It’s My House

It’s My House.

Mark 11:15-18.

Mark 11:-1815 And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves; and would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple. And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves. And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine.

Matthew 21:14 And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them.

Luke 19:47 And he taught daily in the temple. But the chief priests and the scribes and the chief of the people sought to destroy him, 48 and could not find what they might do: for all the people were very attentive to hear him.

Introduction.

Jesus cleansed the temple twice, once near the beginning of his ministry and once near the end. See John 2:13-16 for the first cleansing. Jesus made “a scourge of small cords” to drive out the animals, the moneychangers, and the merchants. He poured out the money and overturned their tables. He commanded the doves be taken from the house of God. Some 18 years earlier (cf. Luke 2:42; 3:23) as a youth of twelve Jesus spoke in the temple of “my Father’s business.” Here he speaks of it as “my Father’s house” being made into a house of merchandise.  The reference to “my Father” is a claim of his Messiahship.

Jesus had the authority (and power) to cleanse the temple.

• My house. Jesus said, in effect, “It’s my house,” thereby making himself equal with God (as the Jews said of him at the feast in Jerusalem (John 5:1, 18).
• The Old Testament tabernacle was called the house of God (Judges 20:18) and the house of the Lord (1 Samuel 1:24); the Old Testament temple was called the house of God (2 Chronicles 3:3) and the house of the Lord (2 Chronicles 3:1). It was the Lord’s by right of pattern (his design) and possession (his ownership). Though the chief priests were offended, they could not stop him. Neither could the moneychangers, the merchants, or their clientele. They were driven out by one man, the God man. “It’s my house, and I’ll cleanse what I want to, when I want to.”
• Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou? Ecclesiastes 8:4. ...none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou? Daniel 4:35.

Jesus had a reason for cleansing the temple.

• The house of God served as a place of religious worship. “for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people” (Isaiah 56:17).
• The house of God had become a place of uncontrolled commerce and uncontested crime. “Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, even I have seen it, saith the Lord.” (Jeremiah 7:11)

Jesus had results from cleansing the temple.

• The chief leaders were enraged by his actions at the temple (Mark 11:18; Luke 19:47). They should have been the very ones guarding the integrity of the temple. The house of prayer divides the true and the false.
• The people were attentive to hear him at the temple as he taught (Luke 19:47-48). The house of prayer is a house of teaching.
• The blind and lame were healed at the temple (Matthew 21:14). The house of prayer is a house of healing.
• The temple needed cleansing. The cleansing brought division or separation, some hating him, some hearing him, and some healed by him.

Application.

The cleansing occurred at the temple in Jerusalem. Jesus made it clear, “It’s my house.” But what shall we then say to these things? We are not Jews in Jerusalem. We are Christians in the church age. We have no temple. Or do we? Of what today might Jesus say to us, “It’s my house”?

• There is the temple of the human body. The Bible speaks of the temple of the body (John 2:21). We dwell in an earthly tabernacle of clay (2 Corinthians 5:1), indwelt by the Holy Spirit. As God inhabited the temple by his Spirit, so the Spirit of God dwells in the temple of our body. Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you.1 Corinthians 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
• There is the temple of the church body. The gathered church is the body of Christ, and his Spirit dwells in them. 2 Corinthians 6:16-17 and what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. See Ephesians 2:19-22. Jesus did not come to overthrow the Roman government, but he did overthrow the false religious system of the Jewish world (Matthew 21:43).

When I was a child, an American singer named Lesley Gore sang “It’s my party, and I’ll cry if I want to.” We have continuously revised that somewhat innocuous phrase of teenage self-interest so that by the twenty-first century we have, “It’s my body, and I’ll kill my baby if I want to,” “It’s my body and I’ll claim whatever gender I want to,” “It’s my body and I’ll sell it if I want to,” “It’s my body and commit adultery if I want to,” “It’s my body and I’ll worship what I want to.” But hear the word of the Lord. He says, “It’s my body!” “Ye are not your own…ye are bought with a price.” “All souls are mine.” He owns all, our bodies and souls, even the gold and the cattle upon a thousand hills.

Others go on to say, “It’s our church and we’ll do what we want to,” “It’s our church and we’ll use any Bible we want to,” “It’s our church and we’ll use any worship style we want to,” “It’s our church and we’ll observe the ordinances the way we want to,” “It’s our church and we’ll preach salvation like we want to.” But hear the word of the Lord, “It’s my body!” For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? (1 Peter 4:17).

• The temple needs cleansing.
• Our Lord has the right.
• There will be results.

The Lord’s house of prayer reaches out to all people, the lame and blind, high and low, rich and poor, black and white, male and female, Jews and Gentiles, calling out to every one of the thirsty. Isaiah 55:1 “Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. May the Lord’s house truly be a house of prayer, a house of worship and praise, to which all may come, without money and without price.” He determines the rules of his house. “It’s my house,” saith the Lord.

Congregationalism and Separation

In “John MacArthur: A Conservative Evangelical Preaches on Separation,” Kent Brandenburg points out that 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 teaches separation, but also asks, “How does a church practice that passage? What does it require?” Sometimes we are guilty of teaching that the Bible teaches separation without any explanation of how to apply this.

Evangelicals ignore ecclesiastical separation because of pragmatism, expedience, church growth, and, as Brother Brandenburg asserts, because of a wrong view of the church. “If the true church is all believers, like MacArthur teaches, how can the church separate? It would disobey 1 Corinthians 12:25.”

Obedience to 2 Corinthians 6:14ff cannot contradict 1 Corinthians 12:25. Perhaps Macarthur has something wrong. Yes, he does. The context shows that Paul is talking to a congregation of believers in Corinth. Further, he instructs the church at Corinth to separate from – not to keep company with – some who are called brother! Compare 1 Corinthians 5 and 2 Corinthians 6:17.

We Baptists practice a certain amount of separation at the personal level. We also practice it at the church level. A church is a congregation – a congregation of baptized believers who are in covenant together. Separation at the church level is separation at the congregational level. This has at least two aspects – (1) separation of the congregation from members who violate their covenant together (unbelief, heresy, immorality, etc.), and (2) separation of the congregation from other congregations who do not hold and practice the scriptures as the rule of faith and practice.

Our congregations ordain elders (pastor-teachers) to teach and lead the congregation. They should teach, guide, and lead about separation (e.g., when and how). Ultimately, however, the act of separation – the exclusion of a church member or the disfellowshipping of another church – is pushed down to the authority of the whole congregation (Matthew 18:17; 1 Corinthians 5:2-5; 2 Corinthians 2:6; 2 Thessalonians 3:6).

The authority of the elders is the authority to teach, to set an example of life, faith, and godliness, to oversee the direction of the church, and to lead the congregation to scripturally use the keys to the kingdom – with a certain expectation of the church to follow them, while searching the scriptures whether the things taught, examples set, oversight and leadership given be so according to the scriptures (Acts 17:11). Without experienced elders to teach, train, edify, and equip the congregation, congregationalism deteriorates into a mass of selfishness, unhinged democracy, chaos, and confusion. Elder authority (biblical teaching and godly counsel) checks this tendency toward democratic self-indulgence; church authority in turn checks authoritarian pastoral dictatorship. May we want and allow these to harmoniously function according to God’s design. 

The current state of separation of church and state

As were our Baptist forefathers, so am I a proponent of the free exercise of religion – that is, in regard to state interference in it (we are not free from God). However, I think that oft times in the modern U.S., our first amendment has been stood on its end, making it an enemy of religion rather than a friend. This reason for this is that secularism often functions in the place of a state-adopted religion.

When secularism functions as the state religion, then it is given preference over religion under the guise of separation. That sends a message to all residents of the United States that non-religious secularism is better than religion. If you are not a religion, then we will give you this, and support you in that. If you are a religion, we will shut you out.

By not adopting a state religion, the United States has on the other hand developed a religion of state, a secular type of “religious non-religion” that functions as religion. There is no way our forefathers could have foreseen this. They set the constitutional idea of freedom of religion in place in a culture saturated with a Judeo-Christian ethic. In practice, Christianity often functioned beneath the surface as the de facto “state religion” without it being established as such – simply because of the large number of people who were Christians, at least functionally, or at least accepted the general principles found in the Bible as legitimate and good. We are no longer there.

Over the years, secularism has taken over as a de facto state religion with Christianity incrementally being rooted out of the public square. In our current applications of state religion, any “moral” philosophy that claims to arise from some source other than “religion” is given preference or ascendancy over any moral philosophy that rises from a religious base. Therefore, very truly the state functions in supporting one (yes, establishing secularism to function as religion) while opposing the other (actual religion).

I see the problem, but do not have the answer for it. Perhaps we are beyond implementing any answer even if we had one. Perhaps it will “solve itself” (and perhaps not in the way we might prefer). It seems likely that we have reached a time and place in the history and culture of the United States where there is going to be a separation of those who are heart Christians and those who are nominal Christians.

“So there was a division among the people because of him” [i.e., Jesus Christ]. John 7:43.

Young and old earth creationism

Awhile back I read a proposal that young earth versus old earth creationim should be an issue over which we should separate (in the senses of both church membership and interchurch fellowship). I can agree, with caveats. Foremost in my mind is the question of what constitutes a young-earth view and an old-earth view of the creation. Obviously, evolution and theistic evolution are old old earth! However, by young earth do we mean one must hold creation very close in the vicinity of just over 6000 years ago? For example, below I notice two persons (one living and one dead) who propose a view of the earth created some 13,000 to 15,000 years ago. They seem to build the case on an interpretation of the Bible, without reference to scientific explanations of the age of the earth. Those calculations are over twice the age of standard young earth interpretation. On the other hand, this view is still a very young earth in comparison to the billions of years proposed by the theories of evolution and theistic evolution.

Baptist missionary to China T. P. Crawford wrote a curious book titled The Patriarchal Dynasties from Adam to Abraham, shown to cover 10,500 years, and the highest human life only 187 (Richmond, VA: Josiah Ryland & Co., 1877). In it he proposed the idea that the long years of time recorded of various antediluvians were the length of their patriarchal dynasties rather than the years of their physical life. Below from page 7, showing in 1876 he thought the age of the earth was 14,376 years old.

From Adam to the flood,                                             7,737 years.

" the flood to the birth of Abraham,                            2,763    "

            10,500

" the birth of Abraham to Christ,                                            2,000

            12,500  

" Christ to the present time,                                                    1,876

Making a sum total of                                                             14,376

I found this intriguing especially because I had run across such an idea probably 15 or 20 years ago on the Mountain Retreat website, an article by Tony Warren titled “The Biblical Timeline of Creation.” 

“The key to understanding the truth which is locked in the genealogies of scripture is in comprehending the differences in how God, rather than man, recorded the passing of time…they are meant to be understood as ‘Patriarchal References’ in God’s system of documenting time. In other words, God is using certain genealogical names as Patriarchs to date the world in those early years. Each Patriarch or father reference, is a family name representing a chunk or epoch of time.” 

Warren’s assessment is a little “younger” than Crawford’s – by 1488 years – as Warren dates 13,008 years from creation to the time of his writing in 1996. It is beyond my purpose to figure out where these diverge. Unless I missed it, Warren does not credit anyone else with the idea. I would doubt he knew about Crawford’s book. Nevertheless, by T. P. Crawford shows the idea preceded Warren by at least 120 years.

An approach to resolve the young-earth old-earth “gap” is the Gap Theory (aka Gap Creationism and Ruin-Reconstruction Theory), popularized by the Scofield Reference Bible. This theory holds that Genesis 1:1 refers to the original creation, but the fall of Satan formed a cataclysmic event that ruined it. Thus, the 24-hour days of creation recorded in the rest of the chapter are days of “re-creation” or “restoration,” rather than the beginning of a creation. In effect, this allows one to hold to “creation” in six literal 24-hour days while at the same time embracing an old earth of billions of years. Scofield’s original notes make this clear, but some of that clarity has been revised out of later editions.

“…three creative acts of God are recorded in this chapter…The first creative act [v. 1] refers to the dateless past, and gives scope for the geologic ages…Neither here [v. 3] nor in verses 14-18 is an original creative act implied…Relegate fossils to the primitive creation, and no conflict of science with the Genesis cosmogony remains.” (C. I. Scofield, Scofield Reference Bible, 1917, pp. 3-4.)

The Gap Theory entered into the mainstream of conservative biblical theology in response to the attacks of science, falsely so-called. The timeline of the appearance of this theory, as well as its use, define it as a scientific view looking for scripture to support it. It becomes a dumping ground for whatever “science” the theory holder cannot fit into his or her understanding of the Bible. When I was young, I knew a lot of the older generation Christians who had picked up the gap theory from their Scofield Bibles. Most of the regular church folks had not thought too much about it, had not teased out it, and accepted it as reasonable (because Scofield had included it in his Bible notes, and maybe also because they felt it answered some questions they did not know how to answer). However, once it is teased out, it creates more biblical and scientific problems than it solves. It is unsound, biblically. For example, advanced versions add pre-Adamic man before Adam (who the Bible says is the first man), and death before the fall (which the Bible says is the cause of death).

The Gap Theory is an old earth creation view that holds a “young earth” view from Genesis 1:3 forward. It distorts a normal reading of Genesis chapter 1. There are those who hold the Gap Theory unadvisedly (without due scrutiny), and those who hold it adamantly (as an integral part of their view of the Bible and creation).

The Patriarchal Dynasties Theory is still a young earth creation view though seeing the earth as slightly older than the predominant young earth view. It does not try to subsume the billions of years of evolutionary theory into its system. It does, however, adapt an unusual reading of the ages of the antediluvian patriarchs as not being particular father/son relationships. It does not, in my opinion, actually address the six 24-hour days of creation differently. It differs chronologically in interpreting the early years of the history of man.

All that said, I come back to the issue of separating, both in church membership and church-to-church fellowship. Views in the evolutionary realm are unquestionably unacceptable. In other cases, approach this carefully and individually. Take each case on its merits. What does the individual hold and what is he promoting? What does the church teach about the Bible, the creation, and what are they trying to promote? What will be results of fellowshipping or disfellowshipping?

The Baptist Name, Fundamentalism, and other links

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the specific posts linked.

• Is Music a Separation Issue? -- "I do not view separation as some kind of binary “on/off switch”."
• J. C. Philpot and John H. Newman – A Vital Difference -- "In time, both men, having been baptised and ordained as ministers in the Church of England, were forced by conscience to secede from it."
• Reprove, Rebuke, Exhort -- "Pastors who want to lead biblically find themselves caught in a bit of a paradox."
• Richard V. Clearwaters -- "There is no tangled skein of life too difficult for His divine fingers if we are willing to cast it into His lap."
• The Baptist Name -- "The recognition of our doctrine is still the most important testimony we have."
• The Conservative Baptist Conflict -- "The CBF and the CBA were organized on different principles."
• The Silence of the Lambs -- "Yet the potential for sexual abuse is actually exacerbated by the core identity of fundamentalist groups like..."
• Three Lines in the Sand, Part 1: An Analysis of Type A, B, and C Fundamentalism -- "Fundamentalism today is right for many reasons."
• Three Lines in the Sand, Part 2 -- "Most of these men grew up under strong personalities within Fundamentalism, so they think they also should lead with the same strong demeanor."
• Three Lines in the Sand, Part 3: What About the Types? -- "A fundamentalist will be militant. Because he’s willing to do battle royal for the truth, he cannot help but be militant."
• 12 Principles on How to Disagree with Other Christians -- "Paul didn’t command the stricter Christians of Romans 14 to get with the program and start eating meat as Jesus allowed."

Hot dog vendor

Author Lisa Harper, on Focus on the Family radio, said that the early Christians were about as popular as a hot dog vendor at a vegan festival.

Lord's Supper guarded least in the church

Intriguing thought on the Lord's Supper guarded least in the church by Matt Wade:

I was thinking today (yes, believe it or not) and it occurred to me that most churches that hold to close or open communion place more restrictions on who can sing in their church than on who can partake in the Lord's Supper. It seems odd to me that churches will not allow members of their own church to sing (because they require auditions, etc.) yet these churches will allow any person walking in off the street to partake in the Lord's Supper.

Should our microphones be more closely guarded than the Lord's Supper?

Reasons for segregated churches?

Churches segregated by race are a common phenomenon in the United States due to the historical fact of reconstruction, segregation, and so forth. Even though it is not now common to commend such deliberate arrangements, the reality continues to be perpetuated — not only racially, but in other ways as well. On the one hand we decry segregation in the churches, yet on the other create new ways that we can segregate them (e.g. teenagers vs. keenagers, contemporary vs. traditional, and so on).

There are many illegitimate reasons to segregate churches, reasons which do not comply with New Testament principles and do not follow the New Testament example. Are there legitimate reasons to have separate churches? Three that possibly seem reasonable are distance, doctrine, and language.

Distance, or different geographical location, is a reason that believers confined in mortal bodies meet together in assemblies near where they live. This is consistent with New Testament practice. Congregations of believers were formed and met in geographical locations where these believers were. Because of physical realities, distance or location, are and will remain a reason for the existence of separate churches until we all all located together as one flock under one shepherd.

Doctrine, different theology or creed, is a reason that believers meet in separate churches. Some of this is legitimate and some is not. Theological error, divisive disposition, and moral failure are reasons for separation found in scripture. On the other hand, some folks make up their own doctrinal standards and then separate based on these opinions rather than scripture.

Language can be a genuine barrier to worshiping together. It is a reason for the existence of separate churches in our time. In our area we have English speaking churches and Spanish speaking churches. This is replicated for groups with various languages throughout the country. It is difficult to worship together if we cannot understand one another. Nevertheless, there are no obvious or outstanding examples of this that appear in the New Testament.

The last two causes of separation — doctrine and language — can be alleviated, There are real doctrinal differences among Christian believers. These should not be ignored or overlooked. We don’t just give up our doctrinal distinctives to pretend to have unity. But by endeavoring to come to the unity of the faith we can try to dispel those differences. Further, we should consider whether some differences are doctrinal or personal preferences for things not addressed by doctrinal orthodoxy. If we must separate over doctrine or related considerations, we should, It should be the last resort.

The lack of division by language may be partially explained by a widespread common language across the Roman Empire. Yet some of our current separation due to language might be explained by comfort and ease rather than necessity. Do we want to meet together? Is it more important than remaining segregated from our brothers and sisters by language? If so, it could be alleviated by preachers who speak both languages. Both could preach to the entire congregation, rotating who preached in what language and who translated into the second language. Further, believers can begin to learn one another’s language if we place high enough importance on unity.

So that leaves the first — distance — as the unchanging reason to have distinct and separate churches. There are biblical reasons and examples for local churches in local areas where believers live. If doctrinal error is not an issue, we should meet with the believers who are near us — as opposed to driving past meeting places to get to another we “prefer.” Otherwise shouldn’t believers come gather together in the name of Jesus? Even the legitimate separation of distance can become an excuse to not meet with other believers who are too far away. While we may not be able to regularly meet together, we should be aware and at times meet with believers across a broader range of geography. It is intriguing to read the New Testament and see how much Christians across the Roman Empire knew about one another (with very few communication options compared to what we have today).

What do you believe are legitimate reasons for separating/segregating our churches?


Quotes from Review: Come, Let Us Reason Together: The Unity of Jews and Gentiles in the Church by Baruch Maoz

“Ethnicities, doctrinal issues that do not reflect on the glory of Christ, cultures, and human interests must not be allowed to define congregations. To transgress this standard is to promote a man-centered gospel that places human interests on the throne where God in Christ should be sitting. It is to forsake the biblical focus that should characterize all who seek to serve God. (p. 159)”

“Seeking the comfort zone, we avoid the tensions that a multicultural, multinational, multilingual, multi-layered church would posit. (p. 168)”

Beebe on freedom of religion

Gilbert Beebe: "To protect the people from coercive interference with the sacred rights of conscience in matters of religion, the first Congress of the United States that ever assembled under the Constitution was convened in the city of New York, March 4, 1789, at which time and place the following amendment to the Constitution was proposed and submitted to the several states for their approval and was concurred in by the states and became a part of our Constitution: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'. What is now sought for is to so change our Constitution as to indicate that the United States 'are a Christian Nation'. The scriptures of truth recognize but one such nation, and that is called, 'A chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, and a peculiar people'. Into that nation can none enter except they be born of water and of the Spirit, and none can ever see it except they be born again. A Christian nation must be an establishment of religion, and no law concerning it has Congress any power to make, nor have any power to prevent the free exercise of it." -- Originally from The Signs of the Times and reprinted in the Old Faith Contender, October-December, 1980, edited and published by W. J. Berry

Paul: The Separated Apostle

Paul: The Separated Apostle, by T. David Simpson

“But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by His grace.” Galatians 1:15

Paul was separated by God
Paul claimed: “when it pleased God, (He) separated me” (Gal 1:15). Separation came not upon the condition of his will but of God’s. The interjection of man’s will into election before time, justification at the cross, or effectual grace in experience is false doctrine.

Paul was separated from false religion
The apostle quoted Isaiah saying, “Come out from among them, and be ye separate” (2 Cor. 6:17). His subject was not morality or marriage, but truth in opposition to error. False doctrine has to do with people: “them”. The gospel, the faith, is a single and settled body of truth. Determining the characteristics of the faith and departing from error is not an option. It is what believers do!

Paul was separated to the gospel
The apostle announced he was: “separated unto the gospel of God” (Rom 1:1). His perspective and preaching were limited and purposeful: condemnation by a representative; justification by a Representative (5:12-19). Those who reject Paul’s gospel of forgiveness, redemption, and justification, not only by, but at the cross, consider him narrow. He didn’t vacillate but declared the gospel to which he was separated.

T. David Simpson, From Shreveport Grace Church Bulletin -- February 15, 2009