Have you ever wondered why After returning His
- Slides: 10
Have you ever wondered why… After returning His people from 70 years of captivity, and helping them to rebuild and restore both the Holy City and worship in it, And after His last word to Israel was that a prophet would be sent to “restore the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of children to their fathers, ” And then after 400 hundreds of silence from Him, That God would send forth such a man as John the Baptist from the wilderness? cf. Matt. 3: 1 -6 Why a wild man from the wilderness? ? ?
Especially since: There certainly was “organized” religion abounding at the time. There were: – Pharisees (the ruling sect at the time) who believed in resurrection, angels, and spirits, and were law-keepers of the strictest order, Matt. 3: 7 a; Luke 18: 11 -12; Acts 26: 5. – Sadducees (the other major sect at the time) who denied resurrection, angels, and spirits, but who were also very religious, Matt. 3: 7 a; Acts 23: 6 -8 ff. – Herodians (more political, but aligned with the Sadducees mostly) who believed that they were duty-bound to submit to Rome, and support the Herods (Rome’s appointed rulers of them), Mark 3: 6; 12: 13. Within these groups (and others), the “religious” choices abounded! So why, do you suppose, did John, and for that matter, Jesus, come from none of them? Both were complete outsiders, cf. Matt. 3: 1; John 1: 45 -46; Matt. 13: 53 -57; John 9: 16, 29!
Was it because… These groups were “Religious but not Spiritual? ” Note that the: – Pharisees were more concerned with law-keeping than the “weightier provisions… justice and mercy and faithfulness; ” Matt. 23: 23. Their “religion” had led them away from spirituality (godliness), v. 15. – Sadducees had become so wrapped-up in the academic pursuit of their doctrines that they came to deny the very essence of that which would save mankind- the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Matt. 22: 23 -33. Their “religion” had led them to intellectual conclusions which, in essence, denied faith in God, cf. 1 Cor. 15: 12 -17. – Herodians had become so politically active that they sought to entrap Jesus with a purely political question, Matt. 22: 16 -22. For them, “religion” was just a means to a political end! Now do you see/understand why John, as God’s spokesman, and Jesus, the Messiah, came from “outside” the mainstream religion? “Religion” had ceased to be “Spiritual”!
But is “Religious but not Spiritual” still a valid charge? Let’s think about that… Are there currently “Religions” that: – Like the Pharisees become so concerned with rules and law-keeping that the spiritual aspects of “justice and mercy and faithfulness” are diminished? ØWho become so involved in “hating the sin” that they forget to “love the sinner, ” John 8: 3 -11? ØWho decide they need to help God out by “clarifying” His Word through their own creeds and catechisms, Mark 7: 1 -9 ff? ØWho are so busy making rules for everyone else, and making a show of their “religion” that they fail to obey God, Matt. 23: 4 -13 ff?
But is “Religious but not Spiritual” still a valid charge? Let’s think about that… Are there currently “Religions” that: – Like the Sadducees become so intellectual in their religion that they wind up effectually denying inspiration? ØWho can’t allow themselves to have faith in six days of creation by God vs. evolution, Ex. 20: 11 > Rom. 1: 18 -23? ØWho intellectually can’t accept a Savior “born of a virgin, ” Isa. 7: 14 > Matt. 1: 25? ØWho wind up “holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power…” 2 Tim. 3: 5? ØOr who, in their broad-minded wisdom, deny Jesus as the Son of God for the sake of “world religion” and ecumenicism, 1 John 2: 22 -23?
But is “Religious but not Spiritual” still a valid charge? Let’s think about that… Are there currently “Religions” that: – Like the Herodians who turn their “religion” into political action committees, their “faith” into political platforms? ØWho see “religion” as one big protest against capital punishment and capital gains, or homosexuality and free enterprise, Rom. 13: 1 -7? Or, ØWho can’t accept a separation of “church/religion” and “state, ” 1 Pet. 2: 13 -17 > 3: 13 -17? ØWho are more concerned with “our place and our nation” than with the supremacy of God and Jesus Christ in their and their families’ lives, John 11: 48?
Of course “Religious but not Spiritual” is still a valid charge! I am convinced that one of the reasons people have become “anti-religious” is the apostasy and impotency of modern religion… – The divisive nature of denominationalism has turned people against religion, John 17: 20 -23; 1 Cor. 1: 10; Eph. 4: 4 -6. – The pageantry of paganism that has become modern worship has turned people against religion, John 4: 23 -24; 1 Cor. 11: 20 -22 ff; 2 Cor. 11: 3. – And the spiritual impotency of intellectually broad -minded doctrines has turned people against religion, Rom. 1: 16; 1 Tim. 1: 3 -8.
Of course “Religious but not Spiritual” is still a valid charge! And if we become: – More interested in rule making than we are justice, mercy, and faithfulness like the Pharisees, those needing and seeking God will turn away from us too. – So intellectually broad-minded as to undermine the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures like the Sadducees, those needing and seeking God will turn away from us too. – More interested in politics than godliness like the Herodians, those needing and seeking God will turn away from us too. And who could blame them- God Himself turned away from such as these to bring a prophet and a Messiah into the world to save it!
“Religion can be Spiritual” But only: ü If we content ourselves with following God’s rules in God’s way instead of making up our own. ü If we use our intellect to discover, learn, and apply God’s word rather than to undermine and deny its authority. ü If we keep the church what it was meant to be: “the pillar and support of truth”! 1 Tim. 3: 15 Man’s religion is neither spiritual nor saving. God’s religion is both. Among religions, there are those: Ø Radiant, but not right, Rom. 10: 1 -3; Ø Right, but not radiant, Rev. 2: 2 -5; and Ø Right and radiant- Southport? ? ?
