Leaving an Example

John 13:15 For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you.


15 ὑπόδειγμα γὰρ ἔδωκα ὑμῖν ἵνα καθὼς ἐγὼ ἐποίησα ὑμῖν καὶ ὑμεῖς ποιῆτε.

I apologize for my lack of posting lately. I am really working hard to finish this semester well since it is my last semester. Blogging has gone on the back-burner, but since Noah woke me up early today I got a good start and have time for it.

This verse comes right after Jesus washed His disciples' feet. There are some who take this passage as a prescription for how we should treat each other in a literal way. They practice foot-washing. I understand that this is prevalent among the Grace Brethren when they have communion services.

I don't think that it is a bad idea for the pastor to wash people's feet, though it would be a bit strange in our culture. I can't think of any men I want handling my feet. The question is whether Jesus is speaking literally or metaphorically here. If you don't like the word "metaphorical" you could substitute "paradigmatically" instead. In other words, was Jesus giving a specific instruction or was He simply giving them a principle by which to live?

I would have to go with the latter. Though this is not an ironclad argument, the fact is that we do not find foot-washing in any of the other synoptic gospels. We do not find it in Acts or the Pauline epistles. I don't know what the practices of the early church were, but I do think that these other arguments from silence are fairly compelling. If it is meant to be done regularly, why don't we see it elsewhere in Scripture?

I realize that this is not a particularly strong argument, nor do I think it is a sinful practice today. However, I do think that we will not go wrong if we take this to be an example of extreme humility on Jesus' part, particularly given the context of the next few verses where He describes the master-servant relationship. We need to humbly serve one another in the body of Christ. There are plenty of examples of that throughout Scripture, amen? Are there examples of that in your life?

Don't Follow Men

Matthew 15:8 "'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 9 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'"



8 ὁ λαὸς οὗτος τοῖς χείλεσίν με τιμᾷ, ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ· 9  μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με διδάσκοντες διδασκαλίας ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων.

Every time I read through the gospels I am amazed at how Jesus' teaching applies so well to today.  In other words, people have not fundamentally changed.  Although the writers could not have imagined that we would communicate to each other with telephones, blogs, twitter, etc, what they wrote applies today as much as it did 2000 years ago because the human condition has not changed.

When I read this passage I immediately put my "team" mode on and think how great it is that Jesus is sticking it to the Pharisees again.  Way to call out those hypocrites!  I'm so glad that my heart is close to Jesus!  I'm glad that I don't follow the commandments of men.  After all, I have no real creed but the Bible, right?

This attitude is problematic for a couple of reasons.  One is that my heart is not as close to Jesus as I would like to think it is.  I realize how easily distracted I am by the world.  I give lip-service to Jesus, but I don't stay as close to Him as He commands.  I've addressed this in numerous posts and I'm sure I will again.  I know how easily my heart strays since it is an idol factory after all.

The other is that the idea of "no creed but the Bible" is impossible.  We say that, but ultimately we follow the traditions of men.  Suppose that we think church should only be on Sunday mornings at 11:00 AM with wooden pews.  That's fine, except pews did not exist in the first-century.  So we've already started following a tradition of men.  It's not a bad one, but it's naive to think that we don't.

Then there is how we read Scripture.  We're all informed by our lives.  We all bring certain prejudices to the text.  For example, when Luther read Galatians he saw it as a condemnation of the Catholic Church.  I suppose it can be used that way, but that's not what Paul had in mind since the Roman Catholic Church was not invented yet.  He read his situation into the text.  We may say that we don't want to do that, but we all do it to some degree.

This is not necessarily wrong as long as we don't change things to suit our moods.  That's what happens when we read a feminist understanding into 1 Timothy 2:12, for example.  We are all in a hermeneutical spiral.  Let's just be honest about it rather than pretending that we truly have "no creed but the Bible."  And let's obey this passage by not elevating those secondary matters above the clear teachings of Scripture, amen?

What to Teach

Titus 2:1 But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine.

1 Σὺ δὲ λάλει ἃ πρέπει τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ.

Paul continues his instruction to Titus.  He just finished describing the folks who do not teach sound doctrine and have no use for it.  Although the word δὲ is a weak adversative, it is one nonetheless.  Paul is setting up a contrast between those who are doing the wrong thing and how Titus should act as a pastor.

What does it mean to teach τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ?  There are a few glosses for the word ὑγιαινούσῃ.  The general idea is that it speaks to something that is healthy.  In other words, the doctrine that Titus is to teach should be healthy, like a healthy person or a healthy tree is healthy.  The word "sound" is good too.  You get the sense that the doctrine he is to teach is sound like something that is built well.

This is a vital truth for anyone who calls himself a Christian.  Certainly he should always teach sound doctrine if there are opportunities to teach.  It also means that we should be discerning as we are taught doctrine.  Read your Bible and make sure that what you are teaching is sound.  If not, then there is a problem with that teacher.

Every teacher is going to make a mistake here and there.  None of us is like Paul with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit behind us.  However, we should still be sure to do our best to teach sound doctrine.  We also should expect our pastors to do the same.  Let us be discerning with this.

How can we be discerning?  We need to read our Bibles!  Know what it says.  Be ready to look things up to check.  How can we discern if we don't know the standard?

Strange Dogma

Matthew 12:46-50

(46) While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him.

(47) [Someone told him, "Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, asking to speak to you."]

(48) But he replied to the man who told him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?"

(49) And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers!

(50) For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

I was always confused about the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary when I read this passage. How could Jesus have brothers and sisters if she remained a virgin? And how is it that the Catholic church says that Mary has special access to Jesus that we don't have? He doesn't seem to treat her with any kind of special reverence here and in fact seems to do the opposite.

What's even more puzzling is how Luther and Calvin could have just taken the virginity of Mary as a given. Didn't they read their Bibles?

I would maintain that they were too busy with the matter of justification by faith to worry about this stuff. I also know that the dogma was not nearly as developed then. The perpetual virginity of Mary as well as the other baggage such as her assumption have only really been codified since the 20th century. Therefore, this was not a big deal to them.

My point is that we need a little history to understand why certain things are and aren't emphasized. Some folks wonder why we don't read more about homosexuality from the church fathers. Back in their day it was considered a given that homosexuality was wrong because they took the straightforward meaning of Scripture. It's only fairly recently that this has become such a hot topic.

Let's be sure to let history give us some context as we examine issues and quote men and women from the past.

How Big is the Box?

We discussed 1 Corinthians 15 last night in my small group. We had a great discussion over this statement:
1 Corinthians 15:3 ESV
(3) For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,

We discussed what "first importance" means and got back to the centrality of the cross. This lead to a great discussion about denominations. One member comes from a Southern Baptist background, but he doesn't like being identified as a Baptist. He'd rather be identified as a Christian. I agree with him there. Another member bemoaned all the denominations. He has a point.

The problem is in how big we draw our "box". The "box" includes what we consider to be orthodox Christianity. An Independent Baptist would have a very tiny box. A Southern Baptist would probably have a larger one. Many Episcopalians would likely have a very large one. And so on.

My struggle is with doctrine. I'm all for sound doctrine. I believe it is incumbent upon every believer to form opinions about what Scripture means. Obviously Scripture can only mean one thing, though it can have many applications. However, as I've written before, I'd rather have an unsaved friend attend a Methodist church than no church at all. That wouldn't be my first choice, but as long as the gospel gets preached I don't really care if it is a lesbian preaching it. I trust the power of God's Word and, if someone reads it, he will realize that a lesbian couple really shouldn't be pastoring a church.

I guess what I've learned is that I need to form my opinions about doctrine. Systematic Theology is all about that and I really appreciate what I learned there (though it wasn't as fun as I'd hoped it would be). As a small group leader and eventual pastor or professor I need to teach what I believe the Bible says and means. However, I also need to respect differing opinions in areas that aren't clear. We talked a little bit about eschatology last night and someone asked me what I believe and I honesty answered that I don't know. I don't have a strong opinion on the matter. Frankly, this is out of laziness in not wrestling with the text on my own.

My church tends to err on the side of grace. My impression is that the church with which my seminary is affiliated tends to err on the side of legalism. I guess the trick is to walk the line.