church must follow his instructions, so that "no one may be open to blame." When a church formulates and implements a policy, it is important that it upholds the honor and reputation of God and of the Body of Christ. We are to show that we are clean and honest in all of our dealings, and free from all wrongdoing and scandal.
Although the main part of our exposition is complete, there are several loose ends that I would like to tie up in this final session. In particular, I would like to expand on this last point about the purity, the honor, and the reputation of the Body of Christ. The key is to implement a policy that demonstrates compassion, and that at the same time does not generate suspicion and create scandal in any way.
A church must have a biblical policy on charity, on taking care of widows and orphans, and it must adhere to such a policy. Any deviation from biblical instructions can lead to great destruction for the parties involved and dishonor to the Lord. When we stray from the biblical guidelines, not only those stated in our passage but also in the rest of Scripture, disaster is almost inevitable.
One fairly prominent theologian, the son of a much more prominent theologian, had established a church with the intent that families can form an intimate community and effectively implement a homeschool system. In a book where he discusses family and parenting, supposedly from a biblical perspective, he offers an illustration on how his church dealt with the needs of a widow. Let us consider what we can learn from it.
In short, this woman's husband had died and left her with several children. Since they were not wealthy, right away the widow began to face seemingly insurmountable financial problems, definitely more than what she could handle. She could try to find a job, but then she would have needed someone else to care for her children. And since this was a homeschool community devoted to obeying the "cultural mandate," the church naturally wanted to offer her a better solution.
So the church agreed to take care of much of the widow's financial needs. However, to the elders of this church, an equally pressing problem was that there was now a void in this family that only a man could fill. As far as the elders were concerned, there were various things related to the operation of a household that were more appropriately performed by a man. And what about the children? Now they no longer had a father figure in their lives.
It happened that another family from the same church lived quite near to this bereaved family. So the elders came up with the idea that the man of this family should now take on many of the roles that the deceased man used to fulfill. The man agreed to this and began to spend a lot of time over at this other family's place. He would help the widow do chores around the house, fix things that needed to be fixed, and so on. He would help the children with their school work, play sports with them, take them to places, and generally try to fill up part of the void that was left when their father died.
This is an abomination. Do you not see it? Perhaps my description is not as vivid and thorough as the one this theologian gives in his book, but in effect the church had asked this other family to share the man with the bereaved family. From the description given in the book, the man was spending a lot of time over at this other family's place, and he was performing every function that the deceased husband used to perform other than to have sexual intercourse with the widow. Now, who would be stupid enough as to be surprised if very soon he had taken on this final role as well? Apparently the possibility never occurred to the church elders, and if it did, apparently they thought the danger was not great enough.
Everything was wrong about this decision. The man's family was left with half a husband and half a father. With the husband spending so much time at the other place with a lonely widow, the wife was now subjected to jealousy and suspicion – there must have been something seriously wrong with her if she was not jealous and suspicious, if she was satisfied with such an arrangement. Under the circumstances, if she had said anything, she probably would have been accused of being selfish and insecure. Still, she should have fought it like she was fighting for the very life of her marriage and family. I do not know whether she did or not. In any case, part of what makes a woman secure in her relationship is that her husband does not spend half of his time over at a widow's place, and spend hours and hours playing with the other woman's children!
As for the newly bereaved widow, she suddenly had a new man in her life that was assuming every non-sexual role that her husband used to fulfill, including the role of a father figure to her children. Who could guarantee that there would have been no temptation to take the relationship further? The church practically signed a warrant to commit adultery by sending her a man to be with her for many hours each week behind closed doors.
What about the children? They had just lost their father, and now another man, even if not a complete stranger, entered their lives and took on every role that their father used to fulfill. They might not see this man kissing their mother – yet – but was this supposed to assure them, or confuse them? What was he doing there if he was not in love with their mother? Why, their father had just died, and was their mother welcoming another man into the home so soon? Why was he acting like their father? How long was he going to assume this role?
(to be continued)
Policy on Charity (3-2)
In addition to the spiritual concern by which he determined this policy, Paul also shares his practical concern in verse 16: "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." The church is not to be "burdened" with helping people who could receive support from somewhere else, especially from close relatives.
We can summarize Paul's policy this way: The church is not to neglect the widows who are really in need, but it cannot offer support to every widow. Practically speaking, it must be realistic about its own limitations, so that it must exclude all those who could obtain their support from somewhere else. Spiritually speaking, it must protect its purity and its reputation, so that it must not tolerate those widows who are self-indulgent, who are living selfish and immoral lives, and who would squander the churches support on luxurious living.
It is the consistent teaching of Scripture that the church should not be blindly sympathetic to those who appear to be in need, but it must consider why a certain person is in need, and whether the church is this person's last resort. In fact, Paul explicitly instructs his churches to be firm with people who are in need due to their own fault, and who otherwise would not require the church's support.
For example, in 2 Thessalonians 3:6, Paul writes, "In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us." He does not say that the church should indulge him and to keep him alive while giving him time to repent or anything like that. He says to keep away from him, to shun him, to exclude him. And then in verse 10, he writes, "For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: 'If a man will not work, he shall not eat.'"
There is no indication in the text that Paul is joking or exaggerating. You might say, "Certainly, Paul does not intend for us to let this person starve to death, does he?" Again, the question assumes that the apostle would not implement such a harsh treatment against anyone, but as with before, this begs the question. Unless there are biblical passages found elsewhere that would preclude this straightforward interpretation, this verse is explicit instruction for us to allow the idle person to starve.
However, when this is the policy, this person might just get back to work in order to survive. But if you do not starve him, you might never know. Those passages on love and compassion, and others like the Parable of the Good Samaritan, do nothing to contradict this understanding. They just do not apply in a manner that would tell us to support the idle person, since the person does not really have a need that the church must supply – he just refuses to work.
We must still consider verse 8: "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." This naturally follows from Paul's concern, as stated in verse 7, that "no one may be open to blame." But he adds an interesting statement here that confuses some people. It seems straightforward enough for many, and it appears that most commentaries offer the correct interpretation on it, but if one reads it from a particular angle and with certain assumptions in mind, it can indeed be perplexing.
I am referring to the last part where he says that a person who does not provide for his relatives "has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." It sounds to some that the phrases "has denied the faith" and "is worse than an unbeliever" must indicate that such a person is unsaved.
A person who abandons his relatives, and especially his immediate family, might indeed be unsaved, and this type of behavior is certainly sinful and displeasing to God. However, it is not the necessary implication from verse 8 that such a person must be unsaved. Remember that in verse 4, Paul says that the children or grandchildren should take care of the widows who are really in need, and he says that this is to "put their religion into practice." The opposite, of course, is to "deny the faith," that is, not necessarily in creed, but certainly in conduct.
As for the phrase "worse than an unbeliever," Paul cannot be referring to salvation. If Paul indeed has salvation in mind – if he has the fate of the person in mind – then there is nothing worse than the fate of the unbeliever. The most that one can say is that this person will suffer the same fate as an unbeliever. Rather, the phrase corresponds to Paul's concern as stated in verse 7. There he says that Timothy should relate these instructions and insist on them, so that "no one may be open to blame." Since even unbelievers would often take care of their own relatives, and especially their own parents, a Christian who refuses to do the same is certainly behaving worse than an unbeliever.
If a person claims to be a Christian, but who consistently denies the faith in practice, and whose behavior is consistently worse than (or the same as) an unbeliever, then this is an indication that the person has never been a Christian. That Paul declares this person "worse than an unbeliever" in fact suggests that he is not referring to salvation, but to a person's behavior as compared to the usual practice of the unbelievers. Paul's concern is for the church's reputation and God's honor.
(to be continued)
Policy on Charity (3-1)
We have been studying Paul's instructions in 1 Timothy 5 regarding how a church should help "widows who are really in need." We have discussed the relationship between verses 3-8 and verses 9-15, and then also verse 16. Then, as we started our exposition, we have discussed verses 3 and 4.
As we noted, Paul does not say that the church should support every widow, but that it should support only the widows who are truly widows, those widows who are truly in need. By this, Paul is referring to those widows who are truly alone, so that they have no children or grandchildren to support them.
We mentioned the responsibilities of the children and grandchildren, that they must put their religion into practice, and that they are to repay their parents and grandparents, "for this is pleasing to God." In connection with this, we also referred to another biblical teaching, namely, that the ideal is that the parents should leave an inheritance to the children rather than having the children support the parents. However, when this is not possible, the children should demonstrate their faith by supporting their parents out of gratitude.
Now we have arrived at verse 5. We must remember that in this verse Paul is continuing what he started in verse 3. In other words, he continues to expound on the idea that the church should support with those who are truly widows, widows who are truly in need, and he is continuing to explain who these widows are. It would help us to retain this connection in our thinking by reading verse 3 and then verse 5 right away, temporarily skipping verse 4, as right now we will be dealing with verse 5.
Thus, Paul says, "Give proper recognition to those widows who are really in need….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." Verse 3 tells us that the church is to support the widows who are really in need. In verse 4, Paul excludes those widows who have close relatives to support them. Now in verse 5 he further elaborates on the type of widows who are eligible for the church's support.
First, he repeats that the church is to support the widow who is "really in need." She is someone who is "left all alone." And the kind of widow that Paul has in mind is one who "puts her hope in God and continues night and day to pray and to ask God for help." So the apostle is not concerned only about a widow's financial condition when considering whether a widow is eligible for the church's support. The church is also to take a look at her spiritual condition. A widow who is eligible for the church's support, besides being really in need and left all alone, is also one who hopes in God and who prays night and day. She is one who depends on God.
Then, Paul makes his meaning even clearer, for when we move on to verse 6, he refers to a widow whose characteristic is the opposite of the one in verse 5. He writes, "But the widow who lives for pleasure is dead even while she lives." The words "lives for pleasure" refer to someone who is self-indulgent, who lives for luxury and who does not demonstrate the reverence and the dependence of the widow in verse 5. Some commentators think that even if this widow does not resort to prostitution, the expression suggests that her luxury comes from other men, from immoral living. Spiritually speaking, Paul obviously intends to convey the idea that she is the opposite of the widow in verse 5, and he says that she is "dead even while she lives."
Remember that Paul is not giving a general description of a spiritual widow in verse 5 and an immoral one in verse 6 for no particular purpose, or as a digression, but he is continuing what he started in verse 3. He is elaborating on the kind of widow that would be eligible for the church's support. Clearly, the widow in verse 6 must be denied and excluded.
After that, in verse 7, Paul tells Timothy, "Give the people these instructions, too, so that no one may be open to blame." This is the policy that a church leader is to implement in the church, and he is to instruct the people about these things and the principles by which the policy is determined. Following the biblical policy is crucial in maintaining the church's honorable reputation, which is a constant concern of the apostle.
Now, if our interpretation of verses 9-15 is correct, then Paul would continue to elaborate on the kind of widows that are eligible for the church's support, and he would indicate that these widows must be willing to work for the church. Certainly, a widow who is in decent health, who is not disabled, should be willing to serve the church in exchange for its support.
What reason is there for the widow, who is left all alone, to refuse to dedicate the rest of her life to the church that is now supporting her? Every Christian should be willing to serve the church in some way, but how much more should a widow be willing to serve, who no longer has other responsibilities, and who now receives her livelihood from the church? For her to refuse would make her resemble the widow described in verse 6, that is, one who lives for herself and her own pleasure.
(to be continued)