What is godliness?

Godliness is a manner of life dominated by reverence for God that is displayed in a respect for other men that is visible to outside observers.

The word translated ‘godliness’ in the New Testament is eusebeia. According to Kittel, the root ‘seb-’ has the idea of ‘shrinking back’ or ‘falling back from’. With the prefix ‘eu-’ we could call it the ‘good shrinking back’. It is good because the term eusebeia speaks often of a proper attitude to the gods – piety – which is reflected in one’s conduct to men. Perjury, for example, is not godly. Caring for a dying father is godly. This conduct reflects an attitude of reverence towards deity and respect towards men.

In the New Testament, the term is occurs mostly in the pastoral epistles where its meaning is very parallel to Greek usage. It refers to conduct in relation to God, conduct that is no ascetic constraint but is positive expression of faith in the new life that now is and the life that is yet to come (1 Tim 4.7-8). This conduct is displayed by care of widowed mothers because such conduct pleases God (1 Tim 5.4). It is a life that is motivated by the Lord’s return, a life lived with ‘eternity in view’, since the things of this life are to be destroyed (2 Pt 3.10-11).

Godliness isn’t just private piety – it is visible piety. The gospel of grace teaches us that we are to live it out in this present world, before witnesses (Titus 2.11-12). It is to mark out the man of God, who, in contrast to the deceivers who trouble the church, is to pursue godliness rather than riches, content with his reward in heaven rather than profit on earth (1 Tim 6.1-12). It is that life to which God has provided the things pertaining to its essence and its conduct through the full knowledge of who called us by his own glory and excellence (2 Pt 1.3). God is excellent, the believer is called to excellence in this life.

In 1 Tim 2.2, the term is connected with the term ‘dignity’ (translated ‘honour’ in the KJV). Godliness speaks to the conduct of one’s life before God; dignity speaks to the quality of that life by virtue of a transformed inner man.

Godliness is given lip service today. For many people, if considered at all, it seems to simply mean, “having the right theology.” In the ancient world, some thought godliness merely meant keeping the rituals of religion, whether it be the Law of the Jews or the cultic practices of the Greeks. I am afraid many Christians today are quite satisfied with that kind of godliness today. “Get the form right, and I am all right.”

What we are after is a heart religion that reverences God and accordingly respects men. A heart religion that is no friend of the world, but a friend of God. Can it be that Christians who embrace the world and its ways are also friends of God? Are they godly?

It may be that godly Christians will come to differing applications on some specific matters of conduct, but the life of every godly Christian will be headed in the same direction: with fear toward God and respect towards men that outside observers can see – and will not confuse with worldliness.

Godliness is a manner of life dominated by reverence for God that is displayed in a respect for other men that is visible to outside observers.

Dr. Custer starts his article this way:

Many people use Scripture for their own purposes. I am referring to sincere Christians who use the Scriptures to reinforce their own private interpretations of the Bible and of life. Many of these people are very godly individuals. I know of preachers whose personal dedication to the Lord is unquestioned, but who have certain doctrines for which they are notorious. They plug these things as though they were the great truths of revelation, when they happen to be of private interpretation.

Most fundamentalists would say they have a handle on the idea of holiness. Dr. Custer points out there are approximately 600 references to the word ‘holiness’ in the Bible (leaving aside passages that don’t specifically use that word). How many of those passages would you say you have thoroughly studied? What kind of grasp do you have on holiness, according to the Scriptures?

Our culture is filled with media, as Dr. Custer points out. All kinds of noise blares at us, demanding our attention. We live fast paced lives. We are ‘Martha’ Christians. We need to learn to be ‘Mary’ Christians, and sit at the feet of Jesus.

Turn off our televisions and our computers. Turn off our ipods and iphones. “Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.” (Mt 11.29)

I can tell you that I was mightily convicted by this little article this evening

To my state-side friends that might not seem like much. To us it seems a great blessing to be able to gather together, to fellowship, to hear the Word, to play games, to sing our anthem, to know that the gospel message that calls men OUT from the world and all the taints of worldliness is not something we hold to quiet and alone in our little, struggling churches, wondering if we are the only ones. No, it is the great God and Saviour of our souls that unites us, our Lord Jesus Christ. It is his church and we are grateful to be a part of it.

Many who accuse fundamentalists of an over-emphasis on externals assume that fundamentalists believe that conformity to outward standards will produce holiness. I haven’t found that to be the case in my experience in numerous fundamentalist churches. What I have heard taught is essentially what Marty highlights in his post.

Here’s a sample:

In thinking about my own life, I can say that I need to be more holy, and that there are many things that distract me from that pursuit of holiness. I am sure that some of these things show up externally, in behaviours, and not simply in my innermost being where no one else can see.

I encourage you to read the whole thing.

The first volume also reveals the mind of a totally lost man. His conversion comes at the end of the first set of letters, but one has to say that he exhibits the pride and malice of a lost man in all his educated sophistication through the years prior to his conversion.

I’ll not debate the quality of his conversion, certainly he uses terms unfamiliar to us. It is quite clear that a real change took place in his life and he left us with many valuable works as a result.

In one of his letters, he makes an interesting observation about the pleasure of anger.

The pleasure of anger — the gnawing attraction which makes one return again and again to its theme — lies, I believe, in the fact that one feels entirely righteous oneself only when one is angry.

 Then the other person is pure black, and you are pure white. But in real life sanity always returns to break the dream. In fiction you can put absolutely all the right, with no snags or reservations, on the side of the hero (with whom you identify yourself) and all the wrong on the side of the villain. You thus revel in unearned self-righteousness, which wd. be vicious even if it were earned.¹

In light of my message last Sunday afternoon, “How Crucifying the Flesh produces the Fruit of the Spirit,” I thought this an apt quote. Too bad I didn’t see it in time to include it in my message.

The quote is from a letter to his ‘first friend’, Arthur Greeves on January 17, 1931. Lewis’ moment of conscious faith in Christ as the Son of God came on Sept 28, 1931. His conversion is described as a growth of understanding and acceptance of truth, coming first as an acceptance that there is a God, culminating with faith in Christ as described. So though he has not yet expressed conscious faith in Christ, I think he displays growing spiritual insight at this point.

What makes anger so delightful? The other person is all wrong, all black, and you are all right, all white. In effect, you become God, and are justified in your judgement of whomever it is that you rage against. It’s righteous wrath, not just righteous indignation!

It is this lust which makes violent movies so attractive. The movie develops sympathy for the lead character who may be a totally reprehensible individual, then leads you into a campaign of rage against his enemies, who are totally ‘evil’ because they oppose the ‘pure white’ hero.

The only antidote to this is humility of mind, is it not? The fruit of the Spirit which only comes by repentance and faith (crucifying the flesh). We must confess our rage, our wrath, our clamour, our malice, our evil-speaking, and submit heart, soul, and mind to the judgement of the Spirit of God.

Perhaps in our fundamentalist wars we should take a break and think this one over.

1. The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, Vol.1, Walter Hooper, ed., pp. 950-951.

First let’s look at the text itself:

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

This is a quotation from Dt 8.3:

Deuteronomy 8:3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

What is the point of the passage? It is possible for a NT quotation to be an application of an OT passage, not giving a new meaning exactly, but instead taking the general principle and applying it to a new situation. This doesn’t appear to be the case in this passage.

The situations are remarkably parallel. Consider:

1. The Jews spent 40 years in the wilderness; Jesus spent 40 days fasting in the wilderness.
2. The Jews were in the wilderness at the command of God; Jesus was in the wilderness having been driven there by the Spirit (Mk 1.12).
3. The Jews suffered lack in the wilderness at the hand of God; Jesus suffered lack by the will of God.
4. A major issue in the Jews relationship with God during this period was ‘where do we get food’; the issue with Jesus was ‘I am denying myself food’.

I think you will agree with me that the two passages are tightly connected by their contexts.

In the temptation, Satan takes it as a given that Jesus is the Son of God (‘If  you are the son’ – first class condition, assuming it to be a fact). The power of the temptation lies in Jesus’ hunger, just as it did with Israel in the wilderness.

In the wilderness, the men and women and their little children soon forgot the mighty power of God that delivered them from Egypt and began to complain against God – ‘why have you led us out here? there’s no food, no water, we’ll die!’ – they were accusing the good God of being something other than good. Their hunger, and especially, I think, the hunger of their little ones enraged them with fear against God.

In the case of Jesus, his hunger is used similarly to tempt him to act independently of God, to in effect say that God is not good or worth following. ‘Since you are God,’ the tempter says, ‘what’s with all this waiting around? You can feed yourself. You don’t need to wait on anyone. The Father isn’t doing anything about it, but you can … and you deserve it.’ (The temptation, by the way, is a powerful argument for the real humanity of Christ. If he were not human, the temptation would have no power – you try fasting for more than one day, see how you like it!)

Tom Constable says on this temptation: “God had intended Israel’s hunger in the wilderness to teach her that hearing and obeying God’s Word is the most important thing in life (Deut. 8:2–3). Israel demanded bread in the wilderness but died. Jesus forewent bread in submission to His Father’s will and lived.”¹

This gets us to the heart of Jesus’ reply. The point is that men must learn to depend in faith on what God says – everything God says, whether it makes sense or not.

From the human standpoint, does it make sense to go out into the wilderness on a 40 day fast? This is especially senseless when one lives in a civilized (relatively) area where plenty of food is available and no crisis demands such rigour.

Adam was unable to withstand temptation for more than a few minutes, it seems. Israel succumbed within the first few days of their journeyings (after what food they brought with them ran out). Jesus fasted forty days. And refused the tempter – he lived by the Word of God that sent him to the wilderness.

Now, Kent and others are arguing, Jesus is referring to every individual word (at least, that portion that had as yet been given). From this assertion, that Jesus is referring to every one of the words from Genesis to Malachi, Kent reasons that for them to live by every word of God, they would have to have those words available. Hence, he says, this assertion implies that God will always make his word available to his people.

A couple of things need to be said here:

1. Kent is using reason to argue a system here. The passage in no way says that God will make every word always available to men. This is a reasoned position, reasoned by man, not revealed by God.
2. The word that the Israelites were told to live by had not been written at the time. It was available only orally, not in any written form. When it became available in written form, how many copies were available to the average Israelite? Probably only one copy during the entire 40 years in the wilderness, kept by the priests in the Tabernacle. The Deuteronomy passage itself was not written until Moses spoke it, at the end of the 40 years.

So let’s consider the Word that the Israelites had to learn to live by in the wilderness. What was it? I think we can paraphrase it this way: “Follow Moses out of Egypt and go take the land I promised your fathers.”

What word was Jesus living by in the wilderness of temptation? This word: “Go out into the wilderness until such time as I call thee.” The Spirit drove him out into the wilderness, remember. Do you think Jesus went out there with a backpack full of scrolls? Do you think he’s thinking, “Man, the Spirit wants me out in the wilderness, I better pack Genesis to Malachi so I won’t die out there. Now where did I put Obadiah?” (I speak as a fool!)

No, Jesus knows he is in the wilderness by the Word of God. He knows he will not stay in the wilderness because he has his Father’s business to do, also something he knows by the Word of God. He has learned to obey the word, and will not be turned aside from it.

I suppose Kent may argue, “but the text says every word”. Yes it does. But that is a command for us to hear and heed. It is not a promise to us that God is going to always make every individual word available to us. Jesus didn’t have every individual written Word available to him in the wilderness. But he was there by the Word, under the Word, committed to the Word and completely dependent on the Word.

May we all have such a trust in God’s Word that we never give in to any temptation to doubt what God says to us.

1. Tom Constable, Tom Constable’s Expository Notes on the Bible, Mt 4:3 (Galaxie Software, 2003; 2003).

Yesterday and today she was off driving our sons to Sea-Tac for their trek back to school. They’ll probably make it back before she gets home, but that is a fact of Island life.

In her absence… well, things haven’t fallen apart, but let’s just say her presence is sorely missed…

It’s not that I can’t cook. In fact, I’m a pretty good cook, just ask my kids (but don’t let them talk to you about "Stuff"!!)

No, it’s not that I can’t cook, its that I can’t manage without my wife. She runs our household with great efficiency (and a little too much obsessive worrying). She does this in the midst of a very active ministry among the ladies of our church. She is a pretty amazing person.

So our schedule is a little off without her. This absence is just overnight. If it were longer, our house would be a little less… how shall I say this? A little less clean? Certainly less neat. She hasn’t really been gone long enough for me to really let things get messy.

And, I like to think, she needs me around too. She called me today on the road. She is trying to redo our girls room (new comforters, shams, sheets, etc. … stuff – beyond my ken). As it happens, the Target she was in didn’t have everything she needed… so she had to backtrack down I-5 to get more pieces, and got caught in traffic. So she had me look up the map on Google and talk her out of the traffic jam. I hope she made it through without too much trouble.

The last time I talked to her, she was heading for the ferry and should be boarding as I type. When she has one of these crazy travel days, it makes me wish I was with her so I could help her with the driving (though the shopping end of it would only drive me slightly more batty than usual).

Nevertheless, it is times like this that remind me that Solomon was right when he said:

Ecclesiastes 4:9 Two are better than one because they have a good return for their labor.

And God looked at all he made, and behold it was very good. The crowning act of Creation, by the way, was a wedding.

And as it turns out, the global economy wasn’t the only thing to slow down in 2008, so too did the Earth’s rotation.

Perhaps you’ve heard already, but 2008 is the longest year in more than a decade. We had a leap day in February and a leap second last night. Did you notice?

More to the point… did you use your extra time well?

We only have so much time in this life. We are accountable for all of it.

Matthew 12:36 "But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment.

Some people think that 2008 was an exceedingly long year. We had elections in Canada and the United States; we had financial market turmoil; we had the constant barrage of negativity only the modern media can provide. Many were no doubt glad to turn their backs on 2008.

But of far more import than these external concerns, were you glad to turn your back on 2008 because it contained not just one extra second for which you are accountable, but many seconds (527,041 to be exact), all of them subject to divine scrutiny. Were there failures in 2008? Undoubtedly there were. Were there too many? [How many are permissible?]

Thank God for his mercy. Though we inevitably will fail to honour our Lord with every second, we may know his mercy (not getting what we do deserve) every day.

May God help us, this year, 2009 according to our calendars, to live profitably, holily, acceptably to our Lord. May every second count, by his grace (getting what we don’t deserve), for His glory.

As therapy for my election anxiety, I thought I might do a little meditation on polemics. My postings here could be characterized as polemical, eh?

Dictionary.com gives me these definitions under ‘polemic‘:

–noun
1. a controversial argument, as one against some opinion, doctrine, etc.
2. a person who argues in opposition to another; controversialist.

–adjective
3. Also, po·lem·i·cal. of or pertaining to a polemic; controversial.

Ah, yes, that would be me!

And why would the subjects I post about move me to be polemical? Why wouldn’t I, as a pastor, be more devotional and less polemical? Or maybe, much more devotional? Here is why:

NAU Jude 1:3 Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.

In our consideration of this oft-quoted passage, we focus on the ‘contending for the faith’ bit. But note the statement of purpose at the beginning of the passage. Note the word ‘necessity’. The Greek word here is ‘anagke‘. Thayer gives us this definition:

necessity, imposed either by the external condition of things, or by the law of duty, regard to one’s advantage, custom, argument

When you consider the state of the broader Christianity today, is there not a necessity for polemics? The external condition of things seems to call more and more for it. Note that Jude’s preference was devotional, but necessity demanded the polemical.

We shy away from the polemical, from the controversy, from the conflict. It appears much better to be full of positive exposition of the Scriptures, building up the saints in the holy faith. The rough duty of polemics seems full of bitter fruit, hot emotion, and jarring conflict. It can lead to bruised and strained relations between family and friends.

But consider the external nature of things! Consider the law of duty! Consider David’s maxim, “Is there not a cause?”

When Christian brothers are full of effusive praise of erring brothers, is there not a cause? When Christian brothers will recommend blasphemers, is there not a cause? When Christian brothers reject admonitions against voting for baby-killers, is there not a cause?

No one need remind me that the cause must be well-fought and strategic blunders be kept at a minimum (at least). If we would win, we should argue well.

But should we not argue? Is there no cause to argue for?

Or should we sink down into fatalistic ‘election-anxiety’, find a hole to hide in, and just wait it out until the Lord returns?

~~~

A short USA election-anxiety meditation. I hope it stirs you a bit today.

It comes as a surprise to find the laws in Leviticus suddenly interrupted by a long narrative describing the ordination of Aaron and his sons to the priesthood. We tend to think of Leviticus as a law book, not as a history book. But the reverse is really the truth. Leviticus and the other books of the Pentateuch are basically concerned with the history of God’s people. They deal with the way God brought them out of Egypt, what happened in the wilderness, how God made a covenant with them, how divine worship was established, and the like. The history provides a setting for the laws, not vice versa.

It is not just that the narrative explains when and why certain laws were given. It does that. But the events are often as important as the laws. God’s saving action is just as significant as his word. Biblical revelation is more than the bare communication of truths about God and his will. The Bible affirms that God directed the course of history in order to create a holy people who knew and did his will. [Wenham, Leviticus, p. 129, underlining mine.]

I am currently preaching in chapter 8 for our communion services (first Sunday of the month). It is rather striking to look at Leviticus from this perspective.

The single striking historical event that seems to occupy a good deal of Leviticus is the ‘strange fire’ of Nadab and Abihu – the sin that cost them their lives. If we think of the first ten chapters organized around this event (plus the ordination of the priesthood), the precise details of the sacrificial system (Lev 1-7) take on added importance.

The next section of the book (Lev 11-16) concludes with the Day of Atonement (Lev 16). The Day of Atonement in particular is the day each year when the nation is cleansed of its pollution by sin … and follows the laws of cleanness and uncleanness (Lev 11-15). Of course, Lev 16 is a law chapter also, not a historical record… except note this in Lev 16.1:

NAU Leviticus 16:1 ¶ Now the LORD spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they had approached the presence of the LORD and died.

You see, these laws, too, are rooted in the event of Lev 9. The Lord’s revelations, then, concerning cleanness and uncleanness take on much more relevance if we consider them from the perspective of the people who are living them.

The laws from Lev 17-27 are less unified, more of a miscellany with wide ranging topics and applications. Might that be rooted in ‘what comes next’, the numbering of the people at the outset of the wilderness wanderings? We find a multitude of people about to set out on the march … many loose ends need to be addressed to manage so great a host. [There are also a few brief historical connections interspersed through these chapters.]

In any case, it is important for us as New Testament believers to be aware that the laws of Leviticus are not tedious detail concerning a long ago religious system. They are formative for the spiritual lives of God’s people, both in the 1500 years of the Law’s rule and even now formative and informative concerning the 2000 [and counting] years of the age of the Cross.

Another feature of Leviticus that I am noticing is this:

NAU Leviticus 4:1 ¶ Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,

The phrase, ‘the Lord spoke to Moses,’ is repeated 33 times in Leviticus. (In addition Lev 1.1 says ‘the Lord called to Moses’.) In Lev 10.3, Moses reports to Aaron that it is what the Lord spoke’ concerning the rigorous requirements on the priesthood and in Lev 10.8, the Lord speaks directly to Aaron, instructing him and his sons never to drink wine or strong drink while they are serving in the tabernacle.

In response to the Lord’s direct instruction, we have ten times where it is said that Moses did something ‘as the Lord commanded Moses’. Six of these instances occur in Lev 8 and two more in Lev 9, the ordination of the priests. One occurs at the end of Lev 16, the Day of Atonement chapter [where it may be that Aaron is the one doing as the Lord commanded Moses], and one occurs in Lev 24.23, where the children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses, in exercising capital punishment against one who had cursed.

So we have a lot of the Lord speaking and Moses doing. In keeping with Moses’ example, Aaron and the people do.

This is how we relate to God.

1. God speaks. We do.
2. If I am a man of God, and hear what God speaks, and do what God says, others will follow my example, and ‘do’ as I have done.

The doing is not that which gains me standing with God, it is the consequence of my standing with God. I believe God, therefore I do what he says [ideally]. The more I believe, the more I do.

No wonder the Lord was always saying to his disciples, ‘Oh, you of little faith.’ I imagine he says it a good deal of us also.

~~~

A few thoughts on a living book, Leviticus.