Context. It's all about Context

In Proverbs 26:4 we read:

Don't answer a fool according to his foolishness,
or you'll be like him yourself.

but in the very next verse we read:

Answer a fool according to his foolishness,
or he'll become wise in his own eyes.

So are we supposed to answer a fool according to his foolishness, or not?

===========

Joel 3:10 says:

Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruning hooks into spears.

But Micah 4:3 says:

They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks.

Which is it? Plowshares into swords, or swords into plowshares?

===========

In Mark 9:40, Jesus says:

....whoever is not against us is for us.

But in Luke 11:23 He says:

...He who is not with me is against me....

Is Jesus inclusive or exclusive?

===========

The point being, just because the black-and-white of the text says something explicitly doesn't mean that's what the text is explicitly saying. Context matters.

The Son of God Foretold

I can't help but associate Proverbs 30:4 with Yahshua:

Who has gone up to heaven and come down?
Who has gathered the wind in His hands?
Who has bound up the waters in a cloak?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is His name,
and what is the name of His Son—
if you know?

Leeches and Misers

It used to be that my town was devoid of panhandlers, but in recent years it seems that more and more street corners are sprouting people dressed shabbily and looking hungry, asking for handouts. Whereas I believe I need to be more ready to give of my means to the needy, I've never been convinced that these people are anything but shams, hoaxing hundreds of dollars a day out of the hands of hard-working, productive people. It was these panhandlers and their relationship to me whom I thought of when I read this passage last night from Proverbs 30:15a:

The leech has two daughters: Give, Give.

It was those same panhandlers, and my relationship to them however, whom I thought of when I read this passage a night or two before from Proverbs 28:27:

The one who gives to the poor
will not be in need,
but one who turns his eyes away
will receive many curses.

A Prayer

Occasionally I'll come across a prayer in the Bible that I think would be ideal for praying in a public assembly. Proverbs 30:7-9 is one such ideal prayer. Here it is from the Holman Christian Standard Bible:

7 Two things I ask of You;
don't deny them to me before I die:

8 Keep falsehood and deceitful words far from me.
Give me neither poverty nor wealth;
feed me with the food I need.

9 Otherwise, I might have too much
and deny You, saying, "Who is YHWH?"
or I might have nothing and steal,
profaning the name of my God.

From "Basic Instinct" to God

Here is the story of author Joe Eszterhas, author of dark thrillers such as "Basic Instinct", who upon seeing a "light" upon his own Damascus Road has turned from the darkness to the light.

He had a change of mind ("repent"), and now he is producing fruits consistent with that change of mind (Luke 3:8). Granted, he has not Biblically finished his conversion as far as the article reveals, and he seems to be trapped in a corruption of the true church rather than leaving that corruption behind, but there's no doubt that he has undergone a significant conversion and a turning toward God.

Is his change and incomplete journey "good enough" for God to accept him? Most in my church culture would answer "No", because he hasn't yet been immersed (presumably) and doesn't "know the truth".

Perhaps those people should be asked the same question: Is your change and incomplete journey "good enough" for God to accept you? Remember, if you get 99.9% of the details correct, but miss on that one tiny detail, you've broken the whole law.

I'm not trying to say that immersion is not essential, or that God doesn't care if you are part of some church that is not the church belonging to Christ; I am saying that we need to trust in God for our salvation, not in how well we understand and apply the Truth. The former is a righteousness that comes as a gift from God by our faith; the latter is a righteousness that comes from Self.

I recommend you go read the story; it's rather interesting. One of my favorite parts of the story is this:

...Joe carries the cross down the aisle. He asserts his nonconformity, however, by wearing jeans and Rolling Stones T-shirts when he does it. Despite the rebel attire, he says he carries the cross with more reverence than most.

I understand the idea that how you're dressed does not necessarily reflect who you are on the inside; I sometimes think my church culture doesn't get that.

Another favorite part is this:

And he complains about priests' homilies being boring and pointless.

Amen! We have elevated the 20-30 minutes of lecture to the position of being the core of our assembly time, such that the preacher drones on for 20 minutes even if his message could be delivered much more succinctly and memorably in 3. I suspect that's not what God prefers. But that's another topic for another day.

You Neanderthal! Oh, Wait, I Meant to Insult You

At http://creationsafaris.com/crev200808.htm#20080826a:

More important than the study about flint knife efficiency was the change of attitude expressed by Metin Erin (U of Exeter), lead author of the paper:

Our research disputes a major pillar holding up the long-held assumption that Homo sapiens were more advanced than Neanderthals. It is time for archaeologists to start searching for other reasons why Neanderthals became extinct while our ancestors survived. Technologically speaking, there is no clear advantage of one tool over the other. When we think of Neanderthals, we need to stop thinking in terms of ‘stupid’ or ‘less advanced’ and more in terms of ‘different.’

Museum displays had long portrayed Neanderthals as stoop-shouldered, beetle-browed, grunting cavemen not as evolved as the upcoming modern humans.

and

Are you angry at the evolutionists who misled generations of impressionable students with their myth of the stupid Neanderthal caveman? Why not?

Saved by Creationism

Many Christians think that the creation-evolution issue is a non-issue, and that Genesis must fit with "science" rather than the other way around. Here, a former atheist tells what kind of difference it made in his life. Here's a short snippet:

I slid into severe depression with suicidal tendencies and sought help at the university’s therapy center. After two months, the sessions ended, but my depression did not—nor my thoughts and plans for suicide. By March of that year, I had my strategy laid out and my note written.

Repent! Change Your Mind!

Quite a few posts ago, I discussed the meaning of the word "repent", and noted that unlike what I had believed all my life, it does not mean "change one's life", but rather it means "change one's mind", which would then erupt into a change of one's life.

Interestingly enough, yesterday I was watching a History Channel special on John the Baptist, and something said in that program triggered the thought that the Gospel accounts of John's ministry supports this idea. Here it is from Matthew 3:2,8 (HCSB):

[John said], "Repent, because the kingdom of heaven has come near!" ... "Therefore produce fruit consistent with repentance."

Luke 3:8 also reports John as saying:

Therefore produce fruit consistent with repentance.

Notice that John does not use the word "repentance" as a synonym for "life-change", but rather that he expects a life-change consistent with a life-changing change of mind.

It seems to me that the evidence is stacking up that the command to repent in the process of salvation is not a command to change one's life, but to change one's mind, which in turn leads to a changed life. Such a change in one's mind is much more powerful than the simpler external change of one's lifestyle. This view also allows one to begin a new relationship with the Cleaner without first becoming clean on his own.

And as a side note, notice that John's examples in Luke 3 of "fruit consistent with repentance" is not to quit smoking or to quit drinking or to even quit visiting the local prostitutes, but rather are of a "take care of one another" nature, specifically in the economic realm.

Interesting Proverbs

Just a few proverbs that caught my eye as I've been reading through the book this week:

Commit your activities to YHWH
and your plans will be achieved. - 16:4

One who isolates himself pursues [selfish] desires;
he rebels against all sound judgment. - 18:1

A man who finds a wife finds a good thing
and obtains favor from YHWH. - 8:22

A house and wealth are inherited from fathers,
but a sensible wife is from YHWH. - 19:14

Kindness to the poor is a loan to YHWH,
and He will give a reward to the lender. - 19:17

Human Logic vs the Clear Teaching of Scripture

I've likely blogged about this before, and have simply forgotten, but recently I had reason to write about it to a friend, and I thought I might post what I wrote to him here (with slight modifications).

====

In more recent years the Lord has put teachers in my path that have helped me learn to distinguish a difference between human-logic-derived doctrines and clearly-Biblical-doctrines; since then, I find certain of our doctrines to be, um, "questionable".

Logic vs Clear Teaching of Scripture

As you know, when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, the cosmos fell into corruption (and is even now eagerly awaiting its redemption as well as ours - Rom 8:18ff). When that happened, our very bodies and minds also became corrupt, and although we still have an amazing body and amazing mental capabilities, they're simply no longer "perfect". Accordingly, although our logic might seem unassailable, quite frankly, our logic is not to be totally trusted. The scriptures speak to this when they say "There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death" (Prov 16:25) and "Every man's way is right in his own eyes, But YHWH weighs the hearts" (Prov 21:2) and similar passages.

When we come to issues in the Bible, there are sometimes clear teachings ("Thou shall not murder"), and there are sometimes teachings that have to be pieced together like a jigsaw puzzle (a multiplicity of elders in every church, which are also known as pastors, overseers, and bishops).

The second type of issue must be determined by the application of human logic. Note that there's nothing wrong with using human logic to piece together the teachings of the scriptures. But there is a problem when we consider our pieced-together doctrine, based on fallible human logic, to be as binding as the clear teaching.

This was much of the problem that Jesus had with the Pharisees. Over the centuries prior to the first century, the Pharisees had applied their very good human logic to the unclear teachings of scripture, and arrived at logical doctrines. (They referred to these teachings as the "Oral Torah", or “Traditions of the Elders”, as in Matt 15:2, which later were written down and codified as the Talmud.) The problem is that those logical doctrines, as good as they were, often conflicted with clear teachings of scripture. For example, the Pharisaic logic led them to conclude that "giving to the church" was the most important thing to be done with your money; Jesus said that their logic nullified the clear teaching of scripture that taking care of your parents comes before making contributions to the church (Mark 7:9-13).

I'm afraid that we in the 21st century church also fall victim to this Pharisaic habit of using our logic to determine binding doctrines. Having come to the realization that we are prone to this habit, I've become skittish of doctrines that are based on logic rather than clearly-stated teachings. This is not to say that I no longer accept such doctrines; it is to say that I hold them much more loosely than I used to, and am much more lenient toward other viewpoints on such matters.

This became even more true when I realized that different people truly truly truly have different logical/perceptual capabilities, and one person's perceptions (and thus logical conclusions) might be 180 degrees different from another person's perceptions (and logical conclusions). For example, which way is the ballerina spinning? Clockwise, or counter-clockwise?

Give God the Glory!

What's wrong with saying "Praise God!" when something good happens?

What's wrong with saying "The Lord led me to make such-and-such decision"?

What's wrong with giving God the credit for the happenings in our lives?

It seems to me that the first-century church had this attitude of ascribing all sorts of "natural events" to the working of God. Is it not unBiblical when we divorce natural events from God's hands?

And the "conservative" brethren answer: "But neither can we claim to know when God has done such-and-such, or that God has spoken to us, when we 'know' He doesn't do that in the modern-day."

Okay, but how about a little balance then? Must we have such divorcement between natural events and the actions of God? Or can we maybe get a little closer back to the Biblical view of "seeing" God in everything happening around us?

Balance. We humans, including me, don't seem to be very good at that, do we?

Modern-Day Movings of God's Spirit

A friend of a friend blogs about her recent healing by God. I believe her story. I've witnessed similar things myself, even though I'm assured at church that such things don't happen in the modern day, or if they do, that they are psychosomatic "acts pf providence" rather than miracles.

Who cares what label you give them? What matters is, does God get the glory? My church's attitude leads to giving "nature" the glory (while giving lip-service to God); I think we should praise YHWH for healings.

This same church also assures me that God does not act directly in our lives any more by providing modern-day prophecy, etc. As I read the New Testament with a new set of eyes, allowing me to see layers of meaning to which I've previously been blind (and making me realize that I most likely am currently blind to even deeper layers, which hopefully the Lord will reveal to me in the future), I'm somewhat stunned, and quite saddened, to realize that my former way of reading the scriptures (as is common still with the members of my local church), results in a trimming away here, a snipping off there, of more and more of the New Testament, discarding those passages as applying in the first century but not in the modern day. For example, look at Ephesians 1:17-18 (NIV, 'cause it's easy to understand, but it says the same thing in the half-dozen versions I checked, including the venerable King James Version):

I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints....

Paul constantly prayed that the Christians would "supernaturally" be given the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, and that their spiritual eyes would be allowed to see.

The doctrine I grew up with, and to which I am still being exposed, insists that this type of revelation from God may have happened supernaturally during the lifetimes of the apostles and shortly thereafter, but now only occurs via normal, non-supernatural absorption of God's word into our minds.

Thus we've trimmed and snipped the word of God to fit our paradigms (which paradigms, I might add, have been arrived at by (fallen) human logic, not by clear teachings from the scriptures).

Am I saying that modern-day miracles occur?

No, not necessarily. What I'm saying is that we need to be open to the possibility that our dearly-held paradigms might be unscriptural. And, that when good things happen, no matter what label we give to those things, give glory to God for them.

By Way of Concession, Not of Command

My church culture often thinks of the New Testament as a rule-book about what can and can't be done in a religious manner, but I think it's important to point out that, at least in some cases, what we consider "rules" are not rules but rather concessions to varying cultural norms.

For example, in 1 Corinthians 7:4-6, the King James reads thus:

4The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

5Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

6But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

Notice verse six: this was not a commandment, but rather an "allowance" for the Corinthians' habitual way of doing things. Look at the way the New American Standard Bible renders verse six:

But this I say by way of concession, not of command.

There are other examples of making concessions for cultural habits. In the book of Colossians, 2:16-3:2, Paul makes it clear that if some folks want to observe the Sabbath, fine; if others don't, fine. If some want to observe a religious festival, fine; if some don't, fine. These earthly observances, with their "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!" rules, are meaningless one way or the other, and insisting on these types of rules sounds good and religious, but really doesn't have any effect on who you really are on the inside. What matters is having your mindset on Christ.

So maybe it's time for us to quit looking at the New Testament as a "rule book", and instead focus on it as a guide to focusing our thoughts on the things above. If your church culture has ingrained in you some practice as being "holy", such as fasting from marital relations or observing "Good Friday" or burning a menorah candle at Hannakuh, it's okay to let that practice have some sway in your life, but don't let it become a substitute for the real saving power, which is Christ Jesus.

Grammar

When telling a person that they are this or that, since you're only talking to one person, shouldn't you use a singular verb? Like as in, "You is pretty."

I mean, you use a plural verb, telling a girl "You are pretty", and she's likely to think you think she is twins (or would that be ,"she are twins"?).

And don't even get me started on "am". I amn't going there.

Those Evil, Evil Change-Agents

In my church culture, it's not rare to hear someone railing against "change-agents", those "people who sneak into a church and then effect change from the inside, 'corrupting' the pure church into some new denomination-like shadow of the former true church".

When such change-agents do indeed corrupt the church into something other than the church which Christ established, I'm fully on-board with those who rail against such change-agents.

Yet, we need to be careful about slinging around labels like "change-agent", simply because if change is needed, we need change-agents to bring about that change.

The problem in my church culture is that most of us are 100% convinced that we have completely restored the first-century church of Christ, and therefore any change is a corruption.

But what if we haven't completely restored the first-century church? What if we've missed something in our theology? In such a case, we need, and should welcome, change-agents to step up and bring us in-line with Biblical teaching.

The danger is that we tend to immediately dismiss change-agents as corrupters without being like the Bereans who searched the scriptures daily to see if these things be so (Acts 17:11).

Next time a "change-agent" shows up in your church, will you be mature enough to hear what he has to say, and to weigh it against scripture, or will you be satisfied to keep believing that you already have all the answers? Yahshua considers guilty those people who claim to have the answers when they really don't (John 9:41, in context). Are you claiming to "see"?

Please Stop Mis-Using 1 Cor 16:1-2 as a Proof Text

Ag!!

The text reads:

Now about the collection for the saints: you should do the same as I instructed the Galatian churches. 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.

The next verse reads:

And when I arrive, I will send those whom you recommend by letter to carry your gracious gift to Jerusalem.

The entire context (including the context of the story as given by Luke in Acts, such as in Acts 24:17) concerns a special collection taken up by churches all over the Middle-East, to send to the poor Christians back in Jerusalem. You can see this rather clearly in 2 Corinthians 8:10ff:

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. But now finish the task .... It is not that there may be relief for others and hardship for you, but it is a question of equality — 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.

The point is, what's spoken of in 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 has nothing to do with the regular weekly contribution we do in church every Sunday which is spent on our church needs. To claim that our collections for local needs is "commanded in 1 Corinthians 16:1-2", is to twist scripture. At most, this passage provides a proof-text for taking up a weekly collection for sending to poor churches, not for spending on the collecting church's needs.

I believe a weekly collection for our on-going church expenses is a Biblical concept, but this passage does not provide a proof-text for it, and should not be so used.

Human Dignity in Matters of Healthcare

Underlying any area of bioethics based on a Christian worldview is the concept of man as a special part of creation made in God’s image. This means that our views on healthcare should reflect the inherent dignity of the individual. Dr. Pellegrino discussed this essential element that part of common good is valuing man because he is man, and I would add that it is expressly because he is made in the image of God.

Many of the sessions at the conference, whether they were on doctor/patient relationships or public policy, centered on this point that man is made in the image of God and that individuals should be valued as unique and important. This presupposes a theistic worldview.

. . .

How does one’s worldview affect their various views on healthcare?

. . .

As Nancy Pearcey points out in Total Truth, every worldview answers three basic questions: Where did we come from? What happened to us (why is there evil)? And, how can things be made right? As Christian theists we would answer these questions with “Creation-Fall-Redemption.” Naturalists, on the other hand, would answer with the triad “Darwinism–Evil is an illusion–Survival of the fittest.” A naturalist’s creation story is that of Darwinism. Therefore, man is nothing more than a product of natural selection. He does not hold a unique position above other animals, and he was not specifically created with a purpose.

One’s view on origins is fundamental to how man is regarded, and it determines which ethical system is used to determine right and wrong views on healthcare. The tension is between the theistic view that man has inherent dignity and worth, despite his capabilities or lack thereof, and the naturalistic view that man’s worth is based on whether or not he is a burden on society as a whole.

Heather Zeiger
"Healthcare and the Common Good"

Concerning Ritual

A friend of mine, in some notes, apparently cites Jeff W. Childers ("The Crux of the Matter") citing Evelyn Underhill's "Worship":

Ritualism is no substitute for good ritual.

My friend further writes:

Tradition vs Traditionalism. “Tradition is the living faith of the dead. Traditionalism is the dead faith of the living. And, I suppose I should add, it is traditionalism that gives tradition such a bad name.” Jaroslav Pelikan

Don't Take God There

Rob Bell, in his book Velvet Elvis, starting on page 77, reminds us that Isaiah 6:3 says:

Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory.

Bell then goes on to point out that

The Hebrew word for glory here is kavod, which means weight or significance. The whole earth is full of the weight and significance of who God is.

He continues:

A church is a community of people who are learning how to be certain kinds of people wherever they find themselves, so they can do whatever it is they do “in the name of the Lord Jesus”. The goal isn’t to bring everyone’s work into the church; the goal is for the church to be these unique kinds of people who are transforming the places they live and work and play because they understand the whole earth is filled with the [glory] of God. God isn’t in one building only.

Which allows him to conclude:

Missions then is less about the transportation of God from one place to another and more about the identification of a God who is already there....maybe it means teaching people to use their eyes to see things that have always been there; they just didn’t realize it. You see God where others don’t. And then you point him out.

The church is to take the message to the world, not to take God to the world. God's already there. The people just need help seeing Him.

Let's Ignore God's Word, 'kay?

I keep hearing the words of Yahshua to the Pharisees and scribes:

'They worship Me in vain,

teaching as doctrines the commands of men.'

"Disregarding the command of God, you keep the tradition of men."

He also said to them, "You completely invalidate God's command in order to maintain your tradition!"
-- Mark 7:8-9

We, at least in my church culture, have tended to think of the Pharisees and the scribes as a group of people who have completely disregarded the scriptures in favor of their particular doctrines. We do this because in the 20th Century, one of the dominant emphases of the Church of Christ was to highlight how the different denominations had adopted denominational creeds and statements that carried more weight for their members than did the actual scriptures, whereas the Church of Christ was focused on using the Bible only as its source of religious authority. We have thus tended to think that the Pharisees and scribes were doing the same thing as our modern denominations.

But the Pharisees and scribes had great reverence for the scriptures. The problem is that the scriptures didn't always agree with one another. For example, one scripture might say, "Do no work on the Sabbath", while another might say "Circumcise your male child on the eighth day, even if that falls on a Sabbath". So the quandary arises: do you keep the law to avoid working on the Sabbath, or do you keep the law of doing the work of circumcision?

So the Jews, over the centuries, had developed an oral tradition to decide how to apply these conflicting scriptures. It was on the fine points of these arguments that Yahshua got in trouble with the Pharisees: "Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?" (Mark 3:4).

It was in the context of one of these disagreements that Yahshua made the claim that the Jewish religious leaders were invalidating God's command in order to maintain their tradition. The Pharisees and scribes were trying to be scriptural, but in so doing, they had elevated their logical conclusions to a level that actually superseded the intentions of scripture.

In conjunction with these thoughts, I keep thinking also of church leaders who have elevated their logical conclusions to the point where they insist that their members refrain from doing things that are "out of the ordinary", even if those things are Biblical. I'm thinking in particular of raising hands in worship (I found yet another example of this last night in Psalm 134:2). This practice is very Biblical, found in both the Tanakh ("Old Testament") and the New Testament, even commanded of men in 1 Tim 2:8. But our "traditions" have relegated that to a cultural practice that should be set aside in the 21st century:

Disregarding the command of God, you keep the tradition of men.

That scares me.

Solomon's Molten Sea and the Value of Pi

In the list of alleged Biblical inaccuracies, it is often claimed that the Bible teaches the value of Pi to be three. These critics demonstrate their readiness to attack without having proper ammunition. Here's how one writer put it:

Geometry class escapes religious fundamentalist scrutiny, too, as a careful reading of Second Kings reveals. The circular altar in Solomon's temple, we're told, is nine cubits in diameter and 27 cubits around the rim. Except that makes Pi an even three-point-zero instead of 3.1416. Oops.

It doesn't take much to see that this critic is pretty ignorant on the matter (not stupid; just ignorant).

It's not in Second Kings. It's in 1 Kings 7:23ff, and 2 Chronicles 4:2ff.

It's not 9 and 27 cubits. It's 10 and 30.

It's not a circular altar. It's a circular "molten sea".

And perhaps the most significant issue; this sea had a "brim", like a cup, which was as wide as a hand (1 Kings 7:26). The measurement of the circumference was done by a line (v. 2). I suspect that most people running a string around a huge cup would place the string just under the brim. So, assuming a hand is 4 inches wide, and a cubit is 18 inches, we have 540 / 172 = 3.1395...; that's pretty close to Pi's value of 3.14..., well within the margin of error for hand-size, or string-stretch, etc.

Political Background Behind Jesus' Execution

If you have any interest in history, particularly the political background behind the execution of Yahshua, Bill Heroman has an excellent synopsis over at his blog under Jesus & Herod Antipas. Go read it. Here's a snippet to whet your appetite:

If anyone other than Tiberius Caesar had been Emperor in those days, the Lord Jesus Christ might not have been crucified! He might have been beheaded.

and

History happens very slowly. Most big things usually take years. In Italy, Tiberius retired. Sejanus plotted and died. Agrippa learned about a secret alliance. Macro & Caligula plotted against Caligula's brother and mom. Meanwhile, in Israel, a teenager danced for Antipas. The old Tetrarch beheaded the Baptizer. And Jesus got to spend the better part of two years in Judea, which had stayed closed to him for so long. But that’s far from all…

Because of all this, Jesus was not beheaded. Because of Sejanus and Macro, Antipas and Tiberius, Agrippa, Agrippina and Caligula, the Sanhedrin and Salome… the Lord Jesus Christ died on a Cross.

A Church that Fits

I just read an article on the American phenomenon of "cowboy churches", churches which are set in a rural environ, perhaps in a barn or under a tree, perhaps with the congregants on horseback ("sermon on the mount", anyone?), with folks dressed in traditional cowboy garb, and singing country/folk-style songs.

For traditionalists, such a break from the norm seems almost sacrilegious, but as I read the article, along with the hints/revelations the Lord has given me over the past couple of years about how "people are different from one another", it struck me that perhaps there's a time and a place for church assemblies that may be vastly different from that to which I'm accustomed.

And then I read a statement by one of the leaders of one of these types of churches which really resonated with me. The article relates:

"The cowboy church works because we are people who like to ride and also worship the Lord," he said. "So it fits who we are. But I'm sure people up in the city sure must think it's weird."

"So it fits who we are."

Perhaps it's time for the church to realize that "one size does not fit all".

(Note: I'm not arguing for violating the pattern of the New Testament church; I am saying that what we consider as the pattern may very well be narrower than the actual New Testament pattern.)

Repentance

All my life I've grown up with the idea that the word "repentance" is defined as "a change of lifestyle from one of sin to one of Godliness". In recent years I seem to have subconsciously abandoned that definition for one that means "a change of mind, leading to a change in lifestyle".

Over the past few months I've had some discussions about when a person is qualified to become a Christian; I have taken the stance that one needs to make a decision to turn away from sin, but that doesn't mean the person must become sinless ("mature") prior to his conversion; the other person in the discussion has taken the stance that if a thief wanted to become a Christian, would it be adequate if that thief just cut down his thievery to 50% so he could be converted, planning to cut it down to only 10% over the next few weeks/months/years, until he finally stops stealing?

The other person makes a good point, but I still maintain that the point fails when considering human nature; his view insists that a person addicted to smoking or alcohol or drugs must get "clean" before he can develop a relationship with Yahshua Christ. Even the apostle Paul complained about how he was constantly sinning, even though he didn't want to sin (Rom 7:7ff).

Yet in all these months of discussion, I'm not sure it ever entered my head to see how the word "repentance" should be defined.

Looking through several resources on the Internet, I find that there are several words that are translated "repentance", and they each have slightly different meanings. The word I'm most interested in here is the one used in Acts 2:38 -- "repent and be immersed" and in similar passages. According to one dictionary:

2. Repent--"to Change the Mind":

The word metanoeo, expresses the true New Testament idea of the spiritual change implied in a sinner's return to God. The term signifies "to have another mind," to change the opinion or purpose with regard to sin. It is equivalent to the Old Testament word "turn." Thus, it is employed by John the Baptist, Jesus, and the apostles (Mt 3:2; Mk 1:15; Acts 2:38). (emphasis added)

Concerning the "Old Testament word 'turn'" as mentioned above, the same dictionary says:

2. To Repent--"to Turn" or "Return":

The term shubh, is most generally employed to express the Scriptural idea of genuine repentance. It is used extensively by the prophets, and makes prominent the idea of a radical change in one's attitude toward sin and God. It implies a conscious, moral separation, and a personal decision to forsake sin and to enter into fellowship with God. It is employed extensively with reference to man's turning away from sin to righteousness (Dt 4:30; Neh 1:9; Ps 7:12; Jer 3:14). (emphasis added)

What I find interesting is that this repentance is a repentance of mindset, which leads to a change in lifestyle, but it is not the actual change in lifestyle.

Granted, I may be looking for evidence to bolster my own position (which is something human nature makes us prone to do), but it seems to me that the evidence here is that in the conversion process, repentance is not a matter of first "getting right" before becoming a Christian; rather, it's a matter of deciding to get right.

As such, I think a drug addict should go through the conversion to God, realizing he's still likely to return to the sin with which he's familiar, but dedicated to overcoming that sin.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but it just doesn't seem that God expects us to become perfect before He'll adopt us.

Even Pilate Claimed Jesus as God

You'll recall that when the Roman governor Pontius Pilate gave into the political pressure to have Yahshua (Jesus) executed on a cross, he had his soldiers hang a sign on the cross to announce the prisoner's crime. John 19:19-22 says:

19Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the cross. It read, "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews." 20Many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it was written in Aramaic, in Latin, and in Greek. 21So the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, "Do not write, 'The King of the Jews,' but rather, 'This man said, I am King of the Jews.'" 22Pilate answered, "What I have written I have written."

According to this article,

... the chief priests were infuriated when they saw the Hebrew inscription hanging over Yahshua’s head as He was dying on the tree.... By taking the first Hebrew letter of each word of the inscription hanging over His head, Yahshua Hanotzrei Vemelech Hayehudim....

you get YHVH, the Tetragrammaton, which in modern English is usually rendered YHWH or Yahweh, or in older English, JHVH (and intentionally mangled by many translators into the man-made corruption of "JeHoVaH").

(Yahshua = Jesus; Hanotzrei = the Nazarene (or of Nazareth); Vemelech = and king of; Hayehudim = the Judahites, Jews)

Pilate, unwittingly, announced to the world that Jesus is Yahweh, the God of Israel.

Why did Jesus Quote from Deuteronomy at his Temptation?

(Thanks to my sister/friend Evelyn for helping me to see this lesson.)

You may have noticed that in Luke 4, when Jesus was tempted three times by Satan, each time Jesus responded with a quote from Deuteronomy.

Why didn't Jesus respond with quotes from other passages in the Tanakh? When Satan finally resorted to quoting the Bible himself in his temptations, he did so from the book of Psalms. Yet Jesus, rather than providing an answer from Psalms, continued quoting from Deuteronomy.

Is there any significance here?

It seems to me that there might be.

First, notice that Jesus was in the wilderness for forty days, during which he was tempted (Luke 4:1-2). This is a parallel to Israel being in the wilderness for forty years, during which they were tested (Deut 8:2). So already we're primed to associate these two events together.

Secondly, Jesus did not bounce all around in Deuteronomy, but remained focused on one small section of Deuteronomy, a section that every Jew in Jerusalem at the time would associate with the Shema.

The Shema (from the Hebrew word for "listen") was the passage in Deuteronomy 6, starting at verse 4, which says this:

Hear, O Israel: YHWH our God, YHWH is one. Love YHWH your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.

The Jews knew this passage by heart, reciting much of it twice a day as part of their customs. The passage continues on into chapter 8, where we read the response of Jesus to his first temptation: "Man does not live on bread alone." The whole Shema passage screams the central point: "Listen! Listen to God!"

The message is "YHWH YHWH YHWH", not "Me Me Me".

By focusing on this Shema passage, Jesus is clearly telling his Eastern-mindset culture to listen to God, not to anyone or anything else. Later, he makes it clear for those of us with a Western-mindset who don't "get" the Eastern way of thinking. He puts in in plain words for us in Mark 12:29-30:

"The most important [command]," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'"

Listen.

Listen to God.



UPDATE:
Then again, perhaps its something much more mundane. Every Jewish male was sent to Bet Sepher, "elementary school", at about age six, where he studied the Torah (containing the first five books of the Bible, including Deuteronomy). Perhaps Jesus restricted his quotations to those of the Shema section from Deuteronomy because like all male Jews of the time, that section of the text would have been the most familiar to him since his childhood.

Resist the Devil

Since a child I've been aware of the instruction in James 4:7 to "Resist the devil and he will flee from you". But this morning in Bible class, the Lord used our new preacher to open my eyes to an additional instruction in that verse, one which is required to even make resistance to the devil possible. Here's the entire verse:

Therefore submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you.

As the preacher pointed out, people often try to resist the devil without first submitting themselves to God. Thus they're in and out and then back in, repeatedly, the drug and alcohol rehabs, but the "fix" never really takes hold.

You simply can't resist the devil without first submitting yourself to God.

Brother X

I just came across a reminder that sometimes people in the church will address each other as "Brother Smith" or "Sister Nancy", etc.

Whereas I'm confident that God is in no wise offended by this, and whereas I'm also confident that it might actually serve a good purpose in reminding us that we are indeed brothers and sisters, I just want to point out that this practice is not Biblical.

Sometimes the New Testament writers would refer to each other as brothers or sisters, but as near as I can ascertain, they never addressed each other as "Brother This" or "Sister That".

So whereas the habit might have its positives, I think I'll not contribute to this practice which appears to be absent in the early church.

Just thought I'd make this observation.

An Original Poem

I just came across some old papers I had written years ago, and found this poem. It's not art, but I found it interesting.

=============

One bright day in the middle of the night
Two dead boys got up to fight.
Back to back, they faced each other;
Drew their swords and shot each other.

A deaf policeman heard the noise
And came and shot the two dead boys.
If you don't believe this lie is true,
Ask the blind man; he saw it too.

Was Beatle John Lennon Pro-Christ?

According to this article, a 1969 interview with John Lennon, of the Beatles, has him saying,

If the Beatles get on the side of Christ, which they always were, and let people know that, then maybe the churches won't be full, but there'll be a lot of Christians dancing in the dance halls. Whatever they celebrate, God and Christ, I don't think it matters as long as they're aware of Him and His message.

and

... if I can turn the focus on the Beatles on to Christ's message, then that's what we're here to do.

Concerning his statement that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus, he said his statement was misunderstood:

It's just an expression meaning the Beatles seem to me to have more influence over youth than Christ," he said. "Now I wasn't saying that was a good idea, 'cos I'm one of Christ's biggest fans."

I've never been much of a fan of the Beatles, and I don't know anything more about John Lennon and the others than what little snippets I catch from the mainstream media, but if Lennon really felt this way, and these statements are not out-of-context or an attempt at damage-control on his part, I'm very encouraged about Lennon. From what little evidence I've seen, I don't believe I would likely be persuaded that he was "a good Christian man", but I might be persuaded that he was a fallen, confused man, like us all, who perhaps had his moments of reaching out to the True One in his own broken, less-than-churchly way.

The Biblical Order for Financial Assistance to Others

1. Family

Now if anyone does not provide for his own relatives, and especially for his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
--- 1 Tim 5:8 (HCSB) ---

2. Church Family

Therefore, as we have opportunity, we must work for the good of all, especially for those who belong to the household of faith.
--- Gal 6:19 (HCSB) ---

3. Others (See #2 above)

Just another Biblical example of hand-raising

Just another example of hands being raised in praise ...

So I will praise You as long as I live;
at Your name, I will lift up my hands.
--- Psalm 63:4 (HCSB) ---

Why was Paul heading to Jerusalem in Acts 20:16?

We were studying Acts 20 last night at church, reading in Acts 20:16 that Paul was heading to Jerusalem, and someone asked, "Why was Paul heading to Jerusalem?"

The answer given in class is that he was going to where he'd find a large gathering of people who might be receptive to the Gospel.

I think this is a true answer, but it must be remembered that this answer is assumed, and is never stated in the text.

A second likely reason is that Jewish men went to Jerusalem to celebrate Passover. Paul was Jewish, and as covered in my last blog entry, he, at least for a time, retained his Jewish habits.

A third reason is specifically stated by Paul in Acts 24:11 -- "to worship". The implication (and that's all it is) is that he was going to Jerusalem to participate in the Jewish Passover worship activities (as opposed to Christian worship activities, which would not have required a trip to Jerusalem).

A fourth reason is also specifically stated by Paul, in Acts 24:17 -- "to deliver alms and offerings to my nation". By "my nation", he might be referring to his Christian brothers and sisters (and we know from other passages that was his task), but the context seems to indicate that he intended his listeners to understand the phrase as referring to the physical Jewish nation, implying that Paul considered the Christians in Jerusalem as part of the physical Jewish nation.

So, Paul was going to Jerusalem:
1. to deliver financial aid to the Jewish church
and
2. to teach the Gospel (a probable reason)
and
3. because he was a Jew and that's what Jews did (also a probable reason)
and
4. to worship.

Two Churches in the First Century

I believe I've written about this before, but it has come up again at church, so I'm compelled to once again cover the matter.

I made the comment that the Jewish Christians probably met as Jews in the synagogue on Saturday-Day, and when six pm rolled around, the Gentile Christians joined them, and the meeting morphed into a Christian assembly as the first day of the week began at the close of the Sabbath, our Saturday-Night.

The idea that Jewish Christians were still meeting in the synagogue as Jews didn't seem to sit well with some. This is probably because many Christians today believe that keeping the Mosaic Law after Jesus' resurrection is sinful, based on a faulty understanding of Paul's writings that the Law has been done away with.

Paul didn't say that keeping the Law was sinful; he said that trying to be justified by keeping the Law was sinful. He further said that the Law was good.

We have traditionally misunderstood these warnings in the New Testament against adhering to the Mosaic Law. It is not a sin to keep the Law; it is a sin to seek justification by keeping the Law. This misunderstanding has led to the further misunderstanding of much of the history of the church in the first century.

Paul, himself, kept the Law. From Acts 21:

21[The Jews] have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. ... so do what we tell you. ... Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law..."

... 26The next day Paul [did as they suggested].

Not only Paul, but the entire church kept the Law for the first decade or so of the church. The whole reason for the Jerusalem conference in Acts 15 is because up until then, every Christian was a Jew keeping the Law of Moses; it likely had never even crossed their minds that Gentiles could become Christians before Peter met Cornelius, much less that they could do so without "becoming Jews" and keeping the Law of Moses. The entire conference was about this issue, and even the Apostles and other leaders of the church had to be swayed by the Holy Spirit before they'd accept the idea that the Law of Moses was not required of the Gentile converts (although they insisted that the Gentiles keep a few basics to keep from offending the Jews living in Gentile cities). The New Testament has several examples of Law-keeping Jewish Christians still trying years later to coerce the Gentile Christians to keep the Law of Moses, particularly circumcision. (Those Jewish Christians must not have gotten the memo; or they just disagreed with it.)

Modern-day Christians, if they truly want to be Biblical, need to realize that in the first decade or so of the church Christians were exclusively Moses-obeying Jews, and then for the next few decades there were "two" churches : a Moses-obeying Jewish church, and a non-Moses-obeying Gentile church. Paul had to constantly remind the Christians that they had been made into "one" by the blood of Christ which made this distinction a merely cultural one that no longer mattered. Thus he could add that keeping a Jewish holy day special didn't matter one way or the other (Rom 14:5ff); Jewish dietary restrictions didn't matter one way or the other (Rom 14:6ff); Jewish circumcision didn't matter one way or the other (1 Cor 7:19). Once the Jews got that into their heads, they either started letting go of Moses, or started letting go of Christ in order to hold onto Moses, and the result was a gradual morphing of the church into a predominantly non-Moses-obeying Gentile church, which is what we have today.

This lesson is hard to accept for modern Christians because it brings into question doctrines many of us have held all our lives, such as our thinking about observing religious holidays. But our job is not to hold onto our life-long-held doctrines, but to examine the Scriptures daily to see if these things be so.

Breaking of Bread in Acts 20:7

To insist that the phrase "break bread" in Acts 20:7 refers to the Lord's Supper is to go beyond what is written. This is a possible meaning, but it is by no means certain.

This meaning is often arrived at by circular reasoning:
A. The claim is made that the church met on the first day of the week to have communion.
B. How do we know?
C. Because Acts 20:7 talks about meeting on the first day of the week to break bread.
D. How do we know this "break bread" refers to the communion?
A. Because that's what the church did when they met on the first day of the week.

Oh.

Which Side Are You On?

Jesus said,

You are either for Me, or you are against Me.

Which side are you on?

(This concept plagiarized from Greg Laurie's "Encountering the Jesus Freaks".)

Are You Wicked?

Psalm 28:3 defines the wicked and the evildoers as those people ...

who speak in friendly ways with their neighbors, while malice is in their hearts." (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

Are you a wicked evildoer?

Whence the value of Christianity in a Modern Scientific culture?

This short blog article highlights the difference in outcome of a Christian-based culture vs an atheist-based one, in regards to medical progress. Rather interesting, and is a good response to those claims by atheists that "modern science" is responsible for medical progress rather than "prayer".

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/06/cancer_research_prayer_and_st.html#more

The Bible as a Mirror

I don't remember where I was exposed to this idea (I've probably blogged about it previously), but it has recently really come home to roost in my mind.

The Bible, complex as it is, winds up mirroring whatever beliefs you bring to it.

• If you believe women should be silent in church, you'll find that in there. If you believe women should be given equal rights/status/abilities as men, you'll find that in there.
• If you believe salvation is absolutely dependent on being immersed, you'll find that in there. If you believe we can do nothing to gain our own salvation, you'll find that in there.
• If you believe the Jews are a favored race for all time, you'll find that in there. If you believe the Jews have been rejected since they've rejected Jesus, you'll find that in there.

Just thought I'd point this out.

Gravity is so 20th Century

Salvador Cordova has found a documentary on YouTube that is fascinating. Basically, in the past few decades, Plasma Cosmology has started making inroads into supplanting the standard cosmological theory that is based on gravity (which is the basis for modern science's understanding of the universe, including the Big Bang, etc).

Ever since Newton, it has been believed that the earth revolves around the sun because of gravity, and that gravity explains all the other movements in the heavens.

Plasma Cosmology suggests that gravity is not the dominant force, but rather electricity, and electricity's attendant magnetic fields.

Once the concept was presented to me, it clicked. It makes sense. (On a related note, this highlights how that an entire culture can be blind to something very obvious until someone happens to notice that obvious something and points it out.)

Plasma Cosmology explains many things that gravity-based cosmologies fail to explain. The four less-than-10-minute videos on Cordova's blog discuss comets and black holes and filament-structures and historical references to Venus as being a comet, etc. Well worth viewing if you have any interest in this sort of thing.

I'm sure there are weaknesses in the theory, and that this documentary has some things wrong, but still, it's an education that well-informed people need.

Go watch it at http://www.youngcosmos.com/blog/archives/253

Prophet, Priest, and King

Olive oil was used to anoint:

• the prophet, who delivers God's word
• the priest, who is the People's representative to God
• the king, who enforces God's word

The Spirit of the Lord anointed Jesus - Luke 4:18

Jesus:

• while on Earth, functioned as prophet, delivering God's word
• now at the right hand of God, functions as priest, interceding for the people
• when he returns, will return as triumphant king, enforcing the righteousness of God

Whatever Happened to Literacy?

The past few days I've spent some time over at Yahoo! Answers, and I have been appalled at the inability of most people on that site to communicate in simple English. Several of them are simply unintelligible. Here are a few examples:

What do you mean by username and passward? actually i downloaded a software and it is asking my username and passward . i dont know what it is . so how can i know what is my username and passward ?????????????????????????????

Here's another:

My computer is shutdown so long how tosolve that problem?

And this beaut:

How to setting my firewall? i just change to window xp from vista.but after change hv the conection problem,alway be disconnect,and my msn alway sig in sig out.so my friend say is the firewall setting problem , need to seting it,but i dont knoe.abyone here can help me or teach me?

The thing is that these are not the exceptions; these are the rule.

Sad. So very, very sad.

UPDATE:
In a comment below, Chris points out that many of the people on the Internet don't speak English natively. Yes, that's true, but that doesn't explain this:


I only mention this entire issue because I believe, "Your English matter!"

(I guess the language center of your brain might be somewhat impaired by having what appears to be a large bullet hole in the center of your forehead.)

Who to Vote For?

When Ron Paul first began to appear in the American conscious, I was often looked at askew for favoring him. I just read a post by Ed Hurst that sort of explains my thinking.

Ed said that he was often asked who he favors or endorses. He then said:

...the difference between the two major parties is an illusion. What's the difference between a party which promotes a woman's right to murder her child, and another party which can't be bothered to prevent it? What's the difference between a party which wants to remove the 2nd Amendment and another which gears up mightily to close down every gun dealer in the US on petty technicalities? What's the difference between nanny-state socialism and corporate welfare which confiscates private property? What's the difference between bigger government and bigger government?

Exactly.

Ron Paul offered something different. I have no illusions that Ron Paul was the "savior" of the country. I'm sure he's just as likely to screw things up worse than he is to help. But I had hope that he could have begun the process of dismantling our current behemoth that is the Republicrat-Democrican system, which I dearly would love to see dismantled.

Government has begun to get in the way of citizens living their lives. Ron Paul offered me hope of turning that around.

"What's the difference between bigger government and bigger government?"

Exactly.

The Role of Leaders

Ed Hurst writes:

[T]he primary image of a proper king is that of shepherd, not of predator.

A Quick Comment from Genesis

In the first couple of chapters is a word-play:

Adam and Eve were naked (arom) before their sin.
The serpent was crafty (arum).
Adam and Eve realized they were naked (erom) after their sin.

In the shower, without clothes on, you're naked (arom - nude).
In the front lawn, without clothes on, you're naked (erom - exposed, vulnerable).

Applying the Quick Primer of a Former Post

In a recent post, I explained how thee/thou is second-person singular, and you/ye is second-person plural. Now, applying this rule to the KJV rendering of Luke 22:31-23:

31And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:

32But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

the passage becomes in "The Message":

Simon, stay on your toes. Satan has tried his best to separate all of you from me, like chaff from wheat. Simon, I've prayed for you in particular that you not give in or give out. When you have come through the time of testing, turn to your companions and give them a fresh start."

The text of the English Standard Version does not reveal the meaning:

31"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, 32but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers."

but the footnote in that version does:

1. Luke 22:31 The Greek word for you (twice in this verse) is plural; in verse 32, all four instances are singular

What we need is an English language version of the Bible that's not afraid to use the term "y'all".

Manners and Customs of Bible Times

I recently purchased the book Manners and Customs of Bible Times by Ralph Gower and am already, within the first few pages, finding it to be of value in gaining a fuller understanding of the Bible.

In the first chapter we learn about clothing. Typical clothing for an average Bible character consisted of a loincloth, maybe, and then a tunic (or coat) which was basically just a long t-shirt, and for the more wealthy or in cold-weather, a cloak (or mantle) which was basically an oversized robe.

A typical poor person might have nothing more than the clothes on his back, and his cloak was the only protection he had from the weather. The cloak was sometimes given as a guarantee for a loan, but the cloak had to be returned to the owner every night as it was the only bed-cover a person might have. Accordingly, a Jewish law court might award a person's tunic in a lawsuit, but never his cloak. Clothing was so valuable that Jewish law stipulated a list of clothing that could be rescued from a burning structure even on the Sabbath when work was strictly forbidden. For John the Baptist to tell his disciples to give away any spare coats was a revolutionary thought.

A Quick Primer on the Language of the KJV

First, it's not really "old English". Old English is even older than the 17th Century English of the King James period.

English has its roots in the languages of several more-or-less-pagan Germanic peoples who migrated into the British Isles about 550 A.D, just half-a-century or so after the fabled more-or-less-Christian King Arthur had reigned in those lands. The English of this period is the true "Old English", and is the language of Beowulf.

About 500 years later, after the Normans (from France) invaded England around 1066, the language morphed into Middle English. It was this variant of the language that reigned until about the 1450s.

For the next couple of hundred years, from the mid-15th century until about 1650, the Brits spoke Early Modern English. It was during this period that the King James Bible was produced. This version of English, also known as Renaissance or Elizabethan English, is also the language of William Shakespeare.

Today we speak Modern English, which is but an update of the King's English.

So strictly speaking, the language of the King James Bible is not Old English, but is rather Early Modern English.

Still, it seems quite old to many of us in the 21st century.

The main idea I wish to convey in this post, however, concerns a couple of points of grammar, specifically the forms of thee, thou, ye, thy, thine, and the -est and -eth verb endings.

The use of thee, thou, etc, is fairly simple. It has nothing to do with respect or reverence; it has to do with how many people are being addressed. If you were speaking to one person, you would use "thee", "thou", "thy", or "thine". If you were speaking to a group of people, you'd use "you" or "ye".

• thou - if the person is the subject ("you give it to me"), you'd use "thou" ("thou givest it to me")

• thee - if the person is not the subject ("I'll give it to you"), you'd use "thee" ("I'll give it to thee")

• ye - if the group is the subject ("y'all give it to me"), you'd use "ye" ("ye give it to me")

• you - if the group is not the subject ("I'll give it to y'all"), you'd use "you" ("I'll give it to you")

The rules governing the use of "thy" and "thine" are a bit more complex, and a bit inconsistent in the King James Bible (indicating that even the translators of the King James couldn't keep their own language straight in their own heads - how much less we in the modern day?), but basically, these two words indicate possession in the singular case ("Bobby, take thy toys and go home", "the toys are thine, Bobby, go home with them"), with the distinction determined by whether the thing possessed is the subject or not. When addressing more than one person, you'd use the word "your" and "yours" ("All you kids take your toys and go home", "the toys are yours, kids, go home with them).

I think the take-home lesson from this is that when you see "thee", "thine", "thou", "or "thy", you can know that the case of the person being addressed is singular. When you see "you" or "ye" or "your" or "yours", the case is plural.

Concerning the verb endings -est and -eth, the basic rule is that both are singular forms, with the "-est" indicating second-person-plural, and with the "-eth" indicating third-person plural:

• I love thee.

• Thou lovest me.

• She loveth me.

• They love me.

The sad thing about people who revere the King James Bible is that most of them don't understand how the language works. Understood properly, the King James Bible offers clues to a better understanding of God's word. The concepts are fairly simple, but it's just not the way our modern-English-thinking minds work. It's almost as much trouble as just learning Greek.

(This is my understanding, and I don't claim it to be a perfect or accurate understanding. Most of my education on the topic is from http://www.kjv-only.com/theethou.html.)

Even More Posturing on Prayer

Apparently raising of hands to God was a common practice in Job's time:

As for you, if you redirect your heart
and lift up your hands to Him [in prayer]...

(Holman Christian Standard Bible)

Yet if you devote your heart to him
and stretch out your hands to him ...

(New International Version)

-- Job 11:13

Women in the Church

Here's something written by a friend of mine that I found very thought-provoking.

Imagine if Paul said (which he does) “there is now no Greek nor Jew, for you are all one in Christ” but then in another book he says only Jews may be teachers and preachers and sayers of prayers, and only Jews may become elders/deacons, but Greeks may teach and pray if they teach and pray in front of other Greeks only and not in front of Jews. It is shameful for a Greek to speak in church. That is blatantly obviously not equality then, is it?

and

We have also watered down the “anti-woman” passages to make them more palatable. So instead of women really keeping quiet in church, we allow them to make a comment or two so long as it is in the Bible study and not the main Worship service and so long as it does not contradict what the preacher says. IF it really is shameful for a woman to speak in church, then why are we allowing it at all?

Heads Up - In Jesus' Name Productions

I'm not ready to sign up, but it's an interesting idea.

Basically, the group, In Jesus' Name Productions, wants to get 100,000 members to donate $10/month so they can make films for Christians, rather than relying on a-Christian Hollywood to do it. They claim that with that kind of money, they can make Hollywood-class blockbusters that are God-honoring. (Ag! I think about the Noah's Flood movie made by NBC a few years ago with Jon Voight; it was horrible!)

Anyhow, I think the idea is interesting, and I thought we should all at least be peripherally aware of the potential culture-change something like this could accomplish.

Their web site.

A quick explanation of how it works.

A short video of how it works (5.5 mins).

The Drama of a Promised Heir

In Genesis 12 we read of a promise from God that Abraham would have a son, even though Abraham and his barren wife were childless and too old to have kids any more.

As recently pointed out to me, there's some drama in this story that I've never noticed before, because of the way I was educated about the story.

As a kid in pre-school Bible Class, when you first start learning about Abraham and Isaac, you learn about Isaac before any of the other potential heirs. So when as an adult you actually read the book of Genesis, and you learn of a promised son, you automatically know it's going to be Isaac, and there's therefore no drama involved in reading the story about the other potential heirs. But if you were just reading the story for the first time without any fore-knowledge or preconceived notions, you see something like the following, a summary by Warren Rogers of material by one Dr. Rendsburg:

III. The Abraham story brings a host of potential heirs into the picture.

A. First, we are directed to focus attention on Lot, but he is a nephew. Thus, we ask ourselves: Can he count as offspring? Perhaps, but then Lot departs in Genesis 13.

B. We next are introduced to Eliezer, an adopted son (to be discussed further). Is he the one? The answer is no, because as soon as Eliezer is introduced in Genesis 15, We are told that he will not be Abraham's heir.

C. At last, after much travail, Abraham gains a natural born son-Ishmael, son of Hagar, a servant woman presented to Abraham by Sarah.

D. But wait, in Genesis 21 another son is born to Abraham. Isaac, son of Sarah, confirming the more specific promise made to Abraham in Genesis 17 that Sarah would bear him a son---especially noteworthy.

I think it's good to introduce small children to interesting Bible stories, but this makes me wonder if we're not short-circuiting the educational process sometimes by "jumping to the chase". I have no solutions to this issue; I'm just making an observation.

Divorce, Jewish Style, Part 2

In an earlier post, I had mentioned that I wasn't quite sure what to do with the wholesale divorce that the Jews performed under Ezra when the Babylonian captives started returning home to Judah.

I was googling for some different information when I ran across a document that addresses the issue. In essence, the author claims that while in captivity in Babylon, a new generation of Jews arose who, not having access to the old way of worship revolving around the Temple, developed new ways revolving around the Torah (the Law of Moses). Some of the basic, fundamental, unbreakable rules were

circumcision, the celebration of holy days, the observance of every seventh day (the Sabbath) as a day of rest, abstention from the flesh of swine and other "unclean" animals, and much else. The same text prohibited a Judahite from worshiping any god but the Lord, from partaking of sacrificial food offered to "graven images" (cult statues), and from marrying a gentile.

The Jews who had been taken as captives to Babylon developed into a completely different set of people than the ones they were before they were captured. Ezra, having been born and raised in this Babylonian world, returned to Judah and was appalled that the peasant Jews who had been left behind were not the "good, upright" Jews he had known as Jews growing up, and he made it his task to reform them into Torah-abiding citizens.

In Ezra's mind, purifying his people according to the mores he knew was more important than the sanctity of the family unit. And in retrospect, his actions led to a unified, Torah-respecting nation that prepared the way for the arrival of Jesus. As an arm-chair quarterback, I'm not sure I would have handled things the same way Ezra did, but then, as an arm-chair quarterback, I'm not qualified to judge his plays, especially considering that he won the game.

Darwin Was a Creationist

Many Evolutionists believe that any time a Creator is mentioned in regard to the origin of our world, that explanation is equivalent to "Creationism". This allows the Evolutionists to automatically lump Intelligent Design and Creationism and the Flying Spaghetti Monster into the same pile of "unscientific rubbish".

The problem with this faulty maneuver is that it also consigns their hero, the Father of Evolution, Charles Darwin, into the same rubbish pile, for in his book, "On the Origin of Species", in chapter 14 (search for "impressed"), Darwin writes:

To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. (emphasis added)

These fanatical ant-creation fundamentalists have just declared Darwin a Creationist. I reckon that means he's not qualified to teach in our schools or work in our science labs. Shame.

Worshiping by the Riverside

In Bible class this morning it was asked why Paul and his companions would expect to find a place of prayer near the river when they arrived in Philippi. The only real "answer" offered is that people spent time at the river doing laundry, implying that it was laundry day.

Being as it was the Sabbath, when menial housetasks such as laundry were forbidden, that answer didn't sit well with me. So I did a bit of research, and the short answer seems to be that since the Babylonian Captivity, when the Jews were separated from their house of worship, the Temple, the Jews had developed a custom of meeting by rivers whenever a formal meeting place was unavailable. I've been unable to find much support for this idea, but it "feels" right.

One thing my research highlighted is that it was required for ten Jewish men to be in a town before a synagogue could be built. Presumably that also meant that in order to continue synagogue meeting, ten men must be present.

Two chapters after the story referenced above, in Acts 18, we learn that Claudius had expelled all Jews from Rome. I think it's reasonable to assume that may have included Roman colonies, of which Philippi was one (Acts 16:12).

So it may be that there were not ten Jewish men available in Philippi to conduct a synagogue meeting, so the few Jewish stragglers in town, or at least worshippers of God such as Lydia (16:14), who as a businesswoman with her main home in another town was able to remain in Philippi, may have met, as the custom seems to have been, near the river.

=== UPDATE ===

According to http://www.zianet.com/maxey/Inter6.htm:

Therefore, in order to help hold the people together religiously, synagogues were established in locations where ten or more faithful men could be found. Where fewer than ten men could be found, a Proseuche ("place of prayer") was set up, usually by a river and outside the walls of the city....

and according to The New Testament Greek Lexicon, the word "proseuche" means:

prayer addressed to God

a place set apart or suited for the offering of prayer

1. a synagogue
2. a place in the open air where the Jews were wont to pray, outside the cities, where they had no synagogue
   1. such places were situated upon the bank of a stream or the shore of a sea, where there was a supply of water for washing the hands before prayer

Old Testament History in a Nutshell

Nehemiah 9 says it all.

Next time you need a very brief synopsis of the Tanakh, from Creation to the return of Babylonian prisoners/slaves to their homeland, go read this chapter.

Some More Posturing on Prayer

Nehemiah reports on a worship assembly after Jewish exiles returned home to Jerusalem and rebuilt their temple:

Ezra praised YHWH, the great God; and all the people lifted their hands and responded, "Amen! Amen!" Then they bowed down and worshiped YHWH with their faces to the ground.

Why is it, ya reckon, that my church culture is so against raising of hands in prayer?

Non-Distinctions in the Church

A friend of mine has just finished reading the book "Beyond Sex Roles" by Gilbert Bilezikian, and some notes she shared with me struck me as being noteworthy. Here they are:

The church of Jesus Christ celebrates its own birthday on two occasions. The first is collective and embraces all Christians of all times. It is the day of Pentecost. The second is individual and concerns each person at the moment of his or her inclusion into the body of Christ through confession of faith and baptism. Every time a believer is formally inducted into the church through baptism, the body of Christ celebrates a new birth into the kingdom of God.

The two inaugural statements

Pentecost - Acts 2:17-18 (birth of church)

“I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh”
.... Lesson: Racial distinctions are irrelevant in the church.

“And your sons and daughters shall prophecy”
....Lesson: The sex difference is irrelevant in the church.

“Your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.”
...Lesson: Differences of rank are irrelevant in the church.

“And on my menservants and my maidservants in those days I will pour out my Spirit; and they shall prophesy”
..Lesson: Class differences are irrelevant in the church.


Baptism - Gal 3:26-29 (birth of Christian)

“There is neither Jew nor Greek [or Gentile]”
... Lesson: Racial distinctions are irrelevant in the church


“There is neither slave nor free.”
...Lesson: Class distinctions are irrelevant in the church.


“There is neither male nor female.”
..Lesson: Sex distinctions are irrelevant in the church.

Divorce, Jewish-Style

In the last couple of chapters of Ezra, when the Jews were returning to their homeland in Judea after seven decades as displaced captives in the land of their conquerors, one of the reforms to get the struggling nation back on its feet was to purge foreigners from their midst. In doing so, the men of the nation made a pact to send their foreign wives away, some of which had borne children.

What strikes me is that this action could not have been healthy for the kids of those marriages, and likely resulted in not a little anguish as husbands and wives were separated. We know from other passages (such as Malachi 2:16) that God hates divorce, yet here we have an entire nation committing divorce wholesale, presumably with God's blessing.

I'm not sure what to do with this information.

Some Notes about Biblical Covenants

Professor of Bible and Old Testament, Irvin A. Busenitz, in TMSJ 10/2 (Fall 1999), pg 173-189, writes some interesting things about Biblical Covenants in his "Introduction to the Biblical Covenants; the Noahic Covenant and the Priestly Covenant". The bulk of the rest of this post is lifted from that document.

He says there are six covenants that provide the foundation for understanding God's working in human history:

• The Noahic
• The Abrahamic
• The Priestly
• The Mosaic
• The Davidic
• The New Covenant

I would add the Adamic covenant, although the term "covenant" does not appear to be used in this case. (There are other Biblical covenants as well, but they don't have as much influence on our understanding as do these six or seven covenants.)

The English word "covenant" comes from the Latin "covenire", meaning "to convene, meet together, to assemble for a common purpose", but the Hebrew word, "berit", has a more obscure meaning, possibly meaning "to bind, fetter", or being related to "food, eating", but its usage in the Tanakh (Old Testament) doesn't really fit these two definitions. Instead, there seem to be two basic usages therein: as an agreement between two equal parties, and as an agreement in which one greater party does something for or to a lesser party.

The equal-party covenant is seen in such cases "as David and Jonathan (1 Sam 18:3-4), between families such as Jacob and Laban (Gen 31:54), or between nations such as Israel and the Canaanites (Exod 23:32, 34:12, 15). Similar terminology describes the marriage covenant (Prov 2:17; Mal 2:14) or international trade agreements (1 Kgs 20:34)."

The unequal-party covenant "depicts an arrangement imposed by a superior on subordinates (e.g., Joshua 9; 1 Sam 11:1-2). It usually designates an agreement made to or for, not with, the subordinate, depicting a legally binding promise which one party makes toward an other. In other words, parity between the two parties is absent. Second Kings 11:4 describes a covenant made by Jehoida the priest and the Carites to protect young Joash from the wicked queen Athaliah. Ezra 10:3 speaks of making “a covenant with our God to put away all the [foreign] wives and their children.”

When this type of covenant is instituted by God between Himself and Man (the usual usage, although sometimes it's instituted by Man, between himself and God, or between himself and other men), it usually acts as a "grant" when the emphasis is on the greater party's obligation to the lesser party, as in the Noahic Covenant when God promises certain things such as not flooding the earth again, and as a "treaty" when the emphasis is on the lesser party's obligation to the greater party, such as in the Mosaic Covenant when Israel is obligated to observe God's laws.

In the New Testament, the word generally used for "covenant" is "diatheke", and refers to a "last will and testament". The main concept to be noted in this usage is that the covenant is the "declaration of one person's will, not the result of an agreement betw[een] two parties".

A major difference in the Hebrew and Greek usages is that in the Tanakh, the death of the person making the will was not required in order to put the will into effect, whereas in the New Testament, the term requires just that. In fact, the death of the covenant-maker in the Hebrew usage nullified the covenant.

Whereas covenants were sometimes granted, or given, or made, the "predominant verb associated with covenant-making" is "karath", "to cut", and most likely refers to the ancient practice of cutting a sacrifice in pieces and walking between them.

Sometimes the making of a covenant included a one-time "pledge", or gift, such as when Abraham gave sheep and oxen to Abimelech, or when "Jonathan gave David his robe, armor, sword, bow, and belt (1 Sam 18:4)."

Sometimes the making of a covenant included a repeatable "sign", such as the rainbow, or circumcision, or Sabbath observance.

Covenants were often made in the presence of witnesses, whether human (Gen 23:16; Ruth 4:9), divine (Gen 31:50), or inanimate (Josh 24:27).

Covenants had consequences. They were intended to be kept, and if so, then would result in blessing; if broken, they could result in cursings. "In the case of a covenant between individuals, walking between the pieces of the sacrifice (e.g. Gen 15:12-18) provided a visual threat of similar dismemberment should the covenant obligations go unmet", and is probably the source of the phrase "may God do so to me and more also", such as is found in Ruth 1:17 and other passages.

A covenant could be unilateral (only one party has responsibilities) or bilateral (both parties have responsibilities). Five unilateral covenants are found in Scripture:

• the Noahic
• the Abrahamic
• the Priestly
• the Davidic
• the New

"Scripture has no evidence of any obligations required of the recipients of these five covenants. It should be noted, however, that this does not deny the possible need for consequent obedience. But it does establish the fact that obedience is not a contingency for its fulfillment."

A "Winning Strategy" for Teaching Science

Paul Nelson writes:

Here's an example. Natural selection, as Darwin discovered, explains the origin of biological complexity, novelty, and innovation. There's a stock phrase that populates any number of official statements about evolution. One could utter that statement in any biology classroom around the USA, and no one would blink. You know: Darwin found the process by which new structures evolved, where they did not exist before.

Now here's the opening argument from a research paper I happen to be reading this week, from the evolutionary theoretician Armin Moczek (2008):

Given its importance and pervasiveness, the processes underlying evolutionary innovation are, however, remarkably poorly understood, which leaves us at a surprising conundrum: while biologists have made great progress over the past century and a half in understanding how existing traits diversify, we have made relatively little progress in understanding how novel traits come into being in the first place.

What happens to the credibility of the science establishment -- on the subject of the bona fides of standard evolutionary theory -- when "Darwin already explained that, put your hand down" comes into contact with "Well, we don't really know?"

Not letting the kids talk about it...there's a winning strategy.

In other words, while the mouthpieces for the scientific establishment keep insisting that there's no reason to question that Evolution has created all of Life as we know it, the actual scientists who do the lab and field work are forced to admit that Evolution explains variations-on-a-theme, but does not explain how the "theme" got there in the first place.

The latter view is consistent with the story of the Bible, with the claims of Creationists (both Old Earth Creationists (OECs) and Young Earth Creationists (YECs)), with the claims of Intelligent Design (ID) theorists, and with everyday observation and experience. It seems that the "On the Origin Of Species"-thumpers are the only ones who refuse to face reality.

Worth Watching

A short 6-minute video, with humor, talking about the issues of Creationism, ID, and Evolutionism.
There are other, quite entertaining, videos at this site also, about all sorts of things.

A New Name

Quite a few times in the past couple of years I've heard the claim that the name "Christian" is the new name referred to in Isaiah 62. Most often it happens in the context of studying Acts 11, in which verse 26 states:

The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

Then the teacher typically has his students turn to Isaiah 62:2b, which states:

You shall be called by a new name,
Which the mouth of YHWH will name.

At first glance, this concept makes sense: God promised the believers a new name; now we're known by the name "Christian".

But when considering the context of Isaiah 62, I believe this idea does violence to the text of God's word. Reading just a couple of verses later, in verse 4, we find that whereas the believers were currently known as "Forsaken", and their land as "Desolate", the new name for believers would be "Hephzibah" ("My Delight Is in Her"), and the new name for their land would be "Beulah" ("Married").

It seems to me that the "new name" of Isaiah 62 is a poetic way of saying that believers have been like the lonely and sad woman who is "never a bride, always a bride's maid", but who would one day find happiness when she is finally loved and wedded.

To force-fit this passage as a prediction of a literal new name for believers, no matter how nice it sounds, is a mangling of the context of Isaiah.

Jesus Sums Up Haggai

The new preacher did it again. He preached from the Tanakh ("Old Testament").

Yo soy muy impressed.

I've read Haggai several times in my life, but before yesterday, I could not have told you what the book was about. But because I was exposed to this short, two-chapter book yesterday, I realize that Jesus summed it up with the simple phrase, "Seek first the Kingdom of God, and all these things will be added unto you" (Matt. 6:33, paraphrased).

Whereas Jesus puts it in positive terms, and relates it to the spiritual kingdom of God, Haggai puts it in negative terms and relates it to the physical Temple of God:

"You expected much, but see, it turned out to be little. What you brought home, I blew away. Why?" declares YHWH Almighty. "Because of my house, which remains a ruin, while each of you is busy with his own house. Therefore, because of you the heavens have withheld their dew and the earth its crops. I called for a drought on the fields and the mountains, on the grain, the new wine, the oil and whatever the ground produces, on men and cattle, and on the labor of your hands."

This also reminds me of Malachi 3:9-11 (which is often misquoted to mean that an individual will benefit from being generous - the passage actually says that the nation will benefit when its individuals are generous (which, of course, would in turn benefit most of its individuals)):

You are under a curse—the whole nation of you—because you are robbing me. Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this," says YHWH Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it. I will prevent pests from devouring your crops, and the vines in your fields will not cast their fruit," says YHWH Almighty.

In other words, as Jesus says, seek first the Kingdom of God, and the rest will take care of itself.

===

A couple of side notes about our new preacher:

A woman mentioned to me that she has been made to consider moving to this church because she sees a humility in this preacher that is attractive. I don't remember her exact wording, but she added something to the effect of "He's a man of God" as opposed to one just "going through the motions".

When I told him he had a good sermon that morning, his response was to deflect the glory to God. Reminds me of Jesus' injunction to "shine your light so that the people may see the glory of the Father in Heaven" (Matt. 5:16, paraphrased).

I bless YHWH for our new preacher.