Fear God Much?

The fear of God is absent from modern society for the most part. The reason is obvious: many people today are either atheistic or agnostic about the existence of a supreme being. The atheist denies God’s existence; the agnostic often imagines a god who is nothing like the one true God of the Bible. Either way, there is nothing to fear. Although Christians are frequently told that biblical fear of God is just another word for respect, one cannot ignore the element of shaking-in-your-boots fear that is revealed from cover to cover in the Word.

I am not aware of any Bible passage that records a face-to-face encounter with God or His holy ones that did not involve falling down or trying to run away in fear. True, Moses had a unique relationship with Yahweh; he spoke directly with God, and at one point was allowed to get a glimpse of God’s glory as He passed by. However, the Israelites displayed a more normal reaction to God’s presence. When God offered to speak directly to them, they begged Moses to run interference and spare them the frightening prospect. Admittedly, a smoking, flaming mountain would be a fearsome sight. It is no wonder that they begged for an intermediary.

I believe Moses understood the good things Yahweh had in store for His people. Delivering them from slavery in Egypt was certainly a good omen. Even the giving of the law on Mt. Sinai was intended for good. In her book, Bearing God’s Name: Why Sinai Still Matters, Carmen Joy Imes suggests that the Ten Words, as she correctly translates “Ten Commandments”, were intended to describe a correct relationship with God and with one another. They were the outline for living a good life under a good God.

 Imes remarks, “It seems contradictory to say that Yahweh is both good and dangerous. Yet both are facets of his character. Because he is loving, he cannot tolerate wickedness…. When we approach God humbly, repentant for our sin, he is gracious to forgive us. But if we enter his presence unaware of our sin or in a state of rebellion, his holiness demands purification.” (Carmen Joy Imes, Bearing God’s Name: Why Sinai Still Matters, Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2019, p. 69.) As we see repeatedly in the Old Testament record of Israel’s failures, God’s “purification” can be fearsome indeed!

I wonder if we are missing something when we gloss over the dangerous side of Yahweh God. It is so much more comforting to focus on His love which moved Him to send His One-and-only Son to die on our behalf. Some popular preachers (ie. Rob Bell) go so far as to deny that God still has a dangerous side. They cannot fathom a loving God who is also a holy God who demands that unrighteousness be punished. That is a tough sell when you realize that the concept of God’s wrath is mentioned as many as forty-five times in the New Testament. Honestly, if God does not judge sin, our love and obedience lose most of their meaning. If the wicked get the same treatment as the righteous, what’s the point?

But the wrath of God is real. It has to be if we are going to see Him as the Bible pictures Him. Paul certainly saw Him that way: “The wrath of God is revealed against all unrighteousness,” he wrote to the Romans. Peter thought so too as he wrote: “The present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly people.” Think of all the parables of Jesus that warned of the return of a king in judgment. The King is coming back, and it won’t be happy days for everyone.

So, where should we be, those of us who have trusted Christ, on the subject of fearing God. Fearing God, I would say. I don’t mean to say we preach Jonathon Edwards’ “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” every Sunday, but it wouldn’t hurt to ring that bell once in a while. My own testimony is one of fearing my eternal destiny if I did not follow Christ in believer’s baptism, proclaiming Him as my Lord and Savior. What is the point of trusting Christ if there is no downside to ignoring His grace? Fear of God is a legitimate motivational message.

But we don’t preach fear alone. As Imes said, there is goodness inherent in the dangerous God we worship. It is by His grace we are saved without question. However, we risk danger if we ignore the fact that true faith, saving faith must include repentance and obedience. Those who pluck “believe and be saved” out of the larger biblical context preach a truncated gospel. All we really need is to hear Jesus’ word, “If you love me, keep my commandments.” Paul certainly heard that with his repeated calls for righteous living, not for our salvation, but for the working out of our salvation.

I must admit it was several years before I understood that the Jesus who saved me was seriously interested in my obedience to His Word. Some might ask if you can claim Jesus as Savior if you don’t recognize Him as Lord. I’m not sure. I am pretty sure I came up out of the water as a new creature; it just took a while for eleven-year-old me to realize what that creature was supposed to become. Once I grasped it, I never let go. I’m not saying I’m perfect – no way! I’m saying I’m being perfected: “The one began a good work in [me] will finish it.” For many years, I was that “living sacrifice” who kept crawling off the altar. It took some time for me to learn that God would have me only one way: humble and obedient.

Imes got it right in my opinion. We don’t need to fear God unless we are living in sin and rebellion. The Word is clear: “If we keep on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment and a fury of fire that is about to consume the adversaries.” The Hebrew writer closes the argument with this: “For you have need of endurance, in order that after you have done the will of God, you may receive what was promised.” Only those who persevere to the end will be saved. It is as Eugene Peterson said: the Christian walk is “a long obedience in the same direction.” Follow that advice, and you need not fear God.

Related Posts: Necessary Obedience; Merely Christian; Who’s Your Daddy?

Holy Cow!

When you read through the requirements for sacrifices under the Mosaic law, you might be overwhelmed by their complexity. It is understandable that the priests would have to butcher the larger animals. Even a whole 60–90-pound sheep or goat would be quite a lift onto the 7.5-foot square altar surface since it was roughly 4.5 feet high. No way a man could heft a 600–800-pound steer that high. The complex butchery comes from the detailed instructions for getting the animal ready for sacrifice. Various parts were set aside for different treatment before anything could be offered to God.

For example, some parts were reserved for consumption by the priests and their servants, the Levites. Since they had very limited flocks or herds, they needed to be fed by the contributions of the worshippers. That makes sense. But it has always puzzled me why God commanded such care be taken with the offal. Depending on the type of sacrifice, the entrails were treated differently. Sometimes they were to be burned outside the camp; sometimes they were offered as a special sacrifice.

The one that has always intrigued me is the frequent designation of the “lobe of the liver” as a dedicated offering. Today, we know this as the caudal lobe, and we know that it has a significant purpose in animal function. We also know that in Canaanite religions, the liver, and especially the caudal lobe, was used for divination. Even the ancients realized the crucial function of the liver, and they apparently surmised that the caudal lobe was special. One assumption that scholars make is that God didn’t want any confusion as to where the Israelites were to get their information: from Yahweh not from the caudal lobe of the liver.

Did you ever wonder why Jews, even today, are known for their beef brisket? Admittedly, the traditions surrounding the brisket stem from the Ashkenazi Jews (the diaspora) of the tenth century and beyond, but that connection has its roots in the regulations regarding sacrificial offerings. From the regulations in Leviticus, we learn that the brisket was often set aside for the priests. Once the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. and ritual sacrifice ceased, the Jews retained an element of the beef brisket’s special significance.

One aspect of the Levitical priestly regulations is really a mystery. Holy items were not to be taken out of the tabernacle (temple) as they retained an aura of holiness that God did not want to spread abroad indiscriminately. It is as if there was a tangible essence of holiness that could rub off on things that were not supposed to be holy. This is doubly hard for me to understand because all through the Levitical directions, Yahweh repeats the assertion that the people are to be holy. More than that, He says, “You shall keep My statutes and do them; I am Yahweh who makes you holy.” God says that numerous times throughout Leviticus. God says He makes them holy.

I struggle with the idea that God makes His people holy but restricts the movement of holy items from the tabernacle (temple). Perhaps it is just a way to emphasize the distinct holiness of the ritual furniture and furnishings. Perhaps it was meant to discourage unsanctioned worship outside of the holy place. Perhaps the holy implements and the holy garments on the one high priest were supposed to remind the people that there is only one God, and one means of access.

Obviously, none of this has any significance for twentieth century Christians. Does it? Hmm. If Christ’s body is the temple corporately, and if believers are a “a royal priesthood,” how many of the details of the temple/tabernacle regulations are we meant to reflect? One thing is obvious: there is still only one God and one way to Him. That is a message that is not accepted by many in modern cultures. There are even so-called Christians who are “offended” by the exclusivity of the biblical assertion that Jesus is the only Way to God. They can’t imagine the loving god of their own creation rejecting pious Buddhists or Hindus or Muslims. That is the same trap the Israelites fell into when they dabbled in the religious practices of the people around them.

It may also be important to remember today that to be holy means to be set aside for a particular purpose. Just as the Old Testament priests were uniquely charged with guiding people to proper worship of Yahweh, the purpose of the church (the New Testament kingdom of priests) is to represent God as the only being worthy of our worship. (See “Thanks for the Complement”) This is no small thing since moderns are just as likely to practice idolatrous worship as the ancients. (See “Who’s in the Temple”) It should make us proud to be chosen but overwhelmed with the importance of the charge we have been given. The church is supposed to reveal the mystery of God to everyone, including the rulers and authorities in the heavenlies.

The New Testament is pretty clear about the necessity of Christian witness. We are commanded to glorify God at all times in all we do. My favorite definition of “glorify” is “make God look good.” In other words, we should live in such a way that people watching us will want to get to know the God we represent. There are ways to simulate the OT priest’s outfit. Instead of a turban with “Holy to Yahweh,” we wear ball caps with crosses or biblical messages. Instead of a breastplate with twelve gems attached, we wear T-shirts with inspirational printing. Rings and bracelets and necklaces can portray Christian symbols. However, none of these things can take the place of living our faith out loud.

Evangelical Christianity does not have the ritualistic formalities of ancient Judaism. It is easy to forget the holy purpose of worshipping and living for a supremely holy God. There are Christian sacraments. The root of “sacrament” is the Latin word “sacer” which means holy. Catholics recognize seven sacraments and elevate the eucharist to an astonishing level of holiness. Most protestants hold two things as sacred: baptism and the Lord’s Supper. We are expected to participate in those rites with respect for their holy nature. But the truth is, our entire life is supposed to be a “living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God.” Instead of exclaiming, “Holy cow!” I should be able to say, “Holy You!”

Related Posts: Holy Moly!; Sanctify Them

Thanks for the Complement

Because I taught English composition for most of my teaching career, I am more sensitive than most to the little quirks in the language. If you share my sensitivity, you may have thought I misspelled the last word in my title. I didn’t. Complement and its homophone compliment come from the same Latin word, yet they have notably different meanings. Complement – with an “e” – shares meaning with its root word, complete. Compliment – with an “i” – means to offer praise. How they could descend from the same Latin word yet differ so widely in meaning – and narrowly in spelling – is one of the mysteries of the English language.

This little linguistic oddity came to my attention after writing “God’s Design,” in which I mentioned that the Apostle Paul said he rejoiced to “fill up in my flesh what is lacking of the afflictions of Christ.” The next day John MacArthur’s devotional I read, “The church is in fact “the fulness of Him who fills all in all.” The implication is that the incomprehensible, all-sufficient, all-powerful, and utterly supreme Christ is in a sense incomplete—not in His nature, but in the degree to which His glory is seen in the world.

“A synonym for ‘fulness’ is ‘complement.’ The church was designed to complement Christ. He is the One who ‘fills all in all’— the fullness of deity in bodily form…. (Col. 2:9) Yet He chooses to reveal His glory in and through the church. Therefore, until the church is fully glorified, Christ will not be fully complemented.” (John F. MacArthur Jr., Drawing Near—Daily Readings for a Deeper Faith, Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1993, p. 43.)

There’s a challenge. Paul said God’s completeness was displayed in Jesus. I like to say that everything we can know about God we can see in Jesus. That’s what Jesus told Philip. Our challenge is to complete Jesus’ revelation of God to the world – not just the physical creation, but to the heavenly realm as well, as Paul told the Ephesians. We are commanded and predestined to grow into the perfection of Christ. We often hear this preached as necessary for our personal benefit. That is true as far as it goes. Here we see that there is a much larger purpose: we are meant to complete Christ’s mission.

As I wrote in “God’s Design,” suffering may be a part of our mission to complete Jesus’ revelation. James described our complementary situation, although he used a different Greek word. “Consider it all joy, my brothers, whenever you encounter various trials, ³ because you* know that the testing of your faith produces endurance. ⁴ And let endurance have its perfect effect, so that you may be mature and complete, lacking in nothing.” If we become “mature and complete,” as James says, we will fulfill the larger mission of our faith: reveal Christ to the world.

This is similar to what Paul told the Ephesians. The goal of church ministry is that “we all reach the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to a measure of the maturity of the fullness of Christ.” If you read the rest of chapter four, you find that the purpose for attaining “the [completeness] of Christ” is not just to perfect the Body of Christ but also to perfect our witness to the world. The same idea can be found in Paul’s discussion of spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 14. Although he does say that self-edification is possible, he stresses that edification of the Body is more important because the purpose of the gifts is for the witness to unbelievers – revealing Christ.

Carmen Joy Imes writes in her dissertation on the Ten Commandments that “God bestowed titles on his people like treasured possession, kingdom of priests, holy nation. As his treasured possession, Israel’s vocation—the thing they were born to do—is to represent their God to the rest of humanity.” (Carmen Joy Imes, Bearing God’s Name: Why Sinai Still Matters, Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2019, pg. 51) The church, the New Testament continuation of Israel, has the same task.

When Jesus’ disciples asked Him where He found something to eat at the well in Samaria, He said, “My food is that I do the will of the one who sent me, and to complete His work.” There is that idea again – complete God’s work. John uses a different word for complete, but the concept is the same. Jesus was representing God to people; we are to represent Jesus. A street preacher today might put it like this: “Represent, Bro!”

The church’s failure to do this properly is evident. There are many people in our society who have experienced “church” or “church people” but are turned away rather than drawn in. Many of them point out the hypocrisy of people who claim to be following Christ, but they live like the devil. There are no perfect churches nor any perfect Christians. But the sad truth is that few “followers” of Christ are representing Him in a way that might make someone who watches them want to follow Him too.

Every follower of Jesus should be living in such a way as to earn His compliment when our complementary work is done: “Well done, thou good and faithful servant.” Another way to put it is to imagine Jesus saying, “Thanks for the complement.”