Matthew 4 records an interesting element of the devil’s assault on Christ. “Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.” (Matthew 4:5-7) This temptation happened on an exalted part of the temple itself, the building that was supposed to be for the worship of God. In this case, however, the devil ended up trying to use it to further his cause.

When I first started this website, I wrote quite a bit specifically about revival, although I haven’t done it so much lately. In this article I would like to return our thoughts to this important topic.

The first thing that I want to point out, something that we often fail to recognize, is that revival is always focused on God. We can have miracles, tongues, excitement, study, a large show of hands, or any of a large number of other things, but if God is not being exalted, we don’t have revival, because our Christian faith centers around God, not man. The gospel of God brings Him glory. “Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.” (I Peter 2:12)

This article is part of a series.

In the previous articles in this series, I’ve covered how the New Testament cannot be taken at face value, and still justify the idea of a Christian nation; it does not conform to the idea of Christians improving politics. In this article I want to explore further along these same lines.

Let’s look first at Christ’s words in the Sermon on the Mount. “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” (Matthew 5:38-45) These commands basically assume that Christians will not be involved in politics, because these commands can hardly produce an effective government, which is “a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” (Romans 13:4)

The author of Hebrews used the Old Testament story of Esau to provide a powerful warning for our day when he said, “Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord: Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled; Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.” (Hebrews 12:14-17) The story of Esau’s birthright gives us a dramatic word of caution, showing us the awful results of failure to esteem spiritual treasures at their true value.

When this passage describes Esau as profane, the word doesn’t necessarily have the connotation of cursing and swearing that it has today. But the passage seems to make it clear that the word refers to the lack of respect Esau gave to the value of his birthright.

This article is part of a series.

In the last article I briefly addressed the impossibility of a “Christian nation.” In this article I would like to do a more in-depth study on this possibility. As I mentioned in the last article, the most important problem with “Christian” nations is that Christianity has no commands for nations, no guidance for government. The Old Testament certainly has commands for the nation of Israel; however, these rules are specific to this nation and do not transfer to other nations. One example of this is found in the issue of divorce. We find another in the commands regarding the cities of refuge. Numbers 35:14 says, “Ye shall give three cities on this side Jordan, and three cities shall ye give in the land of Canaan, which shall be cities of refuge.” Certainly not every nation can have three cities on either side of the Jordan River, and it probably wouldn’t fulfill the purpose of the cities of refuge even for some of the nations that could—the cities would be too close together or too far apart.

When Moses was going to make the tabernacle, God warned him, “And look that thou make them after their pattern, which was shewed thee in the mount.” (Exodus 25:40) He was telling Moses to be sure that he didn’t change things around, making them different than the pattern God gave him. This pattern was somewhat complicated, and God wanted Moses to make sure that no one changed it.

Jesus said, “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” (Matthew 6:24) It’s easy for us to think of serving mammon as trying to get rich; then the verse does not apply to us because “trying to get rich” seems like something for Bill Gates, or John Rockefeller, or Andrew Carnegie, not us—we feel that we’re just “making a living” or “working toward a goal.” And maybe we are.

This article is part of a series.

In the last article in this series, I discussed how religion was linked to the nation in Old Covenant Israel. The true religion was tied to Israel, and it was disadvantageous to be a Gentile. In the New Covenant, however, the true religion is decoupled from the state. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28) Paul is saying here that now the people of God no longer have a national identity; rather, they are distributed throughout the nations of the world. Their identity is in Christ instead of their country. “But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” (Acts 10:35)

In my article Peace on Earth, I discussed Jesus’ words, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34) Immediately after this pronouncement, He explains some of the division that His gospel would cause. “For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.” (Matthew 10:35-36) Following this, He tells us the cost of Christianity.

As we enter the second decade of this millennium, we don’t know what religious controversies lie ahead, although there do seem to be clues that the debate over Calvinism will probably intensify, and the issue of a state church may be revived before the end of the century. Throughout all the years that the church has been in existence, apologists for countless different views, both important and unimportant, have waged war, each hoping to establish his view as the truth, and no mortal man can know for sure exactly what is going to face us in the next few years.