Go and learn what this means... - Matthew 9:13

Faith like a child

2012-01-20T20:32:00.000-05:00

"Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him! (Matthew 7:7-11)

My son, Case, reminded me of this lesson last evening. I had given him a handful of those Pepperidge Farm Goldfish crackers for a snack. He would come over every now and then, with a cracker in his fingers and say, "Daddy eat one?" I'd thank him for sharing with me and eat one.

Then he came over a few minutes later and said, "Daddy have these." He gave me his last two Goldfish crackers. I was rather taken aback that he would give me the last ones, but figured he was just tired of them. He walked away, looked over the toy trains that he'd been playing with for the last half-hour, then looked at his empty hands, apparently looking for crackers.

He slowly walked over to me and rather quietly asked, "More fishies, please, Daddy?"

I replied, "Absolutely, you may have more!", and proceeded to fill his little hand with "fishies".

Someone may try to explain that away as a fickle, forgetful toddler changing his mind or whatever. I, however, saw a child that didn't give it a second thought that his father would give him what he asked for, that he didn't hesitate to give away his last cracker, knowing there were more where that came from.

I then thought of how often I fail to have the very same faith in my Father that He will provide in the same way.

"[G]ive, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you." (Luke 6:38)

How humbling to be reminded that He still has so much to teach me, and that He uses my own children to show me His Truths.

Mark 3:20-21

2011-12-20T22:45:00.000-05:00

Then he went home, and the crowd gathered again, so that they could not even eat.
And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying, "He is out of his mind." (Mark 3:20-21 - ESV)

And He came home, and the crowd gathered again, to such an extent that they could not even eat a meal.
When His own people heard of this, they went out to take custody of Him; for they were saying, “He has lost His senses.” (Mark 3:20-21 - NAS)

Jesus came home and, as usual, a crowd gathered—so many making demands on him that there wasn't even time to eat. His friends heard what was going on and went to rescue him, by force if necessary. They suspected he was getting carried away with himself. (Mark 3:20-21 - The Message)

Καὶ ἔρχεται εἰς οἶκον· καὶ συνέρχεται πάλιν ὄχλος, ὥστε μὴ δύνασθαι αὐτοὺς μηδὲ ἄρτον φαγεῖν.
καὶ ἀκούσαντες οἱ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐξῆλθον κρατῆσαι αὐτόν· ἔλεγον γὰρ ὅτι ἐξέστη. (Mark 3:20-21 - GNT)

And they come to a house, and assembles again a crowd so that not able they neither bread to eat.
And hearing the ones of his, come to seize him, for they said that, He is startled. (Mark 3:20-21 - AP)

I have provided the above renderings of this passage to show the variation among translations, specifically in verse 21.

Verse 20

The Crowd

Back in Mark 2:2, we read of the crowd gathering so that there was no room left. Mark tells us that again the crowd has grown so massive and obtrusive that they can't even get a moment of peace just to eat some bread. Interestingly, we do not see Jesus trying to disperse the crowd, or attempting to get away from the people.

Hark! the Herald Angels Sing

2011-12-20T10:51:00.001-05:00

1. Hark! the herald angels sing,

"Glory to the new born King,

peace on earth, and mercy mild,

God and sinners reconciled!"

Joyful, all ye nations rise,

join the triumph of the skies;

with th' angelic host proclaim,

"Christ is born in Bethlehem!"

Hark! the herald angels sing,

"Glory to the new born King!"

2. Christ, by highest heaven adored;

Christ, the everlasting Lord;

late in time behold him come,

offspring of a virgin's womb.

Veiled in flesh the Godhead see;

hail th' incarnate Deity,

pleased with us in flesh to dwell,

Jesus, our Emmanuel.

Hark! the herald angels sing,

"Glory to the new born King!"

3. Hail the heaven-born Prince of Peace!

Hail the Sun of Righteousness!

Light and life to all he brings,

risen with healing in his wings.

Mild he lays his glory by,

born that we no more may die,

born to raise us from the earth,

born to give us second birth.

Hark! the herald angels sing,

"Glory to the new born King!"

A friend and I were commenting on a line in the third verse of Hark! the Herald Angels Sing: "Hail the Sun of Righteousness!". We were wondering if it was a misprint in our hymnal. We expected it to read "Son of Righteousness". So we decided to make it my "homework" to look into this. Here is what I found.

This song was written by Charles Wesley in 1739. He and his brother, John Wesley (whom we remember as the founder of the Methodist denomination), traveled around England in the 1700's during what has become known as the Great Awakening, a period of revival seen in England and in America. Charles wrote something like 6500 hymns during his life, and as it turns out, he didn't just make up the words of his own mind. Many, if not all of them, are richly theological in their content. This hymn, Hark! the Herald Angels Sing, is itself quite a Bible study in song form. I've looked up much of the references, and recorded them below.

1. Hark! the herald angels sing, (Luke 2:9-10)

"Glory to the new born King,

peace on earth, and mercy mild, (Luke 2:14)

God and sinners reconciled!" (Colossians 1:20-22)

Joyful, all ye nations rise, (Haggai 2:6-7)

join the triumph of the skies;

with th' angelic host proclaim, (Luke 2:9-11)

"Christ is born in Bethlehem!" (Micah 5:2)

Hark! the herald angels sing,

"Glory to the new born King!" (Matthew 2:2)

2. Christ, by highest heaven adored; (Hebrews 1:6)

Christ, the everlasting Lord; (Revelation 22:13)

late in time behold him come, (Galatians 4:4)

offspring of a virgin's womb. (Matthew 1:23)

Veiled in flesh the Godhead see; (Hebrews 10:20 - KJV)

hail th' incarnate Deity, (John 1:14)

pleased with us in flesh to dwell, (1 John 4:2)

Jesus, our Emmanuel. (Matthew 1:23 - Emmanuel; Isaiah 7:14 - Immanuel)

Hark! the herald angels sing,

"Glory to the new born King!"

3. Hail the heaven-born Prince of Peace! (Isaiah 9:6)

Hail the Sun of Righteousness! (Malachi 4:2)

Light and life to all he brings, (John 8:12)

risen with healing in his wings. (Malachi 4:2)

Mild he lays his glory by, (Philippians 2:8)

born that we no more may die, (John 11:26)

born to raise us from the earth, (1 Corinthians 15:35-57)

born to give us second birth. (1 Peter 1:23; Titus 3:5)

Hark! the herald angels sing,

"Glory to the new born King!"

Mark 3:14-19

2011-12-17T07:06:00.000-05:00

And he appointed twelve (whom he also named apostles) so that they might be with him and he might send them out to preach
and have authority to cast out demons.
He appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter);
James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James (to whom he gave the name Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder);
Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean,
and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. (Mark 3:14-19)

There are four lists of the 12 disciples/apostles in the New Testament:

Matthew 10:2-4
Mark 3:16-19
Luke 6:14-16
Acts 1:13

To the right is a table comparing how they appear in each passage.

In studying this passage, I thought of two ways that I could write this entry. One would be more of a thesis, looking at each of the 12 men named here, writing a little about each.

The second way, and the way this entry is written, would be to stay in the text and focus more on the significance of what they were called to do and what the effect would have been by appointing these men as apostles. In looking at this, it will be helpful to look at the parallel passages, as they provide details that Mark did not include.

What is an apostle?
What purpose(s) did Jesus have in appointing apostles?
What exactly were they called to do?
What implications does this have for us today?

Apostle

"And he appointed twelve (whom he also named apostles) so that they might be with him and he might send them out to preach and have authority to cast out demons."

Looking at verse 14, I should note that not all manuscripts actually say "whom he also named apostles". It does use the word from which we get the title, though. When it says, "he might send ", it is the word apostellō.

ἀποστέλλῃ [apostellō]

Later, in Mark 6, Jesus will send them out [ἀποστέλλειν] in pairs. This is that for which He has called them: to proclaim the Good News. As Paul says in Romans 10:15 [ἀποσταλῶσιν], how should people hear unless "they are sent"? This is the mind of Christ in choosing these men to be His Apostles. He has chosen them for a mission, for service to the King, as messengers.

Purpose and Calling

It is interesting to note that He chose 12 apostles. Most commentators note the parallel to the 12 Tribes of Israel with His choosing this number of men. In meditating on the significance of this, one might see the parallels with the 12 tribes being the progenitors of a physical kingdom (Exodus 19:6), while the Apostles will be the "fathers" of a spiritual kingdom, namely the Church (John 18:36; 1 Peter 2:9).

What exactly did Jesus want these men to do? Mark says here that it is so they "might be with him" and to preach. Matthew adds, "and to heal every disease and every affliction". Both passages then mention the authority over unclean spirits, the power to cast out demons. Luke also mentions healing disease and casting out demons when they are sent out in pairs.

Be with Him
Preach
Heal disease
Cast out demons

These are the four things they are called to do. The first two are the top priorities, while it would seem that the latter two are for authentication purposes. Something interesting about this list is that it almost parallels Jesus' own ministry completely, but with the noted exception of "forgiving sins". It does not mention that He gave them specific authority to forgive sins. Why is this?

As an aside, that question then led me to wonder about the Roman Catholic church's belief that priests can do just that. What is their basis for such a belief? I looked it up here. So, it turns out that they take John 20:21-23 to be the scriptural basis for priests being able to forgive sins, though throughout the whole of Scripture this right to forgive sins has resided with God alone. In fact, it was a HUGE deal for Jesus to claim to be able to forgive sins, causing the Pharisees and scribes to lodge a charge of blasphemy against Him (Mark 2:7).

Matthew Henry speaks to this:

Christ directed the apostles to declare the only method by which sin would be forgiven. This power did not exist at all in the apostles as a power to give judgment, but only as a power to declare the character of those whom God would accept or reject in the day of judgment. They have clearly laid down the marks whereby a child of God may be discerned and be distinguished from a false professor; and according to what they have declared shall every case be decided in the day of judgment. When we assemble in Christ's name, especially on his holy day, he will meet with us, and speak peace to us. The disciples of Christ should endeavour to build up one another in their most holy faith, both by repeating what they have heard to those that were absent, and by making known what they have experienced.

This is one thing that Jesus alone is able to do because He is God Incarnate. I do not believe that it was an oversight that the apostles were not to have this power bestowed upon them. This is not to suggest that they, nor any believer, is not commanded to forgive as they have been forgiven (Luke 6:37; Matthew 18:23-35). However, it is one thing to forgive one that sins against you, and quite another to forgive another of their burden of sin before God. Again, the only means by which one can be relieved (or forgiven) of their debt of sin is through the Gospel. Moses may have needed help hearing all of the problems of the people of Israel (Exodus 18:14-24), but the Almighty is in no way incapable of hearing all of the petitions and cries for mercy from His children. He does not require an army of priests providing absolution of sins. In fact, we have need of only One Priest (Hebrews 2:17; 4:14) for this purpose.

In this passage, we read that He chose them "that they might be with him" [ἵνα ὦσιν μετ' αὐτοῦ] and to preach (or to proclaim κηρύσσειν). I tried so hard to try to understand the Greek in that phrase "that they might be with him" to no avail. I have found that there are some phrases that cannot be broken into their component parts and carry the meaning of the original phrasing. More likely, I have to admit, I just have so little understanding of the grammar and sentence structure yet to grasp the complexities of the language. From what I get from commentaries, they would basically be in training by living with Him in close proximity. This was His inner circle. When they would be sent out to preach, they would have had months of instruction to draw on having been observing everything their Master was doing in his ministry.

Application

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

On the surface, today's passage just appears to be information; simply a list put together by the author to supply the reader with the names of the 12 chosen disciples. Yet, in light of 2 Timothy 3:16-17, how does this passage in the Gospel of Mark profit me? How is this significant to our lives as Christians, to our training in righteousness? How does my reading Mark 3 make me competent and equipped for every good work? I believe it applicable to discipling. I believe that we're blessed to see how our Lord and Savior understood the need to insulate, protect, and invest in His disciples.

I say that Jesus insulated them because He didn't reveal everything to them all at once - He insulated them from harsh, present realities, and those yet to come. He understood their immaturity yet, and didn't find it necessary to tell them all of the details about what was happening right now. Our advantage in reading this in the 21st century is that we can apply what we know about the whole story to each part. This allows us to better understand each element of the story - like watching a movie for the 2nd time, where you can see things you might have missed the 1st time, and understand the story at a different level. Jesus took them naturally through the progression from laymen to Apostle, He didn't sit down and tell them the whole story on day 1 and expect them to understand, let alone stick around.

In some ways, I am working through this in my home as a father to two very, young boys. My oldest is only 2 years old. I am discipling him already. I cannot speak to him at the level at which I even write this blog. I must work with him at his level, explaining the things that I know he can grasp. Therefore, I am only able to start introducing him to Jesus and familiarizing him with who God is on very basic terms. At the same time, I too am being discipled. Men more mature in the faith than I teach and instruct me and the other men in our church. Similarly, they do not expect us to grasp concepts at the same level that they themselves do. There is an understanding that progress is made only with time and careful leadership.

Also, Jesus was protecting them by isolating them from the larger crowd, setting them apart from the rest. He knew that the majority of those following Him were only doing so for their own felt needs, not because they necessarily subscribed to what He was teaching. With these 12 men chosen to spend almost every waking minute with Him, they would receive insights about those things that would not or could not be understood by most of the crowds. He would explain the parables, and help them to understand the hearts of men in reaction to the teaching they heard. Later, we'll see how this paid off when they are baffled at the crowds turning away, not able to quite grasp why they didn't see Jesus as the Messiah. By keeping his flock close to Him, Jesus was protecting them from being picked off by the enemy before it was time for them to go out on their own.

Today, discipling does involve a measure of protection in advising against certain activities that will detract from a pure testimony and/or distract from profitable endeavors. As a parent, lines are drawn and rules are made to protect our children from danger. Often these are physical dangers, but as they mature these guidelines become more abstract, meant to guide them away from emotional and spiritual dangers. A parent that fails to create such an environment can only be interpreted as not having the best interest of their child in mind. Not warning them of upcoming pitfalls from illicit activities gives the impression that you don't really care what happens to them. The same can be said of warning them of spiritual "snares" set by the enemy to entangle immature Christians in distracting and disabling situations.

Jesus was investing in His disciples. Most importantly, the time spent in intimate conversation with these men would be invaluable in preparing them for the ministry they would receive upon Christ's ascension. This concept of investing time and energy into a worthwhile cause is not foreign to us today. Anything that we deem worthy receives an investment from us in terms of our resources, whether that is money or time. And usually those things most important receive that which is most valuable - our time. Such is the case with Our Lord and the investment He is making in the 12 men He chose to be His ambassadors. There is no doubt that anything less than the investment of His remaining months on earth would have left them ill-equipped to carry the Gospel to the world.

Once again, the connection to discipling should be quite obvious. Numerous studies and statistics point to the detrimental effects on children that are robbed of a significant relationship with their father or mother. Most often this is seen in fatherless homes, but it can easily apply to any family situation where one or both parents spends little to no time with their children.

Our Lord and Savior models for us how we are to lead and instruct those that are following us, whether they are our children or our brothers and sisters in Christ. That is how I see this passage applying to my life and, if I might be so bold, to the Church as a whole.

1 Peter 3:7

2011-12-12T22:07:00.001-05:00

I recently came across this blog article, and it brought to mind something from scripture.

"Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered." (1 Peter 3:7)

Notice these three things in this:

"live with your wives",
"in an understanding way", and
"showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel".

God calls husbands to be the spiritual leaders of their home, and the litmus test for how well they are answering that call is in the relationship they have with their wives. Contrary to the way modern culture twists this, this does not place wives in a position of servitude in the home. Wives are to occupy a place of honor in the home. They are to be cherished, loved, and treated with the same care that the husband gives to his own body.

In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." (Ephesians 5:28-31)

Let's look at these three points from 1 Peter 3:7.

Live with your wife

"Live" in the Greek is: συνοικοῦντες [sunoikountes], and can be translated as "dwell". It is a present participle; an active verb. In English, we'd put -ing at the end of the word to express this on-going action. It could be read, "be living/dwelling with your wife".

While doing the study on this word, I noticed in the Greek-English lexicon that the very next word [συνοικουρέω], very similar to this one, has the definition: "to help in watching the house, live at home together". Living, or dwelling, with your wife involves action. Merely existing in the same structure is not sufficient. Living with your wife goes beyond sharing a house. It is an active partnership. Living with her also means living beside her. It is no accident that God made Eve from Adam's rib... she was made to be connected to you, to be alongside you in this life. This is just one allusion to "two shall become one flesh".

I'm speaking to myself as much as other husbands when I say, "It's your home, your responsibility. She's your partner. God has given her to you to be a helper." She's helping you. This means you're to be doing as much, if not more than her, in the duties of the home and the marriage.

However, in reality most of us are living with our careers, with our hobbies, with ourselves. We pursued our wife until we "caught" her, but with that done, we now pursue other things. We only come home to the "castle" to rest. As the "king" we sit upon our "throne" while the wife and children mill around the home, taking care of those things that are not ours to do. Hey, we spent all day at work! We deserve to just sit down and relax now, right? Honey, when's dinner going to be ready?

No. God calls husbands to be leaders in their homes. He is calling us to actively live with our wives. Get up and get to work alongside your bride, raising your family, "watching the house"... you know, living at home together.

In an understanding way

The whole phrase in the Greek is: συνοικοῦντες κατὰ γνῶσιν [kata gnosin]. Some translations are:

"according to knowledge",
"in order to know",
"from knowledge", or
"in understanding".

While studying this word "kata", I soon grasped that trying to define it apart from "gnosin" is like trying to define any other lone preposition. (Try defining the prepositions "from" or "for" without relating them to another word; not impossible, just difficult) The lexicon I use has quite a lengthy entry for it, and then dozens of pages follow where "kata" is a prefix on a host of other words, often times creating an entirely new meaning from the individual components. Therefore, it's important to acknowledge the space between "kata" and "gnosin"; otherwise we might get "καταγνωσιν" which means "thinking ill of a person; low opinion; judgement against a person; condemnation". Languages are tricky!

If I might suggest the following phrasing: "Husbands, be living together with your wives in order to understand". Okay... in order to understand what, exactly? Well, I believe this is two-fold. Primarily, I believe we are to be striving to understand the nature of what God has created in marriage (and its implications), and I also believe we, as husbands, are to be striving to understand our wives.

First of all, marriage in itself isn't all that mysterious. However, the parallel drawn between it and the reference it has to Christ and His Church is profound (Ephesians 5:32). For most purposes, marriage has been and still is a necessity for many reasons, not the least of which is in curtailing immorality, and providing a structured environment for procreation. While we all know that it should be more than this, at the barest human considerations, there is no mystery here. Where we see the mystery deepen significantly is when this marriage is reflecting the union of Christ to His Bride, the Church. The symbolism of the husband being the head of the wife, as Christ is the Head of the Church (Ephesians 5:23) is made all the more glorious when the husband and the wife are seeking to glorify God in their marriage, and specifically in their roles in the marriage. This is experienced through the truth that God is a God that can be known (Jeremiah 9:23-24; John 17:3; 1 John 2:13). We know God to be a Triune God, that is three persons, each with distinct, but equal roles. When we live within the God-ordained roles in marriage, we reflect the harmony and unity displayed in the Trinity.

In regard to understanding our wives, this is where we see true love being lived out: in knowing them. Striving to know her, to know the things she likes to do, the thoughts she thinks, what toppings she wants on her pizza, why she does what she does, the proper way to fold a t-shirt, etc. These are important, but knowing here is more than this. The depth can be seen when we understand that gnosin [knowledge; understanding] is a noun derived from the verb ginosko [to know; to understand]. When Jesus says that eternal life is knowing God and Jesus Christ (John 17:3), He is not referring to having a passing knowledge of God. Although it is common in our day to say that you "know" someone because you've seen them on TV, or met them at a social function, this is not the term being used here. It is often said that this knowledge is an intimate knowledge, one requiring learning, and time, and becoming familiar with the details. To put this in perspective, this term "to know" is a Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. That kind of knowledge is definitely not a passing acquaintance.

Have you ever heard women that have been married for many years, in describing their husbands and their marriage, say, "he doesn't understand me"? If I am not seeking and working to truly know and understand my wife, then I am sinning. I am failing to live up to the calling that God has placed on me as a husband.

Showing honor

ἀπονέμοντες τιμήν [aponemontes timēn] : bestowing, imparting, assigning | honor, esteem, value

Right after this it says we are to bestow this honor as to "a weaker vessel". (If you're interested, the Greek here is ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει [asthenesterōi skeuei].)

I don't think you can really separate these two phrases without losing a significant portion of the meaning. To bestow or to assign implies a conscious action. It isn't an afterthought, and it isn't a default position. It is necessary to actively give this honor to her, to show her consideration and respect, and this doesn't mean to vacate your role and let her play your part. As a man, there are often times when using your God-given physical strength is required. Such as in stern confrontation towards a threat to your family. At those times, a firm hand is the correct application. However, God has given the same man the ability to tenderly handle a fragile piece of art or some other valuable, delicate object. This is how husbands are to treat their wives. Assigning such high value as one would to something delicate and valuable.

There should be no hint of inferiority in this concept. As such, I am not particularly fond of the way The Message paraphrases this passage: "Be good husbands to your wives. Honor them, delight in them. As women they lack some of your advantages." I can understand what the author was trying to say in the way he phrased that, but I feel he lends to an interpretation that supports an inferior view of wives to their husbands. That's just my personal opinion on that.

This "showing honor" is rarely seen outside Christian marriage, and often not with in it. It really requires a man to humble himself, to step down off of the pedestal on which society places "manly men". Assigning our wives this honor requires us to acknowledge that God made her for us for a reason. There are personality traits, gifts, skills, abilities given to her to complement those of her husband.

I do not recall the author, but it has stuck with me since I read some time ago, a description of how husband and wife complement each other in the home. The husband is the "thermostat". He sets the spiritual temperature in the home. But the wife is the "thermometer". If he is not paying attention to what she is telling him, the environment in that home is going to get very uncomfortable very soon. The point is that one cannot function properly without the other.

If the husband passively allows the wife to usurp his role, or fill both roles, the imbalance will cause both to quickly grow unhappy with the marriage. Of course, this doesn't even begin to describe the effects this will have on his and her individual spiritual growth, which is what the rest of verse 7 is talking about (and possibly a topic for another post).

Liberty (not a Bible study...)

2011-12-01T18:17:00.000-05:00

Proposal: Limiting your personal freedom of choice preserves your liberties

Henry Ford remarked about the Model T, "Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black." I've always chuckled about that. It reminds me of the dinner policy my mother had when I was growing up, "Sure you can have a choice for dinner... you can eat what I cooked or you don't have to eat."

I think we need to define "liberty" before we go on. Merriam-Webster defines it as such:

the quality or state of being free:
a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e : the power of choice

I believe it's fair to say your liberty is defined by, and perhaps limited to, choices that do not infringe on the personal liberties of another. Is that fair? Sure, "pure freedom" suggest absolutely no limits, but is that grounded in reality? Where do you find such conditions? Whatever situation one finds themselves, there are limitations of some kind.

Check this out:

Neither in law nor equity can there be personal liberty to any man which shall be bondage and ruin to his fellow-men. John B. Finch, the great constitutional amendment advocate, was wont to settle this point by a single illustration. He said, “I stand alone upon a platform. I am a tall man with long arms which I may use at my pleasure. I may even double my fist and gesticulate [gesture] at my own sweet will. But if another shall step upon the platform, and in the exercise of my personal liberty I bring my fist against his face, I very soon find that my personal liberty ends where that man’s nose begins.” [Source]

This isn't a deep point, but a liberal viewpoint is actually founded on liberty. Yet, perhaps from necessity, the liberal viewpoint springs forth from a position of restraining personal liberties. Consider the relatively recent (2006) ban on trans-fats in New York City. One citizen remarked, "Often people don't make wise food choices even when given the option. So we have to make choices for them. It's a positive move." Our country has a rich history of such "positive moves", such as restrictions on the trafficking and use of certain drugs (cocaine, opiates, marijuana, etc). This trend continues today in the popular "tobacco-free zones" enacted by many municipalities across the country.

Anyone ever heard of the slippery slope? I think it was greased with trans-fats. But seriously, where do you draw the line? I believe something needs to be cleared up regarding our "rights". The constitution of this country protects your right to have opinions. You can have opinions on anything and everything. Where your opinions hit a brick wall is when you try to force them on me.

Which brings me to the topic of the day: Right-to-work laws.

I've been looking into this ever since some members of our State Legislature made absolute fools of themselves in 2011 by running away from their jobs because they didn't like the rules.

I totally understand though... there were so many times that, as a child, I refused to play games with my older cousins because they wouldn't let me win. There were more of them, they were bigger than me, and I was a sore loser. So, I'd go tell my mommy or someone else and whine incessantly until they told (forced) my cousins to let me play. See? I do understand.

I wanted to better understand what this "right-to-work" stuff is all about. Therefore, I've educated myself on both sides. I have read up on the Wagner Act of 1935, the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, and the Landrum-Griffin Act of 1959. I read many articles from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation's website, and I did the same at the AFL-CIO's website. I looked into newspaper articles, periodicals, and journals that addressed many concerns on both sides of the issue.

Here is the gist, as I have come to understand it:

The Wagner Act effectively made labor unions federally "sponsored" entities. This means that unions have the backing of the Federal government should they need to compel an employer to associate with them, but they must have the support of the majority of the employees.

There is another valid debate here of whether the U.S. Government should have ever created such special circumstances for unions.

Right-to-Work (RTW) laws are enacted at the State government level; they prohibit labor unions and employers from coercing union dues and/or membership as a condition of employment.

In layman's terms, it means you cannot be forced to be part of a union, or pay dues to said union, should you desire to work at a particular place of employment where that union exists.
RTW laws do not mean that you are entitled to a job, nor do they provide a means for you to sue for loss of a job.

Both sides have convincing arguments:

Pro-RTW: such legislation is the only means left to the states in an attempt to restore free-market conditions (i.e. choice)
Anti-RTW: such legislation would mean lower wages and looser safety regulation.

I am not anti-union. I believe that the theory is sound (obviously there was a valid reason for their inception), though I would suggest that the practice of unionizing has often - not always - been unsatisfactory. The human element just allows for abuse and corruption on both sides, be it the employer or the collective employees. What remains is trying to find the balance - something between the extremes of a slave work force and anarchy in the shop.

Which bring us back to the point at the beginning of this post: how can we allow the unions to swing their fists without them hitting my nose? Suppose that I should decide, for whichever reason, that I do not want to associate with the union. Am I to have the decision made for me, as a restraint on my liberty, in the name of "what's good for me"? I guess it ultimately comes down to trust. Neither the Hatfield's, nor the McCoy's can be expected to trust the other after so many decades of feuding. Then where do we find peace? I would venture to say that it has to start with the individual. And choice.

Without forgetting the wrongs and atrocities of the past, but instead choosing to leave them there - in the past - then, can we at least agree that "the American way" is not letting the majority decide "the right choice" for the individual?

Mark 3:13 - Sovereignty

2011-11-28T11:30:00.000-05:00

13 And he went up on the mountain and called to him those whom he desired, and they came to him. (Mark 3:13)

---------------------------------------------------------

One verse. Yes, one verse, but there's a lot in this one verse.

"And he went up on the mountain"

You ever notice that a lot happens on mountains in the Bible? Some commentators point out that there's a popular component to this suggesting important, "close-to-God" moments happen on mountains; because one is closer to Him there. Or something like that. I don't buy into that necessarily. I mean, I know that I haven't actually been to Israel myself, but it's my understanding that mountains are fairly prevalent there. Maybe getting away from the oppressive crowds (even away from people that are seeking to kill you) naturally leads you to go up on a mountain? Or more likely it has to do with what Luke tells us in a parallel account of this (Luke 6:12), that He spent the night praying about what was to happen next. He most likely sought a place of seclusion for this purpose.

"and called to him those whom he desired"

I'm not sure if what I have is a healthy or unhealthy skepticism of "experts" or "specialists". I have a great deal of respect for their years of effort and work that do tend to come with most academic or technical fields of study. It's just that I think that an unquestioning belief can be the mark of a fool (Prov. 14:15). Of course, I don't necessarily believe that I'm going to rival the level of expertise in any such area, but I do like to educate myself to a certain degree in just about anything in which I could possibly exert any kind of authority or influence over someone else.

All of that to say that I know that I have a great deal to learn yet about New Testament Greek, but I do think it is prudent to dig into it in as much as God grants me grace when studying His Word. I want to understand what the author meant when he chose that word to express that thought/concept. For instance, how was that same word/phrase used by other authors, both with in Scripture and with out?

and (καὶ) calls on (προσκαλεῖται) whom (οὓς) he wants (ἤθελεν αὐτός)

I spent a good deal of time trying to understand how προσκαλεῖται is used in the Bible. I have a greater appreciation for those that can grasp the nuances of the Greek language, the tenses and voices, the grammar on a whole... it's not nearly as easy as one might think at first glance. I have a greater thirst now for learning it in more detail.

First, it seems perhaps obvious to others, but this verse doesn't say that the "called" were just the twelve. Surely, the twelve were appointed from within these, but nothing in this suggests that only the twelve were called to come up on the mountain. We assume it was just them, but as of right now, I am unable to find anything to support that assumption. Second, Mark is making it quite clear that Jesus chose those whom He desired. Those that were called did not choose in themselves to go, but they were chosen (John 15:16).

Aside: How much does it play into all of this that they were even there to be called? I mean, presumably they were still following Jesus for one reason or another... they hadn't rejected what He was teaching and returned home, right? I think it should be said that it is so easy to make an implicit deduction in these kinds of passages that really plays on a part of our sin nature to take credit for our "coming to Christ". The reason I say it's an implicit deduction is because Scripture is explicit about our inability to effect any part of our conversion, that it is entirely of God, in other places (Jonah 2:9; Ephesians 2:8; Philippians 1:29). We all too often want to form the context of the situation into a part of the narrative, providing us with a sub-plot that at the very least supports a cooperative effort in the work of converting a cold, dead heart into a living, feeling heart. We will fight tooth and nail to crack open the possibility that we contributed something - contrary to everything God's Word tells us.

Note, Jesus didn't advertise "an altar call", He didn't take a vote, and He did not make it a contest whereby the fittest (oh, let's say, the first up the mountain) might earn "a spot on the team". This would negate grace, if any part of it was dependent on performance.

A well-known theologian has posited the following question:

"Why did I choose to believe the gospel and commit my life to Christ when my neighbor, who heard the same gospel, chose to reject it?"

I challenge you to meditate on that question for some time.

I wonder if any of the disciples that were not called up on the mountain later asked themselves a similar question. If so, it might have been much easier to answer them at the time: "because He didn't call you to come up there on that mountain". What about the 12 that were called? Did they think they were called because of something they had accomplished, or said, or thought? Later, when Jesus told them, "You did not choose Me but I chose you", do you suppose they thought, "well, yeah, but I had to choose to follow... I could have said 'no'"?

Is this too far off from contemporary evangelical thinking? If asked the above question about why they chose to believe the gospel, but their neighbor rejected Christ, your average Christian would probably answer that they decided to follow, or that they made the right choice - logically suggesting that the someone that had rejected Him made the wrong choice. Really? Then congratulations are due you. In some small way, this would lead one to expect that someday God should applaud their decision, their right choice... and then, in regard to their salvation, it isn't ALL of the glory to Christ... just MOST OF IT! Some small part of it is mine... I mean, I could have said, "no". That is the logical end of that position.

This is a generally difficult concept to fully accept. It is SO contrary to what we're taught. Especially here in America, in the land of the free, where everyone has their rights, and no one is compelled to do anything against their own will. Right?

I mean, just to get a little on the silly side, I have to admit that I only obey the law of gravity because I want to... because it's just easier this way. I could choose to ignore it at any time. And don't even get me started on linear time, I only obey it because it would be hard to maintain steady relationships otherwise, but if I wanted to I could choose to live in a timeless dimension. If I wanted to... I just don't want to right now. Silly, right?

These are concepts that we accept as being ubiquitous, unavoidable, universal constants. We do not argue with them, we exist and respond within their constraints. Admittedly, on a purely conceptual level, our freedom is limited by them, but while we may have literature and art that fantasizes outside of these constraints, we must live every moment of our real lives firmly within their grasp. Why then is this concept, that the Good and Sovereign Lord of all Creation has created all men within certain constraints, so hard to grasp? There is so much freedom (and responsibility) within these bounds, and we're perfectly fine with it until someone phrases it in a way that seems to limit our perception of free will.

Whoa! I'm really getting off on a tangent here, aren't I? Suffice it to say that Jesus sovereignly called them out from the larger group of followers and they obeyed His call.

"and they came to him."

and (καὶ) they went forth (ἀπῆλθον) to (πρὸς) him (αὐτόν)

It doesn't say they formed a committee to discuss the pros and cons of going. There isn't even mention that one paused to think about it. They just "went forth to him". Their Lord summoned, and they came.

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. (John 6:37-39)

Theologians have given it a name: irresistible grace. John Piper explains it here:

“This is what we mean when we use terms like sovereign grace or irresistible grace. We mean that the Holy Spirit is God’s Spirit, and therefore he is omnipotent and sovereign. And therefore, he is irresistible and infallibly effective in his regenerating work. Which doesn’t mean that we don’t resist him. We do. The Bible is plain about that (Acts 7:51). What the sovereignty of grace and the sovereignty of the Spirit mean is that when God chooses, he can overcome the rebellion and resistance of our wills. He can make Christ look so compelling that our resistance is broken and we freely come to him and receive him and believe him.”

At this point one can start arguments about the extremes of doctrines taken and twisted by people seeking to justify their own sin and desires. On one hand you get those that confuse the doctrines of grace with license to sin ("if it is all predetermined, then why do I need to worry about it?") and to the other side of tearing it down into logical fallacies about every part must be just like the whole. The point being that when we lose sight of what it is that Scripture says, and start trying to overlay a human perspective to these deeper issues, it is easy to get off track. It's not by accident either - the enemy loves nothing more than to confuse and distract believers with these kinds of things.

This post is being published on Thanksgiving day of 2011. Therefore, I'd like to suggest that instead of focusing at this time on why exactly the disciples responded as they did, that we instead just meditate on that very grace and love of the Father that called us and allowed us to respond to Him. This should humble us and also draw us ever closer to Him. If I really grasp what it means to have been chosen in Him before the foundation of the world then it is really difficult to escape the conclusion that the Creator and Sustainer of the universe must have plans for me. Just as Jesus has plans for these 12 men, so too does He have plans for me and you.

Give THANKS this day and every day for this amazing truth!!

proskaleomai - summoned

2011-11-21T20:36:00.001-05:00

Mark 3:13 - προσκαλεῖται

Matthew 10:1 - προσκαλεσάμενος

Mark 6:7 - προσκαλεῖται

proskaleomai (pros-kal-eh'-om-ahee) : To call on, or to; to address. [NASB translates as "summoned"]

Gen 28:1

"Then Isaac called Jacob and blessed him and directed him, "You must not take a wife from the Canaanite women."

Ex 3:18

And they will listen to your voice, and you and the elders of Israel shall go to the king of Egypt and say to him, 'The LORD, the God of the Hebrews, has met with us; and now, please let us go a three days' journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the LORD our God.'

Ex 5:3

Then they said, "The God of the Hebrews has met with us. Please let us go a three days' journey into the wilderness that we may sacrifice to the LORD our God, lest he fall upon us with pestilence or with the sword."

1Sa 26:14

And David called to the army, and to Abner the son of Ner, saying, "Will you not answer, Abner?" Then Abner answered, "Who are you who calls to the king?"

Est 4:5

Then Esther called for Hathach, one of the king's eunuchs, who had been appointed to attend her, and ordered him to go to Mordecai to learn what this was and why it was.

Est 8:1

On that day King Ahasuerus gave to Queen Esther the house of Haman, the enemy of the Jews. And Mordecai came before the king, for Esther had told what he was to her.

Ps 50:4

He [God] calls to the heavens above and to the earth, that he may judge his people:

Pr 9:15

[Folly] calling to those who pass by, who are going straight on their way,

Jl 2:32

And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the LORD has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the LORD calls.

Am 5:8

He who made the Pleiades and Orion, and turns deep darkness into the morning and darkens the day into night, who calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out on the surface of the earth, the LORD is his name;

Am 9:6

who builds his upper chambers in the heavens and founds his vault upon the earth; who calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out upon the surface of the earth-- the LORD is his name.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mt 10:1
And he called (προσκαλεσάμενος) to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every affliction.

Mt 15:10
And he called (προσκαλεσάμενος) the people to him and said to them, "Hear and understand:

Mat 15:32
Then Jesus called (προσκαλεσάμενος) his disciples to him and said, "I have compassion on the crowd because they have been with me now three days and have nothing to eat. And I am unwilling to send them away hungry, lest they faint on the way."

Mt 18:2 - [(proskalesamenos). Indirect middle voice aorist participle]
And calling (προσκαλεσάμενος) to him a child, he put him in the midst of them

Mt 18:32
Then his master summoned (προσκαλεσάμενος) him and said to him, 'You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me.

Mt 20:25 - [(proskalesamenos autous). Indirect middle again, calling to him]
But Jesus called (προσκαλεσάμενος) them to him and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them.

Mk 3:13 - [(proskaleitai), historical middle present indicative]
And he went up on the mountain and called (προσκαλεῖται) to him those whom he desired, and they came to him.

Mk 3:23
And he called (προσκαλεσάμενος) them to him and said to them in parables, "How can Satan cast out Satan?

Mk 6:7
And he called (προσκαλεῖται) the twelve and began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits.

Mk 7:14 - [(proskalesamenos) Aorist middle participle, calling to himself]
And he called (προσκαλεσάμενος) the people to him again and said to them, "Hear me, all of you, and understand:

Mk 8:1
In those days, when again a great crowd had gathered, and they had nothing to eat, he called (προσκαλεσάμενος) his disciples to him and said to them,

Mk 8:34 - [proskalesamenos]
And calling (προσκαλεσάμενος) the crowd to him with his disciples, he said to them, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

Mk 10:42
And Jesus called (προσκαλεσάμενος) them to him and said to them, "You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them.

Mk 12:43 - [(proskalesamenos). Indirect middle voice]
And he called (προσκαλεσάμενος) his disciples to him and said to them, "Truly, I say to you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the offering box.

Mk 15:44
Pilate was surprised to hear that he should have already died. And summoning (προσκαλεσάμενος) the centurion, he asked him whether he was already dead.

Lk 7:19 - [(proskalesamenos). First aorist middle (indirect) participle]
calling (προσκαλεσάμενος) two of his disciples to him, sent them to the Lord, saying, "Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?"

Lk 15:26
And he called (προσκαλεσάμενος) one of the servants and asked what these things meant.

Lk 16:5
So, summoning (προσκαλεσάμενος) his master's debtors one by one, he said to the first, 'How much do you owe my master?'

Lk 18:16 - [(prosekalesato). Indirect middle aorist indicative]

But Jesus called (προσεκαλεσάμενος) them to him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God.

Act 2:39 - [an proskalesētai). First aorist middle subjunctive with an in an indefinite relative clause, a perfectly regular construction]
For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls (προσκαλέσηται) to himself."

Act 5:40
and when they had called (προσκαλεσάμενοι) in the apostles, they beat them and charged them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.

Act 6:2
And the twelve summoned (προσκαλεσάμενοι) the full number of the disciples and said, "It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables.

Act 13:2
While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called (προσκέκλημαι) them."

Act 13:7
He was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, a man of intelligence, who summoned (προσκαλεσάμενος) Barnabas and Saul and sought to hear the word of God.

Act 16:10
And when Paul had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go on into Macedonia, concluding that God had called (προσκέκληται) us to preach the gospel to them.

Act 20:1
After the uproar ceased, Paul sent for (προσκαλεσάμενος) the disciples, and after encouraging them, he said farewell and departed for Macedonia.

Act 23:17 - [(proskalesamenos). First aorist participle indirect middle, calling to himself.]
Paul called (προσκαλεσάμενος) one of the centurions and said, "Take this young man to the tribune, for he has something to tell him."

Act 23:18
So he took him and brought him to the tribune and said, "Paul the prisoner called me and asked me to bring this young man to you, as he has something to say to you."

Act 23:23
Then he called two of the centurions and said, "Get ready two hundred soldiers, with seventy horsemen and two hundred spearmen to go as far as Caesarea at the third hour of the night.

Js 5:14
Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.

Mark 3:7-12

2011-11-05T16:42:00.002-04:00

Jesus withdrew with his disciples to the sea, and a great crowd followed, from Galilee and Judea

and Jerusalem and Idumea and from beyond the Jordan and from around Tyre and Sidon. When the great crowd heard all that he was doing, they came to him.

And he told his disciples to have a boat ready for him because of the crowd, lest they crush him,

for he had healed many, so that all who had diseases pressed around him to touch him.

And whenever the unclean spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried out, "You are the Son of God."

And he strictly ordered them not to make him known. (Mark 3:7-12)

A few things pique my interest here:

Where are all of these places at relative to where Jesus is in this passage?
Jesus hasn't named the 12 disciples yet, so who exactly is Mark talking about here?
Why does Jesus keep telling the "unclean spirits" to keep quiet?
How is the situation with the pressing crowd a lesson to the church today?

From what locations are the people coming?

Until now, those coming to hear Jesus, who is in Capernaum (Mark 2:1), were from a relatively local geographic area, presumably in and near to Capernaum (Galilee), maybe with the exception of some of the scribes and Pharisees who probably came up from Jerusalem. Now we see that people from beyond that local area are traveling to Him, but it seems only to receive the physical healing of which they had undoubtedly heard.

They're following from Galilee, and coming in from Judea, Jerusalem, Idumea, beyond the Jordan, and from Tyre and Sidon. The map here shows that basically all of Palestine is aware of Jesus and what He's doing. Mark obviously puts this in here to show that His ministry has grown beyond a local phenomenon to a far-reaching one.

It's also not a coincidence that Jesus and his disciples are "withdrawing"... people are plotting to kill Him! For His protection, they just need to get away. It makes sense for his disciples protection too; common sense would say that if they want to kill Jesus, they will probably not just let His closest followers go unharmed. Not to mention that Jesus knows that it's not time for Him to be arrested and killed.

Who are His disciples?

So, now who are these that Mark calls "His disciples"? In just the next few verses (vv. 16-19), Jesus names the 12 that He will call His Apostles. However, the way this is written suggests that the 12 are called out from a greater number of disciples; otherwise, if it was just the 12 all along, why would Jesus need to call "to Him those whom He desired"? The word in the Greek, μαθητῶν, is from μαθητής, which can be read "learner" or "pupil". I don't get the feeling that these are the ones there just for the healing and "the show". Just because someone was attending where Jesus was speaking didn't make them a disciple. For instance, the scribes and Pharisees were often present but not in the category of "pupils". Apparently, there is a rather steady attendance of people intent on learning from Jesus, that could most probably refer to themselves as a student of the Teacher, for the time being anyway.

What's with the unclean spirits?

I looked at the "unclean spirits" in a previous posting. In that instance, He simply told the demon to "be quiet". However, I didn't really look at why exactly Jesus is commanding the demons to remain silent... this time we understand that it's specifically about His identity.

And he strictly ordered them not to make him known. (v.12)

Why is Jesus ordering them to not make known His identity? I'm drawing a connection to a scene we read about in Acts 16.

As we were going to the place of prayer, we were met by a slave girl who had a spirit of divination and brought her owners much gain by fortune-telling.
She followed Paul and us, crying out, "These men are servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to you the way of salvation."
And this she kept doing for many days. Paul, having become greatly annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, "I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her." And it came out that very hour. (Acts 16:16-18)

It would seem that Paul did not wish for the people of that city, who were quite familiar with the girl and her services, to associate them together. Just as the demons were correct in identifying Jesus as the Son of God, this girl was speaking the truth. But why, if it's the truth, does he command silence?

Matthew Henry comments, "Satan, though the father of lies, will declare the most important truths, when he can thereby serve his purposes. But much mischief is done to the real servants of Christ, by unholy and false preachers of the gospel, who are confounded with them by careless observers."

Jesus tells us that Satan does not work against himself (Matthew 12:25-28; Mark 3:23-26). Satan's kingdom would not stand if he was working against his own interests. So there must be a benefit to him for the demons to be making these remarks identifying Jesus as the Son of God. But what is it? Perhaps I'm thinking about it too much, and it's just a reflex in a moment of terror (James 2:19). No, I think it's not just me. There's something about not wanting the demons connected to the gospel, to what Jesus is doing. "Consider the source" is a comment people make when they hear a bit of news. The reputation of the source does bear on the authenticity of the message - that's just the way it is. I have to think there's some of that in what we read in verse 12.

Application

First, and briefly, applying verse 12 to today: there are SO many false teachers today. For instance, many of the "preachers" one can watch on TV... not trying to paint with a broad brush here, but there's a lot of ear tickling happening on TBN. People may defend it by saying that something of the gospel can be picked up there, but "consider the source" is still applicable. Jesus didn't ask people to wade through the muck to find the truth. If I told you that there's a toilet in my house that serves pure, ice cold, lemonade - it's no longer connected to the city sewage line - would you drink from it? Right. You would consider the source.

Second, the situation with the "pressing crowd" from verses 9 & 10. What lesson(s) are there for the church today? We can understand that Jesus did not want the physical benefits (healing here, casting out demons there, later we see spontaneous generation of food) to become the apparent core of His ministry. In that day of practically zero medical care, the healing that He gave to people was (and is to this day) absolutely miraculous. It's not hard to understand why people would travel great distances to get in on it. (Sadly, we still see crowds of people today seeking the same thing in "empty cisterns".)

Yet, Jesus still was gracious enough to give the people the healing they sought. Why? We've already read that He could read the thoughts of men, so He had to know that they had little interest in what He was teaching, or in worshiping Him. Yeah, yeah... then why? I really think it's just because He is Who He is. He loves them. He loves us.

But don't miss, however, that Jesus took the necessary precautions. He knew what the people were really coming for, and He prepared for it. He did see the inherent danger, the logistical complications, the potential for someone to get hurt - so He planned for it and still graciously healed the sick, and cast out the demons. He found the balance. As the Sovereign Lord of all creation, there is an endless list of things we could imagine Him doing to manage this situation, but instead we see Him using good ol' common sense, using His brain, rolling up His sleeves, and serving those people.

What does this mean for the local church? I think it means that we have to find the balance. Some of us like to run as far away from that line - that line that we have to walk between proclaiming the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the temptation to fall into a "social gospel"... meeting the physical needs (yes, those are important) but neglecting the greater spiritual needs. Like so many things, there are ditches on either side into which we can easily fall. Either we hide behind a theological textbook, hoping it's enough to shield us from having to get our hands dirty, or we run to the other extreme and burn the creeds and doctrinal literature as fuel on the fire to wipe financial poverty and physical hunger from the face of the globe, failing to satiate the far greater spiritual poverty at the same time.

We have to ask ourselves... are we taking our cues from Our Lord? Are we protecting ourselves from what can become a crushing crowd of demand for physical needs? Some may criticize that it's selfish to take such a calloused approach, arguing that sacrificing some security for a fellow man in need is "Christ-like", but we see that Christ didn't let Himself get trampled for the sake of some physical needs. He knew what He was really here for, and it wasn't to be crushed by a horde of people seeking to touch Him.

Balance. I think that's one application I find in this passage.

Mark 3:1-6

2011-11-01T09:52:00.000-04:00

Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there with a withered hand.

And they watched Jesus, to see whether he would heal him on the Sabbath, so that they might accuse him.

And he said to the man with the withered hand, "Come here."

And he said to them, "Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?" But they were silent.

And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, and said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was restored.

The Pharisees went out and immediately held counsel with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him. (Mark 3:1-6 ESV)

Continuing from the end of Chapter 2, we read here at the beginning of the third, that the Pharisees are still offended about the apparent disregard for their man-made rules regarding the Sabbath. However, this time it isn't by Jesus' disciples that they're offended, it's Jesus, Himself.

Since I've explored the ideas surrounding the basis of the Pharisaical accusations against Our Lord and His disciples, and His response about His being the Lord of the Sabbath, this time I want to focus on Jesus' anger in verse 5, and then in verse 6 - how the Pharisees reacted.

---------------------------------------------

Analyzing the context, the text shows that Jesus called this man to Him. (Could this be an allusion to 'election'?) This man didn't approach Jesus, pleading for healing, instead the man is chosen by Our Lord. Jesus is creating the context for conflict. I find that interesting. There is nothing here to necessarily suggest that He contrived the circumstances, but He isn't avoiding them either. Of course, His motives are pure - He wants to heal this man, and there is no violation of God's law in healing on the Sabbath, though that will be the accusation. The Sabbath was created for man... a blessing from God. Healing is a blessing - there is no incongruity here. But, let's go back to the fact that He knows His actions will result in conflict, and yet He doesn't avoid it. He is confident in the righteousness of His actions, His motives are pure and He is seeking that God would be glorified. He is not belittling or passive-aggressive toward the Pharisees. He simply pauses to ask, "Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?" Of course, there is only one right answer here (and doing nothing is doing harm). Their silence betrays their heart. They are not interested in whether their Sabbath activities are doing good or doing harm, their only motives are selfish: self-righteousness and self-aggrandizement.

Jesus was angry

"And he looked around at them with anger..."

There's a popular teaching today that allowing the actions of another to anger you is allowing them to control you. I guess this is supposed to be an appeal to our desire to be in control, attempting to give us a motive to not be angry. Is that what is happening here? Is Jesus allowing the Pharisees to control Him? Is that the cause of His anger? Is "allowing them to control you" even a biblical understanding of anger?

A quick overview of anger. There are different kinds, and the Greek language expresses these in three words: thumos, orge, and parorgismos.

Thumos is an sudden, explosive outburst; a wild, mindless rage - think of a boiling volcanic eruption.
Orge is longer lasting than thumos; it is a deliberate, measured, intense reaction directed toward perceived evil.
Parorgismos is a bitterness to the root of your heart; a pent-up festering anger that feeds hostility in all that we do.

Ephesians 4:26-27 tells us, "Be angry (orge - οργίζεσθε) and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger (parorgismos - παροργισμω), and give no opportunity to the devil."

James 1:19-20 tells us, "let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger (orge - οργήν); for the anger (orge - οργη) of man does not produce the righteousness of God."

Scripture does not advocate a stoic approach to emotions. We are not to ignore or suppress the feelings we have, but we are to maintain control of them, expressing them in moderation and in the right context and motive. One of the characteristics of God is His wrath, and being made in His image, we are also capable of wrath. However, sin having corrupted and twisted that image means we usually misuse and abuse that which was meant for good. As the grace of God sanctifies believers, it becomes necessary not only that we can express anger, but that we must express anger toward that which defies God's will and seeks to destroy us and others - namely, sin.

John Gill, in his Exposition of the New Testament says, "a man may be said to be angry and not sin, when his anger arises from a true zeal for God and religion; when it is kindled not against persons, but sins; when a man is displeased with his own sins, and with the sins of others: with vice and immorality of every kind; with idolatry and idolatrous worship, and with all false doctrine".

There is a general condemnation of all kinds of anger today - in secular culture and in the "church". It is regarded as the recourse of the uncivilized and immature, with the preferred course of action being "love and understanding". To be sure, uncontrolled and violent anger is to be condemned and avoided, but there are instances where a righteous man must be angry. The abuse and exploitation of others should kindle anger. Righteous anger should fuel controlled confrontation in these instances. God is angry with sin. He does not "love and understand" it. God will confront unrepentant sinners on Judgement Day. We should be confronting sin every day. We should be in conflict with sin every day. And that confrontation needs to start with our own heart - just as Jesus directed His anger at the sin in their hearts.

And He was grieved

"...grieved at their hardness of heart"

It should be obvious that Jesus' anger is directed at their sin, at their hard hearts that were not interested in the well-being of another man, but protecting their own rules and religion. It is important to see that He was also grieved at their sin. He was grieved that they were unable to see by His words and actions that He is the Son of God. Even today, He is grieved when He sees the lack of conflict in our hearts over sin.

How to destroy Him

"The Pharisees went out and immediately held counsel with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him."

Like these Pharisees, we can become comfortable and "understanding" of the sin in our own hearts, and seek to assuage our guilt by seeking our own righteousness, following rules and performing religious rituals, defending ourselves by the traditions in which we were raised. If fact, in that natural, un-redeemed state, we can become so bent on earning our righteousness, on paying back our own debt, that we have only one option when confronted by Jesus, confronted by His grace: to react like the Pharisees did. In short, we seek to get rid of Him.

That seems extreme, right? But it's not so different from what happens still today. The popular culture is still seeking "how to destroy him". The world system tells us that the God's Word is archaic and closed-minded, and those that believe it are old-fashioned, out of touch, and chauvinistic. We are taught to embrace other religions and cultural beliefs, and in doing so we will be open-minded and loving. In contrast, claiming anything to be objectively right or wrong is "judgmental and bigoted". Instead, our culture calls that which God calls evil - good, and that which God calls good - evil.

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! (Isaiah 5:20)

You see, I am encouraged by this world to "find myself", define my own truth, create my own definition of good/evil through a self-made, relativistic worldview, ultimately becoming so entangled in a hodgepodge of inconsistent, twisted, pagan beliefs that I couldn't forsake them if I wanted to without forsaking my very identity.

It's not so unlike the culture in which Jesus lived in 1st century Israel. Jewish culture had assimilated so much from the pagan peoples around them, along with so many extra-biblical religious rules, that it was a very intricate and complicated system of beliefs. And those that identified themselves to the very core of that culture would not/could not abandon it easily, even when God was living among them and showing them "the Way, the Truth, and the Life".

Abandoning our elaborately built monuments to ourselves is a monstrous hit to our pride. Knowing Jesus and that He is God really is humbling. It really does mean losing your life to follow Him. This is where so many, inside and outside the church, stumble: moving past adorning their idol with a Jesus ornament, to tearing down the idol and putting Christ in its place.

Before submitting my life to Him, I have to admit that I was like these Pharisees, especially like the one spoken of in Luke 18:11-12.

The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.'

No, I didn't fast twice a week nor give tithes of all that I earned. But I was very proud of myself and my morality. I thought I was a pretty good kid. I hadn't robbed anyone or killed anyone. I went to church most weekends. I associated myself with other 'good people'. And if you had asked me whether I'd go to heaven when I died and why, I would have said, "Yes" and offered some answer about being a generally good person and that I'd asked Jesus into my heart as a 9-year-old. That sounds pretty good, right? It's pretty much what that Pharisee was saying (except for the "ask Jesus into my heart" stuff, for obvious reasons) - he'd done everything that he was told to do as a child and had grown up to be a relatively moral citizen, observing all of the religious duties with a healthy dose of "pat-myself-on-the-back-for-being-a-good-boy". Yep, that was me. And if you pressed me, I would tell you I didn't quite believe that the thief on the cross was going to end up in the same place I was going to end up.

Which bring us back to Jesus looking at them with anger, grieved at the hardening of their hearts. I have no doubt that Jesus looked at my heart all those years and was angered at the hardness of it, but also grieved that I kept turning Him away so that I didn't have to humble myself, and admit that I couldn't do any of it myself, not even a little bit.

Is Jesus looking at my heart with anger and grieving over unrepentant sin? Is there still a part of me to be seen in those Pharisees? Those men that would sooner seek to destroy God than give up their familiar, socially acceptable way of life that was actually killing them?

Let us examine our hearts and discover the parts that grieve our Lord and Savior, and repent of them quickly though painful as it may be.

Mark 2:23-28

2011-10-18T18:05:00.002-04:00

One Sabbath he was going through the grainfields, and as they made their way, his disciples began to pluck heads of grain.

And the Pharisees were saying to him, "Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?"

And he said to them, "Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God, in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?"

And he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath."

(Mark 2:23-28)

First, what are the Pharisees talking about? Moses said that this is lawful:

"If you go into your neighbor's standing grain, you may pluck the ears with your hand, but you shall not put a sickle to your neighbor's standing grain." (Deuteronomy 23:25)

But why do they say this is unlawful? One can only assume, knowing how the Pharisees had a knack for applying the hardest interpretation to the law, that they considered this to be work, and therefore unlawful on the Sabbath:

"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates." (Exodus 20:8-10)

Well, there you go - don't work on the Sabbath. But is it really work to casually pluck some grain as you go from point A to point B? That same passage in Deuteronomy mentions having a couple grapes as you walk through the vineyard, just don't be filling your bag up with grapes for later. I remember as a child going to edge of the corn field near our house and grabbing a few ears for dinner that night. It wasn't Indiana sweetcorn by any stretch, and we were harvesting bushels. We didn't have a lot in the way of money, so grabbing a couple ears of corn for dinner was something in our belly. (Don't misunderstand - we weren't starving, but pickin's were sometimes slim when it came time to prepare a meal. Ask me about apples and onions sometime.)

There is a passage in Proverbs that I read recently that reminds me of this:

Two things I ask of you; deny them not to me before I die:
Remove far from me falsehood and lying;
give me neither poverty nor riches;
feed me with the food that is needful for me,
lest I be full and deny you and say, "Who is the LORD?" or
lest I be poor and steal and profane the name of my God.
(Proverbs 30:7-9)

How many times have you heard mentioned in conversation about ethics/morals the scenario of the mother stealing bread to feed her starving children? This situation of the disciples plucking some grain isn't necessarily the same thing, but the principle remains the same. God is not so concerned with semantics or "the letter of the law" as much as He is with the welfare and meeting the needs of His children. It is this very thing that Jesus makes reference to when He speaks of David, in need and hungry, eating the bread of the Presence.

Here in Leviticus 24, we read about the Bread of the Presence:

"You shall take fine flour and bake twelve loaves from it; two tenths of an ephah shall be in each loaf. And you shall set them in two piles, six in a pile, on the table of pure gold before the LORD. And you shall put pure frankincense on each pile, that it may go with the bread as a memorial portion as a food offering to the LORD. Every Sabbath day Aaron shall arrange it before the LORD regularly; it is from the people of Israel as a covenant forever. And it shall be for Aaron and his sons, and they shall eat it in a holy place, since it is for him a most holy portion out of the LORD's food offerings, a perpetual due." (Leviticus 24:5-9)

Then, in 1 Samuel 21, David and his companions eat of this bread because they were hungry. There it is: they were hungry. There was no malicious intent, no thought of David's to take the bread from the temple as a joke or because they were too lazy to get bread somewhere else. They were hungry.

This is where Jesus qualifies the whole thing: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath". The Sabbath was not supposed to be a burden. It's a day of rest from the six previous days of work. Yet, the religious traditions and legalism of the Pharisees had made the Sabbath possibly more cumbersome than the rest of the week.

Man has quite a talent of doing this to so many things. For example, taxes. Look at the tax code in the United States. It is so overwhelming that one often needs a specialized tax lawyer or accountant to make certain that no violation has been made by accident. It's really reflective of the human heart. We know that we must contribute to the collective. It's just a reality of living in community with other people. However, all too often we want something for nothing. We quickly affirm that the load is lightened when the many contribute. Yet, we want to be excepted. When the municipal government comes calling for our due, we want loopholes and deductions and credits. Rather than fork over what we know we owe, we would rather wade through an ocean of red tape, moaning and groaning over every penny, like the little child that keeps a tight grip on that toy when their parents have just told them, "Share that with your brother".

You can imagine the same thing happening over the centuries in Israel. People coming to the priests asking them just exactly where the line was between "Do not covet" and "Healthy ambition", or just what exactly do you mean by "do not work on the Sabbath"? We want details, specifics, the line clearly demarcating right from wrong. Rather than flee evil, we want to court it while staying on the "good" side of the line. Ask the leaders of your local church's teens group... how many times do they hear questions about, "is holding hands alright?" or "is it OK to kiss on a date?" or "where is the line between making out and going all the way?" The heart betrays itself.

Eventually, you end up with a 2000 page book with rules for every conceivable situation. Contrast that with Mark 12:30-31:

And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'
The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."

This is what Jesus means when He says that His yoke is light. The yoke that religious tradition lays on people is heavy.

I find that God's timing is impeccable (as always) in regard that I'd be studying this passage during this time of year. Over the next couple weeks, it will prove difficult to ignore all of the references to Halloween. There are few holidays more overtly challenging to the Christian's testimony, while also providing opportunity for us to respond to others in a Christ-like manner to the "in your face" issues that are unavoidable with Halloween.

The responses to Halloween, just within my church, nearly cover the spectrum. I know there are those that participate in activities from trick-or-treating to going to costume parties. There are those that will turn off the lights and retreat inside, pretending that nothing is different that night versus another. Then there are those that will espouse "Reformation Day" as being the true holiday on October 31. I'm not going to go into what my family does here, but I'm not going to go off on anyone else either.

The application to Mark 2:23-28 is this: Where is your heart? Where is MY heart? The Pharisees looked on at the disciples plucking some grain and judged them as having broken a law. A man-made law to be sure, but they had elevated it to the same level (or maybe higher) than God's Law. Was their interpretation of the Sabbath law wrong? Maybe. Maybe not. What was wrong was their putting it on everyone else. If their conscience bore witness that they felt it a sin to pick grain on the Sabbath, then for them it was a sin. But to put that on their fellow man... is also a sin.

Some of the churches in my community offer Halloween alternatives. They have cookouts and games for the kids and hay rides. Some have "trunk-or-treats" where members of the church give the children candy and toys in the parking lot... presumably out of the trunk of the car. If I choose to take my family to such an event, there is nothing wrong with that. But I do have to ask, where is my heart? Am I doing that so that I can look down on other families that dress up in costume and go door to door getting candy? Am I doing that because I'm afraid of what others might think of me? That cuts both ways, you know? Often the "fear of man" card is thrown out there when a Christian is afraid to do something because non-Christians might think poorly of him. But sometimes, that same Christian may be doing something because he's more concerned about what the other people in his church will think of him.

Maybe he has fun dressing his kids up in their favorite cartoon character outfits and driving around to family and friends houses, letting the kids get some candy, and getting to see some relatives/friends that he doesn't get to see too often. But he and his wife are buddies with other families at church... and they're not doing "trick or treat"... they're going to the bonfire.

So... where is your heart? Where is my heart? Am I seeking to please God? Or man?

This Halloween, when we are presented with this litmus test of our faith/heart, will we be thinking about 1 Timothy 1:15 and Matthew 7:3-5?

"The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost." (1 Timothy 1:15)

"Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." (Matthew 7:3-5)

Mark 2:18-22

2011-10-04T14:26:00.000-04:00

Now John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. And people came and said to him, "Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?"

And Jesus said to them, "Can the wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast.

The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day.

No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. If he does, the patch tears away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made.

And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins—and the wine is destroyed, and so are the skins. But new wine is for fresh wineskins." (Mark 2:18-22 ESV)

Context, context, context. Good hermeneutics always considers context.

In this passage, our context is amongst people expressing concern about Jesus' association with sinners and tax collectors - an unconscionable act in their eyes. Now they're starting to ask more questions, this time regarding not His associations, but His followers apparent lack of religiosity. It seems that the Pharisees observed twice-weekly fasts. Vincent's Word Studies says, "The Pharisees fasted every Monday and Thursday during the weeks between the Passover and Pentecost, and again between the Feast of Tabernacles and that of the Dedication of the Temple."

"I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get." (Luke 18:12)

I find this interesting since the Old Testament had only one commanded fast, which was found in Leviticus for the Day of Atonement.

"And it shall be a statute to you forever that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall afflict yourselves and shall do no work, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you. (Lev. 16:29 ESV)

The meaning of fasting is critical to our context.

"Yet even now," declares the LORD, "return to me with all your heart, with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning; and rend your hearts and not your garments." Return to the LORD your God, for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love; and he relents over disaster. (Joel 2:12-13 ESV)

History reveals that Jewish tradition eventually incorporated ever more fasts, and it's reasonable to assume that this was done to encourage the heart to feel what it should prior to fasting, such as what we read in the above passage from Joel ("rend your heart and not your garment"), or even as memorials to past events, such as the Captivity or other similar events in the history of Israel. Whatever the reason, the theme running through those presupposes an internal, spiritual state of repentance and humility before God.

Is it unreasonable to think that well-meaning Levitical priests throughout the generations "encouraged" fasting hoping that they would became closer to God because of it? I think this is not an uncommon approach that many people employ today for many other reasons. For example, how many counselors encourage one spouse to perform acts of love for their partner, with the intention of coaxing that spouse to feel "love" by acting it out? There are other examples I'm sure where well-meaning advice is intended to demonstrate that an external act can be the "seed" for an internal feeling or meaning.

But we see in this passage in Mark that fasting on a regular basis had grown beyond mere suggestion to that of expectation, and then had become practically a law that must be followed if one intended to pass muster in a religiously minded society.

So here we find these religious people asking Jesus about the difference between His followers and those of John and the Pharisees. I've always stumbled over what Jesus says in response. I was confused because I didn't have context.

The Old Testament uses marriage to illustrate the relationship between God and Israel. It's within that context that we understand the idolatry (spiritual adultery) committed by Israel against God.

"For your Maker is your husband, the LORD of hosts is his name; and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer, the God of the whole earth he is called." (Isaiah 54:5)

"...not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD." (Jeremiah 31:32)

The religious authorities of Jesus' day should have understood the implications of Jesus referring to himself as the Bridegroom. Such a reference was Him obviously claiming to be the God of Israel.

Even John the Baptist references this when people asked why others were going to follow Jesus now, leaving him:

"You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, 'I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before him.' The one who has the bride is the bridegroom. The friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom's voice. Therefore this joy of mine is now complete. He must increase, but I must decrease." (John 2:28-30)

Jesus is referring to Himself as the Bridegroom here because his arrival on earth, living among men, is as the Bridegroom being present at the wedding. It is not a time of mourning or somber remembrance, but a time of celebration and joy. Perhaps it was understandable that the disciples of John the Baptist were fasting because John was in prison. But the followers of Jesus could not be fasting while Jesus was with them. Yet, Jesus does make an indirect reference to His death in verse 20 when He says the "bridegroom is taken away from them". He says that they will fast in that day.

I do not believe that this means that the Christian life is to be one of mourning and self-affliction. On the contrary, there is much joy and celebration in the heart of one that has been saved from their sin and eternity in hell. It just means that there will be occasion for fasting, but that time is not when Jesus is walking among them.

-------------------------------

The next two verses have always ranked up there in the list of passages that I totally did NOT get, but hoped to one day understand. This isn't to say that I have come to fully understand all of the nuances in these verses, but I can say that it's so much clearer now after having studied this passage extensively, that I can share in this blog what I believe my Lord means here.

"No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. If he does, the patch tears away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made." (Mark 2:21)

I had a woolen sweater once. It was a cream color with navy blue decoration of snow flakes, I believe - clearly a winter garment. I know that it was very warm, and I only wore it once or twice per year. Anyway, it was to be hand washed only and then laid out to dry. But being a man, I didn't read the care label and threw it in the washer with everything else. Then into the dryer. Needless to say, I no longer have that sweater. It was WAY too small after it's adventure through the laundry.

There is a whole lot to explain why wool and other natural fibers shrink when not cleaned properly, but suffice it to say that in Jesus day, they weren't wearing polyester or other man-made fibers. They were also quite familiar with shrinking clothes and repairing old clothes with patches. It was also common sense that you didn't take a new piece of cloth, cut it up into patches, and use it to repair old clothes. The old clothes had already shrunk down in size through repeated cleanings and wear. If you patched a hole in the old garment with a piece of unshrunk cloth, the next time the garment was washed, the patch would shrink and pull away from the garment.

Okay, that's probably all pretty obvious, right? But how does that analogy relate to what Jesus is talking about here? The old garment was the old Mosaic system of religion. It had become rigid and inflexible with all of the legalistic practices that had been added to it over the centuries. To try to incorporate the life, joy, and vitality that the Kingdom of God was bringing into that old system would have been impossible. Jesus already told them that He came to save sinners (the sick), not the religious (those that thought themselves without need of saving). Then He tells them that His followers are not in need of mourning and fasting, but He is bringing joy and celebration to them. Now, He's telling them that He's not here to play 'fix-er-up' with their religious system - He's bringing Truth and Life... replacing the old, dead system of works and oppressive law-keeping.

"And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins—and the wine is destroyed, and so are the skins. But new wine is for fresh wineskins." (Mark 2:22)

He continues this theme by drawing on another analogy with which they would have also been familiar. Since fresh water was not a largely available commodity of the day, wine was a staple at the table. The fermentation process imbued an alcoholic content to the drink, killing most any harmful bacteria or contaminants. Whether they knew why this fermentation process created gases and that gases expand is irrelevant. They knew, however, that making wine would burst its container if it wasn't able to stretch accordingly. So they used relatively fresh animal skins that had enough elasticity to accommodate the wine and its gases. Once the skins had been used and had dried out, they could not be used again for making wine. If they were, the skins would burst and you'd ruin the skins and lose the wine.

The concept is similar enough to the first lesson: the old and the new were not compatible. Jesus was not here to pour new life into the old system - it would have destroyed the new "wine" if it tried to accommodate the restrictions of the old "skin". There's also a parallel to be made here between discarding the old garment/skin and putting on the new garment/skin. One cannot "put on the Lord Jesus Christ" while trying to maintain the old life (Colossians 3; Ephesians 4). Also, one cannot fix up "holes" in the old life with "patches" of Jesus. Christianity is not an addition to your life - it's a NEW life (2 Corinthians 5:17)

Finally, the people that Jesus were talking to were most likely there because they saw something that they wanted. They were not blind to the fact that Jesus was amassing quite a following, and they were intrigued. Perhaps they thought they might be able to incorporate something of His teachings to spruce up their own religion. It is an attractive idea to keep the familiar and the safe, but to adorn it with new attractive ideas. The cult of the new is a very old religion. Even today it attracts and traps people by the millions. Ideas come into vogue for a while, but then once they're common, they lose their luster. So new variations of old ideas are introduced, made up to look new and shiny, attracting new crowds. Then people adopt those new ideas that fit into our existing ideologies, creating conglomerations of disparate and unrelated philosophies or beliefs until none of it is recognizable.

We're beginning to see the results of generations of this practice today. Every movement of religious tolerance, inclusiveness of all beliefs, and acceptance of anyone's and everyone's ideas of gods as valid, is the competing world system that is not compatible with Christianity. I know people that buy into Karma, astrology, paranormal phenomenon, and New Age philosophies all while calling themselves Christian… with a straight face!

Jesus Christ said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6). [emphasis mine]

Acts 4:12 says, "And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." [emphasis mine]

Are you trying to pour new wine into the old skin? Are you trying to patch up your calico garment of beliefs with some Jesus?

And he said to all, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it. For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself? (Luke 9:23-25)

Throw away the old life and put on Jesus Christ. He isn't a lucky talisman – He's the One and Only Living God, the Creator of all things, the Savior of world. We don't need anything else but Him!

Approval

2011-09-27T11:10:00.001-04:00

This is a repost from Competent Counseling.

We have an approval drive

All people have a desire to be approved or accepted by another person. This is how we were wired. Part of being made in the image of God means we were built for community, built for others.

God the ultimate, eternal community of Father, Son, and Spirit has always enjoyed a reciprocal, mutually benefiting relationship with each other.

It makes sense that when he created man, a desire for community was a natural part of man's make-up. Prior to man's fall in the garden of Eden, this was a good thing. Man loved God and enjoyed a reciprocal relationship with God.

Then Man Fell Down

But man sinned in the Garden and things have not been right since. While man's desire for community has not changed, the way he approaches community has changed radically. His fall in the Garden had consequences and one of those dark consequences was the realization that he was broken inside.

Intuitively man knows this brokenness has something to do with a relationship that he needs. But he typically does not see that the relationship he needs is a restored relationship with God. He needs God's forgiveness and acceptance, which can only come through a relationship with Christ. His built-in desire for approval is completely satisfied in Christ alone. Sadly, in his twisted thinking, he makes two major mistakes:

1. He seeks fulfillment in human relationships rather than a relationship with God

2. He seeks human relationships which primarily serve him

As a sinner, man became a user or taker rather than a giver. Like a drug addict, the relationship is only as good as what he can get out of it.

I need something from you. What do you have to offer? If I like what you have to offer, I will be your friend. When I am tired of what you are offering, I will go to the next relationship.

Apart from being affected by the Gospel, sinner man builds most of his relationships this way. Unless the Gospel becomes the primary motivator to man's thinking, man will end his life with a string of broken and/or fractured relationships. Only the Gospel can give us a right perspective on community and how to build properly with each other inside that community.

Reflective Questions

1. Do you need people? (Whatever it is that you need, will control you.)

2. Are you controlled by people? ...by their opinion of you? ...by their rejection of you? ...by their praise of you?

3. Does the Gospel motivate how you build with others? Do you build relationally with others because of your desire to emulate Christ: he came to serve, rather than to be served? (Mark 10:45)

4. Have you experienced the benefits of selfless giving? What are some of these benefits that you have experienced in your life?

5. Whose approval matters the most to you? ...God? ...or others?

Mark 2:13-17

2011-08-30T20:27:00.000-04:00

13 And He went out again by the seashore; and all the people were coming to Him, and He was teaching them.

14 As He passed by, He saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting in the tax booth, and He said to him, “Follow Me!” And he got up and followed Him.

15 And it happened that He was reclining at the table in his house, and many tax collectors and sinners were dining with Jesus and His disciples; for there were many of them, and they were following Him. 16 When the scribes of the Pharisees saw that He was eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they said to His disciples, “Why is He eating and drinking with tax collectors and sinners?” 17 And hearing this, Jesus *said to them, “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (NASB)

*   *   *   *   *   *   *

In verse 13, the Greek verbs are in an imperfect tense, which describes a past, continuous action. The verbs translated into English as "were coming" and "was teaching" are actually ἤρχετο and ἐδίδασκεν, respectively. The imperfect tense of these verbs really lends a great deal to the mental picture we should have when understanding this verse. Being a child of the movies and television, I hear the narrator voice-over here. That deep male voice saying, "and all the people [kept] coming to Him, and He [kept] teaching them." This is not just one incident; it happened over and over. In the movies, we'd probably see several clips edited together, giving the viewer the sense that many incidents were being witnessed over a great deal of time.

In verse 14, we have two sentences summing up the calling of Levi [Matthew] to follow Jesus. Two things that I am drawn to right away in this: (1) Matthew was a tax collector, and (2) he simply got up and started following Jesus.

The first: From what I've studied so far about 1st century Jewish culture (just through my studies of the New Testament - I'm not out gathering an overly detailed education in Jewish culture), I can understand that this "tax collector" goes far beyond our association to the IRS agent. In this modern day, while we may not want to get that personal call from the IRS, we do not shun and spit on government employees in public (at least not I'm aware of, there may be exceptions). Yet, in 1st century Israel, they would have regarded tax collectors as practically worse than a traitor and thief. These publicans, as the word is translated from the Greek (τελωνων), were Jewish citizens employed by the occupying Roman government to collect taxes and tolls from the people. Not only did they despise being taxed as much then as we do now, there was the manner of attitude in which the tax or toll was gathered. It was not an uncommon practice then to collect more than what the law required, as a means of providing for their own "salary". It wasn't just enough to cover their cost of living either, most tax collectors were also identified in a crowd by their lavish clothes and opulent lifestyle. They were, in effect, fleecing their own people, and doing it all for the enemy, while lining their own pockets. For Jesus to call a tax collector to become a disciple, well, it was probably not a popular decision with Simon, Andrew, James, and John.

Second: Matthew just got up and started following. He left behind his career, his life, and started following Jesus. Why? What's happening here? There's got to be more to this story. The Gospel of Luke give us a little more. "And leaving everything (καταλιπων), he rose and followed him." (Luke 5:28)   καταλιπων means "to leave, forsake, abandon". He didn't just "follow" when he wasn't doing anything else. Levi (Matthew) didn't just "friend" Jesus on Facebook; just add him as something else to his life. He gave it all up to follow Him. What would this even look like today? When I was converted, when I knew that I wanted to follow Jesus, would I describe that decision as "having forsaken all that I knew, I followed Him"? Would you?

Let's continue on to the next three verses.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *

Verse 15 opens with "And as he reclined at table in his house..." Whose house? Luke 5:29 tells us that it is Levi's house.

    And Levi made him a great feast in his house, and there was a large company of tax collectors and others reclining at table with them. (Luke 5:29)

It seems that Matthew is throwing a party. He's been called by Jesus, freed from his life as a tax collector. Perhaps this is not too dissimilar from the lunches/parties to which we invite our friends and family in celebration of important events in our life. I'm picturing that it was not too common for a great teacher to ask a tax collector into his intimate group of followers. Matthew had surely heard of Jesus, and probably was quite familiar with His teachings and His miraculous healing powers. To be called by Him would be a very big deal!

Now, I find this bit remarkable: "... and there was a large company of tax collectors and other reclining at the table with them". He invited a large number of his friends and associates. Think about that for a minute. Matthew's "crowd" was not the type to have concerned themselves with religious things. Remember, Jewish society placed them in the same category with thieves and murderers. This was not the crowd that would just automatically say, "Congratulations! That's great that you're giving up your career, your life and all that you own, and following a great religious teacher!" They must have thought he was out of his mind. Yet, Matthew has them all over for a feast. His "old crowd" and his "new crowd", at the same party.

How many of us today, when we came to a saving faith in Christ Jesus, called all of our friends and family, and invited to them to a big party with a bunch of fellow believers from our local church? Instead, how many of us have the attitude that the scribes had? Basically, their response was, "Why are you associating with the scum of society?"

In my spiritual infancy, I remember struggling with 1 Corinthians 15:33, "Do not be deceived: Bad company ruins good morals." It was tempting to remove myself entirely from any thing or person that did not appear to be submitted to Christ as Lord. I was unable to discern the difference between what it means to be a light in the darkness and living in the darkness. No one would suggest that because Jesus associated and ate with "sinners and tax collectors" that He lived like them. But I was still learning, and can now see that it is one of the ditches that many people fall into when sincerely trying to live as Jesus calls them. In effect we are hiding our light under a basket. The other ditch would be to live as if Jesus did not give us a commandment. It would be to live in the darkness, living as to not be distinguished from it. Again, it just comes back to keeping Christ as our example. He was not stained by sin, yet He lived amongst it.

It is in verse 17 that Jesus addresses this, and more.

    “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

It makes sense, right? The analogy is like having the cure for cancer, but never being around anyone with cancer. What would be the point? But what would be even more tragic would be having the cure, and moving into the oncology department of the local hospital, and all of the patients adamantly exclaiming that they are not sick and do not need a cure. Jesus left His throne, came down to Earth to live amongst us, and we refused to acknowledge our decrepit state. Jesus came to call the sick (sinners). He did not come to those that already thought themselves healthy (righteous). And therein is the tragedy... they thought more of themselves than they should have. We all do.

God's Word tell us:

God looks down from heaven on the children of man to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God.
They have all fallen away; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one. (Psalm 53:2)

Mark 2:8-12 (part 2)

2011-06-22T23:55:00.000-04:00

8 And immediately Jesus recognizing in his spirit, that so they reasoned within themselves, he said to them, Why do you reason these things in your hearts?
9 What is easier to say to the paralytic? [3have been forgiven 4you 1The 2sins]; or to say, Arise, and lift your litter, and walk!
10 But that you should know that [5authority 4has 1the 2son 3of man] to forgive [2upon 3the 4earth 1sins], he says to the paralytic,
11 To you I say, Arise, and lift your litter, and go unto your house!
12 And he arose immediately, and having lifted the litter, he went forth before all; so that all were amazed, and glorified God, saying that, At no time we beheld thus.

(Mark 2:8-12 ABP)

8 And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, “Why do you question these things in your hearts?
9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise, take up your bed and walk’?
10 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he said to the paralytic—
11 “I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home.”
12 And he rose and immediately picked up his bed and went out before them all, so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, “We never saw anything like this!”

(Mark 2:8-12 ESV)

I left the last post saying that I'd look further into what Jesus means when He refers to Himself as, Son of Man.

Before I start, I'd like to make mention of just how blessed we are in this day, and in this country, to have the resources available to us for study. The study bibles and electronic resources that I most use when preparing for these blog posts have by and large been obtained at little to no cost to me. The resources available on the internet are also such a gift; to be able to search, read, and cite gifted teachers of God's Word on just about every verse and topic imaginable... it truly is something that we need to take notice of and give thanks for to God!

Now, I could spend the next month posting each day and probably not exhaust the material on "The Son of Man" and all of the connotations therein. So, I'm going to put it simply, for the purposes of this passage and for this blog.

I find that there are two camps, or rather, possible explanations. One camp says that "Son of Man" is clearly a reference to Messianic claims. The other camp says it's a designation of humility, referring to His humanity.

Somewhere in my study, I just opened a digital bible and queried the phrase "son of man". It shows up in a handful of places in the Psalms, then in Jeremiah, a couple in Isaiah, and twice in Daniel. By far, in the Old Testament, the greatest number of references are in Ezekiel. It's in there 93 times. And each time... it means "man", specifically, the prophet, Ezekiel. In those two references in Daniel, it's speaking in an "end times" context of the Messiah. There it is. Undeniably and overwhelmingly, scripture gives us the picture that this title is of a man; admittedly, a man used of God, a man subject to and servant to the Almighty, yet nonetheless, a man.

Which leaves us to ask, then why does Jesus refer to Himself as such more than 80 times in the New Testament? Good question. It does seem to suggest many meanings... there are clear eschatological allusions - i.e. His return to Earth on the clouds, accompanied by His angels.

Matthew 26:64 - Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Matthew 25:31 - "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne."

Also, Jesus uses it the same way that we read in the Old Testament, suggesting the most humble conditions in which He lived, and the lifestyle by which He called His disciples to live.

Matthew 8:20 - And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head."

Mark 10:45 - For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.

Now, this is the easy, simplistic explanation. Like I said previously, there is so much that we have not covered on this subject. I know that many scholars and theologians have tackled this and written books on it. However, I believe this distills it down to the bare essentials. Since you're reading this, and have made it down this far, I'd encourage you to look up each reference and study the context and meaning that you can deduce from Jesus' usage at that moment.

Beeep!... R-i-i-i-i-ing.... buzzzzzz.... waaaaah!.... -> misc. incessant background noise>

2011-05-14T20:37:00.000-04:00

It is hard for me to believe that I haven't posted to this blog since January. While I can try to understand in hindsight the reasons for the delay, just the mere passage of time in relation to that last post seems bizarre.

As I reflect on the fact that I have not taken the time to post, I am beginning to realize the impact on every other part of my life. Life is busy, is it not? But what about it is taking up the time?

This blog might be seen as merely a placeholder to represent the amount of time I am dedicating to studying and meditating on God's Word. That's correct, you are most likely coming to the correct conclusion. Yes, it is becoming more clear with each passing day where I have prioritized spending time with my Lord and my God.

Backing up a few steps... I am the father of two now. We have an 18-month old little boy and a 2-month old little boy. So, yes, they do require a considerable amount of my "home time", but honestly no where near as much as my wife puts in with them. When I get home from work in the evening of each weekday I try to interact with them as much as possible. If I get home @ 6pm, and my oldest goes to bed about 8-8:30, then it's really not that much time. After he's in bed, the littlest one may need attention from one of us for maybe another hour or two. After about 9:30 most evenings, my time is not constrained by parental concerns. Perhaps I may then do some kind of chores-related task on the occasional evening, but in reality I probably collapse into a pile of meat and clothes on the nearest piece of furniture.

There's my problem - at that point of collapse. What do I do with that time? Well, honestly, I've managed to knock out several dozen (and I do mean several) episodes on Netflix of the following: Law & Order: Criminal Intent, Ax Men, and Numbers. Occasionally, I think I even fit in some documentaries and movies. Yep - real mind, spirit, and character building stuff there.

Oh, I really do want to shift the blame for my lack of discipline to the reality of the many digital distractions today. As the title of this post suggests, not a day goes by that there isn't just an incessant mess of noise and distraction from waking up to going to sleep. Even the nature of my job requires that I have that cell-phone plastered to my hip 24/7. [By the way, if you're thinking of going into tech support/customer service - I'd seriously consider the costs.]

I could so easily take the easy way out here and say that all of the important things that are distracting me from the Ultimately Important things are to blame, and how can I fight the (sometime legitimate but usually and mostly inconsequential) drag of these things on my time and attention? Mowing the lawn needs to be done. Giving the boys a bath needs to be done. Tending the garden kinda needs to be done. Driving 45-minutes each way to work absolutely needs to be done. There are just so many things, to which any young (am I just flattering myself there?) husband/father can attest, that cannot be ignored. But I'm just kidding myself if I say that all of my "free" time is spent in these. There is quite an abundance that is spent either in front of a TV or at the computer.

Jesus was busy while He was here. Yet, He always kept His priorities straight. He did what He came to do, and He glorified His Father while doing it. But He also found time to be alone. When He was alone, He wasn't watching TV, taking a nap, playing games, or fishing - at least as far as I can determine. When He was alone, He was spending time with His Father... in prayer. [Matthew 14:23; Mark 6:46; Luke 6:12; John 6:15]

It just goes to show where my priorities are being placed. While my Lord commands me to follow Him [Matthew 10:38; Matthew 16:24; John 10:27; John 12:26], I instead follow my own desires and my own heart. He says that following Him means denying oneself.

And he said to all, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.
For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it.
For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself?
(Luke 9:23-25)

Now, there it is. The difference between my knowing about this command and knowing this command: applying it to my life each day. Something I have been so bad at putting into practice.

In case there is another husband/father reading this, and you're going through the same struggle between professing your faith and living it, let me just close this post with a few thoughts that I plan to also keep in mind.

1. Do not use "my time with God" as an excuse to slack in my marriage, or my duties around the house.

But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
(1 Timothy 5:8)

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her
(Ephesians 5:25)

A commentary on Eph. 5:25 says, this: "Thus, husbands are to love their wives in a self-sacrificial manner, following the example of Christ, who “gave himself up for” the church in loving self-sacrifice. Clearly the biblical picture of a husband laying down his life for his wife is directly opposed to any kind of male tyranny or oppression. The husband is bound by love to ensure that his wife finds their marriage a source of rich fulfillment and joyful service to the Lord."

2. Remembering that just because something is a "good thing" doesn't mean it's the "best thing".

And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ
(Philippians 1:9-10)

Something that I've learned in the past few years: just because something isn't a sin, it doesn't mean that pursuing it is the best course of action. As an example, I love to camp. I love to go camping in the woods and just enjoy the quiet times, and relax. I do not believe there is anything inherently sinful about camping. However, pursuing "camping as a style of life" would probably not be the best use of my God-given gifts and abilities. Deciding here and now to shun all of the distracting digital and modern conveniences, even with the supposed intent of spending endless hours in prayer and devotion to God, could most likely be analogous to taking my light out of the darkness (Matthew 5:14-16) and putting it on my nightstand so that I can better read - let everyone else find their own light.

God gave me an amazing wife and two beautiful little boys. He also commands that I put Him first. Part of putting Him first is honoring the gifts He's given to me, the many blessings that I have done nothing to deserve, but have received entirely through His mercy and grace. This means being a husband and father that gives Him glory, while living in a world and amidst a culture that denies His existence. Retreating defeated to a monastery so that I can quench my own guilt for not devoting my whole life (including my free time) to Him is not God-honoring or glorifying to Him.

It's time I "man up" and start being the kind of man that God has called me to be. That includes, but is not limited to, ceasing to make excuses for my lack of discipline and redeeming the time to His glory.

Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not become partners with them; for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord. Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret. But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible, for anything that becomes visible is light. Therefore it says,

    “Awake, O sleeper,
        and arise from the dead,
    and Christ will shine on you.”

Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.
(Ephesians 5:1-17 ESV)

Mark 2:8-12 (part 1)

2011-01-28T22:27:00.000-05:00

(Mark 2:8-12 ABP)

(Mark 2:8-12 ESV)

Three things catch my eye in this passage:

Jesus perceived their thoughts "in His spirit"
Forgiving of sins vs. physical healing
Jesus refers to Himself as "Son of Man"

Jesus perceived their thoughts "in His spirit"

First off, I tried to determine when this happened in the the time-line of the four combined Gospels, and true to Mark's recounting, this is early in Jesus' ministry. There has not been ongoing dialogue/banter with the Pharisees and scribes (though we do know that they are well aware of His ministry - see John 4:1) that would lend itself to Jesus just knowing by pattern of behavior that they're already criticizing His every word and deed.

Therefore, this has to be a divine act, the ability to read thoughts (even an instance of Jesus demonstrating omniscience). Yet, is there any precedent to suggest that God can read thoughts? Or that the Messiah would be able to do so?

I believe that the 11th chapter of Isaiah speaks to this in describing the Messiah:

1 There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse,
and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit.
2 And the Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him,
the Spirit of wisdom and understanding,
the Spirit of counsel and might,
the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD.
3 And his delight shall be in the fear of the LORD.
He shall not judge by what his eyes see,
or decide disputes by what his ears hear,
4 but with righteousness he shall judge the poor,
and decide with equity for the meek of the earth;
and he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth,
and with the breath of his lips he shall kill the wicked.

(Isaiah 11:1-4 ESV)

Also, all of scripture firmly ascribes this attribute to God:

1 Chronicles 28:9 - "for the LORD searches all hearts and understands every plan and thought."
1 Samuel 16:7 - "For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart."
Jeremiah 17:10 - “I the LORD search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds.”
Romans 8:27 - "And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God."
Revelation 2:23 - "And all the churches will know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you according to your works."

Daniel even tells us that only God has this ability in the 2nd chapter, verses 27 & 28:

Daniel answered before the king and said, "As for the mystery about which the king has inquired, neither wise men, conjurers, magicians nor diviners are able to declare it to the king.

"However, there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries, and He has made known to King Nebuchadnezzar what will take place in the latter days This was your dream and the visions in your mind while on your bed.

Forgiving of sins vs. physical healing
Two things here: the obvious, and then the slightly less obvious (at least for me). First off, it seems obvious that it's easier to say, "your sins are forgiven", versus effecting an instant healing, right? This is not a concept that is foreign to anyone. Which is easier, to say I'm going to climb a mountain, or to actually perform the feat? Forgiving one's sins has no apparent physical effect - nothing we can see. However, instantly healing a paralytic is undeniable. It must also be noted that in this healing, as with all of them that Jesus performs, it is not a "schedule of treatment" - the change is immediate and complete. This is significant because when the believer is

Secondly, I do not believe that it is a stretch at all to see the forgiveness of sins that Jesus refers to here as that which was ultimately accomplished and finished at the cross. This suggests that while it seems that Jesus is proving His power to forgive sins here, by accomplishing what seems more difficult to us (the physical healing), in fact, demonstrated that the most difficult act was His sacrifice on the cross. In the same respect that the New Testament refers to the saints as already glorified (Romans 8:30), insomuch that the sovereign effectual call by God to salvation is so sure that glorification of the believer is as good as done.

Jesus refers to Himself as "Son of Man"

This one has always tripped me up. As a child, I was confused as to how Jesus claims that He is God's Son (John 10), but yet He refers to Himself so often as the Son of Man. Now, a little more mature, both temporally and spiritually, I can understand that this is Jesus making reference to a Messianic passage in the Old Testament, specifically Daniel 7:13-14. Ryrie says that He refers to Himself in this way more than 80 times (Grudem pin-points it at 84) in the four gospels. Each time it is only Christ saying it, and only in reference to Himself. But this doesn't wrap everything up in a nice, neat package for me.

I can appreciate that every contemporary of Jesus' would take notice to the reference to the "son of man" - especially that He was referring to Himself. If you read Ezekiel, every time God speaks to the prophet, He calls him "son of man" - almost a hundred times or something. So, I can read, and many commentaries point out that this is merely a title to delineate the creature from the Creator, denoting humility and a servile nature. But then Daniel has a vision and he notes "one like a son of man":

    ¹³ "I kept looking in the night visions,
         And behold, with the clouds of heaven
         One like a Son of Man was coming,
         And He came up to the Ancient of Days
         And was presented before Him.
    ¹⁴ "And to Him was given dominion,
         Glory and a kingdom,
         That all the peoples, nations and men of every language
         Might serve Him
         His dominion is an everlasting dominion
         Which will not pass away;
         And His kingdom is one
         Which will not be destroyed.

There is so much that I want to look into here. I'm going to do a "part two" for this post and in that second post I'll dig deeper into the "Son of Man" title and try to touch on the main points in there.

Philippians 1:20-21

2010-12-18T13:29:00.001-05:00

C - commands (to obey)

P - promises (to claim)

W - warnings (to heed)

T - truths (about God)

These four things were taught to me by our church when my wife and I took a class called "Body Builders". They relate to how we read God's Word, what we should look for in each passage.

So, when I read Philippians 1:20-21 recently, I applied these four things to the verses.

"... my earnest expectation and hope, that I will not be put to shame in anything, but that with all boldness, Christ will even now, as always, be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain."
(Philippians 1:20-21 NASB)

Commands:

Do not be ashamed of Christ. Exalt/honor Christ with/in my body.

Promises:

If I obey these commands, I will not be put to shame before God.

Warnings:

If I do NOT obey, I will be shamed before God.

Truths:

To die and go before the face of God is GAIN!

I love my study bible(s). One of them points out Matthew 10:32 in relation to the shame that Paul speaks of here.

"Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven."

(Matthew 10:32-33 NASB)

Paul even references this later in one of his letters to his son in the faith, Timothy:

"If we endure, we will also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us"
(2 Timothy 2:12 NASB)

So the promise/warning here is that if we are ashamed of Christ, He will 'return the favor' when we stand before God one day.

Now, the part that really fired me up and had me studying (the Word), and reading (commentaries), and listening (to sermons/podcasts) is verse 21:

"For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain."

In a sermon I read on this passage, the pastor says,

"There aren't even any verbs in the Greek: living Christ, dying gain. I live only to serve Him, only to commune with Him, only to love Him. I have no concept of life other than that.

Now follow this thought: He is saying I am totally wrapped up in Christ, loving Him, knowing Him, preaching Him, serving Him. Christ is the 'raison d'etre', the reason for my being, the reason for my existence. He doesn't mean Christ is the source of his life, though He is. He doesn't mean Christ lives in him, though He does. He doesn't mean Christ controls him, though He does. He doesn't mean that Christ wants him to submit to Him, though He does.

He simply means living is Christ. Life is summed up as Christ. I'm filled with Christ. I am occupied with Christ. I trust Christ, love Christ, hope in Christ, obey Christ, preach Christ, follow Christ, fellowship with Christ, Christ is the center circumference of my life, it's all Christ. Christ and Christ alone is my inspiration, my direction, my meaning, my purpose...consumed, dominated by Christ."

That helped me to wrap my head around the first part of that verse, but the second is somewhat harder to swallow. I guess the thing that makes that a little harder to understand is when I think of all of the wonderful blessings with which God has graced my life. Specifically, I'm thinking of my wife and sons. Which, of course, brings to mind Luke 14:26:

"If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple."
(Luke 14:26 NASB)

Wow! Not the first time I'm reading that or anything, but WOW! In light of my marriage and how much I treasure my wife; in light of holding my son when he was just born and watching him grow this last year... still, My Lord and Savior is reminding me that as much as I love that little boy, He (Christ) has to mean much more! But the word "hate" here is tripping me up a little... ok, a lot. Gotta go to the Greek.

The word is μισει (miseō) which is derived from the word μῖσος (misos).

As far as I can tell, the word really does mean 'hate'. However, I also need to take into consideration the context in which we find this word.

Looking at Matthew 10:37 where Jesus says pretty much the same thing, "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me."

The Greek there is ῾Ο φιλῶν πατέρα ἢ μητέρα ὑπὲρ ἐμὲ and comes out to literally say that "one that has affection for father or mother above me". That helps... I get the impression that it isn't hate necessarily that's being advocated, but a picture of contrast is being drawn between where I place my affections.

This gets us back to verse 21 in Philippians 1, and "to die is gain". Gain. To die, leaving this fallen world, even with its temporal joys, and to enter into intimate, unhindered fellowship with Christ truly is gain. How joyous that will be!

Now, perhaps there is a question or concern back in your mind about this. Paul is telling us that while he's living on this earth, his life will be driven and focused only by Christ and preaching His Gospel. I think it is right to say that by doing so he ultimately is pursuing his greatest joy. Paul knows that when he dies he will be in the presence of the Lord (1 Corinthians 5:6-8), and that hope brings him joy.

To pursue our greatest joy is what God commands of us, and our greatest joy is found in Him. And in this passage of his letter to the church in Philippi, Paul lays out in one sentence the dynamic balance between seeking to be obedient to God and pursuing joy. They are not exclusive - instead, they are inexorably bound.

Of course, since that moment in Eden when man chose to seek his own joy apart from God, sin has offered up myriad options of lesser joy. They do not seem to be lesser joys,
what would be so tempting about sin if it didn't present itself as the joy that we seek.

"Do you not know this from of old, since man was placed on earth, that the exulting of the wicked is short, and the joy of the godless but for a moment?"
(Job 20:4-5 ESV)

Someone has put it like this: the world offers 95% joy, but why settle for that when we can have 100% joy in Jesus Christ?!?! The obvious point Job is making is that joy of the godly is everlasting - forever.

We read in Psalm 16:11, "You make known to me the path of life; in your presence there is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore." And fullness of joy is exactly what Jesus wants for us. Also we see in the following passages the coorelation between obedience and joy.

Truly, truly, I say to you, you will weep and lament, but the world will rejoice. You will be sorrowful, but your sorrow will turn into joy.

When a woman is giving birth, she has sorrow because her hour has come, but when she has delivered the baby, she no longer remembers the anguish, for joy that a human being has been born into the world.

So also you have sorrow now, but I will see you again, and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take your joy from you.

In that day you will ask nothing of me. Truly, truly, I say to you, whatever you ask of the Father in my name, he will give it to you.

Until now you have asked nothing in my name. Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full.

(John 16:20-24 ESV - emphasis mine)

As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love.

If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love.

These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full.

"This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.

Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.

You are my friends if you do what I command you.
(John 15:9-14 ESV - emphasis mine)

And we're only going to find true, everlasting joy in Him. That's what this passage says and I believe it's exactly what Paul means when he says it. A life pursuing Christ will be a life filled with eternal joy, and culminating with an eternity of joyous fellowship with the unending Fountain and Source of joy.

Be glad in the LORD, and rejoice, O righteous, and shout for joy, all you upright in heart!
(Psalm 32:11 ESV)

1 Thessalonians 1:7-8

2010-12-11T23:17:00.001-05:00

Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace.

We give thanks to God always for all of you, constantly mentioning you in our prayers, remembering before our God and Father your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ. For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction. You know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake. And you became imitators of us and of the Lord, for you received the word in much affliction, with the joy of the Holy Spirit, so that you became an example to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia.

For not only has the word of the Lord sounded forth from you in Macedonia and Achaia, but your faith in God has gone forth everywhere, so that we need not say anything. For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.

(1 Thessalonians 1:1-10)

-------------------------------------------------

Verse 7

ὥστε γενέσθαι ὑμᾶς τύπους πᾶσι τοῖς πιστεύουσιν ἐν τῇ Μακεδονίᾳ καὶ τῇ ᾿Αχαϊᾳ. (GNT)

so that you became models to all the ones believing in Macedonia and Achaia. (AB)

so that you became an example to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia. (ESV)

v7: continuing from v6, since they (the church in Thessalonica) had become imitators of Paul and those with him, they in turn have become examples for those in Macedonia and Achaia to imitate.

There is an interesting word picture in here. Paul says "that you became an example".

The word "example" is τύπους in the Greek. It has in it the idea of being formed by striking, or by a blow. Our word, "type", from which we get such ideas as "typewriter", "typeface", and "typeset" is derived from the Late Latin word "typus" (figure; form, type, character) which in turn is derived from the Greek word "tupos", τύπος (type; a die (as struck); a stamp or scar; by analogy, a shape; a statue, style or resemblance; specially, a sampler ('type'); a model (for imitation))

Think of an old typewriter, one that still has the arms that raise up to strike the paper. This strike leaves an impression in the paper of the letter carried on that arm. Perhaps it would be fair to say that the church in Thessalonica "left an impression" on "all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia". Wouldn't it be encouraging to hear that our lives were so marked by the characteristics of Jesus Christ that people near and far saw us as examples of godliness and faithfulness?

-------------------------------------------------

Verse 8

ἀφ᾿ ὑμῶν γὰρ ἐξήχηται ὁ λόγος τοῦ Κυρίου οὐ μόνον ἐν τῇ Μακεδονίᾳ καὶ ἐν ᾿Αχαϊᾳ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν παντὶ τόπω ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν ἡ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ἐξελήλυθεν, ὥστε μὴ χρείαν ἡμᾶς ἔχειν λαλεῖν τι (GNT)

[2from 3you 1For 8has resounded 4the 5word 6of the 7Lord], not only in Macedonia but in Achaia. But also in every place the belief of yours, the one towards God, has gone forth, so as [3no 4need 1for us 2to have] to say anything. (AB)

For not only has the word of the Lord sounded forth from you in Macedonia and Achaia, but your faith in God has gone forth everywhere, so that we need not say anything. (ESV)

They proclaimed the Gospel of Jesus Christ ("the word of the Lord"), and this was being carried "everywhere" from Thessalonica. Without going into detail, this city was very important to the Macedonian region in terms of trade. It was on the shore of a gulf, so many people from many different places passed through this city. Undoubtedly, as the new church in Thessalonica was preaching the Good News, people would take word of this back home with them, and/or carry it on with them as they continued their travels.

Mark 2:6-7

2010-11-14T16:14:00.000-05:00

6 Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, 7 “Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (ESV)

6 And some of the scribes were sitting down there, and reasoning in their hearts, 7 "Why does this one thus speak blasphemies? Who is able to forgive sins except one -- God?" (ABP)

---------------------------------------------------

There are several points of interest in these two verses. We'll go bit by bit and look at each thoroughly.

Scribes:

[Gk. γραμματεων - grammateus =`a clerk, scribe, secretary, recorder'] (Thayer and Smith. "Greek Lexicon entry for Grammateus". "The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon". . 1999.)

Luke, in his gospel account, refers to these as "lawyers". The idea being that they were experts in the Old Testament, the authorities on application of the law. A scribe was one who copied the law, and was an authority on interpreting that law. They were a kind of half attorney, half theologian; experts in biblical law, not secular law. John MacArthur give us this helpful definition:

"The scribes were scholars and authorities on the law, who had spent their life studying the Old Testament. In fact, one scribe, Ezra, had even memorized the entire Old Testament so that he could sit down and write it down from Genesis to the very end from memory. Some of the scribes joined the Pharisees because they were literalists and legalistic fundamentalists, who believed in everything the law said. On the other hand, some of them joined the Sadducees because they were liberals, who denied scriptural truths such as resurrection and angels. So, those were the two theological parties--the fundamentalists and the liberals of that day--and both of them had their scribes. But regardless of what party they were in, they were forever challenging Jesus, trying to trap Him in His words. By the way, the scribes later became known as rabbis. However, a rabbi today is not somebody in the Levitical priesthood line, because no one is able any longer to trace their lineage to a particular tribe." [source]

questioning/reasoning:

[Gk. διαλογίζομαι - dialogizomai = 'to reason, revolve in one's mind, deliberate']

One translation says 'reasoning', another says 'questioning'. After some time looking through Greek-English reference books, I think it leans toward 'reasoning' myself. Then I looked up where else a form of this word is used in Mark. Besides this chapter, it is in chapters 8:16-17, 9:33, and 11:31. In chapter 8, the disciples are seen reasoning amongst themselves. In chapter 9, again it refers to when the disciples were reasoning amongst themselves about who was the greatest. Finally, in chapter 11, we see the chief priests and scribes reasoning amongst themselves. In each instance, the context involves a discussion of sorts, either in their hearts & minds or verbally, whereby they are considering more than one point of view or reason.

---------------------------------------------------

So, the picture painted here is the experts on Law witnessing Jesus Christ forgiving a man's sins and then questioning in their hearts & minds whether He has the authority to do this. Our final consideration is verse 7 when they reason, "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" Where are they getting this? Does Scripture support this?

This involves a brief study of sin.

First off, a couple of definitions: 1. Sin is anything (whether in thoughts, actions, or attitudes) that does not express or conform to the holy character of God as expressed in His moral law. 2. Rebellion against God's rule, missing the mark God set for us to aim at, transgressing God's law, offending God's purity by defiling oneself, and incurring guilt before God the Judge.

OK. But what does God's Word say about it? Well, it turns out that there are at least eight words in the Old Testament for sin and a dozen words in the New Testament. In the O.T., the two words used most often to express this concept are chata [חטא] and ra [רע]. Respectively, their meanings are "to miss the mark" and "breaking up or ruin, calamities or evil". Chata carries with it the implication that not only has the mark been missed, but that another has been hit. Hence, focus cannot only be given to the passive missing of the mark, but consideration must be given to the active hitting of the other. Then, ra can indicate not only something that is calamitous but also something that is morally wrong.

There are a handful of other words in the O.T. that mean sin, but let's now look at New Testament words.

The most frequently used word for sin in the N.T. is hamartia [ἁμαρτία] which, just like chata in the O.T., derives its meaning from ἁμαρτάνω = "missing the mark".

The "mark" being the standard set by God in His Law, which is based on His attributes and character. Therefore, when we fail to conform to that standard, be it purposefully choosing to disobey, or merely letting down our guard and falling into it, we effectively thumb our noses at God, expressing our complete lack of reverence and respect for what He has expected of us. Which bring us to the point that all sin, whether committed as an offense toward another human being (such as adultery, murder, theft, etc) is ultimately committed against our Creator; and that offense against God far out-weighs the offense to your neighbor. It doesn't absolve me from asking forgiveness from my neighbor, however, most importantly I must realize the offense I've committed in the presence of The Holy God.

In 2 Samuel 11, we read of the account of adultery committed by David with Bathsheba, and the subsequent murder and lies (cover up). In chapter 12, when Nathan confronts David about his sin, David replies, “I have sinned against the LORD.”

Sin is always and ultimately related to God. While sin has devastating societal, relational, and physical ramifications, the central problem of sin is that it offends and incurs the wrath of God. David demonstrates this understanding in his confession of adultery and murder: “Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment” (Psalm 51:4). This is not to minimize his sin against Bathsheba, her husband Uriah, or the people of Israel, but rather to recognize that, relatively speaking, it is God he has ultimately offended, and it is to God alone that he must finally answer. Sin is a personal attack on the character and ordinances of God. (ESV Study Bible, Crossway Bibles, 2008)

All of this to bring us to the point: who has the authority to forgive sins?

I, I am he who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins. (Isaiah 43:25)

And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” (Jeremiah 31:34)

The short answer: God alone forgives sin.

Greek Lexicon pictures: (Liddell, H.G. and Scott, R. and Passow, F. and Drisler, H. "A Greek-English lexicon". "At the Clarendon press, sold by Macmillan and co.". London. 1870.)

1. The ESV Study Bible, Crossway Bibles, 2008

2. The Reformation Study Bible, Ligonier Ministries, 2005

Halloween - A Heart Issue

2010-10-26T23:32:00.019-04:00

Every year, as October comes up on the calendar, the whole world seems to focus on Halloween and the festivities associated with this holiday. There is quite a bit of history known and published about this day. Most directly, the traditional activities of Halloween can be traced the ancient Druids.

Hundreds of years before Jesus Christ walked this earth, a people in what is now called Ireland celebrated their end of summer with a festival to their gods thanking them for the previous harvest season.

This was the end of their growing season, and they reasoned the seasonal death of plants and corresponding change in temperature on the arrival of a "god of death" that was overpowering their "sun god". Their beliefs told them that this "god of death" forced the spirits of those that had died that year, and had done evil, to take possession in the nearby animals for a time, and then he allowed them to revisit their homes and family one last time, on Halloween.

Therefore, the priests of this religion, the Druids, would hold ceremonies where the people were encouraged to gather up all kinds of animals, from horses and oxen to cats and sheep, cage them or tie them up, and then burn them as a warning to the those wandering spirits to not harm a living person.

OK, so why the history lesson? Because it's important to know from where the Druids got their beliefs. It turns out that it's more relevant than most Christians understand. It goes all the way back to Nimrod, who built Babel or Babylon (Genesis 10:8-10) - yeah... it's in the Bible.

You see, Nimrod conceived a one world government model in rebellion against God and went about to establishing this one world government in the land of Shinar (today is Iraq) and instituted a pagan worship system that rejected the Lord God. The primary false god worshiped was called Baal, at least in Syria & Phoenicia. He had other name in other places: he was called Bel in Assyria, Moloch or Molech to the Ammonites, and even Ra or Re in Egypt.

Here is why that is important. The American Book of Days by George Douglas (H. W. Wilson Co., 1937, p 541) says, "Many of Halloween's customs are derived from the ancient Baal Festivals."

Alexander Hislop in The Two Babylons (NuVision Publications, LLC, 2006, p. 83) wrote, "The worship of Bel (Moloch) and Astarte was very early introduced into Britain along with the Druids, the priests of the groves. From Bel, the 1st of May is still called Beltane in the Almanac; and we have customs still lingering at this day among us, which prove how exactly the worship of Bel or Moloch had been observed."

The references to "lingering customs" refers to Halloween.

Let's look back at Nimrod for a moment. It is important that you know that Nimrod incorporated into his worship system the grisly practice of human sacrifice and cannibalism. Hislop [page 171] says, "the priests of Nimrod or Baal were necessarily required to eat of the human sacrifices; and thus it has come to pass that Cahna-Bal (cahna meaning priest & Bal referring to Baal), the Priest of Baal is the established word (cannibal) in our own tongue for a devourer of human flesh." Here's why that is important. "The god whom the Druids worshipped was Baal, as the blazing Baal-fires show and children were offered in sacrifice to Baal."

That's what Baal (Moloch) worshippers did. We know that because of what we read in the Bible in Jeremiah 19:5:

[They] have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind.

There is absolutely no doubt that Halloween, was a wicked pagan worship day. It is little wonder that even today Halloweens focus is still on horror, mutilation, death, evil and the occult seeing that it is rooted in Baal worship!

Undoubtedly, we come in contact with people who regularly protest, "That may have been true in the past, but that is not true today."

And I was one such person before my conversion.

For years and years throughout my childhood this was always a time of fun and late nights playing with my cousins and siblings, but especially about getting lots of candy. I cannot remember ever seeing anything wrong with my family's professing Christian beliefs and celebrating this holiday. No one was sacrificing anything, except some hours of sleep and maybe their teeth to cavities.

That pattern continued until a few years ago when God called me to Himself, saving me out of a life that was on a road straight to Hell, a life of selfish focus and total absence of any reverence to His Name, to His Glory, or what He did for me at the Cross. It was at that time that I began to reassess everything in my life, testing it against what God tells us about Himself in His Word, the Bible. Most of all, I learned that it wasn't so much about what I did, but the motives I had for doing those things (or conversely, not doing something).

Halloween was one such activity/observance that I took a look at, as it seemed to be one of the more obvious events that had nothing to do with my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Why had I never looked at this before? It seemed so obvious now. God's Word shed light on that:

In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. (2 Corinthians 4:4 - emphasis mine)

Simply enough, I was blind to the truth, until the Light (John 1:4) made me see. What was it that I saw then? I did not discover that dressing up in a costume was a sin, or that getting candy from others was a sin, or that hanging out around a bon-fire on a chilly night with family and friends was a sin... no, not at all.

Most importantly, when the Light shone on my heart, I didn't see anything but MY heart and the many, many ways in which I had for so many years focused my heart on anything other than Jesus Christ and the Glory of God.

It was then that I understood that is what makes Halloween a heart issue. Where is my heart on this day? On EVERY day for that matter?!

So, now that I'm a husband and father, my heart condition is relevant not only for my walk with the Lord, but directly affects my wife and son and their walk. Where am I leading them? What do my actions, thoughts, and motives mean for their walk? Spend enough time in study of God's Word looking for an answer this question, and you'll undoubtedly get to Romans 14.

Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.

The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.

Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.

For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. (Romans 14:4-6, 12-15)

There's a lot that could be unpacked in there, and the implications are much more far reaching than application to observance of holidays. The most common interpretation is that if that person celebrates that day to the glory of God, then your problem with it should not hinder their worship and praise to God. This is often used in the "first person" point of view, encouraged by our very self-centered cultural mindset - to look out for your rights primarily.

Might I suggest that instead, we look at this from a New Testament "one another", others first point of view? Does my observance of the holiday "put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother"? Perhaps more to the point, "if your brother is grieved by what you eat (say, or do), you are no longer walking in love." I think that the lesson in this passage can be translated to any heart motive, not just eating.

In other words, am I approaching my observance (or lack-thereof) of Halloween from an "others first" point of view?
Do my beliefs cause another to stumble?
More so, is my heart seeking to please man (family, church members, co-workers, etc) or God?
Am I just seeking a compromise that will make my life easier and cause me less friction with those around me?
Does my testimony to the lost/unsaved say that I place ultimate allegiance and preeminence on the Lord of the universe, the Lord of my life?
Or does my testimony to my neighbors say that I don't want to cause waves and I'm just seeking a comfortable existence where I can live side-by-side with a pagan, God-hating culture and not be sickened and disturbed by my proximity to ungodliness so as to maintain the peace with everyone?
Does Romans 12:18, "If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all", mean that we cover over our love for Christ so as not to cause our friends and family to "look at us weird"?

Am I suggesting that we just lock the doors, turn off the lights, and hide our families inside the house on October 31? Not at all. But perhaps taking advantage of the time to do some God-honoring activities such as spending time with family and friends in a manner that pays no homage to an ancient pagan holiday.

When God brought His people into the promised land of Israel, he told them to have nothing to do with the gods and pagan practices of the people that resided in that land. He did not tell them to have no festivals and celebrations at all. He gave them a culture with festivities and celebrations, but ones that were meant to honor Him and what He had done for His people.

[And speaking of the wonderful things God does for His people, He gave us our son on October 31, 2009. Just over one year after He took our twin boys home to be with Him, He gave us a little something to celebrate on that day.]

I pray that God would give me grace to seek to live peaceably with all but not at the expense of giving Him the glory in all that I say, do, or think. I pray that as I lead my family, that I would seek not my own agenda or will, but that I would strive to make my heart motives pure and that I would lead in such a way that those that follow in my footsteps do so because they see that Jesus stepped there first.

Is the Christian life as a series of negotiations?

2010-08-26T20:39:00.001-04:00

Do you see the Christian life as a series of negotiations?

John 14:15: "If you love me, you will keep my commandments."

You hear the preacher say that God's Word says such and such, or you read it for yourself, if you profess this then you should do such and such. But, you don't feel like doing that.

Would you then interpret the above verse like this?

"If you love Me, you will give Me a shot at convincing you that My way is in your best interests."

How about 1 John 5:3: "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments."

Perhaps your interpretation is, "This is the love of God, that we wait until we feel that it's easy and effortless, or nothing else that we've tried worked, then we'll try out His way".

I'm posting this because I see this all too often in my own life. I might be tempted to sleep in on Sunday, or do/think/say something that I know I shouldn't, and then I want to negotiate or debate what I know God says about it.

"For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification." (Romans 6:19)

I emphasized that word, and that word is underlined for a reason. The Greek word is "doulos" and it means "slave". The New Testament Greek Lexicon defines "doulos" as:

one who gives himself up to another's will

devoted to another to the disregard of one's own interests

I am a slave. Most translations render that word as "servant" or "bond-servant" because we don't like the word slave. But that's what the word is and that's what we are. Okay then, so why do I keep treating the parts of my body as my own? Why do I want to use them for my convenience and according to my preference? As a Christian I know that I am to present them all as "slaves to righteousness, which results in sanctification", and this includes getting those parts of my body up on Sunday morning and to church, whether it is convenient and easy or not? Right?

There is no way around it: if we are not slaves of Christ, then we are slaves of sin (Romans 6:15-23). But we are slaves! Either to the One or the other.

Now, we can anticipate many responses to this. One would most assuredly be: we are not merely slaves, but also sons.

Absolutely! The response would be: is a son supposed to question his father's commandments? Isn't a son to obey his father, and honor him (Deuteronomy 21:18; Malachi 1:6; Colossians 3:20)? Now, if this is the case with our earthly father, is it not much more the case with our heavenly Father (Hebrews 12:9)?

This truly is being preached at me. You see, when I was a boy I would try to argue or reason my way out of just about anything, especially if I didn't want to do it. My mom or dad would clearly lay down the rules, but I had to argue with them. Sometimes just for the sport of it! Nevertheless, I had to be convinced by obvious reason that something was really for my own good. As you can see, I was not very obedient much of the time.

Today, that tendency is still very much at work in my daily life. Of course, I've surrendered my life to Christ, and chosen to follow His way, but there is still a struggle there. The difference between then and now is that I've been converted to Christ. Before my conversion, I was a slave to those tendencies - a slave to sin. After, I no longer have to obey the sinful ways of my youth - Christ has freed me from that bondage and replaced it with a light yoke under His Lordship (Matthew 11:30; Galatians 5:1).

Here's the point: whether we're talking about a matter of doctrine, or whether I should go to church, or how I respond to my wife/children/employer, or any other topic under the umbrella of "Christian living", when I respond to God's commandments with a "but" or a series of excuses, I'm no better than Satan in the Garden of Eden when he argued to Eve, "Has God really said that? Are you really convinced that it's for your own good? God really just wants to keep something really great for Himself, and not let you have it." You see, doing that elevates me to the same level as God in my mind - I have exalted myself to the place where I claim the right to question His authority.

So the question we should be asking ourselves: what do you do when faced with a clear commandment, with clear teaching of Scripture, that goes against what YOU want to do? Either Jesus is Lord, or we are. If we are, He isn't; if He is, we aren't.

We need to think like a slave; and not only a slave, but a crucified slave, who has died to his old master (sin & self), and raised to life for another (Jesus Christ).

So you say, "Whoa! Wait just a minute... is it really just that simple?" Yes and no. You see, we take all of those "buts" and excuses and reasons and attempts to slip by or deceive ourselves and Him, and we admit, "I'm going to need a lot of help here", and we take them and ourselves to the Cross, we count ourselves dead to them, we plead for the enabling grace of God... and then... we obey.

Dan Phillips put it this way:

It all really comes down to this: move the "but."

Until now, it has been: "God says to obey, but I have these excuses/challenges/difficulties." And so you don't start. The issue is still whether to obey. This thinking is not indicative of a slave, much less a son.

From now on, it must be "I have these excuses/challenges/difficulties, but God says to obey." And then you start. Now, the issue is not whether, but how. This is thinking like a slave, and thinking like a son.

Move that "but."

Then move yours.

So whoever knows the right thing to do

and fails to do it,

for him it is sin

(James 4:17)

Adapted from Dan Phillips post on November 20, 2008 on Pyromaniacs

1 Thessalonians 1:4-6

2010-08-22T16:46:00.009-04:00

Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace.

We give thanks to God always for all of you, constantly mentioning you in our prayers, remembering before our God and Father your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ. For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction. You know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake. And you became imitators of us and of the Lord, for you received the word in much affliction, with the joy of the Holy Spirit, so that you became an example to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia.

For not only has the word of the Lord sounded forth from you in Macedonia and Achaia, but your faith in God has gone forth everywhere, so that we need not say anything. For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.

(1 Thessalonians 1:1-10)

-------------------------------------------------

Verse 4

εἰδότες, ἀδελφοὶ ἠγαπημένοι ὑπὸ Θεοῦ, τὴν ἐκλογὴν ὑμῶν, (GNT)

Knowing brethren, O ones being loved by God, of your selection, (AB)

For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, (ESV)

This is a continuation of the thought beginning in verse 2, "We give thanks to God always for all of you...", with verse 3 giving details of how they're giving thanks, and now in verse 4 we see Paul explaining why they give thanks, "For we know... that He has chosen you". The word, for, could be translated, because: "[Because] we know... that He has chosen you".

So, they're giving thanks because they know that the brethren in Thessalonica have been chosen, or selected, by God. The word, εκλογην, is a unique word that only appears in the New Testament, and always in regard to God's choosing of men (Acts 9:15; Romans 9:11; Romans 11:5; Romans 11:7; Romans 11:28; 1 Thessalonians 1:4; 2 Peter 1:10). A related word, εξελεξαμην, was used by Jesus in John 15:16 when He tells the disciples, "You did not choose me, but I chose you...", and this is often pointed to as one proof-text of the doctrine of election, in that Jesus chose us, not that we chose Him.

In the next verse we read what evidence led the Apostle and his companions to this conclusion.

-------------------------------------------------

Verse 5

ὅτι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἡμῶν οὐκ ἐγενήθη εἰς ὑμᾶς ἐν λόγω μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν δυνάμει καὶ ἐν Πνεύματι ῾Αγίω καὶ ἐν πληροφορίᾳ πολλῇ, καθὼς οἴδατε οἷοι ἐγενήθημεν ἐν ὑμῖν δι᾿ ὑμᾶς. (GNT)

that our good news did not take place in you in word only, but also in power, and in [2spirit 1holy], and in [2full assurance 1much]; as you know what we became among you for you. (AB)

because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction. You know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake. (ESV)

A cross reference in my bible takes me to 1 Corinthians 2, where Paul says, "And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God." [emphasis mine]

The Holy Spirit was the confirming aspect of the message that Paul delivered to them - not his own "smooth and flattering speech" (Romans 16:18) or a self-made "persuasive argument" (Colossians 2:4).

Peter makes a similar statement: "For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ..." (2 Peter 1:16a).

We read in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians that "the man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14) These believers in Thessalonica were convinced of the truth by the power of the Holy Spirit, not by a message brought to them by man only.

-------------------------------------------------

Verse 6

Καὶ ὑμεῖς μιμηταὶ ἡμῶν ἐγενήθητε καὶ τοῦ Κυρίου, δεξάμενοι τὸν λόγον ἐν θλίψει πολλῇ μετὰ χαρᾶς Πνεύματος ῾Αγίου, (GNT)

And you [2imitators 3of us 1became], and of the Lord, having received the word in [2affliction 1much], with joy [2spirit 1of holy], (AB)

And you became imitators of us and of the Lord, for you received the word in much affliction, with the joy of the Holy Spirit, (ESV)

There are three obvious aspects of this verse that I want to look at quickly. First, "imitators of us and of the Lord" means that they looked to Paul and his companions to demonstrate for them how a follower of Christ should behave and treat others. Just as we today need others to come along side us and disciple us in the ways of Jesus, they too looked to these men as their example.

Second, "received the word in much affliction", is not a phrase that engenders the "warm and fuzzies", right? Contrary to much "health, weath, and happiness" teaching that passes for Christianity today, Scripture teaches in fact that the true follower of Jesus Christ will bear His reproach. Just as Christ was rejected by the world, so too will His followers. These believers apparently suffered affliction based on their profession, and yet we see that they still had joy.

Third, "the joy of the Holy Spirit". What would Paul be referring to here? Joy amongst affliction? What exactly is this "joy of the Holy Spirit"? Would you say that you have this joy in your daily life, or at any time at all? Are God's commandments heavy burdens to bear? Is coming together on Sunday mornings with fellow believers simply another chore that "respectable people" do, but there is no joy in it? I don't believe that Paul is referring to the "joy" that one finds in many modern American churches where you have loud popular music and choreographed light shows entertaining 2000+ attenders. If man must manufacture the "joy" in the church-goer, then it's not of the Holy Spirit. I believe that the joy that Paul refers to here is the genuine joy that a believer experiences when they do find themselves under that affliction for Christ's sake, and stop to remember that Jesus told us that we would suffer for His sake. When we find ourselves ridiculed and rejected for our beliefs, we are tasting just a bit of the reproach that Jesus bore for us.

I believe that we Christians in America are going to see a "ramping up" of this ridicule and rejection in the next coming years. We're already seeing it. We've seen a steady erosion of Scriptural authority throughout the 20th century, and it's continued with a vengeance in the 21st century. As secular society continues to chip away at biblical authority in the areas of creation vs. evolution, the family vs. gay-rights, and "every-road-goes-to-heaven" vs. Biblical Christianity (just to name a few) Christians will be vilified and persecuted for what will be labeled as "intolerant" or bigoted views.

The New Testament is replete with messages to the Christian in this arena - 1 Thessalonians is one such place. We should not be taken aback by it or led to believe that it means that we missed something when we too receive the message "in much affliction". What will be the tell is whether we suffer that affliction "in the joy of the Holy Spirit".

Mark 2:1-5

2010-07-23T09:12:00.002-04:00

And when he returned to Capernaum after some days, it was reported that he was at home.

And many were gathered together, so that there was no more room, not even at the door. And he was preaching the word to them.

And they came, bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men.

And when they could not get near him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him, and when they had made an opening, they let down the bed on which the paralytic lay.

And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “My son, your sins are forgiven.
- Mark 2:1-5

1. "...he was at home"

Greek is, εις οικον εστιν, which near as I can tell is, "in the house he is".
"The house"? Probably Peter's house in Capernaum (reference Mark 1:29).
I'm reminded of Matthew 8:20:

And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.”

JFB Commentary on Matthew 8:20 - "Knowest thou whom thou art pledging thyself to follow, and whither haply He may lead thee? No warm home, no downy pillow has He for thee: He has them not for Himself. The foxes are not without their holes, nor do the birds of the air lack their nests; but the Son of man has to depend on the hospitality of others, and borrow the pillow whereon He lays His head."

2. The paralytic

This man is being brought to Jesus by four men, presumably so that He can heal him of his paralysis. But the crowd around Jesus was too large, so they couldn't get the man to Jesus directly. This is where I just find it baffling - they apparently decide that the next logical step would be to go to the roof of the house, open a hole in that roof, and lower the man down to Him. Just baffling!

I can't help but wonder if this isn't a picture of what Jesus was saying in Matthew 11:12:

"From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force."

But perhaps even more surprising than these letting him through a hole in the roof is the reaction of our Lord in verse 5.

And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “My son, your sins are forgiven.

A couple things I want to look at here:

Jesus saw their faith
He forgives his sins, rather than physically heals him

First, I think I've usually missed the fact that all of the men in this instance would have had to be complicit in this whole deal. Each one was exhibiting faith in going along with this plan, and Jesus saw that. I also think that their faith was displayed by their doing it, by carrying out their plan, rather than just talking about it.

These men did not just say, "Well, we tried and we just couldn't get close enough. Oh sure, we could have tore a hole in the roof and let him down, but that would have been a little too much work. Yeah, we talked about it, and it maybe it would have worked. It's just... I mean, how rude would it have been to tear a hole in the guys roof, when if we were really meant to get him healed it would have just worked out, you know? Obviously it wasn't meant to be and... well, it's the thought that counts, right?"

Sound familiar? How many times in our daily lives do we have this kind of conversation, either with our selves or with those around us? If we had put a little more effort into it, or even a lot more effort, it would have happened, but our laziness and complacency wins out and we write it off as "if it had been 'meant to be' then it would have happened that way"??

"Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works." James 2:18b

My wife pointed out while discussing this passage that parents of a sick child will often go to great measures to get medical help for their child. True; and I think typically we see their faith exhibited in that course of action. They believe that they will find help. Consequently, if they didn't believe it to be so, they'd be fools to spend the energy and resources pursuing an unknown.

** [Now, I used the word "typically" above because mere observation of human actions and behavior over a length of time has lead many an observer to conclude that people often profess belief in any number of things or ideas without the corresponding follow-up in actions. For instance, one that smokes cigarettes may say they believe that it will cause cancer and possibly be the cause of an early death. However, if that was what they truly believed, they would cease this habit. The innate instinct of self-preservation would/should override any addiction to the nicotine. Yet, if truly pressed, we would have to admit that we are gambling that we'll be that slim minority that appears to not reap what we sow. Just like the teenager that believes they are immortal, we hang on to our real belief system: that we're not susceptible to the same forces and consequences as "everyone else".

Another example: one may profess to believe in the Holy, Omnipresent, Omniscient, and Omnipotent God of the Bible, but pursue a lifestyle that would have to leave the observer concluding the exact opposite. This is not to suggest that Christians do not ever sin, but our style of life should be one that reflects a striving for godliness and holiness. The world should observe a marked difference in the Christian's style of life from that of one that does not profess Christ as Lord of their life. Scripture tells us that this should be, among other things, marked not only by obedience to the commands of Jesus, but more so demonstrated by a love for one another, and especially for God.]

Anyway, these men demonstrated their belief and faith in Jesus to heal their friend. If they had not had this faith, they would not have gone to such lengths to get him to see Jesus.

Secondly, Jesus shows us His divinity in forgiving sins, but also shows us the priority [spiritual vs. physical]. Scripture is replete with evidence that only God can forgive one's sins. The following passages touch on this [emphasis mine].

The LORD passed before him and proclaimed, "The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation."
Exodus 34:6,7

If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.
2 Chronicles 7:14

And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."
Jeremiah 31:34

My eyes are ever toward the LORD, for he will pluck my feet out of the net.Turn to me and be gracious to me, for I am lonely and afflicted.The troubles of my heart are enlarged; bring me out of my distresses.Consider my affliction and my trouble, and forgive all my sins.
Psalm 25:15-18

LORD, you were favorable to your land; you restored the fortunes of Jacob.You forgave the iniquity of your people; you covered all their sin.You withdrew all your wrath; you turned from your hot anger.Restore us again, O God of our salvation, and put away your indignation toward us!
Psalm 85:1-4

Some of the scribes and teachers of the Law are present in the house, and when they hear Jesus forgive this man's sins they immediately accuse Him of blasphemy - because they KNOW that only God can do this. In fact, I imagine them doing a double-take when they hear this

Let's try to picture what's going on here for a minute. The people in the house would have been aware of this hole being opened up in the roof for at least a few minutes prior. I mean, think about it: the people immediately below it had to be picking stuff out of their hair! I imagine people were causing quite a stir as they watched this spectacle (remember, it was awfully crowded in there, so there isn't much room to which to move, so people are probably stepping on each other... at least some measure of chaos). Anyway, they're watching as these men let a paralyzed man down on a bed, and at some point they are probably looking back and forth between this man on the bed and Jesus, waiting to see what Jesus' reaction is going to be to this unusual series of events.

Now we read in verse 5 just what Jesus' response is: He said to the paralytic, "My son, your sins are forgiven".

What? Now, come on. You have to admit that this is not anywhere close to the response we would be expecting if we were there watching this unfold. I think there's much in this passage to teach about the priority of things, what's more important than another. In this case, the state of this mans soul is of ultimately more importance than the roof of this house. We could bring this up to today and teach a good lesson on where we place our priority. How many times do we place greater value on things over the needs of another human being? However, instead of looking at what Jesus did NOT say, for the purposes of this blog post we want to look at what He DID say.

Jesus correctly diagnosed this man's greatest need to be his need for forgiveness. In that assessment we can take away so very much. As my pastor is fond of saying, "Keep the main thing the main thing". This would be what we see happening in this passage today. It should also be what the world sees Christ's body on earth, the Church, doing everyday: keeping the main thing, the main thing. It is so easy to fall into "mission drift" and focus on meeting people's felt needs, trying to "engage the culture", or mistakenly subscribe to a kind of theology that sees Christians' highest goal to "make the world a better place". Often, we make elaborate arguments suggesting that every little focus is ultimately lending to the betterment of the "Kingdom", and with each one of these tiny adjustments in our focus we slowly drift away from the Cross, from the Main Thing, until we find that we've completely lost our view of the Cross.

The point: it's human to see this situation and assess the man's greatest need to be physical healing. I think I would be correct in saying that this is our flesh talking. Whether we're looking at our selves, or our fellow brothers & sisters in Christ, or any other person, we should be Spirit-minded and led by the Spirit. And as we'll look at in the next section, we'll see that when we have our priorities right, our actions will affirm and confirm that Spirit led view.

Being Content with an Ordinary Life

2010-07-20T06:14:00.000-04:00

I'm echoing this post from another website. It spoke to me and I have to imagine that others struggle with this as well.

God is a God of the Mundane: Are You Content with Ordinary?

God is the God of the mundane.

Though he is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, he is very content living with ordinary people, while engaging them in the ordinary vicissitudes of life. We definitely see this idea in the Gospel. (See Philippians 2:5-11)

This is good news for us because we are very ordinary people and most of each of our lives is characterized by the mundane. Our life's highlight reel will be short:

   1. Birth
   2. Salvation
   3. Marriage
   4. Children
   5. Physical Debilitations
   6. Death of loved ones
   7. Death

Outside of these few events, everything else in life is pretty much normal or ordinary. This is hard for some people to embrace because of our sinful desire to be godlike. (Genesis 3:1-7) We build our towers of Babel, reaching to higher heights, only to be frustrated, but rarely deterred. (Genesis 11:1-9) We are an individualistic culture, largely shaped by the fame we see in sports and in hollywood. Until we find the elusive pot of gold, we will not be satisfied.

Amazingly that "pot of gold" was found in a manger, a cross, and an empty tomb.

Are You Content?

How are you at being content? Are you characterized by contentment? Has the noise of your soul been quieted by a peace that passes your finite understanding of things? (Philippians 4:7) Are you living in the good and satisfaction that the Gospel brings to your life each today?

Typically for me and maybe a few others, who are not satisfied or content with the mundane, it is because of our unbiblical dream chasing, that elusive “pot” at the end of the elusive rainbow. When my thinking drifts from the satisfying simplicity of the Gospel, I become part of our larger world who is made up of individualistic people, who preferentially do not value community, but put self-interest ahead of others. (Philippians 2:3)

These are very small people, living shallow lives, who have re-edited themselves into believing the lie about themselves that they created. Sadly, these folks never seem to come to the truth and personal freedom found in the Gospel. Rugged individualism and self-interest alienates a person from God and others. This is a battle I have to fight each day.

Let Me Introduce You to an Amazing Man

Though Jesus was God (truly great), he entered into our mundane world and gave himself up for us (other-centered), so we could receive the ultimate imperishable, inheritance that will never fade away. (1 Peter 1:4) Like Christ, true greatness is found by pouring your life into the lives of others. Gospel-centered living is life’s best solution for living in the mundane.

Application Questions and Thoughts

Define true greatness? What would you say is truly great?
When you die, how will you be characterized?
Do you value the community over your personal desires for greatness?
Ask your children (or friends) what you are most interested in? Ask them to describe your passion?
Do the scales of your life tip toward serving others or serving self?

Mark 1:35-45

2010-07-12T20:09:00.012-04:00

And rising very early in the morning, while it was still dark, he departed and went out to a desolate place, and there he prayed. And Simon and those who were with him searched for him, and they found him and said to him, "Everyone is looking for you." And he said to them, "Let us go on to the next towns, that I may preach there also, for that is why I came out." And he went throughout all Galilee, preaching in their synagogues and casting out demons.

And a leper came to him, imploring him, and kneeling said to him, "If you will, you can make me clean." Moved with pity, he stretched out his hand and touched him and said to him, "I will; be clean." And immediately the leprosy left him, and he was made clean.

And Jesus sternly charged him and sent him away at once, and said to him, "See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, for a proof to them."

But he went out and began to talk freely about it, and to spread the news, so that Jesus could no longer openly enter a town, but was out in desolate places, and people were coming to him from every quarter.

(Mark 1:35-45)

Observations:

Jesus gets up before dawn (still dark), goes away to a private (desolate) place, and prayed.
Since it says that Simon with the others searched and found him, who is the "everyone" that is looking for him? New people this morning that are looking for the healing that was taking place last night? Wouldn't he have said, "we have been looking for you", if it had only been them?
In verse 38, Jesus tells us why He "came out": to preach in the towns.
The leper is violating the law by approaching Jesus (a leper came to him).
This leper knows that Jesus can do whatever He wills.
Jesus pities this man because of his condition.
Jesus sternly charges this man to keep quiet, but also keep the Mosaic law regarding this healing, proving to the priests that he is now clean. Jesus wants the priests to know, but he doesn't want the people to know.
This man, having just been healed, disobeys the Lord, and the news of this prevents Jesus from entering towns.

Questions:

Who were the people looking for Jesus? Was it anyone besides the disciples?
What is the significance of Jesus going away alone? Could He not have prayed at the house?
What all is wrapped up in Jesus' statement, "...for that is why I came out"?
What exactly moved Jesus to pity this man? Was this because of something more than the leprosy?
Why does Jesus not want the leper to tell others about this healing? Why does Jesus want the priests to know?
How did this hindrance of entering towns affect Jesus' ministry?

Applications:

What can we learn from Jesus' getting up early and finding time alone with His Father?
What do we learn about the motivation of those that seek healing, but then fail to obey the Lord?
What does it mean for our daily lives that Jesus said that He was here to preach?
Is there a lesson about him taking on the reproach that was once the leper's and that consequently, now the leper has the liberty that Jesus had?

Topic #1: Early morning, private time with God.

We can find all through the Old Testament this devotional act of giving God priority in the early morning [emphasis' mine]:

I rise before dawn and cry for help; I hope in your words. My eyes are awake before the watches of the night, that I may meditate on your promise. (Psalm 119:147-148)

O God, my God, to you I rise early. My soul thirsted for you. How often my flesh longed for you in a barren and untrodden and waterless land. (Psalm 63:1)

On my bed I remember you; I think of you through the watches of the night. (Psalm 63:6)

The first watch is 6-9pm, the second watch 9-12 midnight, the third watch12 midnight – 3am, and the fourth watch is 3-6am.

O LORD, in the morning you hear my voice; in the morning I prepare a sacrifice for you and watch. (Psalm 5:3)

They rose early in the morning and worshiped before the LORD; then they went back to their house at Ramah. And Elkanah knew Hannah his wife, and the LORD remembered her. (1 Samuel 1:19)

And when the days of the feast had run their course, Job would send and consecrate them, and he would rise early in the morning and offer burnt offerings according to the number of them all. For Job said, "It may be that my children have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts." Thus Job did continually. (Job 1:5)

Awake, my glory! Awake, O harp and lyre! I will awake the dawn! (Psalm 57:8)

Then Hezekiah the king rose early and gathered the officials of the city and went up to the house of the LORD. (2 Chronicles 29:20)

Arise, cry out in the night, as the watches of the night begin; pour out your heart like water in the presence of the Lord. Lift up your hands to him for the lives of your children, who faint from hunger at the head of every street. (Lamentations 2:19)

Mark tells us "very early in the morning" - πρωΐ ἔννυχα λίαν (prōi ennucha lian) - and according to Strong's, prōi is "the daybreak watch", or "the last watch of the night from three to six a.m.", as Robertson's puts it. Then, ennucha lian is "by night, before day" and "greatly, much"; so this would be the earliest part of that daybreak watch, and while it is still dark out. By comparison, we can look at Mark 16:2 where it says, λίαν πρωῒ - lian prōi, or early, but after the sun had risen; notice that the word, ἔννυχα - ennucha, is missing here, showing that it's not still dark out.

So what exactly is Mark driving at here by mentioning this? I think that this suggests that perhaps Jesus made it a point to rise early. He did not just wait to meet with God when He happened to wake up, and He obviously did not wait for the sunrise to wake Him. Therefore, we must deduce that He was awakened by some other means. I would suggest that perhaps this is related to the thirst that David mentions in Psalm 63, the longing for God, a hunger for that communion with His Father.

Topic #2: Healed, but disobedient?

So, this man is healed of his leprosy and told to tell no one, but just to appear before the priest to make the necessary sacrifice. Instead, he tells everyone. Now more and more people are flooding out into the towns to get near to Jesus.

My question is what do we take away from this? On one hand I think the leper couldn't help himself, he was so excited and happy to have been cured of his leprosy that he couldn't withhold the news. He probably even thought that he was really doing a good thing by telling everyone. On the other hand, I see a selfish, hastily made decision to spread the news without thought to the consequence. Perhaps it is both; or neither.

Do I do this? Categorically, I definitely hold myself in that box where often I think that my good intentioned thoughts, words, deeds, etc. are "helping God out", even though they may very well go against what I know to be the His revealed will, that which is spoken to us through His Word. Maybe somehow I presume on His forgiveness or mercy, knowingly bending the rules just a little, because "He'll understand... I just had to do/say/think that!"

However, as with the leper, regardless of our intentions, we may be oblivious to the consequences of what we think are harmless (or even in our sinful hearts - excusable) actions.

Topic #3: "...for that is why I came out."

I thought about this as I was reading it: has anyone ever asked you, "Why did Jesus come to earth to live among us?" (Or maybe some variation on that question.) What has been your/my answer? Do we often say, "To save sinners", or "To heal the relationship between God and man", or "To die on the cross, paying for sin, satisfying God's just wrath, so that believers could be made right with God" ?

I'm not going to comment on those answers, but I do want to just focus briefly on the answer that Jesus gives to this question. In this context, Jesus has just spent all night healing the sick and possessed. It's the next morning, His disciples have found Him out in the desert alone, praying - and they want Him to come back with them because everyone is looking for Him. Instead, Jesus tells them, "Let us go on to the next towns, that I may preach there also, for that is why I came out."

To preach; that is why He came. Not just to heal the sick and demon-possessed. That is how the Gospel is spread. It is the God-ordained means by which people are made aware of the good news. As Paul says later, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes" (Romans 1:16). At this time, even the disciples do not understand the true nature of Jesus' mission on earth, but later they will understand. It's about preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Romans 10:14-15 -
But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!”

Topic #4: Reproach for liberty?

Lastly, I see in this passage a contrast of sorts. Or perhaps, maybe something like a picture of the Gospel:

This leper: A man that was previously, by law, not allowed to come near the town, banished to the wilderness, is now free to enter the towns. I think I was like this leper - unclean, unable to approach God, to come near to Him by anything that I could do... nothing that I can do myself to change my condition before a Holy God. I need a Savior, One that can heal me, and take away the very thing that prevents me from communing with God.

Christ: He was once free to move about from town to town without little effort, now for the most part is forced to remain in the wilderness. It seems that He willingly trades places with this man, going from the relative ease of movement to that of an outcast. Just as He did on the cross, He willingly took on the sins of every believer, making Himself the leper, bearing the reproach before the Holy God, taking the wrath in our place so that we might be allowed to draw near.

Glory be to God!

1 Thessalonians 1:1-3

2010-06-11T19:46:00.000-04:00

Along with my study of Mark, I thought I'd study an epistle as well.

Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace.

We give thanks to God always for all of you, constantly mentioning you in our prayers, remembering before our God and Father your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ. For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction. You know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake. And you became imitators of us and of the Lord, for you received the word in much affliction, with the joy of the Holy Spirit, so that you became an example to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia.

For not only has the word of the Lord sounded forth from you in Macedonia and Achaia, but your faith in God has gone forth everywhere, so that we need not say anything. For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.

(1 Thessalonians 1:1-10)

-------------------------------------------------

Verse 1

Παῦλος καὶ Σιλουανὸς καὶ Τιμόθεος τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ Θεσσαλονικέων ἐν Θεῷ πατρὶ καὶ Κυρίω ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ· χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ Κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. (GNT)

Paul, and Silas, and Timothy, to the assembly of Thessalonians, in God the father, and in the Lord Jesus Christ. Favor to you, and peace from God our father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. (AB)

Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace. (ESV)

In observing the greeting to the Thessalonians, I'm curious about from whom the other letters came:

Paul is mentioned alone in the greeting of his letters to the Romans, the first letter to the Corinthians, and to the Ephesians, and his two letters to Timothy.
Paul and Timothy together greet the readers in Philippi and Colossae, as well as the second letter to the Corinthians, and to Philemon.
Paul mentions "all the brothers who are with me" in the greeting of his letter to the Galatians.

But here (and in the 2nd letter) Paul, Silas, and Timothy are mentioned as sending the two letters to the Thessalonians. Who is the Silas mentioned in these? I do not know much about Silas (or Silvanus), except that he is mentioned in the second letter to the church at Corinth, and apparently it was through him that Peter delivers the letter that we call "1 Peter".

-------------------------------------------------

Verse 2

Εὐχαριστοῦμεν τῷ Θεῷ πάντοτε περὶ πάντων ὑμῶν, μνείαν ὑμῶν ποιούμενοι ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν ἡμῶν, (GNT)

We give thanks to God at all times concerning all of you, [2mention 3of you 1making] in our prayers; (AB)

We give thanks to God always for all of you, constantly mentioning you in our prayers, (ESV)

Imagine if we told people how thankful we are for them and that we actually thank God in our prayers for them... constantly! We read here that the three authors mention that they are thankful for ALL of them, not just a few that maybe they got to know personally.

The take away from this verse is that we are shown example that these men were grateful for all that they had been given by God, especially those that they have had the privilege of shepherding spiritually.

-------------------------------------------------

Verse 3

αδιαλειπτως μνημονευοντες υμων του εργου της πιστεως και του κοπου της αγαπης και της υπομονης της ελπιδος του Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν, (GNT)

continually remembering your work of the belief, and the toil of the love, and the endurance of the hope of our Lord Jesus Christ, before [2God 3and 4father 1our]. (AB)

remembering before our God and Father your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ. (ESV)

Right away I notice two things: (1) continually remembering, and (2) these words work, toil, and endurance.

First, what is meant by "continually"? Do they remember the believers in Thessalonica at all times? Are they always in their prayers? What is meant by this and what was their intention in telling the readers this? Drawing from the context, that this is a greeting in a letter, and from the remainder of the letter, I think this really just means that Paul and his partners were hearing good things about the church there. Therefore, they were always being reminded of them in their prayers, giving thanks to God for the witness being spread among the neighboring towns and provinces.

Secondly, these words work, toil, and endurance: what is meant by these? What were the Thessalonians doing that Paul recognized in this way?

Work: Is this the same "work" in Philippians 2:12, "...work out your own salvation with fear and trembling"? The Greek is different, so what about James', "faith without works", maybe these are the same. The word in James 2:24 is εργων and the word in 1 Thess. is εργου, but they are derived from the same word, ἔργον. Strong's gives us this definition: to work; toil (as an effort or occupation); by implication an act: - deed, doing, labor, work. This would imply the works that are a fruit of faith.
Toil: This phrase "toil of love" paints an interesting picture. The Greek word κοπου is from the word κόπτω and means, "to cut, to lash, to beat, to toil"; this is painful, hard work. In conjunction with the word αγαπης (love), I just think it really shows the difference between how we perceive "love" today and what God's Word teaches us about real love. We want to subscribe to an easy definition of "love", one that serves us more than others; and when it no longer serves us and becomes a "toil", then we shed it and go in search of the next "good feeling". In short, a good picture of αγαπης would be the love a father has for his child.
Endurance: This word, υπομονης, means "to remain under" and ελπιδος is hope, the hope of Jesus' second coming.

Work, Toil, and Endurance - εργου, κοπου, υπομονης:

Interesting note about the occurrence here of these three virtues - the same three appear here in verse three, but also in Revelation 2:2, where Jesus is commending the church in Ephesus for their works:

"'I know your works [εργα], your toil [κοπον] and your patient endurance [υπομονην], and how you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false. (Revelation 2:2)

However, it should also be noted that these are works of faith, toil of love, and patient hope. As John Darby notes, "These principles, faith, hope, and love, form our character as Christians."

Mark 1:32-34

2010-05-15T08:38:00.000-04:00

That evening at sundown they brought to him all who were sick or oppressed by demons. And the whole city was gathered together at the door. And he healed many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons. And he would not permit the demons to speak, because they knew him. (Mark 1:32-34)

v32:

οψίας δε γενομένης ότε έδυ ο ήλιος έφερον προς αυτόν πάντας τους κακώς έχοντας και τους δαιμονιζομένους (GNT)

And evening having become, when [3went down 1the 2sun], they brought to him all the ones [2illnesses 1having], and the ones being demon-possessed. (AB)

That evening at sundown they brought to him all who were sick or oppressed by demons. (ESV)

The Sabbath [Saturday] was over at sundown [roughly 6:00pm, or so]. Word of what had happened in the Synagogue this morning has already gotten around the whole city, and now the people have gathered outside of Peter's house. There was a great number of sick and demon-possessed people, as well as those that carried or brought them.

I find it interesting that a distinction was made between the sick and those possessed by demons. In modern secular medicine, where any aspect of the supernatural is dismissed, there is no distinction made between these two. Any one who might exhibit the signs of demon possession today would be written off as mentally or psychologically ill.

v33:

και η πόλις όλη επισυνηγμένη ην προς την θύραν (GNT)

And the [2city 1entire] being assembled was at the door. (AB)

And the whole city was gathered together at the door. (ESV)

[While Matthew 8:14-17 and Luke 4:38-41 tell this story, they make no mention of this detail. If we remember that Mark is most likely telling "Peter's gospel", then this is most likely a detail that Peter would have thrown in during his telling, recalling the great crown outside the door of his house.]

This would have been something to see. Mark tells us that the whole (or entire) city was outside the door? Really? The whole city? Albert Barnes comments, "A great part of the city; a great multitude from the city." John Gill comments, "a very great number of them at least".

Going to the Greek:

όλη = ὅλος [holos]
adjective; “whole” or “all”, complete (in extent, amount, time or degree)

We can just say that Mark is employing hyperbole here. Don Closson, of Probe Ministries, mentions this in his article on Hermeneutics,

"Now, it would be helpful to identify the use of figurative language in the passage. Various forms of Hebrew poetry, simile, metaphor, and hyperbole need to be recognized if the reader is to understand the passage's meaning. Hyperbole, for example, uses exaggeration to make a point. John says that the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written if everything about Jesus's life was written down (John 21:25). John is using figurative speech. His point is that there were many things that Jesus did that weren't recorded."

Furthermore, the JFB Bible Commentary comments on this verse: "This bespeaks the presence of an eye-witness, and is one of those lively examples of word-painting so frequent in this Gospel." (Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, 1871)

Alright, it was a lot of people. I try to imagine them, all gathered outside like some of the pictures I've seen on TV of all of those people waiting for the humanitarian food deliveries, or for the missionary doctors to make it around to their section.

They probably gathered pretty quickly too, as they'd all waiting until the end of the Sabbath, then sprang out of their houses, hurrying to get there as quickly as possible.

And imagine what those in the house must have thought... looking out the window as more and more people gathered outside. Did the four disciples in the house with Jesus grasp what was being displayed here? Do we dare make the application to our day? People today "come to Jesus" seeking to have their needs met. The problem is that what we perceive our "needs" to be and our true needs are almost always worlds apart. The phrase "felt needs" is a little overused today, but all the same, seeking to have our "felt needs" met is superficial and is not what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is about. Are we exploiting Jesus for our own gain? Are we like this crowd, gathering in the church buildings, looking for a quick healing and then 'away we go'?

v34:

και εθεράπευσε πολλούς κακώς έχοντας ποικίλαις νόσοις και δαιμόνια πολλά εξέβαλε και ουκ ήφιε λαλείν τα δαιμόνια ότι ήδεισαν αυτόν (GNT)

And he cured many [2illnesses 1having] of various diseases, and [2demons 1many] he cast out; and he did not allow [3to speak 1the 2demons], for they knew him. (AB)

And he healed many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons. And he would not permit the demons to speak, because they knew him. (ESV)

Many? Not "all"? I don't believe this is meant in an exclusionary aspect, but rather stressing that it was not only a few that were healed. All that came were healed. In a parallel passage in Luke, it says that He healed "every one of them".

Now when the sun was setting, all those who had any who were sick with various diseases brought them to him, and he laid his hands on every one of them and healed them. (Luke 4:40) [emphasis mine]

Then we read about Jesus not allowing the demons to speak again. We explored this a bit in Mark 1:25 and came to understand more about what the "unclean spirit" is and how Jesus' command to "be quiet" and "come out" were entirely different from anything the people had seen thus far. However, I failed to really address the question about why He didn't want them to speak.

Therefore, I immediately go to Acts 16:

As we were going to the place of prayer, we were met by a slave girl who had a spirit of divination and brought her owners much gain by fortune-telling.
She followed Paul and us, crying out, "These men are servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to you the way of salvation."
And this she kept doing for many days. Paul, having become greatly annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, "I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her." And it came out that very hour. (Acts 16:16-18)

In this passage we read about a girl possessed by a spirit - a demon- and as we've read in Mark, the demons know who the Christ is, and they know those that belong to Him. The proclamation of this girl was technically true, but to have the work of the Apostles validated by demons (or one in contact with demonic forces) is not in accordance with the work of the Holy Spirit. This is still a problem today with some groups affirming Jesus Christ, while rejecting certain elements of orthodox Christianity (or adding to it in the form of asserting tradition to be equal to the Word of God).

Likewise, when Jesus commands the demons to "be quiet", His meaning is to ensure that His ministry is not affirmed by demons or associated with their deception in any way. This is not to suggest that what they asserted was not true (James 2:19), but this is one of the most effective lead-ins to deception - ever. Hence, the reason so many people get swept into cults and heresy: there's just enough truth to get you to come back, and the error is so subtle that it's difficult to separate truth from fiction. Allowing the demons to affirm Him as the Christ would have been counter to His ministry on earth.