THEOLOGY BLOG

THINKING BIBLICALLY ABOUT GOD

 THEOLOGY

THINKING BIBLICALLY ABOUT GOD

THE LUKEWAR CHURCH OF LAODICEA

BY CALEB CORNELOUP

THE LUKEWARM CHURCH OF LAODICEA

BIBLE COMPARES THE LUKEWARM CHURCH TO SODOMY

I want to show you something in scripture that you have probably never noticed before. I want to show you two passages of scripture, one from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament. When you look at what is being said in both of these verses you will quickly see that according to the Bible a lukewarm church makes God just as sick as incest, bestiality and homosexuality.

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. Leviticus 18:22-25

And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Revelation 3:14-16

Notice here that in the same way that the land of Canaan vomited out the Canaanites for adultery, incest, bestiality, homosexuality and child sacrifice, so too will Jesus vomit out lukewarm Christians. Lukewarm Churches make Jesus just as sick as someone who has sex with animals. Think about that. What is it about these people that makes them lukewarm and makes God want to vomit them out? It’s their works.

I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot. Revelation 3:15

The issue Jesus had with this lukewarm church is their works! In fact, when you look at all seven of the churches in Revelation, each time God was examining their works. Jesus was examining the fruit of those that claimed to have faith in Him.

And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? Luke 6:46

Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Matthew 7:21

I will shew thee my faith by my works. James 2:18

It’s not that works contribute to our salvation, rather, works are a result of our salvation. In the same way a fruit tree bears good fruit because its a fruit tree, we as Christians produce good deeds because we are already Christians. The lukewarm church thinks it is rich but really it is poor.

Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. Revelation 3:17-18

Jesus calls them wretched and uses the same word that Paul uses to describe himself prior to conversion in Romans 7:24 when he says “wretched man that I am”. He calls them pitiful or miserable using the same word Paul uses to describe those who have no resurrection hope in 1 Corinthians 15:19. When the Laodicean church looked at themselves with their physical eyes they appeared to be wealthy, well dressed and increased with material goods. But when Jesus looked at them they were poor, like beggars, blind and naked. Man looks at the outside but God looks at a person’s spiritual condition. They professed to know God and claimed to be Christians but their works revealed that they were not saved at all.

In place of their poverty he encourages them to buy gold tried in fire that they can become rich. 1 Peter 1:7 tells us that gold refined in fire represents a tested and tried faith. In place of their nakedness he encourages them to buy white raiment so that they can be clothed. Revelation 19:8 tells us that white raiment represents the righteous deeds of the saints. Their blindness refers to their ignorance and lack of understanding and the only solution is for them to humble themselves and ask God to help them understand the Word of God. To man people base their beliefs on their own wisdom and understanding or some spiritual experience they have had or heard from others. Without the Bible these people are blind.

Compare this to the church in Smyrna;

And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive; I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich). Revelation 2:8-9

True riches are not material, they are spiritual and they are found in Christ.

THEOLOGY BLOG

THINKING BIBLICALLY ABOUT GOD

 THEOLOGY

THINKING BIBLICALLY ABOUT GOD

MOST CHURCH WORSHIP IS A STENCH IN GOD’S NOSE

BY CALEB CORNELOUP

MOST CHURCH WORSHIP IS A STENCH IN GOD’S NOSE

Did you know that most of today’s church worship is a stench in God’s nose? I want to show you a passage of scripture where the Israelites from the Northern Tribes of Israel were coming regularly to worship God and God sent a prophet to tell them that their worship was a stench in his nostrils!

“I hate, I despise your religious festivals; your assemblies are a stench to me. Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them. Though you bring choice fellowship offerings, I will have no regard for them. Away with the noise of your songs! I will not listen to the music of your harps. But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream! Amos 5:21-24

Now you might look at that passage and say “what’s that got to do with modern church worship”? Well, what a lot of people don’t realise is that the issues that made their worship was a stench unto the LORD are issues we see all over the modern church today. Amos 6:4-6 that the Northern Tribes of Israel were living in prosperous times, eating choice lambs and fattened calves, drinking wine by the bowlful and using expensive lotions. Amos 2:7-8 tells us that they were sexually immoral, Amos 5:11 says that the rich taxed the poor while they themselves lived in mansions and Amos 4:4-5 tells us that the people brought the tithes and offerings to Bethel and Gilgal, where the two golden calves were worshipped, instead of bringing it to the temple in Jerusalem. They sought to worship Yahweh at Bethel and Gilgal and even worshipped idols in Beersheba. While living these lives of sin and iniquity, they also sought to worship Yahweh assembling on God’s appointed festival and feast days. Amos 5:10 tells us that they detested those that spoke the truth and Amos 2:12 says that they commanded the prophets, who were rebuking them, not to prophesy. It is in this context that God says, “I hate, I despise your religious festivals; your assemblies are a stench to me”

Now let’s look at the church today. It’s prosperous and wealthy. The pastors live in multimillion dollar mansions and demand the common man with little money give them their tithes and offerings. Those tithes and offerings are meant for the LORD, not for the pastors to live in luxury. Just like the Israelites brought the tithes and offerings to Bethel and Gilgal, today’s modern church gives tithes and offerings to false prophets and false teachers. The church congregations are soaking up the prosperity gospel and the Bible tells us in Ephesians 5:5 and Colossians 3:5 that greed is idolatry. People in the church are fornicating together and going to nightclubs getting drunk. The pastors just excuse it and say that their under grace. Divorce and remarriage is rampant and pastors just approve of relationships which destroy homes. Today’s churches despise and mock anyone who speaks the truth and exposes iniquity! They silence anyone who speaks about God judging sin and demean anyone who challenges someone’s salvation. Then in their iniquity they come, without remorse or repentance, to worship God and God says that their worship is a stench in his nostrils!

THEOLOGY BLOG

THINKING BIBLICALLY ABOUT GOD

 THEOLOGY

THINKING BIBLICALLY ABOUT GOD

TOUCH NOT MINE ANOINTED

THE UNTOUCHABLE DOCTRINE EXAMINED

BY CALEB CORNELOUP

TOUCH NOT MINE ANOINTED

THE UNTOUCHABLE DOCTRINE EXAMINED

False teachers such as Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyer and, Kenneth Copeland claim that the Bible forbids anyone from criticizing them based on several verses which contain the phrase “touch not mine anointed”. They automatically claim they are “God’s anointed” and argue that “touch” refers to speaking against them. Thus they use these passages to make themselves “untouchable” in the eyes of those who follow them and attempt to instill fear into the hearts of anyone who opposes them. Are they correct? Is their interpretation and application of these verses correct?

Before we examine the relevant verses, we need to realize that scripture cannot contradict scripture. In Matthew 7:15-20 Jesus warns us to watch out for false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. It’s worth noting here that Revelation 13:11 describes the false prophet as having two horns like a lamb but he spoke like a dragon. False teachers try to present themselves as fellow believers but really they are evil deceivers. Paul frequently warned the church, with tears, that false teachers would secretly creep into the church. He specifically instructed the church to mark and identify false teachers publically. To top it all of Jesus commended the church in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be apostles but were not.

Coming back to the subject of “touch not mine anointed”, when we examine scripture, there are three main texts commonly referred to by these false teachers; 1 Samuel 26:9, 1 Chronicles 16:22 and, Psalms 105:15. Let’s look at these passages carefully and in their context.

But David said to Abishai, “Don’t destroy him! Who can lay a hand on the LORD’s anointed and be guiltless? “the Lord himself will strike him, or his time will come and he will die, or he will go into battle and perish. But the Lord forbid that I should lay a hand on the Lord’s anointed. Now get the spear and water jug that are near his head, and let’s go.”1 Samuel 26:9-11

In 1 Samuel 26:9-11, King Saul has been hunting David and is trying to kill him. David and Abishai manage to sneak up on King Saul while he is sleeping in a cave and they have an opportunity to kill King Saul. However, David tells Abishai not to kill him because he is God’s anointed. It is clear that in this context “touch” means physical harm, specifically killing him. In the same breath, David says that God might strike him down instead. Later David publically reproves Saul for hunting and seeking to kill an innocent man. Therefore, speaking against king Saul does not come within the scope of what it means to “touch God’s anointed”. Indeed the authors of scripture speak against and expose King Saul’s sins numerous times. Therefore, this text cannot be used to support the interpretation of pop preachers like Benny Hinn and Kenneth Copeland.

 “Do not touch my anointed ones; do my prophets no harm.” 1 Chronicles 16:22

“Do not touch my anointed ones; do my prophets no harm.” Psalms 105:15

Psalms 105 and 1 Chronicles 16 are almost identical are songs of thanksgiving for God’s blessing and protection upon the patriarchs and the nation of Israel. The psalm recalls the history or Israel from Abraham to the settlement in Canaan. In verse fifteen the Psalmist recalls how God rebuked the Egyptian Pharaoh and the Philistine king Abimelech telling them not touch God’s anointed and to do his prophets no harm. In both of the stories Abraham and Isaac feared that the relevant ruler would kill them and take their wife away. In both instances God intervened and rebuked the kings. Given the context, as well as the fact that it is a psalm of David, it’s reasonable to interpret the word “touch” in each passage as a reference to physical harm.

Another important point worth noting is that the psalmist uses the terms “anointed ones” and “prophets” synonymously. In Genesis 20:7 God informs the Egyptian Pharaoh that Abraham was a prophet. It’s worth stating Benny Hinn and Kenneth Copeland are false prophets. They are not true prophets because they fail the test of a prophet stated in Deuteronomy 18:21-22.

You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?” If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed. Deuteronomy 18:21-22    

A quick search on google will reveal that both of these men have made multiple prophecies. Therefore, they are not one of God’s anointed. They are more akin to the false prophets who opposed Jeremiah. Neither are they to be compared to King Saul since King Saul was anointed by a true prophet of God whereas Benny Hinn and Kenneth Copeland have always been false teachers associating with other false teachers.

In conclusion, we can see that testing false teachers, false prophets and false apostles is not only right and good, it is commanded in scripture. We see that the passages which say “touch not mine anointed” refers only to physically harming true prophets and the anointed King of Israel.   

THEOLOGY BLOG

THINKING BIBLICALLY ABOUT GOD

 THEOLOGY

THINKING BIBLICALLY ABOUT GOD

MOVING FORWARD ON OUR KNEES: CORPORATE PRAYER IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Grant R. Osborne

Journal Review

MOVING FORWARD ON OUR KNEES: CORPORATE PRAYER IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Grant R. Osborne

Grant Osborn has written a convicting article on the subject of corporate worship in the local church. He laments over the lack of prayer in modern churches and he rightly argues there is a desperate need for corporate prayer in the modern church.[1] He begins his article by arguing that in second temple Judaism, the temple was not only a place of sacrifice, it was also a place of worship and prayer.

Grant produces a number of biblical passages which serve as examples of corporate worship in New Testament times. For instance, when Zachariah, the father of John the Baptist, went into the temple to burn incense, there was a congregation of people outside waiting in corporate prayer. He points out that the burning of incense was symbolic of the people’s prayers and the angelic visitation appears to have been an answer to those prayers.[2] Additionally, Jesus took His disciples to the Garden of Gethsemane for corporate prayer. He encouraged them to pray in order to overcome temptation.[3] The instruction of Jesus underscores the disciples need to pray for strength in order to resist temptation, how much more should we pray so we do not fall into temptation. 

Grant also highlights Jesus reference to the Temple as His Father’s house, indicating that God’s presence was still in the temple.[4] Interestingly, when Jesus drove the animals out from the temple courts he said, “My Father’s house will be called a house of prayer for all nations”. The outer courts were specifically reserved for Gentiles to worship God as they were not permitted beyond this point. Even though sacrifices were necessary for Temple worship, it seems as though Jesus was more concerned about Gentiles coming together for prayer, then he was about the selling of sacrifices[5].

Grant also argues that persecution often causes the church to turn to God in prayer. When Herod imprisoned Peter, with the intention of executing, it resulted in an all-night corporate prayer meeting at Mary’s house.[6] As Grant points out, the longest prayer in the Book of Acts was a prayer offered to God after an instance when Peter and John were released from prison and warned not to preach in the name of Jesus.[7] This prayer resulted in the place being shaken and the people receiving a fresh infilling of the Holy Spirit.[8] Perhaps the lack of persecution and the comforts of this world are the cause of our present complacency.[9]

There is no doubt that there is a lack of corporate prayer in modern churches. In the midst of his article, Grant says prayer focused churches are churches that make a difference.[10] If this is true, then it says a lot about churches that have an appearance of success but are not prayer focused. Where does their success come from? If it does not come from prayer, it does not come from the Lord. If it does not come from the Lord, then it can only come from human effort and achievement. 

[1] Grant R Osborne, Moving Forward on Our Knees: Corporate Prayer in The New Testament, JETS 53/2 (2010), 267.

[2] Grant R Osborne, Moving Forward on Our Knees: Corporate Prayer in The New Testament, 248.

[3] Grant R Osborne, Moving Forward on Our Knees: Corporate Prayer in The New Testament, 251.

[4] Grant R Osborne, Moving Forward on Our Knees: Corporate Prayer in The New Testament, 243.

[5] Colin G. Kruse, John: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentary,

 (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, rev. ed. 2017), Chap. 2, Kindle Ed.

[6] Grant R Osborne, Moving Forward on Our Knees: Corporate Prayer in The New Testament, 255.

[7] Grant R Osborne, Moving Forward on Our Knees: Corporate Prayer in The New Testament, 256.

[8] Grant R Osborne, Moving Forward on Our Knees: Corporate Prayer in The New Testament, 256.

[9] Tertullian, The Apology, Beloved Publishing (2014), 83.

[10] Grant R Osborne, Moving Forward on Our Knees: Corporate Prayer in The New Testament, 257.

THEOLOGY BLOG

THINKING BIBLICALLY ABOUT GOD

 THEOLOGY

THINKING BIBLICALLY ABOUT GOD

ATONEMENT AS VIOLENCE

IS GOD BLOOD THIRSTY?

ATONEMENT AS VIOLENCE

IS GOD BLOOD THIRSTY?

ATONEMENT AS VIOLENCE

The penal substitution view of atonement is currently the subject of debate within the evangelical church, particularly in the UK.[1] Since Christianity is a religion of peace, love and forgiveness, critics of the penal substitution view have argued that it is inconsistent with God’s love. It is argued that if God tells us to love our enemies, then shouldn’t God also love His enemies? If God demands that we do not seek vengeance, then why does God require retributive justice Himself?[2] Furthermore, critics have looked at the penal substitution theory of atonement as the act of a blood thirsty and vengeful God, and even worse, cosmic child abuse[3]

While it is certainly true that Christians are to seek peace and to forgive our enemies, this is because the Bible teaches us that vengeance belongs to the Lord. Christians are not permitted to seek out their own retributive justice when evil is inflicted upon them.[4] However, the Bible does not rule out the authority of the civil government to punish criminals and maintain public order in society.[5] The civil justice system is an institution of God, created to punish evil and protect the life and property of those living in that society.[6]

The denial of divine retributive justice is at odds with divinely revealed scripture. When Israel was attacked by the Amalekites on the way out of Egypt, God specifically ordered the antihalation of the entire Amalekite population and stated that he wanted Amalek’s name removed from face of the earth.[7] Likewise, God commanded that the Canaanites were to be exterminated from the land of Canaan so that they would not corrupt the nation of Israel when they settled in the land.[8]

If God did not punish sin, then it would encourage lawlessness. The sinner would feel emboldened to sin and the victims would feel a sense of insecurity, abandonment and lack of protection from God.[9] If God truly loves people, he will punish transgression and maintain order in the cosmos. This promotes the justice and holiness of God and ensures security and stability for all people.

God is slow to anger and uses divine punishment as a last resort after long periods of perpetual disobedience. When the Torah was given, God stated that eventually Israel as a nation would be exiled from the land and from the blessings of God because of their persistent law breaking and disobedience. Even after the Babylonian exile and the subsequent return to the land, Israel persisted in unrepentant sin.[10] The greatest problem for humanity is that we all have sinned and are under divine condemnation.

When Jesus took up the cross and laid his life down for His people, he was taking the very curse of the law which was due to the people of Israel. He was exiled from the land of the living and cut off from the blessings promised to Israel.[11] From the perspective of penal substitution theorists, the cross was an act of divine love. Jesus was not an unwilling substitute unjustly bearing the sins of others. He willingly offered himself as a substitute knowing he could conquer death at His resurrection.[12]

[1] Williams, Garry J. “Penal Substitution: A Response to Recent Criticisms.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 50, no. 1 (03, 2007): 71. https://search.proquest.com/docview/211187489?accountid=35347

[2] Williams, Garry J. “Penal Substitution: A Response to Recent Criticisms.”, 72; Boersma, Hans, Penal substitution and the possibility of unconditional hospitality. Scottish Journal of Theology 57 (2004): 80, 91; Boersma, Hans. “Eschatological Justice and the Cross: Violence and Penal Substitution.” Theology Today 60, no. 2 (07, 2003): 187.

https://search.proquest.com/docview/222305386?accountid=35347 (accessed February 27, 2020).

[3] J Denny Weaver, “Violence in Christian theology”, Cross Currents Summer 51, 2 (2001): 153, 155; Boersma, Hans, Penal substitution and the possibility of unconditional hospitality, 82; Boersma, Hans. “Eschatological Justice and the Cross: Violence and Penal Substitution.” Theology Today 60, no. 2 (2003): 187. https://search.proquest.com/docview/208060493?accountid=35347.

[4] Boersma, Hans. “Eschatological Justice and the Cross: Violence and Penal Substitution.”, 188.

[5] Williams, Garry J. “Penal Substitution: A Response to Recent Criticisms. 73. https://search.proquest.com/docview/211187489?accountid=35347

[6] Boersma, Hans, Penal substitution and the possibility of unconditional hospitality, 80; Boersma, Hans. “Eschatological Justice and the Cross: Violence and Penal Substitution.”, 188, 190. 

[7] Walter Kaiser, Hard Saying of the Bible, (Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove 1992) 206-207; Deuteronomy 25:17-18.

[8] Walter Kaiser, Hard Saying of the Bible, 206-207.

[9] Boersma, Hans. “Eschatological Justice and the Cross: Violence and Penal Substitution.”, 190, 191.

[10] Williams, Garry J. “Penal Substitution: A Response to Recent Criticisms.”, 92-93.

[11] Williams, Garry J. “Penal Substitution: A Response to Recent Criticisms.”, 92-93; Boersma, Hans. “Eschatological Justice and the Cross: Violence and Penal Substitution.”, 194.

[12] NIV Zondervan Study Bible, General Editor DA Carson, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2682 (Christopher W. Morgan, Wrath).