Over several months of last year I reposted some essays I had written on the book of Joel. These formed a series which you can find using the “Joel” tag on this site, but now for the first time here is a table of contents for the whole series:

1. Joel 1:1
2. Joel 1:2
3. Joel 1:3
4. Joel 1:5
5. Joel 1:7-13
6. Joel 1:14
7. Joel 1:15-19
8. Joel 2:1-11
9. Joel 2:12-13
10. Joel 2:13-14
11. Joel 2:15-16
12. Joel 2:17-18
13. Joel 2:19,21
14. Joel 2:22-25
15. Joel 2:26-27
16. Joel 2:28-29
17. Joel 2:30-32
18. Joel 3:1-3
19. Joel 3:5-8
20. Joel 3:9-13
21. Joel 3:14
22. Joel 3:15-21

The question is a good one, and one which is all too easily passed over
or muddied by a poor understanding of what the doctrine of Justification
by Faith alone truly implies.

The writer is right, that if you are indeed saved through your faith
in Jesus Christ, our LORD, then it will in no way affect your salvation
if you stay or leave your church. Nor will it affect your salvation if
you manage to dot the “I”s and cross the “T”s in your doctrine, nor will
it affect your salvation if you slip into error. If you have faith in
Jesus Christ for your salvation, and him alone, then all of these things
can never affect your salvation.

But what then is the place for right doctrine and right worship? The
question begs another, much neglected question – one which is nevertheless
found in most catechisms. What is the chief end of man? Why are we here?
What is our purpose? The answer, as given by the catechisms, and indeed
the Bible, is that we are here to glorify God and to enjoy his presence
forever.

So the question of doctrine, teaching, worship and whatever else is
one that is simply answered – none of these things affect our salvation,
but they are far more important then that – they affect the glory given
to God.

If I teach error about God then people will misunderstand him, and he
will not be glorified. If I fail to worship God, or worship him
incorrectly then I fail to ascribe to him the Glory which is his. If
I preach error regarding the doctrine of justification by faith alone
then I place a stumbling block in the paths of those who might be saved,
and as salvation glorifies God more then anything else, then
again I fail to glorify him.

If I do not care about the glory of God, then what did my salvation
mean anyway? This is where the modern day “profession of faith” can
become shallow and unreliable. If all we ask from people is that they
profess that Jesus Christ died for them and they want to be saved, then
surely our emphasis is all wrong. If we emphasise only what we can get
out of salvation then we have misunderstood what it is to call Jesus
our Lord, and we have failed to see the magnitude of Christ’s work on
the cross.

When we are concerned about the glory of God then the doctrine of
Justification by Faith alone becomes a great comforting doctrine, as
well as a great enabling doctrine (because it is only when we see that
our works really gain us nothing with respect to salvation that we can
do works from truly pure motives without self interest). Nevertheless
it is not our main goal to be saved, but rather to bring glory to
God the father, and Jesus Christ, his son, our LORD.

This is why it is important to read and understand all that God has
told us in the Bible. David said “I have written your word within my
heart that I might not sin against you”. He knew that when he sinned
God is faithful and just to forgive those sins, but forgiveness was
not enough – he wrote God’s word within his heart that he might *not*
sin. He was concerned about God’s glory, that the name of God would
be honoured and revered, not ridiculed.

Leonard Ravenhill wrote, regarding those bumper stickers: “Christians
are not perfect, just forgiven” that “some backslider must have written
that”. Quite right! It is not that Christians are perfect, but it
is through the grace of God that we have power *not to sin*.

Glorify God. Don’t make excuses, but (in the words of Mary at Cana):
“Whatever he says to you to do, do it.”

So here is my view (which I think is quite clear once the idiom is understood).

The passage reads:

Now concerning the things about which you wrote, “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.”

But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.

The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband.

The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Notice I have added some quotation marks. The Greek text has no quotation marks – they hadn’t been invented yet! So it is only conjecture, but I think it is a good one, that Paul immediately quoted from the letter that the Corinthians had sent to him.

He has dealt with many other issues in the preceding chapters – issues that had been reported to him. But now he turns to the Corinthian letter and he says:

“Now about the matters you wrote to me about. You said ‘It is good for a man not to have sexual relations’”.

And then he immediately answers this point “*BUT* because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife” and he goes on to say that husbands and wives should fulfill duties to one another.

So what is going on here?

It seems that some of the Corinthian Christians had come to the conclusion that sexual relations were not appropriate for Christians *within* *marriage*. One or other of a couple were advocating sexual fasting within marriage, and had written to Paul to commend this practice.

This interpretation fits with what we know of the Corinthian church. They were proud of their spirituality, whilst embracing practices that we would find astounding in today’s church. They also had a pre-gnostic theology that might have led them to disdain the flesh and thus God’s gifts within marriage.

We also know that some of them were sexually immoral, and it may be that part of the reason that there was sexual immorality in the Corinthian church was because one partner in a marriage was denying the other their “conjugal rights”.

So Paul’s prescription: He agrees that celibacy is a wonderful option, but argues that where couples are married, to avoid the temptation to immorality, they should not deny their partners (except perhaps for short periods, when devoting themselves to prayer).

Read the passage again with this interpretation in mind, and I think you will agree that it makes much more sense than the NIV’s interpretation that Paul is talking about marriage.

(Incidentally, the passage quoted above is taken from the NASB, which is a literal translation. The RSV and AV (KJV) which are also literal translations, read almost identically.

Before I completely offend everyone who has ever delivered a sermon before, perhaps I should go into some more detail.

My point is that one
often hears sermons in which the preacher digresses into a discussion
of why one Greek word was used over another. I think such digressions
are *always* questionable, and often completely wrong.
At best, I will look up the passage in a good commentary later to see
what others have said about the subject, but often I ignore such
points made.

But what if the different versions of the Bible translate
differently? A case in point might be 1 Corinthians 7, where my RSV
and other literal translations say “it is good for a man not to touch
a woman”, but the NIV jumps to “it is good for a man not to marry”,
and other versions say “it is good for a man not to have sexual
relations”. What do we make of this jumble of interpretations?

I think we can note several things:

Firstly, the difficulty of the passage is demonstrated by the
disagreement of Bible translators on the point. We can see the
disagreement from the English translations. No need for Greek yet.

Secondly, if the translators cannot agree, then a basic competance in
Greek is probably not going to help much. Appeal to the Greek text in
this case reveals that the literal translations (KJV, RSV, NASB etc.)
are indeed translating literally. The passage does indeed say “it is
good for a man not to touch a woman”.

Now a commentary can be of great assistance here, because appeal to a
commentary will show that the term “to touch a woman” was a first
century idiom that referred to sexual relations. When learning a
language, one must learn many idioms before one can gain fluency in
the language (One of my favourites is the Welsh “dros ben llestri”, which is
idiomatic for “over the top” – although literally it is translated as “over the head of the dishes”!).

Armed with this information about the idiom (the Greek one now, not the Welsh one!), we are able to do an
exegesis of the passage, without appeal to the Greek words used.

However, I can envisage examples where one might wish to quote what
the commentators say about the original Greek. In such circumstances,
I think the quote should be properly referenced.

If a preacher says “the original Greek actually suggests this…” I
will assume the preacher is working on their own knowledge (and
probably out of their depth). If they say “Barret tells us, in his
commentary on 1 Corinthians, that the original Greek form used was an
idiom for this…” then I can evaluate the quality of the source of
the information, and even check it out for myself later – an important
stage in the process of critical appraisal of the information we
receive.

So I am not actually saying we can never preach on what the original Greek says – but as most preachers are not experts in Koine Greek, we must acknowledge our sources and alternative interpretations when we do so.

It is fairly well understood that Christ was not born on December 25th, and that this day was chosen simply to help pagans coming to Christ adapt their festivals (such as the Roman Saturnalia) to Christianised festivals.

It is also clear that for several centuries, no Christian celebrated the date of Christ’s birth, and that the celebration of His death and resurrection are far more important to the early Church (and, indeed, the puritans too. Jonathan Edwards’ Journal for 25th December does not even acknowledge the title of the day).

But what is perhaps less well known is that we can more or less date Christ’s birthday, perhaps to the autumn.

The evidence in the Bible is in Luke 1:5-17:

In the days of King Herod of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly order of Abijah. His wife was a descendant of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. Both of them were righteous before God, living blamelessly according to all the commandments and regulations of the Lord. But they had no children, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were getting on in years.

Once when he was serving as priest before God and his section was on duty, he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to enter the sanctuary of the Lord and offer incense. Now at the time of the incense offering, the whole assembly of the people was praying outside.

Then there appeared to him an angel of the Lord, standing at the right side of the altar of incense. When Zechariah saw him, he was terrified; and fear overwhelmed him. But the angel said to him: “Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you will name him John. You will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth, for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He must never drink wine or strong drink; even before his birth he will be filled with the Holy Spirit. He will turn many of the people of Israel to the Lord their God. With the spirit and power of Elijah he will go before him, to turn the hearts of parents to their children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”

So we know that Zechariah was of the order of Abijah and his section was on duty. Now the details are convoluted, but can be found on the web. I quote:

Chronicles 24 lists the courses, divisions or shifts of the priesthood that served in the Temple throughout the year. Verse 1 states, “These are the divisions of the sons of Aaron.” Among the sons of Eleazar were sixteen heads of their father’s house, while among the sons of Ithamar were eight additional heads of house, making twenty-four courses (verse 4).

These courses of priests were divided by lot to be officials of the sanctuary and of the house of God (verse 5). Beginning on Nisan 1, these courses rotated throughout the year, serving in the Temple for one week apiece. The course of Abijah, the course during which Zacharias was responsible to work, was the eighth shift (verse 10).

Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian—who was, by the way, of the priestly lineage of the course of Jehoiarib, the first course—supplies further information about the priestly courses.

“He [David] divided them also into courses: and when he had separated the priests from them, he found of these priests twenty-four courses, sixteen of the house of Eleazar and eight of that of Ithamar; and he ordained that one course should minister to God [during] eight days, from [noon] Sabbath to [noon on the following] Sabbath. And thus were the courses distributed by lot, in the presence of David, and Zadok and Abiathar the high priest, and of all the rulers: and that course which came up first was written down as the first, and accordingly the second, and so on to the twenty-fourth; and this partition hath remained to this day” (Antiquities of the Jews, 7:14.7).

These courses were strictly followed until the Temple was destroyed in ad 70.

http://sabbath.org/index.cfm/ fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/ARTB/ k/568/subj/christmas/ When-Was-Jesus-Born.htm

So we know when the course of Abijah was, and we find that John the Baptist must therefore have been born in either March or September (9 months after the course of Abijah). Which course is harder to be certain. The site above assumes Jesus was born in 4BC, and chooses based on that assumption, but we are at least getting closer to a starting point for Christ’s birth date. A slight problem is that Luke does not say that Elizabeth conceived immediately after Zechariah’s return from the temple, and so we are still guessing really. Let us add a month tolerance to our dates – so we have March-April or September-October.

Where do we go next?

Luke provides more answers in Luke 1:26ff:

In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary.

This is the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy with John the Baptist. That tells us that Jesus would be born six months after John, which puts his birthdate also in March-April or September-October.

Now there is other evidence we can bring to bear (the fact that the Shepherds were on the hills with their flocks, for instance) and we can go with assumptions based on the year of Christ’s birth, but it is a fair assumption that Christ was born about now.

We don’t have an exact day, and I think that is deliberate. Some writers try to tie up Christ’s birthdate with a Jewish festival, but if the date was meant to be significant, I think we would have been told it.

The fact of the matter is that we are not told an exact date, but we might as well be celebrating Christmas on December 25th as any other day.

So happy Christmas everyone.

“But Judah shall dwell for ever, and Jerusalem from generation to generation. For I will cleanse their blood that I have not cleansed: for the LORD dwelleth in Zion.

Joel 3:15-21

Do you long for the day when the Lord dwells again amongst us? Are you even aware that he does not dwell amongst us now? Are you still unconvinced of the need within the church of today?

I know there are a few bright spots were the sun shines weakly through the clouds, but even these bright spots shine with a wan and wintry light compared to the radiance of the shekinah glory of God descended upon the church.

Look at the powerful picture Joel has given us of the effect of the presence of God. When God is amongst his people, then people know it. Why is it that we have to write placards on the front of our churches that say we are “Biblical” Christians? is it because we are afraid people won’t recognize a Biblical Christian otherwise?

In this series of articles I have attempted to hint at what I am convinced we are missing in our church life. We live amongst Laodicean churches which are merely lukewarm, and I pray that God will be merciful and not spew us from his mouth.

Again, we live in churches which think themselves rich, lacking in nothing, without realizing that we are poor, and blind and naked.

Yet God has promised:

“If my people who bear my name will humble themselves and pray, *then* I will heal their land and forgive their sins.”

If you agree with me that we need to know the glory of the Lord living amongst us in our churches once more, and if I have made one iota of sense to you, then may I beg you to pray God that he would heal our land.

And lest I have left a bitter taste in anyones mouth, having left the impression that I am condemning everyone except myself, then let me here admit that I am deeply unhappy with my own level of spirituality. I am ashamed at how unmoved I can be when God’s name is abused and his church is degraded.

Let us all humble ourselves and pray that God would heal his land. Let us pray for revival, and let us pray that that revival will begin in us.

Oh Lord, search me, try me and show me every wicked way within me.

Joel 3:14

Long before Joel’s day, Joshua spoke to the people of Israel with these words:

“Choose for yourselves today whom you will serve… but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

We all have this one simple choice presented to us. We all must choose whom we will serve. Will we serve the gods of the Amorites who dwell amongst us? The god Money? the god Entertainment? the god Drink? the god Pride?

We can choose these gods, but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

This is a choice I have made and which must affect the rest of my life. I have chosen to follow Christ, to seek to have the attitude of Christ Jesus, the mind of Christ.

But if that is truly my choice then it must be reflected in my life. I claim to have chosen to serve the Lord, so where is He in my life?

Is my life truly honouring to God? am I serving him properly? do the decisions I make keep his glory in view? Is God central to my life?

These are questions I must ask over and over. It is necessary for me to examine myself, my motives and my goals, constantly asking if I am living up to what Christ wants from me.

You see, the man who says he is following Christ but who leaves Him out of his everyday life, who never prays and never reads his Bible, and would not be caught dead witnessing to someone, this man is a liar.

Choose *this* *day* whom you will *serve*. Don’t choose this day whom you will rely on to get you into heaven, but choose this day whom you will *serve*.

As for me and my house, we *will* serve the Lord. That is my choice.

Those in the valley of decision do not consist only of the multitudes of non-Christians who need to hear about salvation through Christ, and how they can be justified by faith alone. No, many of those multitudes in the valley of decision are those who confess Christ as their saviour, but who have not chosen to *serve* him. “The sun and the moon shall be darkened, and the stars shall withdraw their shining. The LORD also shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem; and the heavens and the earth shall shake: but the LORD will be the hope of his people, and the strength of the children of Israel.

Joel 3:9-13

When God revived Judah it became a militant force, a force to be reckoned with. Surrounding nations could no longer sit idly around, content with having desolated Judah and carried her children captive. No longer were they able to attend to the mundane matters of living, such as farming.

When God revived Judah she became a mighty nation, able to conquer her enemies and free her captives. Revived Judah was a fearsome force for she had God fighting on her side.

In the same way, the revived church is a mighty force within the nation. No longer will people be able to ignore her. No longer can they attend to their worship of their four legged square idols which glow in the corners of their living rooms. No longer will they be able to go about their daily business without a thought for the God who created them and loved them enough to send his only son to die for them.

The revived church will be a church which *matters*, a church which makes a *difference* within the life of our nation.

In the world of today, so many of us seek to bring moral change to our countries through the legal system. We campaign for stricter laws on the control of sale of alcohol, and for less advertising. We campaign to outlaw abortion, and so many other causes (which are noble in their intent).

I am not saying that such campaigning is wrong, but I can say with a certainty that the moral problems within our nations will not go away if we are successful in these campaigns. If abortion is outlawed then people will find other ways to commit murder, for the hearts of the people are still desperately evil. If we tighten up on drink even to the level of prohibition then drunkenness will still occur (look at America’s last experiment with prohibition).

Let us not hide behind our pro-life banners, thinking we are doing all we can to prevent this wholesale baby-murder, we are *NOT*.

When was the last time you wept before God because your nation had killed a million people without a passing thought? When was the last time you spent hours in an agony of prayer, wrestling with God that he might revive his church, for *then* the church militant could effect a moral change upon the people of your nation which would at last bring this travesty to an end.

Look at the life work of sir William Wilberforce. Here was a man who laboured to bring slavery to an end in all British colonies. Shortly after his death slavery was indeed abolished, but why? was it only because this man fought his battle in parliament? No. This man fought his battle in prayer, wrestling before the Lord, and many others fought it with him because at that time the church was in an awakened state.

In 1904 in Glamorgan, a county of Wales, there were 11,282 convictions for drunkenness, and similar figures for years prior to that, but then revival erupted through the ministry of Evan Roberts, and this significantly affected the moral climate, for these drunkards were turning now to Christ and not to drink. In 1905 convictions for drunkenness were down to 8,164 and by 1906, when the revival had run its course, convictions stood at 5,490.

You see, the church militant will affect the world. The revived church will lead the world where the declined church has followed. This is the way it has always been. This is the way it will always be.

Next time you hear of an abortion, or a death by drink-driving then pray with me that God will send revival.

Joel 3:5-8

Joel speaks now of how the Lord will recompense those people who have opposed his people. Tyre and Sidon had taken Israelites into captivity and annexed their lands.

I spoke in my previous article of how the world has attacked the church, infiltrating it from within and blasting it from without. The church has been weakened by this steady program of decline and destruction which we have allowed to take place. Members of the church of the Living God have fallen prey to doctrines of demons and have thus been taken into captivity.

But the Lord *will* recompense those who have caused this destruction. Those people that have set themselves up as critics of the living God will be brought low. Those who have worshiped wisdom and philosophy will be left bereft. Those who have actively campaigned against the church will know the vengeance of God.

This is simple fact. I do not mean to gloat in this, for it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God. I would not trade places with anyone who has prefered to glorify man over God.

But let us seriously consider our own part in this captivity within the church? What part have we played in allowing Tyre and Sidon to take our people captive?

We read in Luke 9:62:

“No-one, who puts his hand to the plough and looks back, is fit for service in the kingdom of God”

We are *all* called to service within the kingdom of God, but how many of us are *fit* for service? How many of us can say with all honesty that we put our hands to the plough and never looked back?

How many of us who hold any position of leadership, be it in Bible study, preaching, youth work or family, can say with sincerity that they truly are leaders.

Most leaders today are not leaders at all, they are followers. They determine which way the wind is blowing, and which way the Christian “pack” is running and then they dash out ahead and shout out “I’m leading”.

It is a pity that they will be the first over the precipice.

What we need is leaders who will stand against the flow. Leaders who are not looking back to see who is following them, and who is supporting them. We need leaders who will stand firm on principle and belief. We need leaders who are not afraid to challenge prevailing “wisdom” where they see error.

And if you are reading this and thinking “That’s okay, because I’m not called to lead”, then I would say “yes you are.”

We are all called to lead in one very important area. We are all called to lead people to Christ. Fallen people; lost people; hopeless people.

What sort of a leader are you?

Let us have the mind of Christ in all our dealings. Let us throw off the sin which so easily entangles. Let us die to self, and give our egos a burial. A leader who leads with his head turned back to see who follows him is a leader who is not dead to self. We do not need egotistical leaders for these are the very people that have allowed the captivity by Tyre. These are the people of Sidon who have themselves taken people captive.

Let us no longer be in bondage to pride. Let us throw of this snare and escape this captivity. Ego has *no* place within the Church of Christ, for what exalts man does not exalt God. It is only what exalts God that exalts man also.

I don’t want to wait for the last day for God to pay me my just recompense for my evil and selfish nature. I pray that God will help me die to self *now*, before the time of his justice, for it is indeed a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. “Proclaim ye this among the Gentiles; Prepare war, wake up the mighty men, let all the men of war draw near; let them come up: Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruninghooks into spears: let the weak say, I am strong.

“Assemble yourselves, and come, all ye heathen, and gather yourselves together round about: thither cause thy mighty ones to come down, O LORD. Let the heathen be wakened, and come up to the valley of Jehoshaphat: for there will I sit to judge all the heathen round about.”

> One thing that fascinates me is the way the Catholic Church is deemed to
> be wrong by some because it insists on a figurative interpretation
> of adelphoi in Matthew 12:47. On the other hand, insisting on a literal interpretation of
> “This is my body” (Luke 22:19,20) is wrong because that is clearly figurative. I am at a
> loss to see how you can tell which parts are to be take literally and
> which figuratively by examining the text alone.

The passage reads of Matthew 12:47 reads:

“While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers
stood outside, asking to speak to him. But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?”

Thus Jesus appears to take the fact of his real brothers to build the metaphor,
or Christian understanding of brothers. No one suggests that the brothers were
figurative because we see that the passage talks of real brothers. (Some Catholics argue
that brothers implies cousins here – I disagree, but that is not really the point. The point is that the people standing outside were real people. The passage is presented as literal and should be taken as such).

Now look at Luke 22:19,20 which says:

And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them,
saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
And likewise the cup after supper, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you
is the new covenant in my blood.

Notice what Jesus says: This *cup*. Not the *wine* but the cup. Thus we see that
the cup symbolises the wine and the wine symbolises the blood.

This may not be enough to convince Catholics, who hold a particualr doctrine because it is Church dogma, but my view is that we
understand here that Jesus was talking of symbols, of metaphor. That is how I
would have understood him if I was present on that day. I think that is a good rule of Biblical exegesis.

Others have disagreed. There is a famous story of Luther and Zwingli discussing
this issue which ended with Luther plunging his dagger into a table and saying
“the text says ‘This is my body’”. He then stormed out and obviously there was
never any accomodation between the two on the issue.

However, I do not see this as a glaring issue of inconsistency in interpretation. It is rather a case of reading what was written and understanding what it owuld have meant to those closer to the events in question.