Does Your Church Have Grit?

I have come to believe that much of the New Teatament is misunderstood by the western world due to our lack of a reference point to the persecution going on at the time.  Christians who have faced persecution think about the Bible differently.  For example when American Christians talk about a rapture where God rescues His church to protect them before life gets bad on planet earth, believers in say persecuted China, the Sudan or Iran scratch there head and are stunned.  They think we have been able to endure hardship all this time by understanding books like Revelation and Hebrews through the context of a persecuted Roman Empire.  They may think something like “Stop making the message so complicated.  The message is Jesus conquered through sacrifice therefore go and do likewise.”

The book of Hebrews is the same.  In the first century a preacher wrote a sermon that was to be read aloud among some churches.  They were probably a network of several house gatherings.  These believers were Jewish.

Paul is often credited for writing Hebrews.  I am nearly 100% sure he didn’t.  I wasn’t there so I can’t be 100%. But the evidence concludes he didn’t.  Here are some reasons why:

  1. Writing style- not personal to a person like Paul and doesn’t use personal examples.  Paul always tells you who he is.
  2. Genre – Paul addressed the churches in epistle form not sermon manuscript.
  3. Some of the leading theories are women authors.  This would put a woman in leadership or as a preacher. Many people find it better to settle on Paul becaus he is a man and is a safer theological bet.
  4. Language usage – just like an English writer uses different language than another author, the difference in Greek usage is easily discernible from Paul’s letters.

There are other reasons but that is good enough for our purposes.

In Hebrews the preacher builds a case against the Jewish Christians who are looking for an easy way out.  Persecution has broken out and their lives are in danger.  It seems they have found a loophole.

If they put Jesus in the back but lift up their Jewish roots as the focal point of their faith they can avoid persecution.

They are tempted not to advertise the living Christ or the Cross. They are tempted to continue in the sacrificial system.  They are tempted to shrink back as a group.

This inability to stand firm on their faith is a denial.  By not standing they are compromising. By compromising they are  tainting their witness.

When the Romans come persecuting them what will they see?  Do they see the same resolve to fight to the finish like Christ who when He gave His last earthly breath before the resurrection said, “It is Finished?”

When the writer of Hebrews wrote, “We are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved (Hebrews 10:39), he/she was explaining to them that as a group they are to conquer through sacrifice just like Christ.  It is highly possible some of the original apostles had already been killed for their faith as well.  The fear would have been valid that faith would be wiped out by killing the faithful.  But the truth is it multiplies under persecution.

So, back to your church.  What type of resolve does your church have? Would your local community of believers stand for Christ with each other under hard times?  Is there real faith with your local fellowship?  I am not talking about politics, or how you vote.  I am talking about the very real temptation to trade in the power we have in Christ to blend in and look like the world around us that we are being saved from.

I welcome your thoughts as I have given many opportunities for disagreement in this post, but don’t miss the main message to us as groups fellowshipping together.  “Christ conquered through sacrifice, therefore go and do likewise.”


6 thoughts on “Does Your Church Have Grit?

  1. One author stated (many years ago) that one of the best advancements of the study of the life of Jesus has been to put Him solidly in the historic culture wherein He walked. I’m thinking that reading the Bible in that same way must also prove to be likewise advantageous. This perspective you are talking about here also seems to relate to that concept, not only historically, but also among the various cultures worldwide today.

    Like

    1. Right on DLJ,
      For me what I try to understand the most is, “who is talking to who.” This is too simplistic for a lot of theologians. Many want to spend more time on language and that sort of thing. The truth about that is each English translation had a team of credible people laboring over the words. Each English translation has a method, do they want to try to be word for word, or idea for idea?
      When it comes to the context it is neglected, but what is more important than understanding the author and who he is directly trying to help? To do most of the scholarly type of thinking in English the language piece isn’t as important. Looking at it through the lens of 3 or 4 translations (not paraphrases) usually gives you what you need. Sure there are the mechanics of language and the words that do not translate but for the most part this is true.
      Another way to look at it is this example. When I go to the doctor the doctor tells me all the technical stuff going on in my body. It becomes real complex and hard to follow. I look at the physicans assistant and she says exactly what he said only I get it. Too many of us like using big Greek words like doctors and people just want someone to explain it to them.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s