PDF version - Grace Communion International

W
I
N
T
E
R
R
E
F
L
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
C
O
N
T
E
N
T
S
Women In Church Leadership Part 4
T
I
S
M
O
N
T
H
’
S
T
H
E
M
E
The “Abundant” Life
2
Many of the practices, events and laws contained in
the Old Testament might seem strange to us. However,
the Old Testament is part of the Bible, and in our survey
of what the Bible says about the relationship between
men and women and God, we need to examine what this
part of Scripture says. We do not want to sugar-coat what
it says, nor to dismiss it.
H
MESSAGE FROM THE EDITOR
I
recently read this passage from a sermon by American, William
H. Willimon, which struck a chord with me:
What does it take to attract people to church these days? About
13 million dollars. At least that is what my denomination is currently spending on a nationwide advertising campaign to attract
new members. "Igniting Ministry," they call this media blitz, translated,
"Oh my, we're dying; let's buy some TV time and beg for new members."
Having been at the national gatherings of my church during this past
year, I got to see, repeatedly, redundantly, all of the TV ads that the
church is proposing to expose to the American public. One has rain
dribbling down a gray-looking window, voiced over with, "Today is my
birthday. I'm 40, and I don't know where I'm going."
Les femmes dans la direction de l’Église :
partie 4
7
Bon nombre des pratiques, événements et lois
contenus dans l’Ancien Testament peuvent nous sembler
étranges. Cependant, l’Ancien Testament fait partie de la
Bible et, dans notre étude pour connaître ce que la Bible
révèle sur les relations entre les hommes, les femmes et
Dieu, nous devons examiner ce que contient cette partie
de l’Écriture. Nous ne voulons pas rendre plus attrayant
ce qu’elle dit ni non plus ne pas en tenir compte.
Shouldn’t Signs And Wonders Accompany
The Gospel?
16
Didn’t Jesus promise miraculous signs would accompany
the preaching of the gospel? So shouldn’t we expect to
see signs, wonders and miracles today?
The Abundance Of Jesus
23
As I consume the last morsel of turkey breast from
my Christmas feast, I am reminded that the majority of
people around the world are having staples today, or perhaps every other day. Rice, vegetables or bread are
among the menu items for most people.
Personal
Women’s Ministry
Director’s Desk
Theme Articles
The Journey
Focus On Grace
Bible Study
Pastor’s Corner
2
13
14
16
23
25
26
32
FRONT COVER: Jesus’ promise to his followers is an abundant
life. Just what did he mean?
Cover Photo: © Designpics
Inside Cover: © Designpics
Additional photos and illustrations:
www.arttoday.com © 2000 - 2005 unless otherwise noted
Northern Light magazine is the official magazine of the
Worldwide Church of God, Canada. It exists to share the
stories of our members and congregations on their
Christian journey. Northern Light does this by featuring
articles that encourage, nurture and inform.
I didn't get that one. I thought it was an ad for a Cadillac with one of
those computerized navigational systems.
No, it ended with, "You are welcome at your local United Methodist
Church." Then there was one with a woman who said she was tired of
being told what to do by people, which I thought was an ad for Prozac.
No, it ended with, "The United Methodist Church open doors, open
minds, open . . ." something else was open, but I forgot.
One clergy cynic, after the session, summed up these church ads with,
"Self-centered, whining Yuppies of the world have we got a church for
you!" Another noted that the dozen ads, attempting to entice people to
church, never once mentioned Jesus…(Pulpit Resource Vol. 32, No. 3,
September 5, 2004).)
What sort of TV commercial would you create to illustrate your walk
with Jesus?
As a Pastor, I’ve pondered this question lately. In doing so, I’ve made
the following observations:
1. God does change lives.
2. God can and does heal, bless, and protect his people.
3. The people of God also suffer, are poor, and sometimes die.
So what are we to expect from this Christian life? Are followers of Jesus
promised a life free from stress and illness along with great riches in
this life—now? What did Jesus mean when he said, “I have come that
they may have life, and have it to the full” (John 10:10 NIV). This issue
of Northern Light is devoted to answering the question of what the
“abundant” or “full” life is all about.NL
Bill Hall
1
P E R S O N A L
By Joseph Tkach
Pastor General
Women In Church Leadership
Part 4
M
any of the practices,
events and laws contained
in the Old Testament might
seem strange to us.
However,
the
Old
Testament is part of the
Bible, and in our survey of what the Bible
says about the relationship between
men and women and God, we need to
examine what this part of Scripture says.
We do not want to sugar-coat what it
says, nor to dismiss it.
We will see many things that we would
not want to imitate, but we will also see
positive examples. And we will see that
some biblical laws are purposely set in
specific cultures to address specific cultural issues, and as such, may not be
intended to be followed blindly.
This two-part survey of the Old
Testament will also provide a contrasting
backdrop for the following study, which
will be about Jesus and women.
Men and Women in the Books of
Moses
In our previous paper, we surveyed the
teaching of Genesis 1-3. In this paper,
we will survey the rest of the books of
Moses. Because of the large volume of
material involved, we will be brief at
many points.
There are numerous interpretive difficulties in this material. Much of it is narrative—it tells the story of what happened
without commenting on whether it was
good or bad. Other parts give laws about
men and women—but even these (such
as laws about divorce) may be an
accommodation to culture rather than a
timeless principle.
2
Moreover, many of the Old Testament
laws are obsolete. Why then should we
even examine these passages about an
ancient society, when we are asking
about a different situation—roles in the
church? Many scholars believe that
roles in the church are assigned by God
in a way that is consistent with Godassigned roles in society. We therefore
want to see what the Bible says about
male and female roles in general—even
if some of that instruction is now obsolete.
We will learn, for one thing, that biblical
commands are often set in their particular cultural situation. This survey will also
provide background for verses in the
New Testament, some of which refer to
Old Testament passages.
Throughout this survey, we cannot conclude that just because something happened, it therefore presents an example
we should follow today. We do not
assume, for example, that Abraham is
the ideal husband, nor Rebekah the
ideal wife. We evaluate behavior based
on New Testament principles, rooted in
Jesus’ command to love your neighbor
as yourself. That command also existed
in the Old Testament, yet certain laws of
Moses required that men not treat
women the way they treated one another.
Genesis
The early chapters of Genesis tell us little about women: We are told that Adam
slept with Eve and she had sons (4:1-2,
25). Cain slept with his wife and she
gave birth to Enoch (4:17). Lamech married two women, Adah and Zillah (v. 19).
In one of the most debated verses of the
Bible, we are told that the “sons of God”
slept with “the daughters of men and
had children by them” (6:4). Noah’s wife
and his daughters-in-law were saved in
the ark (7:13). Genealogies rarely mention women, though it is noted that various men had “sons and daughters”
(11:11 etc.).
Abram married his half-sister Sarai, and
Abram’s brother Nahor married their
niece, Milcah (11:29). Abram, Sarai and
Lot moved to Canaan, and then to Egypt
(12:5, 10).
In Egypt, Abram and Sarai assumed that
Pharaoh would take Sarai because of
her beauty; the only question was whether Abram would survive.
So Abram said that Sarai was his sister,
and Pharaoh indeed took her into his
harem (vv. 15, 19). After God punished
Pharaoh for this, Pharaoh gave Sarai
back and sent them all away.
Later, Abraham did a similar thing with
Abimelech, king of Gerar, saying that
Sarah was his sister, and Sarah said
that Abraham was her brother (20:2, 5).
God warned Abimelech, so he stayed
away from Sarah (vv. 3-4), and Abraham
explained that Sarah was his half-sister
(v. 12). Abimelech acknowledged that he
had offended Sarah, but gave money to
Abraham to cover the offense (v. 16).
Abraham had told a “half-truth,” and
Pharaoh and Abimelech were right to
protest Abraham’s attempts to deceive
them.
Sarah told Abraham to sleep with Hagar,
her maidservant (16:1-2). According to
ancient custom, any resulting children
would then be treated as if borne by the
wife. Sarah said, “Perhaps I can build a
family through her.” Later, Rachel did a
similar thing and said, “Sleep with her so
that she can bear children for me and
that through her I too can build a family”
(30:3).
“Abram agreed to what Sarai said,” and
Hagar became pregnant (16:2-4). Then
there was tension between Sarai and
Hagar, and Sarai unjustly blamed Abram
for the problem (v. 5). Sarah told
Abraham to sleep with Hagar, her maidservant (v. 6). An angel told Hagar to go
back and name her son Ishmael. And
Hagar gave a name to God: “She gave
this name to the Lord who spoke to her:
‘You are the God who sees me’” (v. 13).1
NORTHERN LIGHT
P E R S O N A L
When God told Abraham that Sarah
would have a son, Abraham laughed
and (apparently lacking faith in the
promise) suggested that Ishmael might
be blessed instead (17:17-18). But no,
God’s promise was for Sarah just as
much as it was for Abraham (vv. 16, 19).
Later, God again said that Sarah would
have a son, and Sarah laughed (18:12).
“Sarah was afraid, so she lied and said,
‘I did not laugh’” (v. 15).
In chapter 19, Lot set a horrifying example. When the men of Sodom wanted to
have relations with Lot’s visitors, Lot
offered the men his virgin daughters
(even though they were pledged to
someone else) to “do what you like with
them.”
Lot felt more obligated to protect his visitors than his own daughters! But the
angels rescued Lot and his daughters.
Lot reached safety in the village of Zoar,
and God destroyed Sodom. Lot’s wife
looked back and was killed. Lot and his
daughters moved to the mountains, and
there his daughters got him drunk and
became pregnant by him. It is a tragic
story.
Sarah gave birth to Isaac, and when he
was weaned, she told Abraham to get rid
of Hagar and Ishmael (21:10). Abraham
was concerned about Ishmael, but God
told him to do whatever Sarah said (v.
12). So Hagar and Ishmael were sent
into the desert, where they would have
died, except for God’s intervention.
Sarah died at age 127 and was buried
near Hebron. Abraham also had sons
(no daughters are mentioned) by
Keturah and some concubines (25:1-6).
Isaac married Rebekah, the daughter of
his cousin Bethuel. She was a girl willing
to talk to strangers, industrious enough
to volunteer to water 10 camels, willing
to extend hospitality on behalf of her
family, adventurous enough to go on a
one-way journey to Canaan, and willing
to speak for herself (24:15-61). Abraham
specified from the start that she had to
be willing (v. 8).
J A N U A R Y F E B R U A R Y
C O N T I N U E D
Rebekah was barren at first (barrenness
was generally blamed on the woman),
but Isaac prayed for her, and she
became pregnant (25:21). After the
babies fought within her, she inquired of
the Lord, who told her that the older son
would serve the younger one.
(Apparently she did not have to go
through her husband to inquire of the
Lord, or to receive an answer.)
the eyes of her brothers. Shechem
offered to pay as much as was wanted,
but “Jacob’s sons replied deceitfully”
and slaughtered the city, taking women
and children as slaves (34:13, 29).
Jacob complained about this, but
Simeon and Levi responded, “Should he
have treated our sister like a prostitute?”
Yet it was their mother who had purchased a night with their father.
Rebekah knew that the Lord would bless
Jacob, and she favored Jacob, but Isaac
favored Esau (25:28). When Rebekah
learned that Isaac wanted to bless Esau
(contrary to God’s intent), she conspired
with Jacob to deceive Isaac (27:5-10).
She prepared the meat, and Jacob pretended to be Esau and obtained the
blessing. When Esau wanted to kill
Jacob, Rebekah told Jacob to go to
Haran. She managed to get Isaac to
bless him yet again and send him to
northern Mesopotamia to find a wife
(27:42-28:5).
Rachel had said, “Give me children, or
I’ll die” (30:1). And when she had her
second child, she died. She named him
Son of My Trouble, but Jacob renamed
him Benjamin, son of my right hand
(probably a reference to Rachel). She
was buried near Bethlehem (35:19).
Esau married two Hittite women, Judith
and Basemath (26:34). His parents did
not like his Hittite wives, so he married a
cousin, Mahalath, daughter of Ishmael,
and others (28:9; 36:2-3).
Isaac moved to Gerar because of a
famine, and just as his father had done,
he told Abimelech that his wife was his
sister (26:7), and Abimelech protested
(v. 10).
Jacob was deceived by Laban, and
ended up marrying two sisters. Leah had
four children, and Rachel demanded
that Jacob sleep with her handmaid so
that she could have a surrogate family.
Leah did the same, and at one point she
paid Rachel for the opportunity to sleep
with Jacob (30:16). There are plenty of
wrong examples in this history. Rachel
stole her father’s household idols and
lied to her father (31:35).
In the city of Shechem, there was a
prince named Shechem who slept with
Dinah, the daughter of Leah, which
caused her to be defiled and shamed in
2 0 0 5
Reuben, the firstborn son of Leah, slept
with Bilhah, the handmaid of the nowdeceased Rachel (v. 22). As firstborn, he
would have eventually inherited his
father’s concubines, but because of his
premature action, he lost his status as
firstborn (1 Chron. 5:1).
Genesis 38 tells the story of Tamar.
Judah had married Shua, and they had
sons named Er, Onan and Shelah.
Judah got a wife for Er named Tamar.
God killed Er, and in keeping with
ancient custom, the next brother was
supposed to sleep with the widow to produce offspring in Er’s name (v. 8; cf.
Deut. 25:5). But Onan did not want to
make offspring for Er (because Onan
would then get a smaller inheritance),
and God killed him, too. But even after
Shelah had come of age, he was not
sent to Tamar to give her children.
So Tamar pretended to be a prostitute
and became pregnant by her father-inlaw, Judah. When the pregnancy
became known, Judah threatened to
burn her to death, but when she proved
that Judah was the father, he said, “She
is more righteous than I, since I wouldn’t
give her to my son Shelah” (v. 26). She
had upheld her duty to her family, but he
had not.
3
P E R S O N A L
C O N T I N U E D
Women play a smaller role in the Joseph
story. Joseph had a dream in which the
sun, moon and 11 stars bowed before
him. The moon was interpreted as his
mother (37:10), even though she was
dead.
Potiphar’s wife wanted to sleep with
Joseph, but when Joseph refused, she
accused him of attempted rape (39:14).
But she has no further role in the story.
Pharaoh gave Joseph a wife—Asenath,
the daughter of an Egyptian priest, and
they had two sons, Manasseh and
Ephraim (41:45-52).
Exodus–Deuteronomy— narratives
Exodus begins with the initiative of some
women. The Hebrew midwives Shiphrah
and Puah refused to kill Israelite boys.
They lied to Pharaoh, and God blessed
them (Ex. 1:19-20). A Levite mother hid
her son for three months, then put him in
a basket on the Nile; his sister watched
while Pharaoh’s daughter rescued the
boy. The sister offered to find a wet
nurse, and so the mother was paid to
nurse her own baby (2:1-9).
After Moses fled to Midian, he came to
the defense of seven women and
watered their flock of sheep; he married
one of them, Zipporah, and they had a
son named Gershom (2:15-22). When
God was about to kill Moses, Zipporah
saved his life by circumcising Gershom
and touching Moses with the foreskin
(4:25).
God told Moses to lead the Israelites out
of Egypt, and he promised to make the
Egyptians favorably disposed toward
them. “Every woman is to ask her neighbor and any woman living in her house
for articles of silver and gold and for
clothing” (3:22). Later he told Moses that
both men and women should ask their
neighbors for silver and gold (11:2).
Miriam the prophetess led the women
singing and dancing in worship (Ex.
15:20). Later, she and Aaron spoke
against Moses because of his Cushite
4
wife, and Miriam was punished for a
week (Num. 12:1-15), presumably
because she was the chief instigator; no
mention is made of her gender.
Men and women alike were involved in
the golden calf (Ex. 32:2-3), and men
and women alike were involved in building the tabernacle (35:22-29).
In Numbers 27, the daughters of
Zelophehad petitioned Moses for a
change in inheritance laws, allowing
daughters to inherit if there were no
sons. Moses took the request to God,
who said, “What Zelophehad’s daughters are saying is right,” and their
request was written into the law (vv. 111). These women left a permanent
mark in the laws of the old covenant.
Exodus-Deuteronomy—laws
Just as in other neighboring cultures,
laws were normally written in the masculine, as if only men would commit
crimes. For example: “If a man [‘iysh]
steals an ox or a sheep… If a man borrows an animal… (Ex. 22:1-14). The
NRSV rightly translates these to be
inclusive: “When someone steals an ox
or a sheep… Whenever someone borrows an animal…” Many additional
examples could be given of laws that
assume the person is a male; a few laws
mention women as well. All the laws of
incest are given from the male perspective (Lev. 18).2
The laws of Israel sometimes apply to
men and women equally, sometimes
unequally. We will present some of them
to illustrate points of equality and
aspects of inequality.
God said he punished the sins of the
fathers to the third and fourth generation
(Ex. 20:5), but nothing is said about the
sins of the mothers. Women were
specifically included in the Sabbath
commandment (v. 10) and the commandment to honor parents (v. 12).
Anyone who cursed or attacked either
parent was to be killed (21:15, 17). But
in the tenth commandment, the “neighbor” is presumed to be male —nothing is
said about the possibility that the neighbor might be a widow who owned property (20:17).
If a Hebrew man became an indentured
servant, he was to be set free after six
years, and his wife would be free, too;
but if the master gave him a wife, she
and her children did not have to be set
free (21:2-4). The man could stay with
his family only if he became a servant for
life (vv. 5-6). Servants, whether male or
female, were to be freed if injured. A bull
that killed either a man or a woman was
to be destroyed (vv. 26-28).
If a female was sold as a servant,3 she
was not to be set free. (In that society,
such “freedom” might force her into
prostitution.) She could be sold to
Hebrews, but not to foreigners. If she
was purchased for a son, she had to be
treated as a daughter. If the son married
another woman, he must not deprive the
first one of conjugal rights, or else he
must set her free (21:7-11). The last
verse may imply that sexual relations
were involved in the previous situations
as well; it was common for female servants to be concubines.
If men caused a premature birth through
reckless behavior,4 they could be fined
“whatever the woman’s husband
demands” (21:22). No mention is made
of what the woman wanted. If a man
slept with a virgin, he had to pay a brideprice, even if the father did not allow the
marriage (22:16-17).5
Women were unclean for a longer period of time after giving birth to a female
(Lev. 12:1-5). After an emission of
semen, men would be unclean until
evening; but women would be unclean
for seven days for menstruation, and her
uncleanness was more transferable
(Lev. 15:16-24).
For vow redemption, females were valued less than males were (Lev. 27:2-7).
NORTHERN LIGHT
P E R S O N A L
Both sexes could take Nazirite vows to
dedicate themselves to divine service
(Num. 6:1).6 Women were permitted to
take religious vows, but they would be
valid only if the father or husband
approved (Num. 30:3-14). A vow by a
widow or divorced woman was automatically valid (v. 9).
Apparently women could not be priests,
although no law specifically addresses
that (but most men could not be priests,
either). A priest could give sacrificial food
to his daughters, even to those who had
returned to the family after being widowed or divorced (Num. 18:11; Lev.
22:13).
Males were required to go to the festivals and give an offering three times a
year (Deut. 16:16), but it was assumed
that women, children and widows would
normally go as well (26:12; 31:12).
When the Israelites captured women in
war, they could take a woman as a
wife.7 She could be freed, but not sold or
treated as a slave (Deut. 21:10-14). If a
man married two women, he was to
count the firstborn son (who got the larger inheritance) fairly, not based on which
wife he liked more (vv. 15-17).
If a betrothed woman voluntarily slept
with another man, she was guilty of
adultery and both people would be killed
(22:23-24). But if it happened in the
country, it was presumed to be a rape,
and only the man was to be killed (Deut.
22:23-27). If the girl was not betrothed,
the man would be forced to pay 50
shekels and marry her, without right of
divorce (vv. 28-29). The law did not give
the girl any say in this.
If a man suspected that his new bride
was not a virgin, he could challenge her.
If evidence of virginity could not be
given, the woman was to be stoned at
her father’s house, for being promiscuous while under his care (22:13-21).8 If a
man had been married for a while and
suspected his wife of infidelity, he could
J A N U A R Y F E B R U A R Y
bring an offering to the priest and put her
to a test (Num. 5:12-28); the law presumed her innocence and left the punishment up to God’s intervention.
If it could be proved that a wife slept with
someone else, she and the other man
were to be killed (Deut. 22:22)—but it
did not work the other way around. A
husband who slept with a prostitute, for
example, was not considered guilty of
adultery. Similarly, laws did not require
men to be virgins when they married.
Men could have multiple wives, but
women could not have multiple husbands. Laws regulated the sexual
behavior of young women and wives,
but they did not regulate the sexual
behavior of widows; nor did they prohibit prostitution.9
If a man wanted to divorce his wife, he
had to provide her with a paper that permitted her to marry someone else (Deut.
24:1-4). The woman was not given the
right to divorce her husband.
Wives were legally under the authority of
their husbands, and were sometimes
treated like property, but they were not in
the same legal status as “property”—
they were not part of an inheritance,
although concubines were. “A wife could
not be sold as an ox or a donkey
could…. A woman’s conjugal rights…
distinguished her from the slave who
was truly owned.”10
Conclusion
Women were usually better off under the
laws of Moses than they would have
been in other nations.11 Nevertheless,
many of the above laws still strike us as
favoring men over women. How should
we respond to these laws?
First, we must acknowledge that the
laws, as part of the old covenant, are
obsolete. Christians today are under no
obligation to live by these laws.
2 0 0 5
C O N T I N U E D
This is not the place to spell
out ethics for the diverse
situations that people get
themselves into—we are
simply pointing out that
these laws, although biblical,
were given in a particular
cultural context, and we
should not view them as
timeless directives from
God. Even in the New
Testament, there are directives that have been shaped
by culture—head coverings
for women, greeting people
with a kiss, making a roster
of older widows, etc. We will
discuss these in a later
paper, but for now it is sufficient to note that the Old
Testament is culturally limited to a far greater extent
than the New Testament is.
Second, we must recognize that even
when the old covenant was in force,
these laws did not describe the ideal
society. Jesus pointed out that the law of
divorce was a concession that God
allowed because the people were sinful
(Matt. 19:8). An already existing custom
5
P E R S O N A L
C O N T I N U E D
was regulated to prevent flagrant abuses, but the law did not imply approval of
the custom itself.
The same is true for many of the other
laws, such as those that implied a
greater sexual freedom for men than for
women. The lack of penalty for men
should not be taken as a divine endorsement of their freedom to visit prostitutes,
for example. It was a patriarchal culture,
and God allowed some inequities to continue for a time.
We believe that no one should be
bought or sold into slavery. We believe
that the life-long commitment of marriage should not be arranged without the
consent of both bride and groom. We
believe that fornication and adultery do
not merit the death penalty. We believe
that men as well as women should be
virgins when they marry, and we believe
that men as well as women should
refrain from sexual activity outside of
marriage.
Yet we also recognize that we cannot
always insist on these ideals. In many
nations, marriages are arranged, and
the couples have to live with the result.
Many young people are not virgins, and
adultery does happen. Even within the
community of believers, there is sometimes “hardness of heart”—a hardness
that calls for repentance, but also necessitates practical accommodation to what
people have done.
This is not the place to spell out ethics
for the diverse situations that people get
themselves into—we are simply pointing
out that these laws, although biblical,
were given in a particular cultural context, and we should not view them as
timeless directives from God. Even in
the New Testament, there are directives
that have been shaped by culture—head
coverings for women, greeting people
with a kiss, making a roster of older widows, etc. We will discuss these in a later
paper, but for now it is sufficient to note
that the Old Testament is culturally limited to a far greater extent than the New
Testament is.
6
In our next paper, we will look at women
in Israel’s history—from Rahab to
Esther. Due to the volume of material,
we will again have to be brief, but this
survey will give some historical context
to the ministry of Jesus and the writings
of Paul.NL
6. However, the rest of the chapter is
written as if the Nazirite is a man, in
keeping with the convention that laws
are written as if for males even when
they apply to females.
Endnotes
8. But if he falsely accused her, he could
never divorce her. The “evidence of virginity” may have been a cloth stained by
a recent menstruation, showing that the
woman was not pregnant at the time of
marriage.
1. “Nowhere else in ancient Near
Eastern literature is it recorded that deity
called a woman by name, yet the angel
of the Lord does just that twice in the
case of Hagar (Gen 16:8; 21:17). The
conversation between the angel of the
Lord and Hagar is just as startling in its
cultural milieu as the conversation of
Jesus with the Samaritan woman in his
day. In both instances God invests a
woman with full dignity by solicitously
caring for her and by giving her revelations even though both of them come
from outside the pure race and are sinners” (Bruce Waltke, “The Relationship
of the Sexes in the Bible,” Crux,
September 1983, pp. 11-12).
2. Thus the law prohibits a man from
sleeping with his aunt (vv. 12-14), but
nothing is said about a woman sleeping
with her uncle.
3. Fathers could also sell sons into slavery; men and women could sell themselves (Lev. 25:39; Deut. 15:12).
7. No restrictions about race are noted.
9. However, prostitution was regulated
and discouraged. Religious prostitution
was not permitted, and the wages of a
prostitute could not be brought into the
tabernacle (Deut. 23:17-18). The daughters of priests could not become prostitutes, and priests could not marry prostitutes (Lev. 21:9, 14). Fathers could not
force their daughters into prostitution
(Lev. 19:29). But there was no penalty
for prostitution itself.
10. Linda Belleville, Women Leaders
and the Church: Three Crucial
Questions (Baker, 1999), 77.
11. For examples, see William Webb,
Slaves, Women & Homosexuals, pages
76-80, and the articles on women in the
Anchor
Bible
Dictionary
and
InterVarsity’s Dictionary of the Old
Testament: Pentateuch.
4. But if they caused a stillbirth or serious injury, verse 23 would then apply.
Christopher Wright argues that in this
context, “life for life” does not mean a
death penalty, but a living child given to
compensate for one killed before birth.
The death penalty was not appropriate
for accidental homicide (v. 13). (God’s
People in God’s Land: Family, Land and
Property in the Old Testament
[Paternoster, 1997], 212).
5. Deut. 22:28-29 is similar, but does not
allow any refusal, and specifies that the
woman can never be divorced.
NORTHERN LIGHT
ÉDITORIAL
Les femmes dans la direction
de l’Église : partie 4
B
on nombre des pratiques,
événements et lois contenus
dans l’Ancien Testament peuvent nous sembler étranges.
Cependant, l’Ancien
Testament fait partie de la
Bible et, dans notre étude pour connaître ce que la Bible révèle sur les relations entre les hommes, les femmes et
Dieu, nous devons examiner ce que
contient cette partie de l’Écriture. Nous
ne voulons pas rendre plus attrayant ce
qu’elle dit ni non plus ne pas en tenir
compte.
Nous y découvrirons beaucoup de
choses que nous ne voudrions pas
imiter, mais nous y verrons aussi des
exemples positifs. Nous observerons
également que certaines lois bibliques
sont intentionnellement établies dans
des cultures spécifiques pour parler de
questions culturelles précises et,
comme telles, ces lois n’ont pas pour but
d’être suivies aveuglément.
Cette étude en deux parties de l’Ancien
Testament fournira également une toile
de fond contrastante pour notre
prochaine étude qui parlera de Jésus et
des femmes.
Les hommes et les femmes dans les
livres de Moïse
Dans notre étude précédente, nous
avons examiné l’enseignement contenu
dans les trois premiers chapitres du livre
de la Genèse. Dans la présente étude,
nous examinerons les autres livres de
Moïse. À cause de la grande quantité de
matériel que renferment ces livres, nous
traiterons brièvement de plusieurs questions.
raconte l’histoire de ce qui est arrivé
sans toutefois commenter les faits pour
dire s’ils sont bons ou mauvais. D’autres
parties donnent des lois pour les
hommes et les femmes, mais même ces
lois (telles que celles sur le divorce) peuvent être une accommodation à la culture plutôt qu’un principe intemporel.
Par ailleurs, un grand nombre de lois de
l’Ancien Testament sont désuètes.
Pourquoi alors devrions-nous même
examiner ces passages sur une société
ancienne, quand notre question s’applique à une situation différente : les
rôles dans l’Église ? Bien des érudits
croient que les rôles dans l’Église sont
assignés par Dieu conformément aux
rôles assignés par Dieu dans la société.
Nous désirons donc voir ce que la Bible
dit sur les rôles des hommes et des
femmes en général, même si certaines
de ces instructions sont périmées.
Nous apprendrons d’abord que les commandements bibliques sont souvent
donnés dans une situation culturelle particulière. Cette étude fournira aussi un
cadre pour les versets du Nouveau
Testament, dont certains font référence
à des passages de l’Ancien Testament.
Tout au long de notre étude, nous ne
pouvons conclure que, simplement
parce qu’une chose est arrivée, elle
représente automatiquement un exemple que nous devrions suivre de nos
jours. Nous ne prétendons pas, par
exemple, qu’Abraham est le mari idéal ni
que Rébecca est la femme idéale. Nous
évaluons les comportements basés sur
les principes du Nouveau Testament,
enracinés dans le commandement de
Jésus d’aimer notre prochain comme
nous-mêmes. Ce commandement
existe également dans l’Ancien
Testament, même si certaines lois de
Moïse exigeaient que les hommes ne
traitent pas les femmes comme ils se
traitaient les uns les autres.
Il existe de nombreuses difficultés d’interprétation dans ce matériel. La plupart
se trouve sous forme narrative : on y
J A N U A R Y F E B R U A R Y
2 0 0 5
de Joseph Tkach
pasteur général
Genèse
Les premiers chapitres de la Genèse
nous révèlent peu de choses sur les
femmes. Ils nous disent qu’Adam a
couché avec Ève et qu’ils ont eu des fils
(4.1,2,25). Caïn a couché avec sa
femme et elle a donné naissance à
Hénoc (4.17). Lémek a marié deux
femmes, Ada et Tsilla (v. 19). Dans l’un
des versets les plus débattus de la Bible,
nous lisons que les «fils de Dieu» se
sont «unis aux filles des hommes et
qu’elles eurent donné des enfants»
(6.4). La femme de Noé et ses bellesfilles ont été sauvées du déluge grâce à
l’arche (7.13). Les généalogies font
rarement mention des femmes, bien
qu’il soit mentionné que divers hommes
ont eu des fils et des filles (11.11, etc.)
Abram a marié sa demi-sœur Saraï, et
le frère d’Abram, Nahor, a marié leur
nièce, Milka (11.29). Abram, Saraï et Lot
ont déménagé à Canaan, puis en
Égypte (12.5,10).
En Égypte, Abram et Saraï ont présumé
que le pharaon prendrait Saraï à cause
de sa beauté ; la seule question était de
savoir si Abram allait ou non survivre.
Alors Abram a dit que Saraï était sa
sœur, et le pharaon l’a en effet fait
enlever pour faire partie de son harem
(v. 15.19). Après que Dieu eut puni le
pharaon pour son action, le pharaon a
rendu Saraï à son mari et les a renvoyés.
Plus tard, Abraham a agi de façon similaire avec Abimélek, le roi de Guérar : il
a dit que Sara était sa sœur et Sara a dit
qu’Abraham était son frère (20.2,5).
Dieu a averti Abimélek, et ce dernier ne
s’est pas uni avec Sara (v. 3, 4) ;
Abraham a expliqué que Sara était sa
demi-sœur (v. 12). Abimélek a reconnu
avoir offensé Sara, et il a donné de l’argent à Abraham pour couvrir l’offense (v. 16).
Abraham avait dit une demi-vérité et le
pharaon et Abimélek avaient raison de
protester
contre
les
tentatives
d’Abraham de les tromper.
7
ÉDITORIAL
Sara a dit à Abraham de coucher avec
Agar, sa servante (16.1,2). Selon une
coutume ancienne, tous les enfants nés
de servantes seraient alors traités
comme s’ils étaient nés de la maîtresse.
Sara s’est dit : Peut-être que je peux
fonder une famille par ma servante. Plus
tard, Rachel a fait une chose semblable
et a dit : «[…] voici ma servante Bilha,
unis-toi à elle pour qu’elle ait un enfant :
elle accouchera sur mes genoux, et j’aurai, moi aussi, un enfant par son intermédiaire» (30.3).
«Abram a suivi le conseil de sa femme»,
et Agar est devenue enceinte (16.2-4).
Puis, il s’est développé une tension
entre Saraï et Agar, et Saraï a injustement blâmé Abram pour le problème (v. 5).
Sara a dit à Abraham de coucher avec
Agar, sa servante (v. 6). Un ange a commandé à Agar de retourner auprès de sa
maîtresse après sa fuite et d’appeler son
fils Ismaël. Et Agar a donné un nom à
Dieu : «Et elle appela l’Éternel qui lui
avait parlé du nom de Atta-El-Roï (C’est
toi le nom qui me voit)» (v. 13).1
Lorsque Dieu a dit à Abraham que Sara
aurait un fils, Abraham a ri (apparemment manquant de foi en la promesse)
et a suggéré qu’Ismaël soit béni à sa
place (17.17,18). Mais non, la promesse
de Dieu était pour Sara tout autant
qu’elle l’était pour Abraham (17.16,19).
Plus tard, Dieu a de nouveau dit que
Sara aurait un fils, et Sara a ri (18.12).
«Saisie de crainte, Sara mentit : Je n’ai
pas ri, dit-elle» (v. 15).
Au chapitre 19, Lot est un terrible exemple. Quand les hommes de Sodome ont
voulu avoir des relations avec les visiteurs de Lot, celui-ci a offert aux
hommes ses filles vierges (même si
elles étaient désignées pour quelqu’un
d’autre) pour leur faire ce qui leur
plairait.
Lot s’est senti plus obligé de protéger
ses visiteurs plus que ses propres filles !
Mais les anges sont venus au secours
de Lot et de ses filles.
8
Lot a trouvé refuge dans le village de
Tsoar, et Dieu a détruit Sodome. La
femme de Lot a regardé derrière elle et
a été changée en une statue de sel. Lot
et ses filles sont partis vers les montagnes, et là ses filles l’ont enivré et sont
devenues enceinte de leur père. C’est
une histoire tragique.
Sara a donné naissance à Isaac et,
lorsqu’il a été sevré, elle a dit à Abraham
de chasser Agar et Ismaël (21.10).
Abraham se préoccupait d’Ismaël, mais
Dieu lui a ordonné de faire ce que Sara
lui avait dit (v. 12). Alors Agar et Ismaël
sont partis en direction du désert, où ils
seraient morts sans l’intervention de
Dieu. Sara est morte à l’âge de 127 ans
et a été ensevelie près d’Hébron.
Abraham a aussi eu des fils (aucune fille
n’est mentionnée) de Qetoura et de
quelques concubines (25.1-6).
tromper Isaac (27.5-10). Elle a préparé
la viande, et Jacob a prétendu être Ésaü
et a obtenu la bénédiction. Quand Ésaü
a voulu tuer Jacob, Rébecca a dit à
Jacob de fuir à Harân. Elle a réussi à
faire en sorte qu’Isaac le bénisse et malgré cela elle a envoyé Jacob au nord de
la Mésopotanie pour trouver une femme
(27.42-28.5).
Ésaü a marié deux femmes hittites,
Judith et Basmath (26,34). Puisque ses
parents n’aimaient pas ses femmes hittites, il a marié une cousine, Mahalath,
fille d’Ismaël et d’autres femmes (28.9 ;
36.2,3).
Isaac est parti pour Guérar à cause
d’une famine et, tout comme son père
avait fait, il a dit à Abimélek que sa
femme était sa sœur (26.7), et Abimélek
a rétorqué (v. 10).
Isaac a marié Rébecca, la fille de son
cousin Betouel. Elle était une femme qui
parlait volontiers aux étrangers, travailleuse au point de se porter volontaire
pour abreuver dix chameaux, disposée
à offrir l’hospitalité au nom de sa famille,
assez aventureuse pour voyager toute
une journée à Canaan, et prête à parler
pour elle-même (24.15-61). Abraham a
spécifié depuis le début qu’elle devait
consentir à suivre le serviteur
d’Abraham (v. 8).
Jacob a été trompé par Laban, et a fini
par marier ses deux filles. Léa a eu quatre enfants et Rachel a demandé à son
mari, Jacob, qu’il couche avec sa servante pour qu’elle ait une famille substitut. Léa a fait de même et, à un moment
donné, elle a payé Rachel pour pouvoir
coucher avec Jacob (30.16). Il y a
amplement de mauvais exemples dans
cette histoire. De plus, Rachel a dérobé
les idoles de son père et lui a menti
(31.35).
Rébecca était stérile au début (la femme
était généralement blâmée pour la stérilité), mais Isaac a prié pour elle, et elle
est devenue enceinte (25.21). Puisque
dans son ventre les jumeaux se heurtaient, elle en a demandé la raison à
l’Éternel qui lui a dit que l’aîné servirait le
cadet (Apparemment, elle n’a pas eu à
passer par son mari pour demander quoi
que ce soit à l’Éternel ni pour recevoir
une réponse).
Dans la ville de Sichem, il y avait un
prince du nom de Sichem qui a couché
avec Dina, la fille de Léa, ce qui lui a
causé d’être souillée et couverte de
honte aux yeux de ses frères. Sichem a
offert de payer autant qu’il serait requis,
mais «les fils de Jacob usèrent de ruse
» et pillèrent la ville, s’emparant de leurs
enfants et de leurs femmes pour en faire
des esclaves » (34.13,29). Jacob s’en
est plaint, mais Siméon et Lévi ont
répondu : « Pouvions-nous laisser
traiter notre sœur comme une prostituée ?»
(v. 31). Pourtant, c’était leur mère qui
avait acheté une nuit avec leur père.
Rébecca savait que le Seigneur bénirait
Jacob et elle le favorisait, mais Isaac
préférait Ésaü (25.28). Lorsque
Rébecca a appris qu’Isaac voulait bénir
Ésaü (contrairement à l’intention de
Dieu), elle a conspiré avec Jacob pour
Rachel avait dit : «Donne-moi des
enfants, sinon j’en mourrai» (30.1), et
NORTHERN LIGHT
ÉDITORIAL
lorsqu’elle a eu son deuxième fils, elle
est morte. Elle l’a appelé Fils de ma
douleur, mais Jacob le renomma
Benjamin, Fils de bon augure (probablement une référence à Rachel). Elle a été
enterrée près de Bethléhem (35.19).
Ruben, le fils aîné de Léa, a couché
avec Bilha, la servante de Rachel qui
était alors décédée (v. 22). En tant
qu’aîné, il aurait tôt ou tard hérité des
concubines de son père, mais à cause
de son action prématurée, il a perdu son
droit d’aînesse (1 Ch 5.1).
Genèse 38 raconte l’histoire de Tamar.
Juda avait marié Choua, et ils ont eu des
fils appelés Er, Onân et Chéla. Juda a
pris une femme pour Er qui s’appelait
Tamar. Dieu a fait mourir Er et, selon
l’ancienne coutume, le prochain frère
devait coucher avec la veuve pour donner une descendance à son frère (v. 8 ;
Deut. 25.5). Mais Onân ne voulait pas
donner une descendance à son frère Er
(parce qu’Onân aurait reçu un plus petit
héritage), et Dieu l’a fait mourir également. Mais même après que Chéla fut
devenu adulte, il n’a pas été envoyé vers
Tamar pour lui donner des enfants.
Alors Tamar a fait semblant d’être une
prostituée et elle est devenue enceinte
de son beau-père, Juda. Lorsqu’on a su
qu’elle était enceinte, Juda a menacé de
la brûler vive, mais lorsqu’elle a prouvé
que Juda était le père, il s’est écrié :
«Elle est plus juste que moi ; elle a fait
cela parce que je ne l’ai pas donnée
pour femme à mon fils Chéla» (v. 26).
Elle avait accompli son devoir envers la
famille mais pas lui.
Les femmes jouent un plus petit rôle
dans l’histoire de Joseph. Joseph a eu
un rêve dans lequel le soleil, la lune et
onze étoiles se prosternaient devant lui.
La lune représente sa mère (37.10),
même si elle était morte.
La femme de Potiphar a voulu coucher
avec Joseph, mais lorsque ce dernier a
refusé, elle l’a accusé de tentative de
viol (39.14). Ensuite, elle ne joue plus
J A N U A R Y F E B R U A R Y
aucun rôle dans l’histoire. Le pharaon a
donné à Joseph une femme : Asnath, la
fille d’un prêtre d’On, en Égypte, et ils
ont eu deux fils, Manassé et Éphraïm
(41.45-52).
Les hommes autant que les femmes ont
participé à l’adoration du veau d’or (Ex
32.2,3), tout comme les hommes et les
femmes ont participé à la construction
du tabernacle (35.22-29).
Exode et Deutéronome : récits
En Nombres 27, les filles de Tselophhad
ont demandé à Moïse d’effectuer un
changement dans les lois sur l’héritage
qui permettrait aux filles d’hériter si elles
n’avaient pas de fils. Moïse a porté la
requête devant Dieu qui a répondu :
«Les filles de Tselophhad ont raison. Tu
leur donneras une propriété en patrimoine comme aux frères de leur père et
tu leur transmettras le patrimoine foncier
de leur père» (v. 1-11). Ces femmes ont
laissé une marque permanente dans les
lois de l’ancienne alliance.
Le livre d’Exode commence par l’initiative de quelques femmes. Les sagesfemmes des Hébreux, Chiphra et Poua,
ont refusé de tuer les nouveau-nés
mâles. Elles ont menti au pharaon et
Dieu les a bénies (Ex 1.19, 20). Une
mère lévite a caché son fils pendant
trois mois et l’a ensuite mis dans un
panier sur le Nil ; la sœur de l’enfant
s’est postée à quelque distance pour
voir ce qui arriverait et a vu la fille du
pharaon secourir le garçon. Elle lui a
offert de trouver une nourrice, et la mère
a ainsi été payée pour allaiter son propre
enfant (2.1-9).
Après sa fuite à Madian, Moïse est venu
à la défense de sept femmes et a donné
à boire au petit bétail de leur père ; il a
marié l’une d’elles, Zéphora, et ils ont eu
un fils appelé Guerchôm (2.15-22).
Lorsque Dieu a attaqué Moïse, cherchant à le faire mourir, Zéphora lui a
sauvé la vie en circoncisant Guerchôm
et en touchant les pieds de Moïse avec
le prépuce de son fils (4.25).
Dieu a dit à Moïse de conduire les
Israélites hors d’Égypte, et il a promis de
disposer favorablement les Égyptiens
envers eux. «Chaque femme demandera à sa voisine et à celle qui habite
chez elle des ustensiles d’argent et d’or
ainsi que des vêtements» (3.22). Plus
tard, il a dit à Moïse que les hommes et
les femmes devaient demander à leurs
voisins des objets d’or et d’argent (11.2).
Miryam, la prophétesse, a conduit les
femmes dans la danse et dans un chant
d’adoration (Ex 15.20). Plus tard, elle et
Aaron ont murmuré contre Moïse à
cause de sa femme kouchite, et Miryam
a été punie durant une semaine
(Nombres 12.1-15), probablement parce
qu’elle était la chef instigatrice, mais il
n’en est pas fait mention.
2 0 0 5
Exode et Deutéronome : lois
Tout comme dans les autres cultures
environnantes, les lois étaient normalement écrites au masculin, comme si
seulement les hommes commettaient
des crimes. Par exemple : «Si un
homme (‘iysh) confie à la garde d’autrui
de l’argent […] (Ex 22.6). «Si quelqu’un
emprunte une bête […]» (v. 13). (La version Louis Second utilise le mot
«homme» tandis que la version Le
Semeur alterne entre le mot «homme»
et le mot neutre «quelqu’un».) De nombreux autres exemples de lois qui présument que la personne est un homme
pourraient être donnés ; seulement
quelques lois font aussi mention des
femmes. Toutes les lois sur l’inceste
sont données du point de vue de
l’homme (Lé 18.)2
Les lois d’Israël s’appliquent parfois aux
hommes et aux femmes de façon égalitaire, et parfois de façon non égalitaire.
Nous présentons quelques-unes d’entre
elles pour illustrer des points d’égalité et
des aspects d’inégalité.
Dieu a dit qu’il punirait les péchés des
pères jusqu’à la troisième et la quatrième génération (Ex 20.5), mais rien
n’est dit sur les péchés des mères. Les
9
ÉDITORIAL
femmes étaient spécifiquement comprises dans le commandement relatif au
sabbat (v. 10) et dans le commandement
qui dit d’honorer les parents (v. 12).
Quiconque maudissait ou attaquait un
de ses deux parents devait être tué
(21.15,17). Dans le dixième commandement, le «prochain» laisse présumer
qu’il s’agit d’un homme, mais rien n’est
dit sur la possibilité que le prochain soit
une veuve qui possède une propriété
(20.17).
Si un homme hébreu devenait un
esclave, il devait être libéré après six
ans, et sa femme serait libre aussi ; mais
si le maître lui avait donné une femme,
elle et ses enfants ne devaient pas être
libérés (21.2-4). L’homme pouvait rester
avec sa famille seulement s’il devenait
un esclave pour la vie (v. 5,6). Les
esclaves, femmes ou hommes, devaient
être libérés s’ils étaient blessés. Un
bœuf qui avait tué soit un homme ou
une femme devait être abattu (v. 26-28).
Si une femme était vendue comme
esclave,3 elle ne devait pas être libérée.
(Dans cette société, une telle «liberté»
pouvait la pousser à la prostitution.) Elle
pouvait être vendue à des Hébreux,
mais pas à des étrangers. Si elle était
achetée comme épouse pour un fils, elle
devait être traitée comme une fille. Si le
fils mariait une autre femme, il ne devait
pas priver sa première femme des droits
conjugaux, ou autrement il devait la
libérer (21.7-11). Le dernier verset peut
impliquer que des relations sexuelles
étaient comprises dans les situations
précédentes aussi ; il était courant pour
les esclaves d’être des concubines.
Si des hommes, en se battant, heurtaient une femme enceinte et causaient
un accouchement prématuré à cause
d’un comportement négligent,4 ils
devaient «payer une indemnité dont le
montant sera fixé par le mari de la
femme et approuvé par arbitrage»
(21.22).Aucune mention n'est faite sur
ce que voulait la femme. Si un homme
couchait avec une vierge, il devait payer
10
en argent la dot habituelle des jeunes
filles vierges, même si le père refusait
absolument de la lui accorder
(22.16,17).5
Les femmes étaient impures pour une
période de temps plus longue après
avoir donné naissance à une fille (Lé
12.1-5). Après un épanchement séminal, les hommes étaient impurs jusqu’au
soir, mais les femmes demeuraient
impures durant sept jours pendant les
menstruations, et son impureté était plus
transférable (Lé 15.16-24).
Pour la rédemption des vœux, l’estimation des femmes était moindre que celle
des hommes (Lé 27.2-7). Les deux
sexes pouvaient faire des vœux de consécration au service divin (No 6.1).6 Les
femmes avaient le droit de faire des
vœux religieux, mais ils n’étaient valides
que si le père ou le mari les approuvaient (No 30.3.14). Un vœu fait par une
veuve ou une femme divorcée était
automatiquement valide (v. 9).
Apparemment, les femmes ne pouvaient
pas être prêtres, bien qu’aucune loi ne
spécifie rien à ce propos (mais la plupart
des hommes ne pouvaient pas être des
prêtres non plus). Un prêtre pouvait faire
des sacrifices de nourriture à ses filles,
même à celles qui étaient retournées à
leur famille après qu’elles fussent devenues veuves ou divorcées (No 18.11 ;
Lé 22.13).
Les hommes devaient aller aux festivals
et donner une offrande trois fois par
année (De 16.16), mais il était entendu
que les femmes, les enfants et les
veuves y allaient également (26.12 ;
31.12).
Lorsque les Israélites capturaient des
femmes lors d’une guerre, ils pouvaient
en prendre une comme la sienne.7 Elle
pouvait être libérée, mais non vendue ou
traitée comme une esclave (De 21.1014). Si un homme mariait deux femmes,
«le jour où il partagera ses biens entres
ses fils, il ne pourra pas conférer le droit
de l’aîné au fils de la femme préférée, au
détriment de celui de la femme moins
aimée» (v. 15-17).
Si une femme fiancée couchait volontairement avec un autre homme, elle
était coupable d’adultère et les deux personnes devaient être tuées (22.23,24).
«Mais si c’est en pleine campagne que
l’homme trouve la jeune fille fiancée et
qu’il la viole, lui seul sera mis à mort»
(De 22.23-27). Si la fille n’était pas
fiancée, l’homme était forcé de payer 50
pièces d’argent et devait la marier, sans
avoir le droit de la renvoyer (v. 28,29). La
loi ne donnait aucun droit de parole à la
fille dans tout cela.
Si un homme soupçonnait que sa nouvelle épouse n’était pas une vierge, il
pouvait exiger des preuves. Si la preuve
de la virginité ne pouvait être fournie, la
femme devait être lapidée à l’entrée de
la maison de son père, parce qu’elle a
commis une chose infâme en Israël en
se déshonorant lorsqu’elle vivait encore
dans la maison de son père (22.13-21).8
Si un homme marié depuis un certain
temps suspectait sa femme d’infidélité, il
pouvait apporter une offrande au prêtre
et exiger que sa femme soit éprouvée
(No 5.12-28) ; la loi présumait son innocence et laissait la punition entre les
mains de Dieu.
Si on pouvait prouver qu’une femme
avait couché avec un autre homme, elle
ainsi que l’autre homme devaient être
tués (De 22.22), mais la punition ne
s’appliquait pas dans le cas contraire.
Un mari qui couchait avec une prostituée, par exemple, n’était pas considéré
coupable d’adultère. De la même façon,
les lois n’exigeaient pas que les
hommes soient vierges lorsqu’ils se
mariaient. Les hommes pouvaient avoir
plusieurs femmes, mais les femmes ne
pouvaient avoir plusieurs maris. Les lois
régissaient le comportement sexuel des
jeunes filles et des femmes, mais ne
régissaient pas le comportement sexuel
des veuves ni ne défendaient la prostitution.9
NORTHERN LIGHT
ÉDITORIAL
Si un homme divorçait sa femme, il
devait lui procurer une lettre qui lui permettait de marier quelqu’un d’autre (De
24.1-4). La femme n’avait pas le droit de
demander le divorce à son mari.
Les femmes étaient légalement sous
l’autorité de leurs maris et parfois
traitées comme une propriété, mais elles
n’avaient pas le même statut légal
qu’une «propriété» — elles ne faisaient
pas partie de l’héritage, bien que les
concubines l’étaient.
Conclusion
Les femmes étaient habituellement
mieux traitées sous la Loi de Moïse
qu’elles l’auraient été dans toute autre
nation.11 Néanmoins, plusieurs des lois
précitées nous frappent en ce qu’elles
favorisent les hommes au détriment des
femmes. Comment devrions-nous réagir
devant ces lois ?
D’abord, nous devons reconnaître que
les lois, comme faisant partie de l’ancienne alliance, sont caduques. Les
chrétiens d’aujourd’hui n’ont aucune
obligation de vivre sous ces lois.
Ensuite, nous devons reconnaître que,
même lorsque l’ancienne alliance était
en vigueur, ces lois ne décrivaient pas la
société idéale. Jésus souligne que la loi
du divorce était une concession que
Dieu a permise à cause de la dureté de
cœur des gens (Mt 19.8). Une coutume
déjà existante a été légalisée pour
prévenir les abus flagrants, mais la Loi
n’impliquait pas qu’elle approuvait la
coutume comme telle.
La même chose est vraie pour bon nombre des autres lois, telles que celles qui
impliquent une plus grande liberté sexuelle pour les hommes que pour les
femmes. Le manque de punition envers
les hommes ne devrait pas être pris pour
un endossement divin de leur liberté
d’aller vers les prostituées, par exemple.
C’était une coutume patriarcale, et Dieu
a permis à certaines iniquités de continuer pendant un certain temps.
J A N U A R Y F E B R U A R Y
Nous n’exposerons pas ici en
détail les fondements moraux
appropriés à diverses situations auxquelles les gens font
face ; nous désirons seulement souligner que ces lois,
bien que bibliques, ont été
données dans un contexte culturel particulier, et que nous
ne devrions pas les considérer comme des directives
intemporelles de Dieu. Même
dans le Nouveau Testament, il
y a des directives qui ont été
façonnées par la culture — la
tête couverte pour les
femmes, la salutation par un
baiser, la liste de service
pour les veuves, etc. Nous en
discuterons dans une
prochaine étude, mais pour
l’instant il est suffisant de
noter que l’Ancien Testament
est limité culturellement dans
une plus grande mesure que
l’est le Nouveau Testament.
2 0 0 5
Nous croyons que personne ne devrait
être acheté ou vendu comme esclave.
Nous croyons que l’engagement du
mariage pour la vie ne devrait pas être
arrangé sans le consentement de la
fiancée et du fiancé. Nous croyons que
la fornication et l’adultère ne méritent
pas la sentence de mort. Nous croyons
que les hommes aussi bien que les
femmes devraient être vierges lorsqu’ils
se marient, et nous croyons que les
hommes autant que les femmes
devraient s’abstenir d’activités sexuelles
en dehors du mariage.
Cependant, nous reconnaissons également que nous ne pouvons pas toujours
insister sur ces idéaux. Dans plusieurs
pays, les mariages sont arrangés, et les
couples doivent vivre avec le résultat.
Ne nombreux jeunes ne sont pas
vierges, et l’adultère se produit. Même à
l’intérieur de la communauté des croyants, il y a parfois une «dureté du cœur» :
une dureté qui exige une repentance
mais qui nécessite aussi un arrangement pratique en fonction de ce que les
gens ont fait.
Nous n’exposerons pas ici en détail les
fondements moraux appropriés à diverses situations auxquelles les gens font
face ; nous désirons seulement souligner
que ces lois, bien que bibliques, ont été
données dans un contexte culturel particulier, et que nous ne devrions pas les
considérer comme des directives intemporelles de Dieu. Même dans le
Nouveau Testament, il y a des directives
qui ont été façonnées par la culture — la
tête couverte pour les femmes, la salutation par un baiser, la liste de service
pour les veuves, etc. Nous en discuterons dans une prochaine étude,
mais pour l’instant il est suffisant de
noter que l’Ancien Testament est limité
culturellement dans une plus grande
mesure que l’est le Nouveau Testament.
Dans notre prochaine étude, nous
brosserons un tableau des femmes
dans l’histoire d’Israël, à partir de Rahab
jusqu’à Esther. Encore une fois, à cause
du grand volume de matériel, nous
11
ÉDITORIAL
devrons résumer, mais cette étude donnera quelque contexte historique au ministère de Jésus et aux écrits de Paul.NL
Notes de fin de texte
1. «Nulle part ailleurs dans la littérature
du Proche-Orient, trouvons-nous qu’une
déité a appelé une femme par son nom ;
cependant, l’ange de l’Éternel l’a fait à
deux reprises dans le cas d’Agar (Ge
16.8 ; 21.17). La conversation entre
l’ange de l’Éternel et Agar est tout aussi
surprenante dans son milieu culturel que
la conversation de Jésus avec la femme
samaritaine de son temps. Dans les
deux cas, Dieu confère à une femme
une pleine dignité en prenant soin d’elle
avec grande sollicitude et en lui donnant
des révélations, et cela même si les
deux femmes venaient d’en dehors de la
race pure et étaient des pécheresses»
(Bruce Waltke, The Relationship of the
Sexes in the Bible, Crux, septembre
1983, p. 11,12).
2. La Loi défendait à un homme de
coucher avec sa tante (v. 12-14), mais
rien n’est dit au sujet d’une femme qui
couche avec son oncle.
3. Les pères pouvaient aussi vendre
leurs fils comme esclaves ; les hommes
et les femmes pouvaient se vendre euxmêmes (Lé 25.39 ; De 15.12).
4. Mais s’ils occasionnaient une fausse
couche ou une blessure grave, le verset
23 ne s’appliquerait pas. Christopher
Wright affirme que dans ce contexte,
«vie pour vie» ne veut pas dire une punition de mort, mais un enfant vivant pour
compenser celui qui a été tué avant la
naissance. La sentence de mort pas
appropriée pour un homicide accidentel
(v. 13). (God’s People in God’s Land :
Family, Land and Property in the Old
Testament [Paternoster, 1997], 212).
6. Cependant, le reste du chapitre est
écrit comme si le naziréen était un
homme, selon l’usage que les lois sont
écrites comme si elles l’étaient pour les
hommes même lorsqu’elles s’appliquent
aux femmes.
7. Aucune restriction n’est mentionnée
sur la race.
8. Mais s’il l’accusait faussement, il ne
pouvait jamais la divorcer. La «preuve
de la virginité» pouvait être un vêtement
souillé par une récente menstruation,
montrant que la femme n’était pas
enceinte au moment du mariage.
9. Cependant, la prostitution était réglementée et découragée. La prostitution
sacrée n’était pas permise, et le salaire
d’une prostituée ne pouvait pas être
apporté au tabernacle (De 23.17,18).
Les filles des prêtres ne pouvaient pas
devenir des prostituées, et les prêtres ne
pouvaient pas marier des prostituées
(Lé 21.9, 14). Les pères ne pouvaient
pas forcer leurs filles à la prostitution (Lé
19.29). Mais il n’y avait aucune punition
pour la prostitution comme telle.
10. Linda Belleville, Women Leaders
and the Church:Three Crucial Questions
(Baker, 1999), 77.
11. Pour des exemples, voir William
Webb, Slaves, Women & Homosexuals,
pages 76-80, et les articles sur les
femmes dans le Anchor Bible Dictionary
et dans le InterVarsity’s Dictionary of the
Old Testament: Pentateuch.
5. Deutéronome 22.28,29 est similaire,
mais ne permet aucun refus et spécifie
que les femmes ne peuvent jamais être
divorcées.
12
NORTHERN LIGHT
W O M E N ’ S
Remembering
R
ecently on a visit to my parent’s home my dad shared
with me a journal he had
found in the storage place
under the stairs. What an
experience to see my dad’s
stories about the war written by his own
hand on faded paper. The words jumped
out at me from the pages of that journal.
There was an entry the day Pearl Harbor
was bombed, you could almost feel the
horror and fear.
were fighting the war and for their
women and families. I know he did
because that is the kind of man he is and
that is what he taught his children to do.
In the journals and letters I read, my
father’s stories are different from the soldiers’ stories but his love, respect and
loyalty for this country is evident in what
he wrote. As children we were taught to
respect those in authority and to pray for
our country and leaders.
My father’s experiences during the war were different
than many of the men and
women we remember on
Remembrance Day. My father
loved his country and was
willing to die for it, and in a
way he did. His reputation
died. You see, my father was
a Conscientious Objector. For
many people this phrase has
a bad connotation—some feel
these men were chickens
afraid to fight.
By Dorothy Nordstorm
Canadian Women’s Ministry
Coordinator
we failed to teach them to respect and
be subject to those who have rule over
us? Even if we don’t agree with our leaders we do owe our country loyalty and
respect. Our ancestors fought to make
this country safe for us to disagree. We
aren’t killed for not fighting in a war, as
happens in a lot of countries. Please
understand, I am not talking about war
as good or evil, I am talking about love
and respect for our country and fellow
citizens.
Some of our fathers didn’t fight
in the war—some for religious
reasons, some for physical and
health reasons. Some, like my
father, express regret and say if
they had it to do it over again
now, they would fight alongside
their neighbors, but all of us can
teach love and respect.
My father was actually a very
brave man who loved his
country and loved God.
Because of his understanding of God at
that time, he felt he couldn’t fight in the
war. He believes God hates wars and
loves all mankind, and because of his
firm beliefs his conscience wouldn’t let
him go to war. Being an honorable man,
my father registered and was sent to a
work camp.
In a letter dated June 6, 1942, my father
writes, “Today we got 92 men in from
Ontario. Three buses came roaring up
into the yard.” He goes on to say how
happy they were when they saw the
food and clean sheets. Some of them
had been in prison awaiting a camp
space to come available. Later in the letter my father expresses concern: “We
CO’s may lose all rights to own anything,” he writes. Some were subjected
to abuse for the sake of what they
believed, but my father never once complained. He prayed for those men who
J A N U A R Y F E B R U A R Y
M I N I S T R Y
What happened to the world on
September 11, 2001 was horrifying but
some things I heard a few days later left
me feeling sick inside. I felt compelled to
talk to some young men and women
about the possibility of war. “What would
you do if our country went to war as a
result of this terrible act of violence,” I
asked? The answers I received left me
shocked and sad. How would those
brave men and women who fought to
keep our country free, feel to hear their
grandchildren respond to my question
with, “I owe this country nothing” or “I
would run for the hills”? Answers like this
were the common response.
In this life we often face difficult
decisions. With God’s help we
try to make good decisions but
we are human and live in a troubled world so we make mistakes. What joy awaits us in the
new world to come. There will be
no war. I know, because war
causes tears and in the new earth there
will be no tears: “He will wipe every tear
from their eyes. There will be no death
or mourning or crying or pain, for the old
order of things has passed away”
(Revelation 21:4, NIV).NL
The lack of love and respect for our
country and its leaders left me sick at
heart. Our leaders have their faults but
have we failed to teach our children
what a blessed country we live in? Have
2 0 0 5
13
D I R E C T O R ’ S
D E S K
By Gary Moore
National Director
T
he theme of this issue of
Northern Light is Christianity
and the abundant life. In John
10:10 Jesus said, “I have
come that they may have life,
and that they may have it
more abundantly” (NKJV). Jesus clearly
said that he came so those who accepted him would have a more abundant life.
So we need to ask the question, “What
is abundant life?” What does it look like,
so we can tell if indeed Jesus Christ’s
promise is true?
If the only perspective we take is from
the point of view of this physical life we
are now living, the answer is pretty easy.
It would likely be basically the same
answer regardless of where you live, or
what culture you come from. It would
include such elements as the following:
good health; strong family ties; good
friendships; a comfortable income; interesting, challenging work; success at that
work; respect of others; a “say” in things;
variety; good food; enough rest; enjoyable recreation and so on.
However, if we change the lens, and
look at life from another perspective, the
list would change—or at least new
things would be added, and the priority
would be different. The biblical perspec-
What Exactly Is The Abundant Life?
tive on life is that there is a Creator.
Though humanity initially rejected living
in close relationship with him, he loves
human beings and has a plan to bring
them back to him. That plan of salvation
is unveiled in the story of God’s dealings
with man recorded in the Bible. Through
the work of his Son, Jesus Christ, he has
made a way back to him. That includes
the mind-boggling promise of eternal
life, spent in an intimate, father/child
relationship with him.
Seeing life from this perspective—having a Christian “worldview”—changes
things greatly. It has a profound effect on
the priorities by which we live, and in
effect radically alters how we would
define the “abundant life.” It isn’t so
much that we still wouldn’t want most all
of what we listed previously, but rather
we would recognize priorities and values
that would take precedence over those
mere physical things.
We would now place on the top of our
list something like: a reconciled relationship with God; the hope of eternal life;
forgiveness of our sins; possession of a
clean conscience; having a clear sense
of purpose; participation in God’s purpose now; reflecting the divine nature in
this imperfect world; touching others
with God’s love and
his purpose. After
this, we would certainly want to add
just about everything on the previous list. It is just that
now, we recognize
that the spiritual
aspect of the abundant life trumps the
desire for complete
physical fulfilment.
In Mark 8:35-36
Jesus said, “For
whoever desires to
save his life will lose
it, but whoever
loses his life for My
sake
and
the
14
gospel’s will save it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and
loses his own soul?” (NKJV). You could
have everything on the first list and yet
lose eternal life—and your life would be
a failure. If on the other hand, you have
what is on the second list, even if you
don’t get everything on the first list, your
life will have been a success in the
fullest, richest sense of that word.
We know that God had a relationship
with the peoples of Israel in the Old
Testament. He confirmed a covenant
with them at Mount Sinai that included
obligations for obedience to his commands, and blessings for obedience and
curses for disobedience that would follow (see Deuteronomy 28; Leviticus 26).
Those promised blessings for obedience
and compliance to the covenant were
largely physical—healthy cattle, good
crops, victory against national enemies,
rain in due season, and the like.
However, Jesus came to establish a new
covenant, established upon the sacrifice
of his life on the cross. It entailed
promises that went way beyond the
physical blessings of “health and wealth”
offered under the old covenant made at
Sinai. It offered “better promises”
(Hebrews 8:6), including: the gift of eternal life; forgiveness of sin; the gift of the
Holy Spirit who would work to transform
us from the inside; a close father/child
relationship with God and others as well.
These promises offer us eternal benefits—not just for this life, but for all time
to come.
The “abundant life” Jesus offered is far
richer and more profound than simply a
good life now. We all want a good life
now—nobody in their right mind would
prefer pain over comfort! However, when
you step back and take in some perspective, it becomes clear that it is only
in the context of the spiritual riches that
our lives find meaning and purpose.
Jesus is true to his word. He indeed
offers—and delivers—the truly “abundant life!” NL
NORTHERN LIGHT
CHRONIQUE
Qu’est-ce au juste que
la vie abondante ?
L
e thème du présent numéro de
Northern Light est le christianisme et la vie abondante. Dans
Jean 10.10, Jésus déclare :
«Moi, je suis venu afin que les
hommes aient la vie, une vie
abondante.» Jésus spécifie qu’il est
venu pour que ceux qui l’ont accepté
aient une vie plus abondante. Nous
devons alors nous poser la question :
«Qu’est-ce au juste qu’une vie abondante ?» À quoi ressemble-t-elle pour
que nous puissions dire que la
promesse de Jésus-Christ est vraiment
réelle ?
Si la seule idée que nous avons sur la
vie abondante vient du point de vue de
la vie physique présente, alors la
réponse est plutôt facile ; elle serait
probablement la même indépendamment de l’endroit où nous vivons ou de
notre culture. Elle comprendrait des éléments comme une bonne santé, des
liens familiaux étroits, de bienfaisantes
amitiés ; un revenu confortable, un
emploi intéressant et stimulant ; la réussite au travail ; le respect des autres ; un
droit de parole sur les choses de la vie ;
de la variété ; de la bonne nourriture ;
suffisamment de repos, des loisirs
agréables, et ainsi de suite.
Cependant, si nous changions de
lentilles et regardions à la vie d’un autre
point de vue, la liste changerait — ou du
moins de nouvelles choses s'ajouteraient et les priorités seraient bien différentes. La perspective biblique sur la
vie est de reconnaître qu’il existe un
Créateur. Bien que l’humanité ait initialement rejeté de vivre en relation étroite
avec lui, Dieu aime les êtres humains et
il a un plan pour les ramener à lui. Ce
plan de salut est révélé dans l’histoire
des alliances que Dieu a faites avec
l’homme et qui sont consignées dans la
Bible. Par le moyen de l’œuvre de son
Fils, Jésus-Christ, Dieu a rendu possible
que nous revenions à lui. Cela comprend l’époustouflante promesse de la
vie éternelle passée dans une relation
étroite père-enfant avec lui.
J A N U A R Y F E B R U A R Y
Voir la vie de cette perspective — avoir
une vision chrétienne — change énormément les choses. Cela affecte profondément les priorités d’après
lesquelles nous vivons et modifie radicalement notre manière de définir la
«vie abondante». Ce n’est pas tant que
nous ne voudrions pas la plupart des
choses de la liste précitée, mais nous
reconnaîtrions plutôt les priorités et les
valeurs qui auront précédence sur ces
choses tout à fait physiques. Nous mettrions au haut de la liste des choses
comme être réconcilié avec Dieu ; avoir
le pardon de nos péchés et l’espoir de la
vie éternelle ; posséder une conscience
pure ; acquérir un objectif clair dans la
vie ; participer au plan de Dieu maintenant même ; refléter la nature divine
dans ce monde imparfait ; toucher les
autres avec l’amour de Dieu et son plan
pour eux. Après cela, nous voudrions
certainement ajouter à peu près tout ce
qui se trouve sur la première liste. C’est
qu’avec la perspective chrétienne, nous
reconnaissons que l’aspect spirituel de
la vie abondante éclipse le désir de posséder ou de réaliser toutes les choses
physiques.
En Marc 8.35,36, Jésus dit : «En effet,
celui qui est préoccupé de sauver sa vie
la perdra ; mais celui qui perdra sa vie à
cause de moi et de l’Évangile, la
sauvera. Si un homme parvenait à posséder le monde entier, à quoi cela lui
servirait-il, s’il perd la vie ?» Vous pourriez avoir tout ce qui est sur la première
liste et perdre la vie éternelle — et votre
vie serait un échec. Si par ailleurs vous
avez ce qui est sur la seconde liste,
même si vous n’obtenez pas tout ce qui
est sur la première, votre vie aura été
une réussite dans la plus grande plénitude et richesse du mot.
de Gary Moore
directeur national
malédictions pour leur désobéissance
(voir Deutéronome 28 ; Lévitique 26).
Vous remarquerez que ces bénédictions
promises en échange de leur obéissance et de leur respect envers l’alliance
étaient en grande partie physiques : du
bétail en bonne santé, des récoltes
abondantes, la victoire sur leurs ennemis, la pluie en saison, et ainsi de suite.
Cependant, Jésus est venu pour établir
une nouvelle alliance qui serait fondée
sur le sacrifice de sa vie sur la croix. Elle
surpasse de beaucoup les promesses
qui s’appliquent aux bénédictions
physiques
de
«santé»
et
de
«prospérité» données sous l’ancienne
alliance, au mont Sinaï. La nouvelle
alliance offre de «meilleures promesses» (Hébreux 8.6) qui comprennent le
don de la vie éternelle, le pardon du
péché, le don du Saint-Esprit destiné à
nous transformer de l’intérieur ; une relation étroite père-enfant avec Dieu, et
bien d’autres choses. Ces promesses
nous offrent des bénéfices éternels —
non seulement pour cette vie mais pour
les temps à venir.
Il est évident que la «vie abondante»
offerte par Jésus est de loin supérieure
en richesse et en profondeur à une simple bonne vie sur la terre. Nous voulons
tous une vie agréable maintenant ; personne de sensé préférerait la douleur au
confort ! Toutefois, lorsque vous
réfléchissez, considérez la nouvelle perspective et l’examinez, il devient clair
que ce n’est que dans le contexte des
richesses spirituelles que notre vie trouve un sens, une signification. En fait,
Jésus est fidèle à sa parole : il offre et
livre — la vraie «vie abondante» !NL
Nous savons que Dieu était en relation
avec le peuple d’Israël dans l’Ancien
Testament. Sur le mont Sinaï, il a confirmé aux Israélites une alliance qui comprenait de leur part des obligations
d’obéir à ses commandements ; ces
obligations étaient accompagnées de
bénédictions pour leur obéissance et de
2 0 0 5
15
T H E M E
By Robert Millman
Pastor, Edmonton congregation
D
idn’t Jesus promise that miraculous signs would
accompany the preaching of the gospel? So shouldn’t we expect to see signs, wonders and miracles
today?
Good questions!
I for one don’t believe the age of miracles has passed. It’s only
by a miracle each of us is drawn to God and wants to be
changed by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. And yes, I’ve seen
miraculous answers to prayer, even having a loved one
restored after doctors pronounced her “gone.” And I anticipate
answers to my prayers in the future.
But the signs and wonders that were Jesus’ accreditation and
proof of his messiahship (Acts 2:22)—should we expect these
to occur today? And if we don’t see them, does that mean we
lack faith?
What did Jesus really say?
In Mark’s gospel Jesus commissioned his disciples with these
words:
“Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever
does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will
accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out
demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up
snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it
will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well” (Mark 16:15-18).
But was Jesus speaking for us today when he gave these
promises?
While we all accept we are called to a new life in Christ, and to
bear the light of God to the world, is it fair to apply to future
generations of disciples these words spoken by Jesus to his
disciples?
Shouldn’t Signs And Wonde
3. They were the ones sent to
the four corners of the known
world to testify to these incredible new truths in the midst of
hostile, pagan cultures (Mark
16:20).
4. To support their testimony,
they, like Jesus, performed signs
and wonders and they, like
Jesus, were called to die martyrs’ deaths.
Some argue the twelve received
the commission to pass along to the
rest of us. But while we are the light
of the world (Matthew 5:14) and
charged to share the gospel (1
Peter 3:15), and the church is
always one generation from extinction, it’s hard to accept we are each
commissioned to go to the ends of
the earth when the gospel has
already gone around the world.
What is Mark really telling us?
The gospel of Mark is considered
the earliest of the gospel accounts.
Mark was a teenager when he witnesses some of the events he
reports. In writing of events he did
not witness, he is directed by his
mentor, Peter, the one who took the
lead in the early years of the
church.
Consider these distinctions between the early disciples, sent
out as apostles to the ends of the earth, and our calling to be
disciples:
Mark’s closing summary, chapter
16:9-20, is thought to be a later
addition to the book. Some hold the idea Mark’s gospel circulated for a few years before he was called to Rome in the closing months of Paul’s life to assist in organizing Paul’s letters,
which later became part of what we now know as the New
Testament.
1. Jesus trained 120 disciples, and millions have followed in
their footsteps, but he commissioned only 12 to become
founding apostles of the church (Ephesians 2:20).
After Paul’s death, Peter arrived to comfort Christians shocked
by the death of the beloved apostle to the gentiles. He is crucified less than a year after Paul’s execution.
2. These founding apostles were eyewitnesses, called to
testify to the truth Jesus was God, and his life, teaching, miracles, death, resurrection and ascension into heaven were
undeniable facts (Luke 24:46-48).
Perhaps these events stirred someone to add a summary conclusion to Mark’s gospel. With the death of most of the apostles, the accredited witnesses to all Jesus said and did, it was
becoming important their testimony be set down in writing to
guard against heresy.
16
NORTHERN LIGHT
T H E M E
C O N T I N U E D
rs Accompany The Gospel?
M a r k ’ s
account of
Jesus’ commission to
his disciples
contains
some intere s t i n g
details.
He mentions
snake hand l i n g —
doubtless an
allusion to
the incident
recorded in
the book of
Acts when
Paul is bitten
by a viper
and suffers
no ill consequences
(Acts 28:3).
No
doubt
this remarkable event
was
well
k n o w n
among the
churches.
Mark refers
to drinking
poison. We
have no biblical mention
of poison,
but such stories involving Paul or Peter
had perhaps circulated among believers.
Now notice how Mark closes his gospel:
“Then the disciples went out and
preached everywhere, and the Lord
worked with them and confirmed his
word by the signs that accompanied it”
(Mark 16:20).
Mark assures us the apostles—the disciples chosen to found the church—fulfilled their commission to go to “everywhere,” or as we might say, “to the ends
of the known world.”
Rome was at the “center” and ruled the
“known world.” The popular saying “All
roads lead to Rome” paints the picture.
Romans roads were magnificent feats of
engineering; built to facilitate the rapid
movement of troops to anywhere in the
empire trouble might arise, they also
made it possible for the apostles to travel “everywhere.”
Paul for his part took the gospel to the
“center” of the world, Rome, evangelizing
Caesar’s
own
household
(Philippians 4:22). Within 30 years of
Jesus’ death, Christianity had “infected”
the Roman Empire. It had such an
impact, as early as the mid 60s A.D.
Nero could blame the burning of Rome
on this “cult.”
By 70 A.D. Christianity had reached
every Jewish synagogue. With the
destruction of the Jerusalem temple, the
Jews were no longer God’s chosen people to carry his light to the world. The Old
Covenant had come to a close and the
good news had been preached “all over
the world” (Colossians 1:5-6).
Signs cease
He mentions demons. The apostles’
power over demons and sickness were
well established, beginning with their
years with Jesus (Luke 10:17).
The miracle of new languages was an
external sign testifying to the coming of
the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost
and on subsequent occasions involving
gentile converts.
J A N U A R Y F E B R U A R Y
With the passing of the founding apostles, we note in scripture signs and wonders cease.
also reports one of his fellow workers
was ill: “…I left Trophimus sick in
Miletus” (2 Timothy 4:20).
And despite frequent prayer about this
frustrating burden, Paul is believed to
have dictated many of his letters
because he suffered with poor eyesight
(Galatians 4:15; 2 Corinthians 12:8-9).
He further explains God’s answer to his
persistent, faith-filled prayers was the
miracle of his grace that was sufficient
for him then.
John, the last living apostle, writes his
general epistles after Peter’s death. He
is writing to troubled congregations.
Later he writes Revelation from the
penal colony of Patmos, where he is in
exile, to encourage a persecuted church
(Revelation 1:9). In Revelation we read
much about shared suffering, heresy
and apostasy, but nothing of signs, wonders and miracles in the churches.
Rather, an awesome series of visions
give us a glimpse into heaven, reminding Christians they are not alone in their
suffering but are victorious in Christ—
who reigns over all.
So within 40 years of Jesus’ death,
“signs and wonders” had served their
purpose. The church was established.
The light of Jesus Christ had pierced the
darkness of a fallen world. The gospel
had gone “all over the world” and the
Holy Spirit had been welcomed into the
minds and hearts of new disciples,
where the greatest of all miracles was
happening: Jesus was living again in
each believer.
The time of signs and wonders may well
have passed, but that same miracle—
Jesus living again in each of us—continues, even today!NL
There was no assumption healing and
good health were automatic benefits for
the righteous. Paul counsels Timothy,
“Stop drinking only water, and use a little
wine because of your stomach and your
frequent illnesses” (1 Timothy 5:23). He
2 0 0 5
17
T H E M E
C O N T I N U E D
By Robert Millman
Pastor, Edmonton congregation
T
he gospels tell us Jesus and his
disciples did miracles—often.
But we don’t see today’s disciples doing the same. For example, healings are few and far
between, and usually not spectacular enough to stir up a city or make
the front page of the local papers.
No disciple has claimed to have fed
5,000 with one boy’s lunch, or walked on
water, or raised the dead, or turned
water into wine. And we haven’t heard of
a Christian finding money in a fish’s
mouth at tax time.
What Happened To Miracles?
culture. Jesus quietly turns water into
wine, but not for the sake of a good
party. John the apostle notes Jesus’
motivation:
“This, the first of his miraculous signs,
Jesus performed at Cana in Galilee. He
thus revealed his glory, and his disciples
put their faith in him” (John 2:11).
This miracle is called a sign, a token or
indication Jesus is more than a man. It’s
done to reveal his glory and to encourage these new disciples to trust what he
says about himself, no matter how
incredible his claims might be.
Jesus even performed miracles to challenge the Jewish leaders in the presence of his believing countrymen. It was
anticipated by the prophets the Messiah
would cleanse the sins of his people. He
would bring spiritual healing—reconciliation between man and God (Isaiah 53:56). Peter confirms Jesus did this by
offering himself to die a brutal, sacrificial
death: “He himself bore our sins in his
body on the tree, so that we might die to
sins and live for righteousness; by his
wounds you have been healed” (1 Peter
2:24).
Looking back, the disciples testify to
their experiences, making references to
Jesus’ miracles as signs or evidence of
his divinity. Notice Peter’s argument to
those gathered on the day of Pentecost:
But how could early believers—those
who first put their faith in Jesus for salvation—know this unseen, spiritual miracle was accomplished? Jesus didn’t
leave them in doubt; rather, he offered
signs to prove his words were true.
Speaking before the Jewish leadership
he told a crippled man, “Friend, your
sins are forgiven” (Luke 5:20).
Perhaps you’ve been assured by a
friend or acquaintance greater faith
would bring back miracles, and you’ve
felt guilty for the suffering of a loved one,
or frustrated with your own continued
health struggles.
“Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of
Nazareth was a man accredited (proven,
shown) by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among
you through him, as you yourselves
know” (Acts 2:22).
We might anticipate their reaction: “The
Pharisees and the teachers of the law
began thinking to themselves, ‘Who is
this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who
can forgive sins but God alone?’” (verse
21).
There are many facets to this question,
and no doubt this brief article will leave
readers with some questions unanswered. But let’s ask, why did miracles
happen so frequently during Jesus’ ministry and the early years of the church?
Most reasonable people would reject a
man claiming to be the Son of God as a
heretic or delusional, but what if he
repeatedly called on God for miracles,
and his prayers were immediately
answered? Wouldn’t we feel obliged to
accept his miracles as accreditation—
proof—he was telling the truth?
Knowing their thoughts, Jesus asks,
“Why are you thinking these things in
your hearts? Which is easier: to say,
‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up
and walk’? But that you may know that
the Son of Man has authority on earth to
forgive sins…” He said to the paralyzed
man, “I tell you, get up, take your mat,
and go home” (verses 22-24).
Public “miracle crusades” have come
under close scrutiny by the media and
reputable Christian ministries, calling
into question those who usher believers
on stage and declare them healed of
cancer, heart ailments, blood disorders
and the like. Follow-up interviews have
proven embarrassing.
The first miracle
We know Jesus begins his public ministry at the River Jordan, where he is
publicly baptized by John, likely right
after the great fall Festival of
Tabernacles. He then invites several of
John’s disciples to follow him.
Leaving John’s encampment, he travels
north to Cana, taking these new disciples to a wedding celebration. We know
the rest of the story! The party runs out
of wine—an embarrassment for the host
since hospitality is a core value in this
18
Signs proved Jesus’ claims
Jewish leaders had some justification for
questioning Jesus’ miracles: Israel’s
prophets had worked miracles but they
hadn’t claimed to be God! False
prophets had even worked their versions
of “signs and wonders.” But Jesus and
his disciples worked miracles consistently, and all too quickly Jewish leaders
are shown to be stubborn, contrary and
under judgment for their refusal to
accept the work of the Holy Spirit
(Matthew 12:30-32).
What was the point?
Jesus didn’t heal people because believers deserve better health than unbelievers, he healed to show he was more
than a man or a prophet: he was the
promised Son of Man spoken of by
Daniel, and the prophet promised by
Moses. He was God, in flesh, come to
reconcile man to God (Colossians 1:1922).
NORTHERN LIGHT
T H E M E
C O N T I N U E D
Understanding signs are posted to
inform, we quickly direct our eyes to the
reason for the sign rather than staring at
the sign itself. If the sign says “EXIT,” we
direct ourselves toward the door indicated. If the sign says “Welcome to
Edmonton,” we drive by, confident we
are now in the “City of Champions.”
We should view signs done by Jesus
and his disciples similarly. John restates
the purpose for miraculous signs as he
ends his gospel: “Jesus did many other
miraculous signs in the presence of his
disciples, which are not recorded in this
book. But these are written that you may
believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son
of God, and that by believing you may
have life in his name” (John 20:30-31).
Miraculous signs and wonders had their
time and place. But even then, believers
were called to new life in Christ, not
health and wealth in the here and now.
This new, eternal life is a relationship
with God through Jesus (John 17:3). It is
the miracle God has always wanted to
perform in the lives of all who will choose
to believe and trust in his son for abundant, everlasting life.NL
One might also ask about Jesus’ frequent healings of the blind and the
unclean. While it’s true Jesus had compassion on his fellow countrymen—he
described them as lost sheep serving
under abusive shepherds—the true
shepherd of Israel was more interested
in cleansing spiritual uncleanness and
restoring spiritual sight than granting the
temporary healing of physical afflictions.
Miracles of healing, cleansing the
unclean and restoring sight were done to
demonstrate his more important spiritual
mandate:
J A N U A R Y F E B R U A R Y
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he hath anointed me to preach
the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me
to heal the brokenhearted, to preach
deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty
them that are bruised, to preach the
acceptable year of the Lord” (Luke 4:1819).
Signs are posted for a reason
Today we understand a “sign” is posted
for a reason: to inform and direct our
attention to something important. So did
the miraculous signs offered by Jesus
and his disciples.
2 0 0 5
19
T H E M E
C O N T I N U E D
By Neil Earle
Pastor, Glendora, California
congregation
A
minister friend of mine shook
us up one day when he asked
from the pulpit, “Just what part
of ‘never die’ do you not
understand?”
He was finishing his sermon on John 11
and quoting the part where Jesus says
to Martha, “Whoever lives and believes
in me will never die. Do you believe
this?” (John 11:26).
This sermon made a deep impression
on us because the elder was showing
that Jesus was teaching Martha new
things about the nature of the spiritual
life Christians now possess.
Jesus had told Martha, “Your brother will
live again.”
Martha responded with what could be
called a “traditional” Worldwide Church
of God answer: “I know he will rise again
in the resurrection at the last day.” That
was what we all believed and taught for
so many years—the resurrection of the
just and the unjust signified by the Last
Great Day of the Feast of Tabernacles.
But…Jesus did not leave it there. He
pushed on further. Remember?
Jesus explained, in what must have
been a very dramatic outburst given the
emotion of the occasion, Lazarus’ funeral and all that: “I am the resurrection and
the life. He who believes on me will live,
even though he dies; and whoever lives
and believes on me will never die. Do
you believe this?”
Humbled, Martha replied with the only
answer that really matters: “I believe that
you are the Christ, the Son of God, who
was to come into the world” (John 11:2327).
The “God-type life”
Jesus had promised his followers an
abundant life. As twisted as that message has become through the “Success
Gospel” and other variants, there is still
20
Real Life Begins Now!
no more encouraging teaching. Just
what is the nature of that life Jesus talks
about? This opens an often overlooked
discussion, for the word “life” is one of
the great New Testament words. It is
certainly a highline in John’s Gospel.
Here’s what Vine’s Expository Dictionary
of New Testament Words says of “Zoe,”
(from which we get “zoology,” etc.), the
characteristic New Testament word for
life: “Zoe is used in the N.T. of life as a
principle. Life in the absolute sense, life
as God has it, that which the Father has
in himself, and which he gave to the
Incarnate Son to have in himself (John
5:26), and which the Son manifested in
the world (1 John 1:2)…it has moral
associations which are inseparable from
it, as of holiness and righteousness”
(page 336).
Note
this
further
explanation:
“Jesus…did not come to destroy life but
to save it and to give it overflowing
zest…The concept of eternal life is present…most
prominently
in
the
Johannine writings and means more
than mere everlastingness. It is life of a
new quality—the God-type life…which
by its nature transcends the limits of
space and time. John stresses the present possession of this life. It is something the believer has (John 3:36;
6:47)…essentially divine” (Evangelical
Dictionary of Theology, page 641).
Or this, from Robert A. Morey: “Another
frequent error is that the phrase ‘everlasting life’ refers to ‘unending existence
after the resurrection’…[No], the phrase
everlasting life…means an endless
quality of life which the righteous enjoy
now as well as an afterlife. It refers to the
fullness of life, such as joy and
peace....[A]t the moment of regeneration
(spiritual rebirth) the saints receive everlasting life as a present possession
(John 3:15, 16, 36; 5:24; 6:47, 54;
10:28). This must be understood as
referring not to an eternal duration or
quantity of life but of experiencing an
endless and abundant quality of life, i.e.,
a life of satisfaction and joy. True believ-
ers can taste the kind of life that will be
theirs after the resurrection” (Death and
the Afterlife, page 97).
Wow! What powerful thoughts—to which
we shall return. What seems evident
from these scriptures, however, is that at
conversion Christians step into a new
kind of reality. They move from a visible
to an invisible realm—the Kingdom of
God. They pass from death to life, a life
which will never be taken away from
them. They are already translated into
the eternal Kingdom, as Colossians 1:213 says, speaking of God’s redeeming
act in Christ, “giving thanks to the
Father, who has qualified you to share in
the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light. For he has rescued us from
the dominion of darkness and brought
us into the kingdom of the Son he loves.”
Robert Moray spells it out boldly: “The
life which a believer receives at the
moment of regeneration is to be viewed
as lasting forever. If a believer is in living
relationship to Christ, not even death
can sever his communion with the living
God.”
This is more creatively expressed in
Romans 8:38-39, “For I am convinced
that neither death nor life, neither angels
nor demons, neither the present nor the
future, nor any powers, neither height
nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from
the love of God that is in Christ Jesus
our Lord.”
A dim vision clarified
That life we now experience in Christ is
best explained, perhaps, against the
backdrop of what believers expressed
about death in the Old Testament period.
Old Testament saints and patriarchs
were often leery and worried about
death. They were not always superbly
confident about what would happen.
Newer Bible translations often more
accurately render the word “hell” in the
O.T. by the Hebrew word “sheol,” which
meant something much like the ancient
Greek concept of hades:
NORTHERN LIGHT
“[T]he ancient Hebrew sheol is similar in
conception to the Greek hades. Sheol
was thought of as a vast underground
cavern or pit—probably the tribal burial
place magnified (poetically) into a dark
subterranean world—where the dead
exist or persist. The prospect was wholly uninviting, so that Job could cry: ‘Let
me alone, that I may find a little comfort
before I go whence I shall not return, to
the land of gloom and deep darkness,
the land of gloom and chaos, where light
is as darkness’ (Job 10:20-22)…The
dead were not in active communion with
God. So the psalmist says, ‘The dead do
not praise the Lord, nor do any that go
down into silence’ (Psalm 115:17-18)”
(John Hicks, Death and Eternal Life,
page 59).
The New Testament’s triumph of life over
death is beautifully expressed in
Revelation 14:13, “Then I heard a voice
from heaven say, ‘Write: Blessed are the
dead who die in the Lord from now on.’
‘Yes,’ says the Spirit, ‘they will rest from
their labor, for their deeds follow them.’”
J A N U A R Y F E B R U A R Y
2 0 0 5
© Design Pics Inc.
Thus, the inspired Old Testament writers
often framed death as a question—“If a
man dies, will he live again?” (Job
14:14). Or they emitted a vague hope,
“Do the dead praise you?” (Psalm
88:10). But the New Testament picture is
vastly superior. What was a wistful hope
or a despairing semi-lament becomes a
confident knowing. And for good reason!
Jesus brought life and immortality to
light through the Gospel (2 Timothy
1:10). Jesus is the God of the dead as
well as the living, “for to him all are alive”
(Luke 20:38). Note Hebrews 2:14-15,
“Since the children have flesh and blood,
he too shared in their humanity so that
by his death he might destroy him who
holds the power of death—that is, the
devil—and free those who all their lives
were held in slavery by their fear of
death.”
21
Two different worlds
No fear here, merely an expectation of
passing from one mode of existence to
another. All this is because of the eternal
life inherent in Christ, an eternal life he
has already passed on to us at conversion, what many call the “born again”
experience. Notice: “Whoever believes
in the Son has eternal life” (John 3:36).
It gets better. Note John 5:24, “I tell you
the truth, whoever hears my word and
believes in him who sent me has eternal
life and will not be condemned; he has
crossed over from death to life.” The
word “has” here is in the Greek present
indicative tense, that is, it indicates an
action that is presently going on, just like
you are presently reading these words.
So, you already, now presently have
eternal life. The verb phrase “crossed
over” is from the Greek perfect indicative
tense indicating a perfected action, one
that is already completed—you have
already crossed over from death’s dark
realm to life, as stated above.
What a hope! What an assurance! What
a stupendous miracle, one that sets the
New Testament reality above the Old
Testament’s preparatory questioning.
This good news continues: “I tell you the
truth, he who believes has everlasting
life…Whoever eats my flesh and drinks
my blood has eternal life, and I will raise
him up at the last day” (John 6:47, 54).
This amazing sequence in John is
almost climaxed by John 10:28, “And I
give them eternal life, and they shall
never perish; neither shall anyone
snatch them out of my hand.”
Only the words of the old hymn “Blessed
Assurance” could possibly match the
exaltation of what these passages are
saying. There is something indestructible and incorruptible placed in us at
conversion. That is why New Testament
writers describe Christians as belonging
to the new age, the kingdom age,
already. We are as good as there. Here
is Ephesians 2:1-6 with its dynamic contrast of death with life:
22
“As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to
live when you followed the ways of this
world…But because of his great love for
us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us
alive with Christ even when we were
dead in transgressions—it is by grace
you have been saved. And God raised
us up with Christ and seated us with him
in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus.”
Christians already “look into eternity.”
The gift of life placed in them at regeneration gives them dual citizenship, the
most important of which is our spiritual
connection with the heavenly realms
through the Holy Spirit placed in us. This
makes Colossians 3:1-4 such a powerful
passage: “Set your minds on things
above, not on earthly things. For you
died, and your life is now hidden with
Christ in God. When Christ, who is your
life, appears, then you also will appear
with him in glory.”
life guarantees a continuity of relationship to Christ even through death” (page
230).
Most Christian teachers have always
understood this. What Old Testament
prophets and patriarchs saw dimly we
see more clearly. And why not? “He who
has the Son has life; he who does not
have the Son of God does not have life”
(1 John 5:12). The Gospel has brought
this real life, eternal life, indestructible
existence, to light and it begins now.
This means that the good news is really,
really good!NL
There was a song in the 1950s called
“Two Different Worlds” which stated,
“Two different worlds/We live in two different worlds.” That is exactly the
Christian’s experience. The indestructible Spirit, the Spirit of life placed within
us, has created a new person, the “inner
man” Paul calls it, who yearns for an
eternal home, an eternal life with Christ
and God. That yearning will be fulfilled at
the resurrection when the spiritual, eternal self, the new person, now being created inside of us, is given a spiritual,
eternal body.
As S.H. Travis summarizes in The New
Dictionary of Theology: “Because
Christ’s first coming has already inaugurated his kingdom, eternal life is experienced by the believer during the present
life. Since eternal life means ‘the life of
the age to come,’ it implies not only everlastingness but a quality of life derived
from relationship with Christ (Romans
6:23; John 17:3). Thus the perfect life of
God’s ultimate kingdom is the consummation of the life ‘in Christ’ experienced
now. Although death marks a discontinuity between this life and the next, eternal
NORTHERN LIGHT
T H E
J O U R N E Y
By Phil Gale
The Abundance Of Jesus
s I consume the last morsel of
turkey
breast
from
my
Christmas feast, I am reminded that the majority of people
around the world are having
staples today, or perhaps
every other day. Rice, vegetables or
bread are among the menu items for
most people.
A
oranges, strawberries, sockeye salmon,
caviar, etc. Even the ancient Israelites
lived on manna for 40 years.
Yet in the Western world, we have
become accustomed to refrigerators
packed with all manner of foods from
various corners of the globe. We eat
melon, oranges or chicken 12 months of
the year, and think nothing of it. So
what? Aren’t we entitled to it, don’t we
work for it, and don’t we need it? The
answers are: no, no and no!
Jesus Christ stated in
John 10:10, “I am come
that they might have
life, and that they might
have it more abundantly” (all quotes from
KJV). Does this statement refer to the
Western world only, or
does it include the third
world nations also?
According to statistics,
40 percent of Nigerians
profess to be Christian,
so why the disparity
between the modern
and developing world if
Jesus said that he
came to bring abundant life for all?
According to Romans 6:23, “the wages
of sin is death.” The Apostle Paul says
the only commodity we have earned is
death—because of our sin or our
lifestyle which is contrary to the love of
God. Our human right is to come under
the eternal hammer of the Creator who
pronounces that we have earned the
death penalty for our unspiritual and
unsociable conduct.
But as we live, we need food don’t we?
The food we work for and purchase
according to our tastes? Yes we need
food, but we don’t always need melons,
J A N U A R Y F E B R U A R Y
Here in Canada, we are blessed with a
reported average annual income of
$28,400 US, whereas in Nigeria, the
same statistic is $319 US.
Perhaps the answer is in our interpretation of Jesus’ statement. Did he mean a
fuller life here and now, with more food
than we can eat, bigger cars, nicer
homes or longer vacations? The fact
2 0 0 5
Member, Victoria congregation
that 60 percent of all Nigerians live
below the poverty line suggests he was
saying something else. Maybe a fuller
life—more of it—in the Kingdom.
Two other New Testament verses seem
to state that we are to live a more abundant life, here on earth: John says,
“Beloved, I wish above all things that
thou mayest prosper and be in health,
even as thy soul prospereth” (3 John 2).
And Paul says that in his prayers to God
he is “Making request, if by any means
now at length I might have a prosperous
journey by the will of God to come unto
you” (Romans 1:10).
The words prosper and prosperous
come from the same Greek work which
can be read as “making good results.”
Paul’s prosperous journey, according to
the Bible Knowledge Commentary was
concerned with three things: “To impart
some spiritual gift” (verse 11); “that I may
23
be comforted together with you” (verse
12); and “that I might have some fruit
among you” (verse 13).
When we read John 10:10 in the same
light as the above verses, an “abundant
life” could mean a much fuller life, but
not necessarily in a physical way.
Rather, we rejoice because God has
revealed truth about his plan of salvation. As ambassadors of Jesus Christ,
we are filled with spiritual joy, given by
the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
As Christians therefore, what does this
say about our lives in the present? Can
we expect to be blessed abundantly with
all manner of goods? Or does God want
us to focus on other, perhaps more
important things?
Matthew 6:33 states, “But seek ye first
the Kingdom of God and all his righteousness; and all these things shall be
added unto you.” One author puts it this
way: “Make it a priority to be a part of
what God is doing, and have the kind of
goodness he has.”
Our efforts are to be toward becoming
like God, and being involved in the same
things he is. Then we shall be given our
needs. But the tendency seems to get
the priorities the wrong way round. “As
long as my needs are met and I am safe
and secure, with a home, clothes and
food, then I am free to help others.” But
Christ didn’t say it that way. He said the
opposite. When we are seeking God and
His righteousness (the affairs of the
Kingdom), all our needs will be met. God
first—us second.
We live in a secular world, where material interests can rub off and influence us.
Paraphrasing Matthew 6:19-21: we can’t
serve God and money. So is our trust in
ourselves or in Jesus’ ability to provide
all our needs? Jesus himself asked the
question of his disciples, “…shall he find
faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8).
wealthy. The Patriarchs were all rich with
goods, but so was Job. So what if, like
Job, all our belongings were suddenly
taken away in a breeze? In what would
we put our trust? Our ability to get another job and start again? Contacts we may
have or family members who will support
us until we get back on our feet? If we
trust in anything in this world, then it isn’t
Christ.
Someone penned the quote: “You don’t
realize Christ is all you need until Christ
is all you’ve got. And when Christ is all
you’ve got, then you’ll realize Christ is all
you need.”
Another aspect of our focus on God
comes from 1 Corinthians 1:31 quoting
Jeremiah 9:23-24: ‘“Let not the wise
man glory in his wisdom, let not the
mighty man glory in his might, nor let the
rich man glory in his riches; But let him
who glories glory in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the lord
exercising loving-kindness, judgment,
and righteousness in the earth. For in
these I delight,’ says the Lord.”
Putting God first in our lives—seeking
God above all else—requires faith and
an understanding of what we have been
given. An eternal abundant life has been
promised to us. God does not guarantee
that he will bless us with wealth, but in
many instances the opposite seems to
be the case (John 16:33). An abundant
life doesn’t necessarily mean that we will
be blessed materially, but in growth
towards God.
As Christians who continue to live in the
“end times” we can expect more stress
and struggle. The only thing we can fully
trust is the promise of Jesus Christ: “For
God so loved the world, that he gave his
only begotten Son, that whosoever
believeth in him should not perish, but
have everlasting life.” NL
God tells us that he is more important
than riches, wisdom or might, and that
through our earthly lives we can point
towards our heavenly Father, who alone
is worthy of worship. Paul made tents for
a living, the proceeds of which he used
to support his ministry. He didn’t lay up
treasures in this life, neither was his
mind on accumulating wealth, but rather
on knowing Christ and making him
known (1 Corinthians 2:2).
When God instructed Moses to lead the
Israelites through the wilderness
towards the Promised Land, he provided
their needs one day at a time. Moses
had to trust God for all the help he needed to accomplish the task he was given.
God also was all the Israelites needed,
but their faith failed on numerous occasions, resulting in the deaths of all the
adults on the journey apart from Joshua
and Caleb.
There’s nothing wrong in owning houses, cars and boats, or even in being
24
NORTHERN LIGHT
F O C U S
Indescribable Grace Expressed
O N
G R A C E
By David Sheridan
Pastor, Grace and Truth Fellowship,
Red Deer, and Lethbridge congregations
God’s Acts Of Self-Disclosure
A
A crowd of over 10,000 men,
women and children gather on
the northeast shore of Lake
Galilee. Jesus is compassionate towards these leaderless,
hungry people. Like sheep
without a shepherd, the crowd does not
know where to turn. Jesus takes five
loaves and two fish, multiplies them
miraculously and feeds everyone to their
complete satisfaction. “The incomparable riches of his grace expressed in his
kindness to us in Christ Jesus”
(Ephesians 2:7). With almost indescribable grace, Jesus is kind to these thousands of people.
God’s grace is the free, unmerited favor
God has chosen to bestow on his entire
creation. In its broadest sense, God’s
grace is expressed in every act of his
self-disclosure. These acts include:
flesh for our salvation. “The child grew
and became strong; he was filled with
wisdom and the grace of God was upon
him” (Luke 2:40). God expressed his
love and grace by sending Jesus into
the world to be born in Bethlehem.
The Cross
As the prophesied Savior of humanity,
Jesus died on the cross for our sins.
“Carrying his own cross, Jesus went out
to the place of the Skull (which in
Aramaic is called Golgotha)” (John
19:17). Jesus, in shedding his blood,
remains full of grace right to the end of
his life. No one is worthy of this grace. All
are undeserving. His willingness to suffer for us came from God with love.
Grace will always lead you to the foot of
the cross.
The Holy Scriptures
The Creation
The creation or nature is sometimes
called God’s “second book.” Heaven
and earth reveal the nature of God. The
sun and the rain fall on everyone. Males
are naturally attracted to females.
Thankfully, females are attracted to
males. Both are made in the image and
likeness of God. Differences between
the genders disclose the Creator’s
enjoyment of what the French call “La
différence!”
The Holy Scriptures are the true and
accurate record of God’s revelation to
humanity. God’s grace is expressed
throughout the Bible. The 66 books are
a faithful witness to the gospel of grace.
The final book begins: “The revelation of
Jesus Christ, which God gave him to
show his servants what must soon take
place” (Revelation 1:1). This apocalypse
is another grace-filled unveiling or disclosure of who God is.
The Mystery
The animal kingdom is to be cared for
by humanity. Zoos with monkeys, apes,
baboons and orangutans remind us of
God’s love of diversity. “The creation
waits in eager expectation for the sons
of God to be revealed” (Romans 8:19).
God has already revealed himself in the
creation. He discloses himself in special
ways to believers who themselves will
be fully revealed at the Second Coming.
The Incarnation
A mystery may still be a mystery after it
has been solved. To those who have not
heard, it remains a mystery. God’s grace
is expressed to the church. “…[T]he
mystery that has been kept hidden for
ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints” (Colossians 1:26).
That mystery is Christ living in his followers who are led by the Holy Spirit.
This is one way grace is today revealed
to non-believers.
God the Son was conceived by the Holy
Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. Jesus,
fully God and fully man, had two natures
in one person. He was revealed in the
God continues to knock on the door of
the hearts of all people. The Creator has
made himself known to his creation.
Jesus reveals himself as Lord and
J A N U A R Y F E B R U A R Y
2 0 0 5
The Royal Presence of Grace
“Members of the Royal Family
graced us with their presence.”
Wimbledon, home of the most
famous tennis courts in the
world, has a Royal Box for members of the Royal Family to sit.
Queen Elizabeth and her family
on occasion attend to watch the
world’s best professional tennis
players compete on grass for the
coveted Grand Slam prize.
The recent movie Wimbledon
captures the tradition and
pageantry of these occasions.
To grace the tennis tournament
with their presence means the
members of the Royal Family
confer honor and dignity on the
London-based World Tennis
Championships.
“The Word made his dwelling
among us. We have seen the
glory of the One and Only, who
came from the Father, full of
grace and truth” (John 1:14).
Jesus graced the world with his
physical presence for 33 years.
The Lord graces believers with
his eternal presence and has
promised never to leave or forsake them.
Savior. In every act of his self-disclosure, God’s indescribable grace is
expressed!NL
The next article in this series will discuss
being redeemed from death by grace.
25
B I B L E
S T U D Y
By Michael Morrison
Editorial Supervisor of the
Worldwide News
The Example Of Abraham
A Study Of Romans 4
I
n the last section of Romans 3,
Paul declares that the gospel of salvation announces a righteousness
from God, a righteousness that “is
given through faith in Jesus Christ
to all who believe” (3:22). This righteousness is given to all who believe in
Jesus—in other words, believers are
justified or saved by faith in Jesus
Christ, not by observing the law (3:28).
But some people would object: Paul, are
you saying that the law is wrong? Paul
answers: “Not at all! Rather, we uphold
the law” (3:31). The law does not contradict the gospel, and the gospel does not
contradict the Old Testament. Paul
began this section by saying the Law
and the Prophets testify to this gift of
righteousness (3:21). He began the
entire letter by saying that his gospel
had been promised in the Scriptures
(1:2).
The law was designed to lead people to
the gospel, and the gospel does not nullify the law in the same way that the
Messiah does not nullify the prophecies
that predicted his coming. Rather, he fulfills them. Similarly, the gospel fulfills the
law, brings it to completion, and accomplishes what the law could only point at.
Abraham’s faith
Paul then illustrates this with an example
from the Old Testament. The patriarch
Abraham is a great example of what
Paul is saying—that salvation is given
on the basis of faith, not through the law.
In Romans 4, Paul elaborates on the
meaning of both justification and faith.
He asks in verse 1, What then shall we
say that Abraham, the forefather of us
Jews, discovered in this matter?
He sharpens the focus of the question
by saying, If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to
boast about—but not before God (v.
2). If Abraham was considered righteous
because of his works, he would have
something he could brag about, even
though it would not put him anywhere
near to God.
26
Paul has already said that boasting is
excluded (3:27). He is contrasting two
approaches to righteousness—one
based on what people do and can take
credit for, and one that depends on faith,
which they cannot brag about but merely accept with thanks. What kind of righteousness did Abraham have?
Paul finds an answer in the Law: What
does the Scripture say? “Abraham
believed God, and it was credited to
him as righteousness” (4:3, quoting
from Gen. 15:6). Abraham’s belief was
counted as righteousness. The patriarch, representing the entire nation (and
even the world), was declared to be
righteous not on the basis of what he
did, but on the basis of believing God’s
promise.
Justifying the wicked
Paul then begins to reason what this
means. He builds the contrast between
works and faith: Now to anyone who
works, their wages are not credited to
them as a gift, but as an obligation (v.
4). Abraham was given his status—if he
had earned it through good works, then
God would not have to credit his faith as
righteousness. Some Jews thought that
Abraham was perfect in his behavior,
and God was obligated to count him
righteous, but Paul is saying that,
according to the Scriptures, Abraham
had to be counted righteous on the basis
of faith.
Paul then says, However, to anyone
who does not work but trusts God
who justifies the wicked, their faith is
credited as righteousness (v. 5). Paul
is increasing the contrast—he is not talking about someone who works and has
faith, but someone who believes but
does not work. Of course, works normally follow faith. But at this point in the
story, Abraham had only faith, and no
works. He trusted God, and his faith was
credited as righteousness.
Paul increases the contrast again by
saying that God justifies the wicked. He
is using a strong word, one not normally
associated with Abraham. But Jews had
only two categories of people: the righteous and the wicked. And if God had to
intervene in order for Abraham to be
counted as righteous, then that meant
that he was not righteous beforehand,
and he had been in the category of the
wicked.
God does not need to rescue the righteous. He saves the wicked; there is no
point in saving people who aren’t in any
danger. Abraham was a sinner, but
because of his faith, he is now counted
as righteous.
Evidence from the Psalms
Paul will return to the example of
Abraham in a few verses. But at this
point he gives more evidence from the
Old Testament that God can count the
wicked as righteous. Paul uses Psalm
32, written by David, another highly
respected patriarch of the Jewish people: David says the same thing when
he speaks of the blessedness of
those to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: “Blessed
are those whose transgressions are
forgiven, whose sins are covered.
Blessed are those whose sin the Lord
will never count against them” (4:6-8).
David talks about someone who had
sins, who would have to be counted
wicked if judged by works, but who had
all their sins forgiven. David didn’t mention faith here, but he is talking about a
person to whom God credits righteousness apart from works. There is a way to
be right with God that doesn’t depend on
perfect behavior. The sins are not counted against us, but faith is counted in our
favor.
For Jews only?
Paul then returns to the example of
Abraham, asking, Is this blessedness
only for the circumcised, or also for
the uncircumcised? (v. 9). Is the blessing of forgiveness available only to
NORTHERN LIGHT
B I B L E
Jews, or also to Gentiles? Can Gentiles
be counted among the righteous? We
have been saying, he reminds them,
that Abraham’s faith was credited to
him as righteousness. Under what
circumstances was it credited? Was it
after he was circumcised, or before?
It was not after, but before! (vv. 9-10).
Abraham was circumcised in Genesis
17. So in Genesis 15 (which is 14 years
earlier), when his faith was counted as
righteousness, he was not circumcised.
Not only was Abraham credited with
being righteous apart from works in general, he was counted as righteous apart
from Jewish works in particular.
Therefore, a person doesn’t have to
become Jewish in order to be saved.
They don’t have to become circumcised,
or keep the laws that distinguished Jews
from Gentiles, because Abraham was a
Gentile when he was counted as righteous. Abraham shows that God doesn’t
mind calling sinners righteous, and he
doesn’t require circumcision, or the laws
of Moses.
Abraham received circumcision as a
sign, a seal of the righteousness that
he had by faith while he was still
uncircumcised (v. 11). Abraham
became circumcised later, but that doesn’t prove that we also need to become
circumcised after we come to faith.
Circumcision was simply a sign of the
righteousness that he already had. That
didn’t add anything to his righteousness
and didn’t change his category.
So then, Paul concludes, he is the
father of all who believe but have not
been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them.
Abraham is the father of all the Gentiles
who believe. He set the precedent for an
uncircumcised person being counted as
righteous.
And he is then also the father of the
circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also follow in the footsteps of the faith that our father
J A N U A R Y F E B R U A R Y
Abraham had before he was circumcised (v. 12). As Paul has already
argued, a person is not a Jew if he is
only one outwardly (2:28). To truly
belong to the people of God, a person
must be changed in the heart, not necessarily in the flesh. If Jewish people
want to be counted among the people of
God, they need to have faith—the same
kind of faith that Abraham had before he
was circumcised.
The basis of salvation is faith, not flesh.
Gentiles don’t need to copy Jews in
order to be saved. Instead, Jews need to
copy a Gentile—that is, Abraham, before
he was circumcised. We all need to copy
the Gentile named Abraham.
S T U D Y
C O N T I N U E D
wrath (vv. 14-15). The promise would do
us no good because we all fall short of
what the law requires. We are sinners,
and all the law can do for us is bring
wrath and punishment. It cannot deliver
the promises, because by its criteria, we
fall short.
If salvation is by the law, then we have
no hope. The good news, however, is
that where there is no law there is no
transgression (v. 15). If salvation is not
on the basis of the law, then we cannot
disqualify ourselves through our transgressions. Since the law is not part of
the method by which we are saved, our
sins are not part of the picture, either.
They don’t take away what God has
given to us by a promise (see 8:1).
Faith, not law
By faith
Paul now brings the word law back into
the discussion: It was not through the
law that Abraham and his offspring
received the promise that he would
be heir of the world, but through the
righteousness that comes by faith (v.
13). The law of Moses wasn’t even
around in the days of Abraham, but Paul
is saying that the promise wasn’t given
by law at all. God didn’t say, If you do
this or that, I will bless you. No, he simply said he would bless him. It was an
unconditional promise: Abraham, you
are going to have descendants enough
to fill the earth, and the whole world is
going to be blessed through you.
Abraham believed that promise, and that
is why he was counted as righteous. It
was not on the basis of a law.
Because, Paul reasons, if those who
depend on the law are heirs, [then]
faith means nothing ... (v. 14). It’s
either faith or law—it cannot be both. If
we are saved by our works, then we are
looking to our works, not trusting in God.
If Abraham had earned this blessing by
keeping a law, then there would be no
point in mentioning his faith.
But even more seriously, Paul says that
if salvation is by law, then the promise
is worthless, because the law brings
2 0 0 5
Therefore, Paul says in Rom. 4:16, the
promise comes by faith, so that it
may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not
only to those who are of the law but
also to those who have the faith of
Abraham (v. 16). The promise given to
Abraham was for uncountable descendants, and we can share in Abraham’s
promise by being one of his descendants, through a spiritual union with
Jesus, who descended from Abraham.
The promise of salvation comes to us by
faith, by grace, not by works, and it is
consequently guaranteed. We don’t
have to be afraid that we will lose our
salvation through some sin that we have
trouble getting rid of. Grace doesn’t keep
count of works, either good or bad. In
this way, the promise goes not only to
the Jews, but to all people.
Abraham is the father of us all, Paul
concludes, and he follows it up with a
confirming quote from the Torah: As it is
written: “I have made you a father of
many nations” (v. 17, quoting Gen.
17:5 and using the common word for
Gentiles). Abraham is the father not just
of the Jewish nation, but of many other
nations. Gentiles are also his descen-
27
B I B L E
S T U D Y
C O N T I N U E D
dants, and they do not have to become
Jewish in order to be counted.
Abraham is our father in the sight of
God, in whom he believed—the God
who gives life to the dead and calls
into being things that were not (v. 17).
Why does Paul bring this up? Perhaps
he is thinking of the spiritually dead—
Gentiles and unbelieving Jews. God can
rescue them, and he can take people
who were alienated, and make them his
people. He can take people who are
wicked and call them righteous.
Abraham’s faith
Paul concludes with a summary of the
story of Abraham. His audience knew
the story well, but Paul emphasizes certain points to reinforce what he has been
saying:
Against all hope, Abraham in hope
believed and so became the father of
many nations, just as it had been said
to him, “So shall your offspring be”
[Gen. 15:5]. Without weakening in his
faith, he faced the fact that his body
was as good as dead—since he was
about a hundred years old—and that
Sarah’s womb was also dead. Yet he
did not waver through unbelief
regarding the promise of God, but
was strengthened in his faith and
gave glory to God, being fully persuaded that God had power to do
what he had promised (vv. 18-21).
couraged by our human inability to be
righteous, but we should trust in the
promise of God to count us righteous on
the basis of faith. Paul reminds us that
because Abraham trusted in God, this is
why “it was credited to him as righteousness” (Gen. 15:5).
As his final point, Paul reasons that the
words “it was credited to him” were
written not for him alone, but also for
us (vv. 22-23). Actually, those words
were not written for Abraham at all, for
they were written long after he died.
They were written primarily for us, so
that we will also have faith. We are the
ones to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him
who raised Jesus our Lord from the
dead (v. 24).
Questions for discussion
1. If God saves the wicked (v. 5), does
that allow me to be wicked?
2. What is the seal or evidence of my
righteousness? (v. 11)
3. Does the law have any role in my salvation? (v. 14)
4. If salvation is guaranteed (v. 16), can
I refuse it or lose it?
5. Am I discouraged by my own weaknesses? (v. 19)
6. What gives me evidence that God will
save me? (v. 24)
No matter whether we are Gentile or
Jewish, we will be counted as righteous,
as God’s people, if we trust in God.
What he did for Jesus, he will do for us:
raise us from the dead. He has done it
before, and he will do it again.
Paul concludes the chapter with a brief
restatement of his gospel message:
Jesus Christ was delivered over to
death for our sins and was raised to
life for our justification (v. 25). The
deed has been done; the promise has
been given. We need to accept his gift—
the gift of righteousness—given to those
who believe in Jesus Christ. If God can
raise the dead, he can save anyone!NL
According to the flesh, Abraham didn’t
have any reason to hope, but he had
faith in what God had promised, and his
faith was a witness to how great God is.
Abraham knew that the promise was
physically impossible, but he trusted in
God’s power and faithfulness rather than
in his own abilities.
In our salvation, too, we have no hope
according to the flesh, no hope according to our works, but we can trust in the
promise of God, given to Abraham and
extended through Jesus Christ to all who
believe in him. We should not be dis-
28
NORTHERN LIGHT
Étude biblique
L’exemple d’Abraham
de Michael Morrison
éditeur de la revue World Wide News
Une étude dans Romains 3
D
ans la dernière section de
Romains 3, Paul déclare que
l’Évangile du salut annonce
une justice de Dieu par laquelle
il «déclare les hommes justes
par leur foi en Jésus-Christ, et
cela s’applique à tous ceux qui croient»
(3.22). Cette justice est donnée à tous
ceux qui croient en Jésus ; en d’autres
termes, les croyants sont justifiés ou
sauvés par la foi en Jésus-Christ, et non
en observant la Loi (3.28).
Mais certains protesteraient : «Paul, distu que la Loi est mauvaise ?» À cela
Paul répond : «Loin de là ! Nous confirmons la Loi» (3.31). La Loi ne contredit
pas l’Évangile, et l’Évangile ne contredit
pas l’Ancien Testament. Paul aborde
cette section en disant que la Loi et les
prophètes témoignent de ce don de justice (3.21). Il a commencé la lettre
entière en affirmant que son Évangile a
été promis dans les Écritures (1.2).
La Loi a été conçue pour conduire les
gens à l’Évangile, et l’Évangile n’annule
pas la Loi tout comme le Messie n’annule pas les prophéties qui ont annoncé
sa venue, mais plutôt les accomplit. De
la même façon, l’Évangile accomplit la
Loi, l’achève et réalise ce que la Loi ne
pouvait qu’indiquer.
La foi d’Abraham
Paul ensuite illustre sa pensée par un
exemple de l’Ancien Testament. Le patriarche Abraham est un excellent exemple de ce que Paul explique : que le
salut vient par la foi et non par la Loi. En
Romains 4, Paul élabore à la fois sur la
signification de la justification et sur la
foi. Il demande au verset 1 : «Prenons
l’exemple d’Abraham, l’ancêtre de notre
peuple, selon la descendance physique.
Que pouvons-nous dire à son sujet ?
Quelle a été son expérience ?»
Il précise encore plus la question en
ajoutant : «S’il a été déclaré juste en raison de ce qu’il a fait, alors certes, il peut
se vanter. Mais ce n’est pas ainsi que
Dieu voit la chose !» (v. 2) Si Abraham
J A N U A R Y F E B R U A R Y
était considéré juste à cause de ses
œuvres, il aurait raison de se vanter,
même si cela ne lui donnerait aucun
mérite auprès de Dieu.
Paul a déjà dit qu’il est hors de question
de se vanter (3.27). Il fait contraster
deux approches par rapport à la justice :
une approche basée sur ce que les gens
peuvent faire pour ensuite en tirer gloire,
et une autre qui dépend de la foi et de
laquelle ils ne peuvent se vanter, mais
plutôt en être reconnaissants. Quelle
sorte de justice avait Abraham ?
Paul trouve une réponse dans la Loi :
«En effet, que dit l’Écriture ? Abraham a
eu confiance en Dieu, et Dieu, en portant sa foi à son crédit, l’a déclaré juste»
(4.3, tiré de Ge 15.6 ). La foi d’Abraham
lui a été imputée à justice. Le patriarche,
représentant toute la nation (et même le
monde), a été déclaré juste non sur la
base de ses œuvres, mais sur la base
de sa foi en la promesse de Dieu.
Justifier le pécheur
Paul ensuite commence à raisonner sur
ce que cela veut dire. Il établit un contraste entre les œuvres et la foi : «Si
quelqu’un accomplit un travail, on lui
compte son salaire non pas comme si
on lui faisait une faveur, mais d’après ce
qui lui est dû» (v. 4) Abraham a reçu son
statut : s’il l’avait gagné par de bonnes
œuvres, alors Dieu ne lui aurait pas
crédité sa foi pour être justifié. Certains
Juifs pensaient qu’Abraham était parfait
dans son comportement et que Dieu
était obligé de le considérer comme
juste, mais Paul dit que, selon les Écritures, Abraham devait être justifié sur la
base de la foi.
Puis Paul ajoute : «Et si quelqu’un n’accomplit pas d’œuvre mais place sa confiance en Dieu qui déclare justes les
pécheurs, Dieu le déclare juste en portant sa foi à son crédit» (v. 5). Paul intensifie le contraste : il ne parle pas de
quelqu’un qui fait des œuvres et qui a la
foi, mais de quelqu’un qui croit sans
faire les œuvres. Bien sûr, les œuvres
2 0 0 5
suivent normalement la foi mais, à ce
point dans l’histoire, Abraham n’avait
que la foi et aucune œuvre. Il faisait confiance à Dieu, et sa foi lui a été imputée
à justice.
Paul pousse encore un peu plus loin le
contraste en affirmant que Dieu justifie
le pécheur. Il utilise un mot fort
«pécheur» mot qui n’est pas habituellement associé à Abraham. Mais les Juifs
ne comptaient que deux catégories de
gens : les justes et les pécheurs. Et si
Dieu dû intervenir pour qu’Abraham soit
justifié, alors cela implique qu’il n’était
pas justifié auparavant, et qu’il faisait
partie de la catégorie des pécheurs.
Dieu n’a pas besoin de secourir le juste.
Il sauve le pécheur ; on ne peut pas
sauver des gens qui ne sont aucunement en danger. Abraham était un
pécheur mais, à cause de sa foi, il a été
considéré comme juste.
Preuves à partir des Psaumes
Paul reprendra l’exemple d’Abraham
quelques versets plus loin. Mais ici il
donne plus de preuves de l’Ancien
Testament que Dieu peut imputer le
pécheur à justice. Paul se sert du
Psaume 32, écrit par David, un autre
patriarche hautement respecté du peuple juif : «David exprime aussi de la
même manière le bonheur de l’homme
que Dieu déclare juste sans qu’il ait produit d’œuvres pour le mériter : Heureux
ceux dont les fautes ont été pardonnées
et dont les péchés ont été effacés.
Heureux l’homme au compte de qui le
Seigneur ne porte pas le péché» (4.6-8).
David parle de quelqu’un qui a péché,
qui aurait été déclaré pécheur s’il avait
été jugé selon ses œuvres, mais qui
aurait tous ses péchés pardonnés.
David n’a pas fait mention de la foi dans
ce passage mais il parle d’une personne
à qui Dieu a imputé la justice sans les
œuvres. Il y a une façon d’être en règle
avec Dieu qui ne dépend pas d’un comportement parfait. Les péchés ne nous
sont pas imputés, mais la foi nous est
imputée en notre faveur.
29
É t u d e
b i b l i q u e
Pour les Juifs seulement?
Paul ensuite revient à l’exemple
d’Abraham et demande : «Ce bonheur
est-il réservé aux seuls circoncis, ou estil aussi accessible aux incirconcis ?» (v. 9)
La bénédiction du pardon n’est-elle
disponible qu’aux Juifs, ou aussi aux
Gentils ? Les Gentils peuvent-ils être
comptés parmi les justes ? Paul leur rappelle : « Nous venons de le dire :
Abraham a été déclaré juste par Dieu
qui a porté sa foi à son crédit. À quel
moment cela a-t-il eu lieu ? Quand il
était circoncis ou quand il était encore
incirconcis ? Ce n’est pas quand il était
circoncis, mais quand il ne l’était pas
encore» (v. 9,10).
Abraham a été circoncis en Genèse 17.
Alors en Genèse 15 (soit 14 ans auparavant), lorsque sa foi lui a été imputée
à justice, il n’était pas circoncis. Non
seulement Abraham a-t-il imputé à justice sans les œuvres en général, mais il
a été notamment imputé à justice sans
les œuvres des Juifs.
Par conséquent, une personne n’a pas
besoin d’être juive pour être sauvée. Elle
n’a pas à se faire circoncire ou à garder
la Loi qui distingue les Juifs des Gentils,
parce qu’Abraham était un Gentil au
moment où il a été imputé à justice.
Abraham montre que Dieu accepte d’appeler justes des pécheurs, et ce, sans
exiger la circoncision ou l’observation
des lois mosaïques.
déclarés justes par Dieu de la même
manière» (v. 11). Abraham est le père de
tous les Gentils qui croient. Il a établi le
précédent pour une personne incirconcise imputée à justice.
«Il est aussi devenu le père des circoncis qui ne se contentent pas d’avoir la
circoncision, mais qui suivent l’exemple
de la foi que notre père Abraham a manifestée alors qu’il était encore incirconcis» (v. 12). Comme Paul l’a déjà mentionné, quelqu’un n’est pas un Juif en ne
portant que la marque extérieure (2.28).
Pour vraiment appartenir au peuple de
Dieu, une personne doit avoir le cœur
transformé, et non nécessairement la
chair. Si les Juifs veulent faire partie du
peuple de Dieu, ils doivent avoir la foi —
la même sorte de foi qu’avait Abraham
avant d’être circoncis.
La base du salut est la foi et non la chair.
Les Gentils n’ont pas besoin d’imiter les
Juifs pour être sauvés. Les Juifs doivent
plutôt imiter un Gentil, c’est-à-dire
Abraham avant sa circoncision. Nous
devons tous imiter le Gentil appelé
Abraham.
La foi et non la Loi
Abraham a reçu de Dieu «le signe de la
circoncision comme sceau de la justice
qu’il avait déjà reçue par la foi avant
d’être circoncis» (v. 11). Abraham a été
circoncis plus tard, mais cela ne prouve
pas que nous devons aussi être circoncis après avoir cru. La circoncision était
simplement un signe de la justice qu’il
avait déjà reçue. Cela n’a rien ajouté à
sa justice et ne l’a pas changé de catégorie.
Puis Paul ramène le mot Loi dans la discussion. «Car la promesse de recevoir
le monde en héritage a été faite à
Abraham et à sa descendance non
parce qu’il avait obéi à la Loi, mais parce
que Dieu l’a déclaré juste à cause de sa
foi» (v. 13). La Loi de Moïse n’existait
même pas à l’époque d’Abraham, et
Paul déclare que la promesse n’a pas du
tout été donnée par la Loi. Dieu n’a pas
dit : «Si tu fais ceci ou cela, je te bénirai.» Non, il a simplement dit qu’il le
bénirait. C’était une promesse inconditionnelle : «Abraham, tu auras suffisamment de descendants pour remplir la
terre, et le monde entier sera béni par
toi.» Abraham a cru cette promesse, et
c’est pourquoi il a été imputé à justice.
Ce n’était pas sur la base d’une loi.
Paul conclut ainsi : «Il est devenu ainsi
le père de tous ceux qui croient sans
être circoncis pour qu’eux aussi soient
Paul poursuit son raisonnement ainsi :
«En effet, s’il faut être sous le régime de
la Loi pour avoir droit à cet héritage,
30
alors la foi est sans objet» (v. 14). C’est
soit la foi soit la Loi : ce ne peut être les
deux en même temps. Si nous croyons
être sauvés par nos œuvres, c’est que
nous regardons à nos œuvres sans faire
confiance à Dieu. Si Abraham avait
gagné cette bénédiction en gardant la
Loi, alors il serait inutile de faire mention
de sa foi.
Mais encore plus sérieusement, Paul
précise que si le salut s’obtient par la foi,
alors «la promesse est annulée. Car la
Loi produit la colère de Dieu» (v. 14,15).
La promesse serait inutile parce que
nous ne pouvons accomplir ce qu’exige
la Loi. Nous sommes pécheurs, et tout
ce que la Loi peut faire pour nous, c’est
d’apporter la colère et le châtiment. Elle
ne peut pas livrer les promesses parce
que nous sommes incapables d’en
atteindre les critères.
Si le salut s’obtient par la Loi, alors nous
n’avons aucun espoir. La bonne nouvelle est que «là où il n’y a pas de Loi, il
n’y a pas non plus de transgression» (v. 15).
Si le salut ne s’obtient pas sur la base de
la Loi, alors nous ne pouvons nous disqualifier à cause de nos transgressions.
Étant donné que la Loi ne fait pas partie
de la méthode par laquelle nous
sommes sauvés, nos péchés ne sont
pas non plus considérés. Ils n’enlèvent
pas ce que Dieu nous a donné par une
promesse (voir 8.1).
Par la foi
Paul ajoute en Romains 4.16 : «Voilà
pourquoi l’héritage est promis à la foi :
c’est pour qu’il soit un don de la grâce.
Ainsi, la promesse se trouve confirmée à
toute la descendance d’Abraham, c’està-dire non seulement à celle qui est
sous le régime de la Loi, mais aussi à
celle qui partage la foi d’Abraham» (v. 16). La
promesse donnée à Abraham était pour
d’innombrables descendants, et nous
pouvons prendre part à la promesse
d’Abraham en étant un de ses descendants, par une union spirituelle avec
Jésus, qui descend d’Abraham.
NORTHERN LIGHT
É t u d e
La promesse du salut vient à nous par la
foi, par grâce, et non par les œuvres, et
elle est en conséquence garantie. Nous
n’avons pas à craindre de perdre notre
salut par quelque péché dont nous
avons de la difficulté à nous défaire. La
grâce ne tient pas compte de nos
œuvres, bonnes ou mauvaises. Ainsi, la
promesse n’est pas seulement destinée
aux Juifs mais à tout le monde.
Abraham «est notre père à tous» ajoute
Paul, et il conclut par un verset de la
torah qui le confirme : «comme le dit
l’Écriture : Je t’ai établi pour être le père
d’une multitude de peuples» (v. 17 tiré
de Ge 17.5 et se servant du mot courant
pour désigner les Gentils). Abraham est
le père non seulement de la nation juive,
mais de nombreuses autres nations. Les
Gentils sont aussi ses descendants, et
ils n’ont pas besoin de devenir Juifs pour
en faire partie.
«Placé en présence de Dieu, [Abraham]
mit sa confiance en celui qui donne la
vie aux morts et appelle à l’existence ce
qui n’existe pas» (v. 17). Pourquoi Paul
parle-t-il de cela ? Peut-être qu’il pensait
aux morts spirituellement : les Gentils et
les Juifs non croyants. Dieu peut les
secourir et il peut prendre des gens qui
sont égarés et en faire son peuple, prendre des gens qui sont pécheurs et les
appeler justes.
La foi d’Abraham
Paul termine son exposé par un résumé
de l’histoire d’Abraham. Son auditoire
connaissait bien l’histoire, mais Paul
souligne certains points pour renforcer
ce qu’il a dit : «Alors que tout lui interdisait d’espérer, il a espéré et il a cru. Ainsi
il est devenu le père d’une multitude de
peuples conformément à ce que Dieu lui
avait dit : Ta descendance sera nombreuse. Il considéra son corps, qui était
comme mort — il avait presque cent ans
— et celui de Sara, qui ne pouvait plus
donner la vie, et sa foi ne faiblit pas. Au
contraire : loin de mettre en doute la
promesse et de refuser de croire, il trouva sa force dans la foi, en reconnaissant
J A N U A R Y F E B R U A R Y
la grandeur de Dieu et en étant absolument persuadé que Dieu est capable
d’accomplir ce qu’il a promis» (v. 18-21).
Selon la chair, Abraham n’avait aucune
raison d’espérer, mais il avait la foi en ce
que Dieu avait promis, et sa foi était un
témoignage de la grandeur de Dieu.
Abraham savait que la promesse était
physiquement impossible, mais il croyait
en la puissance et en la fidélité de Dieu
plutôt qu’en ses propres capacités.
En ce qui concerne notre salut également, nous n’avons aucun espoir selon
la chair, aucun espoir selon nos œuvres,
mais nous pouvons faire confiance à la
promesse de Dieu, donnée à Abraham
et offerte à tous ceux qui croient en lui
par Jésus-Christ. Nous ne devrions pas
être découragés par notre incapacité
humaine à être justifiés, mais nous
devons croire à la promesse de Dieu
pour nous rendre justes sur la base de la
foi. Paul nous rappelle qu’«Abram fit
confiance à l’Éternel et, à cause de cela,
l’Éternel le déclara juste» (Ge 15.5).
b i b l i q u e
nous soyons déclarés justes» (v. 25).
L’œuvre a été accomplie ; la promesse a
été donnée. Nous devons accepter son
don — le don de la justice — offert à
ceux qui croient en Jésus-Christ. Si Dieu
peut ressusciter les morts, il peut sauver
n’importe qui ! NL
Questions pour susciter la discussion
1. Si Dieu sauve le pécheur (v. 5), cela
me permet-il de pécher ?
2. Quel est le sceau ou quelle est la
preuve de ma justification ? (v. 11)
3. La Loi joue-t-elle un rôle quelconque
dans mon salut ? (v. 14)
4. Si le salut est garanti (v. 16), puis-je
le refuser ou le perdre ?
5. Suis-je découragé par mes propres
faiblesses ? (v. 19)
6. Qu’est-ce qui me prouve que Dieu
me sauvera ? (v. 24).
Comme argument final, Paul explique
que les mots «Dieu l’a déclaré juste »
n’ont pas été écrits pour lui seulement,
mais aussi pour nous» (v. 22, 23). En
fait, ces mots n’ont pas du tout été écrits
pour Abraham, parce qu’ils l’ont été
longtemps après sa mort. Ils ont été
écrits principalement pour nous, pour
que nous ayons aussi la foi. «Car la foi
sera aussi portée à notre crédit, à nous
qui plaçons notre confiance en celui qui
a ressuscité des morts Jésus notre
Seigneur» (v. 24).
Que nous soyons Gentils ou Juifs, nous
ferons partie des justes ; nous serons
considérés comme le peuple de Dieu si
nous croyons en Dieu. Ce qu’il a fait
pour Jésus, il le fera pour nous : il nous
ressuscitera des morts. Il l’a fait par le
passé et il le fera encore.
Paul clôt le chapitre en réaffirmant
brièvement le message de l’Évangile :
«[Jésus-Christ] a été livré pour nos
fautes, et Dieu l’a ressuscité pour que
2 0 0 5
31
P A S T O R ’ S
C O R N E R
By Dennis Lawrence
WIJD?
Y
ou’ve seen them, and maybe
you wear one yourself. It’s a
bracelet that says “WWJD,”
and is meant to keep the question “What would Jesus do?”
before the mind of the
Christian wearing it. It’s meant to be a
reminder and a prompter toward appropriate activity at any point of the day.
But WWJD sounds rather academic to
me. It does not accurately reflect what
I’d like to see on a wristband, or
inscribed on our hearts and minds.
WWJD is not as real or present as
something else that would be even
more of a prompt, to me, at least.
something to simply tolerate, but it’s normal and God and you can and will deal
with that issue by issue.
You might wonder, “Well, if Jesus is living in me, why do I do some un-Jesus
things more than I’d like to? Does that
mean Jesus is sinning or doing some
un-Jesus things?” Jesus clearly is not
responsible (Galatians 2:17). Those unJesus things are “purely you.” It simply
Pastor Montreal English, Eastern
Townships, and Cornwall
congregations
This reflects something more immediate
and urgent, more pressing and imminent, than WWJD. WIJD? WIJD in you
right now? WIJD in you at any moment
of your life?
Every day of your life, your assignment
is to find out what Jesus is doing in and
through you—day by day, hour by hour,
minute by minute. It’s very immediate.
It’s very pressing. It’s not some academic matter of understanding. Throughout
each day, you and I are looking to Jesus
to understand what He is doing now.
What are we to yield to at this moment to
free Jesus to do? Can anything be
more exciting than this constant
quest? NL
Have you accepted Jesus
Christ as your Savior?
Most of you have. If that
is true, in how many of
you is Jesus Christ
alive right now? The
number should be the
same and, actually,
is. Paul tells us that
Christ in us is our
“hope
of
glory”
(Colossians 1:27), and
he underscores that even
though it looks like it’s us
living, in reality it is Jesus
alive in us (Galatians 2:20).
Jesus is now, at this moment,
alive in you. Maybe that sounds
a bit crowded to you, but it’s the
reality you and I live with.
You might think that sin—the things we
sometimes do and think—disqualifies
you from the reality of Christ being alive
in you. But it does not. You are “in the
Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in
you” (Romans 8:9). A change happened
in you when you accepted Jesus into
your life. You left your past behind and
declared that you wanted to live and be
guided in a different way. God took you
at your word and changed you. You
might wrestle with that reality, because
what you see coming out of you is not
always what ought to come out. That is
normal. It doesn’t mean that it’s right or
32
means that even when you are alive in
the Spirit, with Jesus in you, sometimes
you override Jesus. Sometimes you
don’t know what Jesus would do, and
don’t yield to it, and sometimes you
might even fight Jesus, without knowing
that you are.
So, what of the appropriate wristband? It
would read “WIJD”—What Is Jesus
Doing? This is the quest of our lives.
NORTHERN LIGHT