Applied Theocracy

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Matthew 6:24

I'll begin with a quick recap of the last post, by defining my working definition of Theocracy. Theocracy literally means the "rule of God". My use of the word describes the principle of an individual allowing God the right to rule one's life, in the present. For a further explanation of what I do and do not mean by Theocracy, refer to the last post.

Any discussion on Theocracy would be futile without considering the practical outworking of God's Sovereignty. If our understanding of God's rule doesn't bring us to the place of obedience, then our pondering reduces itself to mere trivia or entertainment. Woe unto us if we allow this to happen to such an important theme.

Before we begin, there is something we must consider.

God Cares For Us

6 Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:
7 Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you.
1 Peter 5:6-7

He cares for us!!! It is absolutely vital that we see this, and that in the light of this fact, He not only can be trusted to have our cares cast upon Him, but He even invites us to do so. This is the major component of the basis of obedience, and a great source of humbling, that the Almighty God cares for us.

Consider the one whose hand penned these words. Peter was the one who, when Christ spoke of his imminent death at the hands of sinful men, rose up as a loyal subject, promising to defend his King (Matt 16:21-23). Even though it is normal for a king to cast his cares upon his subjects, and to put his needs and desires before theirs, Christ had shown Peter that God, not only cares for His subjects, but He actually desires to attend to their cares (see John 13:3-17).

Now, knowing this about God, let's move on to His rule.

For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.
Rom 11:36

The Westminster Shorter Catechism cites the above verse, while answering its first question with, "The chief end of all being is the glory of God, and to enjoy Him forever." This verse clearly states that "all things" have their origin, continuance and destination in God.

There is no room given for another source of anything. These facts are confirmed in statements such as "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith.." (Heb 12:2) and "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty" (Rev 1:8). It is the present tense statement that we are facing in this post. The question we are raising is, "How do we live in the light of the knowledge of 'all things' being 'through Him'?"

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Heb 11:6

There are two things which we must digest before we come to God. Firstly, "He is". He is a present reality, existing now and is active at this moment, just as He was and will be. The exhortation is given, "Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin." (Heb 3:12-13)

The ever present "is" of God testifies to His "living". Not only did He die for us "while we were yet sinners", but He "raised again for our justification". Which leads to the second fact about God that we must believe, in order to come to Him, "He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him". It is a promise made by the one "that cannot lie" (Tit 1:2;Heb 6:18), therefore we can be assured that He will do just as He has promised.

It is on these two facts, that "of him, and through him, and to him, are all things", and that God "is, and he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him", that can anchor our understanding of the means by which He governs our lives. This is the foundation of His Personhood, and the manner by which He expresses His love toward us, as it underpins even His death, burial and resurrection.

Having said all this, it is important not to ignore our role in this: "without faith it is impossible to please him..". In order to receive the benefit of that which He has "freely given", we must surrender our complete trust to His reliability and integrity. Otherwise our life will be spent in the terror of doubt, fearing that He will let us down, and falling short of the abundant life that Christ promised to give us.

And now a short aside in order to make a vital connection between the theory and the experience of God's rule over our life.

'Is' Not 'Has'

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.
1 Cor 1:27-31

It should be of interest to note that the text states that Christ "is" wisdom, righteous, sanctification, and redemption. It doesn't say that he "has" these things, but that he "is" these things. While this may not seem like much at this point, it will soon become apparent why this is so important...

This will end our introduction, let's now look at the means by which God rules an individual's life.

Ordered Steps

23 The steps of a good man are ordered by the LORD: and he delighteth in his way.
24 Though he fall, he shall not be utterly cast down: for the LORD upholdeth him with his hand.
Psalm 37:23-24

Matthew Henry's comments bring some interesting insight into these statements:

"By his grace and Holy Spirit, he directs the thoughts, affections, and designs of good men. By his providence he overrules events, so as to make their way plain. He does not always show them his way for a distance, but leads them step by step, as children are led. God will keep them from being ruined by their falls, either into sin or into trouble, though such as fall into sin will be sorely hurt."

The question that needs to be asked is "What is a 'good man'?" Jesus responded to the Rich Young Ruler, who called him "good teacher", by saying, "Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God" (Luke 18:18-19). In light of Paul's statement that Christ is made unto us "righteousness", amongst other things, it must be understood that anyone that Scripture would dare call a "good man" must have been "made good" by God.

Therefore we can plainly see that David's words assure those that have been made good, or righteous, by God, that He orders their steps. Asaph bore witness to David's words:

23 Nevertheless I am continually with thee: thou hast holden me by my right hand.
24 Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel, and afterward receive me to glory.
25 Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee.
26 My flesh and my heart faileth: but God is the strength of my heart, and my portion for ever.
Psalm 73:23-26

In the light of his opening words, "Truly God is good to Israel, even to such as are of a clean heart" (Ps 73:1), and we can see that the "clean heart" is the one that is upheld by God, rather than being "cleansed" by one's own self-exertion (Ps 73:13). Again Paul reveals the means:

For Christ is the end (ie. logical conclusion) of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
Rom 10:4

...and how do we claim this free gift? Sometimes it’s easy to forget how easy it is meant to be:

8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
1 John 1:8-10

"We" confess (ie, openly acknowledge) our sin and "God" does the cleansing. Bible teacher, Chuck Missler refers to 1 John 1:9 as the "Christians bar of soap". Diligently seeking Him, in this area, would be to lean our full weight on this promise, and the reward is righteousness. This means coming to God with an attitude that says, "If God didn't want to do this, then He shouldn't have made the promise." That is the faith that pleases Him, and the only prescribed means of being made righteous. "Gaining righteousness" is synonymous with "losing unrighteousness", just as one is "made clean" by being "cleansed of dirt".

We may fret about whether or not we are in His plan, but this verse clearly states that He keeps those who are His own in His will. Whether or not I am in His will should not be my primary concern, but whether or not I am a "good man". The issue is whether or not we have been made righteous in Him, because if we have then our steps will be ordered of Him.

It could be said that for a Christian to know where God would have them be, he need only look to his feet. There is a sense in which the whole of a disciple's life is ordered of God, from start to finish, even their life prior to being born again. Upon pondering my personal history, and my life of sin prior to yielding to Christ, I often wonder if it would have been possible for the Lord to bring me to the end of myself, had I not been a drug addict. In this way even the sinful history of the Christian is redeemed in Christ.

Now onto His actual means of leading His own...

Heeded Voice

26 ..ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
John 10:26-27

This statement was made to some Jews who demanded that Jesus told them plainly whether he was the Christ or not. In the third chapter of John's Gospel, Nichodemus began a discussion with Jesus stating that the Sanhedrin's standard of validating Christ as a "teachers sent from God" were his miracles (John 3:2). Here Jesus cited the same standard, by saying "I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me" (John 10:25) in response to the Pharisees' question, "If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly" (John 10:24).

So what has this to do with Theocracy? To the Jew, Meshiach (ie, Christ) was to be the coming king, the inheritor of the throne of David. If Christ simply said, "It is as you say" at that point, they probably would have begun to conspire to overthrow Herod, Pilate and the Romans and install Jesus as their king. The thing is, Christ was not only establishing his right to rule but was describing the means and manner of his rule.

I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
John 10:11

In this statement, Christ established his Davidic inheritance and his intrinsic right to rule, based on his surrendering of his own life as a good shepherd would for his sheep. One's mind could recall David's account to Saul of his slaying the lion and the bear, as he offered to risk his life in battle against Goliath, just as he had risked his life for his sheep (1 Sam 17:34-37). This is the nature of a "good shepherd" and the only difference was that Christ not only risked his life, but he actually laid it down.

4 And when he (the good shepherd) putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.
John 10:4-5

These words address a common issue in the Body of Christ. Just as we saw earlier, with the issue of being in the will of God, people tend to fret over hearing God's voice. We have Charismatics coming experiencing shame from failing to have an "experience" and Evangelicals allowing a "Book" to come in between them and God. Please understand that I am neither implying that God has ceased to speak, nor that Scripture is anything but authoritative and true. What I am saying is by and large, many have replaced the "Person" of God, with a concept of Him. As a result, obedience has been reduced to submitting to a means of "knowing what God would will", over being led by God, Himself.

There is a view that says that we need to learn to distinguish between the voice of God, Satan and self, and yet these words of Christ seem to imply that there is no need to fear. After all Jesus quantified his words, "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me" with, "And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers."

Following Him is the natural by product of being one of His sheep. Perhaps for those of us in western urban societies tending sheep is a foreign thing, so allow me to slightly alter the illustration:

Imagine a man taking his dog to a park. He lets the dog off the chain, and it plays in amongst all the people. There are children laughing, yelling and screaming, parents talking, and various other noises, including other dogs being called, but this dog is unmoved. But when it comes time to come home, the dog’s ears prick up because it has heard the voice of its master calling its name. However if another voice, that the dog doesn't know, called then the dog would either ignore it, or recognise it as suspicious.

Just as earlier when we saw that "the steps of a good man are ordered by the LORD", and found out that our primary concern should be whether or not we are good, so here we must ask ourselves, "Why aren't we His sheep?" Hearing Christ's voice is the least of your problems. If you are not His sheep, then you must to repent, and trust in the Saviour.

The Shepherd and the Stranger

Even though we need not fear the voice of the "stranger" if we belong to Christ, it is important note the mention of this competitor for our obedience. This is the real issue of obedience is that of the existence of two kingdoms, and the need to choose one, and reject another (Mat 6:24).

So there we have it. Two kingdoms and one choice. We start off as slaves to sin, and then we become new creations, and take on a new nature. Our "stony heart" is removed and replaced with a "heart of flesh" (Eze 11:14). Having been made righteous, God promises to order our steps. Having been redeemed by the "good shepherd", we will hear His voice and follow Him, ignoring the voice of the "stranger".

In other words, we are transformed from one thing into another. Herein is the perfection of God's ordering revealed. Rather than demanding reluctant obedience from His subjects, God invests the desire to obey into the core of our being (Ps 37:4), so that obedience is spontaneous (Mat 12:33-35).

Trusting in the Lord

So our obedience is firmly anchored on His faithfulness. This does not allow room for complacency, however. As we saw earlier, God cleanses us of unrighteousness in response to our acknowledgement of our sin. We can see more in the words of the Psalmist:

5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.
Psalm 3:5-7

In order to "lean not on our own understanding" so that we can "trust in the Lord", we need to have access to another opinion than our own, and to consult another with our decision-making. This is where prayer and Bible study come in. It is not a matter of these disciplines "saving us", but they serve as an expression of our trusting Him, as we believe that He "is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

Conclusion

The essence of obedience is based on us doing our part, trusting that He has done, and will continue do His part. And this is the foundation of Theocracy. May you hear His voice and follow Him, as He orders your steps and directs your paths.

Edit - This post is part of a PodBlog simulcast - http://cjakforest.podOmatic.com/entry/eg/2007-11-05T05_36_02-08_00

Inerrancy of the Bible

Norman P. Grubb

May-June 1981 Union Life Magazine

Q. Do you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible?

A. That’s easy to answer: Yes! But there is this recurring problem of definition or more detailed explanation. That is why I don’t really like to get involved in these leading questions which are not framed in biblical terms. We so easily slip into the words and phrases, distractions which Paul several times warned Timothy to avoid. But having been asked the question, here is the answer.

Yes, but the only final inerrancy can be in the Scriptures originally given. And of course we don’t have them. We depend on translations or copies. This may give an excuse, if any want one, to raise questions about inerrancy. I don’t because I seek to be “existentialist.” In other words: Let’s be practical and down-to-earth.

Now I had to come down to earth to the very last word myself, because I had the privilege of spending the Twenties in the Congo, translating the New Testament into the market language of that area of north-eastern Congo, called Bangala. My brother-in-law, Alfred Buxton, had produced the first primer and made a partial translation of New Testament passages. I had time available and gave myself to producing the complete translations (as well as some parts of the Old Testament and Psalms). To do this I used my King James Version and my knowledge of Greek. Because of my years of study at public school and at Cambridge I could take back each phrase to the Greek. By these means I found completely all I needed to produce this translation. (To my joy, since the Congo became independent and adopted the name Zaire, this Bangala dialect, now called Lingala, is the official language of the whole nation, and the translation of the whole Bible has long been completed.)

But my point is that there is certainly sufficient “inerrancy” in our versions for all practical purposes, and in no place is any vital truth in doubt. Certainly there are variant readings and some few passages in question as to their real meaning, but except for linguists or theologians called to explore the most detailed accuracy, we can and do boldly say, “Yes, our Scriptures are inerrant.” And we are wise to concentrate our undivided attention on what the Spirit is saying through the Word, not on questions about the possible accuracy of one word or another. Let the Scriptures be what we hold them to be in our Union Life fellowship, and what Jesus said they are: “spirit and life.” And let us avoid those who remain in the “letter that kills.” Thank God for a totally reliable Scripture, revealing to us a totally reliable Lord Jesus Christ with the Father and Spirit.

www.NormanGrubb.com

Pantheist

Norman P. Grubb

May-June 1981 Union Life Magazine

Q. Are you a Pantheist?

A. Again the answer depends on how we define pantheism. From the Greek I had in my English schooling, I remember that “pan” is the neuter case in Greek for “everything,” and of course theism relates to “Theo” (God).

In that sense it is ridiculous that any reader of a Union Life article could think that we who so totally center all in the Living Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we know the Father by the Spirit, could conceive of God as a thing, or as “everything!” Surely we give no grounds for any such suspicion. Rather we would actually say that by this definition of pantheism, every human not born again is a pantheist. Before we enter into a living relationship with the Father through the Son, our “god” is some kind of “thing,” whether that “thing” is our own fallen selves, or some earthly god, or possibly even our “religion.” All the unredeemed are pantheists, for some thing is god to them, some form of the “everything.”

But some people get nervous and even call us “pantheists” because we do believe in God as Spirit (John 11:24) as the Invisible One manifested by His visible forms (Rom. 1:20), as He who “fills heaven and earth” (Jer. 23:24), and as finally known by His universe as “All in all” (and thus known now by faith in His eternal changelessness). These are the terms commonly used of Him: omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. He is love, light, power, and thus He must be everywhere. So in those realities we see Him and speak about Him as manifested in all His forms: the “Beyond in the midst,” the transcendent in the Immanent, the Vine expressed through the branches, the Head expressed through the body. The “whole human race lives and moves and has its being in God” (Acts 17:28). The pantheists would see Him as the forms; we see Him in them. We therefore come under the category of being “panentheists,” the all-important little Greek preposition en in that phrase meaning in. He in everything, not He everything.

A simple illustration is our human selves. We as persons are “spirits” contained in our bodies. No one mistakes us for our bodies! But because of our strong emphasis on God being manifested in all His creation, and because we call ourselves “see-throughers” rather than “see-aters,” it is inevitable that some non-understanding people will falsely label us as pantheists. Indeed we are in such union with Him that we are called by Jesus “the light of the world.” But He is that light in our form.

www.NormanGrubb.com

Neo-Orthodox?

Norman P. Grubb

May-June 1981 Union life Magazine

Q. Are you Neo-Orthodox?

A. It almost makes me laugh to think that such a question could be asked of us ardent Bible-believers! But again I think I know why, though this may have a more personal source.

The term neo-orthodox was coined by the liberal theologians and preachers of Germany when one of their supposed liberal ministers produced his famous Romerbrief. That was Karl Barth’s “Epistle to the Romans.” Because of the shocks of World War I and the unrest in what had been a comparatively peaceful world, and under the strong influence of Kierkegaard, Barth radically changed his liberal position and produced this commentary on Romans, verse by verse. It not only adhered faithfully to the letter as written, but gave to his liberal colleagues an explosive new interpretation of the “wholly other God” (a favourite term of Barth’s). It proclaimed the total revealed gospel of our redemption through his Son, incarnate, crucified, risen and ascended, and so sent hundreds of ministers, with little gospel in their understanding or messages, back to the Christ of the Bible. For Barth, the God of Romans was only approachable through the atoning sacrifice of His Son and the inner witness of the Spirit in response to faith. I have personally received such benefit and insights through Barth’s Romerbrief that I have read it many times. I delight in it, and said so in my autobiography, Once Caught, No Escape.

But is it also a fact that, though I never found it in his Romerbrief, Barth did not believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures in the same total sense that we do? He admitted the possibility of Scripture containing elements of human thought. And it was this which brought out the new term “neo-orthodoxy.” For this reason, we of the evangelical world have always disassociated ourselves from neo-orthodoxy. Through neo-orthodoxy some liberals came some way back to Scripture truth and to the preaching of Christ in His atoning sacrifice as the only Savior, but they doubted the validity of certain passages of Scripture. As they grew in strength and numbers, it was necessary that we evangelicals make our disagreement known. Strong books were written, such as Van Til’s, exposing the dangers to us Bible-believers of neo-orthodoxy, and that meant naming Barth as the originator. Therefore, I presume the only reason we in Union Life have ever had the new-orthodox label attached to us is that I approve of Barth’s Romerbrief. I have always received great benefits from rescuing valuable babies from soapy bathwater, though I find no soap in that Romans book!

www.NormanGrubb.com

Existentialism

Norman P. Grubb

From the May June 1981 Union Life Magazine

Q. Does Union life Embrace Existentialism?

A. That depends on what we understand by “existentialism”. My understanding comes from Kierkegaard, who was fiercely combating Hegel’s theories of self-improvement as the ultimate goal of the individual. Kierkegaard called him down to earth by saying, “Let’s talk in terms of practical existence, not vague idealism.” And then he proceeded to shock Denmark awake with his two books Either-Or, which exposed not only the basic rottenness of the hedonistic life, but also the so-called morality of the “ethical” life. His conclusion is that “Before God we are all wrong.” He then shows that there can be no human bridge over the gulf of our wrongness which separates us from God, and he introduces the rational “absurdity” of the Infinite God taking finite form in His Son, who makes a sufficient atonement for us. Here is where Kierkegaard made famous the phrase “the leap of faith” (which he borrowed from the philosopher Lessing). For Kierkegaard it is a leap of faith beyond reason, on the authority of God’s word, into our acceptance by God and justification by grace through Jesus Christ. And to this basic “existential” leap of faith, which he would even call the “absurdity of faith” (because it is beyond reason) I thoroughly align myself. Yes, on Kierkegaard’s terms, I am an existentialist.

But since Kierkegaard’s days, other unbelieving philosophers, led by Heidegger and consummated we may say in Jean Paul Sartre, have prostituted the meaning of the leap, saying that it is a leap into anything which we will name as our belief (or Unbelief) and attach ourselves to. Thus Sartre pitifully dies with his leap boldly declared as into death as the end of all. Curiously the present Christian world seems to have caught on to that interpretation of the leap as true existentialism, and thus made it a dirty word to Christians, and some even accuse Kierkegaard of misusing the term. They had best re-read that magnificent interpreter of evangelical faith. I am proud to remain an existentialist of the original brand!

www.NormanGrubb.com

The Exchanged Life - Norman P. Grubb

Norman P. Grubb

Many Victorious Life teachers give a good dishful of Gal.2:20, and many are blessed, but I always knew from the first ‘revelation’ in Congo in 1924 that there was something radical about the “I am crucified” part of our great Gal. 2:20, and I saw but couldn’t put it in clear form, and almost spoke as if we are Christ! So my earlier writings had not got it FULLY CLEAR THAT THE “exchanged life” is not exchanging Christ for self, which is the ‘normal’ teaching, but exchanging Christ for SATAN, and this beautiful created self BUT ONLY AS CONTAINER AND CHOOSER (John 7:17), and then ALL THE REST IS HE, HE, HE, but starting with the false “He” - that VAST, VAST LIE which has “drowned” still most of even the redeemed!

www.NormanGrubb.com

The Sin of Speculation

by Aaron Ireland

Mat 6:25-34

v34 - "Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."

Perhaps calling speculation "sin" is a slight overkill. It is not my intention to paint every kind of hypothetical thinking as sinful, but to highlight the notion of the existence of a sinfulness that exhibits itself as distrustful speculation and consider the ramifications of our entertainment of it. These are my own thoughts that I desire to have placed on record in order to open them up to the scrutiny and discernment of the Body of Christ in light of 1 Cor 14:32. I believe that they are both based in scripture and shared by others. In light of this I bring this offering and from here we will begin.

The tendency of fallen man is to lust for knowledge and the center of this lust is the speculation of how things "might be" at the expense of how they "are". It is a kind of fantasy realm of thought which has the potential to elevate boredom while at the same time create a sense of safety as we plan for unseen and potentially dangerous instances as well as dream of preferred futures that may or may not happen. While this may seen innocent, in extreme cases speculation this can lead us to question everything to the point of inducing paranoia. These questions can be crippling to a Christian as they can create doubts in the goodness and mercy of God and can also lead us to lazy from of philosophical entertainment (Acts 17:21).

Questions in themselves are not bad, however it would be wise to be careful of ones that start off with "What if..." and "Why..." Also, we should always be prepared to receive an answer that we won't like and beware of the compulsion to demand an answer for our questions. Often times "silence" will be your answer, although experience says that few can truly appreciate "silent answers". The ability to ask questions are a gift from God, and His tool for leading us into truth.

"The true Christian insists upon stripping things down to the hard core of reality. He wants to know truth as it is: About life. About sin: Whether it is; What it is; How to get rid of his. About his relation to God: both possible and actual. Where he stands with respect to judgement to come. About heaven and about hell" - A.W. Tozer (The Voice of Reason)

Regarding eternal matters, beware of questions that are not answered in scripture.

"If you tell me 'why' 100% of all the people before the Fall sinned, and I'll tell you why 100% of the people after the fall have sinned. And the scripture doesn't tell us 'why', it tells us 'that'. And how much time is wasted on trying to produce 'why's that the scriptures don't give answers to? If the scripture doesn't tell us why, let's not discuss it. Let's stick with what it says." - Paris Reidhead, commenting on St Augustine's doctrine of "Original Sin" (The Right Use of the Law

As we consider our text, we find that we are exhorted to "seek ... first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness", with the promise that "all these things shall be added unto (us)" (Mat 6:33). What are "all these things"? Provision of necessities, viz. Food, Drink and Clothes (v31). Notice also that we are to "behold the fowls of the air" and notice that our "heavenly Father feedeth them" in spite of the fact that they "sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns" (v26). As an extended interpretation, could it be that "perceived necessary explanations" could be included in the list of "all these things"? After all, this is another thing that "the Gentiles seek" (v32) Perhaps God is often waiting for us to allow Him the right to decide the difference between what is a "necessary explanation" and what is not, before He gives it (1 Cor 2:14-16).

Many of us tend to "gather into barns" our own "crops" of opinions, ideas and philosophies, at the expense of memorising scripture itself. And this at the expense of awaiting God's explanation.

"Wherever man attacks the concrete Word of God with the weapon of a principle or idea of God there he has become lord over God." - Dietrich Bonhoffer

So, what's the big deal about "speculation" anyway? Speculation puts words and events into "future" history that don't belong there, out of a fear of what "might be" based on what "could have been" (see Rev 21:8). It could be said that oftentimes the root cause of speculation is the "fear of the unknown" and is evidence of the existance of a distrust of God. Consider this in the light of Heb 11:6 "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

Speculation says, "Imagine if God did..." (Past) Faith says, "Look what God is." (Now) Speculation says, "What about if God does..." (Future) Faith says, "Look at who God is." (Now)

God dwells in the eternal "Now". This may be a little confusing, but here goes. "We" pass through "Now" from the "Future" to reside in the "Past". If I were looking into the future from 200 years ago, you would exist in the future and not yet in the past or present (unless you're really really old). Looking now into the past back from 200 in the future, you would exist in the in the past, but not in the present or future (momentarily putting aside millennial doctrines and the resurrection). God, on the other hand, is present in every moment that can be called "Now" (Rev 1:8) and not only that, He is the exactly the same at everyone of these moments (Jas 1:17). This is why He introduced Himself to Israel as "I AM" as opposed to "I was" or "I will be" (Ex 3:13-14).

Based on this "fact", there is no need to speculate as to what God "might do" as we only have to look at what He "has done" throughout history (as described in Scripture) knowing that He will be consistent with what He has done. Not only that, but we also know that He "does" what He "says He will do" (Heb 6:17-19). Because of these facts, "faith" could be defined as having confidence that what God has "already provided" in the past, will "manifest itself" in the future, in spite of it being "not visible" now, in spite of having "no other proof", than His Word and His Prior Acts (Heb 11:1). Consider our salvation, for example. God provided our salvation in the event of the crucifixion of Christ, before we had even sinned. At a fixed point in time, we appropriate that salvation by repenting of our sin, putting our trust in Christ, being baptised and receiving of the Spirit of Life. There was a point where we didn't "possess" the salvation that was given at Calvary. We made a choice, in our unsaved condition, to believe that God had already provided this salvation, that was not yet manifested in our life, but based solely on a glimpse of his integrity, with no other assurance that we would or had received it until after we had actually received His Spirit (Rom 8:16). That is saving faith (Eph 2:8-9). Either He provides what He said He will provide or we are going to be left looking silly.

How far does His integrity go? Consider now the case of God's threat to wipe out Israel and make Moses into a nation (Ex 32:7-14) to answer this. It would appear that this instance contradicts the integrity of God. God had already promised that the "sceptre shall not depart from Judah" (Gen 49:10) but here He is telling Moses, "let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation." Here we have God, as a husband catching his wife in the very act of adultery, reacting to the event of the blatant idolatry of His betrothed Israel with their self-made Golden Calf, which they had even named "Yahweh". In His understandable jilted jealousy, He expresses His desire to not only divorce His people, but to wipe them from the face of the earth, every tribe, including the aforementioned Judah. He then offers to make a new and great nation out of one that did not participate in the idolatry. Now, considering that Moses was of the tribe of Levi, and the sceptre would not depart from Judah, and God for all intents and purposes was about wipe out Judah with the rest of Israel, it would seem that God had painted Himself into a verbal corner. How can these two statements be reconciled while keeping God's integrity intact?

In order to illustrate the answer to this question, I will relate a true story. A family was driving through the country and the children started acting up in the back seat. The father turned around in a fit of rage and roared, "Right! The next kid to make a noise is getting out and walking home!" Suddenly the gravity of his words hit him, and he began to silently pray that they would remain silent so he wouldn't have to follow through with his threat while at the same time retaining his integrity before his children. Thankfully they didn't call his bluff.

Now obviously every illustration breaks down at a point, but consider that God knew Moses and trusted that the heart He'd formed in him over 40 years of tending sheep in the wilderness wouldn't call His bluff. If we reread God's words to Moses, we see that the condition that God attached for Himself to be able to wipe out Israel was for Moses to "let (Him) alone" (see also Is 45:11). In an incredible display of His omnipotence and omniscience God entrusted the validity of His redemptive plan to the decision of one man. And apparently it was in safe hands. In short, he took advantage of an opportunity to display His mercy, maintain His integrity and prove Moses character all at the same time.

So we can see that God is utterly consistent, even when at time He appears erratic. All the more reason to be ever vigilant to distinguish between placing our trust in our "speculations" of what God "might do" and the "facts" of what God "did do" and "is doing", knowing that He is the same "yesterday, today and forever". We can do this by considering where our opinions have their origin, in the light of scripture, out of our vital union with Him (Heb 4:9-13), be they "eternal" or "internal", "heavenly" or "carnal", as opposed to "good" or "evil", "efficient" or "wasteful".

"The man who lives under the sign of the tree of life, cannot know of himself, that which he must know, and which has therefore to be told him (to be explained and interpreted to him). The reality of Divinely given life speaks for itself. The possibility of Divine likeness does not do so. It obviously does not commend itself. Man has to be told specifically and in fact is told that from that tree he must not eat. It's not an opinion. Not an evaluation he makes, he needs to be told, and to receive the word that comes to him, from God, as being the statement of the Lord. This is the relationship that God has wanted to establish, from the first in the garden, that man is not to make his own independent assessments or determinations by the operation of his own mind, which is eating of the wrong tree, but that he recognises that there are things that he can not know." - Karl Barth (as quoted by Art Katz in "Gleanings From The Garden")

Knowledge that may have been beneficial in leading us out of yesterday's defective opinion, may be merely a "lesser deception" compared to the undiluted truth that God is leading us toward. Therefore that same knowledge that helped us I can be toxic to our walk tomorrow.

How then can we be safe from deception? Paul mentions a healthy attitude, "...let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged" (Rom 3:4). In other words if you never allow yourself the luxury of thinking that "any man" has a handle on truth, but always consider the possibility of them being wrong. Be prepared to judge their words in the light of scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17), their behaviour in the light of the "fruit of the Spirit" (Mat 7:15-20; Gal 5:22-24) and the "spirit" of their work (1 John 4:1-6). If we do this, then the possibility that our words and deeds will stand under scrutiny will be greatly increased. [A thorough study of 2 Timothy and 1 John would be most beneficial in this area.]

Note, that it is not my purpose here to turn people into "heresy hunters", but to exhort cautiousness in our choice of who we entrust with our spiritual input. It is possible that God can conceal truth in the most unlikely places, however it is unwise to run with a philosophy that says that "every bush is burning, but only those who take of their shoes will hear the voice from the flames". There are times that the our shoes must be left on in order to "shake the dust off" them (let those who have "ears to hear" these comments hear them). Remember, it is not about how God "can" speak and what He "would" say (speculation), but how He "is" speaking and what He "is" saying (fact).

Bear in mind that you are to judge yourself by the same standard, knowing that you come under the "every man" category also. Even Christ rebuked someone for referring to him as "Good Master" saying "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God" (Mat 19:16-17). We all know that the "punch line of this joke" is that Christ is God, but because this young man wasn't privy to this revelation, Christ applied this "eternal standard" which was later to be revealed to us through Paul's epistle (Rom 3:4). Such was his integrity. If Christ would apply this principle to himself, then who among the rest of us under the category of "every man" is exempt from being known as a "liar" apart from where his words are consistent with God's?

Why would people speculate?

Overcaution (Deut 12:32)

Some people form a hypothetical "safety barrier" around that which is clearly presented in Scripture as sin (eg. Gen 3:1-3 - Eve adds "neither shall ye touch" to God's command to not eat of the Tree of Knowledge).

Seduction (2 Tim 3:13)

Some seek to avoid responsibility to obey by rationalising. In reality they are oftentimes deceiving themselves (eg. 1 Sam 15:13-15 - King Saul justifies his allowing Amalekites to survive).

Arrogance (Is 5:20-23)

Some fail to recognise that their "righteousness is as filthy rags" (eg. 2 Sam 6:6-7 - Uzzah touches the ark to steady it, considering his hands to be cleaner than the dirt; Acts 8:18-23 - Simon the sorcerer offers money to receive the Holy Spirit).

Whether by overcaution, seduction or arrogance, speculation tends to result in self preservation. Consider the words of Jesus in Mat 16:24-25, "...If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it."

Being speculative is like riding a bike with training wheels. As one is starting out, confidence is increased due to increased stability. However, as they get used to riding the bike they find that the training wheels reduce maneuverability. Then as speed is increased the wheels become dangerous as the rider attempts to lean into corners. The same training wheels that helped at the onset, now hinder greatly. This "speculative protection" denies the realisation that there is "no good thing" in human flesh unless God put it there (Rom 7:18). Mankind is in need of "total redemption" and there is nothing that can be added to it (Deut 12:32). Any attempt to do so "adulterates" so "great a salvation".

So what's the answer? First, acknowledge and confess your sin calling it as He calls it (1 John 1:8-10) It's okay to disagree with God's word, if you're prepared to admit that your argument is wrong and choose God's side in your disagreement (Ps 73:25-26). Secondly, remain as humble as a child in the midst of adults (Mat 18:1-4) You don't have all the answers and that's okay because if you did, they'd probably be wrong. Thirdly, see things as they are, as opposed to how they "should be" (Prov 3:7). God knows how things are and doesn't need us to tell Him how "we think" they should be. And lastly, trust the Lord as the only one adequate to guide you through the mess that is this fallen creation, one step at a time (Ps 73:23-24): in thought (Is 55:7-9), word (Mat 10:19-20) and deed(Pr 3:5-6).

In short, in the light of all we have considered "I beseech you ... by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." (Rom 12:1-2)

Does this describe you?

"His one purpose is the glory of God. And he's heard Christ say, 'If any man doesn't take up his cross, he cannot be my disciple.' And he's gladly gone with Christ out to the cross. And there he's brought his ego and his ambition and his vanity and his pride and all the things that once motivated him and controlled him to the cross. He has no plan and no purpose but the glory of Christ. This is the one that has heard Christ say, 'If any man does not forsake all he hath, he cannot be my disciple.' He doesn't give a seventh of his time and a tenth of his money. He holds everything as Christ's. All is Christ's." - Paris Reidhead (Agree)

If it is not, then why is that?

Recommended Reading and Listening:

"The Spirit of Truth" (text) Art Katz and Paul Vaulk

"Spirit and Truth Together" (audio) David Pawson

"The Voice of Reason" (audio) A.W Tozer

"The Right Use of the Law" (audio) Paris Reidhead

"The Timelessness of God" (audio) Ian Thomas

"Beyond Categories" (audio) Art Katz

"Gleanings From the Garden" (audio) Art Katz

"Agree" (audio) Paris Reidhead

"Prophetic Reality vs. Fantasy" (audio) Art Katz

"Romans 6 to 8" (text) Norman Grubb

"Apostolic Foundations" (text) Art Katz

"The Normal Christian Life" (text) Watchman Nee

"The Meaning of Life" (audio) Norman Grubb

Most audio listed is available free for download from www.sermonindex.net with few exceptions. If you are experiencing any difficulties locating any of these materials feel free to contact the author at cjakforest@hotmail.com and I will be happy to assist you if I can.

©2006 Aaron Ireland - Non-commercial (free) distribution is both permitted and encouraged provided this notice appears.