Daily Archives: November 22, 2012

Of Purity and Leaven

Posted on by
Reply

Most are aware of the Puritans. We know them as an historic bunch of nit-pickers who simply could not get out of their own road to enjoy themselves. We have even developed the label – Puritanical – to describe anyone who is a religiously strict kill-joy or, in Australian parlance, a wowser!  If you believe this summary, I am afraid you have been duped. The Puritans were religiously strict, but they also knew how to enjoy life. They drank fermented beverages. Given the size of some of their families, they were no strangers to “horizontal relaxation” or ‘the midnight cuddle’. The purpose and goal of their lives was summed up in their name – they desired covenantal purity in the eyes of God. Their lives were to be offered as fragrant sacrifices to God and, as such, had to be pure in order to be accepted. It is sad that Christians today do not see the need for purity in their lives, especially when their lives should be conceived of as an offering to God.

The Bible is very clear on the need for purity. Matthew 5:8, James 1:27, 1 Peter 2:2, and 1 John 3:1-3, to name but a few texts, all have something particular to say about the Christian’s need for purity. The opposite of the pure life is the leavened life. Let us then look at the Biblical principle of ‘the leaven’.

First, we must avoid the mistake of limiting the Bible’s teaching on leaven to a mere maxim, such as, ‘a little can affect a lot’. Whilst this concept is present, it by no means does justice to the teaching of Scripture. Second, we must see that any elaboration of this principle in Scripture is always negative. Third, the Scripture’s teaching is always aimed at the child of God. Fourth, the application of this teaching means one thing: the Christian is to be pure.

The search for wisdom must begin with God. What does God think of leaven? He despises it! This may need some modification, but it will do for now. Consider the institution of the Passover. At this juncture, Yahweh gives basic, yet explicit, instruction in regard to leaven. None is permitted (Exodus 12:15-19)! The Israelites are to do without leaven for seven days. It is to be absolutely excluded. Understand that this is no trifle. It is not simply the case that God prefers His bread flat. The concept of leaven is intricately tied to the concept of salvation. Note well the penalty for anyone found with leaven. They are to be “cut off from the congregation of Israel”. To be “cut off” means nothing less than to be severed from the covenant people and therefore from salvation itself. The seriousness of the ‘leaven principle’ is underscored when the Israelites are instructed to never burn leavened bread (Leviticus 2:11). The grain offering is most holy and it is to be food for the priest and to be consumed in a holy place (Leviticus 6:17). It must be offered unleavened. Consequently, leaven must never ascend to the nostrils of God as a “soothing aroma”.

Why is this? It seems that we could learn a lesson from the Hebrew word for leaven. The term primarily means ‘to be / make sour’. It shares the same consonantal root as the term for vinegar. Understood in this way, we must see that the addition of leaven is a contamination which sours the bread and lessens its quality. Let us underscore the severity with which God views this contamination by stating quite clearly, again, that no leaven was ever to appear on Yahweh’s altar. The Israelite could only offer leavened bread as a “first fruit” and a “wave offering” (Leviticus 23:17).

This negative concept of leaven is carried through into the New Testament. At every point where the principle of leaven is elaborated upon, it carries with it a negative connotation, either explicitly or implied. In Matthew 16:6-12, Jesus warns His disciples to be alert for the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees, which is described as leaven. In Luke 12:1, Jesus describes the Pharisaic leaven as hypocrisy. Mark 8:15 is interesting. There, Jesus warns of the leaven both of the Pharisees and Herod. It is almost as though the Holy Spirit gives warning against imbibing corrupt ideas from authorities, ecclesiastic or secular. Turning from the Gospels to the Apostle Paul, we see that the same negative overtones are affirmed. In 1 Corinthians 5:6 and Galatians 5:9, Paul uses the phrase, “a little leaven leavens the whole lump.” This would show that the phrase was an idiom; however, this does not detract from its importance. In these passages, Paul equates leaven with arrogance, the corrupted old self, depravity, wickedness, and the necessity of circumcision. One reference, however, stands out above the rest.

In 1 Corinthians 5:7-8, Paul gives instruction to clean out the old leaven. In other words, it is time to wash the bowl and start again from scratch. It is time to remove all the old impurities. As Paul metaphorically throws the new lump of dough into the bowl, he calls a halt to proceedings. ‘No leaven required, thank you!’ We are unleavened bread. We are the redeemed of the covenant. We are the offering laid upon the altar of God, ascending as a pleasing aroma (1 Peter 2:4-5). We are holy. Not only do we not need leaven, to add leaven would be almost blasphemous. It would mean that we are not fit for the altar of God and as a pleasing aroma. It means that we would be “cut off” from the congregation of Israel for being in possession of leaven. Do we make too much of this. No. Paul himself makes direct reference in this verse to Jesus as “our Passover”. The Passover meal was accompanied by the unleavened bread. Jesus our Passover has been sacrificed. The unleavened bread must accompany the Lamb. We are to be unleavened loaves of “sincerity and truth.” Salvation and worship are inextricably linked in Scripture. The saved must worship and their worship must be acceptable, that is, offered in purity according to God’s standard; just as our Passover Lamb was pure and unblemished. The Apostle John tells us that the Father seeks worshippers who will worship in “spirit and truth” – worship after the essence of God (Spirit) and the nature of God (Truth).

The importance of the Christian being essentially pure is underscored when we develop this principle further by introducing Jesus’ words from Mathew 13:33. There, Jesus tells us that the Kingdom of Heaven ‘is like a woman who places leaven into a quantity of flour and then waits until all is leavened.’ Do we have a contradiction here? Not at all! Strictly speaking, Jesus’ words should not be considered as part of the ‘principle of leaven’ because there is no elaboration. In other words, there is no, “beware of …”, in which the detrimental nature of the leaven is explained or implied (Something most definitely present in the other references). In this section of Scripture, Jesus gives different parables in order to describe the Kingdom of God. In Matthew 13:33 (and the parallel in Luke13:21) Jesus uses the concept of the leaven to illustrate how the Kingdom of God must of necessity impact upon all with which it comes in contact. Note that the Kingdom is not leaven, it is like leaven. It cannot help but modify or impact upon all that it touches for that is its very transformational and redemptive nature. The Kingdom is positive in its impact precisely because it is pure and a purifier. The Kingdom purifies the corrupt. The Kingdom sheds light in the midst of darkness. The Kingdom gives life to the dead. As stated, the Kingdom is pure and transformational. Therefore, nothing needs to be added to the Kingdom. It is God’s perfective work, reclaiming all that is His through the shed blood of Jesus Christ, culminating in Yahweh’s perfect worship. The Kingdom can be compared to the action of the leaven, but it is by no means leaven!

The comparison of Jesus’ words in Matthew 13:33 with those which speak of the ‘principle of the leaven’, cannot but make us realise why leaven is forbidden to the Christian and why the Christian is essentially pure. The people of God, regenerate through the washing of Jesus’ blood, are pure Kingdom participants, whose lives, in totality, must culminate in the pure worship of God. As such, the Christian needs no leaven. The introduction of any leaven is forbidden because it corrupts the purity that is acceptable to God. Hence, the Christian is consistently warned to be on guard and to watch out for any leaven; that which is a corruption, perversion, or travesty of God. We must see that the leaven that the Christian is warned about is any ideology, philosophy, theory, or concept that is in opposition to the purity of God and His Christ. In short, the Christian is warned regarding the ideas of the “world” and the complete and utter unworthiness of their presence in the Christian as a new creature in Christ, a living sacrifice, and a fragrant aroma (2 Corinthians 2:14-17; Philippians 4:18). The Christian, as a Kingdom of God participant, is to be a vivacious force for life and purity, bringing the redemptive purposes of God to the fore in themselves and in every encounter with the world.

God is Pure. The Kingdom is Pure. The Kingdom participant must likewise be Pure. ‘No leaven, please, we’re Christ’s!’ (2 Corinthians 11:1-3.)

The Slippery Slope (Pt. 4): Cultural Catastrophe

Posted on by
Reply

In our quest for understanding into the Slippery Slope, we have laid a basic foundation. We have noted that the Slippery Slope began centuries ago with Enlightenment philosophy, particularly the Rejection of the Bible’s God. We have shown that the only two epistemological standpoints are those of Revelation or Relativism. We have explored how the rejection of Revelation must lead to Relativism and to men groping in darkness. We have also looked at the stepping stones, however briefly, that brought us to the current issues of today. Particularly, we looked at the realms of Ecclesiology and Science and saw how the works of two men, Schweitzer and Darwin, moved us further down the Slippery Slope.

In our last article, we mapped out the steps, but we did not have time to fully explore the link between Relativism and Cultural disintegration. In this article, we would like to simply unpack this aspect a little.

Our starting point is a subjective one. It is you! Regardless of whether you are a Believer in Jesus Christ or a rejecter of Him, you need to understand that the world in which you live has been shaped by the abandonment of Revelation and the acceptance of Relativism. You also need to understand that you are living in an epistemological dichotomy. Most today do not understand this position or even realise the paradigm shift. Let’s illustrate this. In a previous life, I drove taxis. On one occasion I had a male passenger who expressed the view that the individual should simply do what makes them feel good. Immediately the thought passed through my mind – ‘Hmmm, let us test this theory. Grab him by the back of the neck and bash his head against the dashboard!’ Yes, a tad unsanctified, but what do you suppose his reaction would have been? Upon explanation that “I just felt like bashing him”, do you think this gentleman would have been calm and at peace with the fact the encounter was nothing more than another rational creature simply expressing himself as he desired? I doubt it. Here we have the dichotomy. This man expressed relativism as his epistemology, but in reality he would have expected applied revelation as an outcome. In other words, his expectation of outcome would have been toward justice and retribution against the assailant – a position supported only by God’s Revelation, not his stated relativism! Therefore, it is important to understand that today’s culture is totally exposed to disintegration. People within our culture, for the most part, are conflicted. Disintegration and conflict occur because, in Biblical language, they have ‘halted between two opinions’ (1 kings 18:21). Our culture wants an epistemology that worships each individual man as if he were a god (relativism); promulgating laws that see each of his desires are fully met. However, on the flip side, he wants all his rights and privileges protected on the basis of law, morals, and ethics that transcend the individual and move into the realm of absolutes. At this point, he wants to move from relativism to revelation!

To drive to the heart of cultural disintegration we must look at this conflict. To begin, we must look at some Biblical basics. 1. God is. 2. God spoke 3. In speaking, God created. 4. To His creation, God spoke Law-Words. 5. These Law-Words are covenant terms promising blessing and curse. 6. These covenant Law-Words are the basis for the happiness, prosperity, and well being of God’s creatures. 7. Therefore, these covenant Law-Words are to be obeyed, if a prosperous culture is to be experienced. Because God is an immutable, absolute being, possessing absolute power, He not only has the right to settle the terms of life for His creatures, but he has the will and the power to bring about all that He stipulates in His Law-Word.

Using marriage as an example, we see that God made man male and female. He called man to unity in the covenant bond of marriage. This bond He blessed with a command to be ‘fruitful and multiply’. Man obeyed because God had designed this life into man. Like the bow in the sky (Genesis 9:13), the child brought forth from the womb was nothing less than a covenant sign. The child proved the essence and reality of God’s design, purpose, and promise – fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and subdue it! As man obeyed this command, God upheld and sustained the marriage covenant at every step. Moreover, God hedged the marriage covenant with law to make sure that its sanctity was upheld (Exodus 20:12 & 14; Leviticus 20:10; Matthew 10:2-12); even extending laws to protect the child (Exodus 21:22; Numbers 3:11; Psalm 127:3-5; Matthew 18:10). Thus, from first to last, marriage is a covenant of life (fruitful), culture (subdue), and salvation (Genesis 3:15; Galatians 3:16) – eternal life and culture.

As God purposed for this marriage covenant to be the bedrock of society, God added penalty to law – thus truly indicating that marriage is a God-sanctioned covenant – so that man would respect this bond. When a person betrayed that covenant, the full weight of the law was to come upon them. There was to be guilt and innocence. There was to be bounty for the faithful; depravation for the guilty. Punishment of the guilty served the true end of justice, but it was also to be a deterrent (Deuteronomy 17:12; 19:19; 22:22).

By contrast, the relativism of finite man gives nothing but disintegration. Man has no real power and certainly nothing approaching the absolute. Man’s epistemology of relativism stands in stark contrast to The Immutable. There are no law-words of worth. Those that they possess, they have stolen! The heart of man does not give definitions of love, justice, goodness, holiness, etc. All these are terms borrowed, read stolen, from the Bible’s God. So man makes futile attempts to promulgate laws that are meant to give stability to culture and rights to the individual. They knock down in order to build, but their foundation is nothing but rubble. The edifice must collapse!

Again, let us illustrate this with marriage. Having jettisoned the Bible’s God, man was left to improvise. He could see some things of worth in the design of God, but they were bound too tightly to law and penalty. Man wanted freedom, not a lot, just enough to loosen the strictures – well that is how it began. So God’s Law-Word on marriage had to be replaced by man’s relative tenets on marriage. As man was a sexual creature, what did it matter if your slippers were parked, on occasion, under the wrong bed? So, of necessity, we must decriminalise adultery. This then opened the way for promiscuity. “No penalty, so what does it matter?” is the way man thought. The problem was that as a creature made in the image of God, promiscuity did matter. Innately, one or other of the parties felt aggrieved at the betrayal and wanted ‘out’ of the relationship. Because we had decriminalised adultery, what was the aggrieved party to do? After all, no harm no foul! So, we are given the Family Law Court that has a “no fault” policy. Question! How do you divide up a family, goods, and chattels without establishing guilt or innocence? At this point, man’s relativism has begun to destroy the very nature of law. With divorce increasing, the question then became, “Why get married?” Let’s “try before we buy!” Let us simply pretend to be married. Here, we have arrived at the place wherein “marriage” has become an absolute farce. Homosexuality, polygamy, bestiality, you and your grandmother – yes, be repulsed – is all on the table.

However, that is but the tip of the ‘iceberg’. Children, the fruit of the womb proving God’s covenant and design, are now openly attacked. Man hates God now. He is not looking for “wiggle room” but to throw off God’s rule (Psalm 2). Therefore, in true evolutionary style, the “live in lover” beats the child senseless because it is not his offspring. The couple want the pleasure of sex, but they have no interest in fruitfulness and dominion, so when the womb is bounteous they slay the contents as though of no more worth than a baked bean! The woman finds a new boyfriend and murders her children because he prefers that they were not around.

What happens to these slayers and child beaters? Nothing! Relativism has destroyed law. The fruit of the womb is no longer a covenant testimony to be honoured and treasured as life, culture, and salvation. No. It is now to be killed as burden and inconvenience; and the moral applied is “choice”. We still, hypocritically, take a dim view of child beaters and of the mother that kills her children, but we are slowly throwing of these shackles too! We now not only discuss abortion openly, but also infanticide.

Relativism is a culture of death and the death of a culture because it removes any and all meaning and therefore destroys purpose. Relativism limits everything to what it is. So, to the relativist, ‘marriage’ is nothing more than an agreement between two parties that gives some vague legal standing. It is for this reason that homosexuals, polygamists, and others push for the right to be married. To them, marriage serves no purpose beyond “recognition” or “equality”. The idea of covenant, blessing, fruitfulness, posterity, prosperity, dominion, covenant affirmation, and image bearing, are alien concepts.

Here, we have only drawn a few faint lines using marriage as an example, to show that the rejection of the Bible’s God must lead to Humanism and Relativism. The consequence of this shift must be Cultural Disintegration. We stepped onto the Slippery Slope centuries ago. We sowed the wind; we are now reaping the whirlwind! All that is upon us, all disintegration, stems from our rejection of God. Let us commit to restoration by once again embracing the One True and Living God that speaks through Jesus Christ His Son!