#77 – What the Gospels Teach – The Disciples Sent – Matthew 10:1-8

Jesus summoned His twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every kind of disease and every kind of sickness. Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; and James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed Him. These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them: "Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. "And as you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.' "Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Freely you received, freely give. (Matthew 10:1-8 NASB)

Jesus gathers the twelve, gives them authority, and sends them.  First realize that they are not sent to perform miracles because of some level of piety or faith that they have acquired.  They are given authority by Christ, because Christ chose to give them (the twelve) authority.  This may seem trivial, but it’s not.  This text must never be used to promote healings, recitations of the dead, and casting out of demons, on the basis of faith and righteousness.  It was not by the working of the twelve that any of these things happened, it was merely by the authority Christ gave. Again these things only happen by the authority given by God, and in the case of this passage it was unique to twelve individuals (who might I add did not yet realize that Christ was even the Son of God.)  The other thing interesting about this passage is that Christ did not send the Disciples to the gentiles.  Now if this is the normal Christian life, raising the dead, casting out demons, healing every kind of sickness, then is the normal Christian life also only to go the lost sheep of Israel?  Of course not!  The point is that this sending is unique... it is not the Christian standard.

This is a short post, but it is important when you read a text like this to take it at face value.  First, this was authority given by Christ to twelve men, and not universally to all the disciples who followed Him around.  Second it was authority given by Christ not on the basis of merit, prayer life, piety, faith, or anything else other than the will of Christ.  Finally this mission was only to the lost sheep of Israel.

There is a lot more to say in the upcoming posts, but I did not want to bite off more than 8 verses for 1 post.

#76 – What the Gospels Teach – The Compassion of Christ – Matthew 9:35-38

Jesus was going through all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness. Seeing the people, He felt compassion for them, because they were distressed and dispirited like sheep without a shepherd. Then He *said to His disciples, "The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. "Therefore beseech the Lord of the harvest to send out workers into His harvest." (Matthew 9:35-38 NASB)

This is an important text to consider and a simple reading of it may reveal some areas of failure in American Christianity, especially within the Church growth movement, and prosperity movement.  Jesus is traveling as an itinerate preacher from synagogue to synagogue preaching the gospel of the kingdom (repentance and faith).  Moreover He is healing sickness and disease.  I have labored much over this on this blog, but it is critical to see the balance of Christ’s ministry, teaching and preaching the Gospel and service to the sick and in need.  It is always both and.  If you neglect proclaiming the gospel you are a humanist service org, and if you neglect service you are a resounding gong.  We read that Jesus sees the people and has compassion on them... what people?  The distressed and dispirited... In response to what He sees He tells the disciples that the harvest is plentiful and to seek God to send out workers.  Who is the harvest?  The distressed and the dispirited.

The reason I say this text has serious implications to American Christendom and particularly the Church Growth movement is that in most Growth focused ministries it is not the distressed and dispirited that are harvested.  People take surveys, find the growing areas, look at financial statistics, and so on, then they plant a church where it is most likely to grow.  Look!  The Church is not about growing, it is about harvesting.  Jesus did not say look there is fertile soil, go plant... He says there is a harvest go pluck.  Again, in our strategizing we look for people who will be able to financially support growth, once that is shored up we will go to the distressed and dispirited, and we end up harvesting the wrong crop into our barn.

Does God desire that those who are affluent be redeemed?  Well He certainly does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked, but if He desires the affluent, spirited, and non-distressed to be redeemed, He will redeem them thru the witness of the Church going to the distressed!  Our job is to seek conformity to Christ in all things, and that includes serving and seeking those whom He commanded us to serve and seek.  I could ramble on forever on this.  For instance, we go all seeker sensitive, should we be the seekers of the lost.  We know from scripture that no one seeks God, but instead that God seeks them, and He sends us into the harvest for that.

I have to end here due to time.

#75 – What the Gospels Teach – The Accusation Against Christ – Matthew 9:32-34

As they were going out, a mute, demon-possessed man was brought to Him. After the demon was cast out, the mute man spoke; and the crowds were amazed, and were saying, "Nothing like this has ever been seen in Israel." But the Pharisees were saying, "He casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons." (Matthew 9:32-34 NASB)

This passage gives us a little bit of insight into how Jesus was received, and we would do well to understand this little bit.  First, when the crowds saw what He did they were amazed, seeing that one who was possessed was exorcised and could speak again.  The initial reaction of the people was positive to Christ’s ministry.  At the same time the Pharisees injected doubt into their minds, saying that it is by the ruler of the demons that Jesus cast out demons.  Notice that the Pharisees cannot deny what Christ has done, but they can deny how and why He has done it.  Ultimately the Pharisees stance on Christ will gain more adherents than the truth about Christ will gain, and He will be nailed to a cross in light of that.  There is a lot to be considered here.

First, we need to have a biblical understanding of persecution.  Christ clearly was being persecuted by the Pharisees for the entirety of His ministry on earth, but notice how the persecution came.  Jesus was not persecuted overtly for righteousness sake, instead the Pharisees conjured up doubt in the minds of the people around Him.  It was not at all that they were opposed to the works of Christ, they were opposed to the person of Christ, and more than that the Father who gave Him the authority to perform those works.  If we are to be persecuted we will not be persecuted as ‘Christians’, or ‘for our good deeds’.  We will not be persecuted on the basis of truth, but on the basis of lies.  Jesus did not cast out demons by the ruler of demons, but that was accusation.  Unfortunately Christians have a very false sense in these days of what persecution is really going to be like.  We have a thin skinned view that somehow taking ‘In God We Trust’ off money, or removing the pledge of allegiance from the schools somehow amounts to persecution.  We are too busy fighting the wrong battles.

Real persecution when it comes will come more in the form of lies.  Maybe we will be accused of being pedophiles, or murders, or homophobes or whatever.  When you see people talking about how Christians are out shooting up abortion clinics, even though the death of Dr. Tiller was the first clinic shooting in nearly 10 years, that is a form of the persecution that is to come.  When everything said by the secular and unbelieving religious community about genuine Christians becomes lies then we know real persecution has arrived.  We need to shed this romantic view of persecution that we have, because it is not the biblical view.  When we are persecuted it will not be some glorious suffering in the eyes of the world, or even our brethren, no it will be embarrassing lies, half-truths, and misconceptions that are spread about us.

Jesus was not criticized for what He did, instead He was lied about.  We ought to expect the same.

#74 – What the Gospels Teach – Jesus not Stopping - Matthew 9:27-31

As Jesus went on from there, two blind men followed Him, crying out, "Have mercy on us, Son of David!" When He entered the house, the blind men came up to Him, and Jesus *said to them, "Do you believe that I am able to do this?" They *said to Him, "Yes, Lord." Then He touched their eyes, saying, "It shall be done to you according to your faith." And their eyes were opened. And Jesus sternly warned them: "See that no one knows about this!" But they went out and spread the news about Him throughout all that land. (Matthew 9:27-31 NASB)

This text brings forth a couple interesting points.  First, notice that the blind men were following Jesus, and followed Him all the way to a house.  The chronology of this, can be missed if we read it too quickly.  We have this assumption that Jesus sees these two blind men has mercy on them and heals them, but the passage says something altogether different than that.  Two blind men were following Jesus and crying out “Have mercy on us, Son of David!”  We have no indication of how long they followed, or how far this house was away, but we do see that at the house they caught up to Him, and then He healed them.  It is important to notice the unique nature of all of these healings.  In one case we have a woman touching the garment of Christ, another where a man calls Christ to His home to raise His daughter, some healing of the unclean, and other miracles performed for Roman leaders, the healings are all very unique.  In the case of this healing the blind men had to pursue Jesus crying out, and eventually had to catch up to Him.  This is not the typical image we get of Jesus, normally we think of Him stopping to serve all and not walking on to His next stop while people in need are crying out.  You cannot call this healing the ‘normal’ method, but at the same time you cannot call it abnormal either.  The point is that there is no standard protocol for healing.  God is not going to be manipulated or convinced to heal based on your 12 steps, or your specific program.  Healing is unique and not bound to a system.

The second point is Jesus’ stern warning. “See that no one knows about this!”  Why was Jesus stern?  Was He avoiding these people for a reason, and then giving in and healing them, but not without issuing a stern warning?  Why would He give a command He knew they wouldn’t keep?  Was it sin when they went and spread the news?  The sternness of Jesus’ warning should at least give us a clue that He meant business, this was not a trite, “let this be our little secret” type thing, but instead it was a forceful command.  This healing is enigmatic to me, the only compassion Jesus’ offers is the healing itself, but the time leading up to the healing He is walking away from them, and the time after the healing He is issuing a stern warning.  There is no forgiveness of sin mentioned, no looking upon them with compassion, it was more of a cold healing.  Did these men ‘use’ Jesus?  Did Jesus know that these men were yet unregenerate and did not want them proclaiming Christ so as to cause His name to be blasphemed?  Obviously these are questions I have no answers to, but I do think this healing deserves more than a cursory look, as its uniqueness is important to the Gospel narrative.

On a side note, I have been posting much less lately and I really miss it.  Writing has kinda fallen out of my routine as I have begun pursuing Greek.  At the same time Greek has fallen out temporarily too, and I have been wasting time laying in bed until 7 or later.  Lack of discipline leads to all sorts of malady and lack of joy so I resolve by the grace of God to shed this temporary apathy.  Not promising more posts, but hopefully that will be a result of this resolve.

#73 – What the Gospel Teaches - A healing within a healing – Matthew 9:18-26

While he was saying these things to them, behold, a ruler came in and knelt before him, saying, "My daughter has just died, but come and lay your hand on her, and she will live." And Jesus rose and followed him, with his disciples. And behold, a woman who had suffered from a discharge of blood for twelve years came up behind him and touched the fringe of his garment, for she said to herself, "If I only touch his garment, I will be made well." Jesus turned, and seeing her he said, "Take heart, daughter; your faith has made you well." And instantly the woman was made well. And when Jesus came to the ruler's house and saw the flute players and the crowd making a commotion, he said, "Go away, for the girl is not dead but sleeping." And they laughed at him. But when the crowd had been put outside, he went in and took her by the hand, and the girl arose. And the report of this went through all that district. (Matthew 9:18-26 ESV)

There are so many facets to this narrative it is hard to handle in one post.  At the same time the resurrection of the dead girl cannot be separated from the healing of the woman who touched His garment considering the touching of the garment is a narrative within the narrative.  Let’s take the two miracles together; the resurrection miracle was precipitated by a ruler addressing Christ face to face.  The curing of the hemorrhage was precipitate by a woman secretly touching the garment of Christ.  The resurrection miracle was a miracle requested on behalf of a daughter, the hemorrhage miracle was requested by the one being healed.  These two miracles are very different in many ways, and yet they exist right here within each other, and in the divine plan of God we presume it is this way for a reason.

People’s propensity towards Pharisaic thinking was known by God.  God is immutable, and yet humanity at large, as well as on a personal level are constantly in a state of flux.  Our tendency is to swing from complete and utter immorality as an unbeliever into a gracious appreciation for Christ as a new believer, and then often we swing past gracious appreciation in order to create rules and regulations to impose upon people beyond what the bible imposes.  What does this have to do with this text?  Everything!  Had Christ performed these miracles in separate contexts one could be led to believe that it is either the faith of someone else that must heal you, or that it is the faith of yourself that brings you healing.  Had Christ performed these miracles in separate contexts someone could assert that Christ has a preference towards rulers and people who can stand face to face with Him, or on the flip side that He only regards the poor who are afraid to be seen by Him.  Throughout the scriptures we find instances like these where the Lord is working in two or more very different ways simultaneously with two different types of people.  Certainly I do not want to get all post-modern here and say there are not absolutes regarding how God acts, God forbid that I would give that idea.  However, texts like this remind us that it is He who defines those absolutes in His word, not us.  Many in the emergent movement would (though not vocally) have preferred that Christ would not have responded to the ruler’s faith but only responded to woman, this could justify their ‘social justice is everything’ mentality.  On the flip side many fundamentalists struggle with the idea of this woman being made whole coming in through the back door and then facing Jesus.  (See Luke 8:44-48 for a more in depth narrative.)  The beauty of this passage is that the one healing is encapsulated in the other making them forever inseparable even though they are very much different from each other.

Of course there are many other important truths that can be gleaned from this passage.  For instance, Christ is about bigger things than healing a hemorrhage that could obviously be lived with right?  I mean it is more important to raise the dead?  No, not at all, Jesus stops for the ‘lesser’ healing.  Personal application here is pretty obvious, just because God is about dealing with bigger things in this world than your life, does not mean He is not about dealing with your life.  Or what about the laughter of the people in the midst of the death of this girl, and their utter brazenness and lack of compassion, and yet the desperation that led the ruler to believe on Christ for the miracle.  Of course what about how foolish they must have felt when she walked in on her own funeral... alive.  There is a lot of good stuff here, but I will stop right here and move on to the next passage in the next post.

It has been difficult posting lately.  I hope to ramp it back up a bit, as I have found that writing through this gospel has been a great help to me, cannot promise to be daily though.

#72- What the Gospels Teach – New Cloth and Wine – Matthew 9:14-17

Then the disciples of John *came to Him, asking, "Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast?" And Jesus said to them, "The attendants of the bridegroom cannot mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them, can they? But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast. "But no one puts a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; for the patch pulls away from the garment, and a worse tear results. "Nor do people put new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wineskins burst, and the wine pours out and the wineskins are ruined; but they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved." (Matthew 9:14-17 NASB)

Ok, I want to tread very carefully on this passage.  Please note at the very outset that I have a lot of trouble understanding this text.  While one could argue that this entire Gospel of Matthew Series is a matter of my personal opinion (I would not agree that it is) I will confess that in this post I am stretching to make a connection and this is more of an opinion than a proclamation of an absolute.

It would be inappropriate to take this passage in two sections as it is clear from the context that the parable concerning the unshrunk cloth and the new wineskins are meant as explanations as to why the disciples do not fast.  The text is inseparable, and to preach the parable of the wineskins and the cloth outside of the context of fasting would be dishonest.  Now in the text we find that the Pharisees fast and the disciples of John fast but the Disciples of Christ do not fast at all.  We also see with clarity that after Christ (the bridegroom) is taken away from them they will indeed fast.  Of course mourning and fasting cannot occur in the presence of the bridegroom while they are yet together because it is to be a time of joy and not of mourning.  Now Jesus gives this parable in order to explain what the results of His disciples fasting would be if indeed they fasted before His death, resurrection, and ascension.

Jesus knows full well that in the fulfillment of the Law, with the kingdom of God at hand, the ritual of fasting takes on an entirely different meaning.  The disciples will fast because of the absence of the bridegroom, they will fast as a sign of their longing for the presence of Christ.  They will fast as ones seek Christ, not out of religious obligation or to display righteousness, but out of honest longing for the Lord and His presence and out of honest gratitude for what He has done.  Now, in light of that, it would make no sense that they would fast while in His presence if the reason for their fasting was to be His absence and gratitude for what He had done.  If the ‘new’ reason for fasting is a longing for the Lord we cannot fast with the ‘new’ reason by performing the old ritual.  In other words, the legalistic once or twice a week fast of the Pharisees did not reflect  honest gratitude for what Christ has done, and pain of missing Christ.  So you have the rough unshrunk and scratchy cloth of missing Christ along with the wine of gratitude for what He has done... you cannot sew the loss of Christ to the fabric of a ritual, or fill a wineskin of obligation with the wine of Gratitude.  If you try, you will lose the wine of gratitude when the ritualistic skin cannot contain it and you will be left with nothing.  And when you sew that rough new cloth of longing for Christ to the old smooth cloth of ritual the longing for Christ will be destroyed and you will be left with damaged ritual.  The new fast has a new reason, and the old ritual cannot be made one with the new fast.

Again please understand that I took some liberty with this text, and I hope that I did not go too far in making it say something that it does not really say.  I am open to your thoughts on the passage if you have any.  Please correct me if necessary.

The Semantics of the Tulip

I have debated whether or not to write on this topic, or whether or not it was appropriate for this blog, especially as this blog has migrated more towards begin a reflection of my reading through Matthew.  Nonetheless as trivial as this deviation from Matthew may seem to some, it does seem rather important to me.  So being as this is my little public venue I suppose there is no better place to put this then here.

In recent months I have found myself aligning more and more with a Reformed understanding of the Christian faith, and have come to believe that for the most part the ‘Reformed’ position seems to be the biblical position.  I know this is a bit of an over simplification as there are many breeds of ‘reformed’ Christians, and that to simply say ‘Reformed theology is biblical’ is really not saying anything at all unless you define that theology.  Now please understand I write this in humility knowing that I am no scholar.  I will address the 5 points of Calvinism known by the acronym tulip.  Personally I do not know the entire history of these points, except that they were a rebuttal to the theology of Amininus.  Specifically the five points of contention that the Arminians had with Calvin which they presented at the Remonstrance of 1610.  Again, I am open to correction on any of this.  So in preparing this post I looked into the Canon’s of Dort and realized that there is no express ‘tulip’ anywhere in it... TULIP seems to be the summary of what the Synod of Dort came up with in rebuttal to the Remonstrance of 1610.  ANYWAY... most of us who have never done the major research on this simply know Calvinism as the acronym of TULIP and we accept it or reject it based on an oversimplified summary of the Cannons of Dort.  (Again if I am saying anything wrong, please, please, please... correct me, I really do not feel like looking like an imbecile on the web.)

So, in light of the fact that the majority of Christians (Calvinist or non-Calvinist) understanding of Calvinism is reduced to the simplified TULIP acronym I plan to share how I initially accepted Calvinism, then rejected it altogether, and have returned to accept it.  Moreover I propose to explain why semantics of the TULIP drove myself and others away.  Also, I do not propose to change these points, and fully recognize that many scholars have labored over these points many years even lifetimes and I am not a man who has earned any standing by which to say this system is all wrong.

Total Depravity

Unconditional Election

Limited Attonement

Irresistible Grace

Perseverance of the Saints

 

Beginning with TOTAL DEPRAVITY, I would say this is the one point of the five that I personally have never taken issue with.  Even in the Articles of Faith of the Methodist Church penned by Wesley (an inconsistent Arminian) asserts the total depravity of man in a way that even the most reformed of theologians would gladly accept.  While I have never looked at the Remonstrance of 1610, I am curious as to how they differed on this.  It is however popular today for people to ‘try to find the good in others’ and if indeed the person is unregenerate that good will never be found, and if they are regenerate the only good that will be found is the Christ Himself who dwells within them.  I like the term Entirely Fallen even though I think total depravity is an adequate expression of the same thing.  Entirely Fallen makes the logical connection to the fall and how it has completely effected us in our entirety.

UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION.  This is the second place where I began to struggle against Calvinism.  In the scriptures we find conditions upon salvation... mainly repentance and faith without which no one will be saved.  The word unconditional taken at face value seems unbiblical and provides the non-Calvinist, or even the weak Calvinist a reason to reject this point.  It would be better if ‘unconditional’ were left off of this point, or replaced with the word Sovereign.  Sovereign Election communicates the simple fact that it is entirely the working and will of God which elects a soul, but does not raise the question about conditions.  Again, there are conditions to election, conditions which the Sovereign God has determined to fulfill in us and through us, entirely of His working an power.  I know this sounds nitpicky or whatever, but when I hear unconditional my gut response is that ‘unconditional election’ negates any requirement for repentance and faith which indeed would go against scripture.  (Just a reminder that this is me explaining the difficulties I have had with Calvinism because of semantics, not because of the actual doctrines meanings.)

LIMITED ATTONEMENT.  This is the doctrine that most non-Calvinists and some 4-point Calvinists take the most exception to.  I also for a long time rejected this doctrine based on the words ‘Limited Atonement’ however today the my understanding of limited atonement brings me tremendous comfort and peace with God.  The difficulty for me was with the term ‘limited’.  How can anything having to do with Christ the infinite God be limited?  Even the atonement itself has resulted in benefit to all people regardless of whether their sins have been atoned for or not.  It is because of the atonement that the benevolence of Christians has benefitted and salted the entire earth.  In that sense there is no limits to Christ’s atonement.  I prefer the term Specific Atonement to that of limited atonement.  When I realize that God with all of time laid out before Him, and all the actions and sin that man would ever commit before His face knowing full well who His children were... that He would then look at all the sins of His children (elect) and pour His wrath out specifically for those sins on His Son... well I find great comfort knowing that my sins have specifically been atoned for... every single one.  Specific atonement in my limited opinion is a far better way of communication what the 3^rd point of Calvinism is attempting to communicate.  There is a lot peace and gratitude for Christ that comes when you consider a Specific atonement... however when you consider ‘limited’ atonement it seems that you consider a ‘limited’ Christ.  Again, it is semantics, but semantics do matter as they have caused my doctrines to move all over the place over the last 8 years.

IRRESISTIBLE GRACE.  If there were any point that has made me question Calvinism it would be the point of irresistible grace.  The simple praxis of life and the evidence of every believer and non-believer alike seems to scream of resistance against grace.  The term irresistible grace seems to be a contradiction to total depravity.  Again, when you reduce the five points down to a simple acronym this type of confusion is bound to arise.  Grace is resistible in the sense that fallen man, and even the redeemed man have a propensity towards resisting grace.  The point is not that one cannot resist grace, the point is that resistance is futile.  Again, this is semantics, but I cannot be the only person who has struggled much with these things because of semantics.  In the Specific Atonement Christ indeed died for the sins of the ‘Elect’ all of the sins, so for a man who has been ‘Elect’ to die unregenerate is indeed an impossibility.  The conditions of salvation will be met by all who are elect and specifically atoned for... the conditions of faith and repentance.  Resistance of Grace must be futile, and the power of Grace must be supreme because it is only by that Grace that the specifically atoned for are saved.  I guess my proposed rewording would be Omnipotent Grace.  Again, the reason being that grace can be resisted, but grace cannot be overpowered, resistance to grace though possible and even probable is still none the less futile.

PERSERVERANCE OF THE SAINTS.  There are definitely some difficult passages that at face value speak against the perseverance of the saints, the classic passages being in Hebrews 6:4-6 and Hebrews 10:26.  At the same time we find other passages that seem to speak to the fact that those given to Christ will never fall away, or will indeed be preserved.  The difference is in practice and reality.  Those who have made a strong profession of faith, who seemed to follow hard after Jesus, but never truly believed will be case hardened against the Gospel after they formally reject the Gospel they merely thought they believed.  Those who have come to true repentance and faith will indeed persevere.  Of the 5 points I think this is the one that I would not think to suggest a different name for.  It seems to communicate it just fine.  However, because I renamed the others I will do so here for the sake of consistency and say the Continuance of Salvation.  This communicates that a believer will not only be preserved but the fruit of salvation will also continue because of their regenerated nature.  It changes from Once Saved Always Saved, to Once Saved Continually Saved.

So Jay’s points of Calvinism (which I think say the same thing as the actual cannons that the TULIP is a simplification of) would be ESSOC, well that isn’t too memorable.

Entirely Fallen

Sovereign Election

Specific Atonement

Omnipotent Grace

Continuance of Salvation

#71 – What the Gospels Teach – Not the Righteous but Sinners – Matthew 9:9-13

As Jesus went on from there, He saw a man called Matthew, sitting in the tax collector's booth; and He *said to him, "Follow Me!" And he got up and followed Him. Then it happened that as Jesus was reclining at the table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were dining with Jesus and His disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to His disciples, "Why is your Teacher eating with the tax collectors and sinners?" But when Jesus heard this, He said, "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick. "But go and learn what this means: 'I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners." (Matthew 9:9-13 NASB)

This is a passage that has been abused so often by the Church as a means to justify licentiousness and folly.  How often do we hear some evangelical say ‘where would Jesus hang out, and with who’ and everyone chimes in ‘He would be in the bars, and with prostitutes, and at the night clubs.’  Of course they will site this passage and others that on the surface seem to support their proposition, and in some sense I agree entirely with what they are saying.  Jesus indeed would have hung out in the night clubs... with harlots and drunks.  Now the next logical step is always to say that we need to be like Christ... to walk as He walked, and to do the things that he has done.  Therefore logically we too must go to the night clubs, visit the drunks and prostitutes and so on.  Again, I would agree with this as well... but it is not the complete story.

What was Christ’s purpose of reclining with ‘sinners’?  To call sinners... to call them to what?  Well what is Christ’s consistent call throughout the Gospel narrative?  Repentance and faith!  Jesus reclines with sinners, not as if He is one of them, He does not lower Himself by any means or become a sinner, but He enters the situation as a physician not as a sick man.  He enters with the intent of healing to call sinners to repentance.  His intent is to call those who are in sin to follow Him.  Now are we to go to these places as Christ has gone?  Of course... but only if we go with the purpose He went with.  Our problem is that we will use this passage and others to justify worldliness as opposed to reading this passage and being empowered as missionaries to these environments.  You see, if you are in this environment participating in sin you miss the point.  Who wants a physician who is always sick?  And if I am always sick do you really want to see my doctor?  Of course not, yet if we drink down sin like water our message of a savior that leads us out of sin becomes invalid.  We are called to be in the world, are not called to be like the world and there is all the difference in the world.

Now one of the other problems with the interpretation of this verse is that whenever a believer is rebuked for participating in ungodliness the will accuse the one rebuking of being like the Pharisees who questioned what Christ was doing.  However, the accusation against the one rebuking is entirely out of bounds unless the Christian is in the environment of sinfulness as an intentional missionary bringing the healing message of the Gospel.

Also, one think you may consider, the Pharisees approached the disciples and asked why Jesus was in eating with the sinners, do you notice that the disciples were not in eating with them?  Did you notice that it was Christ in there calling them out to follow Him, yet the disciples were on the outside being approached by the Pharisees?  Now do not take this too far either.  As believers we are not called to stand on the outside and wait for Christ to go in.  We have been given the Holy Spirit and may indeed be called to go in and proclaim the salvation Christ offers if that is the Spirit’s direction.  At the same time the Spirit never impels us to sin so that grace may abound.

Ok I suppose I have beat that into the ground enough.