(By Kurt Gebhards)

* Kurt serves as the Pastor of Children’s Ministries at Grace Church.

One dynamic of Children’s Ministries at Grace Community Church is that most of the children we minister to come from Christian families. Many of them are blessed with the sound and systematic teaching from God’s Word both at home and in the church, and even sometimes in school. This is something to be grateful for, but it also presents a unique challenge to those of us in Children’s Ministries. While the world breeds rebels, the church can unwittingly breed hypocrites.

It is the sad testimony of church history that the works and expressions of sacrificial love and devotion of one generation of Christians can quickly turn into legalistic rules and regulations for the next. The convictions of the first generation become the caprice of the second. It is sad and shameful how quickly the Object of wonder and worship of a generation can become the boredom and betrayal of the next. Hypocrisy is an imminent and evident threat to the church of Jesus Christ.

Churched children are seldom given to outright defiance of authority; they are much more susceptible to the poison of Pharisaism. Hypocrisy in the heart is much more difficult to spot than disobedient behavior. The Bible gives us some definite character traits of the pretentious pietist, and here is what they may look like in a child:

His outward behavior and adherence to rules are driven by a desire to please men, not by a love for God with all his heart, soul, mind and strength (Mk. 12:30).

Doing good works and having them observed by adults is more important than the action itself (Mt. 6:5).

The child is openly obedient and responsive — asking to pray before bedtime with you — while maintaining a quietly deceitful and rebellious attitude (Gal. 6:7).

He scrupulously observes the letter of the law — like religiously bringing his Bible to church — but neglects the weightier spirit of the law — like sharing his favorite toys with his siblings (Mt. 23:23).

He craves the verbal praises and tangible rewards of his parents and teachers, but cares little for the approbation of God Himself (Jn. 12:43)

Left unchecked by the grace and Word of God, by the time such a child reaches his teenage years, hypocrisy can have entrenched itself.

This teen prefers well-defined, black and white rules, for they give him a sense of certainty that God must surely reward those achievements (Lk. 18:12).

He adds a layer of rules to the Word of God (like not watching any movies, not listening to popular music, et cetera), giving the impression that he holds to a higher standard than Holy Scripture (Mt. 23:4).

He tends to propose personal preferences as, or elevate them above, divine imperatives (Mt. 15:2-3).

He pursues perfectionism (Phil. 3:6), not excellence (Phil. 3:12-14).

He separates himself from others he considers of lesser cultural morality — people whose table manners, courtesy of speech, and refinement of mannerisms do not match middle-class norms (Lk. 15:1-2).

He is judgmental — he excels at fault-finding, he loves to pick verbal fights — and the standard by which he condemns others is not primarily biblical, but personal, preferential, or traditional (Mt. 7:5). He fights against many people, against many issues, but he does not know who he is fighting for.

Hypocrisy is the pretense of virtue or piousness that is contrary to one’s real character. And make no mistake, hypocrisy spreads like an unseen cancer. Everything appears alive and spiritually vital, then suddenly, the person is dull –and soon dead. The Lord specifically warned His disciples, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.” (Lk. 12:1) Since hypocrisy is hidden deep within the recesses of the heart, it goes on unchecked and will hollow out its victim from the inside.

One of the dangers is that these outwardly compliant children receive much approval from parents and teachers. So they are encouraged to continue the duplicity unless anti-hypocritical measures are employed. We can certainly teach and militate against hypocrisy in the following ways:

Instead of just dealing with external behavior issues, we should seize every opportunity to help children understand that it is their hearts that generate their actions (Mt. 15:19). In His judgment of man, God looks at the heart (1 Sam.16:7). We should never equate occasions of good behavior (professions of love for Jesus, acts of compliance, et cetera) with saving faith in Jesus. We need to go beyond fixing wrong behavior to helping the child understand that his evil heart can only be changed by the Lord in regeneration.

Emphasize the affections of NT religion. Make sure that we are not just aiming at a young person’s understanding, but that we reach for the heart and its affections.

Do not encourage children to exhibit their talents and gifts to impress others. They should be reminded that all that they are and have are gifts of grace from God (1 Cor. 4:7), and they should not regard themselves more highly than they ought (Rom. 12:3).

Teach the truth about integrity — which comes from the word for “integer” or “whole.” For a child with integrity, whichever way you turn them, they look they same. Who they are at church, is who they are in school, is who they are at home. This is what our kids should be.

Do not be afraid to share our spiritual and moral failures with children in instances where they can identify with our shortcomings. This allows us to be authentic with them. It also allows us to demonstrate our response to God when we have done wrong, and our reliance on Him to continue molding our hearts.

Be authentic in your love for Christ. Genuine desire for Christ is not easily faked. Let your zeal be a barometer by which they measure their own affection for Christ.

Hypocrisy is an insidious danger in Children’s Ministries today. It also threatens each individual home. As parents, it is our job to honor the intention of Psalm 78:4-6:

We will not conceal [the Word of God] from their children, But tell to the generations to come the praises of the LORD, and His strength and His wondrous works that He has done, that they should teach [the law] to their children, that the generation to come might know, even the children yet to be born, That they may arise and tell them to their children.

If we really believe the objective, rationally-understood truth of Scripture is both authoritative and incompatible with error — since the Bible is the singular Word of the living God — we must not only study and teach it; we must live it, too. It is not enough to give lip service. If we genuinely believe the Bible is divine truth, we must allow it to permeate our life and ministry. To live otherwise is tantamount to denying the truth. People who think otherwise may “profess to know God, but in works they deny Him, being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work” (Titus 1:16).

Ezra, the high priest in Nehemiah’s time, is the prototype of what every godly minister ought to be. “Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the Law of the LORD, and to do it, and to teach statutes and ordinances in Israel” (Ezra 7:10, emphasis added).

I learned this lesson from my father, who as a lifelong pastor has been my model of integrity, as was his father before him. I first began to appreciate how difficult the struggle can be when I began in the ministry as a young man in my twenties. I had been in the pastorate for barely a month when I was asked to perform a wedding for a girl in our church who was planning to marry an unbeliever. In a meeting of the church board, some of the leaders urged me to do the wedding because the girl’s father was an influential man. A lot was at stake, they said. We might lose this family from the church if I declined.

I said, “But I can’t do that. I can’t do what the Scripture clearly forbids. Believers are not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers. Second Corinthians 6:14.”

They were already prepared for that. They replied, “Well okay. We understand your feelings. We know a minister from somewhere else who will come in and do it, so that this girl can be married in the church.”

I asked them: “But whose church is this? Is this your church to be used at your discretion, or is this Christ’s church?”

They replied to their great credit, “You’re right; we can’t do it. This is Christ’s church.”

That was the Rubicon for Grace Community Church. That was the moment when the future of our congregation was decided. Yes, an entire family left, and several other people withdrew their membership over that incident as well. But we decided as elders that day that we would not only preach the word of God; we would expect it to be lived out in the corporate life of the church.

That same expectation is laid on all who would claim the name of Christ, both within the church and outside of it. We are those who have been commanded to walk in a manner worthy. This means that the authority of Scripture must be more than something we proclaim. It must be something we live.

Are the Sabbath laws binding on Christians today?

We believe the Old Testament regulations governing Sabbath observances are ceremonial, not moral, aspects of the law. As such, they are no longer in force, but have passed away along with the sacrificial system, the Levitical priesthood, and all other aspects of Moses’ law that prefigured Christ.

Here are the reasons we hold this view:

In Colossians 2:16-17, Paul explicitly refers to the Sabbath as a shadow of Christ, which is no longer binding since the substance (Christ) has come. It is quite clear in those verses that the weekly Sabbath is included, with the phrase “a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day” refering to the annual, monthly, and weekly holy days of the Jewish calendar (cf. 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4; 31:3; Ezekiel 45:17; Hosea 2:11).

The Sabbath was the sign to Israel of the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 31:16-17; Ezekiel 20:12; Nehemiah 9:14). Since we are now under the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:7-13), we are no longer required to observe the sign of the Mosaic Covenant.

The New Testament never commands Christians to observe the Sabbath. On the other hand, each of the other nine commandments are reiterated in the New Testament.

In our only glimpse of an early church worship service in the New Testament, the church met on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7).

Nowhere in the Old Testament are the Gentile nations commanded to observe the Sabbath or condemned for failing to do so. That is strange if Sabbath observance were meant to be an eternal moral principle.

There is no evidence in the Bible of anyone keeping the Sabbath before the time of Moses, nor are there any commands in the Bible to keep the Sabbath before the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai.

When the Apostles met at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), they did not impose Sabbath keeping on the Gentile believers.

The apostle Paul warned the Gentiles about many different sins in his epistles, but breaking the Sabbath was never one of them.

In Galatians 4:10-11, Paul rebukes the Galatians for thinking God expected them to observe special days (including the Sabbath).

In Romans 14:5, Paul forbids those who observe the Sabbath (these were no doubt Jewish believers) to condemn those who do not (Gentile believers).

The early church fathers, from Ignatius to Augustine, taught that the Old Testament Sabbath had been abolished and that the first day of the week (Sunday) was the day when Christians should meet for worship (contrary to the claim of many seventh-day sabbatarians who claim that Sunday worship was not instituted until the fourth century).

Sunday has not replaced Saturday as the Sabbath. Rather the Lord’s Day is a time when believers gather to commemorate His resurrection, which occurred on the first day of the week. Every day to the believer is one of Sabbath rest, since we have ceased from our spiritual labor and are resting in the salvation of the Lord (Hebrews 4:9-11).

So while we still follow the pattern of designating one day of the week a day for the Lord’s people to gather in worship, we do not refer to this as “the Sabbath.”

John Calvin took a similar position. He wrote,

There were three reasons for giving this [fourth] commandment: First, with the seventh day of rest the Lord wished to give to the people of Israel an image of spiritual rest, whereby believers must cease from their own works in order to let the Lord work in them. Secondly, he wished that there be an established day in which believers might assemble in order to hear his Law and worship him. Thirdly, he willed that one day of rest be granted to servants and to those who live under the power of others so that they might have a relaxation from their labor. The latter, however, is rather an inferred than a principal reason.

As to the first reason, there is no doubt that it ceased in Christ; because he is the truth by the presence of which all images vanish. He is the reality at whose advent all shadows are abandoned. Hence St. Paul (Col. 2:17) that the sabbath has been a shadow of a reality yet to be. And he declares elsewhere its truth when in the letter to the Romans, ch. 6:8, he teaches us that we are buried with Christ in order that by his death we may die to the corruption of our flesh. And this is not done in one day, but during all the course of our life, until altogether dead in our own selves, we may be filled with the life of God. Hence, superstitious observance of days must remain far from Christians.

The two last reasons, however, must not be numbered among the shadows of old. Rather, they are equally valid for all ages. Hence, though the sabbath is abrogated, it so happens among us that we still convene on certain days in order to hear the word of God, to break the [mystic] bread of the Supper, and to offer public prayers; and, moreover, in order that some relaxation from their toil be given to servants and workingmen. As our human weakness does not allow such assemblies to meet every day, the day observed by the Jews has been taken away (as a good device for eliminating superstition) and another day has been destined to this use. This was necessary for securing and maintaining order and peace in the Church.

As the truth therefore was given to the Jews under a figure, so to us on the contrary truth is shown without shadows in order, first of all, that we meditate all our life on a perpetual sabbath from our works so that the Lord may operate in us by his spirit; secondly, in order that we observe the legitimate order of the Church for listening to the word of God, for admin-istering the sacraments, and for public prayers; thirdly, in order that we do not oppress inhumanly with work those who are subject to us. [From Instruction in Faith, Calvin's own 1537 digest of the Institutes, sec. 8, "The Law of the Lord"].

Here’s the short answer: nothing in the New Testament prohibits interracial marriage. Christians are at liberty to marry whomever they wish—as long as the other person is also a Christian (1 Corinthians 7:39).

We should realize from the start that there is only one human race. Scripture clearly says we all descended from Adam and Eve (cf. Gen 1-2; Matthew 19:4; Romans 5:12; 1 Cor 15:22). And one important passage says that God made of one blood all nations (Acts 17:26).

It is true that the Old Testament contained some restrictions on whom the Israelites could marry. These were meant to protect the people of God from pagan influences (Deut. 7:3-4) and to guard the purity of the Aaronic priesthood (Lev. 21:13-14). There were even some strict regulations about inter-tribal marriage, designed to keep the various tribes’ inheritance from being lost by intermarriage (Num. 36:3-9). However, all such restrictions are explicitly annulled by the New Testament (Gal. 3:27-29).

We believe that the potential for all the different features we humans have (skin, eye, and hair color, etc.) was present in Adam and Eve. Modern science has demonstrated that the genetic combinations to produce every shade of skin color, for example, could be present in one male and one female.

Scripture clearly reveals two major events since Creation that affected human genetics. The first event was the flood. Noah and his family were the only survivors of the antediluvian era, all others died in the flood, taking their genetic traits with them. So many features of the human race were cut off forever at the flood, while others were carried by the eight who survived in either homozygous dominant, homozygous recessive, heterozygous (i.e., mixed dominate/recessive) gene combinations.

Only four of the people on the ark (the women) had distinct genetic makeups that were separate from Noah’s (since his three sons would have shared the genetics of him and his wife). So of all the genetic possibilities initially present in Adam and Eve, the post-flood human race was rebuilt with only five separate gene “pools.” Scripture doesn’t tell us what these eight people looked like, but it is certain that every feature humans have today was brought into the world by them.

The second major event to influence mankind was the dispersion at the tower of Babel (cf. Genesis 11). After God judged the people with different languages, they grouped together by those languages and spread over the globe. As they spread out, they brought with them their own genetic features. We believe that this scattering of people, with the subsequent isolation of gene pools, is the reason why we see distinct traits and characteristics in certain people groups, and not in others.

Sadly, American society (even in some Christian circles) has historically looked narrowly on interracial marriages — but for cultural reasons, not biblical ones. In some places, such negative stereotypes still exist. Based on where people live, they or their children may face prejudice and even persecution from others. Such prejudice is absolutely wrong, and deserves our condemnation. Nonetheless, it is something that people should consider before seriously pursuing a romantic relationship.

The New Testament strongly emphasizes the unity of the human race (all are sinners; all are in need of salvation; God is not the respecter of any person; all are saved through faith in Christ; all are one in Jesus Christ). Colossians 3:11 clearly says that salvation puts off the old barriers that separated people — we now have “A renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all.” In Christ all previous religious, cultural, and social barriers are destroyed.

The primary marriage restriction given in the New Testament is that a believer should only marry another believer (cf. 1 Cor. 7:39; 2 Cor. 6:14). So we believe that the most important issue in dating/courtship is to be fully convinced that the prospective partner is a true Christian who loves God (Mark 12:30).

If this is true, then other issues such as cultural or ethnic background, “personality type,” physical appearance, and family upbringing are only a distant second. If a man and woman are totally committed to living for Christ, then they will have the capability through the power of the Holy Spirit to resolve any difficulties that might arise from differences in those other areas.

What is Grace Church’s view on euthanasia?

Key Definitions

Euthanasia consists of any act or deliberate omission taken by oneself and/or others with the specific intention of causing the death of a person and actually causing that death. It is believed by proponents of euthanasia that the death being caused is for the good of the person who is being killed.

“Active euthanasia” consists of the effort of a person to cause his own death or the death of another. With active euthanasia, the medical cause of death is not disease or injury, but rather the act taken to cause death.

“Passive euthanasia” is the withholding, withdrawal or refusal of available medical treatment that could clearly enable a person to live significantly longer. The intent of passive euthanasia is to cause a person’s death at a time when death is not imminent.

“Letting die” (which is distinct from euthanasia) consists of the withholding or withdrawing of all life-prolonging and life-sustaining medications and technologies from a terminally or irreversibly ill patient with whom death is imminent even with treatment. The intention of “letting die” is not to choose or intend death but to enhance the well-being of the patient by avoiding useless prolonging of the dying process.

The difference between “letting die” and “passive euthanasia,” then, is this: With “passive euthanasia,” death is not imminent and medical treatment could clearly enable a person to live significantly longer, but with “letting die” the patient’s death is imminent even with treatment (i.e., medical technologies can no longer prevent death). Whereas the former seeks to cause a person’s death, the latter seeks to enhance the well-being of the patient by avoiding the prolongation of the dying process.

(Note: These definitions are from Keith H. Essex, “Euthanasia,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 11/2 (2000): 191-212.)

Biblical Response

Death is inevitable and its timing ultimately rests in the hand of God (Deut. 32:39; 1 Sam. 2:6; Heb. 9:27). Life is a gift from God, and everyone has an obligation to value his own life and the life of others regardless of the circumstances.

Because Scripture prohibits murder and suicide (Gen. 9:6; Exod. 20:13; Deut. 5:17), euthanasia is never an acceptable option for the believer. In addition to violating the prohibition of suicide, the act of killing oneself is the ultimate expression of selfishness.

In the case that the patient is irreversibly terminal and death is imminent regardless of the treatment provided, it is acceptable for the patient or—if the patient is unconscious—a legally authorized third party (e.g., a spouse or family member) to choose to withhold any of the following forms of treatment:

- life-sustaining medication
- life-sustaining, medically-administered nourishment
- life-sustaining support systems

In other words, although Scripture forbids all forms of euthanasia, we believe that “letting die” is an acceptable option in the circumstances described above.

You and your loved ones may want to consider creating a living will that indicates your wishes regarding medical treatment in order to guide medical personnel in a situation when you are unable to make decisions or choose treatment options.

“All you need is love.”

So said the Beatles. If they’d been singing about God’s love, the statement would have a grain of truth in it.

But what usually goes by the name love in popular culture is not authentic love at all; it’s a deadly fraud.

Far from being “all you need,” it’s something you desperately need to avoid.

The apostle Paul makes that very point in Ephesians 5:1-3. He writes, “Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints.”

The simple command of verse 2 (“walk in love, as Christ loved us”) sums up the whole moral obligation of the Christian. After all, God’s love is the single, central principle that defines the Christian’s entire duty.

This kind of love is really “all you need.” Romans 13:8-10 says, “The one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments . . . are summed up in this word: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” Galatians 5:14 echoes that selfsame truth: “The whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”

Jesus likewise taught that all the law and the prophets hang on two simple principles about love—the First and Second Great Commandments (Matt. 22:38-40). In other words, “love . . . is the bond of perfection” (Colossians 3:14, NKJV).

When Paul commands us to walk in love, the context reveals that in positive terms, he is talking about being kind, tenderhearted, and forgiving to one another (Ephesians 4:32). The model for such selfless love is Christ, who gave His life to save His people from their sins. “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). And “if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another” (1 John 4:11).

In other words, true love is always sacrificial, self-giving, merciful, compassionate, sympathetic, kind, generous, and patient. These and many other positive, benevolent qualities (cf 1 Cor. 13:4-8) are what Scripture associates with divine love.

When Love Is Bad

But notice the negative side as well, also seen in the context of Ephesians 5. The person who truly loves others as Christ loves us must refuse every kind of counterfeit love. The apostle Paul names some of these satanic forgeries. They include immorality, impurity, and covetousness. The passage continues:

Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous ( that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not associate with them. (vv. 4-7)

Immorality is perhaps our generation’s favorite substitute for love. Paul uses the Greek word porneia, which includes every kind of sexual sin. Popular culture desperately tries to blur the line between genuine love and immoral passion. But all such immorality is a total perversion of genuine love, because it seeks self-gratification rather than the good of others.

Impurity is another devilish perversion of love. Here Paul employs the Greek term akatharsia, which refers to every kind of filth and impurity. Specifically, Paul has in mind “filthiness,” “foolish talk,” and “crude joking,” which are the peculiar characteristics of evil companionship. That kind of camaraderie has nothing to do with true love, and the apostle plainly says it has no place in the Christian’s walk.

Covetousness is yet another corruption of love that stems from a narcissistic desire for self-gratification. It’s the exact opposite of the example Christ set when He “gave Himself up for us” (v. 2). In verse 5, Paul equates covetousness with idolatry. Again, this has no place in the Christian walk, and according to verse 5, the person who is guilty of it “has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.”

Such sins, Paul says, “must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints” (v. 3). Of those who practice such things, he tells us, “Do not associate with them” (v. 7).

In other words, we are not showing authentic love unless we are intolerant of all the popular perversions of love.

Most of the talk about love these days ignores this principle. “Love” has been redefined as a broad tolerance that overlooks sin and embraces good and evil alike. That’s not love; it’s apathy.

God’s love is not at all like that. Remember, the supreme manifestation of God’s love is the cross, where Christ “loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God” (v. 2). Thus Scripture explains the love of God in terms of sacrifice, atonement for sin, and propitiation: “In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10). In other words Christ made Himself a sacrifice to turn away the wrath of an offended deity. Far from dismissing our sins with a benign tolerance, God gave His Son as an offering for sin, to satisfy His own wrath and justice in the salvation of sinners.

That is the very heart of the gospel. God manifest his love in a way that upheld His holiness, justice, and righteousness without compromise. True love “does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth” (1 Cor. 13:6).

That’s the kind of love we are called to walk in. It’s a love that is “first pure, then peaceable” (cf. James 3:17).

How do we know when to confront and when to quietly forgive and forget?

That’s a good question because most people seem to err on one side or the other. Some people think it is best to overlook every offense and take pride in their tolerance. However, Paul confronted the Corinthians for tolerating sin in the church and rebuked them for failing to deal with a man living in sin (1 Cor. 5).

On the other side of the issue are people who confront over any slight infraction and make themselves intolerable.

Are there any biblical principles to help us make the right choice? Yes! Here are six guidelines to help you know whether to quietly forgive or to lovingly confront.

1. Whenever possible, especially if the offense is petty or unintentional, it is best to forgive unilaterally. This is the very essence of a gracious spirit. It is the Christlike attitude called for in Ephesians 4:1-3. We are called to maintain a gracious tolerance (“forbearance”) of others’ faults. Believers should have a sort of mutual immunity to petty offenses. Love “is not easily angered” (1 Cor. 13:5). If every fault required formal confrontation, the whole of our church life would be spent confronting and resolving conflicts over petty annoyances. So for the sake of peace, to preserve the unity of the Spirit, we are to show tolerance whenever possible (see 1 Pet. 2:21-25; Mat. 5:39-40).

2. If you are the only injured party, even if the offense was public and flagrant, you may choose to forgive unilaterally. Examples of this abound in Scripture. Joseph (Genesis 37-50), David (2 Sam. 16:5-8), and Stephen (Acts 7:60) each demonstrated the unilateral forgiveness of Christ (Luke 23:34).

3. If you observe a serious offense that is a sin against someone other than you, confront the offender. Justice never permits a Christian to cover a sin against someone else. While we are entitled, and even encouraged, to overlook wrongs committed against us, Scripture everywhere forbids us to overlook wrongs committed against another (see Ex. 23:6; Deut. 16:20; Isa. 1:17; Isa. 59:15-16; Jer. 22:3; Lam. 3:35-36).

4. When ignoring an offense might hurt the offender, confront the guilty party. Sometimes choosing to overlook an offense might actually injure the offender (by allowing him to continue unwarned down a wrong path). In such cases it is our duty to confront in love (Gal. 6:1-2).

5. When a sin is scandalous or otherwise potentially damaging to the body of Christ, the guilty party should be confronted. Some sins have the potential to defile many people, and Scripture gives ample warning of such dangers (see Heb. 12:15; 3:13; 1 Cor. 5:1-5). In fact, Scripture calls for the church to discipline individuals who refuse to repent of open sin in the body, so that the purity of the body might be preserved (Matt. 18:15-20; 1 Cor. 5).

6. Lastly, any time an offense results in a broken relationship, confrontation of the sinner should occur. Any offense that causes a breach in relationships simply cannot be overlooked. Both the offense and the breach must be confronted, and reconciliation must be sought. And both the offended party and the offender have a responsibility to seek reconciliation (Luke 17:3; Matt. 5:23-24). There is never any excuse for a Christian on either side of a broken relationship to refuse to pursue reconciliation.

The only instance where such a conflict should remain unresolved is if all the steps of discipline in Matthew 18 have been exhausted and the guilty party still refuses to repent.

Holy Living Makes the Gospel Attractive

Paul states his third reason for holy living in Titus 2:10, “That they will adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect.” “Adorn” is from the Greek word kosmeō and refers to making something beautiful.

What is our primary message to this world about God? Do we want the world to know that God is omnipotent? Omniscient? Omnipresent? Immutable? Sovereign? Eternal? The Creator and the Sustainer of the universe? Yes, we do. But by far the main attribute of God we want the unsaved to understand is that He is a Savior.

How will we ever make the good news about God as Savior beautiful in every respect if we don’t look like we’ve been saved? When we live in obedience to God, that in itself will be a testimony against wrong. When those around us see us helping rather than exploiting, hear us talking with purity instead of profanity, and observe us speaking truthfully rather than deceitfully, our example will itself be a rebuke of selfishness, unwholesome talk, and falsehood. Simply refusing to participate in a dishonest business or social practice will sometimes be such a strong rebuke that it costs us our job or friendship. Dishonesty is terribly uncomfortable in the presence of honesty, even when there is no verbal or other direct opposition.

Often, of course, open rebuke is necessary. Silent testimony will go only so far. Failure to speak out against and to oppose evil things in practical ways is a failure to obey God. Believers are to expose them in whatever legitimate, biblical ways are necessary.

Unfortunately, many Christians are barely able to keep their own spiritual and moral houses in order. Thus they lack the discernment, inclination, or power to confront evil in the church or in society at large. That’s why it is imperative that we be so mature in biblical truth, and in obedience, holiness, and love, that the natural course of our lives will be to expose, rebuke, and offer remedy for every kind of evil.

Making salvation attractive is a high calling, and we will fail in that endeavor unless we can demonstrate that we have indeed been delivered from sin. Rebuking sin in others without an accompanying lifestyle of righteousness is the greatest hypocrisy. But lives characterized by purity, power, and joy reflect the order, beauty, and power of a saving God. When we make salvation beautiful, we make God attractive.

To convince a man God can save, I need to show him a man He saved. To convince a man that God can give hope, I need to show him a man with hope. To convince a man that God can give peace, joy, and love, I need to show him a man with peace, joy, and love. To convince a man that God can give complete, total, and utter satisfaction, I need to show him a satisfied man. When the world sees people who are holy, righteous, peaceful, joyful, and fulfilled, they see the evidence of God’s transforming power.

At stake is the eternal destiny of unredeemed souls. Christians who are unholy lead unbelievers to slander God; those who are holy lead them to glorify God. The central issue in evangelism is holy living. A powerful church is not built on its strategy, but on the virtue and holiness of its people. What we believe is linked to how we live, and how we live is directly linked to the effectiveness of our gospel proclamation. So, Christian, it’s imperative that you be “blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you appear as lights in the world” (Philippians 2:15).

(These two articles were adapted from John’s book Divine Design.)

(By John MacArthur)

Despite many technological advancements, the twenty-first century has entered frighteningly dark waters. Look at the headlines—the threat of global terrorism, the chaos of unthinkable criminal activity, the defilement of pornography, the confusion of gender roles, the future of the economy, the “lostness” of our children, etc., etc. People are helplessly buckled up, strapped in, and holding on to a world careening out of control into a future of even greater fear, confusion, frustration, uncertainty, and isolation.

As a Christian, a true Christians, you are quite a contrast. Anchored in Jesus Christ, you are immoveable, steadfast, and strong. Your eyes are fixed on the Word of God, a beacon that stands out like a “lamp shining in a dark place” (2 Peter 1:19). As you move toward that light, God changes your life by the power of the Holy Spirit. The message you proclaim and the life you live guarantees you will stand out in the culture.

Holy, righteous lives are the backbone of the gospel we preach. The apostle Paul understood that. In the midst of a pagan society that did all it could to persecute Christians and discredit the Christian faith, he wrote to Titus telling him how to instruct the Cretans “to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age” (Titus 2:12).

As I’ve reflected on what Paul told Titus, I can see three compelling reasons we ought to live holy lives. And each reason has little to do with benefits that come from godly living, though there are benefits (cf. 1 Timothy 6:6). Rather, Paul sets forth evangelism as the motive for holy living.

Holy Living Honors God’s Word

In chapter two, Paul instructs Titus regarding different age groups in the church. The young women, he says, are to act in such a way “so that the word of God may not be dishonored” (Titus 2:5). The Greek word translated “dishonored” literally means “blasphemed.” We can’t allow unbelievers to mock, ignore, or totally reject God’s Word. Yet, how we live will directly affect how people feel about it.

No matter what their station in life, Christian men and women who are not what they ought to be will give people reason to blaspheme God’s Word. The world doesn’t judge us by our theology; it judges us by our behavior. The validity of Scripture in the world’s view is determined by how it affects us. If unbelievers see that our lives are truly transformed, separate and distinct from the world, they might conclude that Scripture is true, powerful, and life-changing.

The credibility of the Christian gospel is inseparably linked to the integrity of the lives of those who proclaim it. That’s why it is so devastating when well-known evangelists or Christian leaders are caught in some gross sin or immorality. How do you think unbelievers react when they see such hypocrisy? They laugh at it, thus blaspheming God’s Word and short-circuiting any opportunity we have to tell them about its power to transform their lives. The impact of the lives of men and women who bear the Lord’s name is vital to the credibility of the faith and the effectiveness of personal witness and preaching. That’s ultimately what is at stake in the way we live.

Holy Living Silences the Opposition

Paul’s second reason for living holy lives gives us the heart of what he wants to communicate: “so that the opponent will be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us” (Titus 2:8). The Greek word translated “put to shame” literally means “to blush,” emphasizing the opponent’s utter embarrassment over having no just criticism.

Opponents of Christianity love to gloat when Christians cause a scandal. Don’t you think some of the unbelievers in your sphere of influence would love to see you fail significantly so they can justify their unbelief? They don’t want to see God transform your life—that would stand as a rebuke to their sinful lifestyles. But that’s exactly what you want to do—you want to embarrass them when they criticize you because there is nothing for them to justifiably criticize.

The issue is evangelism. The proper strategy for our evangelization is not methodological. We reach the world through epitomizing virtue, godliness, holiness, and a purity of life that makes our faith and God’s Word believable.

The apostle Peter understood the way believers have impact on the godless world. He wrote, “Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts which wage ware against the soul. Keep your behavior excellent among the [pagans], so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may because of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation” (1 Peter 2:11-12).

Do you see how imperative it is that we live godly lives? We want unbelievers to examine us. They come initially to criticize, but if our behavior is excellent, the criticism of some might turn to curiosity. And if that curiosity turns to conversion, they’ll glorify God because of their salvation. Thus we’ve done our part in bringing God glory. You lead people to the credibility of Christianity and ultimately to conversion by the virtue of your life. So stay away from fleshly lusts and maintain excellent behavior.

(To Be Concluded Tomorrow)

This will be our final post on the NT believer’s relationship to the Mosaic Law. This is our ninth post on this topic. Previous posts can be found at the following links: Post 1; Post 2; Post 3; Post 4; Post 5; Post 6; Post 7; Post 8.

In this post, we will seek to work through the implications of our proposed solution. In other words, based on our interpretation of the biblical data, how are Christians practically to approach the Old Testament Law?

Clearly, they are not to follow all of its restrictions, for the Law of Christ has replaced the Law of Moses.  Yet, at the same time, they are not to completely ignore the Law.  After all, the apostles often invoked the Law, appealing to it as a source of authority for many of their teachings.

In the opinion of this writer, David Dorsey’s four-fold approach best explains the biblical data, avoiding the pitfalls of some of the other interpretations (Dorsey, “The Law of Moses and the Christian: A Compromise,” JETS 34/3 [Sept. 1991]: 332-34. For a similar approach see J. D. Hays, “Applying the Old Testament Today,” BSac 158/629 [January 2001]: 21-35 [online here].)

Following these four steps allows the New Testament believer to find applicable instruction in any of the Old Testament laws—including those clearly abolished by the apostolic writers.

1) First, believers must recognize that the Mosaic Law is not binding for Christians. This includes all of the individual precepts that make up that Law. These commands, whether deemed moral, ceremonial, or civil, were part of God’s covenant with Israel. They are not part of His covenant with the Church. Thus, the Mosaic Law must be interpreted in the same grammatical-historical method as the rest of the Old Testament. Those who seek to understand it must begin by putting themselves in the shoes of an ancient Hebrew.  After all, this is the audience to whom the Mosaic Law was originally intended.

2) Second, the interpreter must determine the original meaning, purpose, and significance of the individual command.  Within the original historical context, why did God give the commands that He did?  What were the apparent reasons or motives behind His various expectations?

3) Third, Christians must determine the theological significance of the individual command.  In other words, what does this specific law reveal about the moral character, essence, and being of God (the Lawgiver).  Dorsey explains:

What does this law reflect about God’s mind, his personality, his qualities, attitudes, priorities, values, concerns, likes and dislikes, his teaching methodologies, the kinds of attitudes and moral and ethical standards he wants to see in those who love him? In spite of the fact that these 613 laws were issued to another people who lived at another time under very different circumstances than ours (again, like the prophetic oracles of Jeremiah), they come from the God whom we too serve, and they represent a vast reservoir of knowledge about him and his ways. (p. 333)

4) Finally, New Testament believers must determine the practical implications (application) of the theological insights found in the individual Old Testament command. Granted, the New Testament application is often quite different than the Old Testament application. Nevertheless, the theological truth behind the command is applicable in any age because it reflects the moral essence of the immutable God.

In explaining this process, Dorsey gives an example from Exodus 22:25 (a civil law).  The verse states: “If you lend money to one of My people among you who is needy, do not be like a moneylender; charge him no interest.”  Does this mean that Christians should never charge fellow-Christians interest? Examining this law in lieu of Dorsey’s four-step process reveals the answer. First, Christians must remember that this law is not specifically for them, but rather for Old Testament Israel. Thus, just because it is mentioned in the Mosaic Law, it is not necessarily binding.

Second, the original purpose of the law is fairly straightforward: the Israelites were not to charge interest when assisting the poor by lending them money. Moreover, the law encourages those who are financially stable to be sensitive to the needs of the less fortunate, willing to help them even when there is no personal financial gain.

Third, as far as theological insights are concerned, the divine Lawgiver is clearly concerned about the needs of the poor—both physical (financial) and emotional.  Moreover, He desires that His people share this same concern, being willing to help those in need even when personal sacrifice is involved.

Finally, after moving through the previous three steps, the New Testament saint is ready for his own personal application. Rather than rejecting or ignoring the needs of others, the New Testament saint is reminded to reach out to others—financially, if necessary. Because the God of the Christian is the same as the God of the Hebrew, the Christian can be confident that he is being an “imitator of God” (Eph. 5:1) when he applies the theological truth of the Old Testament text. Although this principle (to be sensitive to the needs of others) is repeated in the New Testament (James 1:27-2:17), the Christian can confidently assert it based on the teaching of the Old Testament. Of course, the theological principles of the Old Testament must be applied in line with the New Testament.  Nonetheless, the verification for the Old Testament principle (and subsequent application) is not merely that it is repeated in the New Testament but rather that it reflects the very heart of God.

Conclusion

This study began by asserting two propositions. They are: (1) the New Testament writers assert that the Mosaic Law is no longer binding for the Christian; and (2) the New Testament writers appealed to that same Law and embraced it as the basis for much of their apostolic instruction. While these statements initially sound contradictory, they are reconciled in that the God who gave the Law of Moses is the same God who gave the Law of Christ—thus there is great overlap between the two codes even though the Law of Moses is no longer in effect. The apostles understood that the Law of Moses was no longer binding, yet they appealed to the theological principles found in that Law because they also understood that the moral essence of the immutable Lawgiver was reflected therein. After identifying certain theological principles, the apostolic writers were able to apply them in accordance with the Law of Christ.

Christians today should do the same. In approaching the Mosaic Law as a reflection of the divine Lawgiver (revealing theological principles based on God’s moral essence), NT believers can then appropriately study the Law of Moses—being thereby trained and equipped for righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16-17).