Title: Living and Active
Intro:
This sermon was written at 30,000 feet, with a VERY HIGH view of God.
(picture Vaeh took)
“For the word of God is living and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, even penetrating as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.”
“living and active”
Variant English Translations
NASB/ESV/RSV “living and active”
KJV “quick and powerful”
NIV “alive and active”
Greek: “zao and energes”
zao
(dzah’-o)
(Daylight come and me wan’ go home)
Definitions:
to live, breathe, be among the living (not lifeless, not dead)
to enjoy real life
to have true life and worthy of the name
active, blessed, endless in the kingdom of God
to live i.e. pass life, in the manner of the living and acting
of mortals or character
living water, having vital power in itself and exerting the same upon the soul
metaphor to be in full vigor
to be fresh, strong, efficient,
as adj. active, powerful, efficacious
energes
(en-er-gace)
Definitions:
active, operative:—effectual, powerful.
Point:
The Word of God is NOT DEAD.
It is both alive (relevant) and powerful (authoritative).
Q: In what ways does the secular world insist or assume The Word of God IS dead or is NOT powerful?
(take answers)
- Thousands of years old; therefore not relevant today
- Mistranslated and edited over generations; therefore not trustworthy
- Only binding to those who consider themselves Christians; therefore not universal
- Others?
Q: In what ways might the Church assume the Word of God is dead or not powerful?
(take answers)
PB’s Number One concern:
The church will assume certain tenants of the Holy Scriptures are merely culturally specific; therefore certain passages and rules can effectively be ignored. (Women in leadership, women not permitted to speak in Church, head coverings, etc.)
Command or Culture: Discerning the Difference
What is a command in the New Testament and what is merely cultural and not binding today?
By Wayne Jackson | Christian Courier
In 1967 the United Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) adopted a new confession of faith. Concerning the nature of the Bible the following statement was made:
“The Scriptures, given under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, are nevertheless the words of men, conditioned by the language, thought forms, and literary fashions of the place and times at which they were written. They reflect the view of life, history, and the cosmos which were then current. The church, therefore, has an obligation to approach the Scriptures with a literary and historical understanding. As God has spoken his word in diverse cultural situations, the church is confident that he will continue to speak through the Scriptures in a changing world and in every form of human culture” (257).
The foregoing paragraph contains some very subtle implications. It reflects what is known as the “historical critical” approach to biblical interpretation and is based upon an “existential” attitude toward the scriptures.
This interpretative theory was popularized by radical theologians like Rudolph Bultmann. It suggests that the Bible is principally the result of the formative influence of the life-situation of the early church.
In other words, the New Testament is merely the record of how the primitive Christians, consistent with their subjective inclinations, adapted the broad principles of the religion of Jesus to their unique life styles.
This view contends, therefore, that what was true for the first-century church may not be true for today’s church. Christianity is viewed as a rather “plastic” religion. It may alter its forms of expression to fit the mood and tempo of any given culture and historical circumstance.
Why is this approach to the Bible so very dangerous?
What has happened to the PCUSA denomination, in part because of this hermeneutic?
So, how do we decide which parts of scripture are culturally specific vs. still binding?
(take answers)
Fortunately, Jackson does a wonderful job answering this in his article (which I encourage you to read). But, in the interest of time, allow me to summarize some of the key points of Jackson’s argument:
What does the REST of Scripture (especially Jesus and the N.T.) say about this doctrine?
That will give us very clear indication as to whether this teaching was situationally specific or universal.
Should we preach the Gospel to Gentiles or Samaritans?
Example: Christ sent his disciples forth to proclaim the coming kingdom, he forbade them to preach to the Gentiles or Samaritans (Matthew 10:1ff).
Was this to be the case always? In other words, was this cultural circumstance to persist or was it limited to the immediate events?
Clearly it was limited. After the church was established, both Samaritans and Gentiles were granted the privilege of responding to the gospel (Acts 8:10).
Compare this to Commands on the Lord’s Supper:
Are the original elements of the Lord’s supper—bread and fruit of the vine—mere relics of the Passover celebration? May we substitute modern elements more meaningful to our present generation, as some contend?
Or must the ancient forms be retained?
Let Paul answer: “As often as you eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he come” (1 Cor. 11:26 — emphasis added).
It is clear that the apostle intended that the bread and fruit of the vine be retained as symbols of the Savior’s body and blood until the return of Christ is accomplished! These were not optional expedients flavored by culture.
Closing Thoughts:
Friends, the word of God is not dead. In fact, it is quite the opposite of dead. It is both quick and powerful. It is living and active. It is therefore, quite relevant and authoritative.
Let us not develop new hermeneutics to “soothe the itching ears” that Paul warns Timothy of in 2 Tim. 4.
Let us be mature Men and Women of Christ. Let us look to the Scriptures, wrestle with the Scriptures, argue over the Scriptures, pray through the Scriptures, live in the Scriptures.
If we are to disagree, let us do so because our understanding of what the Scriptures say is different, not because we decide what the Scriptures say is somehow no longer relevant to us today.
Most Bible scholars agree that approximately 1500 years passed between the giving of the Law of Moses to the time of Christ. I ask you; did Jesus take the Law of Moses seriously?
Do we then, 2000 years after the N.T. was inspired have ANY right to treat the Scriptures as dead?