But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us). (Matthew 1.20-23)

Surely there is no Old Testament prophecy more clearly explained in the New, or more widely known by Christians today.  These lines are cherished and repeated just about every time Jesus’ birth is discussed.  But how much attention is given to the text in which they appear, the seventh chapter of Isaiah?

At the source, we find a surprisingly earthly setting for the first time these words were spoken.  The king of Judah, Ahaz, is concerned about the national defense, since the kings of Israel and Syria to the North have joined forces to attack Jerusalem.  God has sent Isaiah the prophet to tell Ahaz, “do not fear, and do not let your heart be faint because of these two smoldering stumps of firebrands” (Isaiah 7.4).  God says of Syria’s and Israel’s plan, “It shall not stand, and it shall not come to pass” (Is 7.7).  He offers a sign to assure him these words are from God.  Ahaz politely refuses, but God insists:

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted. (Isaiah 7.14-16)

Well, that was weird.  There’s our prophecy, which tradition, common sense, and the Gospel of Matthew tell us is about Jesus, and yet it’s difficult to make sense of it in context.  God seems to go from talking about a very simple physical concern on the part of the king of Judah, to making spiritual predictions about the eternal salvation of mankind through the Messiah, and back again, nearly giving us whiplash.

In fact, it’s worse than that.  Let’s look more closely at verse 16: “For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted.”  Since these events occurred around the year 735 BC, and Jesus wasn’t born for more than seven centuries afterward, what kind of lame and useless “sign” is this for Ahaz?  God is trying to give him confidence to trust one prediction…by making another prediction that no one involved can possibly live to see fulfilled?  How is this helpful? 

It isn’t; but that’s not what God intended Ahaz to get out of this prophecy.  Let’s pretend, for a while, that we don't know about Jesus yet, and Matthew hasn’t told us the interpretation of this prophecy.  Now, it begins to fall into place.  God is addressing the simple, earthly situation right in front of the prophet and king.  The king struggles to believe his kingdom can withstand the attack from the north, and God reassures him through a more readily visible sign: a young woman becoming pregnant in the near future as predicted, and giving her son the extremely appropriate Hebrew name, “God is with us,” or Immanuel.  The promise is that, before this child is old enough to know right from wrong—within the first few years of his life—the threat from Syria and Israel will fizzle out to nothing, and the nation of Judah will have plenty to eat, even luxury foods like curds and honey.

That’s something Ahaz can actually observe: a young woman turning up pregnant just after Isaiah said it would happen.  Then, at each step along the way, when the sign is confirmed the king may have greater and greater confidence in God’s promise to protect Jerusalem from this attack.  It’s not a virgin birth in this case, but a maiden who would not be expected to conceive in the near future, hence the impact of the sign.

But now we must drop the pretense—we do know about Jesus, and the virgin birth, and Matthew’s explicit interpretation of this prophecy in reference to Christ.  So what?  Is God not smart enough, or complex enough, or a good enough organizer to give a dual-purpose prophecy?  Why should that surprise us?  He did it with the promises he gave Abraham in Genesis 12, which were fulfilled in part through the nation of Israel, but in fuller measure through the church.  He also did it with the prediction that after Moses’ death God would raise up a prophet like him (De 18.15), which was fulfilled in part through Joshua and the prophetic institution that continued throughout Israel’s history, but in fuller measure though Christ.  He did it with the covenant he established with David, saying that his son would “build a house for my name” (2Sa 7.13).  This saw its first, and smaller fulfillment in David’s son Solomon, but a far greater fulfillment in the Son of David who built the church.

Rather than sowing confusion about what prophecies must mean or couldn’t possibly mean, we should first acknowledge that God is better at this than we are, and open our minds to consider the likelihood that he’s got bigger and better things in mind than we’d have ever imagined.  God is great!  Let’s honor and revere him, giving thanks for his promises and watching for their fulfillment always.

Jeremy Nettles

Now I watched when the Lamb opened one of the seven seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures say with a voice like thunder, “Come!” And I looked, and behold, a white horse! And its rider had a bow, and a crown was given to him, and he came out conquering, and to conquer. (Revelation 6.1-2)

These words usher in some of the most difficult chapters of the Bible.  The horsemen, just four of the seven seals, are enough to startle us.  The first conquers, which doesn’t sound so bad, but realize that the deaths of many soldiers and defenseless civilians will be involved in his conquest.

The second horse is “bright red. Its rider was permitted to take peace from the earth, so that people should slay one another, and he was given a great sword” (Re 6.4).  Not only is he bringing suffering, death, and defeat to many, but inciting people to fight against each other, so there is no peace.

The third is

a black horse! And its rider had a pair of scales in his hand. And I heard what seemed to be a voice in the midst of the four living creatures, saying, “A quart of wheat for a denarius, and three quarts of barley for a denarius, and do not harm the oil and wine!” (Revelation 6.5-6)

It’s not that luxuries are drying up, it’s the food!  In our cushy, western lives, we don’t think much about food shortages, but this sort of thing leads to mass starvation, and the old, the children, and the sick are the ones most likely to suffer and die.

If we hadn’t had enough of death yet, here comes the fourth horse, a “pale” one, whose

rider's name was Death, and Hades followed him. And they were given authority over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and by wild beasts of the earth. (Revelation 6.8)

The term “pale” translates the Greek word χλωρός-chlōros-“green.”  But no, this isn’t a mistranslation, and it isn’t a horse out of The Wizard of Oz.  It means the horse looked sickly, hence “pale.”  The focus here is on disease, but it’s wrapped together with the third horseman’s famine, first and second horsemen’s sword, and attacks by wild animals, to top it all off.

This is all pretty scary stuff, not least because these horsemen seem to be supernatural beings, whether of heavenly or hellish origin is not completely clear. We’re confused by this, and left fumbling for interpretations.  There is no shortage of ideas about what all of this means, but it would be a mistake to reach a conclusion without all of the pertinent facts.  Is this the first time such horsemen appear in the Scriptures?  Practically all of the players, and even inanimate objects involved in chapters 4 and 5 are not being introduced for the first time, but are making second, third, or fourth appearances after showing up in Old Testament prophets like Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel.  We can understand what they mean far better by examining those books, first.  The same is true of the horsemen. 

“I saw in the night, and behold, a man riding on a red horse! He was standing among the myrtle trees in the glen, and behind him were red, sorrel, and white horses.” (Zechariah 1.8)

This isn’t identical, but it’s the same idea of four horsemen, riding horses of different colors, in a vision from God.  Like us, Zechariah wonders in verse 9, “What are these, my lord?”  The answer comes in verse 10: “These are they whom the Lord has sent to patrol the earth.”

Again I lifted my eyes and saw, and behold, four chariots came out from between two mountains. And the mountains were mountains of bronze. The first chariot had red horses, the second black horses, the third white horses, and the fourth chariot dappled horses—all of them strong. (Zechariah 6.1-3)

Here they are again!  Now they are chariots with teams of horses, but the four divisions remain, and the distinguishing colors, too.  Zechariah again asks for an interpretation, which is helpfully provided: “These are going out to the four winds of heaven, after presenting themselves before the Lord of all the earth” (Zec 6.5).  The specifics have to do with events surrounding the returned exiles of Judea, and their relations with the border world.  But note that in both cases, the horsemen are servants of God.  They patrol and carry out his will, and it’s not always pretty.  The number four represents God’s command of the whole earth, since they go “to the four winds,” north, south, east, and west.  They correspond to the four living creatures “on each side of the throne” of God in Revelation 4.6, who instructed the horsemen in chapter 6, “come!”  They’re carrying out God’s will, scary as it is.

So what’s the point?  We’ve established one central fact about the four horsemen of Revelation 6, but it didn’t tell us much we could use.  But it got us started, at least.  We’d have been lost, without considering all that God has said.  This is one easy demonstration of how handicapped we would be in trying to understand Revelation without knowing the Old Testament, but the obscure sections of the Old Testament aren’t just the big gun to bring in when nothing else can break through the walls that stand between us and an understanding of God’s Word and will.  If we’ll pay attention to all that he said, especially the difficult bits, we’ll be better equipped to understand and apply all of his instructions for us.

Jeremy Nettles

So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world. (1 John 4.16-17)

This passage speaks of confidence for the day of judgment, meaning the assurance we will not be surprised or disappointed (to drastically understate the gravity of the situation) when God passes final judgment on us, and sends us to our eternal home.  In short, it’s confidence of personal salvation and a place reserved in heaven.

That’s great, because many people have a keen awareness of their own guilt, and struggle to forgive themselves for sins they’ve committed.  They know their own shortcomings, and know that what they deserve is punishment, not reward.  It’s not good to live life in this world in constant, crippling fear of judgment.

Yet, anyone who looks around and pays attention will quickly see that confidence can be taken too far.  A person who lives in complete rebellion against God can claim to know in his heart that he is saved.  A person who has gone through the motions of obedience at one time, or even lived a fruitful Christian life for decades, may feel so assured of his salvation that he either begins to overtly disobey God’s instructions with no fear of retribution, or simply stops doing the hard work of struggling to remain on the right path in daily life.  For the most part, it’s obvious to this person that things like theft, adultery, and murder are still off limits, but it becomes easier and easier to make excuses about what are perceived as lesser sins—a white lie, some small cheating on taxes, a little refusal to help those in need, a minor pornography habit, and other such things.  It may not be as overt as that.  Self-promotion, judgment of others, and arrogance are just as harmful, and just as damaging to one’s relationship with God.  When John brings up the sins of Diotrephes in 2 John 9-10, he doesn’t have a list of blatantly immoral behaviors to condemn, but instead says that he “likes to put himself first,” that he “does not acknowledge [the apostle’s] authority,” and when someone disagrees with him, he “puts them out of the church.”  This is a man with too great a measure of confidence.

We can see the same thing, perhaps more easily, in the fleshly attitudes toward everyone’s favorite topic, the coronavirus.  At one extreme, there are people confident that the virus is a scam—that it either doesn’t really exist, or carries no potential for harm.  They’re confident.  They know in their hearts they are perfectly safe.  But the virus doesn’t care about their confidence, and some people who’ve denied COVID-19 is real, have ended up dying from it.

At the other extreme, there are people confident that the virus is the greatest threat the world has ever seen, and the only way any of us will survive is through a series of difficult and painful societal practices,  some of which haven’t been scientifically shown to have much effect, and yet are preached as the saviors of mankind.  These people are also confident.  They know in their hearts that we will all be perfectly safe, as long as we do exactly as they say.  But the virus doesn’t care about their confidence, either.  Some of the people who’ve preached the gospel of masks, lockdowns, social distance, work from home, school from home, no church, no Thanksgiving, no friendship, no fellowship, and no freedom, have ended up dying from the virus they said they could control.

Most people aren’t at the extremes, of course.  They’re somewhere in the reasonable middle, trying their best to make wise decisions.  But there’s a constant pull toward the extremes, and neither one is any good.  The same is true in the religious context.  It’s obvious that the extremes can’t both be correct; in fact, neither is. 

It’s bad enough to do this where lives are on the line.  It’s a far, far worse problem when souls are at risk.  It’s uncomfortable to be in the middle, dealing with difficult decisions and disagreements, and there’s a similar pull toward the extremes, both of which are overconfident.  On one side, there are people so confident in their understanding of God’s grace, that they see no danger, and no reason to fear judgment.  That won’t stop God from passing judgment, though.  On the other side, there are people so confident of their own total righteousness that they have no patience for dissent, and ample judgment of their own, for anyone who comes to a different conclusion about anything.  Perhaps they’re right more often than not, but they’re not perfect, and they don’t have God’s judgment under control.

Both of the extremes have confidence in themselves, and that’s the real problem.  We ought to have confidence, as John told us in the passage with which we began.  But if our faith is in ourselves, we’re missing the boat.  Put your confidence in God.  Recognize your own shortcomings and disappointing track record, and do your best to make good decisions now, using the tools he’s given us.  There’s a “because” in the verse we’ve been examining, which we’ve ignored until now: “because as he is so also are we in this world” (1Jn 4.17b).  Are you as Jesus is?  That’s how you can assess yourself.  Have confidence in him, and do your best to follow his example in humility.

Jeremy Nettles

The February 14 edition of this bulletin considered the use of the church’s money.  It was clear that God has not been silent on that matter, and of course we ought to obey him, regardless of what we may want to do, and regardless of our own judgments, which may be in conflict with God’s.  The New Testament showed us several ways in which the church ought to use its money; but how should it get that money in the first place?

First and foremost, there is no authorization in the Bible for the church to become a profit-seeking business.  It has nothing to sell, but has the most valuable commodity in the world to give.  It exists not to enrich people physically, but spiritually.  Its purpose isn’t to make a living, but to share the means of securing eternal life.  The only way we see the church acquiring money in the New Testament is through voluntary donations, and that’s how it ought to remain.

Yet, further questions arise: who can contribute, and when, and by what method?  Here, the scriptures aren’t as informative as we might desire, and we may wish to avoid crossing a line we didn’t even know was there.  That quickly leads to a point where we would forbid anyone but a local member to give money to the church in any form but cash, and at any time but during the Sunday morning assembly.  Is that necessary?

The Scriptures aren’t completely silent here, but even so it’s easy to get wrapped up in debates like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin—a check isn’t really money, and in any case the transaction won’t be processed until Wednesday, and so have I really contributed on Sunday as I ought?  Even if I make my contribution in cash, will God be upset with me if the collection doesn’t get deposited into the church’s account that day?  And oh dear, banks aren’t open on Sundays!

It’s obvious we’re getting into the weeds here, and we haven’t even consulted the relevant passages, yet.  “On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper” (1Co 16.2).  This is an excellent precedent for us to follow.  It should be noted, though, that not all of the details of that passage necessarily apply to all Christians today.  For example, within the same verse we learn that Paul was planning to come soon to receive the gift,  “so that there will be no collecting when I come.”  Well, clearly we shouldn’t be expecting a long-dead apostle to show up at services next week.  Additionally, the funds being collected were to be carried to Jerusalem (v3); but again, that pertains to the specific scenario of the Corinthian church and the churches in Judea at that time, and is not a mandate for us.  That doesn’t mean we should ignore what the passage says, but it does mean we should keep in mind that Paul is giving specific instructions at a time and place we don’t share—context matters!

There are many other examples throughout the New Testament.  We can read about the collection for the saints in 2 Corinthians 8 & 9, but there is no mention anywhere of the timing involved.  We see many more indications of the church collecting and distributing funds for helping needy Christians and carrying on the work of the church, but aside from the instructions considered above, there is never another indication of when it was done, or when it ought to be done.  The closest thing we have to a time-stamped example of contributing to the church would be at the very beginning of the church in Acts, when a brief discussion of the believers’ generosity to each other is followed by the phrase “day by day” (Ac 2.46.)  Specifically, it refers to a different activity, attending the temple, but the passage leaves us with the impression that all of the actions mentioned in the context were done day by day, not just those listed in verses 46 & 47.

As for acceptable forms of contribution, we’ve complicated the issue with modern innovations, but perhaps the easiest way to see the broad discretion God has granted us, is to observe the examples of Aquila and Prisca, who hosted the church in their own homes in Rome and Ephesus (Ro 16.5, 1Co 16.19, Gaius, who did the same at Corinth (Ro 16.23), Philemon in Colossae (Phm 2), and Nympha in Laodicea (Co 4.15).  This is what we might call an “in-kind” contribution, which has tangible value, but requires no actual money to change hands.  Paul mentions each of these with approval, and extends greetings to or from them as if it’s not only normal, but good that they are doing this.  That being the case, it would be silly to argue that we today are prohibited from making our contributions to the church in any form other than currency.

It’s impossible to address every concern, because there are infinite concerns.  It’s generally best and most straightforward to simply contribute in whatever way is most convenient for you and for the church, at the Sunday assembly.  It emphasizes community and follows the example of 1 Corinthians 16, even though the fine details aren’t meant to be mandatory for all.

But let’s not get distracted from the behavior God wants to instill.  He’s trying to cultivate generosity in brotherly love and in zeal for Christ’s kingdom.  Don’t let petty and divisive arguments over means and methods take away from the work of God, when God himself has not bound those burdens on any of us.

Jeremy Nettles

God is routinely accused of undervaluing life.  Sometimes this is because of the untold number of people killed in the flood in Genesis 7.  Of course, since the chief reason given was that “the earth was filled with violence” (Ge 6.11) and God wished to put a stop to it, it’s clear that between mankind and God, he was the one to value life more highly, and he was willing to take an extreme course in order to salvage it before it destroyed itself.  A less extreme gripe with God’s rules is that he tolerated slavery under the Law of Moses, which pretty much everyone today recognizes as an affront to human life and dignity.  Of course, they won’t mention that God imposed tight restrictions on treatment of slaves, or that they were to use it mostly as a social safety net for those who couldn’t otherwise provide for themselves.  He commanded,

“he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you. And when you let him go free from you, you shall not let him go empty-handed. You shall furnish him liberally out of your flock, out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress. As the Lord your God has blessed you, you shall give to him. You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God redeemed you...” (Deuteronomy 15.12-15)

Who cares more: God, or the person who, with the benefit of centuries of historical hindsight and nothing to lose, proclaims, “I would definitely have been an abolitionist, if I’d lived during the time of slavery”?  

Those who pass judgment on God in this way are deeply confused.  They understand that life is precious, but they don’t realize how they came to know this.  They didn’t reach that conclusion on their own; it was told to them, indirectly of course, by God.

Many examples demonstrate that this idea did not come from man.  One is Herod’s massacre of the innocents.  The wise men, whom he’d sent to find the baby they predicted would be king of the Jews, were warned not to report back to Herod, so they skipped Jerusalem and went back home.

Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men. (Matthew 2.16)

The truthfulness of this account is questioned, or outright denied by many, who are happy to assert that it never happened, mostly on the grounds that no other contemporary source mentions it.  So?  It would hardly be the only historical event for which we have only one witness.  Why, then, have they decided it isn’t true?  Because it’s just too awful!  Surely no one would actually commit such a horrible act, and if they did, the public outcry would be enormous, and some trace of that would survive!  Since it doesn’t (so the reasoning goes) it must be made up.

However, it’s not that simple.  It’s true that no obvious archaeological evidence has been found to corroborate Matthew’s account.  It’s also true that no other contemporary author whose work survives mentioned this heinous crime.  To conclude from this that it didn’t happen, however, is laughably naïve.  To begin with, the numbers involved here are tiny.  The population of Bethlehem at the time was about 1,000 at the most.  Based on typical population distributions, we’d expect about 2.5% of the population to be under the age of 2, about 25 kids.  Of these, about half would be male, so our very rough estimate is 12 or 13 boys who fit the criteria.  Considering that more than a quarter of all babies died before reaching a year old, and a further 20% or so died before the age of 15, it’s not as if a dozen small bodies, not necessarily buried together or with any tell-tale signs of their cause or time of death, would stand out among the archaeological excavations, even if any of them were located.  At the risk of sounding callous, it’s a drop in the bucket.

Then there’s Herod’s moral character, or lack thereof.  Just for starters, he had his favorite wife and three of his favorite sons executed for dubious reasons.  This guy was not nice.  Does that mean his soldiers would have carried out the order, if he gave it?  Well, this leads into the most important fact to recognize: infants were killed fairly often in the ancient world.  Reading through the works of Josephus, about these very same people during the very same time period, in the very same region, one notices the nauseating regularity with which armed men slaughtered women and children—including infants—after a successful siege.

In the modern world, and even without straying into the topic of abortion, the massacre of innocents is not unheard of.  The most glaring example would be the roughly 1.5 million Jewish children murdered in the holocaust, but because “the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth,” (Ge 8.21), that’s just one instance among many.

Mankind does not value life so highly, after all.  God, through his law, his judgments, and his Son, has taught us that we should.  Let’s accept his instruction, and then show him some respect, rather than finding fault in his own application of the principles he’s taught us.  He told man long ago, in Genesis 9.5,

“And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.”

Jeremy Nettles