In
some discussions I’ve been in, I frequently hear of the “weight of evidence,” “the
weight of numbers,” and “the weight of history.” Admittedly I have used these
reasoning points myself. But it is also necessary (for believers) to weigh what
God says/directs on a matter. I bring this up because of those who challenge
points of reason I write about. For example, evolutionists would argue that
their weight of evidence is much stronger than a believer’s. A Trinitarian would
argue their weight of numbers (in adherents) is much greater than the “measly”
numbers of those who are Jehovah’s Witnesses. In a recent discussion, I cited
the account in the book of Acts where, amongst the toddler-stage early congregation
of Christians, there was a large dispute regarding circumcision.
The
issue came up shortly after Peter
was directed to Cornelius in Acts 10. Peter himself had to be given an
illustration (a vision) by God before he could accept what God was directing
him to do (vss
9-16). But afterwards he arrived at the conclusion that God wanted him to
reach (vss. 34,
35). But the icing on the cake, so to speak, was what happened in verse 44. God’s
holy spirit was given to those uncircumcised new converts. With that weight of
God’s approval (weight of evidence from God), Peter rightly concluded that
those people should be baptized as believers. (vss. 47, 48)
But that was not the end of the matter. When Peter returned to “the brothers”
he probably expected to be warmly greeted. Instead, chapter 11 starts out with
severe criticism being leveled at Peter for taking an action they thought was
wrong. Verse 2 reads: “So when Peter came up to Jerusalem, the supporters of
circumcision began to criticize him.” Perhaps they knew how impetuous Peter
could be. But after Peter recounts the events and evidence of God’s approval,
Acts 11:18 states: “When they heard these things, they stopped objecting, and
they glorified God, saying: 'So, then, God has also granted to people of the
nations repentance leading to life.'” But that also was not the end of the
matter. In chapter 15 some hardliners show up and cause a scene. Verses one and
two reveal how their stand caused at least Paul and Barnabas to have to leave
the ministry of the word in order to handle this interruption. You can read the
situation and the conclusion that was reached here. (As the commercial
says, “But wait, there’s more!” even after this we find in Paul’s writings that
he continued having to defend the decision to accept uncircumcised men of the
nations. Here
are two such instances.)
So we
know what proponents of this new teaching had for their reasoning point –
strong evidence of God’s direction and God’s approval. But what of the
proponents of circumcision? Perhaps they argued that circumcision was a directive given
to Abraham, which preceded the Mosaic Law. They could have reasoned: “Therefore,
since it preceded the Law, it is obvious what God wants of his people.” They
may have also argued for the health benefits; for the sheer number of Jews
compared to Christians; for the “custom” that had been practiced for centuries;
for the Israelites being God’s chosen people thus excluding non-Jews. But their
strongest argument was probably God’s past direction (historical evidence).
So who
was right? Knowing how to this very day the Jews view Jesus as the greatest
apostate to have ever lived and deceived so many, it appears that even this argument
from the first century is still argued today. Then when you realize that in
spite of direction from the apostles and God’s approval of the uncircumcised
that even today in Catholicism and other major denominations of Christendom
circumcision is still practiced, it appears the proponents of circumcision may
have won. But at the start of the paragraph, I didn’t ask “who won?” I asked “who
was right?” One problem people seem to have is that God does change how he
deals with mankind. This in no way negates the truthful claim in scriptures
that God
doesn’t change. The fact is, the context is different. So in the case “who was right?” comes down to who is listening to God’s
current direction. In the first century, God demonstrated who he considered
to be right by richly blessing the newly founded Christian congregation. In
contrast, just before Jesus was put to death, he stated of the Jewish system of
worship “your house
is abandoned to you.”
Back
then, the early Christian group, being new, was much smaller than Judaism. Today,
Jehovah’s Witnesses are much smaller than the sum of “mainstream Christianity.”
Does the weight of numbers mean anything to God? From the foregoing, obviously
not. Back then, the centuries of the practice of circumcision outweighed this “new
teaching” that circumcision was not necessary. In our time, in my personal
experience, I’ve had people argue that Jehovah’s Witnesses are a relatively new
religion whereas theirs have been around for centuries. Did centuries of time
matter to God when he changed from approving Israelites to approving
Christianity? Again, no. And even then, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not claim to be
teaching something new, they claim to be restoring what scripture originally
taught. How can we tell who is listening to God’s direction? Today, churches of
mainstream Christianity seem to be veering away from teaching the Bible and
instead feature social issues in a modern world, or they just sing their way
through their services; or they merely read the Bible with little or no
application and understanding. How can I make such broad claims? Because I’ve
been in my ministry for over 40 years and met people from other religions. I’ve
actually asked them to describe for me a typical session at their church. None
have mentioned the way Jehovah’s Witnesses run their meetings. When I describe
how our meetings are educational sessions, they react as if such would be
boring. They really don’t want to learn.
So the
weight of evidence, the weight of numbers, and the weight of history are all
fine and good as long as they take a backseat to the weight of God’s current direction
and evident approval.
