The Promises to Abraham

There were several promises made to Abraham, made on several occasions (see "Summary of Promises" section below), but the basic promises boil down to three:

• I will make of you a great nation, kings, uncountable offspring
• I will give you the land
• I will bless the nations of the earth through you

These three promises are seen when God first starts making promises to Abram (see "Gen 12" section below), and when God confirms the covenant with Isaac (see "Gen 26" section below).

Although these promises were made at various times there were two specific covenant ceremonies:

• Genesis 15 (the cutting of animals)
• core stipulations:
• land, great reward
• uncountable offspring from his own loins
• Abram believed this promise and his faith was credited as righteousness

• Genesis 17 (the cutting of foreskins)
• core stipulations:
• land
• uncountable offspring from his own loins
• covenant to be confirmed with Isaac

Notice that although both of these ceremonies include the promise of land and of uncountable offspring, neither includes the promise to bless all nations. However, when God confirms the covenant with Isaac (see "Gen 26" section below), it includes the blessing of all nations.

Summaries of Promises:

Gen 12:1-3, 7 (the initial call of Abram)

• I will make you a great nation
• I will bless you
• I will make your name great
• You will be a blessing
• I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who treat you with contempt
• All the peoples on earth will be blessed through you
• I will give this land (Canaan) to your offspring

Gen 13:14-17 (Abram & Lot split, dividing the land)

• I will give you and your offspring all the land you can see
• I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth - uncountable

Gen 15:1-21 (faith credited as righteousness)

• Your reward will be great
• Eliezer not to be your heir, but a son of your own loins
• Uncountable offspring
• Abram believed this about his offspring, and God credited it to him as righteousness
• You will possess this land
• the animal-cutting ceremony in response to "how will I know I will possess this land?"
• Your offspring will be enslaved & oppressed in a foreign land for 400 years
• I will judge that nation; your people will go out with many possessions, returning here in the fourth generation
• You will go to your fathers in peace
• Covenant summarized in v 18 as "I will give this land to your offspring"

Gen 17:2-26 (circumcision given)

• I will establish My covenant between Me and you
• I will multiply you greatly
• You will become the father of many nations
• Name changed from "Exalted Father" (Abram) to "Father of a Multitude" (Abraham)
• I will make you extremely fruitful; nations and kings will come from you
• Covenant is everlasting throughout your offspring's generations to be yours and your offspring's God
• To you and your offspring I give this land, and I will be their God
• This is my covenant: you and all your males to be circumcised
• Your wife's name changed from Sarai (a form of "princess"?) to Sarah ("princess") (the meaning of the name seems less significant than the change itself)
• Sarah will give you a son, next year
• I will bless Sarah
• Nations and kings will come from Sarah
• Your son through Sarah will be named Isaac ("he laughs")
• I will confirm my covenant with Isaac
• Ishmael will also be blessed
• I will bless him
• I will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly
• He will father 12 tribes
• I will make him a great nation

Gen 18:9-19

• In a year, Abraham's wife will have a son
• Abraham to become a great and powerful nation
• All the nations of the earth will be blessed through Abraham

Gen 26:2-5 (Covenant confirmed with Isaac)

• I will be with you and bless you
• I will give all these lands to you and your offspring
• I will confirm the oath I swore to Abraham
• Uncountable offspring
• Land given to offspring
• all the nations of the earth will be blessed by your offspring

Gal 3:1-29 (We are children of Abraham by faith)

• those who have faith are Abraham's sons
• Scripture saw:
• that God would justify the Gentiles by faith
• God told the Gospel to Abraham, that all nations will be blessed through him
• Therefore, those who have faith are blessed with Abraham
• The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed
• That seed is Christ
• And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed

The covenant made with Moses and his people, which God "made with [them] when [He] took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt" (Jer 31:32) is separate and apart from any previous covenants/promises, including these promises to Abraham. It "came 430 years later, [and] does not revoke a covenant that was previously ratified by God" (Gal 3:17). This covenant, made with Moses, "was added because of transgressions" (Gal 3:19), and was temporary, to last only "until the Seed to whom the promise was made would come" (Gal 3:19). But the promise to Abraham still stands: "If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to the promise" (Gal 3:29).

Note, there were two laws given for circumcision: one for all of Abram's seed, given as a part of the promises/covenants with Abraham; and one for the subset of Abraham's seed known as the Jews, given as a part of the later and temporary and faulty (see below) covenant of Moses. So the Jews had two laws insisting on circumcision; their cousins, the Ishmaelites (from Hagar) and the children of Keturah (who may have intermingled to become the ancestors of today's Arabs - Book of Jubilees 20:13), only had one such law.

Regardless of whether circumcision is required of us as part of the promise (it is required, because we are now Abraham's seed; it is not required, because what's important is faith, not the letter of the law), Paul's point in Romans 4 is that Abraham's righteousness came by faith, prior to any work (i.e. circumcision) done on his part. James, in James 2, adds that "faith" is useless if it's merely an academic acceptance without a life-changing acceptance.

The faulty covenant, replaced by the more excellent ministry, was not those promises made to Abraham; the faulty covenant was the temporary one that was added because of transgressions, the covenant which God made with the ancestors of the House of Israel when He took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt. The writer of Hebrews cites Jeremiah 31, explicitly defining the faulty covenant (Heb 8:7) as "the covenant that I made with their ancestors on the day I took them by their hands to lead them out of the land of Egypt" (Heb 8:9, citing Jer 31:32).

Is Jesus Against Defensive Violence?

The easy passage to cite when addressing the question of using violence for defensive purposes is Matthew 5, wherein Jesus says:

^{HCSB Matt 5:38} “You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. ³⁹ But I tell you, don’t resist an evildoer. On the contrary, if anyone slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. ⁴⁰ As for the one who wants to sue you and take away your shirt, let him have your coat as well. ⁴¹ And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two.

And here's another popular passage:

^{HCSB Matt 26:50} ... Then they came up, took hold of Jesus, and arrested Him. ⁵¹ At that moment one of those with Jesus reached out his hand and drew his sword. He struck the high priest’s slave and cut off his ear. ⁵² Then Jesus told him, “Put your sword back in its place because all who take up a sword will perish by a sword.

Another:

^{HCSB John 18:36} “My kingdom is not of this world,” said Jesus. “If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I wouldn’t be handed over to the Jews. As it is, My kingdom does not have its origin here.”

And yet another:

^{HCSB Eph 6:12} For our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the world powers of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavens.

So at first glance, it seems pretty obvious that Jesus was all about submitting to those who might bring violence against us.

But there's another way to look at Jesus.

I think we've mistaken Paul's words in Ephesians 6 that our fight is not against flesh and blood to mean that we should never fight against flesh and blood enemies. But Paul is saying nothing more than what Jesus told Pilate: his issues, his kingdom, our core purposes, are not of this world. And they aren't. But that doesn't mean we should sit by doing nothing while innocent people are abused by others. After all, Jesus said that if his kingdom was of this world, then his disciples would take up arms and fight (John 18:36). Jesus is not against violence for earthly reasons; it's just that his concern at his trial was not about earthly concerns. And Paul is likewise saying that our core concern is not about those things on earth, but in heaven. But there is no prohibition here of taking care of earthly concerns; that's just not to be our core focus.

In fact, Paul focused quite a bit on taking care of earthly concerns, trying to make sure the poor had some financial relief, and even going so far as to make sure his crew had an accountability partner (and perhaps body-guard?) when carrying large sums of money (2 Cor 8:16-21).

Earlier, before Jesus was arrested, he did have concern for earthly matters, including self-defense, as it applied to his disciples as he was about to be arrested. Just after his last supper (Luke 22:35ff), he asked the disciples if they had lacked anything when he had earlier told them to not take normal traveling equipment (change of clothes, money, shoes) the first time he sent them out. After they replied that they lacked nothing, he then instructs them, "Now I'm sending you again, but this time you need to go prepared, with money, a suitcase, and a weapon, even if you have to have a garage-sale in order to buy that weapon" (v. 36).

Earlier he had told parables of strong men protecting their possessions with violence as examples of expected behavior (Matt 12:29; Mark 3:27; Luke 11:21).

And even before that, he had said through the prophet Jeremiah:

^{HCSB Jer 22:3} This is what the LORD says: Administer justice and righteousness. Rescue the victim of robbery from the hand of his oppressor. Don’t exploit or brutalize the foreigner, the fatherless, or the widow. Don’t shed innocent blood in this place.

(Notice the command to rescue victims from robbers; also notice that the last command is to not shed "innocent" blood.)

Further, Jesus did not "turn the other cheek" when he found God's Temple turned into a mini-mall: he took the time to collect and assemble the materials to make a whip, trudge back into the Temple, and drive the marketers out, with violence (John 2:14-16).

Nor did he humbly submit to the evils of The System when it devours widows' houses or when it makes a proselyte twice as fit for hell as the hypocrites who converted him, but rather forcefully upbraided these evils (Matt 23:14-15).

So whatever Jesus meant by the phrase, "turn the other cheek", it seems he didn't mean we should be passive in the face of evil.

So what did he mean?

I find the following to be of interest:

Jesus clarifies his meaning by three brief examples. "If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Why the right cheek? How does one strike another on the right cheek anyway? Try it. A blow by the right fist in that right-handed world would land on the left cheek of the opponent. To strike the right cheek with the fist would require using the left hand, but in that society the left hand was used only for unclean tasks. As the Dead Sea Scrolls specify, even to gesture with the left hand at Qumran carried the penalty of ten days' penance. The only way one could strike the right cheek with the right hand would be with the back of the hand.

What we are dealing with here is unmistakably an insult, not a fistfight. The intention is not to injure but to humiliate, to put someone in his or her place. One normally did not strike a peer in this way, and, if one did, the fine was exorbitant (four zuz was the fine for a blow to a peer with a fist, 400 zuz for backhanding him; but to an underling, no penalty whatever). A backhand slap was the normal way of admonishing inferiors. Masters backhanded slaves; husbands, wives; parents, children; men, women; Romans; Jews.

We have here a set of unequal relations, in each of which retaliation would be suicidal. The only normal response would be cowering submission. It is important to ask who Jesus' audience is. In every case, his listeners are not those who strike, initiate lawsuits, or impose forced labor. Rather, Jesus is speaking to their victims, people who have been subjected to these very indignities. They have been forced to stifle their inner outrage at the dehumanizing treatment meted out to them by the hierarchical system of caste and class, race and gender, age and status, and by the guardians of imperial occupation.

Why then does Jesus counsel these already humiliated people to turn the other cheek? Because this action robs the oppressor of power to humiliate them. The person who turns the other cheek is saying, in effect, "Try again. Your first blow failed to achieve its intended effect. I deny you the power to humiliate me. I am a human being just like you. Your status (gender, race, age, wealth) does not alter that. You cannot demean me." Such a response would create enormous difficulties for the striker. Purely logistically, how can he now hit the other cheek? He cannot backhand it with his right hand. If he hits with a fist, he makes himself an equal, acknowledging the other as a peer. But the whole point of the back of the hand is to reinforce the caste system and its institutionalized inequality.

The second example Jesus gives is set in a court of law. Someone is being sued for his outer garment. Who would do that and under what circumstances? Only the poorest of the poor would have nothing but an outer garment to give as collateral for a loan. Jewish law strictly required its return every evening at sunset, for that was all the poor had in which to sleep. The situation to which Jesus alludes is one with which his hearers would have been too familiar: the poor debtor has sunk ever deeper into poverty, the debt cannot be repaid, and his creditor has hauled him into court to wring out repayment.

Indebtedness was the most serious social problem in first-century Palestine. Jesus' parables are full of debtors struggling to salvage their lives. It is in this context that Jesus speaks. His hearers are the poor ("if anyone would sue you."). They share a rankling hatred for a system that subjects them to humiliation by stripping them of their lands, their goods, finally even their outer garments.

Why then does Jesus counsel them to give over their inner garment as well? This would mean stripping off all their clothing and marching out of court stark naked! Put yourself in the debtor's place; imagine the chuckles this saying must have evoked. There stands the creditor, beet-red with embarrassment, your outer garment in one hand, your underwear in the other. You have suddenly turned the tables on him. You had no hope of winning the trial; the law was entirely in his favor. But you have refused to be humiliated. At the same time you have registered a stunning protest against a system that spawns such debt. You have said, in effect, "You want my robe? Here, take everything! Now you've got all I have except my body. Is that what you'll take next?"

Nakedness was taboo in Judaism. Shame fell not on the naked party but the person viewing or causing one's nakedness (Genesis 9:20-27). By stripping you have brought the creditor under the same prohibition that led to the curse of Canaan. As you parade into the street, your friends and neighbors, startled, aghast, inquire what happened. You explain. They join your growing procession, which now resembles a victory parade. The entire system by which debtors are oppressed has been publicly unmasked. The creditor is revealed to be not a "respectable" moneylender but a party in the reduction of an entire social class to landlessness and destitution. This unmasking is not simply punitive, however; it offers the creditor a chance to see, perhaps for the first time in his life, what his practices cause--and to repent.

Jesus in effect is sponsoring clowning. In so doing he shows himself to be thoroughly Jewish. A later saying of the Talmud runs, "If your neighbor calls you an ass, put a saddle on your back."

The Powers That Be literally stand on their dignity. Nothing takes away their potency faster than deft lampooning. By refusing to be awed by their power, the powerless are emboldened to seize the initiative, even where structural change is not possible. This message, far from being a counsel of perfection unattainable in this life, is a practical, strategic measure for empowering the oppressed. It provides a hint of how to take on the entire system in a way that unmasks its essential cruelty and to burlesque its pretensions to justice, law, and order.

Walking the second mile

Jesus' third example, the one about going the second mile, is drawn from the enlightened practice of limiting the amount of forced labor that Roman soldiers could levy on subject peoples. A soldier could impress a civilian to carry his pack one mile only; to force the civilian to go further carried with it severe penalties under military law. In this way Rome tried to limit the anger of the occupied people and still keep its armies on the move. Nevertheless, this levy was a bitter reminder to the Jews that they were a subject people even in the Promised Land.

To this proud but subjugated people Jesus does not counsel revolt. One does not "befriend" the soldier, draw him aside, and drive a knife into his ribs. Jesus was keenly aware of the futility of armed revolt against Roman imperial might. He minced no words about it, though it must have cost him support from the revolutionary factions.

But why walk the second mile? Is this not to rebound to the opposite extreme: aiding and abetting the enemy? Not at all. The question here, as in the two previous instances, is how the oppressed can recover the initiative, how they can assert their human dignity in a situation that cannot for the time being be changed. The rules are Caesar's but not how one responds to the rules. The response is God's, and Caesar has no power over that.

Imagine then the soldier's surprise when, at the next mile marker, he reluctantly reaches to assume his pack (sixty-five to eighty-five pounds in full gear). You say, "Oh no, let me carry it another mile." Normally he has to coerce your kinsmen to carry his pack; now you do it cheerfully and will not stop! Is this a provocation? Are you insulting his strength? Being kind? Trying to get him disciplined for seeming to make you go farther then you should? Are you planning to file a complaint? To create trouble?

From a situation of servile impressment, you have once more seized the initiative. You have taken back the power of choice. The soldier is thrown off-balance by being deprived of the predictability of your response. Imagine the hilarious situation of a Roman infantryman pleading with a Jew, "Aw, come on, please give me back my pack!" The humor of this scene may escape those who picture it through sanctimonious eyes. It could scarcely, however, have been lost on Jesus' hearers, who must have delighted in the prospect of thus discomfiting their oppressors.

Some readers may object to the idea of discomfiting the soldier or embarrassing the creditor. But can people engaged in oppressive acts repent unless made uncomfortable with their actions? There is, admittedly, the danger of using nonviolence as a tactic of revenge and humiliation. There is also, at the opposite extreme, an equal danger of sentimentality and softness that confuses the uncompromising love of Jesus with being nice. Loving confrontation can free both the oppressed from docility and the oppressor from sin.

So Jesus is not teaching us to be passive in the face of violence; he's teaching us not to get sucked into an unwinnable escalation of conflict, an eye-for-an-eye seeking of vengeance, to use our brains to accomplish what our brawn won't or can't.

If we understand Jesus' teachings to be not that of passive non-resistance, but of wily disarmament, and if we understand his and Paul's emphasis on the next world to not exclude paying some needed attention to this world, there is no longer any conflict with Jesus' instruction to carry a self-defense weapon when traveling, or his Old Testament instruction to stand up with whatever it takes to rescue victims from robbers.

Jesus does not say "Be a door-mat"; he says, "Do what brings peace, disarm the aggressor, which requires wisdom and cunning and courage and self-sacrifice, and sometimes even physical strength".

More Scripture?

The Biblical writer and apostle, Paul, writes:

^{HCSB Col 4:15} Give my greetings to the brothers in Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her home. ¹⁶ When this letter has been read among you, have it read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea.

We consider the writings of Paul to be inspired. He considers his writings suitable to be read to the churches. He sent a letter to the Colossians, of which copies have survived to the present day. He sent a letter to Laodicea, which has been lost.

What if a copy of the letter to the Laodiceans were to be found in the buried ruins of a first-century library tomorrow? Would we consider it as scripture? Would we add it to our existing Bibles?

Just food for thought.

Pilate Replaced Herod with Jesus

You'll recall that at the time of Jesus' arrest, Herod was the reigning king over the Jews. Even though he was king, Herod was still subject to his own superior authorities, such as the local Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, and ultimately to the Roman Emperor, Caesar.

When the Jewish police and religious authorities arrested Jesus, they set up a kangaroo court and convicted him to a death sentence, but being under Roman rule which reserved the death penalty to Roman courts, they then took Jesus to Pilate to push injustice through the Roman court system.

Pilate, recognizing the affair as being of local Jewish concern, sent Jesus to the lower court of King Herod, rather than wasting the higher court's time on a minor matter.

Herod, however, couldn't get anywhere with Jesus, and sent Jesus back to the higher court of Pilate.

Pilate couldn't find any justification for the death sentence, so he tried various methods of calming down the Jewish rioters and releasing Jesus, even going so far as to beat Jesus to fatal lengths, which technically wasn't a death sentence, but was so in practical terms. Jesus was at this point a dead man walking. As such, he was presented bloodied, weak, and dying, to the rioters as "the man" (John 19:5).

But even that wasn't good enough for the rioters; they wanted him crucified, tortured, hanging from a cross for expected days. So they pressured Pilate more, and inadvertently scared him with the magic words "Son of God" (vv. 7-8).

So Pilate took Jesus back into the governor's headquarters for further questioning, becoming even more convinced that he simply must get Jesus released. But nothing he did satisfied the rioters.

His final attempt was to depose Herod, and make Jesus the king of the Jews. The next time Pilate presented the dying Jesus to the mob, he announced, "Here is your king!" (v. 14). (This can't have made Herod happy, even though Jesus' reign would be short-lived due to his almost-certain impending death from his earlier beating.)

But even that was not suitable to the mob; they wanted Jesus crucified, and they rejected Jesus as king, announcing they had no king but Caesar (v. 15), which just a few hours prior would have probably been considered by the Jews to be treasonous language.

So Pilate gave in, and had Jesus executed by crucifixion. But he still had the last word; on the cross, Pilate affixed a sign that said in three languages, "Jesus the Nazarene, The King of the Jews" (vv 19-20).

What Pilate probably did not intend, and what probably riled the Jews up even further, is that this phrase, as I understand it, in (Englicized) Hebrew, is rendered:

Yahshua Hanatzoi Wehemelech Hayuhadim

 From a distance, the first letters stand out: YHWH

Pilate has just declared Jesus to be YHWH God, King of the Jews.

When the Jews object to the sign, wanting it changed, I can just see the smirk on Pilate's face as he responds to these trouble-makers: "What I have written, I have written" (v. 22).

Same ol', same ol'

I got into a discussion the other day with a young man, 10-ish or so. He's in a Sunday morning Bible class that mixes 3rd, 4th, and 5th graders together. At one point he informed me that he doesn't like Bible class, because "they talk about stuff he already knows", because the class is oriented for the third-graders.

Hmm.

When a Doctor Turns Evil

I have a friend, Jen, who has a multitude of health issues, one of which is magnesium depletion.

Her general practitioner referred her to a specialist, a Dr. X, to look into this issue. The first thing Dr. X did was have a med-port inserted into Jen's chest, so that the bi-weekly infusions could be done without tearing up the veins in Jen's arms.

Normal mag levels are 1.5 to 2.5. Below 1.0 is critical.

After the first infusions and subsequent testing, it was determined that Jen would need weekly, rather than bi-weekly, infusions.

So one day a week, Jen would go in to have her levels measured, and then the next day she would go in for 2 to 4 hours of infusing.

After a while, Jen wondered if they were just going to keep giving her infusions or find out what was causing the depletion. Dr. X told her that he doesn't do research; that's her GP's job.

But that's why the GP referred her to Dr. X! Dr. X is supposed to be the specialist. So she gets referred to him to find out what the problem is; he just puts a port into her chest requiring a traumatic (and dangerous; they snipped a vein in the process, requiring cauterization, causing a significant amount of blood loss) operation, doesn't bother to pursue what the cause of the problem is, and then without warning or, I believe, justification, does the following.

What Jen didn't know, and what Dr. X's office didn't tell her, is that if she missed (or even rescheduled prior to the appointment!) three appointments for any reason, she would get "fired" as a patient of his.

Once, her son had a conflicting appointment with his doctor in Fort Worth, 3 hours away. She rescheduled her appointment to keep his. Strike one.

Another time, her GP insisted she come in to see him at the same time as one of her infusion appointments. Being a good patient, she rescheduled her infusion to obey her GP. Strike two.

A third time, her son again had a conflicting appointment with his doctor in Fort Worth, so she again rescheduled. Strike three.

But it's okay for them to miss appointments with Jen, without warning, and without rescheduling in a timely manner. She went in on one of her days to get her levels measured, to find that the office was closed that day, even though she had the appointment card they had given her in her hand. It was nearly another week (for a total of two weeks without a treatment) before she could get in again.

Because of her three strikes, she got fired.

Dr. X's office sent her a certified letter saying they were severing ties with her, that they would provide service to her for 30 days, and that they would help her find another doctor, suggesting at one point that it might require Jen to drive to Fort Worth or Lubbuck (both 3 hours away) twice a week. This is without any warning whatsoever. None.

They did not help her find another doctor. Her husband found one for her, and made an appointment for her for the next week. In the meantime, she had an appointment with Dr. X in the present week. She went in to have her levels checked; they were now at 0.7, sub-critical. But when she called to check on her infusion appointment the next day, Dr. X's office told her that since she now had a new doctor, they were completely severing their relationship and would not honor her appointment.

She has a level of 0.7, heart-attack levels, and has 7 days to go before her appointment with her new doctor, and Dr. X once again, without justification in my view, refused treatment to her.

I have no word for Dr. X's actions except "evil". I believe he has committed sin against Jen, numerous times. I'm reminded of several Biblical injunctions against such evil, such as:

^{HCSB Isa 5:20} Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who substitute darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who substitute bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter.
²¹ Woe to those who are wise in their own opinion
and clever in their own sight.
²² Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine,
who are fearless at mixing beer,
²³ who acquit the guilty for a bribe
and deprive the innocent of justice.

and

^{HCSB James 4:17} So it is a sin for the person who knows to do what is good and doesn’t do it.

and

^{HCSB Micah 1} Woe to those who dream up wickedness
and prepare evil plans on their beds!
At morning light they accomplish it
because the power is in their hands.
² They covet fields and seize them;
they also take houses.
They deprive a man of his home,
a person of his inheritance.
...
⁹ You force the women of My people
out of their comfortable homes,
and you take My blessing
from their children forever.
...
Aren’t you supposed to know what is just?
^3:2 You hate good and love evil.
You tear off people’s skin
and strip their flesh from their bones.
³ You eat the flesh of my people
after you strip their skin from them
and break their bones.
You chop them up
like flesh for the cooking pot,
like meat in a cauldron.”
...
 ⁵ This is what the LORD says
concerning [those]
who lead my people astray,
who proclaim peace
when they have food to sink their teeth into
but declare war against the one
who puts nothing in their mouths.
⁶ Therefore, it will be night for you—
...
you ...
who abhor justice
and pervert everything that is right....

I believe Dr. X has abhorred justice, chopping Jen up like flesh for the cooking pot, while he sits back and proclaims peace.

Evil.

On the meaning of the word "Repent"

• most common Greek word translated as "repent" in NT is metanoeo (other common word is metamelomai). From meta (change, alter) and noeo (perceive, understand). Etymologically, the word means "change your mind". But word meanings can change (think "football" (as in American football), which refers to a non-ball shaped "ball" that is mostly handled by hand rather than by foot). (Extra credit: Where in the Bible is discussed the throwing of a ball?)

• does not simply mean "change of mind" in all contexts. Contextually, it might mean:

• change your mind
• Luke 16:30-31 repent = convince
• Luke 17:3-4 repent = a claim of change without the actual change of action
• Acts 8:22 repent = thought in heart
• Acts 17:29-30 repent = turning from ignorance, from thinking divinity is like gold, silver, stone, man-made image
• Rev 2:15-16 repent = letting go of a certain teaching

• change your mind to such an extent that you change your life
• Matt 3:8 & Luke 3:8 & Acts 26:20 repentance demonstrated by deeds

• change your actions
• 2 Cor 12:21 repent from evil works
• Rev 2:20-22 repent of her immoral ways
• Rev 9:20-21 repent of murders, etc
• Rev 16:9-11 repent of what they had done

• other similar meanings within the word's semantic range of meaning?

Pentecost Not at the Temple?

I've always thought that in Acts 2, when Peter and the others were filled with the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, and Peter preached the first sermon, that all this took place in the Temple. But just now I've read the first few chapters of Acts specifically asking that question, and I'm surprised to find that the text indicates that it took place at the disciples' "hotel", not in the Temple.

A Look at Biblical Covenants

A fill-in-the-blank look at some Biblical covenants:

CovenantsAndMandates.pdf

The Cutting of an Ancient Covenant

In Genesis 15 we read of YHWH making a solemn covenant with Abram. The covenant ceremony involved sacrificing five animals (a 3-year old cow, a 3-year old female goat, a 3-year old ram, a turtledove, and a pigeon), cutting in half all but the birds. These animal pieces were then laid opposite of each other, and the blood allowed to drain and pool between them.

According to speaker Ray Vander Laan (RVL), who has spent time in the rural areas of the Middle East, this ceremony is still conducted today. The significance is that each of the two parties involved in the covenant would then walk through the blood draining from the animals, symbolically stating that if he failed to keep his end of the bargain, the other party has permission to stomp the covenant-breaker's blood into the ground.

RVL continues, saying that the smoking fire pot and the flaming torch are both symbols for the God of the Bible.

God had promised to Abram to make of him a great nation, to give him all the land in the area, and to bless the nations through his seed (this last item being cited by Paul in Gal 3:8 as being "the gospel"). For his part, Abraham's role was simply to live in God's presence and "be perfect" (Gen 17:1), which of course, obviously, was sure to result in a broken covenant on Abraham's part.

So when it was time to perform the covenant ceremony, God passed through the split animals as a smoking fire pot; then when it was Abram's turn to pass through, God took Abram's turn, passing again as a flaming torch.

In essence, God was saying, "If I fail to keep my end of the bargain, you may stomp my blood into the ground. And if you fail to keep your end of the bargain, you may stomp my blood into the ground." At that moment, God sealed the fate of his son Jesus to be killed at the hands of men.

We see the same type of covenant ceremony in Jeremiah 34. When YHWH gave the Law of Moses on Mount Sinai centuries earlier, one of the provisions was that if any member of the community sold himself into slavery (a common practice for those in poverty), he was to be freed in the seventh year (Ex 21:1; Deut 15:12; Jer 34:14). But the Israelites had not been keeping that practice, and YHWH condemned them for not keeping it, saying:

^{HCSB Jer 34:18} As for those who disobeyed My covenant, not keeping the terms of the covenant they made before Me, I will treat them like the calf they cut in two in order to pass between its pieces. ¹⁹ The officials of Judah and Jerusalem, the court officials, the priests, and all the people of the land who passed between the pieces of the calf ²⁰ will be handed over to their enemies....

Unity, not Uniformity

It's good to remember that despite what seems to be the message coming from many pulpits, unity does not mean uniformity. The first form of the first-century church was exclusively Jewish, with Torah-obedience demanded. The next form, beginning within just a couple of decades, was a mixture of Torah-obedient Jews and non-Torah-obedient Gentiles: two groups having vastly different styles and practices, but united in spirit as a single group. Paul makes it clear in Romans 14 that we can have differences, even on issues which one side may believe very strongly about as being "core".

At Least Three "Gospel"s

• 1 Cor 15:1-8 : it is the death, burial, resurrection, appearance of Christ

• Gal 3:8 : it is that all nations, not just Israel, would be blessed through Abraham

• Matt 4:17,23 : it is that the kingdom of God has arrived

If You're Going to Church to Worship, You're Going for the Wrong Reason

I often hear it proclaimed from the pulpit that we gather "at church" to worship God. And that sounds so God-honoring that we never bother to question whether it's Biblical.

But looking at the New Testament, I see that worship is a life which is "set apart" (sanctified is the big word), not an hour or three which are "set apart".

Although we refer to our assemblies as worship, or service, or worship service, the New Testament never does so. Instead, what it calls service is presenting your bodies as a living sacrifice, being not conformed to this world but being transformed by the remaking of your mindset (Rom 12:1-2). The New Testament defines pure religion as tending to those in need, such as orphans and widows (James 1:27; cf Matt 25:31ff).

You might think this is fine, as individual worship, but that our assemblies are for the purpose of worshiping God as a group ("corporate worship"), and that the New Testament demands that we assemble on the first day of the week for this corporate worship.

Except, that's not what the New Testament teaches.

As mentioned above, you never find the New Testament referring to Christian assemblies as worship. Nor do you find it stated anywhere that the assemblies are for the purpose of worship. The closest you get to that is one implication that the assemblies are for taking the Lord's Supper (1 Cor 11:20).

But even in this instance, Paul berates the assemblers because they are neglecting each other. The context demands that the Lord's Supper is more about one another than about Jesus.

Shocking, yes, I know. But read the text (remember that in those days, the Lord's Supper was in the context of a big communal meal, a "love feast" as Jude puts it (Jude 1:12)):

verse 20 - You're coming together to eat the Lord's Supper, but you're failing in this.

v. 21 - because you're feeding yourselves rather than looking after the hungry person

v. 22 - can't you fill your bellies at home?! you despise the church of God because you shame those who don't have the ability to fill their bellies at home. I'll not praise you for this!

v. 26 - when you take the Lord's Supper, you honor his death

v. 28 - but you need to examine yourself; if you're not paying attention to the Lord's body (those who are going hungry because of your selfishness), you're not worthy,

v. 29 - and thus you're bringing condemnation upon yourself

v. 33 - therefore, when you come together to eat, wait for one another, so no one goes hungry

v. 34 - if you're not getting enough food for your own stomach at the Lord's Supper gathering, then go home to eat, rather than coming together for condemnation.

Also, we see in 1 Cor 14:15ff that it's fine to pray and to sing, to worship, in tongues. Such is perfectly acceptable worship. Just don't do it in church! (At least, without an interpreter.) Why? Because the purpose of assembling is not to worship, but to build up one another. If you pray in tongues, you "verily givest thanks well" (v. 17), but the other assemblers get nothing out of it; "the other is not edified" (v. 17).

The purpose of the assembly here in 1 Cor 14 is not to worship; rather, "When ye come together ... Let all things be done unto edifying" (v. 26). Notice that the scripture does not say "let all things be done to worship God".

And again, in Hebrews 10:24-25, we find the writer warning us against forsaking the assembling. But note that the purpose of this assembling is not to "worship God", but rather to "provoke one another unto love and to good works..., exhorting one another".

Even in Acts 20:7ff, which is usually used as a proof-text for assembling and taking the Lord's Supper on the first day of the week, we see that the emphasis was not on worship, but on Paul speaking to and with the disciples, a focus, not on God, but on "one another". (It might be noted that after he lectured (v. 9) one kid to death (v. 9), he changed his style to discussion (v. 11). Maybe we should pay attention to this. It might also be noted that the only mention of "breaking the bread" in this passage takes place after midnight, which means they started meeting on Saturday night if they were using the Jewish reckoning of time, or they didn't actually eat the Lord's Supper, if that's indeed what is meant here, until Monday, if they were using the non-Jewish reckoning of time. Either way, there are issues in this passage which make it unsuitable as a proof-text for taking the Lord's Supper on the first day of the week. Evidence, yes; proof, no.)

Traditionally, our assemblies have had the core purpose of focusing on God. But in the New Testament, the explicit core purpose of our assemblies is to focus on building up one other. Therefore, that should be the explicit core focus of our assemblies.

You might respond that we should do both (worship God, and edify one another), and I agree; we see that happening in the New Testament. But unless someone can provide a Biblical reference showing that our purpose for assembling is to worship God, we speak unBiblically when we claim that as our purpose.

ACTION ITEMS:

1) Stop proclaiming that our purpose in assembling is to worship God, unless you can back it up with Scripture.

2) Stop designing our assemblies with a focus on worshiping God instead of a focus on building up one another. Include worship, absolutely; that's who we are to be as a people. But stop neglecting the weightier matter of focusing on each other. Ignoring the ones around us for an hour in order to "worship God" does not fulfill the task of each of us edifying others, no matter how well we sing in worship to God. Nor does one man's generically-impersonal sermon fulfill the task of edifying one another. Edifying one another means speaking to one another, in music, in a teaching, in a revelation, in a tongue, in an interpretation, in discussion of what has been said (1 Cor 14:26, 29), not facing the back of someone's head for an hour.

Lay By In Store...

Stephen Lord writes to the Church_Of_Christ group in Yahoo! Groups:

One [way to "cross the line" with regard to tradition in my view] I glean from Mk. 7--when a custom becomes sacrosanct, untouchable, confused with God-given doctrine and made a test of "soundness" and "fellowship". Example: we often hear how "God commanded that we lay by in store as we have prospered every first day of the week." No he didn't. The proof-text for that non-doctrine is 1 Cor. 16, wherein Paul is not speaking of a regular offering to support the work of the local church, but rather a "special contribution" for the poverty stricken church in Jerusalem (cf. Rom. 15; 2 Cor. 8-9). Once Paul arrived, that collection would cease, and he plainly said in 2 Cor. 8:8 that this collection was not a command. There is nothing wrong with providing the opportunity for assembled believers to share their material blessings on a regular basis, but it is not a command of God that we do so every Lord's Day assembly. Therefore, those who insist that taking up an offering is a required component of the assembly, one of the "authorized five acts of worship" that allegedly validate an assembly and make it pleasing in the eyes of God, have crossed the line from harmless custom to harmful "vain worship".

Sorry Pop; I'm Stickin' With My Wife

Maybe Adam felt guilty for not teaching Eve more completely. After all, when the serpent tempted her, she revealed she misunderstood the command, for she told the serpent (Gen 3:2):

We may eat the fruit from the trees in the garden. But about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, God said, "You must not eat it or touch it, or you will die.”

whereas in reality, God had said nothing about touching the fruit; He had just forbidden the eating of the fruit (Gen 2:17).

Maybe it wasn't guilt (maybe Eve just wasn't paying attention in class that day), but rather empathy. Maybe it was just extreme love. Or maybe it was some other motivation we can only guess at. But the result was that when Eve came to Adam to offer him the forbidden fruit, he knowingly chose Death in order to be with his wife rather than with his Parent, God. The apostle Paul wrote (1 Tim 2:14) that "Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived...".

It's ironic, I suppose, but God established that it should be this way. After forming Eve from Adam's rib, He stated (Gen 2:24):

This is why a man leaves his father and mother and bonds with his wife, and they become one flesh.

Eve was deceived; Adam chose. He left his "father" and "mother" and chose Death in order to stand by his wife.

If that action had not have destined the rest of us to pain and death, we might would have thought he was honorable for doing so. Consider his other option: letting her wither and die while he continued on in perfect health. I have no idea how that would have worked out, but we'd see his actions as a bit selfish in that case, I suspect.

Could it be that God saw that Adam made decisions based on what was best for his wife, and saw that Eve was more prone to making decisions based on emotional issues (what is pretty - Gen 3:6), and this is why He said that her husband would have the rule over her (Gen 3:16)?

I don't know; I'm just thinking out loud.

Breastplate of Righteousness, Helmet of Salvation

Many Christians are familiar with the Ephesians 6:13ff passage urging us to put on the whole armor of God:

Take up the full armor of God... the belt of truth, the breastplate of righteousness, the shoes of preparation of the gospel of peace, the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation, the sword of the Spirit.

The context of this passage is that our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against worldly darkness and the spiritual forces of evil. Our job is to resist the dark evil, to stand firm, clothed in full spiritual armor, praying at all times in the Spirit.

But since we're not very well versed in the Jewish Scriptures, we fail to realize that Paul probably had in the back of his mind, and intended to remind his readers of, a passage in Isaiah 59:17, in which context God looks around and sees the evil in the world, and taking it upon himself to put on the breastplate of righteousness and the helmet of salvation and the robe of vengeance, then goes out to repay fury to his adversaries and recompense to his enemies according to their deeds.

In Isaiah, God is wearing the armor, and takes physical vengeance on evil-doers. In Ephesians, we, on God's side, wear our own set of armor, but not the robe of vengeance, and our battle is not physical but spiritual.

I think Paul's readers would have connected these two passages; I think maybe we should also.

Celebrating Christmas?

In my church culture growing up (and even recently in a Wednesday evening sermonette), it has been stressed that Christmas is not to be celebrated by Christians as a Holy Day, as it's not Biblically authorized, coming instead from a mingling of pagan celebrations and Catholic traditions.

Okay, if you don't want to celebrate Christmas in honor of Jesus' birth, I have no problem with that. Romans 14 makes it clear that people are going to come to different conclusions about such matters:

^{HCSB Rom 14:5} One person considers one day to be above another day. Someone else considers every day to be the same. Each one must be fully convinced in his own mind. ⁶ Whoever observes the day, observes it to the Lord. Whoever eats, eats to the Lord, since he gives thanks to God; and whoever does not eat, it is to the Lord that he does not eat, yet he thanks God. ⁷ For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. ⁸ If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

Paul continues that we should not offend one another in these issues, and that we are to get along, not looking down on one another over "doubtful issues" (v.1), saying that each of God's servants stands or falls before the Lord, not before us criticizers (v. 4), and that "stand he will! For the Lord is able to make him stand" (v. 4).

He finishes up this chapter with:

²¹ It is a noble thing not to eat meat, or drink wine, or do anything that makes your brother stumble. ²² Do you have faith? Keep it to yourself before God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. ²³ But whoever doubts stands condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith, and everything that is not from faith is sin.

This last line is often paired with Romans 10:17 ("faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God") to conclude that anything we do in a religious sense must be authorized by the written Word of God, but I believe that's mixing two different "faith" definitions. The Romans 10:17 faith is a faith that brings us into a saved relationship with Jesus; the Romans 14:23 faith is a confidence that we are not condemning ourselves by what we approve (v. 22), specifically in the realm of disputable matters such as eating of certain meets or observing certain holidays, etc, which Paul plainly states is okay either way so long as it's done in honor of the Lord.

Now, one final point:

^{HCSB Luke 2:10} But the angel said to them, "Don't be afraid, for look, I proclaim to you good news of great joy that will be for all the people: ¹¹ today a Savior, who is Messiah the Lord, was born for you in the city of David. ¹² This will be the sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped snugly in cloth and lying in a manger."

The written word of God said that the birth of Jesus is good news of great joy for all people. Then these angels broke out in joyous praise, followed by a party-attitude of the shepherds, the old man Simeon, and the old woman Anna. Should we not also be allowed to have a party-attitude about the birth of Jesus?

If so, when? Every day? Once a month? Once a year? Twice in a lifetime? How often, and when, does the Scripture tell us to celebrate the birth of Jesus?

It doesn't.

But it does tell us that his birth is worth celebrating, for all the people, not just for those immediately involved. It seems to me that the frequency and timing has been left up to us.

But if you don't want to, that's between you and God, as Romans 14 says. On the other hand, if you do want to, that's between you and God, as Romans 14 says.

1 Corinthians 16:1-2

^{HCSB 1 Corinthians 16:1} Now about the collection for the saints: you should do the same as I instructed the Galatian churches. ² On the first day of the week, each of you is to set something aside and save to the extent that he prospers, so that no collections will need to be made when I come.

What the Bible Says	What We Claim
Addressed to the churches of Galatia and Corinth (v. 1) (and presumably Macedonia - 2 Cor 8:1)	Addressed to all churches
Not a command (2 Cor 8:8)	A command
For the specific purpose of financially helping the saints who were in poverty (v. 1; 2 Cor 8:14)	Mostly used for institutional purposes rather than personal financial relief of the saints
Had a definite completion (2 Cor 8:10-11)	Never-ending.

^{HCSB 2 Corinthians 8:1} We want you to know, brothers, about the grace of God granted to the churches of Macedonia.... ³ I testify that, on their own, according to their ability and beyond their ability, ⁴ they begged us insistently for the privilege of sharing in the ministry to the saints.... ⁶ So we urged Titus that, just as he had begun, so he should also complete this grace to you.... ⁸ I am not saying this as a command. Rather, by means of the diligence of others, I am testing the genuineness of your love. ... ¹⁰ Now I am giving an opinion on this because it is profitable for you, who a year ago began not only to do something but also to desire it. ... ¹¹ But now finish the task as well, that just as there was eagerness to desire it, so there may also be a completion from what you have. ... ¹³ It is not that there may be relief for others and hardship for you, but it is a question of equality — ¹⁴ at the present time your surplus is [available] for their need, so that their abundance may also become [available] for your need, that there may be equality. ... ¹⁸ With [Titus] we have sent the brother [who] was also appointed by the churches to accompany us with this gift that is being administered by us, ... taking this precaution so no one can find fault with us concerning this large sum administered by us.

So what's the point? We should not be making the claim that "We are commanded in 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 to give every first day of the week...".

Use it as an example. Make inferences if you like. But don't claim that it's a command to us for an on-going practice of paying the church mortgage and staff salaries.

Role Reversal

At the end of Mark 1 we learn about a leper who met Jesus. Being a leper, he had to stay out of town, far away from people and civilization.

Jesus, going from town to town to teach and heal, meets this leper, and heals him, telling him to keep quiet about it.

Yet the former leper doesn't keep quiet; he goes and tells everyone, so that Jesus is no longer able to openly enter any town lest he be mobbed by the crowds. Instead, he has to stay out in the wilderness.

Before the healing, Jesus went all over, while the leper had to stay in the desert, away from the towns.

After the healing, their roles were reversed, the leper went all over, while Jesus had to stay in the desert, away from the towns.

Thanks to Daniel Egan (http://tinyurl.com/74k8lyj) for this insight.

Hershey's Chocolate Air Delight Kisses

Mmm, the TV advert makes them seem so wonderful; let me go spend my money to buy half the chocolate at the same price.

Oh, wait. Half the chocolate? For the same taste? And the same price? Am I being manipulated by marketing?

Well, if I were to buy this product, yes, yes I would be. But I'm not falling for it.

Marketers. Pfft.

Surprising Realizations

* The Bible does not say that Jesus fell while carrying the cross.

* Abraham's wife, Sarah, was protected from the sexual advances of Abimelech. Why aren't other women so protected? Perhaps because it was important that Sarah be the mate of only Abraham in order to be the mother of The Promise?

* The popular song says, "We bow down, and we crown you the king", but really, there is no scriptural indication of anyone but God ever crowning Jesus as king. Humanly-speaking, we can crown him king of our own lives, but it's not a scriptural phraseology.

Israel Couldn't Sing, So They Put Away Their Instruments

Wow! I've never noticed this before.

^{HCSB Psalm 137:1} By the rivers of Babylon—
there we sat down and wept
when we remembered Zion.

² There we hung up our lyres
on the poplar trees,

³ for our captors there asked us for songs,
and our tormentors, for rejoicing:
"Sing us one of the songs of Zion."

⁴ How can we sing the LORD's song
on foreign soil?

I'm familiar with the idea that the synagogue assembly arose during the time of the Exile, with verse 2 above indicating that non-Temple singing became non-instrumental at this time. But when I read this for what it says, rather than for what I'm looking for, I see something I've never seen before.

The captors asked the Israelites to sing songs of Zion, but they were too broken-hearted to do so, so they put away their instruments.

Notice that they did not put away their instruments and then sing non-instrumentally. They put away their instruments because they couldn't sing. Had they been able to sing, they would not have put away their instruments.

Wives, Submit to Your Husbands

^{HCSB Eph 5:22} Wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord...

All my life this has been interpreted for me to mean that wives were to be submissive to their husbands. And that is true, in context.

Look at the previous verse:

²¹ submitting to one another in the fear of Christ.

So we are all told to submit to one another, but then wives are singled out as needing to be submissive to their husbands. Why? Is it because women need more instruction than men in being submissive to one another?

Let's look at one more aspect of the context. This letter was written to the people in the city of Ephesus. Ephesus, as you'll recall from Acts 19 (and from extra-Biblical history), was the headquarters of the cult of Diana/Artemis. This was a matriarchal town, in which the women were the priests; the women were the government officials; the women wore the pants in the home. These women who were converting to Jesus had spent their entire lives believing that women were to be in charge.

Paul was telling these Ephesians to submit to one another, and emphasizing to the women that the Christian culture was different than that to which they were accustomed, and to stop lording it over the men.

This background may also have bearing on the instructions written to Timothy, who was the church leader in Ephesus at the time (1 Tim 1:3):

^{HCSB 1 Tim 2:11} A woman should learn in silence with full submission. ¹² I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to be silent.

Humming As Communication

It's been said that humming does not communicate, as does actual speech.

I disagree. It may usually communicate nothing, but if I hum the tune to "Amazing Grace" (or the theme from "The Flinstones"), that will put ideas and images and even words into your head.

Granted, that communication is dependent on a shared culture, and so does not communicate new information the way speech is able to do, but humming is not always or entirely void of communicative value.

Just an observation.

Citing Uninspired Text as Inspired

Reading through the Biblical book of Job, I had a thought.

Most of the book relates the back-and-forth arguments between four people. These arguments often contain tidbits that strike us as wise or true, and we might be tempted to quote these tidbits as God-inspired Truth. For example:

^{HCSB Job 18:18} He is driven from light to darkness and chased from the inhabited world. ...²¹ Indeed, such is the dwelling of the wicked, and this is the place of the one who does not know God.

But the gist of the whole book is that these men don't know what they're talking about; they're humans, grappling with the issue of evil in the world, trying to make sense of it. But in the end it's revealed that they simply don't have the answers.

So when we quote these passages as God-given Truth, we're making a mistake. We're quoting fallible humans who don't know what they're talking about, and calling it God's message. This is not God's message to us, but rather Man's guesswork.

We do the same thing with the healed man in John 9; we cite his statement that "God doesn't listen to sinners" (v. 31) as if this is a truth from God. It may indeed be true, but it's a message from a mere uninspired man; we should not quote it as an inspired message from God.

Likewise, even though we know the centurion at the cross spoke truth when he stated that Jesus really was the Son of God (Mark 15:39), we should not cite him as an inspired speaker of God's word.

Obvious examples could also be given, such as when the Assyrians came against Jerusalem and said that Israel's God could not save them from the Assyrians (2 Kings 19:9-13). We know not to cite this passage as inspired Truth, for whereas we know it's true that the words were spoken, we also know the words that were spoken were not true.

The problem is that when we find something we want to be true, we're willing to cite it as God-inspired Truth, even if it, like the obvious non-truth above, is uttered by a non-inspired speaker.

Conclusion: Just because the text is recorded in the Bible by inspiration, that doesn't mean the text is inspired Truth, and we should not cite it as such.

A Plan, or a Promise?

At http://tinyurl.com/7dc5zav I read an entry by Justin which I found thought-catching. (I've paraphrased/cleaned it a bit.)

What if (and it is a hypothetical WHAT IF)… there is NO plan, just "God with us" (that’s Biblical). What if we come upon situations and God says, "Make a choice; you and I will explore that path together." This is not talking about “right” and “wrong” actions, but rather about paths in our lives. For instance: Is there ONLY one person for me to marry that God has planned from the beginning, OR, is there more than one person that I may come upon in my life that I am more compatible with than others? Or, what career should I take in life? Perhaps that’s not all planned out either, but together with God we are supposed to make those tough choices, reassured that God is there with us THROUGH this journey. NOT saying I completely adhere to this theology (and as crazy as it sounds, this is real theology out there, not something I came up with), but it is a viable question to ask.

Self-Serve Health Care

I think we have enough technological know-how to pull it off. Why don't we have kiosks in emergency room waiting areas, in pharmacies, and in Wal-Marts, where we can get our own triage diagnostics on basic issues?

Imagine you're a 45-year old single man, laying in bed at 1am, and your chest is hurting. You've never had chest pains; they're not painful, just uncomfortable and worrisome. You don't immediately exhibit other symptoms of a heart-attack, like sweating, or tingling in the fingers, but the more you lay there wondering if you might be having a heart-attack, the more you talk yourself into sweating, and feeling tingling down your left arm.

Do you call an ambulance, and incur a $1200 bill for maybe nothing? Do you drive yourself to the E.R., wait in their lobby for 45 minutes, finally get checked in, wait another 4 hours while it seems no one is doing much to/for you, and then finally leave after being told you're fine, it's just a pinched nerve in your spine, and paying another $200 deductible on your insurance, followed by a miserable day at work from lack of sleep?

Or do you keep lying in bed, wondering, until you actually do have a heart attack and die?

We have technology. This is fixable.

The E.R. waiting room should have kiosks and monitoring equipment that has clear instructions for clamping on a sensor or three, that checks whatever needs to be checked to give basic indications of your health: blood pressure, heart rate, EKG readings, oxygen level in your blood, chemical indicators in a mouth-swab or even a finger-prick. There should be a safe "x-ray" machine for checking for bone breaks, for when your 13-year old kid falls and then complains about his arm hurting worse than ever before, but you think he's just being a drama-queen.

Yes, I realize this technology does not exist, at least cheaply and safely, Today. But it's just a technological issue. It can exist Tomorrow.

And that would improve the health of many, and save billions of dollars in medical costs. If the kiosk indicates a problem, then you check into the E.R. If not, you go home, having spent a few dollars on gas, and maybe $5 (to cover sensors, pin-prickers, etc) on the kiosk session. The $5 will prevent abuse of the system, but is low enough to allow all but the poorest to get immediate feedback on their health concerns.

I believe it can be done. I believe it could be done by private individuals who have cross-over knowledge in both medicine and electronics/chemical technologies, or by the medical industry itself, or as a last resort, by government, serving in its role of protecting the general welfare of the populace. I think it hasn't been done, mostly because of inertia. But what we have now, and have used for decades, is no longer working. It's time to put technology to work for us.

Pan-Worship Out; Yeshua-Worship In

Matthew 16:18

... upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

Yeshua had just taken his disciples to Caesarea Philippi, which was built on a massive rock, and which was the headquarters for the cult of Pan, the half-man, half-goat god. In the side of this rock was a cave from which issued the beginnings of the Jordan River, and which was incorporated into Pan-worship as the Gates of Hades, through which Pan descended into the depths of the earth every Winter and ascended every Spring. Before this cave, on a flat space of rock, was a temple to Pan, in which massive orgies (of every kind of sex, including homosexuality and with goats) were conducted in worship to this god of earth fertility, to assure good crops.

I suspect that Yeshua and his followers were standing on this rock foundation, his young disciples awed with confusion, interest, and guilt for being at such a place of sin, when Yeshua announced, that here, on this rock, he would build his regularly-assembled community, and the gates of Hades can't do a thing about it.

It would be like your youth minister taking the senior boys to the local strip club before regular business hours, standing on-stage, and announcing that here, on this stage, the assembly of Christ will meet, and there's nothing the forces of worldliness can do about it. Everyone would be shocked, and think the youth minister was corrupting the youth, as well as being out of his mind.

Interestingly, Christians often assemble at this site of former demon-worship now, following in the footsteps of their Messiah. Pan-worship has faded away; Christ's assembly is overpowering the forces of Death.

Tear into the Word Like a Lion Eating His Prey!

onomatopoeia - a word that imitates the sound it makes, like "buzz", "boom", "meow", "oink", "roar".

A Hebrew onomatopoeia is "hagah". After a lion has taken down its prey, and is settling in to start supper, he might encourage himself to dig in with a hearty "hagaaaahhh", or to discourage a multitude of shepherds from even thinking about interfering with his lamb supper with a threatening "HAGAAAHHH!!!".

Now read Isaiah 31:4 -

^{WEB Isaiah 31:4} For thus says Yahweh to me,

“As the lion and the young lion growling [hagah-ing] over his prey,

if a multitude of shepherds is called together against him,

will not be dismayed at their voice,

nor abase himself for their noise,

so Yahweh of Armies will come down to fight on Mount Zion and on its heights."

Okay, now you have the word picture. "Hagah" is representative of heartily tearing into a meal and viciously defending it from attackers.

Now read Psalm 1:1-2 -

^{WEB Psalm 1:1} Blessed is the man who doesn’t walk in the counsel of the wicked,

nor stand on the path of sinners,

nor sit in the seat of scoffers;

² but his delight is in Yahweh’s law.

On his law he meditates day and night.

That word "meditate"? Yep. It's "hagah". On his law he digs forcefully in.

And also Joshua 1:8 -

^{WEB Joshua 1:8} This book of the law shall not depart out of your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, that you may observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then you shall make your way prosperous, and then you shall have good success.

Once again, the word "meditate" is "hagah".

As a lion growling over his prey as the shepherds circle around, so we should dig into the law of YHWH.

This article is originally published at http://kentwest.blogspot.com/2011/09/tear-into-word-like-lion-eating-his.html

Fictional Heroes: Who I Am

It was a dark and stormy night. A shot rang out. Suddenly, a ship appeared on the horizon.

That's how his novel starts. I'm still waiting to see how Snoopy ties it all together in the second chapter. I've been waiting quite a while. Probably around 35 years or so. But I always knew that Snoopy was all about vivid imaginations, and that he one day would tie these disparate events together.

About the same time I was reading Peanut's booklets, I was also reading Archie comics. I remember the principal of Archie's high school teaching Archie that old cliché: "Winners never quit, and quitters never win."

Then there was the book series that had as its hero the guy with the ring that left a tattoo on his enemies' faces when he'd punch them; I can't remember his name, but I do remember that he could walk in a dark cave/tunnel, flipping on his light only for a second, memorizing what he saw, and then walk confidently in the dark for a good distance.

This guy was probably the lead-in for my later influence by Louis L'amour characters; be observant, travel by different routes to avoid patterns, do the Right Thing even when it costs, move silently when needed, don't waste bullets by missing your target; not that I'm good at any of these things.

Captain Kirk taught boldness, and risk-taking, and adventure.

Spock taught logic, and emotional control.

Bret Maverick and Jim Rockford taught the use of brains over brawn.

Col. Robert Hogan demonstrated coolness when trouble arises, and the ability to turn a bad situation, even being stuck in a WWII German POW camp, to your favor.

James West and Batman showed the importance of having the right tools, and of being prepared. Sometimes that tool is a well-trained horse or a derringer hidden in your boot heel; sometimes it's a Utility Belt or a car customized with safety nets and oil sprays.

Robert Petrie showed that a man should be a good and loving husband and father.

The Rifleman taught determination and bravery.

David Banner/the Hulk taught that we're different people in different situations, but that our basic character still shows through.

The Robinson family and the rest of the crew of the Jupiter 2 taught the necessity of keeping hopeful.

Dr. Richard Kimble amplified on that by teaching the principle of never giving in to hopelessness.

I'm sure there were lots of others.

I'm struck that so much of who I am came from television and books.

Then, there's Homer Simpson. D'oh!

Are we commanded to always say "in Jesus' name" in all our prayers?

Although we're commanded to pray in Jesus' name, are we commanded to always say "in Jesus' name" in all our prayers?

1. It is possible to do something in Jesus' name without uttering the phrase "in Jesus' name". We're told to do all things in Jesus' name (Col 3:17), not just pray. Yet when we sing, we don't start off each song (or end each one) with the phrase "in Jesus' name". When we assemble, we don't announce that "we're meeting today in Jesus' name". This is because the unstated assumption is that when we meet as Christians (or change an old lady's flat tire, or walk past the brothel instead of into it, or give back the extra change the cashier incorrectly gave to us, etc), we're doing so in Jesus' name. There is no reason to announce this fact each time we do something (although there's nothing wrong with announcing it). Adding the phrase to each prayer is a man-made tradition that has become a doctrine for some of us.

2. Here are examples of New Testament prayers which do not include the phrase "in Jesus' name":

   • The Lord's Prayer : Matt 6:9-13; Luke 11:2-4

   • Jesus' Prayer for Unity : John 17

   • Jesus' prayer on cross, asking forgiveness for his murderers : Lk 23:34

   • Jesus' prayer on cross, asking "why" : Matt 27:46; Mark 15:34

   • Jesus' prayer on cross, committing his spirit to God : Luke 23:46

   • The prayer of the justified sinner : Luke 18:13-14

   • Prayer for Judas' replacement : Acts 1:24

   • Prayer of thanksgiving for God's help against the authorities : Acts 4:24ff

   • Prayer for unity among the Romans : Rom 15:5-6

   • Prayer for joy & peace in the Romans : Rom 15:13

   • Paul's closing prayer for the Corinthians: 2 Cor 13:13

   • Paul's prayer for the Ephesians : Eph 3:14-21

   • Paul's prayer for the Thessalonians : 1 Thess 3:11-13

   • Another of Paul's prayers for the Thessalonians : 1 Thess 5:23-24

   • Another of Paul's prayers for the Thessalonians : 2 Thess 2:16-17

   • Another of Paul's prayers for the Thessalonians : 2 Thess 3:16

   • Peter's prayer for the people of the Dispersion : 1 Pet 5:10-11

   • John's prayer : Rev 1:5b-6

   • John's prayer to Jesus for him to come : Rev 22:20

   • John's prayer for the grace of Jesus to be with all the saints : Rev 22:21

3. It is quite appropriate, however, to announce that what you're doing (or what God is doing) is being done through Jesus:

   • Romans 7: 24-25: "24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord."

   • Rom 16:25-27: "25 Now to Him who has power to strengthen you according to my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the sacred secret kept silent for long ages, 26 but now revealed and made known through the prophetic Scriptures, according to the command of the eternal God, to advance the obedience of faith among all nations— 27 to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ—to Him be the glory forever! Amen."

   • 1 Cor 15:57: "57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ!"

   • Heb 13:20-32: "20 Now may the God of peace, who brought up from the dead our Lord Jesus—the great Shepherd of the sheep—with the blood of the everlasting covenant, 21 equip you with all that is good to do His will, working in us what is pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen."

   • Jude 1:24-25: "24 Now to Him who is able to protect you from stumbling and to make you stand in the presence of His glory, blameless and with great joy, 25 to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, power, and authority before all time, now, and forever. Amen."

4. CONCLUSION: It is entirely appropriate to announce that we are praying in Jesus' name, but it is not commanded to do so, and we have many New Testament prayers in which it is not done. Therefore, we are not to bind the practice, lest we be found to be teaching as doctrine a commandment of men rather than of God.

Levels of Reward/Punishment in the Afterlife?

Are There Various Levels of Punishment/Reward in the Afterlife?

Yes	No
The Parable of the 10 Minas – Luke 19:11ff. The workers are rewarded according to their performance.	The Parable of the Vineyard Workers – Matt 20:1-15 . Equal reward not dependent on performance.
Judgment to be more tolerable for Sodom, or for Tyre & Sidon, than for other cities (Luke 10:12ff).	Whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved – Acts 2:21
We will be repaid for what we've done in the body (Luke 14:14; Rom 2:6; 2 Cor 5:10).	In truth, I understand that God doesn't show favoritism.... - Acts 10:34 (In the context of God saving both Jew and Gentile.)
If your work survives the fire, you will be rewarded; if it does not survive the fire, you will still be saved, but as though escaping fire (1 Cor 3:12-15).	Equality is the goal, regardless of what one does or does not have (2 Cor 8:12-15). (In the context of Christians sharing worldly goods with one another. )
There is a “prophet's reward”, and there is a “righteous person's reward” (Matt 10:41).	No one who believes on Him will be put to shame; there is no distinction between Jew & Greek, since the same Lord of all is rich to all who call on Him; for everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved (Rom 10:11-13).
We each are rewarded according to what we have done (Matt 16:27; 1 Cor 3:8; Rev 22:12)
Some will be least in the kingdom of heaven; some will be greatest (Matt 5:19; 18:4).
We'll be measured by the measure we ourselves use (Mark 4:24).
Many will recline at the table in the kingdom of God, but some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last (Luke 13:29-30).
The One who evaluates me is the Lord, and praise will come to each one from God (1 Cor 4:4-5).
We will judge angels & things pertaining to this life (1 Cor 6:3).
The wrongdoer will be paid back for whatever wrong he has done, and there is no favoritism (Col 3:25).
Teachers will receive a stricter judgment (Jam 3:1).

Be Still and Know

Psalm 46:10, KJV

Be still, and know that I am God....

I always thought it meant to sit quietly and meditate and realize that God is in control.

But reading it in a different version, the Holman Christian Standard Version, I find a different slant:

Stop [your fighting]—and know that I am God....

And looking at it in the Young's Literal Translation:

Desist, and know that I [am] God....

When we put the verse in context, it looks like maybe Holman's has it right:

⁸ Come, see the works of the LORD,
who brings devastation on the earth.

⁹ He makes wars cease throughout the earth.
He shatters bows and cuts spears to pieces;
He burns up the chariots.

¹⁰ "Stop [your fighting]—and know that I am God,
exalted among the nations, exalted on the earth."

¹¹ The LORD of Hosts is with us;
the God of Jacob is our stronghold.