Theocracy - Part 3 “The Perfect Gift From Above”

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
James 1:17

We've seen the introduction of man, as a being formed of that which was created, and containing something of the presence of God's Spirit with him. We've also been introduced to two trees, each serving as an alternative to the provision of God, as “Life-giver” and “Light-giver”.

Now we are shown man's duties, and obligations as we begin to ponder God's logic in His placement of the Trees in the middle of the garden.

And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Gen 2:15-17

“..God..put (man) into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it...”

Man's placement in the garden wasn't purely for the man's material benefit, but the garden gave man the opportunity to be obedient. Man was given the task of tending the garden. The task was twofold; he was to “dress” the garden and to “keep” it. Dressing carries with it the sense of bringing something under subjection. The garden wasn't to just do its own thing, but as man laboured over the trees, there was intention that they would yield food for the man to eat. Keeping, on the other hand, has implications of guarding and protecting. Man was to maintain the health of the garden, so that it could continue to thrive.

“..Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat..”

God's generosity is revealed in the multitude of trees that He allowed man to eat from.

“..the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat..”

Again, the issue of obedience is raised, only now it is a matter of a restriction. Earlier there was something that God would have man do, but now there was something to avoid. Of all the trees in the garden, there was one that was not to be eaten of. Of the two trees which were given prominence, one was to be specifically avoided, while no direction is given regarding the other.

Consider again the difference between the two trees. One offered “life” while the other offered “light”. As I mentioned earlier, it is of interest that, while the “light source” was not to be partaken of, no such direction was given regarding the “life source”.

It would seem that, although God had put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden Himself, He would have no other source of light but Himself. At first it appears to defy logic. Surely man could do his task of dressing and keeping the garden far better if he had access to the knowledge of the “good”, so he could utilise it, and the “evil” so he could avoid it. Isn't it cruel of God to withhold such information, leaving man to feel around to work it out on his own?

The thing is, God never intended for man to be “on his own”. The logic of man being left on his own to figure out life and fend for himself, should remind us of the testimony of the slothful servant in the parable of the talents, “Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.” (Mat 25:24-25) The servant displayed a distrust of his master, fearing punishment if he did something wrong with the wealth entrusted to him. This resulted in him living off of another's sustenance so that he could return his master's wealth, as received. How can I make such an assumption? The word which is translated as “servant” would be better translated “slave”, and slaves have no possessions of their own.

Just as God was able to breathe into man's nostrils the breath of life, causing to become a living soul, He is able to “breathe” light into his consciousness, causing him to become a “righteous soul”. Could it be that the reason that God never gave direction regarding the tree of life was that He had already given man His “life”, and so life from “the tree” would only fortify the life already given, where eating of the “other tree” would introduce a earthly logic, producing a carnal morality?

“..in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

With great sobriety we should read this. The fatality of choosing a “tree” to acquire the knowledge of good and evil rather than trusting God to provide the wisdom needed to obey, as required. The life freely given to man when He breathed into his nostrils would be revoked in the event of man's partaking of the forbidden tree. And yet the tree remained as an enduring reminder of the existence of a carnal light source, residing alongside the tree of life.

Next post : Theocracy - Part 4 “Finding the Good Thing”

Theocracy - Part 2 "Life, Death Good and Evil"

See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;
Deut 30:15

In the last post we looked at the beginning of creation, and the introduction of light. We considered the possibility of the existence of a false and true light to be chosen between and the ramifications of this fact when considering the Scriptural exhortation to "look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen" (2 Cor 4:18). Now we move on to the introduction of man into God's creation.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Gen 2:7-9

"..God formed man of the dust of the ground.."

Here marks an interesting twist to the creation account. Previously we had seen things coming into being, from nothing, at the word of God's mouth. Now we see God actually "forming" something from the matter that exists within His creation. God had taken the dust, which He had created, and used it to form man.

It is interesting to note that dust is an opaque substance, which by nature would restrict light, and yet we see an interesting turn around to come...

"..breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. and man became a living soul."

The event that caused the formed dust to become a living soul was that God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life". In our English language we miss out on the depth of meaning attached to the word "breath". In both the Hebrew and Greek language one word is used to mean "breath", "wind" and "spirit". In fact Hebrew doesn't stop at just one word to express "breath", but each one crosses over the same English translations.

It could be said that when God breathed into man's nostrils, He invested part of Himself, as the "Spirit of God" that "moved upon the face of the waters", into man. In other words, the "neshamah" that God breathed in man's nostrils, transforming him into a "living soul", was the same "Ruach Ha Elohim" that was denied access to the material creation, subjecting Himself to hovering over the waters, with its face covered in darkness. The "Light source", which was without, had now come within, not only creation, but that which was formed out of creation, man.

Perhaps this is what John meant when he wrote of Jesus, "In him was life; and the life was the light of men" and later, "That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world" (John 1:4-9). After all, the "Ruach Ha Elohim" (Spirit of God) is also the "Ruach Ha Kodesh" (Holy Spirit), who is the "Ruach Ha Meshiach" (Spirit of Christ).

Suddenly a line is drawn in the sand. The stage is set, where we have the "true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world", who has invested Himself within the being which was formed by God out of the dust, and another "light", brought into the world at God's command. The players were in place, and now here is the scene...

"..the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed."

Eden didn't just appear at God's command. It is said that He "planted" it. Thoughts come to mind of the deliberateness of God's design. He created an environment for man where his every need could be met. It was a pocket within God's creation where there was food to eat and shelter from the elements. It was an organic habitation void of human intervention, because it was planted by God.

"..out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food.."

God's deliberate design continues to shine through as we see that out of the ground of the garden, which God had planted, He caused food bearing trees, which He made to be pleasant to the sight. Within the environment that God had created for man's habitation, He had placed everything they needed for their survival. Not only that, but He had the good sense to cause these trees to be "pleasing to the eye" so that regardless of the "light source" man would "see" by, their source of physical sustenance would be appealing to them. Such is God's mercy.

"..the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil."

Here we see two trees which are in the middle of the garden, thereby giving them a place of prominence. One of the trees is described as a source of life, while the other as a means of knowing what good and evil is.

Again we can see an allusion to John's description of Jesus, "In him was life; and the life was the light of men" (John 1:4). However we are discussing two trees here, and not a man. These two trees can be seen as alternative source of "life" and "light" (knowledge of good and evil) to Jesus, as God come in the flesh.

And so now the drama begins...

Next post : Theocracy - Part 3 "The Perfect Gift From Above"

Theocracy - Part 1 "The true light..."

by Aaron Ireland

8 He was not that Light , but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light , which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
John 1:8-9

So far in this series we have both defined and applied Theocracy. Now, from the perspective of having a working knowledge of Theocracy, we will look at God's establishment of his rule at the beginning of His creation.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:1-4 (KJV)

"In the beginning.."

Beginnings mark a transition. Something that previously wasn't, now "is". In order to grasp something of this transition, we must look at what was already there and what event marked the actual beginning.

"..God created.."

God existed prior to the beginning, and continued to exist after that beginning had begun. What was He doing before the beginning? The passage doesn't say, and therefore it can be assumed that it isn't important for us to know. Elsewhere in Scripture we are given some cryptic statements, regarding "before the foundation of the world", but they mainly deal with God's intention for the future (Eph 1:4;1 Pet 1:18-20;Rev 13:8).

What we can see though, is that the event which marked the beginning was an act of "creation". God created something, and that "something" wasn't Him. His act of creation made there be something which was distinct from Himself. And so there we have it; God and creation.

"..the heaven and the earth."

This creation was divided into two components; the heaven and the earth. Here we see an increasing diversity. Firstly we have the Infinite and the finite, God and creation, and now finite is broken into ethereal and physical, heaven and earth. We have the place of God's abode, and the place that would soon be ours. An eternal place, and a temporal. Heaven is not further described here, while the earth is further defined...

"And the earth was without form, and void.."

The Hebrew word that is translated "was" here implies that it "became" as opposed to "always was" void and without form. The word implies the earth had a "form", which it lost. Whatever it was before, it was now desolate, a ruin which had become indistinguishable from what it had been. Perhaps this came about as a result of creation itself. That which was perfect Order, in the person of God, had now produced something which has an introduced disorder.

When one considers earth contrasting heaven, one can be reminded of Christ's words contained in the Lord's prayer, "...Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven." (Matt 6:10) Christ highlights a need for "a will" to be replaced with His will, which is already existant and being done in heaven, and calls his disciples to plead with their "Father, which art in" that "heaven" to cause that "will" to be done, as a result of His kingdom being established in earth's realm in like manner to His reign being in heaven.

"..darkness was upon the face of the deep.."

Now we are introduced to darkness. The state of equilibrium in God's creation is darkness, except where light is added to it. We know that "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all" (1 Jn 1:5). So where did this darkness come from? Considering that darkness cannot be introduced, how can it be possible. It would only be possible, in the sense that light can be removed or obstructed. So which was it?

"..And the Spirit of God moved upon the face.."

Although the earth was dark on the face of its deeps, God dwelt over the face of the earth in the person of the Holy Spirit. Therefore Divine light was present over the darkness which was upon the face of earth's void formless deeps. If light was simultaneously present alongside darkness, then something must have been obstructing that Light. It would appear that a form of opacity was introduced shortly after creation began which rendered God's Light as incomprehensible (Jn 1:5).

Although what was obstructing God's light is not directly mentioned, perhaps an allusion can be drawn from the veil of the Most Holy Place, in God's temple. The major difference being that here we have God's light being kept outside of the world, while there we have the world being kept outside of God's light. Perhaps the Most Holy Place can be seen to be a "pinhole" in the veil between the Spirit of God, and the darkness that was on the face of the deeps.

"..God said, Let there be light.."

And so light is introduced to darkness. It is interesting to note that at God's command "there was light", and yet the physical light source wasn't introduced until later (Gen 1:16-18). The question that must be asked is, "How can light be introduced without a light source?"

It is of interest to note the introduction to the Gospel of John:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
John 1:1-5

Here we see that "life" is in Jesus (the Word), and that life is described as the "light of men". We also see in Revelation 22:16 Jesus describing himself as "the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star". The "morning star" marks the end of night and the dawning of the new day. Before Jesus came into the world there was another who was referred to as the morning star.

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer (Heb: 'the morning star'), son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Isaiah 14:14

This verse has been the basis of some contention. Without going into it too much, the passage surrounding this verse describes someone who bears remarkable similarity to one of the kings of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar. His life, in turn, bears a similarity to that of the "god of this world", Satan. In light of this could it be that Satan was the "light bearer" who responded to God's command, "Let there be light"?

In essence, the question I pose is this, "Is it a coincidence that 'Lucifer' also means 'light bearer'?" (Note: I'm not suggesting that Lucifer is the light, or that Satan is good, merely that he has been utilised as the means of delivering light.)

"..God divided the light from the darkness."

By the apearance of "light" in the world, God divided what was utter darkness, into a separate light, and darkness. There appears to be two light sources: The Holy Spirit, who illuminates a "spiritual light", which has the potential to enable us to "walk by faith" and not sight; and physical light itself, as a principle which, as yet, has no physical source. We must note that physical light isn't evil, in itself, God called it "good" ("..And God saw the light, that it was good..").

The implication here is that Lucifer was originally intended to serve a purpose in the Kingdom of God, by presenting us with a choice, where we should choose to "walk by faith, and not by sight". Potentially, this "Luciferian light" can serve as a distraction from seeking "Divine light", which is "unseen" (2 Cor 4:18).

Next post : Part 2 - "Life, Death, Good and Evil"

Letter regarding the Theocracy Pod/Blog Simulcast

Hi,

It has certainly been a while since I have made a post, so I thought I'd give a quick update, regarding the Pod/Blog Simulcast on Theocracy. Unfortunately, due to time restraints, I have been unable to do any recording.

In the coming weeks, I will begin posting the text content of the series, in hope that an opportunity will arise at a later date to produce the audio.

Thank you for you patience.

In His grip,

Aaron

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

Theocracy

Theocracy means literally ‘the rule of God’ and the term was invented by Josephus (ad 38-c. 100) to describe the ancient Hebrew constitution and the role of Mosaic law. However, if you do not literally believe that the law has been handed down by God on tablets of stone, it may be difficult to accept theocracies on their own terms.

— Lincoln Allison

I make this small post to introduce an idea. Allow me to introduce you to a word which has greatly captivated my imagination of late, THEOCRACY.

The word can take on a variety of implications. One need only think of Iran, or Taliban controlled Afghanistan to see a purported theocracy in action. But this is not my meaning, when using the word.

The word theocracy originates from the Greek θεοκρατία (theokratia), meaning "the rule of God" (Josephus). This in turn derives from the Greek words θεος (theos, from an Indo-European root occurring in religious concepts), meaning “god,” and κρατειν (kratein), meaning “to rule.” Thus the meaning of the word in Greek was “rule by god(s)” or human incarnation(s) of god(s). (Wikipedia)

My usage of the word is to refer to the direct rule of God over man. Contrasted with "democracy (from Greek dēmokratiā : dēmos, people + -kratein, -to rule.), we can see two options: "God in charge", or "Man in charge". A.W. Tozer, in his sermon The Voice of Reform, mentioned the need to return to "the right human/Divine relationship", which he described simply as "God on the throne talking, and man on his face listening". This is the sense that I mean.

Essentially, by using the word "Theocracy", I mean "allowing God the right to rule over your life". In no way am I suggesting some kind of Dominionist or Kingdom Now theology (see my article The Pontification of the "Modern Church" for some of my early comments on those theologies). After all, any attempt at man establishing the Kingdom of God on earth, by means of political influence, is mere Democracy, which still has man on the throne, albeit claiming to be in proxy for God. Theoretically one could say that the more people actively submit their lives to God, the more He will rule, in a secular sense, however history seems to suggest that the more secular power the Church wields, the more corruption infiltrates Christendom.

Scripture is clear about God's Kingdom not being established, on Earth, until Christ's Millennial Reign begins, upon his return. However, my reason for raising this theme is to suggest that we can obey Him, who is at present, invisible in preparation for His bodily return. Christ made many statements regarding those who will be be about his Father's business when he returns, even implying that faithfulness in mundane things will establish an ability to be trusted with spiritual things.

So there you have it, Theocracy. Feel free to make any comments, as they will be brought into consideration. I am currently working on a piece which explores this theme, dealing with the Creation and Fall of man. At present I'm looking at posting it as a "simulcast" of sorts, both in text form, here at Blogspot, and in audio at Podomatic. Lord willing, I should be able to start posting in the coming weeks.

In His grip,

Aaron

Edit - This post is part of a PodBlog simulcast - http://cjakforest.podomatic.com/entry/eg/2007-09-17T06_53_41-07_00

Church as Community

by Art Katz (1929-2007)

The magnitude of the end-time demands upon the Church are going to be of such a kind that a quality of character beyond mere conventional Christianity, as we know it, will be absolutely essential. This again raises the issue of intensive life together as a mode of present living. Community living is not an end in itself, but rather a means to a larger end, namely, "To Him be glory in the church." Paul lets that statement stand. He gives no explanation as to the meaning of the word "church," nor does he even try to explain by what means that glory is going to be induced. Instead, he has us search out the meaning.

In my opinion, the word ‘community’ is synonymous with church or true fellowship. Through years of intensive community experience, I have gained a view of Church that has revised my understanding of the meaning of that word. Church has become a misnomer, not just in fundamental and evangelical Christianity, but even in the finest forms of Pentecostal and Charismatic life. If our church experience is confined essentially to a Sunday service and Wednesday evening bible study, then it is a caricature and distortion of God’s original intention. Church has come to center itself in ‘services,’ and we measure the success of a fellowship by the quality of its service, namely, whether we liked it, whether it was pleasant, whether the music was good, or whether the preaching was good. However much we may applaud any of these aspects of the service, we need to understand that that very standard of measure is the indication of how far we have departed from the Lord’s understanding of the glory of the Church. We can conduct superb styles of Christian services, but we cannot practice and demonstrate the Kingdom of God on the basis of accommodating the desires and tastes of our congregations.

Community suggests a band of souls sharing a common pattern and spirit, seeking as their first motive the manifestation of God’s glory in the earth through the relationships established in intense opportunity together. Community is not some kind of sophomoric attempt to prove anything. When we started, we hardly knew what the word community meant. But in the anguish, the horror, the enormous humiliation of it, the terrible defeat and failure of all of our pet Charismatic and Pentecostal convictions, which burst like a bubble in the reality of the demands of an intensive life, something then began to dawn on us here. Though we did not understand at first, we became, over a process of time, something that could be tentatively called an expression of the Kingdom of God.

I am an enemy of any kind of social experimentation. The Kingdom is too glorious an eternal thing to be marred by men as some kind of a socializing project that they can perform. That is the reason many communities dissolve. Church, or true fellowship, is an organic expression of His life, unfolded in patient waiting by those who are joined together. When we come in complete ignorance of how to do it, that ignorance will be our saving virtue.

If God will not do anything outside His Body, then we need to understand that the Body is not an organization, but an organism, built on relationship by the Spirit, with Him and with each other. Christianity has become so systematized that it has come to be looked upon as an institution rather than as an apostolic organism. The Kingdom of God, however, is the expression of His Life organically administered, through the saints, by His Spirit, and to each other. Fellowship is the organism given of God by which the saints are made perfect, through daily relationship, through encouragement, and often through confrontation:

But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is still called ‘Today,’ lest any one of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin (Hebrews 3:13).

In other words, tomorrow is too late.

What we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, that you also may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ (1 John 1:3).

But if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin (1 John 1:7).

True fellowship, which is to say, authentic fellowship, both with God and man, is eminently a resurrection phenomenon. It takes power to forgive; it takes power to be patient, and it takes power to be compassionate. In fact, community would be impossible except as a resurrection phenomenon. Anything else is religious, pious, fraudulent and imaginary, and in saying that, I am going out on a limb and likely disenfranchising ninety-five percent of Christianity in the world.

Community is the most radical, demanding, excruciating, and yet glorious possibility for this kind of existential fellowship with the saints. We do not have to be on the same property, although that should be preferred, but we do need to be in an intensive, daily, or frequent, honest, open-hearted and committed relationship with God’s people. It will be excruciating before it is blessed, and painful before it is glorious. It is, however, the test of our supposed love for God, and I praise Him for the genius of that, because it saves us from some kind of exclusive, euphoric and separatistic relationship, which is wholly a dream and something imagined. It is because of that joining, and because God is joined with us in that kind of covenant relationship that we see the daily unfolding of His life. This kind living will likely be messy, slow, painful, clumsy, time-consuming and often wasteful, but the end thereof is a glory.

The Revelation of our Hearts

There is nothing more important than destroying romantic illusions and fantasies about community. The idea of entering community lends itself to either total rejection, for fear of becoming a heretical sect that finally leads a whole people to their Jonestown doom, or some kind of romantic illusions of tripping off into fairyland, or out into the rustic wilds. These are terrible distortions, and if there is any romantic idealization of what community is going to confer, or mean for us, we are already in deception. A much more realistic view of community is rather the enjoyment and appreciating of Christian fellowship with all of its failures, inconveniences, wastefulness and disorders, while we are in the process of growing up together.

You cannot believe what is in God’s people, including ourselves, until we live with one another on a daily basis! Tensions are guaranteed to arise through misunderstandings, individual subjectivities, struggles and differences of opinion because of this issue or that. Disrespect, rebelliousness, selfishness and self-justification are all revealed, and it is a revelation that is painful, but nevertheless true and necessary. We have to pass through a veil of disillusionment and romantic notions of what we think fellowship is, what God’s people are, and not the least, who we ourselves are. The most painful revelation we need to face is the truth of our own condition. True fellowship is the courage and the willingness to be with, and bear with, one another in all of the above conditions.

There is an ideal and there is a reality, and poison is injected when someone comes to community on the basis of ideal rather than on the basis of reality. If we seek anything more than Christian fellowship and that ‘more’ is a projection of our own imagining and romantic hopes, then we introduce a poison into the whole corporate lump, and the seeds of destruction have been sown. We are all dreamers and idealists to one degree or another. We elaborate out of our own imagining something as we think it ought to be, rather than see things in the reality of what God intends. We bring some wishful fantasy into what we think it ought to be, and if it does not become that, then we are disillusioned with others and ultimately with ourselves.

We will, however, have our illusions quickly shattered. But disillusionment is a grace, and the only way to be disillusioned is unhappily a painful way, but far more painful and far more disastrous is to continue in an illusion that is unreal and which one day must be revealed as false. The disillusionment is not just with others; it is recognizing things about yourself and in yourself that you could not have otherwise been forced to experience or to see. When it does reveal itself, can we then bear the pain of watching the unraveling of the illusions of another, knowing that we are not to falsely comfort them or intervene, thus interrupting the process of God? Can we let it have its full work and bear the stink of it while we are alongside the suffering member?

The Church is the "ground and pillar of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15), and if it is not that, then it is not the Church. Truth has got to be unsparing and total. We cannot allow the latitude of any illusion, any romanticism, or any idealism. Idealism is the last hiding place of humanism; to have an ideal is yet to be humanistic. God has so ordered it that the one place with the most potential for putting those things to death is community. If community served no other purpose than that, it would be purpose enough. More than one community has been dissolved because the people could not survive the disillusionment. They were unprepared for it, and when it came, it took them by surprise and became the end for them. They had wanted to hold on to their illusions.

Perhaps community should be looked upon more as a ‘battleground’ than a playground! If we come apart at the seams among ourselves, and cannot endure a look of indifference, or a seeming rejection, how then are we going to be overcomers in the trauma of the Last Days? If we have protective little egotisms underlying an outward appearance of spirituality, we will find ourselves constantly hurt. And if we think we are being ignored and find ourselves reacting in a touchy and hypersensitive manner, then how are we going to make it when the wrath of the powers of darkness, who know that their time is short, is ventilated against the saints? Community is God’s end-time provision. It is not that we are malicious, but even in our well-meaning intentions, inadvertently and often in the heat of the moment, we are to each other a pain!

We Simply Come

We cannot come into community with our own game plan or agenda. We simply come in obedience. It was the same call to Abraham, "Follow me to the land that I will show you." We come as the broken people of God, who have no strength in themselves, and look to Him for the unfolding of the life, day by day, as it pleases Him to mete it out. The things that have their origin in God must have their outworking by the impartation of His life, given to the people who are called together, and who respond in obedience to the direction of God in the daily outworking of their life together

The issue of privacy and the violation of it will test us to the depths of our being. In community our privacy will be invaded; we never know when someone is going to come to the door for some requirement. One of the great tensions is in discerning how much time belongs to the family and how much to the community. How much do we enjoy ourselves apart from the community and how much do we give ourselves to the purposes of the community? It is not stated as some written credo, but something that needs to be worked out in the wash. We should profoundly desire the autonomy of families with the father at the head and the integrity of the family, but "family" can become an enclave of selfishness. The deepest forms of selfishness have been hidden under the supposed sanctity of family and children, for example, "Well, I cannot come to the meeting because of the children." How much has that been used as an excuse for people who really do not want to assemble together, and are employing the sanctity of family, as well as other values, as a cover behind which to hide?

Let God make community in His own image¾not what we think it should be. It may well be that His image for each of us is unique to ourselves, and the thing that most deters it from fulfillment is our insistence on our image. May God give us such a heart for truth and authenticity, and to be made corporately in His image¾for that is the thing that glorifies Him.

Community as Organism

The worst thing that we could do is establish community as a system¾pre-packaged, i.e. this is how you do it: "step one, step two, step three." In that, we will have contradicted the very spirit of community. The whole world, in the sense of a world system, is predicated upon business, pleasure, gratification and lust, and therefore, as a system, it is antithetical to God in every point and particular. The word "system" suggests something man makes in his own wisdom, mentality and organizational ability, based on his own values for the purposes of his own efficiency and success. In antithesis to this, God has a purpose for the Church that completely eclipses this mindset. He totally ignores the wisdom of the world, considering it foolish, and establishes a set of values, which in the eyes of mankind seem totally threatening, offensive, and will likely rub them raw.

The world values efficiency and utility, but in the Kingdom, as it is expressed through community, the values are not expediency, but the obtainment of godly character by whatever the cost. If you want someone efficient, then hire someone, but do not have God’s people come and live with you! God’s purpose is character growth, corporate life, the relationship by the Spirit, bearing the sufferings of one another and the instructions that comes through all of this. There is nothing ‘messier’ than community. It is naive to think, or expect, that everyone walks fully in the Spirit. If you want efficiency you will need rules and regulations to enforce it, thereby making it a legal system of telling people what to do and how. There is a tension of needing to have some measure of order and coherence, and yet not enforcing or requiring it, or else we would have robots. It is that terrible tension of suffering the inconvenience while patiently waiting for the saints to grow up to a place of maturity and responsibility, while yet resisting the temptation to try to have that measure of order by imposition.

The world’s mindset wants efficiency because efficiency is what makes for profit. That mentality is visibly demonstrated even in the "best" expressions of Christianity, for example, as denominationalism, which is religion as "system." It operates through a hierarchy of men and officers who have charge over this and that. There are also secular and utopian models of community. But in the community of God’s people, Christ is the Lord and center of all. It is He who mediates the life. He is King, and His Lordship is pervasive over all. His Lordship is not a body of rules that He sets down; but rather, we learn in the walking out of the life of faith. Needless to say, we will experience many times of missing His mind and failing Him.

Optimum efficiency is not something that concerns God. He is after optimum character, which cannot be compelled, defined or structured. Structure in that way negates character. What men will do freely before God, unobserved by man, is where the real foundations of character are laid. God is interested in what is wrought in the interaction with the saints when selfishness, vanity and pride surface in the working out of issues that come up. We have a God who is interested in our going beyond convenience and comfort, namely, the character that we shall wear throughout all eternity. This can only be established, formed and shaped in this lifetime, not just in our conflict with the world, but especially through the abrasive dealings that we have with each other as saints.

"Sunday Church" can easily become a mere convenience, but community is profoundly inconvenient. This is the going from "house to house daily breaking bread" and working through issues, tensions, difficulties and misunderstandings, and it is amazing how easily they pop up and how quickly they can bring to nothing a relationship that has been years in the making. It requires, therefore, daily vigilance, investment of time, prayer and dependency upon God.

We begin where we are, and when the commitment is made, and there are souls who are earnest about being joined, the life begins to unfold, and this is the thing that needs to be mediated from Heaven by the Holy Spirit. That is why the one commandment by which the Church began was the word of Jesus,

And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city [Jerusalem] until you are clothed with power from on high (Luke 24:49).

The Spirit was never given for us to do great, individual, Pentecostal acts that would distinguish us. He is rather the power and the enablement for the life together out of which those acts flow, for example, Peter "rising with the eleven" on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14). In coming into community, it takes only a few weeks before you realize that you are not the nice guy you thought you were. We need that revelation. We are going to make it only on the basis of His life, which is His power, and yet there are so few who are actually desire or who are living in that realm. There is presently no requirement to do so, because our present Christianity¾however well meaning and disciplined¾rarely requires us to cross over into the realm and dimension of actual resurrection life. Our lives are too conventional, and we are not required to come to the end of ourselves. But as soon as we come into a demanding relationship with each other, we will find that, unless we existentially know His life, we are as good as dead!

What we are describing is the difference between an organizational system and the organic, Spirit-work of God; it is the realm of Spirit in contrast to man-made systems¾two different forms of wisdom. One is foolishness in the eyes of the world and much more painful and difficult to obtain, while the other is predicated on efficiency. We will be tempted continually to systematize our church life and bring it under human arrangement. And though it began rightly, it can harden and stiffen in its forms and become an institution with a life unto itself, and thereafter, the whole issue becomes the perpetuation of the institution. It takes on its own identity, its own being as "such-and-such" a ministry, "such-and-such" a denomination, and the necessity now is to preserve what has been raised up as being the thing in itself.