INFLEXIBLE AND INTOLERANT ZEAL
Edward Gibbon was an English skeptic
whose set of books, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (New
York: American Books Exchange, 1880), provides an enormous amount of
information about the reasons the once powerful Roman Empire ceased to be a force
in the ancient world. I shall not take the time today to delineate the reasons Gibbon
listed, but a study of his history of ancient Rome might be helpful to the
citizens of our country. We might be able to learn to avoid some of the
blunders Rome made. For example, divorce was rampant in the Roman Empire. It has been
said that some
of the women did not give their age in chronological terms, but in the number
of marriages
they had contracted. Some of them had been married thirty times. If we want America to
remain strong, we should do all within our power to strengthen families.
Gibbon devoted considerable effort to
examining why the gospel spread so rapidly throughout the Roman Empire. In volume
one of his famous books, he listed five reasons why the church grew at such an
enormous rate in the first few centuries of the church's existence. I shall list all
five of those reasons, but I shall examine in this study only the first of
Gibbons' reasons. The church grew because of its "inflexible and intolerant
zeal," "the doctrine of the future life," "the miraculous
powers ascribed to the early church," "the pure and austere morals of
the Christians" and "the union and discipline of the Christian
republic" (volume 1, p. 380). I shall concentrate in today's lesson on the
expression, "The Inflexible and the Intolerant Zeal of the
Christians."
All students of the New Testament know
that Christians should be zealous for the cause of Christ. Words like "zeal"
and "zealous" appear very infrequently in the New Testament.
Sometimes they are used in a negative sense. For example, many of the Jews in Paul's day
had a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge (
The word "zeal" does not appear in
our Lord's letters to the churches of Asia Minor, although the word
"zealous" does. We know the lack of zeal for the cause of Christ hindered the
work of some of those churches. Christ criticized the Ephesian
Christians
because they had left their first love (Rev. 2:4). The Laodiceans
were neither hot nor cold, that is, they were not on fire for the Lord; nor had they
completely forsaken him. The Lord challenged them: "As many as I love, I
rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore and repent" (Rev. 3:16, 19).
Churches that lack zeal for the cause of Christ are on their way out. If we are
not zealous, are we not playing the hypocrite?
Gibbon used two
adjectives to describe the early church's approach to preaching and
teaching—"inflexible" and "intolerant." The word
"inflexible" suggests that the early Christians were not willing to
compromise with the world. They were not in the business of negotiating the
will of God. Their duty, as modern courts demand of witnesses, was to tell the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. For example, Paul reminded the Ephesian elders: "You know, from the first day that I
came into Asia, after what manner I have been with you at all seasons, serving
the Lord with all humility of mind, and with many years, and temptations, which
befell me by the lying in wait of the Jews: and how I kept back nothing that was
profitable unto you, but have shown you, and have taught you publicly, and from house
to house, testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance
toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.. ..And now, behold, I know
that you all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God shall see my
face no more. Wherefore I take you to record this day that I am free from the blood of
all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God"
(Acts 20:18-21, 25-27).
Did Paul's strict adherence to the gospel of
Christ promote the growth of the Lord's church? That certainly seems to be the
case, but proving that idea would be difficult. However, even liberal
theologians know their groups are dying. Some of the liberal churches
have lost as many as one-third of their members over the past forty years. In 1972 Dean
Kelly, by his own admission a liberal official in the National Council of Churches,
wrote one of the most useful books on church growth ever written. His book has
the title, Why Conservative Churches Are Growing (New York:
Harper & Row, Publishers). Please remember that Dean Kelly was not
conservative by any measure of judgment. But he knew from statistics that liberal groups
were in the process of dying. Incidentally, the book is out of print, but you
can probably locate it online.
While the early Christians were inflexible in their
approach to the work and worship of the church, they were not inflexible, or
should not have been, in matters of opinion. The philosophy of Plato and other
Greek scholars influenced some of the Christians at Rome. There was a conflict
in the church over whether Christians should eat animal flesh. "For one
believes that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eats herbs."
Which one was right? Paul exhorted the Romans: "Let not him who eats despise him who does not
eat: and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats: for God has received
him." Paul explains how Christians should behave toward those whose opinions are
different from their own. "Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge
this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother's
way....For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and
peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit....Let us therefore follow after the things that make for
peace, and the things wherewith one may edify another" (Rom. 14:1-2, 13, 17, 19).
A conflict over eating meat also arose in the church at
Corinth. Most of the Corinthian Christians had come from a pagan background.
They had worshipped the many idols in the city of Corinth. They no doubt had
eaten meat in the idols temples as acts of worship to the idols. After they had
obeyed the gospel, some of them wondered if they should continue to eat the
meat that had been offered as sacrifices to the idols, even when the meat was
sold in the public markets. Paul explained: "We know that an idol is nothing in
the world, and that there is no other God but
one." There was nothing wrong with eating meat that had been offered to idols
unless such behavior caused weak brothers to sin. Paul pledged:
"Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while
the world stands, lest I make my brother to offend" (1 Cor.
8:4, 13). If the Corinthians or anyone else continued to eat the meat as an offering
to an idol, they were actually sacrificing to demons (1 Cor.
10:20-21).
We can and must be flexible in matters of opinion, such
as, eating in a church building or helping the needy outside the church, but we
have no authority to compromise the gospel of Christ. If we compromise on just
one item, such as, using mechanical instruments of music in worship, what
prevents our compromising on other matters, such as, burning incense, having
dance and drama as acts of worship? If we allow just one change in the work and
worship of the church, where do we stop? The liberal churches in most instances
are living examples of what happens when churches cease to be inflexible in
their teaching and practices.
Former Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong is one of the most radical theologians in the
world. He does not understand or does not care what happens when churches
decide on their own what should please God. One of his books, A New Christianity for a New
World, has the subtitle, Why Traditional Faith Is Dying & How a New Faith Is Being
Born (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001). Is
the former bishop blind or does he just simply choose to
ignore the facts in the case? It is not the so-called "traditional
faith" that is dying; it is the liberalism that is killing thousands and thousands of churches in the
Gibbon affirms that the early church grew
because of its "intolerant zeal." A few words must be said about the
word "intolerant." Some of the early Christians were almost certainly
intolerant toward those who disagreed with them. It would be strange indeed if that had
not been the case. But the vast majority of them loved their fellowmen. They did
all within their power to preach the soul-saving gospel to all— Jew and Gentile
alike. After all, the Lord's marching orders to the apostles required all Christians
to spread the good news of the gospel to the whole world. Just before our Lord ascended to the
Father, he told his disciples: "You shall receive power, after that the
Holy Spirit has come upon you: and you shall be my witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem,
and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the
earth" (Acts 1:8). Luke later records that all of the
disciples, except for the apostles, were scattered abroad.
"Therefore they who were scattered abroad went everywhere preaching the
word. Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them"
(Acts 8:1, 4-5).
Of this fact you can rest assured:
Those early gospel preachers, like Peter, Paul, James and John, did not
tolerate false doctrine and immorality. They had no authority to introduce any
strange doctrines or any perverted worship practices. They taught very plainly that God has
given them the truth and they could not preach any other doctrine. Is that not what
Paul told the Galatian churches? "I marvel that
you are so soon removed from him who called you into the grace of Christ unto another
gospel: which is not another; but there are some who trouble you, and would pervert the
gospel of Christ. But though we or an angel from heaven,
preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be
accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man
preach any other gospel unto you than that you have received, let him be
accursed" (Gal. 1:6-9).
The verb, "would pervert" (metastrepho in the Greek) means to change completely. Peter
used the word in his great sermon on the day of Pentecost. He quoted these words
from the prophet Joel: "The sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon
into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come" (Acts
2:20). W.
E. Vine says the word means to "transform into something of the opposite character" (p.
853). Paul had preached the true gospel among the Galatians. The Judaizers were not satisfied
with the true gospel and tried to "transform (it) into something of the
opposite character."
There is no New Testament book that
expresses less tolerance of false doctrine than the book of Galatians. I have time to
give you just one example. Paul asked the Galatians: "O foolish Galatians, who
has bewitched you, that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus
Christ has been evidently set forth, crucified among you" (Gal. 3:1)?
Tragically, the Judaizing teachers in Galatia had
misled some of the Galatian Christians by
convincing them to return to portions of the Mosaic covenant. Paul accused
those Christians who had mixed some parts of the Jewish covenant with the gospel of Christ
of having fallen from grace (Gal. 5:4). The word "fallen" comes from
the Greek ekpipto and means to
fall away from or out of. The English Standard Version translates that verse:
"You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you
have fallen away from grace." Could such people still have the promise of
eternal life? Absolutely not!
I have some questions I would like to use to
challenge your thinking. Could the early Christians embrace another gospel
without endangering their eternal wellbeing? I have already given you the
answer from Galatians 1:6-9. Believing and preaching another gospel meant that
those who were guilty were accursed, that is, that they were cut off from eternal
life. W. E. Vine says concerning the word "accursed" (anathema in the Greek): "The apostle declares in
the strongest manner that the Gospel he preached was the one and only way of salvation,
and that to preach another gospel was to nullify the death of Christ" (p. 254).
Was Paul being intolerant when he preached the whole counsel of God? He was
absolutely intolerant of any other gospel for the simple reason that no other gospel
would save.
Did our Lord tolerate error? O I know
he loved all men, including the grossest sinners. He did all he could to bring men into
the kingdom of God, but he strongly objected to any doctrine that contradicted
the message he brought to earth from God the Father. For example, the Samaritan
woman at Jacob's well asked him about the worship of her people. Many modernistic
theologians would have preferred to have Jesus say, "It really does not matter
how you worship so long as you are honest." That is not the way our Lord
responded. "Jesus says to her, Woman, believe me, the hour comes, when you
shall neither in this mountain, nor yet in Jerusalem worship the Father. You worship
you know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews" (John
4:21-22). Does that sound intolerant to you? Neither Christ nor the apostles could
tolerate any changes in the gospel of Christ.
The books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and
John were designed to tell us who Jesus is. The apostle John explains: "And
many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which
are not written in this book: but these are written, that you might believe
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you might have
life through
his name" (John 20:30-31). Our Lord constantly emphasized man's need to know God and to obey
the Lord. He told his disciples: "Not everyone who says unto me, Lord, Lord,
shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of my Father
who is in heaven" (Mt. 7:21).
What did Christ teach about the new
birth? He told some Jews: "Except you believe that I am he, you shall die
in your sins" (John 8:24). Did Jesus actually mean that human beings must
believe that he is the Christ the Son of the living God? He also taught: "Except
you repent, you shall all likewise perish" (Lk.
13:3). Is repentance optional or is it an absolute requirement of the gospel?
Was Jesus Christ being intolerant when he commanded all men repent? Jesus
demanded that those who want to hear the Father say, "Well done, good and
faithful servant; enter into the joys of your Lord," must confess him
before men. "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I
confess before my Father who is in heaven" (Mt. 10:32). If we do not confess him before
men, will he confess us before our Father who is in heaven? If he will, his
language in Matthew 10 makes no sense whatever. Are we in a position to negotiate on any of
these terms of the gospel? Would it be permissible for us to say: "We must
believe the gospel, but we are not required to repent?" Can we change one
jot or one tittle of the gospel and continue to have
God's approval?
What did Jesus teach about baptism? Does the
gospel require all who would become Christians to be baptized in the name of Christ
for the remission of their sins? In the Great Commission according to Mark, our
Lord commanded: "Go into all the world, and
preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he who
does not believe shall be condemned" (Mk. 16:15-16). If Christ meant what he said
about belief, repentance and confession, is there some reason to believe he did
not mean what he taught about baptism?
There is absolutely no doubt the
apostles and other faithful preachers like Philip preached the great
truths Jesus so powerfully taught. I have time to give you just one example. Acts 8
records the conversion of an Ethiopian eunuch. When Philip found the eunuch reading
from the prophecy of Isaiah, he asked the eunuch if he understood what he was reading.
The eunuch asked Philip to explain Isaiah 53:7-8. Philip began at the same scripture
and preached unto him Jesus. The two of them came to some water. The eunuch asked
Philip: "What hinders me from being baptized?" The preacher explained: "If
you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, you may be baptized."
Winford Claiborne
The
International Gospel Hour
P.O.
Box 118
Fayetteville,
TN 37334
Back
to Home Page
Back to Transcripts Titles