Wouldn’t it be nice if all leavening was labeled with clear wording? Instead of “potassium bicarbonate”, wouldn’t it be nice if it were plainly labeled as “leavening”?
Of course, wouldn’t it be nice if spiritual leavening was clearly labeled as well? You know, leaven of malice and wickedness, leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and then there’s the leaven of Herod. I want you to think about that last facet as I try to connect the dots.
Pharisees, Sadducees, Herod – this is all ancient history, right? Do we even have any of this type of leaven around us today? Jesus identified in a very familiar verse, Lk 12:1, that the leaven of the Pharisees is hypocrisy. Does our society have hypocrisy today? In another familiar passage, Mt 16:11-12, Jesus tells us the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees is their doctrine. Do we have false doctrines around us today? It is important to note that the Pharisees and Sadducees actually had different doctrines. They did not see eye-to-eye, for example, on the resurrection. The Pharisees were considered the blue-collar conservatives of their day, while the Sadducees were the elitists that brought in Hellenistic ideas into the Jewish religion. However, both had false ideas that they promoted as truth.
One of these passages ties hypocrisy and false doctrine together. And you know, it is difficult to have hypocrisy without false doctrine and it is difficult to have false doctrine without hypocrisy. Both involve a type of falsehood. Both involve deceiving and being deceived.What is hypocrisy, anyhow? Greeks used to love plays. They would engage in play acting, that is, hypokrisis. Acting involves a certain amount of interpretation or judgment, so the actors were called hypokrites. Often, they used masks that would exaggerate features of the characters they were emulating. In other words, they were trying to appear as something other than what they really were.
What is doctrine? Loosely defined, “doctrine” just means “teaching”. Sometimes, it is defined as “that which is taught”.
The customs of the world overtake the commanded days that God instituted in the Bible. It is similar to what the Pharisees did by replacing the commandments of God with the traditions of men. Do the world’s religions teach certain things? Do they push a worldview? Does the world teach our youth to think and act a certain way? Does it teach that God, if He even exists, is irrelevant?
Brethren, can this type of thinking affect us? Can this type of thinking invade the Church? Can we become lax about God’s way of life? Can we become too comfortable with what the world does and the messages it sends?
Leaven represents sin. We hear this year after year. Yet, it can become a catch phrase to say, “Leaven is sin”, and totally gloss over what that really means. Can we go through this season so many times and not really meditate upon its meaning?
Leavening involves a chemical or biological action. Yeast eats sugar and expels carbon dioxide. This action is called fermentation. It destroys the sugar in order to create something else. The people of Jesus’ day would have understood a little about this, even though they may not have understood that yeast was a living organism. They would have viewed the process as a type of corruption. They would have understood the concept that spiritual leaven is a type of moral corruption. What corrupts spiritually? Sin. There is the connection. Physical corruption symbolizes moral corruption.
Jesus spoke of the leaven of the Pharisees on two different occasions. On one occasion, he mentioned the Sadducees as well. Jesus also identified the third facet that I really want to focus in on. I hadn’t heard as much about this one, so maybe you aren’t as familiar with it either.
Mark 8:15 (King James Version)
15And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod.
What does Herod have to do with this? The Pharisees and Sadducees, after all, were religious leaders. They had doctrine. They had hypocrisy. Is the leaven of Herod the same thing? Is it really any different?
When you look at the history of Herod Antipas and his father, Herod the Great, you cannot come away without the feeling that there was something really, really wrong here. There is a definite moral depravity that even secular historians cannot deny.
Herod the Great had ten wives, one of whom he executed. Later, he killed three of his sons because of his paranoia. One of the murdered sons, Aristobulus, had a daughter named Herodias, who was still a minor at the time. Herod had her engaged to his son Herod Philip, who was Herodias’ half uncle and Herod the Great’s pick for heir to the throne. However, after Herod the Great’s death, Herod Antipas successfully lobbied to have the will contested, and so he was awarded the tetrarchy instead of Herod Philip. Herodias divorced Herod Philip in order to marry Herod Antipas. This was unusual even in that society to marry a woman who was both ex-sister-in-law and niece.
It gets even more bizarre, though. Herodias and Herod Philip had a daughter named Salome. She also married a half-uncle named Philip the Tetrarch or Herod Philip II, which made Herodias and Salome both mother and daughter as well as sisters-in-law.
And, that was only part of the intrigue and evil that occurred.
When you get the opportunity, read through Mk 6. It points out that Herod knew John was a just and holy man, yet he had John executed anyhow. Does that not make Herod guilty of hypocrisy?
Did the Pharisees do the same thing? Did they know Jesus was a just and holy man? John 3 records the exchange between Jesus and Nicodemus, a pretty familiar passage.
John 3:1-2 (King James Version)
1There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
Yet, Mark’s account that names the leaven of Herod lumps him in with the Pharisees’ doctrine. Did Herod have a doctrine?
There are commentaries out there that point out that the Pharisees and Sadducees were religious leaders while Herod was a leader through the government. Does a government have something to teach? Does a government have a doctrine? Does a government enforce its beliefs upon those who are governed?
The people of this world try to get their person into power so they can get what they desire. They try to effect change through politics. Soon, we will once again be witnessing in this country just how much of a religion that politics has become in this country. Our attitude in the Church should be for the good of all and to the glory of God, rather than the pursuit of our own agenda.
Yet, I’ve been surprised in past church gatherings to hear actual arguments over politics. It’s shocking to read things that advocate military and political involvement, even amongst people associated with various COGs. We are supposed to become unspotted from the world, are we not?
What of church politics, anyhow? Is that how God wants his Kingdom to be run with competing factions vying for power? I think not.
Wikipedia says of “Pharisees” that one definition is of them being a political party.
If you think politics and religion cannot mix at least temporarily, I’d like to point out Mark 3 to you. There are quasi-religious establishments even in this country that involve themselves in politics. Anyone remember the “Moral Majority”?
Mark 3:1-6 (King James Version)
1And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand.
2And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him.
3And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth.
4And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace.
5And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.
6And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him.
So, here we see cooperation between the followers of the Pharisees and the followers of Herod. We see religion blending with government in order to achieve a desired end and to meet their agenda, even if were to be a temporary alliance to get what each party wants.
Ask yourselves these questions as the Days of Unleavened Bread approach:
Should we be involving ourselves in this world’s affairs? Who really runs this world’s governments, anyhow? What government should we be trusting in? What Kingdom should we be asking for, yearning for, trying to get into? Is it not the Kingdom of God? Shouldn’t our leaders be God the Father and Jesus Christ?
So, let us put out the leaven of trying to do get our own way, whether it is within the church or within the affairs of the world. Let’s not entangle ourselves in the false ideas of this society. Let’s not play act or hide behind a mask. Instead, let’s take in the unleavened bread of sincerity, truth and total submission to God’s authority in all things and at all times.
After all, if we take in spiritual leaven, we will be the ones morally corrupted, and it will become our disease to deal with. Jesus said to “beware” of certain types of leaven, so beware we must.
It’s shocking to read things that advocate military and political involvement, even amongst people associated with various COGs. We are supposed to become unspotted from the world, are we not?
I believe military and political involvement are subjects where it is possible to step on spiritual land mines on both sides of such issues.
Have you run across any good information that doesn’t use conjecture or speculation about these verses:
Acts 10:7 And when the angel which spoke to Cornelius was departed, he called two of his household servants, and a devout soldier of them that waited on him continually;
Acts 10:22 And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that fears God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for you into his house, and to hear words of you.
Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
Acts 10:44 While Peter yet spoke these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
On a side note apart from the military/polictical issues, I believe the passage does give a deeper understanding that the Holy Spirit is a gift from God, seeing that these people were neither baptized or had hands laid upon them before it was given.
Norbert wrote: “On a side note apart from the military/polictical issues, I believe the passage does give a deeper understanding that the Holy Spirit is a gift from God, seeing that these people were neither baptized or had hands laid upon them before it was given.”
I think that’s an excellent point. However, I would caution those that say baptism is unnecessary that this was a one-time event done to show that God was calling the Gentiles. Peter’s observation that the Holy Spirit fell upon the Gentiles first was relevant in that he could not logically withhold baptism from them. It also become relevant in the controversy over circumcision.
To your main question, though, one can only speculate, as Cornelius is never mentioned afterwards. However, does that mean we cannot reasonably speculate?
First of all, since he was a centurion, he was likely a career man. Back in those days, you could volunteer for ten years. However, as a career soldier, he likely had volunteered for 25. Since he was already centurion, he was likely at the end of his career.
People are called in various situations. If we are not careful, we can say the Bible condones this or that because of that. In fact, it was this type of reasoning that led some to conclude in this country that slavery was condoned in the Bible. After all, Paul never told slaves to run away, nor did he instruct slave owners to free their slaves. To add to the confusion, slavery in this country was pretty brutal compared to what slavery in the Roman Empire evolved into. Later in the Empire, slaves even were acknowledged to have certain rights.
Comparing the slavery of the 19th century to that of the Roman Empire, then, is faulty as they were very different things. The military was quite different as well. The Roman Empire would have had no notion of CO status, as that is a modern invention. For that reason, we have to be careful how we compare them. Desertion would have been punishable by death.
In addition, finishing a successful career would have likely meant citizenship. Think of the advantage that Paul had at times because he was a Roman citizen.
Most likely, Cornelius would have finished what little was left of his career and went on to be used by God for other greater things. Since there are no recorded instances of his involvement afterwards, there really is only educated speculation. However, educated speculation is still speculation nonetheless.
When it comes to baptism and its’ necessity, within that passage in Acts, no one that heard the word stood up and was a conciousious objector against Peter’s words on baptism. It could be said, were the rest of the Bible silent about water baptism except for Acts 10:48, “And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.. “. Then there is no other option other than the necessity of baptism, that much is 100% clear.
However when it comes to doctrines about military and political involvement within the Church, it’s not as clear. In my opinion that is partly because military service is complusory in some nations and in others it is not. It’s a harder subject to understand, to weed through the speculation that carries some scriptural weight to it and other speculation which may be no more than, “the word of the LORD was to them precept on precept, precept on precept; line on line, line on line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.” (Is 28:13)
Norbert: “When it comes to baptism and its’ necessity, within that passage in Acts, no one that heard the word stood up and was a conciousious objector against Peter’s words on baptism.”
Norbert, COs didn’t exist back then. I just got through saying that. It is a modern invention.
I doubt it would have crossed their minds anyhow. Why? Because they weren’t conscripted into the military to begin with. By the time this event occurred, the Roman Imperial Army was all volunteer. “A man’s word is his bond,” used to be a saying in this country. I think even those of us in the Church have lost sight of this. The soldiers would have been obligated to finish their tours, and a sense of honor would have demanded it.
“However when it comes to doctrines about military and political involvement within the Church, it’s not as clear. In my opinion that is partly because military service is complusory in some nations and in others it is not.”
Under HWA, allowances were made for those cases, as well. A government can force you do do certain things, and you are obligated as long as they don’t conflict with God’s Word.
However, don’t confuse CO status with draft dodgers. COs can and have been forced to serve in noncombat roles (cook, medic, etc.). In the US, it is up to the draft board, and the rules are often inconsistent. Some countries allow volunteering in public service positions in lieu of the military, but until recently even some Western nations did not.
We cannot know what Cornelius did or when he did it after that event. The Bible does not tell us. However, there are some clear things we should be thinking about before volunteering to be part of the military:
1. We are told to be unspotted from the world. Can we really attend political rallies, serve in the military or even donate to a political cause and not get some of it on us?
2. We are told in the Book of Judges that God used war as a means to teach a disobedient nation. The implication is that if they were truly obedient, they would not have had to fight themselves.
3. We are told in the real rules of war (not the Geneva Convention’s man-made rules of war) in Dt 20 that the people were to gather before the priest. There was not to be a standing army. That was not God’s original intent.
4. We are commanded to not kill. Can we in good conscience support an entire organization that is dedicated to finding means of killing the enemy?
5. Should we voluntarily place ourselves in submission to ungodly masters who will have total control over our lives and expect us to make compromises with God’s Law on a daily basis?
6. Christians in particular are told to love our enemies. How can we love our enemies while running a sword through them? Shooting them? Killing them?
Norbert, COs didn’t exist back then. I just got through saying that. It is a modern invention.
Although my intent in using the words ‘conciousious objector’, were meant more literally than a referall to CO status today. Even then looking at what was written, “ no one that heard the word stood up and was a conciousious objector against Peter’s words on baptism. It could be said, seeing no one was a conciousious objector back then, then there were no conciousious objectors at that time. 🙂
In my opinion, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, can be possible, but given that something is possible, then also such a thing has the possiblity of not being possible. Also I’m of the opinion there is very little profit in discussing pros and cons back and forth. However I do believe some profit can be had in reading about those pros and cons as long as they reference scriptures and are less opinionated. Which is what I was originally after seeing you have read a number of pieces.
“It’s shocking to read things that advocate military and political involvement, even amongst people associated with various COGs. We are supposed to become unspotted from the world, are we not?“
@Norbert: Well, #3 is Scripture and not an opinion. That’s what God said to do, and the instructions would make no sense if there was a standing army.
Your logic about what is possible is flawed. It is possible that God exists. The probability is 100%. It is not possible for Him to not exist because the probability is 0%.
I don’t know why you keep quoting the same paragraph, as that should be a very familiar Scripture as well. In addition, “unspotted” only occurs once in the KJV:
“Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” ~James 1:26-27
#2 is answered in the introduction to the Book of Judges.
I gave a link to an entire article to answer #5, and the Scripture references are there.
#6 comes from Jesus’ own words. It was from the Sermon on the Mount, as well as other places.
What Scriptural references then are you looking for?
Rather than brushing them aside, can you satisfactorily address 4 – 6 from the standpoint that a member could or should volunteer for the military?
What Scriptural references then are you looking for?
Rather than brushing them aside, can you satisfactorily address 4 – 6 from the standpoint that a member could or should volunteer for the military?
I am looking for the information you read that advocates military and political involvement which are from people associated with various COGs, especially if they use scriptural references.
Hopefully I will not be misread by being clearer about my thoughts, I aggree that I am not the most logical person to be read into.
4. We are commanded to not kill. Can we in good conscience support an entire organization that is dedicated to finding means of killing the enemy?
Both Cornelius and another devout soldier would of had the knowledge of that commandment. Albeit the scripture doesn’t exactly specify who heard the word and who did NOT within the household, yet the evidence of the angel visiting Cornelius and that both he and the soldier are described as “devout” can imply (implying is one thing, being explicit is another) they were among those that heard the word. Were that the case, then somehow these soldiers would have to make a decision about the commandment to not kill, being familiar with it already. That passage is silent about what happenned to their involvement with their service to Rome, only that they were in service to Rome and Peter did not specifically address a doctrine about military service.
6. Christians in particular are told to love our enemies. How can we love our enemies while running a sword through them? Shooting them? Killing them?
Similiar to the above, that passage is silent about how Cornelius and the devout soldier loved their enemies.
.. can you satisfactorily address 4 – 6 from the standpoint that a member could or should volunteer for the military?
I believe a person would need to thoroughly strive to understand the commandment to not kill and how to love others before they make their choice because I will remain silent on making their choices for them.
My tags for bolding in the above post are placed wrongly at the beginning, it should read as:
“What Scriptural references then are you looking for?
Rather than brushing them aside, can you satisfactorily address 4 – 6 from the standpoint that a member could or should volunteer for the military?“
For some reason the page did it again. My apologies for messing up your blog John. Feel free to delete where appropiate, the bolding was to quote you:
“What Scriptural references then are you looking for?
Rather than brushing them aside, can you satisfactorily address 4 – 6 from the standpoint that a member could or should volunteer for the military?”
Norbert wrote: “For some reason the page did it again.”
It seems to be an Internet Explorer thing, as Firefox was displaying it correctly. Seems IE doesn’t like it if there is a line break between tags. So, each paragraph needs to be surrounded by the < b > and < / b > pair.
I gotta run, but the advocates for military involvement have written articles in The Journal News of the Churches of God over the years. I believe Brian Knowles may be one of the more vocal. However, I have actually heard some I know that have stated that we should involve ourselves in the military. Like I said in the article, I’ve heard people in my presence argue about politics as well.
As far as Cornelius goes, God calls us where we are. Cornelius was “devout”, which means he was a “God fearer”, which would have been one step below an actual proselyte. As such, he would have kept some of the customs of the Jews, but he wasn’t circumcised. We are not told how long he had been one, but there’s a good chance he became a God fearer after joining the military. I was in the military when God first decided to hammer me pretty hard. It soon became evident, though, that I could not stay there. It just goes to show that conversion is a process and not a one-time event.