This is the chapter that refutes the ubiquitous notion that 'Christians' must proselytize the world. Nowhere is anyone, other than the twelve Apostles, (the original eleven and Paul), commanded to go forth, and evangelize. As post-Pentecostal Gentiles, (or Jews, even), we are not able to 'change' someone's will, or heart. To anyone who has undertaken to attempt this, this is an incontrovertible truth: we each are responsible for our own selves and our own decisions about where we will spend eternity. Yes, we are called to be ready to give an answer for the hope we have, but, someone must first ask the question! Without that question, what need is there for an answer? That means: someone must first be curious, or rather, 'hungry', for something they know they lack! But it in no wise means we can 'force' or compel anyone to turn from their idols, from their 'religion', and adopt ours; nor to believe what we tell them to believe. It has to be a hunger, deep within each person, to truly know the Creator. Much the same way Christ could no more change the hearts and minds of the religious leaders of his day, we can't argue or convince anyone today to see the truth we see. Inherent in 'giving the answer for our hope, is the acknowledgement that we are speaking about our reasons; while we all share the 'human' experience, the reasons differ, one to another. The overwhelming reality is that we all need GOD. We all must have hope. So, as believers who profess to know God, and are known by God, we are urged and exhorted to admonish those who claim to know truth, but who exhibit wrong actions; not because we say 'such and such' is wrong, but because either the Word says so, explicitly, or because the actions contradict what they say they believe. The Truth is not about us; it is about HIM and HIS will. We are not His spokesperson. We are to be living sacrifices to His will, to the Truth, to His commandments, i.e. witnesses of the Grace, Mercy, Salvation, and promises, in His Word.
Ezekiel was commanded to admonish the nation, saying, this is "the Word of the Lord"; he was not told to force them to change. Ironically, not even God could force them to change, even though he gave them reason to, time and again. Imposed obedience is not obedience, voluntary obedience is. As with the nation during Ezekiel's time, each one must choose for themselves, who they will serve.
For a link to today's morning study in Ezek. 3; 5/8/11 am study
when Jesus sent out the 12 Apostles to go spread forth the word, was it just to people who asked for it or were looking, or did they just give out the word.
ReplyDeleteeven then it was up to the individual. I don't see the difference.
The differences between the Apostles going forth, and anyone who calls them self an evangelist today, are,
Deletea) NEWNESS! when they, the Apostles, went forth, their effort and commission was tell a new message; the idea that man now could have hope, for eternity, was never preached before. What Judaism couldn't offer, and what (only a few) Jews were looking for, had finally become a reality. In spite of most of the first century Jews missing it, (because their perspective was worldly, not spiritual, which is what the Gospel's focus is), it was a new 'testament'. The Gospel was indeed NEW.. Today's evangelist isn't preaching anything new. Their message is commonplace, even to the point of being 'white noise' among all the other 'gospels' blaring in our ears.
b)UNIQUE-NESS. the commandment, as you know, was: 'to the Jew first, then to the rest of the world'; to a world that had devised a multitude of false religions, false gospels, pagan deities, or even none at all. By the time Paul had finished his race, (as Paul says, more than once,) 'the gospel has been preached throughout the whole world. There is no need for an evangelist in this era, with the Bible being so ubiquitous, so prevalent or available anywhere in the world.
c) SELFLESSNESS! comparing the sending of the 70, with Paul's account of his life as the apostle to the gentiles, and the record in Acts, shows that there was no 'evangelizing', as we understand that word-picture. There is no comparison to how the apostles lived with how today's evangelists live. Jets, limos, palaces, mega-million dollar tele-whatever productions, are all diametrically opposite how Paul, Timothy, James, and every other apostle lived and preached.
d) NECESSITY! When the apostles went forth, they only had Torah, and the other writings that had been preserved by the priesthood and history. They didn't have the Gospels, or the epistles that were later written. Today, you can't go anywhere and not find some kind of Bible! This brings up another aspect: God doesn't have 'grandkids'! He only has sons!! He alone, through His Word, is who speaks to the hearts of those hungry and thirsty for righteousness. Yes, it is always an individual's choice! Eloquent oratory is never a basis for a 'change of heart' or mind. To insert another person, evangelist or missionary, in between God, the author and finisher of our faith, and anyone's
salvation is wrong. We each work out our own salvation, with fear and trembling, in joint effort with Christ, who fulfills the first commission, "let us make man..." , into His image.
the Apostles could not change someones will or heart either, unless the person wants it. so I don't understand the idea that people should not go out and spread the word if it is the Truth. Evangelists that have the Truth don't force people to change, they just give them the Word.
ReplyDeleteTrue. Never has preaching been able to force anyone to change their heart, or to desire spiritual food. That change, or that hunger and thirst must come from within a person.
DeleteWhile I don't know what your concept of 'spreading the word' is, I can assuredly tell you that the basis for your comment, i.e. supporting the role of an evangelist, is in error. What has become the 'norm' in evangelism, is essentially that one becomes a showman, a salesperson, a star, and a surrogate.
This results in consequences for both parties, the preacher and the hear-er.
For the preacher,-------
doing so becomes a business; to be as efficient and cost-effective as possible; to generate cash-flow for funding the effort, paying for the expenses, either by his own fundraising, or a donor/sponsor/outreach effort. The focus shifts from telling the truth, (as it is initially 'understood' by the preacher), towards making the truth 'palatable', entertaining, and alluring; i.e. "marketing a commodity", to draw the most audience. It generates effort, to become an orator to hone the craft, lavishing time and effort on 'perfecting' the delivery, and starves the need and desire to grow in knowledge and wisdom in Truth, which is 'job 1' for every believer. With every change, in perspective or attitude, truth moves further and further away from what is preached. (This doesn't even take into account the worldly temptations so many notable preachers have succumbed to).
It also introduces the notion or belief, into the preacher's head, (subconscious mind), that God needs the preacher, to get the word out; that if 'X' and 'Y' don't happen just right, Mr. (so and so) won't hear the truth, won't get the full benefit of the preacher's effort, and will fall through the cracks and be lost. This is wrong, even blasphemous. God doesn't need us one iota. Yes, He's not willing any should perish,(1Peter 3:9), but that is not dependent upon preaching, evangelism, or missionary work. He is God, after all. He hears the cry of every child who wants to know their Father in heaven and is able to satisfy every need.
Conversely, supposing the role of the evangelist was necessary; what kind of standard would he be held to, and judged against for even the least 'mistake'? All souls are precious in His sight. the loss of one of them, attributable to the error of an evangelist, the misspoken words, or slips of the tongue, or the incorrect reading of scripture, or even the false doctrine given out as 'truth' that causes the loss of even one soul? What judgement is just for such a case? Would you want to be in those shoes?
(continued....)
DeleteFor the hearer------
The consequences for this party are readily seen throughout the world. The belief that the evangelist/preacher/pastor/priest is responsible for their souls and their destiny. This is one of the most prevalent lies in religion today.
Related to that one, is the misconception that one can't approach God without another man as a mediator; the pastor is a conduit between me and God. I get what I need from the man, who gets it from God; and I need the man to help me atone for my mistakes, to bless me when I need God's blessing, to translate His word so I can understand it, and so on, and so on...
Paul says there is one mediator between man and God, the man Christ Jesus. Another place, he says, that while God used to speak to Israel through the prophets, he now speaks to all of mankind through his word. (Heb 1:1).
Lastly, I've heard an axiom, a truism: "what one silver-tongued orator can convince you into believing, another, more eloquent speaker can un-convince you to not believe" Unless it becomes your experience, a part of you. Even then, there are no guarantees it will be held, believed till the end. This exemplifies the futility of the role evangelists play; constantly placing emphasis on their effort, their skills and shortcomings, their 'art' and craft, not on TRUTH. Its a waste.
Everyone who handles the Word of God, in whatever title, role or office they hold, whether pastor, evangelist, missionary, teacher, bears a heavy burden, and has a higher standard of behavior and judgement, including even what little I have done here in this response. If you have read John chapter 8 at all, you can't not recognize the anger Christ is restraining when he talks to the ruling clergy, the spiritual leaders of the synagogue. The condemnation he had for them was their dereliction of their duty to be true to His Law from Sinai. Add to that his scourging of the money-changers in the temple! To say nothing of the judgments determined on the nation throughout the minor as well as major prophets' writings. Paul's condemnation against 'those who hold the truth in unrighteousness', in Rom ch 1, further emphasizes the grave consequences for anyone who undertakes to be responsible for another person's access to Truth. You wouldn't know that by looking at those who the world has seen in the last 2000 years, who carry a title of minister of God's word or something equivalent. Do you still think it is a small matter?
I do not think it is a small matter. maybe using the word evangelist was not what I was thinking. I was just remembering sister Sass going over to India and other countries to share the truth of the word of God. those hearts that were searching for the truth heard and received. thats why I don't think it is wrong to preach the true word of God if it is done in truth.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAnonymous:
DeleteI too, heard about her trips to India, Israel, etc. I was not close to the family at that time, and don't remember much of what was said regarding the trips afterwards, so I can't discuss what did or did not happen during them. However, I do know her personality, her demeanor, and I can't picture her in the stereo-typical 'evangelist' characterization. Here at home, she never argued, coerced with words or logic, or great swelling words in oratory. Even at that, with her sweet, meek demeanor, i ask, 'what has happened to the vast number of those she preached to'? This fact only further demonstrates the individual responsibility for making the truth their own, to say nothing of.remaining steadfast. The remnant of her legacy is as steadfast in the truth as she, yet nothing in size compared to the number she 'preached' to.
As for 'preaching', even preaching the pure truth, why? In spite of the axiom I heard 30-40 years ago, that went something like: 'preach the word; if necessary, use words', what benefit is it? Re-read the comments above. Preaching, almost always, takes attention away from the meat of the word, of learning and growing in wisdom and knowledge. (In fact, when it doesn't get side-tracked, it's a miracle! and it doesn't stay that way for long, usually.). The problem is, people want preaching, for the reasons I mentioned above.
Paul talks about preaching the cross, (Rom. 1:16, 1 Cor. 1:18). Add to that the slogan 'preaching to the choir' and you have the commentary on what's wrong with preaching!. Those who don't care, or don't care sincerely, are entertained or want to be; those who know and do care, should already know the topic and have assimilated that bit into their 'conversation'. So, again, Why (preach)?
It is for that reason that our congregation stopped doing "CHURCH". Now, we STUDY, we read, we discuss, we share. we don't preach! because this truth is available to anyone and everyone. If one is hungry, he/she will find what they are hungry for. Hopefully they are hungry for TRUTH. That's up to them. Preaching, evangelizing, proselytizing obscures truth. Its who man is, and what man does.
After that being said, what do you think Ezekiel is trying to say?
I agree with what you are saying. Preaching has become tainted by the world view of Christianity. we study the word too and ask questions. Paul and the others did Preach the cross, but it wasn't to their glory, but to God. that has changed with mankind today in general Pauls "preaching" wasn't tainted!
Deleteand yesm many have fallen by the wayside, this Word has got to become your own. no one can do that, but yourself. work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, and if someone asks, give them your hope of your calling. your own testimony of what God has done for you
Delete