Should We be Dancing in the Streets? A response to Dr. Alan Snyder's article, "The Appropriate Response to the Death of Bin Laden"

I'm writing this in response to Dr. Alan Snyder's article "The Appropriate Response to the Death of Bin Laden."  http://ponderingprinciples.com/2011/05/the-appropriate-response-to-the-death-of-bin-laden/

It's unbelievable how the Chair of a Historical, Legal and Leadership Studies department in a major University can arrogantly justify murder and revenge by denigrating pacifism, outright dismissing the teachings of Christ and appealing to covenant promises of covenants currently not in existence.  A person in a legal department should have a minimal amount of understanding of what a covenant is all about, yet Dr. Snyder seems not to understand how  covenants and treaties work either biblically or in modern politics.

In all state law, and the Old Covenant was no exception, an eye for an eye is the sole basis of justice.  When one is wronged he has legal redress to demand equal repayment for the wrong suffered.  American law is based on this as is any civilized legal system in the world.  A government must be fair and show no favoritism to either party in a legal matter.  It is wrong to judge less harshly or to judge too harshly than fairness permits.  If a government consistently shows unfairness in either direction chaos will break out and the people will revolt.  An eye for an eye is the only just and fair way any legal system can function.

Now  when Christ came along he addressed the attitudes of individuals.  He said the law requires fairness, and an eye for an eye and when wronged a person has legal redress to demand just payment.  Jesus said, "but I tell you..turn the other cheek".  A person can demand just payment but the pure heart forgives instead.  If a person has wronged another and he is required by law to give repayment, Jesus said the pure heart repays more than is legally fair.  If a person is legally obligated to work a given amount, Jesus said work double, one portion out of obligation and one portion from the heart.  The law allows a person to be discriminate about his property.  Jesus said, share with everyone.  Love should never be limited by any law based one an eye for an eye.

The Sermon on the Mount was not written for the state.  The state must operate on the principle of an eye for an eye.   The Sermon on the Mount was written for individuals who what to practice love for their neighbor beyond what the law requires.  Dr. Snyder doesn't seem to understand this.  He understands that Christ's teaching do not apply to the state and he gives an example of how the Quakers in Pennsylvania attempted to do so to dire consequences.  But instead of understanding the differences between state and individual behavior advocated by Christ, Snyder dismisses Christ's teachings altogether in having any relevance beyond a strike on the face.  He shows no understanding of Christ's teachings at all nor their appropriate context.

Siteing the Quaker error of misapplication of the Sermon on the Mount to the state government and Indian attacks was on target but he then fails to mention that after the Quakers relinquished control of the government to others, the government took it to themselves to break every treaty made with the Indians and practically exterminated them.  A fact of history conveniently unmentioned, by the Chair of the History department.  The the credit of the Mennonites, Amish and Quakers, if they error, they error on the just side of the application of scripture and will be rewarded for it.

But now that the love and compassion and purity of heart that Christ emphasized is conveniently neutered, Dr. Snyder goes on to discuss God's Old Testament practices.  He sites that Israel under God's leading destroyed civilizations.  This is true, but he fails to mention any covenant stipulations or promises God might have been obligated to keep.  The promise to Abraham and to Israel in the Old Covenant was to "bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you."  If any nation rose up against Israel God was obligated to respond with force to defend them. Nations that had no contact with Israel were left alone. 

Snyder rightly mentions that the destroyed civilizations "had completely defiled themselves with child sacrifices and other horrors" but nowhere in the article does he show Islamic culture or indeed that Bin Laden himself practiced child sacrifice or other undefined horrors.  If any country is guilty of child sacrifice it is not an Islamic one.  The United States sacrifices it's unborn children to the tune of about a million a year.  Would that qualify for God's punishment?  Who is charging who with "moral depravity"?

From there Snyder moves on to the justification of government force.  He contends that the United States is on the side of good and that Bin Laden was on the side of evil.  He attacks his detractors by saying, "they don’t seem to think that one side is actually more evil than the other, and they equate mass murder of innocent civilians (September 11, 2001) with a legitimate response to exact justice upon the evildoers."  His argument is that 9/11 was an attack against "innocent" people, but by who's definition?  Certainly not Bin Laden's and certainly not by most of the Islamic world although their governments might defer to say so.

What was the origin of the idea that we can divide civilians from military persons and assign one side targetable and the other side untargetable?  I'm not saying it was a bad idea. I happen to be a civilian.  Snyder cited the destruction of Old Covenant civilizations but he didn't seem very concerned about the "innocent" people in those societies.  Biblically speaking there has never been any distinction between civilians and the military.  When God judged societies they were judged as a whole and everyone was targeted, not just that countries military.

Was it not in the Fourth Geneva Convention in 1949 that civilians first became protected under international law during times of war?  Although all of the middle eastern countries are members there are no provisions for individuals like Bin Laden.  To Bin Laden who operated outside of any country or it's treaties, all Americans were targets simply because all Americans were held to be guilty by what their representative government does.  A law professor should know that a law is only in force when all parties to the law agree and sign a covenant.  One cannot arbitrarily judge Bin Laden by "our" laws anymore than he could arbitrarily judge us by any "law" of his choosing.  Snyder seems to think that everything must be judged by our laws and our perspective without any discussion of the other parties perspectives.  He defends the rank celebration by Americans over Bin Laden's death on the premise that there is no "moral equivalence". That presupposition needs to be challenged.

And where does the United States think they can take the high ground when it comes to targeting civilian targets!  Do not the atrocities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki come to mind even a little bit?  The blood of innocent victims of the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan cries out against our nation, not to mention all the rest of the innocent blood we've shed.  The hypocrisy runs deep.  How convenient it is for Americans to have short memories.  The disease of denial is thriving in our country and there has never been any apology for the bombings.  You can't condemn Bin Laden for targeting "innocents" and pat yourself on the back for the atomic bomb atrocities at the same time, and look at the difference in scale.

Bin Laden is considered a hero by many around the world.  He was a freedom fighter.  The only thing that separated him from other freedom fighters was the fact that he targeted so called "innocent civilians", but like I said, that's a matter of perspective that needs to be discussed.

Another thing that needs to be discussed is did Bin Laden have legitimate grievances?  Was American presence in the middle east and in particular in Arabia justified?  These concerns are being ignored by most of our congressmen with the exception of Ron Paul and other libertarians.  It is evident that 9/11 was caused not by someone who hates the U.S. because of our freedoms but blowback for the freedoms the U.S. denies other peoples in other countries.  Dr. Snyder makes no mention of this issue at all. Not one word.

Once Jesus' teachings about forgiveness and restraint are tossed aside and one appeals to eye for eye justice but asserts that only "his eye" was injured than any so called justice is bound to be unfair, one sided, hypocritical and degenerates into revenge.

Dr. Snyder finishes his article by discussing who should get the credit for Bin Laden's demise, Bush or Obama.  He says that "humility" is "sorely lacking in the president."  Well humility is lacking, but it's not about who should take credit but should we take credit at all!  It was the United States foreign policy and it's blowback that got us into this situation in the first place.  The entire nation should be bowing their heads in humility not jealously seeking recognition for the kill and certainly not dancing in the streets.  The arrogance turns my insides out.

Philippians 4:6 Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God.

Philippians 4:4 Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice!  5 Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near.  6 Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God.  7 And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. 

The letter to the Philippians was written in the early 60's just before the beginning of the Roman persecution of Nero instigated by the Jews.  Paul said, the "Lord was near" indicating the end of the Old Covenant age and the fall of Jerusalem was just around the corner.  Of course we know those events happened in A.D. 70 within 10 years of the writing of the letter.

The apostle Paul prays that the Philippians would grow in love, knowledge and insight and that they would remain pure and blameless and filled with righteousness "until the day of Christ". (1:9-11)  He wishes to visit them but whatever happens he wants them to conduct themselves "in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ," and "contend "as one man for the faith of the gospel." (1:27)

Paul foresaw the persecution and temptations the Philippians would soon face. He encourages them not to be "frightened in any way by those who oppose" them.  He predicts the destruction of the enemy and salvation of the Philippians and says they will, along with himself, suffer for Christ. (1:27-30)

He encourages them to have pure motives and have the same attitude as Christ. (2:1-5)  He wishes them to be "blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a crooked and depraved generation" holding "out the word of life" so that Paul can "boast on the day of Christ." (2:14-16)

Paul warns them to watch for the Judaizers who were tempting them to abandon Christ and return to the Old Covenant law. (3:1-3)  He reassures them that righteousness comes through the New Covenant in Christ not the the law. (3:4-11)  They are to look forward to heaven rather than to the past. (3:12-20)

They were not to be anxious but pray with thanksgiving, expecting God to give them peace that would guard their "hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus." (4:4-6)  If they keep their minds on spiritual things the God of peace would be with them. (4:7-9)

Paul had endured much persecution and hardship. He knew what it was like to be in need and had learned that the key was "to be content whatever the circumstances."  God was the one who strengthened him and because of that knowledge he could endure anything.  He encourages them to live like that. (4:10-13)

Thus through the context of the letter we can ascertain what things Paul was encouraging them to pray for in 4:6.  It was not for physical things. They were to be content whatever the circumstances they were in, not pray for circumstances to change.  The result of the prayers they were to pray was a peace that "transcends all understanding."  Thus the prayers they were to pray were for spiritual things, to be pure and blameless, to be filled with righteousness, to live in a manner worthy of the gospel, to be fearless in the proclamation of the gospel, to resist temptation, to have pure motives and a Christlike attitude, to be blameless and pure and without fault, and to have their hearts and minds on Christ Jesus.  These things would lead to a peace beyond any peace the world could give.

He ends with a list of spiritual things to think about and pray for. "Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable — if anything is excellent or praiseworthy — think about such things." (4:8)

But prayer and meditation was not an end in itself.  After praying they were to put the things they had been taught "into practice, "and the God of peace" would be with them, and give them the "peace which transcends all understanding." (4:9) The Philippians would shortly be under intense persecution but need not be anxious, if there hearts were right, God would guard their hearts and their minds in Christ Jesus. Their enemies would be destroyed and they would be saved.

For Paul, prayer was for edification and spiritual development.  Christian growth is what he wished the Philippians to experience, the kind of prayers God promised to answer within the New Covenant.  Prayer was also to be followed up with the concrete actions of Christlike living and spreading the gospel to be effective.

God bless you all as you experience victory in your prayer life and in Christian living as Paul and the Philippians did.

What the Bible Says About Covenant - Mont Smith "The New Birth and Baptism"

From, "What The Bible Says About Covenant"

by Mont W. Smith

page 300 - 312.

Christ the Covenant

Messiah was described as a covenant Himself.

I will keep you and make you a covenant for the peoples, to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness (Isa. 42:6ff.)

The passage was quoted by jesus.  he was a covenant (Matt. 12:14ff).  Christ stood between God and man as covenant did.  he was helpless mankind's link to God.  God would accept reconciliation with man through Christ.  He was the only access to God.

No one comes to the Father but through me.  If you really knew me you would know my Father as well.  From now on you know him and have seen him (John 14:6f.).

Such an announcement immediately separated mankind into two categories: those "in Christ," and those not in Christ.  The people not in Christ were regarded as hostile aliens, as "dead" in sins and trespasses regardless of their moral conduct (Acts 11:14).  In Ephesians Paul carried to its conclusion the stated premise of Christ.  He identified all men not in Christ as "dead, culture led, philosophy led, Satan led, disobedient, separated, excluded, without God, without hope, hostile, far off, foreigners and aliens (Eph. 2:1ff.).  When "in Christ," one was raised up, saved, recreated, brought near, at peace with, fellow-citizens with God's people, and members of God's household (Eph. 2:14ff.).  The church of Christ was the continuation of the covenanted people of God.  One ws "elect" in Christ (v.4) having been adopted, redeemed, and forgiven "through the blood."  There can be no doubt of the covenant orientation of Paul.  He used covenant terminology in the discussion.

The Second Birth

One came into the first kingdom of Israel (Deut. 19:5ff.) by birth into the covenanted people.  One came into the second kingdom, the kingdom of Messiah, by the second birth.  "Made alive" (Eph. 2:1) probably had reference to a resurrection from the dead lot of humanity, but the metaphor paralleled the concept of being born again (John 3:3).  Jesus' language of new birth was followed by Paul (Philemon 1:10), Peter (1 Pet. 1:21ff.), John (1 John 2:29).  The terminology was covenantal (john 3:1ff.) referring to the parties.

One's new birth began when the gospel was "planted" in his mind (James 1:18-22).  The "seed" was the message of Christ (1 Pet. 1:2f.).  The embryo was created when the evidence of the death and resurrection was presented and belief began (1 Cor. 4:15).  Gestation was short or long, depending on each convert.  Gestation was "coming to one's self" (Luke 15:17), for "a godly sorrow for sin lendeth a man to repentance" (2 Cor. 7:10).  The actual birth occurred in water (Titus 3:5).  Baptism was the pledge of loyalty from a good conscience to God (1 Pet. 3:21).  The covenant bound when the birth took place or when the oath was taken (Heb. 9:18).  No other view was represented in any writings of the ancient church during the first four hundred years. (Alexander Campbell, Christian System, 1835, Cincinnati: Standard Publishing Co., Reprinted, p. 189.)  Only a small, if vocal, minority of Christian scholars published a different view.  It is the consensus of informed scholarship that baptism was the water of regeneration.

Prior to the execution of a single stipulation of the New Covenant Messiah granted to the believer citizenship (Gal. 3:27), remission of sin (Acts 2:38), the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38), and participation in all future promises (Rom. 8:17ff.).  It may be correctly stated that no Christian had his sins remitted by any stipulation or work of the New Covenant.  He received that grace as a gift of God upon his surrender and pledge to God.

The entire process of the new birth was under the supervision of the Holy Spirit.  The Spirit of Christ revealed the message (1 Cor. 2:13f.), sent out the preachers (Acts 13:1-3), often found the prospects (Acts 16:9ff.), got the parties together (Acts 8:26f.), sometimes overcame language barriers (Acts 2:4ff.), and demonstrated his own satisfaction with the message of sign and miracles (Heb. 2:2ff.).  Accordingly anyone thus converted was regarded as born of the Spirit (John 3:5).  We might say the Spirit was ultimate cause (John 3:5), the Spirit's preacher the efficient cause (1 Cor. 4:15), the message of the Spirit the immediate cause (James 1;18), and the heart of faith the submissive cause (Acts 2:40).  The new birth was by divine initiation, but was accomplished by mutual participation.  After all, it does take two to make a baby!

Paul discussed the same process in Romans Ten, but in reverse order.

Everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.  How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in?  And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard?  And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?  And how can they preach unless they are sent? (Rom. 10:13-15).

The only description we have in Acts of "calling on His name," was in reference to Paul himself.  He had been praying for several days, presumably asking for God's forgiveness.  Ananias told him,

And now, what are you waiting for?  Get up, be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name (Acts 22:16).

Baptism as Covenant Pledge

The waters of Noah brought death to the sinners in his time.  The same water saved Noah, by God's grace.  Water was judgment and water separated the living from the dead.  The water of Christ was also a kind of judgment. (Merideth Kline, By Oath Consigned, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968, p 65ff.)  It was a judgment on sin.  It was both God's judgment and the convert's.  One's old life was sinful; they agreed o that judgment.  The soul that sinneth, it shall die - was agreed upon by each.  The water was also a pledge by both.  The sinner pledged to God his life and God pledged admission to the covenant.

In it, only a few people were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism what now saves you also - not the removal of dirt from the body, but the pledge of a good conscience toward God.  It saves you by the resurrection of Christ (I Pet. 3:21).

Some former translations used the word "answer."  The gospel offered to a sin sick civilization a cleansing of conscience.  The sinner had God's assurance of forgiveness if he but said, "Yes."  Baptism was man's answer to God.  The word endings in Greek allowed for either the initiative or the responsive rendering.  Some translators preferred the initiative form: pledge or an asking, while others the responsive form: an answer.

"the prayer for a clear conscience before God" - Moffatt

"the answer of a good conscience" - KJV

"the craving for a clear conscience" - Williams

"the appeal made to God" - NEB

"the request to God for" - Schonfield

"the interrogation of a good conscience" - ASV

"the asking God for a clear conscience" - Beck

"because in being baptized we are turning to God and asking him to cleanse our hearts from sin" - Living Bible

"the pledge of a good conscience" - NIV

When one entered the waters of baptism he was testifying to his faith in the death and resurrection.  Actually he was speaking of three deaths and resurrections.  He was saying, "I believe Jesus Christ was buried and raised from the dead, just as I am going under this water, cut off from life, and will come up again."  He was also saying, "As Jesus died and rose again, so my old way of life is dead and buried; and as He rose from death, so I shall be a new person and live as He directs."  And in a sense he was saying, "Some day I shall die and be buried in the earth.  But I believe, as surely as He rose again, and as surely as this one brings me up out of the water, I shall come u out of the grave, because of His own resurrection"  (Rom 6:4-6).

The witnesses to a baptism was the believer alive and in view, as people once was Jesus.  Then the candidate disappeared form sight in the water as Jesus did in the tomb.  They saw him once again as Jesus was seen once again after His resurrection.  From the perspective of the candidate, he was alive and breathing once.  Now he was under the water, cut off from life-support systems, as Jesus was cut off.  If the one baptizing did not bring him up, he would stay there and die, so to speak.  But God, through the church, brought him up to air and life, as Jesus was raised to live forever.

Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection, The second death has no power over them (Rev. 10:6).

Baptism was, in addition to the beautiful symbolism of death and resurrection, a statement being made to God.  This is somewhat a pledge every seeker made to God at baptism.

"My fee go into the water, into death.  Never again will my feet walk to evil.  My genitals are buried to sin.  Never will they be allowed to serve evil.  My hands are immersed.  They will not steal, strike in anger, oppress the poor, or attack the weak.  My hands are pledged to Christ.  My mind, ambition, ability, imagination, are all immersed.  Never again will I use my head for wrong goals, improper gain , or inappropriate dreams or fantasy.  My head, heart, and soul are all pledged to God.

The person I once was is now dead and buried.  I make that pledge.  The person I am to be is alive for Christ's use.  I make that pledge.  I am all Christ's.  My answer, Lord, is "Yes." I give this act as my most sacred oath."

Baptism now saves you, ... as a pledge of a good conscience toward God.  It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ (I Pet. 3:21).

Prayer was never used as an oath or answer in the New Testament.  It lacked essential ingredients to be a Hebrew oath.  It had no death in it.  And it was too gnostic.  Prayer involved the mind, certainly, and the emotions, and some of the will, but only a part of the will.  And prayer lacked the body - essential for Hebrew personhood.  A person's body sinned.  In their minds it was a "body of sin," a dead weight of years of defilement.  It needed cleansing.  Baptism involved all of man's nature.  Prayer only promised to deliver the body of God.  Baptism delivered it.

Water was associated with oath taking from the time of Moses.  At the oath swearing at Sinai, Moses mixed the blood with water, to extend its use.  By the time the 600,000 had passed, there might have been a thin mixture left!  The Syrian, Naaman was cleansed by dipping himself in water.  The proselytes dipped themselves in the waters of baptism as an initiation or a "choosing into" the brotherhood of Israel.  When the Lord Jesus was slain - in God's oath taking, blood and water flowed from his side.  Paul linked the death of Jesus, i.e. , the blood, with a believer's baptism.  It recalled a commitment made there.

We died to sin, how can we live in it any longer?  Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?  We were therefore buried with hi through baptism, into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.  If we have been united with him in his death, we shall certainly be united with him in his resurrection.  For we know that our old self was crucified with him, so that the body of sin might be rendered powerless, that we should no longer be slaves to sin - because anyone who has died has been freed from sin (Rom. 6:2-7).

The conscience would be cleansed at baptism only if the candidate believed two things.  He must truly believe with a good conscience, "in his heart," that Jesus rose from the dead.  Without that, it would be mere ceremonial game playing.  And, he must believe God has promised him remission of sin and admission to covenanted peace when that oath is sworn.  If the candidate felt relief and joy when he arose (Acts 8:39) he believed God.  If he had no relief, he was either mistaught, and thus cheated of his birthright, or he did not believe the scriptures.  The linking of baptism with remission of sin is illustrated by this parallel.  Both involved a pledging.  God pledged in a very physical way at Calvary.  He expects man to do the same.

This is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many...for the forgiveness of sins (Matt. 26:28)

Repent and be baptized...for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38).

Of course, there was no eternal or magical link of remission of sin to baptism.  The link was covenantal.  It was parallel to the cleansing of Naaman.

There was nothing about water as opposed to sand or sawdust as an element making baptism function as intended.  God made things valuable by His selection of them for a purpose.  he could have used any number of ways for man to respond.  He chose baptism.  I had value only because it was covenanted.  If one were unable to be baptized, perhaps God would consider an alternative, although we have no examples of that being done.  The point is baptism was neither legalistic nor mechanical.  It was moral.  After all, how can on mean, "Yes," to God while saying no to baptism?  Nor is it satisfactory to identify physical acts of faith as "works" and mental acts as "faith."  Works, in the theology of Paul, were never identified as the execution of a command of Christ or the Apostles.  Works were, for Paul, doing what the law had required (Gal. 3:2) or a self-announced definition of good deed (Eph 2:9).  God's free gift can be unmerited, not earned, not deserved and yet be conditional or mutual.  God gave (graced) Joshua Jericho, but Joshua was required to participate in the work of faith.  Naaman was freely given cleansing, but he had to obey.

The basic and root theological error resulting in the low view of baptism came from the adoption of Greek presuppositions about matter and spirit.  For the Greeks, matter was wrong and unspiritual.  Spirit had no form, color, substance, and was pure "spirit."  when that assumption was carried into Christian thought, it came to be expressed by the statement:  "No physical act can have anything to do with a man's salvation."  Thus mental processes came to be identified as faith and physical processes works.  That two-category explanation can be of little use in Bible study, for the Bible is Covenant.  Covenants were mutual and conditional in nature.  The above stated Greek type principle, if carried to its logical conclusion would also eliminate the cross, the church and the incarnation.  Each was quite physical.  Such an assumption is a revival of gnosticism, although in a much milder form.  Its revival was carried by certain strains of European protestantism.  The reformation was part of the renaissance.  The renaissance was produced by the Greek revival. (Edward M. Hulme, Renaissance and Reformation, New York: Century Publishing Co., 1917, p. 88-91)

In covenant, the forms taken had no value in and of themselves (as with the water in baptism).  Their value came by inclusion as part of a covenant.

That is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle, "See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain" (Exod. 25:40).  The ministry Jesus has...is superior to the old one...(Heb. 8:24, 25).

Baptism and Circumcision

There is a difference between the oath or pledge of a covenant and the "sign" of a covenant.  The Hebrew  for oath was alah.  It also was used for "the curse of covenant," because an oath was both a commitment and a self-curse.  The sign of a covenant was 'ot.  The oath was walking between the halves of the slain animals, touching "the blood of the covenant."  A sign was a visible representation or memorial to that ceremony.  It may have been a pile of rocks (Gen. 31:44f), or a rainbow (Gen. 9:13), or others.  The oath swearing of God and Abraham was passing between the halves (Gen. 15:17, 18).  The sign of the covenant signed that night was circumcision (17:11).  The sign of the Mosaic covenant was the Sabbath (Exodus 31:13).  The sign of the Christian covenant was possessing the Holy Spirit, or living the kind of life Jesus did (Eph. 1:13).

A passage in Colossians used the words, circumcision, sinful nature, the circumcision of Christ, and baptism as burial together in a discussion.  Paul did not equate circumcision with baptism.  He did not use them in parallel.  The "circumcision not done with hands," that is, "the circumcision of Christ," was his death.  He was cut off.  His entire body on the cross was "circumcised."  The Christian joined Christ at baptism when he participated in that death and resurrection.

What happened at Calvary was not a symbolic oath-cursing bu the actual carrying out of the curse in the circumcision of God in the crucifixion of his only begotten son.  There "the body of [Jesus'] flesh by his death" (Col. 1:22) was actually cut off (apekdusis) (Col. 2:11) so that "we [Jew and Gentile] might be presented holy and blameless and irreproachable," who once were  "estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds" (Col. 1:21, 22)...Paul used apekdusis...

To catch the sense of the word, we should translate it "fully put off" expressing the exclusion of every possibility of returning again to the former state or condition.  Paul means therefore, that Jesus' death was HIS circumcision. (Paul Jewett, Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978, p. 89.)

The Christian took the initial oath at his own death and resurrection at baptism.  Paul did not mean baptism as Christian circumcision.  The death of christ, as he paid the "curses" of the covenant, symbolized by the cutting off in circumcision, was the cutting off of the entire Old System.  Paul's point was that a Jew need for fear any "cutting off" from God because he abandoned the Old Covenant.  Yes, he said, God would curse anyone not circumcised.  But all indeed were circumcised with Christ suffered the penalty in his being "cut off" for all mankind.  And, he added, all participated in the benefits found at the cross when baptized into Christ's death.

The use of the aorist passive throughout the passage, makes it evident that to experience the circumcision of Christ in putting off the body of flesh, is the same thing as being buried and raised with him in baptism through faith. (Jewett, ibid., p. 89.)

This is not to say, however, that baptism and circumcision are equated as signs.  The Apostolic parallels were these:

Base of Covenant: Jewish - In the flesh of Abraham. Christian - By choice, i.e. by the spirit, of Christ.

Entry into: Jewish - By birth as a blood descendant of Abraham. Christian - By rebirth culminated at baptism.

The sign or seal: Jewish - Circumcision at eight days. Christian - Walking by the Spirit.

The danger of equating the signs, of making baptism and circumcision both "seal," serving the same purpose, is to raise contradiction in Paul's experience and theology.  It was but a short step from "neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value" (Gal. 5:6), to "neither baptism nor unbaptism has any value."  That would, of course, contradict Christ (Mark 16:15, 16).  Paul could indeed say circumcision meant nothing.  That was true.  It was "dead works"; but it was dead works because the Law of which it was a part was "dead" (Rom. 7:1ff.).  Paul would never have said such a thing had the Law been still in force.

One thing is clear, water apart from pledge and belief in the gospel by the candidate was works righteousness.  It was meaningless.  Faith was what made baptism do what was intended.  The purpose of baptism was to give an unforgettable pledge demonstrating to God the will and the ability to bring Him that "body of sin," for cleansing.  God demonstrated His intentions at Calvary in a very real and physical way.  God honored man by graciously allowing him to reciprocate as covenant partner.

Since man's sins were moral, infants were not regarded as sinners (Isa. 7:15, 16).  Jesus used the innocence of children as examples of the innocence found in the new kingdom (Matt. 19:14).  When entire "households" became Christian (Acts 11:14), it must not be assumed infants were included.  Baptism was oath taking, and a covenant could be entered only by those able to understand the moral commitment being made there (Neh. 10:28, 29).  Covenant allowed for both God's part in salvation and man's responsibility for evidence and his responsibility to exhibit his battered but valid image of God.  God initiated covenants; they were written by Him, handed down to mankind, and man was saved by accepting God's offer.  The entire New Covenant was a covenant of grace.  It was God's kiss of love to estranged and lonely man.  The praise belonged to Him and Him alone (Eph. 1:14)

What The Bible Says About Covenant - Mont Smith "Restrained Power"

Excerpt from Chapter 2 "Plato or Moses?" from

What the Bible Says About Covenant

 by Mont W. Smith

Ideas about God

Greek and Hebrew ideas about God were very different.  Such Greeks as were religious had many gods.  The Hebrews had one.  The Greeks had a grand system of inferior and superior gods.  They had their myths explaining the seasons.  The Hebrew had none.  The gods of the Greeks were much like the Greeks.  They had virtues and vices; the won and they lost conflicts;  they were a mixture of good and evil.  The Greeks attributed "causes" to the gods.  One caused springtime, another happiness.  There was a god of wine.  Idols, pictorial representations of these mythical gods, were accorded an honored place in the family.  For the more philosophic Greek, the idol was not a god and did not represent a god at all.  It represented an idea such as love or hope, or personal honor, or enduring friendship, and the like.  The Hebrew was to have no image of God.  Man and mankind alone was in the image of God.

The Greeks and Hebrews also differed in a more fundamental way.  It had to do with power and its use.  While many potential contrasts between Green and Hebrew thinking are possible, none are more important than the one related to power.

For the Greeks power was the greatest divine attribute.  Greeks loved and longed for power.  They idealized this longing in their gods.  Power became a more important attribute than morality.  You see, if a god were to submit to some moral code, he would be inferior to that code.  He would be inferior to the author or enforcer of the code.  Thus a Greek god, to be god at all, must practice both good and evil.  That will show him to be the greatest power in the universe.  it was in this vein that the serpent suggested to Eve that being like God was "knowing both good and evil."  "Knowing" for the Hebrew meant active and intimate participation in!

In the very act of approaching Abraham with a covenant, God was offering to seriously limit His power.  For when one makes a promise, he has eliminated a great many possible future actions.  He must do that one act.  God was committed to a whole series of actions as a result of the covenant with Abraham.  His ethic forced Him to do what He had promised.  God's option to bless the world or not bless the world in Abraham's seed was gone.  His only option now was to bless the world.  That is a limitation.

When one thinks about it, God made a habit of limiting His power.  it  may be that God wanted to convey the notion that "restraint of power" is a greater attribute of character than power!

God's Restraint of Power

God gave up some power when He made the universe.  At least he was restricted from interference and still have nature proceed on its normal course.  It was a voluntary restraint certainly, abut creation itself constituted a limitation on God's future potential actions.  As long as He permitted nature to exist God had to make room for it.

God gave up considerable power when he made man with a spiritual nature: thinking, feeling and willing.  He risked becoming the laughing stock of heaven in giving man free will.  Allowing man to sin and to choose contrary to God's own stated will placed upon God a limitation.  As long as man existed God had some accommodations to make.  God did not get His own way about the fruit His man ate.  To not get one's own way is a limitation certainly.  The reader ought not be offended b talk like this - unless he also believe, as did the Greeks, that power is God's greatest attribute!

God limited His power when He communicated with man in language.  He and Adam talked in words.  If Adam was as human then as he is now, the conversation had to be out loud!  They talked together.  God taught Adam language.  At least they named the animals.  They created vocabulary.  Note that language is a type of covenant.  We each agree that a given word means the same thing.  Two can not have conversation unless the pattern of sounds is meant to convey what both agree.  If one party to a conversation were to exercise some power and redefine all the words, and then forget the original, the two could no longer talk!  God's Spirit communicated through words.  This is the root source of the Hebrew high theology of "word of God."  What God speaks is what God's Spirit is saying.  God must also confine His revelation to human syntax.  He must use verbs correctly.  he must submit to the rules of grammar.  is that a weakness as the Greeks would believe?  Or is it God's true glory and honor?  Is the limiting of one's power a type of Godliness?

The greatest way God had limited His power was in covenant.  He made commitments for a very long period of time.  His hesed limited Him to fulfilling these.  he could do nothing else, for as Paul said, "He cannot deny Himself" (II Tim. 2:13) 

Sin, Righteousness, and Restraint of Power

Adam was limited in the garden.  As long as he was content to live with that limitation he was godly - Godlike.  When he exercised his power to chose either good or evil, he lost his godliness.  Thus sin became, for the Hebrew, some aspect of unrestrained exercise of power.  For instance, saying anything - the truth or lies, is free exercise of power.  Limiting one's speech to the truth is restraint of power of speech.  Unrestrained and free use of sex was sin.  Limiting sex to marriage was righteousness.  Possessing things b any means, whether manufacture, borrowing, or stealing is an example of free and unrestrained use of ability.  Limiting the gaining of possessions to "lawful gain" is righteousness.  it is difficult to think of any sin listed in either the Old or the New Testaments that does not involve the excessive use of power or ability.  It is also difficult to find a matter regarded as righteous that does not require some sort of restraint of one's full powers.

Moses challenged the basic assumptions of the Greeks, through their forebears, when he produced Genesis for all to read.  he challenged what was thought about God's relationship t nature, how nature itself worked, and what God's true power and glory were.

Persuasion and Programming

God set about repairing the ruptured relationship caused by the deliberate rejection of God's word and therefore rejection of His very nature.  Adam had but one flaw.  It was his lot to have been created.  He did not choose his relationship to God.  And when he sinned, he chose not to remain in fellowship with God.  From then until now, God determined that none should have His fellowship except those who sought it.  Renewed fellowship would be with only such as wanted it.  God was generous to man.  If man did not want fellowship with? God he was not forced into it.  He could suffer, as Paul later put it, "Eternal separation form the presence of the Lord, and form the majesty of His power" (II Th. 1:9), but if he disliked God's company he wasn't forced into it.

The offer of a covenant to Abraham was consistent with God's nature and the situation.  God, in grace and compassion, offered to mankind, through Abraham, an opportunity for reconciliation.  But man must agree.  That problem was solved in the idea of covenant.  God had a part and man had a part.  This set the style of relationship from then until now.  In every dealing with God, man has a responsible part and God has a part.  To be sure, God's part is by far the greater and full of good will, but man must join the hand of God and exercise his mind, and use his will, and move his body and enter the covenant.  God will not program man to say, "I love you."  He is willing to persuade man with mercies.  He is willing to warn man with prediction by programming man to think, feel or will anything.  He will use the medium of history, objective revelation, and words to reach man.  God uses mediation.  A covenant stands between God and man and joins together all who accept its terms and it separates all who refuse.

When viewed in that light, it takes more power to persuade than to program a reconciliation with free human beings.  It took much more risk on God's part to make man with free will than with a spiritual reflex system.  God risked something when He populated the earth with potential enemies.  It would have been no risk to have programmed man to obedience.  It was a superior God who revealed Himself to Moses.  Lacking God's revelation, the Greeks did the best they could.  They made their gods in their own image. (page 47-52)

Romans 5:12-21 - Original Sin Proof Text Exposed

Romans 5:12-21

Original Sin Proof Text Exposed

Ever since Augustine introduced Platonic philosophical thought into theology, the church had been plagued with various brands of determinism.  Today Calvinism and Universalism are the two main deterministic trends of this branch of thinking.  Neo-Calvinism can be considered the core theology of fundamentalist Christianity in the U.S. and many Christians today question the validity of free will.  It is not at all surprising that the idea of determinism has such strength considering American secular thought in education, art and the media teach it's own brand of determinism; naturalistic determinism.  The only difference between naturalistic determinism and the Christian brands is the replacement of "nature" with some concept of "god" as the primary determiner.  Christian determinism is rooted in several key concepts, one of which is the idea of Original Sin in which all men are made sinners because of Adam's sin.  The loss of relationship between God and mankind is due to the supposed choice of one man.  Thus all men are born sinners and are not ever capable of making any good choices.  Man is totally depraved and has no free will.  Faith and salvation are gifts of God given to those whom He has chosen, at his own discretion.  The difference between Calvinism and Universalism lies only in the idea that Universalism states all mankind are or will eventually be given faith and salvation.

Many of the key proof texts for Original Sin are found in Paul's letter to the Romans.  The choice of English words loaded with deterministic nuances to translate the original Greek by biased determinism believing translators muddle a true understanding of the text but even with the current English translations, one need not succumb to a Calvinistic nor a Universalistic conclusion that Paul in the letter to the Romans supports Original Sin in any way.  The main error of those who claim the passages clearly support determinism is found in the cut and paste method of exegesis where three or four verses that appear to support their belief are taken out of context and interpreted by themselves.

The Importance of Contextualization

In this writing I would like to take a close look at the Romans 5:12-21 text, but before that I want to take a little aside to demonstrate the importance of sound hermeneutics in the area of contextualization.  Consider the following story.

(Paragraph 2) Before he went to his friend's house to play, John asked his mother if it was all right if he got a chocolate bar on his way home and his mother said "OK" and give him some money.  John played with his friends all afternoon and come 4:30 p.m. he thought it was time to go home.  He left his friend's house and dropped into the convenience store on his way home.  After he got home, he ate dinner, watched TV and went to bed.  The next morning John's brother Mark got up went downstairs and thanked his mother for the chocolate bar he ate the day before.  His mother smiled, said "You're welcome." and went on about her business.

Now I don't know about you but I have some problems with the way Mark's mother reacted.  Shouldn't she have been surprised at Mark's statement?  Shouldn't she have asked him where he got the chocolate bar?  Or if she thought John was involved, wouldn't she have asked, "Oh did John share his chocolate bar with you?"  And if John shared his chocolate bar wouldn't Mark have thanked John instead of his mother?

The fact is, there is no mention of Mark asking for money for a chocolate bar or receiving any in the paragraph.  There is no mention of him buying a chocolate bar,though we can infer that John did.  There is no mention of Mark at all until he came downstairs the next day.  Was Mark with John playing at his friends house?  Did he receive money for a chocolate bar too?  Could that be the reason why his mother reacted the way she did?  But the paragraphs doesn't say so does it?  This is the problem we run into when we look at only part of the context of a story.  Had we read the paragraph before paragraph 2 we could have understood the story better.

(Paragraph 1) John and Mark are brothers.  John is 10 and his brother is 7.  They are very close and often play together.  In fact Mark follows John around all day long and does pretty much everything John does.  One day their mother took them to play with their friends down the block.  She was a good mother and she told John he was to look after his brother and come home in time for dinner.  John promised he would.

Wow, all of a sudden we understand what happened.  John and Mark both went to their friends house to play.  Mark was there when John asked for the money for the chocolate bar.  Their mother gave money to both of them.  She's a good mother.  Both of them went into the convenience store, bought chocolate bars and ate them.  Both of them ate dinner, watched TV together and in the morning Mark thanked his mother.  We understand this because of the extra information of paragraph 1.  Paragraph 1 is a part of the context of paragraph 2.  Now let me rewrite paragraph 2 in light of what we know from paragraph one.  I could write it in the following way:

(Paragraph 2, rewritten.) Before he (John) want to his friends house to play (with his brother Mark, because they often play together and Mark follows John around all day long and does pretty much everything John does and because his mother took both of them there), John asked his mother if it was all right if he got a chocolate bar on his way home (and his brother Mark whom he often plays together and follows John around all day and does pretty much everything John does and was with him because his mother took him with John to their friend's house watched on expectantly) and his mother (who was a good mother) said "OK" and give him (that is John, and his brother who often play together with John and follows John around all day long and does pretty much everything John does) some money.  John played with his friends all afternoon (along with his brother because they often play together and Mark follows John around all day long and does pretty much everything John does and because his mother took both of them there) and come 4:30 p.m. he (John) thought it was time to go home (with his brother whom his mother told him to look after, because they often play together and Mark follows John around all day long and does pretty much everything John does).  He left his friend's house and on the way home dropped into the convenience store (with his brother whom his mother told him to look after, because they often play together and Mark follows John around all day long and does pretty much everything John does) on his way home. (The two boys bought chocolate bars and ate them.) After he (John) got home, he ate dinner (with his brother....ah forget it, you get the point),watched TV (with his brother....) and went to bed.  The next morning John's brother Mark got up went downstairs and thanked his mother for the chocolate bar he ate the day before.  His mother smiled, said "You're welcome." (because she was a good mother) and went on about her business.

Now of course this revision of the second paragraph is a lot more understandable than the original because there is no need to make any inferences or add back any of the "understood" information, but it would be extremely boring because of all the redundancy.  Nobody writes like that, but anyone who has studied Noam Chomsky's generative grammar knows that all of the inferences and extra understood information that I have put in parentheses (and much more) is actually understood in the minds of both the writer and the reader.  Understanding language is a combination of both bottom up and top down strategies.  Contextualization and infrencing are absolutely necessary in understanding any linguistic information, spoken or written whether it be in English or in Greek. 

Therefore to understand one verse, Romans 5:18 for instance, one must understand what was written before and after the verse.  Information in chapter 1 to 4 may be just as vital to the understanding of what is in 5:18 as verse 18 itself.

The Contextualization of Romans 5:12-21

Now let us take a look at the passage.

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned —  13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.  14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. 

15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!  16 Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.  17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. 

Romans 5:18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.  19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. 

Romans 5:20 The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,  21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

If verse 18 is taken alone it would appear that Paul is making a case for Original Sin and Universal Salvation.  "Condemnation" for "all men" was the result of the "one trespass" by Adam and "justification" for "all men" was the result of the "one act of righteousness" by Jesus Christ.  And if verse 18 was all the information we had then it stands to reason that both Original Sin and Universal Salvation were valid.  But as I stated before, we must look at the context and find what is already "understood" by the writer and should be understood by the reader; the redundant information that Paul chose not to repeat.

The key to understanding Paul's teaching about Original Sin is found six verses earlier in verse 12.

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned.

Paul does not say death came to all men because Adam sinned; he says death came to all men because all sinned.  In other words Paul believes all men are held accountable for their lifestyle just like Adam and Eve and Cain and Able were.  And because all men sin, they all receive the exact same punishment for sin; they are separated from God in relational death.  In verses 13 to 14, Paul states that this accountability is not influenced by the absence of the written law.  Humanly speaking there is no guilt if no law was broken.  That's why societies make laws about everything.  Men are not held accountable (at least not to the same measure) for sin unless they know what they are doing is wrong.  Hence we say to our children, "Well next time you do this you are going to get a spanking."  We make allowance for ignorance.  But from God's perspective, a person is a sinner if he doesn't "do what is right" (Genesis 4:7), regardless of whether he has received a specific law against a specific sin or not.  Thus Paul says, "death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command."

What Paul is doing in Romans 5, is eliminating any discussion about whether the Gentiles can be let off for their sinful behavior on account of not having the written law, like the Jews had.  Paul's contention is that everyone is judged by how he or she lived, regardless of whether they had specific laws against sinful behavior.  All are sinners because all sin and all are saved through faith in Jesus Christ.

Now understanding verse 15 to 21 is a little bit trickier than verses 12 to 14.  In verses 12 to 14 Paul added the qualifier "because all sinned"; "death came to all men, because all sinned".  In verse 15 to 21 he doesn't add the qualifier because it's understood.  In leaving out the qualifier verse 18 is left open for interpreters to believe Paul is making a case for Original Sin. But that's not the only qualifier Paul leaves out.  In speaking about salvation from sin, he leaves out the qualifier, "for those who believe in Jesus Christ." thus opening the door for some interpreters to make a case for Universalism, that people are saved by Christ's death and resurrection regardless of whether they have faith or not.

Let's take a look at the qualifiers for faith in Christ.

Romans 3:22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.  There is no difference,  23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,  24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

Notice the two uses of the word "all" here!  Firstly, "all" who "believe" receive righteousness which comes "through faith".  Secondly, "all" have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Romans 4:23 The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone,  24 but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness — for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.  25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification. 

There is no way from these two verses that Paul believes in Universalism.  Salvation and righteousness comes by faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.

Now lets look at verses 15 to 21 and add the qualifiers, the understood information back into the text.

Romans 5:15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man (because like him all sinned), how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many (who believe in him)!

When we add back the qualifiers that Paul previously gave then his meaning becomes clear.  Everyone, everywhere, whether Jew or Gentile is a sinner because we sin like Adam our ancestor.  And everyone, everywhere, whether Jew or Gentile are saved through faith in Jesus Christ.  There is no difference between Jew or Gentile, in Christ we are one people, one church, one holy nation.  That's what Paul's been arguing for since verse 1 of chapter 1, and will be what he argues for until the end of the letter.

Now lets read verses 16 to 20 again, adding back the qualifiers.

Romans 5:16 Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation (because all sin), but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification (for all those who believe).  17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (because all sin), how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. 18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men (because all sin), so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men (who believe in Christ).  19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners (because all sin), so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous (who believe in Christ). 20 The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,  21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. 

The reason Paul chooses to contrast Adam and Christ here in chapter 5 is because both Jews and Gentiles are descendants of Adam.  Earlier in chapter 4 he dealt with Abraham, but Gentiles cannot relate to Abraham, but they can relate to Adam. But in no way does Romans 5 teach Original Sin. Paul states several times, including verse 12, and 3:23 that separation from God in relational death occurs in mankind because everyone sins.  Neither sin nor the penalty for Adam's sin is inherited.  The only thing that can be said to be "inherited" or passed down is the accountability for sin.  All men are held accountable for their actions just as Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel were.  Adam "died" because of his one sin.  We die because of our sins.

Romans 5 also does not teach universalism.  Paul states several times including verse 17, 3:22 and 4:23 that God's grace and gift of eternal life is only for those who receive it in faith.  All who have faith in Christ receive the gift that brings justification.  Those that have no faith are left in their sins.

The reason Paul leaves out the qualifiers is for brevity.  He doesn't want to be redundant.  We need to be careful not to take scripture out of context and make it say the opposite of what it does.  Romans 5 cannot be used in support of determinism in any form.

Thoughts on Prayer

I for one believe that what we experience in real life is important. The 5 senses are to be trusted and if something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck it must be a duck. Here are some of my experiences with prayer.

I was 21 when my father died of colon cancer. He was 71 and in charge of finding land and building a Christian camp grounds in Nagano prefecture. He had to leave that work unfinished. When they discovered the cancer and operated it had progressed to level 4 and had gone to his liver and other parts of his body. He couldn't continue chemotherapy as it was wiping out his white blood cells. The elders came twice, anointed him with oil and prayed for him to be healed. I prayed every day for him as did thousands of other people and he still died.

My wife is Japanese and she is the only Christian in her family. When I was 29 her uncle who was 55 had a heart attack in the hospital during a routine check up. My wife's mother came and asked me to pray to my God for him. If he lived it would have been a strong witness to the power of God and I prayed for hours, but he didn't survive. My wife's mother never believed in Christ, nor has any of her family.

10 years ago a fellow missionary who had been away from the field came back to Japan. He was looking for a place to serve. One of our churches in Hiroshima who was in need of a minister had him come and invited him to minister to them. He accepted, and it looked like a perfect match, but only a couple of months later he was diagnosed with cancer and was sent back to the United States. Everyone prayed for him including many Christians in America and Japan. He died two months later of melanoma. He was 50 years old. I asked another missionary friend of mine, "What the hell is God doing?" And he replied "I haven't the slightest idea."

About 5 years ago, another Japanese minister/teacher friend and coworker of mine was also diagnosed with cancer. All the Christians within our churches prayed for him and he also died. He was 55 years old. He is greatly missed.

An acquaintance of mine in America had a son with leukemia that went into remission. He claimed God had healed his son. I asked how could he be sure? Was he not under the care of doctors? Perhaps it wasn't God at all. Talk about reaping the whirlwind. He chewed me out something fierce about my lack of faith and the clear fact that God had healed his son. Some years later I was back in America at the same church and asked about him and was told that he had left the church. I asked about his son and they said his leukemia had returned. I don't know if he survived or not, but one thing was true, God hadn't healed him.

I've run into many people in my ministry who prayed genuine prayers for a great many things, including escape from physical and mental abuse in their homes when they were children, and God never rescued them. They are so resentful to ever believe he exists.

A few years ago another missionary related a story about a children's meeting he had and that they had prayed it wouldn't rain on that day. It didn't rain and they had a good meeting so he declared God had done a miracle for them. I challenged him, that it was mere coincidence. Several other missionaries took his side and they all started shouting at me to "Give God the credit! Give God the credit." They never talked to me again after that.

Another missionary related a story about needing $200.00 in school expenses and went to his grandmother's house to ask her for help. Before he was able to ask her she offered to give him $200.00, the exact amount he was going to ask her for. He claims it was God's miracle. I can't help thinking that if it was a genuine miracle then God certainly wasted one because the missionary was going to ask for the money and would have gotten it anyway.

Now I ask, why would God control the weather and cause this man's grandmother to give $200.00, which there was no need for, and not answer the prayers for the lives of his workers who were greatly needed on the mission field?

The classic answers are, "You didn't have enough faith." (But it only takes the faith of a mustard seed to move mountains right?) "You weren't sincere enough." "God has a better thing planned for you." "We can't know God's bigger plan." "When God closes a door, he opens a window." "God moves in mysterious ways." "God will answer in his own time." "God wants you to learn patience."

Oh come on now! If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck. We need to stop making excuses and admit that God hasn't answered prayer, period.

Well, that leaves me with a dilemma. Did God lie? Does he answer prayer arbitrarily? If so, does he answer our prayers for forgiveness arbitrarily too? What exactly did he promise to answer? What promises were made to the apostles?  Were those promises for them only? What promises were made for every Christian? Do we have prayer all wrong? Perhaps these things we are praying for aren't promised, that's why they aren't answered!

This is the way I have resolved the issue. I believe, New Covenant promises are strictly spiritual. No physical promises are promised. The Old Covenant promises were physical, but the New Covenant ones are spiritual only. God answers prayer for spiritual things. He will not answer prayers for physical things, he is not obligated to do so. (Thus there should be no surprise that they aren't answered in real life, which is my experience. Prayer that people claim is answered is of a kind that is easily explained as coincidental.)

I thing God is saying, "I'll take care of the spiritual things, and I'll let nature take care of the physical things. If I interfere with nature it will be for special cases only. Cases that involve fulfillment of a promise I have made or the establishment of the New Covenant."

I'm a cessationist when it comes to the gifts of the Spirit. I believe they were meant for the "times of the end" of the Old Covenant till A.D. 70. But I would extend that cessationism to include prayer for physical things as well.

Answered prayer for spiritual things I have experienced often. Prayer for the power to forgive others, even deep resentment has been answered. Prayer for courage, for patience, for peace of mind, to stop worrying, for faith, for acceptance, for forgiveness (promised to be given if we believe it's already happened). These things God has answered EVERY TIME I pray them. I have real life confirmation and experiential evidence for answered prayer for spiritual things, but for physical things real life confirmation and experiential evidence point the other way. They are rarely if ever answered.

Many people believe that in my reaction I have swung the pendulum too far but I have never claimed God doesn't answer prayer, just prayer for things not promised within the New Covenant. He answers prayer everyday for many people but only for the "good" things, the things within his will, the things that really matter.

I stopped praying for physical things about 15 years ago and I have not noticed any change in my physical well being one way or the other. When I was praying for physical things and I lost income I had a lot of anxiety until the situation was resolved, but after I stopped praying for physical things, even when I lost income, I had total peace of mind and things resolved themselves anyway. It allowed me to focus my attention on "the kingdom of God and it's righteousness" rather than on "God, heal this person and heal that person, bless this person and bless that person. Give me this and give me that." Does that make any sense to you? Not a single prayer for physical things in 15 years and my faith is stronger because of it. The spiritual blessings have been abundant. What need do I have of physical things? They are the things pagans seek.

When I preach here in Japan I often have them notice what can be found in their own temples and shrines. They all sell talismans. One for safety on the highway. One for good health. One for success in school. One for success in business. One for success in marriage. They are all for physical things; health, wealth and happiness from physical things. None of the temples sell talismans for loving one's enemy, for a pure heart, for righteousness, for patience or any spiritual thing. I ask the Japanese, "What do you truly desire? If it's physical things you desire then you don't need Christ, just go to their shrines and buy up all the talismans. But if you want something that can change the heart and can really make a difference in their lifestyle then come follow Christ. He can give you what really counts."

Christ did signs and wonders but never prayed for physical things for himself. He resisted temptation for physical things when tested in the desert. He didn't pray for his own safety in Gethsemane. In all those cases he prayed not for his own will but God's will and God's will is for us is to develop good spiritual lives. Why would Christ ever answer prayers for health, wealth and physical happiness when he himself never pursued them?

Jesus said, "the truth will set you free". When I stopped praying for physical things, they ceased to matter and I WAS SET FREE from them. Truth is, I haven't gotten many people to agree with me. Physical things are just so important to them. Maybe you people are different.