Paul's call to self emasculation

In Leviticus and Deuteronomy God commands that those who have deformities of their genitals are not be part of God's assembly. Now this was likely related to the concept of clean and unclean, holy and profane. As part of the Mosaic Law it was important for Israelites to make a distinction between such things, in part to appreciate God's holiness.

In Leviticus the command is to the priests

And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "Speak to Aaron, saying, None of your offspring throughout their generations who has a blemish may approach to offer the bread of his God. For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, a man blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or a limb too long, or a man who has an injured foot or an injured hand, or a hunchback or a dwarf or a man with a defect in his sight or an itching disease or scabs or crushed testicles. No man of the offspring of Aaron the priest who has a blemish shall come near to offer the LORD’s food offerings; since he has a blemish, he shall not come near to offer the bread of his God. He may eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy and of the holy things, but he shall not go through the veil or approach the altar, because he has a blemish, that he may not profane my sanctuaries, for I am the LORD who sanctifies them." (Leviticus 21:16-23)

The priests interceded to God for the people. They were to be without blemish to represent holiness. As such, the reference to crushed testicles, while an absolute requirement, appears to relate to accident and disease; compare to the other blemishes listed.

In Deuteronomy the context may be distinct.

No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the LORD.

Those born of an illicit union shall not be admitted to the assembly of the LORD. Even to the tenth generation, none of their descendants shall be admitted to the assembly of the LORD. (Deuteronomy 23:1-2 NRSV)

The second paragraph refers to banned relationships (such as incest, or possibly cultic prostitution). Thus the context here may relate to disobedience. The next command forbids the involvement of the Moabites and the Ammonites because of their refusal to treat Israel well and their desire to curse. While it is not mentioned specifically here, note that the Moabites also enticed Israel into disobedience through sexual sin.

So the reference to crushed testicles here may imply eunuchs, and the mention of an amputated penis could refer to pagan practices for some men involved in temple worship.

The construction of verse 1 is

No one (lo') whose testicles are crushed or whose penis (shofkah) is cut off (karath) shall be admitted to the assembly of the LORD. (Deu 23:1)

In the Greek it says

Neither a eunuch nor one who has been castrated (apokoptō) shall enter into the assembly of the Lord.

"Apokoptō" is a verb meaning to "cut off" or "amputate" with the implication of "cutting off genitals" in the appropriate context.

Compare this with Galatians

But if I, brothers, still preach circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed. I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate (apokoptō) themselves! (Galatians 5:11-12)

The similarity in terms raises the possibility of an allusion here to Deuteronomy. The immediate connection within Galatians is the hyperbolic comparison of circumcision to penile amputation. However a possible allusion of amputation in Galatians to ritual amputation in Deuteronomy suggests that such persons are similar to the pagan worshippers. In the same way that such persons were barred from the holy assembly in Israel, so those who add earning salvation to grace are denied fellowship with Christ.

Getting the foundations of our character right

I came across Charisma earlier this year. Though the name Lee Grady seemed familiar, I had not read any of his material. He is editor of Charisma magazine and writes a blog Fire In My Bones. In his post Are You Ready for a Holy Ghost Building Inspection? he addresses Paul's admonishment to build with materials that will not be destroyed when tested by God. As part of that Grady emphasises character. While I think Paul is probably implying that what one does and teaches should be in line with God, the call to godliness is an important one. Specifically Grady points to 4 areas of character that he perceives are important in the current climate. They are sexual purity, financial integrity, Christlike humility, and theological soundness. I will quote from his post quite extensively (although out of order).

Sexual purity. It should go without saying that church leaders must live in moral and marital faithfulness. Yet when we look around today we find that ministries are tolerant of flippant divorce, hidden adultery and even unspeakable perversion. Some ministers admit to serious moral failures yet they never step out of ministry even for a week to get counseling. God has issued His clear warning. Ministries that tolerate sexual sin are already crumbling. It does not matter how big your auditorium is, how massive your television outreach, how many people shout during Sunday sermons or how enduring your spiritual legacy may seem. You can preach about God's grace all you want, but you are trampling on that grace if you continue to practice immorality.

Paul argued that such people should be rejected from the church till such time that they repent. Further, restoration is to fellowship, not necessarily ministry.

Financial integrity. Jesus drove the greedy moneychangers out of His temple with a whip. He requires faithfulness of His stewards. Ministries that have committed spiritual extortion will have a day of reckoning—not necessarily with the IRS but certainly with the heavenly Auditor. Those who sell prophecies or charge $1,000 to gullible people to make them "spiritual sons" will soon lose their platforms. Those who misuse God's money to buy Bentleys, vacation homes and expensive clothes and shoes will soon experience the Great Repo.

Peddling the gospel is a great evil. I have no intrinsic problems with people being wealthy. I don't even have problems with ministers who happen to be wealthy. I have no problems with people who do God's work being supported by others. But receiving the honour of others is very different from asking for money, selling the gospel, or manipulating people with promises of blessing. If you happen to think God blesses (financially) those who give of their financial resources (a questionable claim), then best you encourage people to give to ministries other than your own.

Theological soundness. We can walk in humility, integrity and purity and still fail if we mix error with truth. We must preach Christ and Him crucified. We must contend for the faith that was delivered to the saints. We must guard the flock from deception and avoid the subtle lies and compromises that creep in from our culture and from occult influences. In segments of our movement today, charismatic theology has been diluted with New Age spirituality, universalism, pop psychology, Gnosticism, false prophecy and just plain weirdness. We need to reactivate the neglected gift of discernment and get rid of the theological hay and stubble that has caused our movement to lose its credibility.

It is encouraging to hear the call from charismatics for sound theology. While their emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit is helpful and needed, this does not need to come at the expense of sloppy, or worse, incorrect, theology.

Christlike humility. We cannot build God's house with pride and carnality. In the early days of our movement God winked at our immaturity—but we have no excuse today. Mature leaders should act like servants, not rock stars or mafia bosses. We must trade in our entourages and high-minded demands and return to the way of the Master—which includes the manger (humble beginnings), the donkey (a humble ministry style) and the towel (serving those we are called to lead). God resists the proud, and any church that embraces the bless-me gospel of egotistical charlatans will not enjoy His manifest presence.

Self awareness is not necessarily pride. But we need to think of others more than ourselves. Paul called himself the least of the apostles.

It seems that when it comes to ministry, the call of God is what many people focus on, possibly more so in Pentecostal circles (though I wonder about this tendency in liberalism). While this should not be minimised, we are not to dismiss what God is doing. And the belief of ministers that God is using them should not remove them from self scrutiny. In fact, they should probably be even more self-examining than others.

I think we are called to show respect to those over us, but this does not allow them to be immune from criticism. And criticism against a minister is not refuted by referring to God's anointing on his life. It may be that the complaint is unwarranted, and such person is answerable to God for speaking thus, but the response is to leave the issue to God or to refute the specifics. Claiming anointing status that makes one untouchable is the defence of scoundrels.

Further, having a true anointing of God does not make one immune to fault. God chooses who he wishes. He is able to use a donkey. Look at the examples of King Saul, Eli, and Balaam. Balaam is quite instructive as despite God using him to bless Israel, his love of money meant that he encouraged Moab in enticing Israel to sin in a way that would lead to their judgment. Thus Balaam's end was destruction.

Unclean food: Do God's commands change at his whim?

Most Christians have no concerns about eating pork. Many Jews do. God clearly forbade the eating of pig meat at Sinai, yet Christians don't consider it forbidden. Several questions that I can think of or that I have seen asked include:

• Is eating pork acceptable?
• Why was it banned at Sinai but acceptable millennia later?
• Can God give contradictory commandments?
• Which command takes precedence?
• What basis in Scripture is there for accepting the later commandment rather than the previous commandment?
• Why is it wrong for the Hebrews but not for the Gentiles?
• Is morality or God arbitrary?

The issue here is understanding the reasons for which God sets laws.

Some laws reflect God's righteousness. Examples of sins directly against God would be murder, adultery, worshipping anything other than the true creator. These laws exist because of the nature of God. These laws are directly determined by the nature of God and his morality. Honouring anyone above the creator dishonours the creator. Unlawfully destroying the image of God in a man steps outside man's domain and assumes God's domain; not to mention the source of murder is in hatred which God despises.

The Hebrews had many laws and not all of them were in the above category. The offence against God in breaking these other laws was disobedience. Now disobedience is a major sin which implies that obedience is very important; but this does not mean that the forbidden action in and of itself offends God's righteousness. Whereas breaking laws like murder are acting in disobedience as God has commanded not to, but they are sinful both in their disobedience and in their intrinsic action.

Parenthood holds an analogy. I forbid my children to do many things. Some verboten actions are always wrong, but others are somewhat arbitrary or temporary based on the child's age. All broken rules are disobedience but several are also morally wrong.

One could label these 2 types of laws,

• Moral laws: Breaking these contravene God's nature.
• Legal laws: Breaking these contravene God's commands.

Legal rules can potentially be for a season. They could be for all time on earth but cease in heaven. They could be forever to test our obedience to God.

God forbidding Adam to eat from the tree of the knowledge-of-good-and-evil was probably an obedience rule. Other examples would be eating vegetables pre-Fall versus eating meat post-Flood; not eating pig, rabbit, and camel for the nation of ancient Israel but eating these foods okay for Gentiles and Christians.

So why did God command the Hebrews not to eat pork?

Eating pork was not banned for the same reason as murder. It was in some respects arbitrary. This is seen in the temporary nature of the command.

And [Jesus] said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" ( Thus he declared all foods clean.) (Mark 7)

The sin of eating pork is therefore not intrinsic to the pig meat itself, it is the disobedience of Jews to God concerning this specific commandment.

It is helpful to seek the underlying reason for the ban. This will give us the reason for the temporary nature and give us understanding into God's character and his reasoning in this example.

I think the commandment was to teach the Hebrews about holiness. They had to think about what food was acceptable and what was not. This is similar to other laws such a the the ban on ploughing with unclean and clean animals yoked together or making cloth with 2 different types of thread.

God made categories of clean and unclean so the Hebrews could learn to distinguish between them. Clean and unclean symbolise holy and unholy. God belongs to the category of holy and he wants the Jews to be holy also.

Of course there was never a ban on Gentile consumption of pork, nor a ban for Hebrews/ Israelites pre-Sinai. However Christians trace their spiritual heritage thru Israel; Christianity was not so much a new religion, more a greater revelation of God, namely thru Jesus his son. Now that now we have a fuller revelation in Jesus these old rules have changed. We have a new and better covenant.

Giving up claim to your life

Churches frequently ask that people offer up their whole selves for Jesus. Jesus should get all of us and we should not hold back any part of our lives; Jesus is Lord over all.

I agree with this. My view of Christianity is one of an exchange of lives: my life for Jesus' life. He died for my sins, I live his life at his direction; it is no longer mine to own, including all my decisions. I do have mixed feelings about this approach however. In reality this is a very difficult thing to do. And to make a promise to God you think you are likely to fail on does not seem wise. So while this is what God wants of us, I am probably more likely to ask that God changes me that this may be my desire, or that as I grow I may give more and more to him. It is not that I necessarily want to hold back aspects (though at times perhaps), rather that I do.

I also am aware that others who have offered their whole selves to God, and meant it, and acted on it, have seen God work powerfully in their lives. I believe Charles Finney went through a process of giving all to God before his ministry. And I suspect Rhys Howells was in a similar position though I have not read his biography. Others have given God something important that represents all, or at least a lot, of themselves. Keith Green offered God his music knowing he may not get it back. So a quick comment about giving Jesus all in a music break does not do justice to the magnitude of this decision.

While I would not have married my wife without God giving me the go ahead and his approval, I do think I put her on the altar prior to that point: yet God still asks more of me than I give.

Perhaps it is an event for some people, perhaps it is process where we hand over more and more, perhaps it is both.

My pastor once said that he did not think the Christian walk got easier in terms of our faith in God, that we always can grow and God will give us ever more opportunities to trust him in ways that we have not done so before.

Which introduces the lyrics to a song that focuses on this aspect of faith:

Take my life and let it be

Fran­ces R. Ha­ver­gal (1836–1879)

Take my life, and let it be consecrated, Lord, to Thee.
Take my moments and my days; let them flow in ceaseless praise.
Take my hands, and let them move at the impulse of Thy love.
Take my feet, and let them be swift and beautiful for Thee.

Take my voice, and let me sing always, only, for my King.
Take my lips, and let them be filled with messages from Thee.
Take my silver and my gold; not a mite would I withhold.
Take my intellect, and use every power as Thou shalt choose.

Take my will, and make it Thine; it shall be no longer mine.
Take my heart, it is Thine own; it shall be Thy royal throne.
Take my love, my Lord, I pour at Thy feet its treasure store.
Take myself, and I will be ever, only, all for Thee.

To whom God reveals himself

There is an interesting comment by God at the time that he slays Aaron's sons for unauthorised offering (strange/foreign fire).

Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he had not commanded them. And fire came out from before the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD. Then Moses said to Aaron, "This is what the LORD has said, 'Among those who are near me I will show myself holy, and before all the people I will be glorified.'" And Aaron held his peace. (Lev 10)

There are 2 other situations that somewhat parallel this one. The slaying of Uzzah for touching the Ark of the Covenant (2 Samuel 6) and the slaying of Ananias and Sapphira for lying to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5). In the Nadab episode God makes interesting statement,

Among those who are near me I will show myself holy, and before all the people I will be glorified.

It is uncertain whether the first clause should be translated

Among those who are near me I will be treated as holy

as per LXX, NASB, ESV and NEB; or

Among those who are near me I will show myself holy

as per NIV, NRSV, NLT, and NET.

If the former then Nadab and Abihu were in a position of closeness by the nature of their position as priests, in which case God killed them for not treating him as holy. If the latter then God revealed his holiness in his judgment of their disobedience.

Now consider the implication of the latter interpretation. Those who are close to God will see God's holiness and that by God's revelation. But to all men God will still make his glory known. Everyone will see the glory of the Lord. Those close to him will experience his holiness.

Among those who are near me I will show myself holy,
and before all the people I will be glorified.

The phrase is a parallelism. In which case the former interpretation may be the preferable translation and the second clause is expanding on the first.

Among those who are near me I will be treated as holy,
and before all the people I will be glorified.