personal discipleship

Don't let the drama obscure the drama.

2011-09-19T19:49:00.000-07:00

How clearly do you understand your role in life's greatest drama?Is your vision of life's greatest drama being enhanced or just obscured by all the lesser drama? There is no shortage of lesser drama and though it may be used to enhance, it often distorts, the most important drama of our lives. If our attention is not completely absorbed by lesser drama we can import more from media, or our imagination, or under the influence of both ...we can get creative and make up some for ourselves.

There is an important drama in the universe, it counts for way more than the fluff we are so often distracted with. This drama is of far greater importance than the self-centered non-sense that can so easily be drawn up to grandstand our misguided sense of self-importance. The real drama is about God as the effective creator of a good creation, and the honor that is due Him.

Slander, rather than honor, is the business of the adversary. We see in scripture that Satan "the adversary" makes it his business to slander God before man (Genesis 3:4,5) and to slander man before God (Job 1:11, 2:5). He slanders God and God's creation. I suspect that there is some wickedness in this slandering of, either God, or his creature, that we are often numb to. This brash, slanderous spirit was present in the religious Jews who disregarded the full authority of Jesus. Jude addressed them in this way:

Yet in the same manner these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority, and revile glories. But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgement, but said, "The Lord rebuke you." But these men revile the things which they do not understand...

As submissive creatures we are called to a high standard in the area of proper respect. Our respect and disrespect for God and His creatures is on display in the drama; along with our loyalty and disloyalty. Jesus Christ is, and will be, the demonstration that both God and His creation are legitimate. You are either for him or against him. If you are for him then you ought to demonstrate it as a witness while this great drama unfolds. The tension is not about my reputation or your reputation first, it is about God. God's intended end is already in sight -Jesus. But what about you and me? Are we in Christ by loyalty to Him, or against him by disloyalty? Does the slanderer have room to slander God and creation? What is your testimony? We as individuals are not the centerpeice of the real drama, but each of us is playing one role or another of great importance. Christian, play your role well. May God help us do that.

Who has time to build a surfboard when there is an eternal gospel to be preached?

2011-06-24T01:15:00.000-07:00

"...and because [Paul] was of the same trade, he stayed with them and they were working, for by trade they were tent-makers. (Act 18:3)

Who has time to build a surfboard when there is an eternal gospel to be preached? Well, maybe I do. Recently, I have revived an old busy -ness. Building Jam Surfboards is fun, hard work, and at the moment not all that lucrative. But, if up and kicking, it may generate income that would help maintain the present ministry track that we are on. We will see. After a decade of being on the pastoral staff of an extraordinarily faithful church in Shreveport, Louisiana, we moved to Oceanside with a plan to gather together a simple congregation of people to be centered around Jesus Christ. This plan has been very important to us because Jesus is the one uniquely sent and approved by God the Father to be the savior. And he is saving, even today, all who come to him in faith. So, we thank God that He has joined us together with several individuals here in Oceanside that we never would have met if we had not made the move. And now we gather together as a small congregation, growing in the grace and the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. Thinking about building boards has me looking back at Paul. I am certainly glad he did not get encumbered with tent making and lose track of his mission. There seems to be a scriptural tension between the busyness of the world, and the beautiful feet of the gospel bearers. I would like to explore that further. For now, I reckon we should be thankful that Paul, and all Christian workers, are part of a greater cause; greater and more urgent than merely making a good tent...or a good surfboard.

New Edit on a Literary Chiasm in Matthew

2011-06-07T14:19:00.000-07:00

Chiastic Structure of Matthew 17.1-21.17

Jeff Miller

@. Affirmation of Jesus’ Identity… misrepresentation of identity thru temple/shrine corrected…a touch on theme of rejection. 17.1-13

    #. Representative Israelite healed by Jesus who overcomes inadequacy of those representing Israel at large. 17. 14-18

     $. Disciples: "Why can't we dominate?" Jesus: "You can't, but you can...through the way of fidelity." 17. 19-21

       %. Rejection, crucifixion, resurrection foretold. 17. 22

         &. Kingdom hierarchy and Kingdom authority with a story illustrating a Kingdom emphasis on getting "All In". 17. 24 – 18. 35

           *. Being “lawfully accomplished” in pursuits of this age looks impossible by the law of Christ…disciples object…Jesus offers help. 19.1-12

x. Let children come to Jesus, hungry, dependent, loyally-acknowledging Him; of such is heaven’s government 19.13-15

           *.' Being “lawfully accomplished” looks impossible by the law of Christ…disciples object…Jesus offers help. 19.16-26

         &.' Kingdom hierarchy and Kingdom authority with a story illustrating a Kingdom emphasis on getting "All In". 19.27 – 20.16

       %.' Rejection, crucifixion, resurrection foretold. 20: 17-19

     $.' Disciples: "Why can't we dominate?" Jesus: "You can't, but you can...through the way of fidelity." 20: 20- 28

    #.' Representative Israelite healed by Jesus who overcomes inadequacy of those representing Israel at large. 20: 29-34

@.' Affirmation of Jesus’ Identity… misrepresentation of identity thru temple/shrine corrected…a touch on theme of rejection. 17.1-13

A New Testament Perspective on Eating

2011-05-19T09:55:00.001-07:00

Is salvation enacted directly by God as He looks on the faithfulness of His Son and the faith of those who loyally recognize Him...or is salvation mediated through the eating of foods consecrated by a priest at an altar? In this post we will look at some explicit New Testament statements about eating. Doing this we can shape a kind of New Testament "doctrine of eating." This will provide a stable starting point from which to judge some of the more divergent teachings of "sacramental eating" that are developed outside of the prophetic scriptures.

In the Gospel some Pharisees and Scribes criticized Jesus' disciples for eating without performing ritual washings, Jesus called the multitude together and responded. "Hear Me, everyone and understand: There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear (Mark 7:14, 15)!" The disciples, unsure that they understood the full import of His teaching, asked for further explanation. Jesus responded with more on the subject of eating: "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated (Mark 7: 18,19)?" Notice that Jesus is making a distinction between that which is physical -the food and the stomach, and that which is non-physical -the heart. As recorded in Luke's gospel, Jesus Christ instructs His followers with anxiety-excluding-wisdom, and this wisdom points to the life of faith in God over against the peripherals of food and clothing. "For this reason I say to you, do not worry about your life, as to what you will eat; nor for your body, as to what you will put on. For life is more than food, and the body more than clothing (Luke 12:22, 23)."

In the passage above, Jesus speaks of eating in a non-mystical...even rationalistic sense. Jesus' rational view of eating does not prevent Him, however, from using "eating food" as a powerful metaphorical illustrator of spiritual truths; as in the following three examples:
1)"I have food to eat that you do not know about...My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to accomplish His work (John 4:32-34)."
2)"Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal....This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent (John 6:27-29)."
3) "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst (John 6:35).
The New Testament perspective of eating does give room to the importance of the intimate fellowship and the relational aspect of a shared meal. Under this aspect we properly understand the revelation to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35), The stern warning against selfish class distinctions at Corinth (1 Cor.11:17-34), and the frequent shared meals in the book of Acts.

The New Testament perspective on eating, not being weighted with religious ceremony or mysterious power, stands out in contrast to the backdrop of both Judaism and to the Hellenistic Idolatry of the Gentiles. The New Testament understanding of the Kingdom of God gives rise to this contrast: "...for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit (Romans 14:17)."

In the passage cited below the Apostle Paul, addressing the issue of Idolatrous rituals, undercuts the validity of Hellenistic sacramental thought. The popular thought in idolatrous circles was that eating consecrated foods offered before idols would confer saving power to the participants. So Paul says, "But food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat (1 Corinthians 8:8)." In the Epistle to the Hebrews, the author speaks of New Testament liberty from the Mosaic ceremonial laws which: "...relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation (Hebrews 9:10). And the message of Hebrews is reiterated with this: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings; for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, through which those who were so occupied were not benefited (Hebrews 13:8-9)."

Aware of the New Testament perspective of eating which is behind these passages, the student of true religion is better prepared to grapple with, and reject, the catholic synthesis between the doctrine of Christ and Hellenistic religion; especially as that synthesis popularizes a distraction from the way union with Jesus is actually effected. That is, by loyal-acknowledgment of Jesus Christ, chiefly manifest in a submitted embrace of His teaching.

The Progress of the "Word of God" in Acts

2011-05-14T12:32:00.000-07:00

People measure progress by various standards. In the book of Acts we see genuine progress being measured in the way which God affirms: in a growing domain for the Word of God. Notice in the following that as the book of Acts begins followers of Jesus are informed that our desire for ultimate fulfillment is to be deferred for an interval of specific activity. What is that activity?

Acts 1:6-11 So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?" (7) He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority; (8) but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth." (9) And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. (10) And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them. (11) They also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven."

The progress of being a witness for Christ has to do with the progress of the "Word of God". Acts may be divided into 6 sections, each finishing with a progress report.

1:1–6:7 This section is about the Word of God at Jerusalem and the preaching of Peter. “And the word of God increased; and the number the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.”

6:8–9:31 This section is about the Jerusalem church dispersed throughout Palestine and the martyrdom of Stephen, followed by the preaching in Samaria, and including the conversion of Paul. “So the Church throughout all Judea and Samaria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied.”

9:32 - 12:24 This section includes the reception of the gentile, Cornelius, by Peter, and the extension of the Word of God to Antioch. “But the word of God grew and multiplied.”

12:25 - 16:5 This one is about the extension of the Gospel through Asia Minor, and the preaching tour of Galatia. “So the Churches were strengthened in the faith, and they increased in numbers daily.”

16:6 - 19:20 The final section is about the extension of the Word of the Lord to Europe, and the work of Paul in great gentile cities like Corinth and Ephesus. “So the word of the Lord grew and prevailed mightily.”

19:21 - 28:31 The arrival of Paul in Rome and his imprisonment there, ending with him – “preaching the Kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus quite openly and unhindered. “

If we take the perspective of Luke and Acts, now is the time that we make progress as witnesses to Jesus Christ by submissively embracing the “Word of God” and spreading that “Word” to others. The thing progressing is the “Word of God,” specifically, that which Jesus taught both in word and in deed. If we are seeking to grasp the specifics of what Luke would count as "the Word of God", then we have his "Gospel according to Luke" in which he provides a record of what Jesus taught and did.

As we think about progress we ought to keep in mind Gospel specifics and Gospel themes, especially as we have found them in the Gospel according to Luke.

Three important Gospel themes that are prominent in Luke are:

Mercy (humbly receiving God’s generous mercy and extending that mercy generously to others)

Legitimacy (agreeing with God about who, and what, is right)

Perseverance (ongoing submission to Jesus and His teaching on Mercy and Legitimacy)

The embrace of this King and his teaching is the progress of “the word of God” we are concerned with. This gospel message and method is the effective announcement of the kingdom.

Luke 17:20-21 Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; (21) nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or, 'There it is!' For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst."

The Kingdom of God comes with an interval made up of a growing , progressing, loyal recognition of, and witness to, Jesus. He is a King with humility, AND THEN, judgement and the regeneration of all things.

The Gospel Word as Distinct from the Old Testament Scriptures

The writer of Acts makes a distinction in his references to "the Scriptures" on one hand and the word on the other. In his writing of Acts, we find Luke using “The Scriptures” to refer to the Old Testament.

(Acts 17:2) And according to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures,

(Acts 17:11) Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word [the gospel] with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures [Old Testament] daily to see whether these things were so.

(Acts 18:24) Now a Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures.

(Acts 18:28) for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.

On the other hand we find Luke using “the word” or variably “ the gospel,” “ the gospel of the kingdom,” “ the word,” “ the word of God,” and “the word of the Kingdom,” to refer to the story and authoritative teachings of Jesus’ ministry (Acts 4:29, 31; 6:2, 4, 7; 7:14; 8:4, 14, 25; 10:36; 11:1, 16, 19; 12:24; 13:5, 7, 44, 46, 48, 49; 14:3, 25; 15:7, 35, 36; 16:6, 32; 17:11, 13; 18:5, 11; 19:10, 20 ).

This is not to say that the Old Testament revelation was never referred to as the Word of God. There are such references in the Old Testament especially. Neither are we saying that “the Gospel” or “the word,” revealed in the New Covenant, was non-inscripturated, or unwritten; portions of it certainly were “scripture” before “Acts” was complete.

Yet, in Acts the emphasis of what the name “the Scriptures” means, falls squarely on the Jewish Scriptures of the Old Testament. These are the Old Testament scriptures which were known, being read, and considered authoritative, in the Jewish synagogues everywhere, before Paul arrives in each community preaching and teaching the word of God to both Jews and Gentiles.

Why point out this distinction? To ready us for transition...transition from the known to the previously unknown. In following Jesus we need to be ready for transition from known world, known religion, known way of relating to others, over to that which has previously been unknown.This is a call for progress.

So that when we read in the book of Acts of the progress of the word of God we should understand the authoritative teaching of Jesus to be that which is growing in domain. A real transition is taking place. Jesus, the crucified one, truly is the Christ and his teaching truly is the announcement of the kingdom of God which must progress in your heart and to others.

Now is the time for us to proceed, in the same strange way, with the gospel of the kingdom, God’s Word to the whole world for our present time. We who are in this interval between Jesus' going and coming again have the privilege of participating in the progress of the word of God.

Job at Fireside Park

2011-04-15T14:45:00.000-07:00

We have read 2 chapters of this book together. Wednesday one participant said when she first read the Bible all the way through there were two books that made her cry; Revelation and Job. They are both pretty heavy books. Job is a book about a blameless man suffering great calamity. Come to think of it Revelation is about suffering as well: the blameless only for a short time, mankind in general as a reality of this age, and the eventual suffering and eternal calamity upon the unfaithful.

One fascinating thing in Job thus far is that sin is not said to be the cause of suffering. Twice God describes Job as an upright man.

The LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, fearing God and turning away from evil."
(Job 1:8)

The LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man fearing God and turning away from evil. And he still holds fast his integrity, although you incited Me against him to ruin him without cause."
(Job 2:3)

So far, the original sin of Adam and Eve has not been spoken of as the cause of Job's suffering. The curse upon this age has yet to be mentioned. Rather, we are shown the immediate situation. A situation in which Satan has a place to accuse (Is this because of the curse?). And a situation in which suffering is a test of integrity.

Another fascinating thing to me is that in the first two chapters The narrator, God, Satan, and Job all speak from the perspective that Satan, as the immediate spiritual agent of suffering, remains ultimately subordinate to God.

Justin Martyr and a Developing Catholic Eucharist

2011-03-27T00:30:00.000-07:00

Justin Martyr (c.114-165 C.E.) is an important Early Church Writer. The editor of the writings of the "Ante-Nicene Fathers", A.Cleveland Coxe, has noted, "the conversion of such a man marks a new era in the gospel history." Justin Martyr, before accepting his active role in developing catholic Christianity, was an outstanding disciple of Socrates and Plato. He continued to wear his philosophers gown, and as a Christian in the city of Rome, he taught "the only safe philosophy" (A.N.F. p.160). He, not unlike other Christian martyrs and Socrates before them gave his life for what he believed. In his view of the Christian use of the bread and wine, Justin Martyr records and passes to subsequent generations of "Church Fathers" a subtle yet important step in the evolution of the catholic rite.

There exists a consensus among scholars who study the history of early Christianity: New Testament Christianity underwent development in the hands of the dominant teachers of the following centuries. The homogenized teachings of these dominant and transitional authorities has been called "patristic orthodoxy" Scholarly opinion becomes more complex when the question of compatibility is raised, that is, compatibility between the evolving "patristic orthodoxy" and the teaching of the New Testament. The development of "patristic orthodoxy" is what Adolf Von Harnack called the "chronic Hellenization of Christianity" which he compared with the less patient "acute Hellenization" which was carried out among teachers who would later be categorized as "Gnostics". The early "orthodox" ancients set themselves against the more radical Hellenizing teachers; even though both would introduce pagan or Hellenistic elements into a form of Christianity.

Where can the student of this early history look to find a standard of authentic doctrine with which the more subtle Hellenization may be gauged? How far back and to what source should one push to find the real teaching of the Lord about the bread and the wine and salvation, free from false adjustments? If the prophetic scriptures of the New Testament are to be considered a complete doctrinal resource, essentially incomparable to other "Christian writings," then an answer is within reach. Jesus Christ sets forth the distinction between the word of God and the word of man, when addressing the Jewish traditionalists who held the extra-canonical writings to be of great doctrinal authority: And He said to them, "Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: 'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.' Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men (Mark 7:6-8)." Note the further distinction in authority between what Moses (the apostle of God) taught and the writings of later Jewish teachers. Jesus was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. For Moses said,....but you say,....thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down (Mark 7:9-13)." Alfred Edersheim notes that from a traditionalist's point of view it was thought that many of these extra-biblical traditions "had been orally delivered to, but not written down by Moses." If traditions were of another sort, Edersheim would say, "To this class belonged all that was supposed to be implied in, or that could be deduced from, the Law of Moses. The [Law of Moses] contained, indeed, in substance or germ, everything; but it had not been brought out, till circumstances successfully evolved what from the first had been provided in principle (Edersheim, p.70)." In the Mark 7 passage quoted above the dynamic designation "the word of God" is given to that which came through Moses. This designation is now applied to the gospel teachings of Jesus. Jesus promised to bring all things to the apostles’ remembrance and stated that "his sheep" would be made up, not only of his immediate disciples, but also "those who will believe in me through their word." These apostles understood their role in the forming of new prophetic scriptures to be similar to that of Moses in forming the Pentateuch of the Old Testament. Peter wrote: "For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, "This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased"-- and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts (2 Peter 1:16-19). I am merely touching on the subject of the prophetic scriptures as the communication of the "word of God" here. A full discussion on the authority of the word of God might go on at length but let me merely give two quotes that exemplify our understanding. “For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe (1 Thessalonians 2:13).” “As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed (Galatians 1:9)!” The correct New Testament understanding of authority rightly exalts the teaching of Jesus Christ. For the purpose of our present topic we recognize that if the “word of God/ word of man distinction” is maintained then great force is given to what at any rate is an observable development from New Testament teaching to what becomes known to some as “patristic orthodoxy”. With the points made above in mind the early writings even of men like Justin Martyr should be examined for subtle shifts that become authoritative stepping stones in some minds for further development.

There are, in the main, three adjustments in Justin Martyr’s approach to the bread and wine that we should note: 1) He uses “Eucharist” as a technical term for the developing “orthodox” rite. 2) He assumes greater similarity with, and even adopts, the Hellenistic “mysteries” as a valid ritual category for his developing orthodoxy. 3) His “eucharist” has transitioned from the biblical use of the bread and wine with memorial words in the context of a fellowship meal to a mere symbolic or liturgical meal as a cultic rite.

Justin Martyr may be the earliest writer to apply the term "eucharist" to the bread and the wine. There is one writing by Ignatius in which the term is used but it shows evidence of being spurious (Lightfoot, Harmer, and Holmes p. 132, 133, 189). The designation “Eucharist” for a rite in which consecrated foods are distributed by a priest can be used as a rhetorical device to close what is actually a significant gap between a Hellenistic sacrificial system and the fellowship meal setting of the memorial rite of the bread and wine. Authentic Christianity is adverse to any ongoing sense of cultic sacrifice. Under the word translated “sacrifice” the theological dictionary of the New Testament recognizes that “...in His sayings concerning the temple in Mt. 12:6;26;61, cf27:40; Jn. 2:19; 4:21ff. Jesus makes it clear that sacrifices are of secondary value and are doomed to perish....This original purpose of sacrifice is finally fulfilled in the personal act of Christ, in the voluntary and unique offering up of his life. Sacrifice is thus brought to an end in Him. Cultic sacrifice is not merely transcended but ended by the unique self-offering of Christ. Heb. 10:18; cf. 9:8...(Kittel Vol. III, p. 184-185)." Undaunted by the New Testament aversion to an ongoing material sacrificial system, the writers of the developing "orthodoxy" create a rhetorical link to the New Testament's figurative phrase “sacrifice of thanksgiving” (Heb. 13:15) by adopting a new technical term for their ritual -Eucharist. The original context of Hebrews finds eucharistia used with it's lexical meaning "thanksgiving." It is only in later extra-biblical writings that "eucharist" is given the technical meaning that accomadates the Hellenistic and idolatrous ideas and actions of an ongoing ritual sacrifice. Hellenistic sacrificial thinking is so fused with the developing "orthodoxy’s hybrid ritual" that the developing "orthodoxy" would soon have to appeal to the Old Testament terminology and sacrificial system to explain their “eucharist”. The candor with which the conservative Lutheran, then Eastern Orthodox scholar Jarslov Pelikan traces this phenomenon makes the following quote worthwhile.

The growth of the cultic, hierarchical, and ethical structures of Christianity led to the Christianization of many features of Judaism....In the New Testament itself the concept of “priest” referred either to the Levites of the Old Testament, now made obsolete, or to Christ or to the entire church—not to the ordained ministry of the church. But Clement, who was also the first to use the term “layman,” already spoke of “priests” and of “the high priest” and significantly related these terms to the Levitical priesthood; a similar parallel occurred in the Didichae and in Hippolytus. For Tertullian, the bishop was already “the high priest,” and for his disciple Cyprian, it was completely natural to speak of a Christian “priesthood”. And so by the time of Chrysostom’s treatise On the Priesthood it seems to have become accepted practice to refer to Aaron and Eli as examples and warnings for the priesthood of the Christian church, Chrysostom also spoke of “the Lord being sacrificed and laid upon the altar and the priest standing and praying over the victim,” summarizing the sacrificial language about the Eucharist which had also become accepted practice. Therefore the apostles, too, were represented as priests. But this re-Judaization does not indicate any recovery of close association between Judaism and Christian theology, on the contrary,...[it was] a practice which was both an index to and a cause of the isolation of Gentile Christian thought from Judaism contemporary with itself as well as from the Jewish Christianity out of which it had originally come (Pelikan Vol.1,p.25).

We know the Old Testament had a material sacrificial system and this is why the Old Testament became a source for any biblical rationale to the developing eucharistic teaching. The actual and immediate source of strange ritual and ideas is everywhere present in the idolatrous Hellenistic religions. It is with this assertion that two remaining adjustments of Justin Martyr are chiefly related.

The term “mystery” in Hellenistic religion stands for the “magical action” or “for the formula which effects the magic” (Kittel Vol.4, p.810).

More generally the term refers to “...the sacramental rites which constitute the true event of the mystery, the cultic actualization of the deity, which shows itself to be present in the sacred drama, in the exposition by the hierophants of the sacred symbols and the pronouncement of the accompanying formulae, and which enters into sanctifying sacramental fellowship with the devotees. Because this encounter takes place in the mystery liturgy, the sacred actions and objects must be protected from all profanation (Kittel Vol.4, p. 807).”

Justin is not only familiar with the category of “mysteries” as used in his former Hellenistic religion-- “...we who, out of every race of men, used to worship Bacchus the son of Semele, and Apollo the son of Latona, and Proserpine and Venus (who were maddened with love of Adonis, and whose mysteries also you celebrate)...(A.N.F. Vol.1, p. 171)” –he may also have an affinity for “mysteries” as a valuable category in his new religion. By defending his developing “orthodoxy” with the declaration “that promiscuous intercourse is not one of our Mysteries (A.N.F., Vol.1 p. 172)” Justin seems to retain the category in general. The similarity becomes more obvious when Justin, after describing his eucharist in it’s developing form, he continues his description: “Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated (A.N.F. Vol.1, p. 185).

If this approaching parallel with the term “mystery” seems insignificant in Justin Martyr, we should only recognize that the following generation of “orthodox” writers will adopt the term “mystery” along with it’s Latin equivalent “sacramentum” and a host of mystery-religion-terms as the normal designation for the rite of the bread and the wine. “The original cultic concept of mystery found rejuvenation in the early church when [mystery] became a fixed term for the sacraments (Kittle Vol. 4, p.826).” We also notice that Justin Martyr’s use of “mysteries” as a category of cultic actions would not be out of step with developing a culturally elite “orthodoxy” in the city of Rome during this period. John C. Gager points out that “...it was in the second century that the emperors Hadrian and Marcus Aurelis became initiates of the Eleusinian mysteries...(Gager p.102).

A third point of adjustment in Justin Martyr’s eucharist is the separation of the memorial words of Jesus from the context of a fellowship meal and the reformation of the rite into a service with mere symbolic or liturgical eating of consecrated food alone. Justin says, “When our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought,...there is a distribution to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine and water for a participation in the eucharistic elements...(A.N.F. Vol.1, p.186)”
Justin Martyrs description does not prove there was no meal before or after but his is the first description that lacks reference to the meal context. The change in form makes the developing “orthodox” rite fit more closely with the descriptions of the liturgical eating of the Mithraic, and other ancient mystery cults. In the gospel accounts the institution of Christ’s memorial is in the context of a memorial meal -the Passover. In modern banquets we have experienced when one person rises at the meal to offer a toast which gathers the attention of all the participants of the meal. The memorial words with the bread and the cup at a meal are closer in form to this than to the liturgical eating and drinking of mystery cults. Notice in Matthew’s gospel that the context of the memorial is a meal at which conversation would not be inappropriate. “Now when evening had come He sat down with the twelve. Now as they were eating He said,...And each of them began to say to Him,...Then He answered and said, “He who dipped with me...Then Judas said...And as they were eating Jesus took bread,...(Matthew 26:19-26). The institution of the Lord’s memorial is recorded similarly in the gospel of Mark and the gospel of Luke with the explanatory words “this do, for my memorial (Luke 22:19 Marshall).” In the Corinthian church the very problem that Paul was addressing (1Cor. 11:20-34) was that some of those who were wealthier were partaking of their own food which they had in abundance, before it had been set out to share in common with the whole body of believers, they were (at the place of meeting) separating themselves; having a meal to themselves separate from the common meal in which the memorial with the bread and wine would take place. What was intended to be the “love feast”, was being made an “elite feast” by leaving the meager remains of food and drink for the general “fellowship” part of the meal. Paul’s complaint: what kind of fellowship meal could it be when by their actions the wealthy were despising the gathered people of God and thereby not being considerate of the body of Christ?

In sum, three areas of adjustment to the memorial of Christ’s body and blood found in Justin Martyr’s eucharist are: 1) Use of the technical term eucharist for the evolving “orthodox” ritual. 2) The association with, and apparent adoption of, “mysteries” as an “orthodox” category. 3) The transition in form from a memorial as part of a meal, to the “eucharist” participation as part of a liturgical ritual.

The Bread and the Cup: Biblical Memorial or Catholic Sacrament?

2011-03-25T21:07:00.001-07:00

Some of the most striking differences between fidelity to Christ and fidelity to Christendom arise around the bread and the cup. Two distinct understandings of how and why we partake of the bread and the cup among the assembly can be distinguished. On one hand, a "memorial" approach, and on the other, a "sacramental" approach.

For us to say our participation in the bread and cup is a memorial, we are resting on Jesus' word: "do this in memory of me". Some have assumed that the bread and the cup of the Lord's Supper, along with water immersion, are actions which should be called "sacraments" no matter how one understands their meaningfulness. But "sacrament" is a man-induced category which, without warrant from prophetic scripture, will ultimately confuse many who would desire to be faithful disciples of Jesus Christ.

In the prophetic scriptures, these two actions, immersion and partaking of the bread and the cup, are not joined under the single strange heading: "sacrament," from which strange doctrinal inferences can be assumed. And to say a little more, the term "sacrament" has historically carried with it a "conduit of grace" idea which is also foreign to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

...the rites practiced from a very early date by the Church in its native Jewish environment were not sacral acts....These symbolic rites rapidly and inevitably in the larger Hellenistic environment developed into sacraments and were equipped with the efficacies of Hellenistic mysticism (Angus 180).

In "The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge it is stated that:

...the same influence of pagan religious tradition...began about the same time, though more slowly and gradually, to have an effect on the Church.... This is most clearly seen in the history of baptism and the Lord's Supper. The very name sacramenta is a token of this (article on Lord's Supper 28).

Some more recent dictionaries of Theology have provided definitions or etymologies of "sacrament" that might be more palatable to evangelical taste by emphasizing that the Latin "Sacramentum" was used to describe Roman military oaths. However, the military oaths described were religious initiation rites which would coincide with the elements of Greek "mysterion" from the mystery religions. Edward Gibbon affirms: "On [a Roman soldier's] first entrance into the service, an oath was administered to him [renewed annually] with every circumstance of solemnity. He promised never to desert his standard.... The attachment of the Roman troops to their standard was inspired by the united influence of religion and of honor. The golden eagle, which glittered in the front of the legion, was the object of their fondest devotion..... Tacitus calls the Roman eagles Bellorum Deos. They were placed in a chapel in the camp, and with the other deities received the religious worship of the troops" (Gibbon 1,227).

The development of the Christendom approach out of, and away from, the approach which retains fidelity to Christ at its center is marked by several distinctions. The way to justify approaching the bread and the cup as a memorial is to hold closely to the biblical record while ignoring, or discounting later "insights". The way to justify approaching the bread and the cup as a mysterious, grace conveying, sacrament is to adhere to traditional catholic teachings while ignoring or discounting conflicts with the biblical data.
A "first glance" distinction is seen in nomenclature. The terms used to describe the bread and the cup are multiplied in the Christendom approach.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in an article titled, "What Is The Sacrament Called?" includes the following: "The Eucharist", "The Sacred Mysteries", "Holy Sacrifice of the Mass", "Medicine of Immortality", and "Pure and Holy Sacrifice". In the Catholic version of the Christendom approach, the Bread and Cup or "elements" may only be administered by a priest. This priestly administration is considered necessary to fulfill the ideas of: consecration (moment of changing common elements into means of grace), epiclesis (the invoking of the Holy Spirit upon the Bread and the Wine), and oblation (elements offered as sacrifice to God).

From the "fidelity to Christ" approach we observe that in prophetic scripture there is no requirement for a specialized administrating officiant. Bishop Cheney admits, "There is not a word even to indicate that the presence of a minister was necessary to the proper celebration of the rite (Cheney 33)!" The contrast between the two approaches on this point has not escaped the attention of N A D Scotland. In a booklet chronicling the order in which accretions from the culture were accepted as part of the growing catholic tradition around the bread and the cup, Eucharistic Consecration In The First Four Centuries And Its Implications For Liturgical Reform (Oxford: Latimer House, 1989), Scotland says: "The whole fourth century concept of consecration is totally out of keeping with the New Testament (Scotland 43)."

The bread and the cup, viewed through the lens of the growing tradition, is central to Christendom's false system of Guilt and Grace. In the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church the developed traditional approach to the bread and the cup is given central importance as a means of salvation. This centrality is born out in statements such as these: "The Eucharist is 'the source and summit of the Christian Life." And, "As sacrifice the Eucharist is also offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead and to obtain spiritual or temporal benefits from God."

Certainly a sacramental interpretive grid can be placed onto the prophetic scriptures with some measure of felt success for those so inclined. I won't engage every potential strength with its counterpoint weakness here. The best antidote to abstracted systematic error is found in clearer apprehension of the biblically contextualized, narrative whole. But just the scarcity of passages which even mention the bread and cup memorial should serve as a clue that the systematicians of sacramental theology have gotten off track. Out of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, what might be a name for the memorial is mentioned only once: 1Corinthians 11:20. Other wise the original Bread and Cup memorial of the New Covenant is in three of the four Gospel narratives. We note that upon comparing these three narratives, we do not find a fixed (liturgical) form. And further more the Gospel according to John gives record of the meal with many details yet he omits any mention of the Bread and Cup. This lack of scriptural emphasis on the bread and the cup makes the extraordinary contrast between the biblical memorial and the Catholic sacrament all the more remarkable.

The importance of the fellowship meal with it's memorial use of the bread and the cup should not be devalued for what it is. Remembering Him and His Gospel, we know our union with him is by fidelity to Him. Jesus did not call the bread and the cup a "sacrament". He did not call the bread and the cup many popular but potentially confusing names. Men in claiming to be religious have created their own religion. They adopt a way of thinking and teaching on the bread and the cup which God has not given us in His Word. True loyalty to God requires us to repristinate our doctrine according to His Word. May God help us do that.

A New Testament Perspective on Eating

2011-03-22T08:55:00.000-07:00

Oceanside

2011-03-21T09:19:00.000-07:00

If you live in the Oceanside area you may want to join us.

Sunday Night Fellowships 5:30 pm Agape meal, Lord's Supper, and Bible Study! @1721 Walton St.

Wed., and Fri. 5:45 pm for a devotional Scripture reading @ Fireside Park.
Tue., and Thurs. 5:45pm for a devotional Scripture reading @ Balderama Park

If you need more information contact Jeff Miller. My cell phone number is (760)-576-9215

Jesus is Lord.

Criticisms of the Category, "Means of Grace"

2011-03-19T16:54:00.000-07:00

The fact that the phrase “means of grace” is not found in scripture makes any doctrine of “means of grace” one very important step removed from being well founded, or at least from being well tested, as a biblical category of thought. I say this because our only way to know what is essential biblical doctrine is to employ a method that asks not, “what can men teach from the scriptures?” but instead asks, “what is actually (explicitly) taught in the scriptures?”

One important stage in such an approach is the examination of how the authors of scripture used the specific words that may be associated with any particular doctrine. When they used these words were they teaching our doctrine or something else? When we begin with this very conservative approach we must allow assumed or “implied” doctrines to be set to the side. For instance it may be that to most closely follow the thought in the scriptures we should refrain from assuming that the authors had or desired us to have a category: “means of grace,” in mind.

Historically the category “means of grace” has been a part of, or used to explain, “sacramental doctrines.” When we assume a category “means of grace” then logical but problematic steps of doctrinal development might seem natural. But even without this further development of thought, the category “means of grace” may in itself blur our view of the biblical term,“grace” and obscure the nature of our relation to “it.”

Perhaps it would be more biblically sound to simply understand “grace” as the generosity of God, and then to see God’s generosity in uniting us to Jesus Christ, in a relationship of faith and faithfulness. This direct communion with God through Jesus Christ is integral to, and a wonder of, the New Covenant in Christ.

The question may be asked: are not “church attendance^¹,” “Bible reading^²,” or even a conversion inducing “altar call,” are these not means of grace? I am saying that the best answer is: “No, they are not means of grace.” Many helps may be extended to you by God in His gracious relationship to you. However, grace- that is to say God’s generosity, should not be de-personalized. We don’t get at God’s generosity except by getting at God, personally. A good relationship with God unfolds because God personally draws us. He gives us to His Son. Salvation begins and ends in God’s generosity. Again God’s grace or generosity never becomes less than His disposition toward us, and neither He nor His generosity are impersonal objects which we or others manipulate.

Perhaps there are many expressions of God’s grace, or even fruits of His grace, but no mediating “means of grace.” Isn’t this fitting to what we know? We do not stand in relation to God through angels. He has communicated with us in these last days, not through messengers, but in the Son. If we hear the word of life, we hear Him. Therefore if we either cling to old shadows, or make for ourselves new shadows, then we set ourselves in opposition to His true generosity. We become an affront to His grace.

1 See Revelation chapters 2 and 3 for a distinction between God’s generous disposition and church membership.

2 See John 5:39, 40 for a distinction between a gracious relationship with God and familiarity with the Bible.

God Has Power Over These Plagues

2011-03-09T00:24:00.000-08:00

The God and Father of Jesus Christ is almighty. He is even almighty over bad things that happen in the earth where man's disloyalty has precipitated The Curse and in this case "the bowls of the wrath of God". Chapters 15 and 16 of Revelation make up the 5th vision of Revelation; "The Vision of the Judgment of God in 7 Bowls".

One more time we see a situation in which brokenness and humility would be appropriate, but man offers up only more disrespect and stubborness.

Rev 16:1
(1) Then I heard a loud voice from the temple, saying to the seven angels, "Go and pour out on the earth the seven bowls of the wrath of God."

Rev 16:8-9
(8) The fourth angel poured out his bowl upon the sun, and it was given to it to scorch men with fire.
(9) Men were scorched with fierce heat; and they blasphemed the name of God who has the power over these plagues, and they did not repent so as to give Him glory.

Reading Revelation reminds me that Jesus did not come on a mission to condemn the world, since the world was already condemned. The Story of the Bible is a story of two falls (Adam and Israel), two exiles away from God's favor (the garden and the land) and one Son of Man who responded appropriately to God's will under the circumstances. Praise God, Jesus is Lord.

Tap Out?

2011-02-25T14:27:00.000-08:00

A Revelation for Christians in Temporary Tribulation

2011-02-20T02:03:00.000-08:00

It takes a bit of work to re-read Revelation with an eye for how it was intended to encourage regular Christians from the first century to the last century of our present era. For most of them, loyalty to Jesus Christ has meant tribulation now. Tribulation is not something confined to a 7 year period at the end of this era. The passages used to support a confined 7 year period of Tribulation don't seem to lock the idea down on their own. Whatever time table is most satisfying, I think we, along with regular Christians throughout the age will be exhorted in this book. "Endure in loyalty(faith) to Jesus Christ, through temporary tribulation, and receive the eternal reward that is ours in Him."

Consider how John must have thought about "tribulation":

(John 16:33)

"These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world." -Jesus

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

(Rev 1:9)

I, John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance which are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

(Rev 2:9)

"I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich), and the blasphemy by those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan." -Jesus

(Rev 2:10)

"Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to cast some of you into prison, so that you will be tested, and you will have tribulation for ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life." -Jesus

(Rev 2:22)

"Behold, I will throw her on a bed of sickness, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of her deeds." -Jesus

(Rev 7:14)

I said to him, "My lord, you know." And he said to me, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

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

Here is a blog post from Denny Burk which tells the story of a brother in Christ suffering tribulation now. You may also be interested in some links he offers in that post. Remember to pray for your brothers and sisters in Christ.

Thoughts on the Book of Revelation

2011-02-15T00:51:00.000-08:00

Think of "Revelation" as "a book of 7 visisons" instead of "a book of 22 chapters". It may be more helpful and it is more natural to how the book was written (the chapter divisions were added much later).

The Vision of the Glorified Christ among His Churches.
The Vision of God the presiding Almighty and the Lamb opening the Seven Sealed Book of God's Decrees
The Vision of the prayers of the Saints and the 7 Trumpets
The Vision of the People of God as a Woman and her Conflict with Satan
The Vision of the Judgments of God in 7 Bowls
The Vision of the Harlot City and the Victory of Christ over Her
The Vision of the Bride of Christ or The New Jerusalem

Here are 3 observations from the first Vision:

1) The people of the churches stand in a personal relationship to Jesus Christ.
2) The people of the churches must discriminate against false teachers who claim to be sent by God.
3) The people of the churches must persevere in fidelity to Jesus Christ.

What would you add to this list?

What other types of observations come to your mind as you read this section (Revelation Chapters 1-3)?

"Jesus is the reason for....hmmm?"

2010-12-27T23:53:00.000-08:00

Do Churches really have to make rules for or against Christmas and other holidays? Maybe it is not your local church's "job" to either condemn, nor espouse and promote, the culture's holiday calendar. This calender does not really belong to following Christ. The next event on "our" calendar is the second coming of Jesus. Other than commemorating His death until he comes, which we do at every fellowship meal, we really don't have our own calendar...rather we accommodate the culture's calendar and get on with our business of witnessing/martyring for Jesus until he comes. For an interesting look at how "Christmas" has developed into the modern powerhouse holiday that it is, read Penne L. Restad's "Christmas in America: A History". It should probably be read annually just to keep some perspective.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year,
Jeff

Culturally dominant or Spiritually effective

2010-11-05T00:36:00.000-07:00

What do you Expect the Word of the God to do in this world before the final day of God's judgment? If you want to be aware of God's purpose you may have to make a distinction between being Culturally dominant and being Spiritually effective. In the Gospels I see Jesus intentionally ignoring the path to cultural dominance in order to keep with the path of spiritual effectiveness. If you are sensitive to this truth you may be less likely to overlook your own God appointed opportunities for effective living...and love-filled dying. May God help us do that.

Lord's Supper, water baptism, church membership, morphology and conundrems of our own making

2010-10-21T02:09:00.000-07:00

In relation to Lord's Supper, water baptism, church membership, and morphology, some confusion arises when modern Christians try to line up competing systems with what we perceive to be biblical. Often inconsistencies are noticed within one system, so a wholesale transfer to another over-developed system will be adopted.

The execution of these things (Lord's Supper, water baptism, church membership, even morphology) in the different camps grows out of an overly-wooden and overly-developed understanding. I think some Biblically guided deconstruction would be useful...more than can be explained in this short post. But for those familiar with some of the arguments between paedo-baptists and credo-baptists, I would ask these questions.
Do you agree that Old Covenant Israel (whose male children were marked in infancy) was a people to whom the TERMS of the Old Covenant were extended?
And now, to whom are the TERMS of the New Covenant extended?
As highlighted in John 3 and several of Paul's epistles, the terms of the New Covenant are extended to the whole world. That's right the TERMS of the New Covenant belong to your neighbors children (who do not attend a church) as much as those terms belong to your children. Now, "Will they hear the Gospel and respond with faith in Jesus Christ?" is another question.
On the personal side: I try to use the Lord's Supper as an instructional time for my children and do not deny them the bread and wine anymore than I would deny them any other food (kind of passover-like). As for water-baptism, I let them under go it pretty much upon their request. As to their relationship to God, I make a charitable assumption, based on their profession of faith in Jesus Christ, that their relationship to God is on as sure a footing as my own...until they tell me they do not believe in Jesus....or reject the way of God's Spiritual Rule as lived and taught by Jesus....or in some way refuse to acknowledge and be loyal to Jesus. This is my approach after having wrestled my way through to what I think are proper understandings of the texts so often considered in reference to these topics. My approach probably reflects the realization that some of our technical issues are not worked out in the New Testament because in the New Testament they were not technical issues.
For a related post see:
http://personaldiscipleship.blogspot.com/2008/08/reading-colossians-and-asking-once.html

A little more "Total Church" from their introduction pg. 18

2010-08-01T21:05:00.001-07:00

I like this list of possible adjustments that might turn up as we pursue some Biblical re-thinking about the "success" of our local church.

Being both gospel-centered and community-centered might mean:
-seeing church as an identity instead of a responsibility to be juggled along with other commitments
-celebrating ordinary life as the context in which the word of God is proclaimed with "God-talk" as a normal feature of everyday conversation
-running fewer evangelistic events, youth clubs, and social projects and spending more time sharing our lives with unbelievers
-starting new congregations instead of growing existing ones
-preparing bible talks with other people instead of just studying alone at a desk
-adopting a 24-7 approach to mission and pastoral care instead of starting ministry programs
-switching the emphasis from bible teaching to bible learning and action
-spending more time with people on the margins of society
-learning to disciple one another-and to be discipled-day by day
-having churches that are messy instead of churches that are trying to pretend
We have called this book Total Church. Church is not a meeting you attend or a place you enter. It is an identity that is ours in Christ. It is an identity that shapes the whole of life so that life and mission become "total church."

Here is a link to info on the book "Total Church"
http://www.amazon.com/Total-Church-Radical-Reshaping-Community/dp/1844741915

total church

2010-07-18T00:16:00.000-07:00

" "Total Church: A Radical Reshaping around Gospel and Community" is the best book I've read on doing, and being, "church" (ecclesiology). It covers a perspective that many of us would recognize as a Biblical emphasis on the real, local expression of Church life. I Think its a good read for all Christians and It may be especially helpful for leaders of churches and small groups. Here is a paragraph from the introduction:

Alan is the leader of a small Baptist church. He moved to lead his suburban congregation five years ago after several years of working in industry and three years of studying in a theological college. He has seen a number of people join the church, but not as many as he had hoped. They have a thriving mothers-and-toddlers' group, a solid youth work program, and an accomplished music group. And yet Alan can't help feeling that the church is only scratching the surface. Truth be told, it feels as if ministry has become a production line: churning out sermons, putting on events, trying to generate another wave of enthusiasm for evangelism. If only there was another way of doing church.

The introduction sets forth a few familiar scenarios which lead the reader through a review of some of our presuppositions and possible misconceptions on church life. The authors are interested in helping Christians understand the biblical emphasis upon "gospel" and "community" at the center of their christian identity. I reckon it is filled with very helpful, biblical, thinking. Let me know what you think of it.

Shape of Cross Disputed and why it might be important to you

2010-07-14T00:58:00.000-07:00

There exists an odd yet very widespread practice among the Churches of "reverencing the cross". This practice includes the actual physical bowing toward an image in the shape commonly thought of as a cross. It is a practice that I can only imagine would seem, at the least, weird to our brothers in Christ if we were to transport it back to the New Testament era and then tell them that, for many of us, this is considered honoring to Jesus. The practice would seem even more weird if the shape of the cross now used every where became popular as a solar symbol originally used in the worship of the"invincible sun" and was transferred over as an appropriate(?) symbol for the worship of the "resurrected son". They might look at us and say, "you are doing what?..."

Recently a scholar has called into question some alleged assumptions about the shape of the cross which have even worked their way into authoritative lexicons and such.

Why might this be important? Well it is not important except that it may highlight the fact that you and I do not need to fill our hearts and minds with a humanly evolved way of being loyal to Jesus. He has given you the word of the gospel. It is an authoritative call to real loyalty. If we won't hear it, then we will be subject toall manner of distractions. We do not want to dilute that gospel call with an inappropriate concern for tradition-generated-practices and symbolism. The substance of honoring God is doing His will in obedience to the Gospel.

Here is a link to a post that discusses some recent research on the topic of "cross" and "crucifixion". This research may highlight the irrelevance of some modern Christian emphasis upon symbol rather than substance. http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2010/05/if-samuelsson-is-right-about.html

also see http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dcjvgcp2_14cz3jsfcs&hl=en
also seehttp://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AdPbTCLmbooiZGNqdmdjcDJfMzNkanQ3M2RnNw&hl=en

What can be said about the curious decree of Acts 15?

2010-07-12T11:53:00.000-07:00

(Act 15:20) ...but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.
OR
(Acts 15:20) ...but that we enjoin on them to abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from blood: and that whatsoever they would not should be done to them ye do not to others.

On the face of it the popular explanations of the decree seem acceptable. Those explanations run along the lines that the church council, with a binding and somewhat arbitrary authority, issued an odd mix of stipulations, a few of which prohibited some especially offensive eating habits. To my mind this approach to interpreting and translating the some what dubious language of the decree creates inconsistencies within the apostolic letter, and inconsistencies within the broader context of Acts and the New Testament. I am not going to try to develop all that here but as I continue to study, I remain interested in the myriad of things that can be said concerning this passage. The most important differences in the second translation given above are due to its reliance on the Western manuscript group for Acts. The following in Point #20 is from a 35 point introduction to this translation of Acts:

20. Difficulties removed by accepting the Text in this Codex as the true report of the Decree

From such reasoning as this critics have been of late led to the conclusion that the β text gives the true form of the decree. For if the words "things strangled" were not in the decree, the natural interpretation of the decree, would, beyond all question, have been that it forbade the three great sins of idolatry, murder, and fornication; and was in fact a purely moral law: idolatry, of which the outward expression was sharing in the "sacramental communion with the idol," the temple feast, which St Paul describes (1 Cor. x. 18-22) as "communion with devils"; murder, commonly spoken of as blood-shedding or blood, as in St Matt. xxiii. 35 and often in the Septuagint; and fornication. These are the crimes forbidden to all Gentile Christians by the decree; associated here as in Rev. xxii. 15, "Without are the fornicators, and the murderers, and the idolaters." The decree was a simple moral law, summarised, emphasised and consecrated by the quotation of our Lord's words from the Sermon on the Mount, naturally thrown into the negative form----"Whatsoever ye would not that should be done to you ye do not to others." This might well be hailed with joy everywhere. It was the final emancipation of Christianity from Judaism. Christianity had never been bound to the temple and the Sacrificial priesthood of the Jews. Now it was publicly transformed from a tribal or national religion to one that was universal; and the declaration is that the mark of the universal religion was to be faith in Christ's Revelation of God, along with morality and the observance of the golden rule. The acceptance of the β text shews the greatness of the Council of Jerusalem. Well may Harnack say, "The Scribe who first wrote the little word 'strangled' opposite 'blood' on the margin of his exemplar created a flood, which has for almost 2000 years swamped the correct interpretation of the whole passage....We can close whole libraries of commentaries and investigations, as documents of the history of a gigantic error!...The importance of Codex D (Bezae)----supported to be sure by all the Western authorities----is here brought into great prominence."

That was written in 1923 as a part of the introduction to a "Western Text" translation of Acts which highlights every difference between the western text and that which is more common in our translations. Here is a table of contents for the work:
1. The object of this Translation
2. Statement of the question that it raises
3. The great importance of this text
4. Its decisive importance recognised by leading critics
5. Readers of English only are qualified to form a judgment from the translation alone
6. Outline of supplementary matters touched on in this Introduction
7. The internal evidence examined. Illustrations of omissions for the sake of brevity
8. Interest on various grounds of some of the omitted passages
9. Instances of some sentences rewritten
10. Excisions few where St Luke appears to be quoting from documents supplied him
11. Excisions in the account of St Paul's first missionary journey, and probable inference
12. Importance of the fact supplied by this text in Acts xi. 28
13. St Luke's presence at Antioch throws light on one of the sources of his Gospel
14. Light is also thrown on St Luke's use of Q and on the history of Manaen
15. A further inference from St John's Gospel as to the history of Manaen
16. Importance of the Bezan text of the decree of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts xv
17. The difference of the two texts
18. The nature of the arguments in support of either text of the decree
19. Difficulties in accepting the ordinary text
20. Difficulties removed by accepting the text in this codex as the true report of the decree
21. The words "things strangled" a later interpolation unknown to the earliest texts
22. The evidences, internal and external, for the view here advocated cumulative and convincing
23. Confirmed by minor verbal alterations, and an avoidance in the revision of over-statement
24. Confirmed further by the additions made by St Luke in the revision
25. Some supplementary information
26. A brief description of the Codex Bezae
27. The origin of the hypothesis that there were two Lucan originals of the MSS. of the Acts of the Apostles
28. Why the ordinary text is preserved in so many MSS. and this text became so rare
29. Were there also two original Lucan texts of his Gospel?
30. Why this view of the value of the text in Codex Bezae was not adopted by the Revisers in 1880
31. Professor Hort's study of the texts of the New Testament of great value
32. Scrivener's final remarks on the Greek text of the Codex Bezae
33. Why recent opinions of scholars are not here summarised
34. Grounds on which late dates have often been assigned by critics to the writings usually regarded as Lucan
35. Brief statement of results which follow from acceptance of the views above advocated

The translation of Acts can be seen here:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/acts_long_02_text.htm

For a bit more of my take on Acts 15 see: http://personaldiscipleship.blogspot.com/2010/03/exodus-32-and-acts-15the-golden-calf.html

Overcoming a Vested Interest in Darkness John 3:17-21

2010-06-16T16:17:00.000-07:00

"For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. "For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. "But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God."(John 3:17-21)

The whole Bible is designed by God to bring you to Jesus. That is to say God's design is that you come to the Word of God (Jesus) in Faith (Loyal Acknowledgment). We can say this again with other words: God's will is that you come, in the obeisance of loyalty, to Jesus Christ, to His life, and to His authoritative teachings. But Religious men including myself have a vested interest in not getting God's purpose right. That vested interest produces much misunderstanding in the interpretation of Scriptures. It's like the old saying about a lie, "Once you tell a lie you have to tell ten more to cover the first." The same is true with so many doctrinal debates; once you embrace theological distractions from the teaching of Christ, you embrace confusion of the scriptures. And just like with the lie, men will have to develop more and more scriptural confusion to cover the first departure from God's purpose. Ironically, a lot of heated debate which takes place among people who agree the Bible is authoritative, takes place in areas of confusion which are way down stream from the fundamental confusion of sidestepping Jesus and His teaching. My suggestion is loosen your grip on downstream debates that amount to cover for the earlier confusion. Give attention to the central thrust. The point under debate may become clear and or dramatically adjusted. The vested interest of natural man can be undone by a strength that comes from God. The strength that is ours in the faith of Jesus Christ is a strength greater than the strength of the world, and the flesh, and the Devil. In Revelation chapters 2 and 3 Jesus said to the people of the churches things like these: 'Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me. 'He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne (Rev 3:20-21). Lets firm up in our hearts and minds the centrality of the overcoming way.

Marked by Loyalty...but How?

2010-05-29T22:54:00.000-07:00

In the earlier post titled, "By Loyalty We are United to Jesus Christ, He is Our Unity" I wrote about making the charitable assumption that the real spiritual union of the body of Christ belongs to those marked by loyalty to, and loyal acknowledgment of, Jesus Christ.

One question that I received in a thoughtful e-mail was: "...wondering, what is the mark of loyal acknowledgment of Jesus? Do you mean the verbal confession of that acknowledgment or some other discernible mark?"

Yes, the loyal acknowledgment toward Jesus Christ of which I am speaking is generally expressed verbally. This is what we see through out the Gospel of Matthew, for example. This loyalty or loyal acknowledgment is not something that others are responsible to have an absolute, and ultimate, proof of; rather, others are to make the charitable assumption of the genuineness of such statements. Our responsibility is to strengthen any feebleness in those who are loyal. And we are to do this as fellow sojourners not as completed judges. Loyalty, as well as loyal-acknowledgment, must prove to be of a nature that will finish the course. That is part of what makes loyalty loyalty. But, may it be far from me to put a stumbling block before one of His little ones. God is the one who ultimately sees "the circumcision of the heart" even though, as Jesus has taught especially with reference to preachers, we can judge a tree by its fruit (see Matthew 7:15-21). Obviously more can be explained here. When tempted to be in a position of judging, rather than strengthening, we should have the humility that Paul exhibited when he wrote to the Philippians:

...and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith [loyalty] in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith [loyalty], that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, have this attitude; and if in anything you have a different attitude, God will reveal that also to you (Php 3:9-15).

On the other hand, when it comes to assurance that we have taken the right step in becoming a part of that remnant who are willing to be defined by nothing more, and nothing less, than loyalty to Jesus; we have many passages in the new testament meant to bolster the assurance of a spiritually united group, defined in just such a way. In my next post I should look at a few of those passages meant to reassure the faithful. While looking at those passages it may be helpful to note a distinction between their intended assurance and what has become a modern evangelical tendency toward a mere confidence in the confidence of a supposed, invisible, metamorphosis...as if that confidence was the true mark.
I am convinced that the better that we stand under the prophetic scriptures of the New Testament, the more clearly we will see that, in the time of the New Testament, and now, the real challenge will be to maintain loyalty to Jesus. The tendency to shift away from loyalty to Jesus, if it is like the error seen in the New Testament, will propose a gospel which misdirects loyalty. And This erroneous gospel will introduce strange obstacles against Christ's accessibility for sinners and mistakenly provide a place of proud perfection for the religious. That kind of false Gospel became more attractive for many a natural man than the true mark: "loyalty to Jesus". We could go on to discuss how increased loyalty to Jesus is only appropriately expressed through an enhanced submission to "the law of Christ" -the Gospel.

But before we go on to think about our next post let me try to answer the e-mail question in this way: The mark IS faith, or loyalty, and that is what marks the people of God. It is as "entrance-friendly" as a confessed loyal acknowledgment of Jesus, and it is as "accomplished-friendly" as a co-crucifixion in communing loyalty with Jesus. Let all who loyally acknowledge Jesus Christ know that they will never be disappointed.

Therefore thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone, A costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed. He who believes in it will not be disturbed (Isa 28:16).

"Doctrine" means "Teaching": and we have one Teacher, even Christ

2010-05-25T17:02:00.000-07:00

It is not a good thing to stand aloof to the word of Christ and think of ourselves as doctrinally accomplished. The doctrine that makes one clean is the the teaching of Christ. Jesus said, "You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you" (John 15:3). There is a tendency to give great weight to the teachings of men at the expense of the word of God. This tendency was addressed by Jesus when he said, "You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you: 'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. 'BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN (Mat 15:7-9).'" Is it man's nature to prefer his own word over God's? Think of how so many "doctrinal" arguments play out. Rather than maintain a focus on the word of God while exemplifying an attitude of submission and pliableness under that word, many proudly submit themselves to nothing more than humanly-distilled "doctrinal" positions. Many people are being taught by this approach, but they are being taught something less than loyalty to Jesus Christ, and something less than love of the brethren.

"If anyone serves me let him follow me" -Jesus

2010-05-24T23:18:00.000-07:00

Is this word from Jesus not part of our Gospel? Is embracing this word from Jesus not part of our believing in Him?

And Jesus answered them, saying, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. "He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it to life eternal. "If anyone serves Me, he must follow Me; and where I am, there My servant will be also; if anyone serves Me, the Father will honor him. (Joh 12:23-26)

Jesus was perfectly loyal to God and perfect in self-sacrificial love for fellow man. Aren't you glad that God calls you to follow no one less?

By loyalty we are united to Jesus Christ, He is our Unity.

2010-04-27T17:11:00.000-07:00

The basis for unity of all who are spiritually congregated around Jesus is Jesus himself. When Paul writes to Timothy (1Tim.3:15) and describes “the congregation of the living God” as the pillar and support of the truth, He is continuing to think of those truly united to God…the remnant of Israel, as opposed to the larger, but disloyal, body of people called Israel, who nonetheless still congregated periodically at the temple in Jerusalem. There is a unity which I ought to charitably assume belongs to those individuals marked by loyal acknowledgment of Jesus (not circumcision). It is those who are marked by loyalty, or loyal acknowledgment, to Jesus who are spiritually congregated around Jesus. Their unity is expressed locally when disciples gather together on the basis of nothing more, and nothing less, than shared loyalty to Jesus. Loyalty to Jesus, with Him as our distinct, and singular point of unity, requires a supernatural focus and I think that is why Jesus was praying we would have this unity in John 17.

Exodus 32 and Acts 15...The Golden Calf and Idolatry

2010-03-16T23:45:00.000-07:00

In Exodus 32 we see the people of God engaging in a favorite activity of man...honoring God through honoring an image. But the living God is against this activity. Maybe it has something to do with the perversion of man shaping the living God rather than the living God shaping man.

In the New Testament Jesus gives the commands of the kingdom but they don't seem too workable as a baseline ethic...even for those embracing his authority. Rather, his ethic is one that must be pressed toward out of loyalty to him. Worldly governments do pretty well at having baseline ethical standards. A baseline ethical standard is what God provided for national Israel within the Mosaic law. But in Acts 15 it is very clear that Gentiles, who are joined to the Israel of God by faith, are not given the baseline ethic of the Mosaic law...perhaps that will be left to the nations in which they happen to sojourn. So at this point (Acts 15) the apostles do send out a bare essentials, baseline ethic, for the adopted gentiles.
The gentiles will fare well if they keep to these "essentials" as a baseline ethic, no matter what earthly law they may be subject to in the empire and beyond. The four item list of essentials has a history of difficult translation and interpretation that would be interesting to discuss in another post but one element of these essentials is to abstain from the pollution of Idolatry. Here are a few excerpts from a document linked to at the left on the topic of Idolatry.

“How could they do it?” and “I promise I would never treat God that way.” These were my thoughts as a child; thoughts provoked by a story taught in Sunday school about the children of Israel and their golden calf.

“How could they do it?”

We should maintain a sense of indignation for the Israelites readiness to rationalize the revealed will of God out or their minds. As more mature Sunday school students, however, we must confess that we are very much like them.

“I promise I would never treat God that way.”

In as much as this child-like response to the story of the people’s idolatry represents naive presumption, it should be corrected. Not being naïve children, we should not think of ourselves to highly as if we could swear an oath not to sin. In as much as this response represents a sincere desire to please God and obey His Word, we should cling to it. Christian persons and churches should guard themselves from the sort of hardness of heart that many of the Israelites experienced and were slain. For even when Moses came to them with the written Word of God and called out “who is on the Lord’s side,” not all of them were willing to repent.

To read more on this topic see the documents at the left "The Golden Calf: Still a Problem?" and "Image-Honor: The Perennial Use of Man's Art"

Law Transformation: Are the kingdom commands of Jesus effecting the law in your heart?

2010-02-06T00:57:00.000-08:00

The Mosaic Law was given by God through the messenger Moses. In it's wholeness it was provisional...given to serve a purpose for a time. It served God's purpose. It played a role in holding a natural nation together till the promised seed should come. It demonstrated the weakness of man's personal, and his institutional abilities. The nation has failed to demonstrate the righteousness of God...until the man Christ Jesus.

Several elements of Israel's Mosaic law were common to the nations previous to Moses, and are still found among the nations to this day. Many upstanding citizens of the world have heartfelt laws concerning murder, adultery, the keeping of vows, equitable punishments for specific crimes, dealing with friends and foes with treatment appropriate to each. But Jesus, with his kingdom commands, writes a transformative law upon the disciples heart that changes everything (Matt 5:21-48). Murder is wrong, sure, but what about being angry with your brother or saying demeaning things about him and others. Hmm, how does that strike my worldly attitude? Am I hiding behind my religion so that I can maintain my worldliness? Jesus says put your religious, and even sacrificial, deeds on hold until you have addressed the transformation needed here! I can't murder, or be angry, or even be demeaning, if I am being a peace keeper, or being pure in heart, or being merciful, or being meek, or while mourning my own, as well as my people's failure, or while being poor in spirit. So Jesus' kingdom commands are meant to transform my law against murder.

Jesus came to transform the law in your heart with his Kingdom commands (Matt 5:3-10) How is it going?

2010-02-05T00:07:00.000-08:00

Jesus came to transform your law and give you entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven now. How is it working out? Check the degree to which He has transformed the law of your heart with His Gospel Commands (Matt 5:3-10). This comparison of what is in our heart with what Christ has taught in the gospel commands is a good way for us to examine ourselves. Are we being loyal to Jesus our teacher? This Looking for law-transformation in our hearts is a good way to see if we are entering the Kingdom of Heaven, and encouraging others to enter as well.

This checking our hearts for law-transformation is important. It is checking to see if we are disciples that are salty salt and lighty light. It is checking to see if we are disciples that are like a sensible person who has the presence of mind to agree with, and assuage, our adversary at law before the dreadful court date at which time we are sure to be overwhelmingly defeated. It is checking to see if we are holy meat set aside for special temple use or if we are that which has become as common as dog food. It is checking to see if we will be held out from the earth's resources as a treasured pearl, or unceremoniously stomped in the mud and valued no more than common dirt. Yes, law-transformation in your heart and mine, is important.

Matthew 5:17-19 "If you think the law of Moses was crucial... wait till you get a load of the law of Christ."

2010-02-03T06:35:00.000-08:00

Jesus emphasizes the importance of these defining statements (Matt. 5:3-10), by speaking about His relationship to the Law. The Torah (law) was sure, and none of it would pass away without being fulfilled. Therefore the words of Jesus, the one who brings the Torah to fulfillment...His words are even more sure and whoever neglects the least of them will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 5:17-19).

Here is the principle, "if the lesser was authoritative, how much more will the greater be authoritative?" The Torah was steadfast in its entirety and to move beyond the binding nature of the Torah would require a dramatically new situation. Not a tidbit can pass until all is accomplished. How much more steadfast is the Word of God spoken to us through God's Son. The Gospel Commands of Jesus cut deeper than the Torah did. They cut deep enough to get at the old nature of every disciple, carrying each of us along to the point of death...but those who are in Christ will not be hurt by the second death! Even though these Gospel Commands will cut deeply, we are not to neglect them. The lesser Torah was not to be neglected and neither should the greater "commands of Christ" be neglected. Several passages come to mind which use this way of thinking.
1) In Deuteronomy there is a principle which Paul will use in Romans: God, in the "lesser" law has adequately communicated all that we need to be obedient to Him.

if you obey the LORD your God to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law, if you turn to the LORD your God with all your heart and soul. "For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. "It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' "Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' "But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it (Deut 30:10-14).

This principle is all the more present for the "greater" obedience of faith, in the New Testament.

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness. But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: "DO NOT SAY IN YOUR HEART, 'WHO WILL ASCEND INTO HEAVEN?' (that is, to bring Christ down), or 'WHO WILL DESCEND INTO THE ABYSS?' (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead)." But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved (Rom 10:4-9);

2) When speaking of the relationship between the word of God in the Old Testament and the word of God in the New Testament; The author of Hebrews emphasizes the transition from the lesser, to the greater.

God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they...(Heb 1:1-4).
For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it. For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty, how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard, God also testifying with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will (Heb 2:1-4).

3) James is concerned that the Christian pay special attention to the "kings law" by which we will be judged. Just as the one who breaks one point in the Torah would be guilty of the whole, so those not paying attention to the "law of liberty" with its command of mercy, will be judged without mercy.

My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism...If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture,(or you are fulfilling the King's law concerning the scripture:) "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF," you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. For He who said, "DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY," also said, "DO NOT COMMIT MURDER." Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment (Jas. 2:1,8-13).

4) Peter speaks of the Gospel account being a more sure prophetic word than what has gone before. But this prophetic word must be heeded without giving in to false teachers. A principle carried over from when the inspired scriptures of the Old Testament were surrounded by the misleading messages of the false prophets.

For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy ["more steadfast prophetic word," i.e. the gospel with its commands!]; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture [or "prophetic scripture"] is of any private interpretation [or "origin"]. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction (2Pe 1:16- 2:1).

In a related essay at the left, "progress in acts and in you", we see the author of Acts using the phrase "Word of God" in a dynamic way to refer to "God's prophetic word to the present situation" (similar to how we see it used throughout the Old Testament). And the "present situation" is that time from Jesus' ascension until his "soon" return. So in Acts the phrase "word of God" would appear to stand for the Gospel, including the Gospel Commands, while The Old Testament is referred to as "the scriptures"or "the law". And so it is incumbent upon disciples, then and now, to acknowledge Jesus as the one who affirms the authority of the Law, fulfills the Law , and replaces the Law for the faithful. Jesus is the one who presently instructs and shepherds the remnant of Israel.

Jesus affirms, fulfills, and replaces the Torah

2010-01-26T22:42:00.000-08:00

Reading through Matthew we are reminded of how fundamental the Gospel Commands must be for every disciple. Jesus opens His preaching of the Gospel with his gospel commands in Matthew 5.3. In these gospel commands "successful" people of the Kingdom are defined (Matt. 5: 3-12). Then Jesus implies that matching up to these commands as His disciples is like being salty salt, and "lighty" light (Matt.5:13-16). Jesus emphasizes the importance of these defining statements by speaking about His relationship to the Law. The Torah (law) was sure and none of it would pass away without being fulfilled. Therefore the words of Jesus, the one who brings the Torah to fulfillment...His words are even more sure and whoever neglects the least of them will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 5:17-19). Later in Matthew Jesus will state "the law and the Prophets prophesied until John". He will also say, "heaven and earth will pass away but my words will not pass away". Here, in this preaching of the Gospel often called "The Sermon on the Mount," Jesus will say that the legitimacy (righteousness) of the disciples must exceed that of the Scribes and the Pharisees(Matt.5:20). The Scribes and the Pharisees were dedicated to the Torah but did not embrace the person of Jesus and therefore did not enter the Kingdom nor embrace the King's New Covenant teachings. To understand the rest of the New Testament it will be very helpful to understand what is presented to every disciple in the opening 7 Chapters of Matthew.

Jesus affirms the authority of the Torah.

Jesus fulfills the meaning and purpose of the Torah.

Jesus and His word of the Kingdom replace the Torah as the binding "word of God" for the faithful.

With this acknowledgment we are prepared to hear the next set of passages in the Sermon on the Mount.

A personal question: Am I "in the Spirit"?

2010-01-11T00:59:00.000-08:00

To give a good answer for this question I may need to consider what the Question means biblically? I would especially like to know if I can think about whether or not I am "in the Spirit" in a way consistent with a good, coherent, reading of the Scriptures.

Presently, my best reading of the Scriptures would allow me to expand the question to something like this: "Am I inwardly motivated to do the will of God in obedient loyalty to Jesus?"

A bit more complicated, but that is how I understand the question. It could be made more complicated. For instance, We could try to include something about how the "inward motivation" is a gift from God, and so on.

Doing the "will of God" can seem to be an elusive concept. Important for our understanding is our recognition that "doing the will of God" has been lived out before us by Jesus. So what is "doing the will of God" for us? To "do the will of God", is to have the attitude of Jesus, the regard of Jesus, and the response of Jesus, toward...the Father, the faithful, and the fallen world. I think it is in this kind of obedience that we find the place of personal communion with God. This communion is not sacramental mysticism, nor mere religious emotionalism. Rather, it is a dependence on Jesus Christ, who he is, what he accomplished on the cross, and what he is doing in creation. This obedience in which we commune with Jesus...that is to say, "this being in the Spirit", is the place to be. This "doing of the will of God", is the thing to be doing. And the most nascent form of this obedience, or this spirituality, is receiving (loyally acknowledging) God and His son Jesus. In this obedience, or spirituality, we press on to keep His way. Maybe the most mature form of this obedience would be to have love and forgiveness for those misunderstanding you to death, while grasping for nothing but your Father's good pleasure.

As Jesus is presented to us in the gospel, in his humble life, his authoritative words, and his obedient death; we must go on, in our confession and in our loyalty, to agree with the Father's resurrecting exclamation that this Jesus is Lord. To do this we must be "in the Spirit". We must be "inwardly motivated to do the will of God in obedient loyalty to Jesus". Let's press on to walk "in the Spirit", rejoicing that God would seal us as inheritors of the age to come by the same Spirit that lighted upon our Savior as a dove. What an appropriate seal for our salvation, soon to be made complete.

The Loyalty of God

2010-01-04T01:59:00.000-08:00

What does the loyalty of God look like? admittedly, if we maintain the standard modern meaning of "belief" or "faith" in the sense of "credence" then "the faith of God" is strange to the scriptures. What would we be speaking of? What would passages mean which use "pistos" to describe God? Most of these passages are translated with the word "faithful". Are we to understang these "faithful" passages to be saying "God is full of faith" in the sense that He really believes in man, or that God is full of confidence that Israel can save? No, what you will find as you look over the passages is that they speak of God being full of loyalty. He is "loyalty-ful" to his people even according to His promise to be their God.

I will also walk among you and be your God, and you shall be my people (Lev. 26:12).

And I shall give them one heart, and shall put a new spirit within them. And I shall take the heart of stone out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh,that they may walk in My statutes and keep my ordinances, and do them. Then they shall be My people, and I shall be their God (Ezekiel 11: 19,20).

See also Eze. 14:10,11; 34:24; 37:23 and Zech.10:6.

The apostle Paul would have all the remnant of God's people who are loyal to Jesus Christ know that God will be loyal to them. He wants these challenged disciples to know, not that God is full of Belief, but that He is full of loyalty.

...so that you are not lacking in any gift, awaiting eagerly the revelation of Our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall also confirm you to the end, blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful, throughwhom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord(1Cor.1:7-9).

See also 10:13, 2Cor.1:18,1Thess.5:24,2Thess.3:3.

semper fi

2010-01-03T00:40:00.000-08:00

We are Re-engaging Matthew as a weekly reading for the SEMPER FI MISSION TO OCEANSIDE. We will be asking ourselves, "Is Jesus the the one worthy of all our loyalty?" We also want to consider the strongest objections to understanding the greek word group "pistos" as having a meaning which ranges from "loyalty" to "loyal-acknowledgement". Now this word group is usually translated "faith" or "believe" and we may do well to consider how the meanings of these words in English have evolved even while we consider what is at the heart of the New Testament teaching concerning our relationship to God through Jesus Christ by "faith". There will be more to come as we read through Matthew weekly. Please join in by reading and, as you are moved, commenting.

Do we have a “Genuine Conversion” Testing Kit?

2009-12-29T21:43:00.001-08:00

Do the scriptures teach us to determine if someone’s apparent conversion is genuine? A great way to answer such a question is to simply look up “genuine” in the Strong’s Concordance and then find all the verses in which the phrase “genuine conversion” is used. Depending on how necessary discussion of this concept is to communication of the Gospel, there may be a few, or there may be several occurrences of the phrase.

Then seek to understand each of these verses in context and you should be a good bit down the road to having a scriptural view of “genuine conversion” and perhaps you will even have a good take on whether you can, or should, determine the genuineness of apparent conversions.

If you are sure the concept is critical and you don’t find it discussed under “genuine conversion” then you may have to adjust the wording of your search. For example “genuine conversion” may not be nearly as well addressed as “genuine faith.” Sometimes, however, when a topic we are emphasizing is not really emphasized in scripture then we are dealing with a misplaced emphasis on our part.

One passage does come to mind as contextualized by author and recipient facing the fact that someone’s faithfulness to Christ has aborted. In this passage we find assurance that the authenticating seal remains firm.

...nevertheless the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal, “The Lord knows those who are His,” and, “Let everyone who names the name of the Lord abstain from wickedness (2 Tim. 2:19).”

The Problem of Nicene Authority

2009-12-20T17:03:00.000-08:00

In a book titled "The Problem of God," Roman Catholic theologian John Murray presents a positive take on the council of Nicea and the changing mode of conducting Theology. While I would not agree with his optimism about this changing mode, I do think he makes some good observations. The issues at the council were more complex than what they are often made to seem. Not only did those categorized as Arians disagree with the language of the Nicene Creed but there was also a continuing conservative party who thought the language of the Creed was inappropriate. How can new, defining, language for God be made mandatory for all Christians if it is not given by God in the prophetic Scriptures? John Murray notes that the Nicene Dogma was not new, because it had the "sense" that was in Holy Scripture; but on the other hand he says the Nicene Dogma was new, in that it "stated the sense of the Scriptures in a new mode of understanding that was not formally scriptural." He goes on to say, "The transition was from a mode of understanding that is descriptive, relational, interpersonal, and historical-existential to a mode of understanding that is definitive, explanatory, absolute, and ontological." But this is too big a step for man to take on his own authority. And this change leads men away from the more humbling, essential issue of personal loyalty to Jesus who spoke nothing except what the Father gave Him to say. Murray describes a change in mode of expression at Nicea which runs along side the change in using the "pistos" (faith or loyalty) from faith or loyalty to a person to faith as assent to propositions in a creed, or worse. Notice the Nicene Creed provides the basis for an enforced "belief" in the "church". Here the definitions of both "belief" and "church" are slippery and are brought together to teach a consolidated authority among men that was not granted, nor taught, by Jesus. Disciples of Jesus have amazing authority, but it is Gospel authority, based in the strength of the faithful proclamation of our Lord Jesus and His authoritative word.

2009-12-20T15:03:00.001-08:00

Matthew 19 for Thursday Night

2009-06-20T14:19:00.000-07:00

When Jesus had finished these words, He departed from Galilee and came into the region of Judea beyond the Jordan; and large crowds followed Him, and He healed them there. Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?" And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?" He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery." The disciples *said to Him, "If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry." But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. "For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it." (Mat 19:1-12)

Wow, every loyal student can see that Jesus does not bow to our Common-Sense expectations.We said that the first 12 verses of this Chapter are about "Common-Sense-Sexuality", along with Jesus' not so common teaching. The disciples complain and Jesus responds, but He doesn't seem to mind leaving them on the horns of a dilemma. The difficulty of Jesus' teaching makes me appreciate His pivotal word in verses 13-15.

Then some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." After laying His hands on them, He departed from there. (Mat 19:13-15)

Lord willing, we will make that transition next Thursday. And go on to Matthew 19: 16-26 to look at "Common-Sense-Security" and some teaching that may lead us to say again, "Wow, loyalty to Jesus does not bow to our Common-Sense expectations." If you have looked at the "chiastic structure" outlined in the link to your left then you won't be surprised to notice the parallelism of verses 1-12 with 16-26. Click here for more info on Chiastic structures.

Listening to Bill and Bob

2009-06-16T10:35:00.000-07:00

Bill said:

“I hear Jesus teaching in the Gospels that the ability to understand and willingness to be loyal are interdependent. If I shrink from loyalty, I may not be conscious of lost information, but my knowledge is emptied of its only true value. Along with this loss, may come growing awareness of, and reality of, confusion toward God’s word.”

And Bob answered:

Yes, I agree with you. Willingness to be loyal to truth is interdependent to the ability to understand that truth. Sin weakens the will and darkens the mind.

Matthew 13:53-58

2009-06-09T10:51:00.000-07:00

(read Matthew 13: 53-58)

The problem here is a lack of loyal acknowledgment to Jesus. The people of Jesus' hometown synagogue can't seem to muster that response to him and so he cannot do many miracles there. the symbolic communication that God heals, restores, and rescues a people who loyally acknowledge Him would be marred if Jesus did many miracles without regard for the people's faithlessness. (read Matthew 13: 53-58 again)

Chiasm in Matt. 17.1 - 21.17 ?

2009-06-03T13:39:00.000-07:00

With your Bible open, try using a chiastic structure to think through the elements of Matthew ch.17 thru ch. 27 verse17. I have diagrammed parallel elements in the new link at your right. If nothing else you will benefit from reading Matthew!

What kind of king? What kind of kingdom? Matthew 11:1 - 14:12 (part 3 updated)

2009-05-03T14:04:00.000-07:00

Matthew 13; What kind of kingdom?

From the prophet Hosea, Israel has heard the LORD speak of the messianic future as a time when "... I will have compassion on the house of Judah and deliver them by the LORD their God, and will not deliver them by bow, sword, battle, horses or horsemen." This compassion and deliverance has come in the Gospel of Jesus Christ and now we learn what sort of Kingdom the LORD has made us into in Jesus Christ.

(Read Matt. 13.1-10)
What does this information about a farmer who uses the agricultural technique of "sowing" have to do with our subject. I mean he may as well be pictured skipping about tossing seeds indiscriminately to the wind. This is serious, we need information...marching orders, so to speak. We need to know about the establishment and implementation of a Jewish Kingdom that will not fail in producing its proper effect. (Read Matt. 13.1-10 again)

(Read Matt. 13.10-17)
Will this really add anything to our understanding of how we shall go about implementing "godly government" in the earth as it is in heaven? Much depends on what we go into the parable with. Have you heard by what spirit Jesus moves? Do you really hold to Jesus as he has revealed both himself and his kingdom law here in Matthew? If you have already become truly willing to allow all your orientation to be re-centered around Him then you are about to gain even greater insight into his kingdom among us. If, on the other hand, you have not already been confronted, and gone on to embrace the spiritual way of Jesus then the parable will make the gospel seem all the more distant and cut-off from what you perceive as the actual method of Godly government here and now. (Read Matt. 13.10-17 again)

(Read Matt. 13.18-23)
Remember "mysteries," that is to say "hidden things," about the Kingdom of Heaven are being revealed. How does God's own government in the earth function? You have to leave off the natural criteria for kingdom if you even want to see the Kingdom of Heaven. There is no coercion of either citizenry or enemies, no presumed citizenship by tribe, ethnic group, or nationality, no enforced responsibility based on place of birth. Basically, no sword save that sword of the spirit which is the word. The word of the kingdom -in other words, Jesus' authoritative teaching, even as we have it here in Matthew, is heard. Some do not understand it or do not perceive it and it is quickly snatched away by our enemy. Finally we are told that some who hear it understand, or perceive it, and bear fruit. Examine the threats to fruitfulness in this parable. Are there ways that you can anticipate, or reinforce your apprehension of, that which the Gospel teaching presses, by examining these threats? (Read Matt. 13.18-23 again)

(Read Matt. 13.24-30)
"He presented another parable to them saying, 'The kingdom of heaven may be compared to...'." He does not begin these parables by saying this is what must happen before the Kingdom of Heaven can be established, but rather, here is what the personal government of God in the earth is like, this is the cause-of-God being implemented, this is what is happening in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. You are a vital participant as you, like Jesus, are taking up your cross daily and following Him...it may be in your very active "non-response to the world on its own terms." Remember what happened to 2nd cousin John, while Jesus ruled the creature by the spirit of God. This parable gives you a picture of what this kind of governance, this kingdom, will effect in the land. The whole parable describes Kingdom effectiveness but members of Christendom do not do much better than Israelites of the time did at hearing these descriptions. We will get more on this parable with the explanation in v.36-43. (Read Matt. 13.24-30 again)

(Read Matt.13.31,32)
When "the man" sows the seed it is insignificant, it seemed like a small thing but when it has grown...it proves to have been greatest of the kingdoms. It looks small among other seeds but actually it is the greatest of the herbs, even a tree which the birds light in. (Read 13.31,32 again)

(Read Matt.13.33)
The Kingdom of Heaven...which is to say, the KINGDOM that is OF HEAVEN, is hidden, yet it's hidden effect is thorough and complete. (Read Matt. 13.33 again)

(Read Matt. 13.34-35)
The new kingdom concept is something which has been hidden from the foundation of the world. Some will see it. (Read Matt. 13.34-35 again)

(Read Matt. 13. 36-43)
Take notice: what we have been calling the Kingdom of Heaven (v. 24) is the rule of heaven in the earth (see where the kingdom stuff in these parables is happening). It is the rule of heaven through it's king, "the human", or "the son of man" (Jesus, see v.41). It is a kingdom in which neither the king nor his servants fixes the messy mixture of "sons of the kingdom" with "sons of the evil one" Those people historically who have tried to be the separators have proven to be sons of the evil one by their fruit and will be judged on the last day according to their works. The kingdom of the Son will have everything offensive taken out of it on the last day, and then it will be delivered up to the Father as the Kingdom of the Father. (Read Matt. 13. 36-43again and consider 1Cor.15.24)

(Read Matt. 13. 44)
The government of God in the earth is hidden compared to the other governments but when a person finds it he counts it as far more valuable than all others and he gladly gives up everything of this age in order to gain it. (Read Matt.13.44 again)

(Read Matt. 13.45,46)
Same thing, an expert at finding that which has real strength suddenly realizes that the way of Christ is the way. Immediately he gives everything else up in order to gain it. (Read Matt. 13.45,46 again)

(Read Matt. 13.47-50)
Wow, what a crazy description of God's personal government in the earth..."a dragnet cast into the sea". Again, the seperation takes place at the end of the age. It is amazing that God knows better how to seperate "the wicked" from "the legitimate" better than men who call themselves "the people of God". (Read Matt. 13.47-50 again)

(Read Matt. 13.51)
Jesus asked: "Have YOU understood these things?" And I would like to ask, "Have we stood under these things in order to edge our understanding of God's very own government in the right direction?". (Read Matt. 13.51 again)

(Read Matt. 13.52)
Every scholar who would be a disciple of Jesus must bring out things "new and old". The "new" is mentioned first because it enlightens and fills up with meaning the "old". As the prophet quoted in verse 35 had it, "I will utter things hidden since the foundation of the world".(Read Matt. 13.52 again)

Lord's Supper, water baptism, church membership, morphology and conundrems of our own making

2009-04-18T18:35:00.001-07:00

"Faith" as Loyalty and Loyal-Acknowledgement

2009-03-31T19:21:00.000-07:00

An Ongoing Consideration
The biblical words behind "faith" and "trust" represent concepts which are both important in the relationship of man to God. In our modern English usage "faith" and "trust" become almost synonymous. The biblical words, however would appear to have represented two more clearly separate things. There is a characteristically thorough 44 page article on the "pisteuo" word group in Kittel's Theological Dictionary of The New Testament. This entry with its many footnotes, has two authors and was edited by Gerhard Friedrich. The following is an observation from page 197 of Vol.6 about how the ancient translators of the Septuagint (Greek)version of the Old Testament had an abnormal precision in separating the Hebrew and Greek counterpart words that we would most commonly think of as "faith" and "trust".

Worth noting is the fact that [pisteuein] is never used for [BaTaH],.... It is re-markable that [pisteuein] and [pepoithenai] are never used for the same Heb. original. On the one side[AMeN] ni hi is with phililogical exactitude transl. [pisteuein]. Even the derivitives of this root, though sometimes they have or receive in the LXX a different meaning, are rendered by [pisteuein] , never [pepoithenai]. Only once at Prv. 26:25 do we find[peisthanai] in the sense of being decieved. On the other hand [pepoitha] is used for several Heb. words apart from [BaTaH], and these are transl. in many different ways in the LXX ([AMeN] with its uniform rendering in Gk. is in this respect an exception). For none of these originals, however, is [pisteuein] a possible transl. This is no accident. Trust and faith are not co-extensive in the LXX.

Hebrew: ......AMeN..................BaTaH

Greek: ....... pisteuein............ pepoithenai

English: .........faith..................... trust

Faith as Loyalty and Loyal-Acknowledgment

2009-03-24T15:50:00.000-07:00

An Ongoing Consideration
I continue my consideration of biblical Faith as Loyalty and Loyal-Acknowledgment with 2 items: First I quote a few lines of a relatively well informed dictionary entry which could do more to work around “belief” and “trust,” but which also allows for “loyalty”. Second I talk about about "shrinking back" or "severing from the object of loyalty" which has been interpreted and translated in a couple of NT passages as “doubt” in contrast to "faith".

1) Faith- Belief, trust, and loyalty to a person or thing. Christians find their security and hope in God as revealed in Jesus Christ, and say "amen" to that unique relationship to God in the Holy Spirit through love and obedience as expressed in lives of discipleship and service.
You can read the whole article here Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology
2) One apparent difficulty with our consistent use of “loyalty” is when it seems to be set against “doubt” in a couple of passages.
Mat 21:21 And Jesus answered and said to them, "Truly I say to you, if you have faith/loyalty and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, 'Be taken up and cast into the sea,' it will happen.
Mat 21:22 "And all things you ask in prayer, believing/being loyal, you will receive."

However doubt, or Διακρίνω (diakrinō , dee-ak-ree'-no), would be more clearly understood if translated with the more literal “separate thoroughly” or “withdraw” or even by implication “oppose”.
Strong’s definition: From G1223 and G2919; to separate thoroughly, that is, (literally and reflexively) to withdraw from, or (by implication) oppose; figuratively to discriminate (by implication decide), or (reflexively) hesitate: - contend, make (to) differ (-ence), discern, doubt, judge, be partial, stagger, waver.

Replacing the figurative “doubt” with a more literal translation of diakrino such as “separate” or “withdraw” or even “oppose” is actually to be preferred when “loyalty” or “loyal-acknowledgment” is understood.

Mat 21:21 And Jesus answered and said to them, "Truly I say to you, if you have loyalty and do not withdraw, [or separate from the object of your loyalty] you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, 'Be taken up and cast into the sea,' it will happen.
Mat 21:22 "And all things you ask in prayer, being loyal, you will receive."

In my next entry on this subject I should include some interesting observations about the LXX version of the Old Testament.

"Reformed and Beyond" or "Which Way North?"

2009-03-18T06:16:00.000-07:00

If you and I are both in pursuit of the North Pole then we have something pretty significant in common. I would like to think of such a pursuit as a helpful analogy of our much more important common pursuit of fidelity to God through fidelity to Jesus Christ.

So we are in pursuit of the North Pole, that is the place to which we must direct ourselves. You're starting out in Los Angles and I am starting out in Las Vegas; so we may both be helped by going through Seattle...but the North Pole isn't in Seattle! Now you may want to say that you still have our original goal in the back of your mind as you go on and on about Seattle and how its a lot better than Tijuana...and I may even agree with you that heading toward Seattle was an improvement over heading toward Tijuana...but still...we have got to keep THE NORTH POLE front and center in our hearts and minds or we will never get there. If we settle for Seattle, IT will be the end of our common pursuit. And we really don't want Danny who is all the way to Anchorage to be distracted by looking back either. In the Gospel of Matthew we have been learning some things about what a King's behavior and a Kingdom's character look like when moved by the "other" Spirit. Jesus has shown up the rulers of this age for what they are: bankrupt, vain, empty. They are still being used for the restraint of evil but they are incapable of ruling like Jesus because by nature they fear and reject the cross. The rule of God by the Holy Spirit through fidelity to Jesus Christ was not achieved in the worldly authorities of The Holy Roman Empire, it was not achieved in European Christendom, not even Reformed European Christendom. If you and I want to be loyal to God we must be loyal to Jesus Christ not the mutated and mutating dogma of men, even Reformed men! The North Pole isn't in Seattle and fidelity to Jesus isn't in fidelity to the traditions of men. The analogy may be stretched...to pass through Seattle or Anchorage is fine but to truly be on mission our goal must, undividedly, and all along, be the North Pole. And in fact the nature of loyalty to Jesus requires that it not be split with another loyalty.

He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me (Mat 10:37).

But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ (Mat 23:8-10).

Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul (1Co 1:13)?

Now friends, Seattle is a nice city and if we were settling maybe it would be fine, but we are not. Just because I am uneasy in Seattle and you see me looking at the compass, that does not mean I am interested in heading back to Las Vegas, or even worse, Tijuana. Let's maintain our common goal; The North Pole. As we arrive, only that will prove to have been a worthy pursuit.

What kind of king? what kind of kingdom? Matthew 11:1 - 14:12 (part 2)

2009-03-11T08:53:00.000-07:00

Matthew 11 and 12; What kind of king?

(Read Matt. 11:1-6)
Let's consider this Gospel information about our King and His new kind of Kingdom in a little more detail. We noted earlier that a natural take on Jesus as Messiah of Israel might be negative. Even though he worked many miracles, especially in the countryside, he never harnessed his exploits to turn them into political clout. He never really took the next step...or took advantage of miracle working ability by translating it into a formidable political movement. Remember Jesus is presented to Israel as the would-be-messiah who will end up getting himself rejected and crucified without ever mustering the political and organizational oomph to spring his own cousin from jail. Jesus' reticence to pull the right political strings will quickly result in John's arbitrary execution! "WHY SUCH INCOMPETENCE?" a zealot for God's rule might be tempted to cry out. But thankfully as we look at this King there is a better perspective and a better response, one motivated by the Holy Spirit. (Read 11:1-6 again)

(Read Matt 11:7-30)
As you read chapter 11 did you notice Jesus used the image of children in two different ways. Once in Matt. 11:16 He uses the image of children as non-receptive brats who refuse the truth from God no matter how it is "packaged" in reference to religious people who would not receive God's message from John or from Jesus himself. Then we find Jesus using and image of children in Matt. 11:25. This time using a word for infants, Jesus refers to the simple who receive his teaching, as opposed to those who think they are to "mature" to receive it. (Read 7-30 again)

(Read Matt. 12:1-21)
After a glimpse of the extraordinary authority of Jesus from the end of chapter 11 through 12:7 we go on to learn how this authority is to be strangely expressed by the uniquely Spirit-moved-King.

...the Pharisees went out and conspired against Him, as to how they might destroy Him. But Jesus, aware of this, withdrew from there. Many followed Him, and He healed them all, and warned them not to tell who He was. This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: "BEHOLD, MY SERVANT WHOM I HAVE CHOSEN; MY BELOVED IN WHOM MY SOUL is WELL-PLEASED; I WILL PUT MY SPIRIT UPON HIM, AND HE SHALL PROCLAIM JUSTICE TO THE GENTILES. "HE WILL NOT QUARREL, NOR CRY OUT; NOR WILL ANYONE HEAR HIS VOICE IN THE STREETS. "A BATTERED REED HE WILL NOT BREAK OFF, AND A SMOLDERING WICK HE WILL NOT PUT OUT, UNTIL HE LEADS JUSTICE TO VICTORY. "AND IN HIS NAME THE GENTILES WILL HOPE." ....(Read 12:1-21 again)

(Read Mat. 12:22-32)
The Spirit as spoken of by Isaiah is what quickens the King and qualifies the Kingdom. we learn the unpardonable shortcoming is to reject this "spiritualness" as the true expression of the Kings authority. We observe this Spirit in the whole approach of Jesus to being king. It is a Spirit which moves in Jesus' mode of operation.And it is a Spirit which can finally drive out those sickly motivators which have plagued Israel and kept Her from being the light to the nations. (Read 12:22-32 again)

(Read Mat. 12:33-37)
Now adding onto what we read in 22 ff; to say anything against this way of rescuing Israel is to say a"worthless word" for which men will be judged. It is to say a word that does not encourage loyalty to Jesus Messiah. It is to say a word against the cause of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.(Read 12:33-37 again)

(Read Matt 12:38-50)
Men want a bigger and bolder sign of being the King. But they will receive no sign that he is the King except his death...and not even his resurrection will be harnessed for a lesser spirit of political reign.

As a resurrected miracle worker he really could have put together an insurrection and gone back into Jerusalem, messed those dudes up, and then sailed straight for Rome. But no; the sign of His resurrection, though it is a vindication of his anointed life, would not be made a hobby horse for a cause so unlike that which the Spirit would have you and I follow Jesus in.

This is it! He is the King, by this other kind of motivation, one which gives room for perfect loyalty to God so that this King can also afford to be perfectly loyal to men. He is "the faith". The Israel that does not enthrone Him will be taken up by a worse oppression than before. And the Israel that does the will of Jesus' father in heaven will be his closest family members.(Read 12:38-50 again)

God couldn't let us all be wrong, could He?....Well yeah, I mean why not!?!

2009-03-08T14:17:00.000-07:00

(Reading Matthew 15:1-39)

We count prophetic scripture as quite distinct from other writings. We even count prophetic scripture as quite distinct from the evolving opinion of what is sometimes romantically called "the Church".

Can we assume that God does not count it His responsibility to shore up people's errors? What about people who use His Name? Is it God's job to fix their errors or to make immediate corrections to their thinking? Or... can we assume that the Lord would allow a multitude, who use God's name, to also be in fundamental error? If we say, "Yes, the Lord would allow 'the people' to be in error," it is not necessarily a naked assumption. We find this truth in the Gospel itself. Jesus does not make it his business to shore up the understanding of the whole body of bible scholars and religious authorities in Israel even though they are making a universal mistake. They have authority (they have seated themselves in Moses’ seat) and they are the scripture experts (You study the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life), yet Jesus in no way concentrates his teaching efforts with them. One place we see his reticence to take responsibility for their error is in Matthew 15.

First, we see that "some Pharisees and scribes came" to correct Jesus, Jesus did not go out to chase them down and correct them. Jesus answers their loaded question with a question of even greater weight and He then goes on to quote Isaiah: "THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN".
Wow, did you hear that? "THIS PEOPLE", is a reference to the general entirety of Israel...a people who, unlike the heathen, "honored the God of Israel with their lips". After that the leadership of Israel and the Bible Scholars of Israel overheard Jesus give this law-changing statement:

"Hear and understand. "It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man."
So how did that go over????
“Then the disciples came and said to Him, “Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this statement?” But He answered and said, “Every plant which My heavenly Father did not plant shall be uprooted. “Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind. And if a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit(Mat 15:12-14).”

I don’t think this means we can think of ourselves as having everything right. I don’t think that any of us should conclude we have little or nothing to learn from other studiers. But my loyal-acknowledgment of God and your loyal-acknowledgment of God through our loyal-acknowledgment of Jesus is something God looks in on, personally. And the last thing you or I should do is move the eyes of our loyalty off of Jesus and onto the unsteady or even stormy response of the guild or the experts or the magisterium or the romantically imagined Hegelian model of "The Church". If we do this we may lose Jesus Christ as our object of all true loyalty. If we do this we will surely begin to sink from our faith-filled-walk-over-the-water with Jesus Christ.

Real and substantive corrections to the scriptural understanding begin at the place of loyalty to Jesus. And loyalty to Jesus will be the end of a scriptural understanding that has received corrections which were real and substantive.

What I am saying is a real, substantive, and corrected understanding of Scripture, begins and ends with loyalty to Jesus. I can have many inaccuracies in my understanding of scripture and still be on the path of loyalty to God through Christ. If I am loyal to Jesus then meaningful corrections to doctrine may be expected to flow from that loyalty as God superintends our understanding hearts.

"John MacArthur abandoning the Trinitarian Faith" or "Don't trade loyalty for technicalities"?

2009-02-23T14:02:00.000-08:00

PICK YOUR FAVORITE TITLE

An article on a Catholic website opens with these three sentences:

Some Evangelicals, such as John MacArthur, J. Oliver Buswell, and the late Walter Martin, have been abandoning the Trinitarian faith as defined by the First Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325). Their abandonment of orthodox Trinitarianism consists in denying the eternal Sonship of Christ, the doctrine that the second person of the Trinity was the Son of God from all eternity. Instead, they claim that the second person of the Trinity only became the Son of God at his incarnation. Apart from the incarnation he was still God, but not the Son, just the second Person.

Some institutions or groups would claim authenticating authority over all Christians. At times these claims are related to a supposed ability to articulate a definition of God which goes beyond prophetic scripture. As I have studied alongside others, I have noticed that in scripture we find men held intrinsically responsible for an appropriate response to the LORD even without a bunch of information about His "nature". If some group should go beyond the explicit testimony of prophetic scripture attempting to balance and understand the nature of God, it seems like they should at those extra-biblical points, be most humble and deal most humbly with others. This however has not been the case among so many who would claim to be disciples. It is precisely in areas of extra-biblical, speculative, and deductive theology that men have been most proud and judgmental of others. Maybe they are too natural...you know...the way we men are naturally more concerned with asserting ourselves than we are with humble fidelity to God and each other.

Would those engaged in the arguments and the condemnations be better served by concentrating on a response of loyal-acknowledgment to Jesus Christ? As for the original disciples themselves, they expressed more difficulty with Jesus' Kingdom ethic (Matthew 19:10,25), and exclusivity(John 6:53,63), than they did with the high statements about Jesus' relationship to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The particulars of the relationship between the Father and the Son only caused consternation where there was a lack of loyalty to God manifest in a lack of loyalty to Jesus. The reason that we do not find a New Testament separation of the faithful from the unfaithful, down a line of ones precision in apprehending sophisticated arguments on the ontological nature of the Godhead...is because that is not where the line is drawn.

Faith, that is to say loyal-acknowledgment, is personal and God has communicated to us that personal is how He takes it. So that to look upon the Son, Jesus, in loyal-acknowledgment is considered looking upon His Father, Jehovah, with loyal-acknowledgment and God is pleased to count those who do so as legitimate in His sight. Proving loyal to Jesus will have to do with receiving Him when others despise Him. It will have more to do with receiving His teaching, and life, death, and resurrection, than it will with receiving the subsequently formulated dogma of men. The faith will prove to be in line with John's explanation: "Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also (1Jn 2:23)."

Did Jesus, before he was born, always exist as the eternally begotten Son OR did Jesus eternally exist as the Word that was later begotten by the Father as the Son when He brought Him into the world? These are fine points for which we may humbly examine the scriptural statements. But to try to get people to arrive at loyalty to God by extra-biblical inference and through dogmatically speculative assertiveness will be counter-productive. We are not to de-contextualize these or any scripture passages from the whole of the prophetic scriptures. It won't do to turn various passages of prophetic scripture into strips of de-contextualized "truth" so that we, with help from the paste of pride, can get about adding bulk to a paper mache' catholicism.

These sort of arguments seem to receive a disproportionate emphasis among antagonists more concerned with having a silver bullet to use against others in a theological hierarchy war. But why would a disciple be found jockeying for position amid presumptuous, illegitimate, perhaps even mediatorial, authority claims?

The more we read the Gospels...and stand under them, the more focused we should become on the proper focal point. And maybe some of the more eccentric grappling will become less necessary for a people who would be that faithful remnant, marked by loyalty to the God of Israel in Jesus Christ.

(part 1) What kind of king? What kind of kingdom? Read Matthew 11:1 - 14: 12

2009-02-10T21:20:00.000-08:00

This is an amazing part of the Gospel. We really need to let the "Gospel commands" from the sermon of Matthew 5-7 sink in to us in a way that will very organically match up now with what Jesus is giving us as the definitive answer to: "what kind of king? what kind of kingdom?"
It will be very important toward the end of this section that you and I are able to answer with a "yes" as the other disciples do when Jesus asks them, "Have you understood all these things?"
"What kind of king?" and "What kind of kingdom?" are questions of much more than mere theoretical interest for John the Baptist. As we consider the movement from one window into John's life-and-death circumstances, to the next of these windows, they form the perfect book ends for all the material in these chapters. With both John's appeal and his plight our understanding of this King and His kingdom is reinforced.

Mat 11:2-6
Now when John, while imprisoned, heard of the works of Christ, he sent word by his disciples and said to Him, "Are You the Expected One, or shall we look for someone else?" Jesus answered and said to them, "Go and report to John what you hear and see: the BLIND RECEIVE SIGHT and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the POOR HAVE THE GOSPEL PREACHED TO THEM. "And blessed is he who does not take offense at Me."

Then we have material on a King who reigns in a new spirit and a motivation without defect. A Spirit and motivation of perfect loyalty to God. A Spirit and motivation fitted to the person wholly dependent on one Sufficiency. A king who reigns in his Kingdom under His father and over His subjects through the sheer obedience of faith. Wholly content with His Father, and with no guile for any creature, He reigns in His hidden kingdom, hidden in a mixed response to His life and teaching. Patiently, purposefully, and with the good pleasure found in the fellowship of God and man, He reigns all the way to the great judgment when the good creation will be wholly submitted to the good creator.

Mat 14:10-13a
[Herod] sent and had John beheaded in the prison. And his head was brought on a platter and given to the girl, and she brought it to her mother. His disciples came and took away the body and buried it; and they went and reported to Jesus. Now when Jesus heard about John, He withdrew from there in a boat to a secluded place by Himself...;.

Read this section of Matthew again to understand and stand under this King and this Kingdom. Blessed is he who is not offended with Jesus.

Why play around? You can have revolution, improvement, or change. But "the Resolution of all things" is at hand in the Kingdom of God.

2009-01-25T13:34:00.000-08:00

The very best that this age has to offer will only leave creation groaning more passionately for the perfect.

The cost of discipleship should not dissuade us. Jesus said, "You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved(Mat 10:22).

If we have read about the great tension in the cosmos in places like the book of Isaiah or the sad-yet-hopeful "national anthem of Israel" given through Moses by the LORD in Deuteronomy 32 then we know that we are joining into that which generations of prophets have looked forward to. We, disciples of Jesus Messiah, are participating in "The Resolution of All Things!"

Many of us are now reading Matthew chapter 13 to better understand the nature of this Messiah's Rescue...this Christ's Kingdom...this Way to "The Resolution of All Things".

"These were godly men, therefore...?"

2009-01-23T09:30:00.000-08:00

I would like to comment a little further on the doctrine of Christ that we find in Matthew 23:6-10.

"They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men. "But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. "Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ."

Like myself are you all to often one who dabbles in the teachings of Christ but also looks with your loyalty for a more "real world" Christianity? If so, do you think the Lord might help you in your hearing of the Gospel to more faithfully distinguish between real discipleship and a compromised religion? In relation to historical teachers, leaders, and fathers, have you ever found yourself using this kind of logic: "These (insert your favorite historical figures) were godly men, therefore, surely, what they did and thought was 'godly'?...And then tried to assure yourself that there was no further need to weigh against another standard, or truly measure against another yardstick? If that was OK then we would all be able to breath a sigh of relief and get on with the business of OUR religion. But thankfully the Lord has not left us to ourselves. If we were to give in wholly to that mode of operation would Jesus really be our Lord? Our example? Our standard? If we were to consciously accept that as our working model wouldn't we be limiting our loyalty to Christ.

In Matthew we have learned, not necessarily to lower our regard for Solomon, or the Old Covenant temple, or even for the old sabbath, but rather we have learned to over-arch this regard with an even higher regard for Jesus as the new standard.

"Or have you not read in the Law, that on the sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent? But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here. (Mat 12:5,6)

"The men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment, and will condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.(Mat 12:41)

"The Queen of the South will rise up with this generation at the judgment and will condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, something greater than Solomon is here. (Mat 12:42)

He alone is the "godly" one to which all others must bow. He alone, in the sense we are considering, is our teacher. And at some point we must learn of the joy to be found in the truth that "It is enough for the disciple that he become like his teacher,...(Matt 10:25)" But to our discredit, when thinking of an example that we might look to, and associate ourselves with, we so often find ourselves "offended" by Jesus and scanning history for those great and godly men who also, some way or another, fell under the loose heading "Christian". Why would we do this?...the offense of the cross. When we think of "rescue and prosperity" or "messiah" we don't really like the way of Jesus Christ any more than what John the Baptist did when He finally sent the Question to Jesus asking, "Are You the Expected One, or should we look for someone else?(Mat 11:3)". Jesus did not take over or establish any of this worlds institutions. Jesus, the obedient son of God, got himself crucified without impacting the culture enough to spring His own cousin, John the Baptist, from a jail in Israel. No wonder no one can say JESUS is Christ (with its implications of rescue and prosperity)except by the Holy Spirit. And I think John may have been leaning toward an "offended" disillusionment over this Jesus. But Jesus sent word back to John about what was happening; that needy people were having needs met, and "...the POOR HAVE THE GOSPEL PREACHED TO THEM. And blessed is he who does not take offense at me".

Who can be saved?

2009-01-20T12:22:00.000-08:00

Can Catholics? can oneness Pentecostals? can Baptists?

We should probably dispense with the idea of salvation-by-category except for that category spiritually defined around Jesus as the faithful.
What had these disciples done except give loyal-recognition to Jesus.

While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. Someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You." But Jesus answered the one who was telling Him and said, "Who is My mother and who are My brothers?" And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, "Behold My mother and My brothers! "For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother." (Mat 12:46-50)

And they brought to Him a paralytic lying on a bed. Seeing their faith, Jesus said to the paralytic, "Take courage, son; your sins are forgiven." And some of the scribes said to themselves, "This fellow blasphemes." And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, "Why are you thinking evil in your hearts? "Which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, and walk'? "But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"--then He *said to the paralytic, "Get up, pick up your bed and go home." And he got up and went home. But when the crowds saw this, they were awestruck, and glorified God, who had given such authority to men. (Mat 9:2-8)

I would not want to be guilty of diminishing "doctrine" but it is Christ who, in his doctrine, teaches us that "they will know you by your love for one another" and that we will "know them by their fruit" and so on. His doctrine so thoroughly adds up to "in our loyalty to Christ, be Christ-like". Humble submission to His teaching would stand in contrast to our being fastidious about our extra-biblical inferences, or even censorious about a proper organization of biblical data.

"Pistos", which we normally have as faith, is loyal-recognition, or loyal-acknowledgment and thereby "pistos" is received by God, personally. Also, since it is directed by the various faithful individuals toward the person of God, we notice it is directed by individuals who are at various levels of apprehension of the scripturally revealed information about this person of God to whom they are each directly loyal.

However, the one who is loyal, by definition cannot persist in despising the teaching (doctrine) of the one to whom he is loyal.
And a bit more, none of this is to say that "we are loyal to God by merely being loyal to the god of our(?) understanding". If one is personally loyal to the God of Abraham, he or she necessarily demonstrates that loyalty in these last days by loyalty to the person of His Son.

I simply think that we should be cautious to distinguish between a submitted loyalty to Christ and His authoritative teaching, over against loyalty to our institutions and pronouncements. The Lord may be making quite the distinction as He looks on the faith of those who would be His people, individually...even the least of them.

As you study with this in mind, notice those who have a loyal-recognition of Jesus in the Gospels and praise God with me at the amazing benefits. Their greatest needs are met. Their sins are forgiven...you know, awesome stuff like that. And Jesus is still available to you and me now...through His word, by his Spirit, and in his actual position at the right hand of the Father...to be the proper object of our loyal-recognition.

The Lord is patient with His little flock. Perhaps this is why we hear Him calling His own to come out of false religion represented by the Harlot and Babylon.

I heard another voice from heaven, saying, "Come out of her, my people, so that you will not participate in her sins and receive of her plagues; for her sins have piled up as high as heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities. (Rev 18:4-5)

Reading with borrowed ability

2009-01-07T06:37:00.000-08:00

...for the activity and the goal.

The goal is faith in our teacher, the activity is reading among the readers but in the presence of our Father.

Matthew 23:6-10
"They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men. "But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. "Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ."

We do well to study in, and for, a loyal and trusting recognition of Jesus. It would be a shame to study the scriptures, thinking that in them we have eternal life, and miss our opportunities for a living fidelity toward Jesus. The faith of Jesus is our goal.

The mentality that says "we are standing on the shoulders of giants" may not be the most accurate perspective. We appreciate the accurate teaching of gifted teachers who have rightly read the scriptures. Yes, we gladly read among "the readers" but if their insights are correct the correctness belongs to the LORD! The truth of the Gospel is indestructible, yet our ability to grasp and submit to it is fragile. For our studying to be done well, in the sight of God...for the activity to be conducive to our real goal...we depend on the LORD...immediately.

Confidence in the Lord should be at the heart of our studying. And so self-confidence in our ability to read and submit to it might be counter-productive. In fact even self-confidence in our ability to pick our favorite reader, or school of readers could produce the wrong effect; especially when we note the tendency to shift our loyalty away from the proper object. I think the teaching of Christ referenced above addresses our tendency to think of our communion with God as derived rather than direct. In reality both our proper reading and proper submission are an activity of directly meeting with the Lord. Our temple,the meeting place between God and man, is not made with hands.

Be the Kingdom of God or You're a Waste

2008-12-03T13:36:00.000-08:00

Matthew 7:6 has often baffled commentators. Understood as a chiasmus this verse fits into the Sermon very well. It is an exhortation to be kingdom-people, governed by the law of Christ...or else...you will not be the valuable possession God has called you to be. You will be without value, like pearls to swine. You will be without separated-purpose, like sacrificial-meat given to dogs. On the other hand we will be like salt thats salty, and like light that illuminates; we will have special value, and be of a special purpose, IF we act on the Gospel teaching of our Lord, Jesus.

The excerpt below on the topic of chiasmus was taken from the "in the beginning" website.

In general, chiasmus refers to an inverted parallelism or sequence of words or ideas in a phrase or clause, sentence, paragraph, chapter, or an entire literary work. For example, Matthew 7:6 contains a simple chiasmus which may be represented as follows:

A "Do not give what is holy to dogs,

B and do not throw your pearls before swine,

B’ lest they trample them under their feet,

A’ and turn and tear you to pieces"

In this instance, the propositions A and B are reflected as in a reversed mirror image by the propositions B’ (said as "B prime") and A’ (said as "A prime"). By recognizing Matthew 7:6 as a chiastic structure, one can make much better sense of this verse than might otherwise be done; for it seems most logical that the dogs (A) tear to pieces (A’), and the swine (B) do the trampling (B’).

The teachings of men and worship made vain

2008-11-25T11:40:00.000-08:00

We are reading Matthew weekly and discussing our way through this gospel. Some of us are already discussing chapter 15.

Then some Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, "Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread."
(Mat 15:1-2)

Notice that "they came to Jesus from Jerusalem" Jesus did not seek out the Pharisees and scribes in order to straighten them out. He did not go to Jerusalem and jump in their business. He did not confront them. Jesus corrects them as they come out to confront Him. This fits with what we have read in Matt. 12:13-21 where Isaiah was quoted:

"BEHOLD, MY SERVANT WHOM I HAVE CHOSEN; MY BELOVED IN WHOM MY SOUL is WELL-PLEASED; I WILL PUT MY SPIRIT UPON HIM, AND HE SHALL PROCLAIM JUSTICE TO THE GENTILES. "HE WILL NOT QUARREL, NOR CRY OUT; NOR WILL ANYONE HEAR HIS VOICE IN THE STREETS. "A BATTERED REED HE WILL NOT BREAK OFF, AND A SMOLDERING WICK HE WILL NOT PUT OUT, UNTIL HE LEADS JUSTICE TO VICTORY. "AND IN HIS NAME THE GENTILES WILL HOPE."

The Pharisees and scribes had an agreed-upon-tradition handed down to them which they were certain made clear that which was not made clear enough in the Scriptures. At the point they want to confront Jesus for violating, not the word of God, but their tradition, Jesus informs them that this very thing makes their worship vain (empty, meaningless); that they are "...teaching for doctrines the precepts of men".

And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? "For God said, 'HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER,' and, 'HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH.' "But you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God," he is not to honor his father or his mother.' And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition. "You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you: 'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. 'BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'" (Mat 15:3-9)

We know that men teach, but when what we teach (and apparently try to enforce) are the precepts of men, our hearts are adrift.

The Reconstruction of Faith

2008-11-19T08:14:00.000-08:00

Over 50 Years ago a man named H.Richard Niebuhr wrote a helpful book called "Christ and Culture". More recently some of his work has been released in a book called "Faith on Earth." I have not read the newer book but yesterday I read an excerpt called "The Reconstruction of Faith" which I thought was very good, especially for someone coming from Niebuhr's environment. As Paul told the Corinthians, when we consider our calling, there are not many wise, not many powerful, not many well-born. This has everything to do with our following the crucified messiah. Yet It is a refreshing thought that God might also be merciful even to some who were once thought of as among an elite class...to bring them in humility to a place of loyalty to Jesus. Is that what I am reading about here? Read this excerpt by clicking:"The Reconstruction of Faith".

Don't confuse thy niebuhr.
A name I have sometimes confused with H. Richard Niebuhr is that of Reinhold Niebuhr and come to find out they where brothers. They both held positions at respected schools in the 1930's. H.Richard at Yale University and Reinhold at Union Theological Seminary. They engaged in what might be called a public debate on "just war" and real christianity through alternating articles published in the Christian Century magazine of that time. These article have been reproduced with an informative introduction to their historical setting. There are some interesting thoughts on basic Christianity represented in the articles that you can access in the first 3 links at the bottom of this page.

Logical inferences are not fool proof, but loyalty to Jesus Christ is.

2008-11-12T12:17:00.000-08:00

But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God (Mat 22:29).

In a document titled "means of grace" which is linked to at the top of this blog, I said: "The fact that the phrase “means of grace” is not found in scripture makes any doctrine of “means of grace” one very important step removed from being well founded, or at least from being well tested, as a biblical category of thought."

This conservative idea of grasping biblical thought primarily in the words and phrases of scripture shapes what I think is an important doctrinal philosophy. Students of Christianity too often rob verses from their context, stick them in a "logic machine", which then,in their mind, spits out "necessary inferences", which are then confidently asserted as authoritative doctrine.

It's one thing to distort Jesus' teaching to the point that we only recognize a caricature of the true Messiah. It's another thing to augment Jesus' words with inference and speculative presumption to the point that Jesus is no longer the object of our loyalty. What happens then is that the craft-of-men or human-institutions become the objects of our loyalty. And this is a most dishonorable exchange.

In Matthew 22:23-32 we see how the Sadducees found themselves in a cul-de-sac of error.

On that day some Sadducees (who say there is no resurrection) came to Jesus and questioned Him, asking, "Teacher, Moses said, 'IF A MAN DIES HAVING NO CHILDREN, HIS BROTHER AS NEXT OF KIN SHALL MARRY HIS WIFE, AND RAISE UP CHILDREN FOR HIS BROTHER.' "Now there were seven brothers with us; and the first married and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother; so also the second, and the third, down to the seventh. "Last of all, the woman died. "In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had married her." But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God. "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. "But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God: 'I AM THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, AND THE GOD OF ISAAC, AND THE GOD OF JACOB'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."

When the Sadducees plugged a scripture into their logic machine...specifically, "IF A MAN DIES HAVING NO CHILDREN, HIS BROTHER AS NEXT OF KIN SHALL MARRY HIS WIFE, AND RAISE UP CHILDREN FOR HIS BROTHER." It spit out the logical inference: "there can not be a resurrection". But Jesus said they didn't "see" or "know" or "understand" the scriptures or the power of God. Yes, their logical inference led them down the wrong path on the question of resurrection but what about the other guys? Were the Pharisees who "say" there is a resurrection going to be any better off? No, they really were not any better off. While it is true that the Sadducees mistakenly argue for the "no-resurrection" position, thinking it was a logical and scriptural necessity; their main problem was they missed where God was leading Israel-specifically, to Jesus. What people on opposing sides of many debates actually need is to submit to Jesus. All authority has been given to Him.

Jesus was the one with an authoritative word to take the debaters where they really needed to be. If the Sadducees would just be loyal to Jesus they would be in the right place and the importance of their debate with the Pharisees would fade. Interestingly, the Pharisees needed to do exactly the same thing. being on the right side of the resurrection debate would not make anyone legitimate before God. The most foolish of men can be right with God through loyalty to Jesus. The wisest of Men prove themselves foolish in God's sight when they refuse loyal acknowledgment of Jesus. Loyalty to Jesus is fool-proof.

The Parameters of Roman Virtue are not the responsibility of a martyr/witness

2008-11-05T06:52:00.000-08:00

Is it possible that our fidelity to Christ might be better focused on being the witnesses/martyrs to Jesus we are supposed to be if we would not think of ourselves (disciples) as the defenders and enforcers of "Roman virtue"? ...especially as that virtue is shaped through the coercion of political force.

The Parameters of "Roman Virtue" are not the responsibility of a martyr/witness. Why should people in America who are lumped under the heading white-evangelical shoulder the yoke of making common-sense common. It brings confusion to my brothers and sisters as to what their actual mission is. And it probably encourages Americans (not disciples)to be against the maintenance of something which is actually their responsibility.

"Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?" He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority; but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth."
(Act 1:6-8)

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

biblical faith not modern self-confidence

2008-10-15T09:02:00.000-07:00

Often we hear the word "faith" used for what amounts to "confidence," even "self-confidence". Is there a difference between Biblical Faith and Modern Confidence? I think there is quite a difference...one worth contemplating. Here are a couple of definitions for the word "confidence":

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
con•fi•dent
–adjective
1. having strong belief or full assurance; sure: confident of fulfillment.
2. sure of oneself; having no uncertainty about one's own abilities, correctness, successfulness, etc.; self-confident; bold: a confident speaker.
3. excessively bold; presumptuous.
4. Obsolete. trustful or confiding.
–noun
5. a confidant.
[Origin: 1570–80; < L confīdent- (s. of confīdéns), prp. of confīdere. See confide, -ent]

—Related forms
con•fi•dent•ly, adverb

—Synonyms 1. certain, positive. See sure. 2. self-reliant, assured, intrepid.
—Antonyms 2. modest, diffident.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © R

Look at the 2 examples below. On one hand entry #1 (confidence in another person)is translated in modern greek with the "pistos" root. On the other hand entry #2 which has more to do with being self-assured or self-confident is translated into modern greek with the "peitho" root.

1) Confidence noun
trust or belief in someone's ability
Example: I have great confidence in you.
Greek: εμπιστοσύνη

2) Confidence noun
belief and faith in one's own ability
Example: She shows a great deal of confidence for her age.
Greek: αυτοπεποίθηση
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

Certainly we should recognize the distinction between biblical "faith" in God and what many people today mean by "faith" as a kind of "self-confidence". I like this statement found in Kittle's vi,pg.198.

In the OT to believe in God is to acknowledge Him as such. This includes trust and hope, fear and obedience. But these are a unity, since trust is taken radically and thus includes the overcoming of anxiety and self-confidence

Meaningfulness of signs performed by Jesus

2008-10-15T07:59:00.000-07:00

We have read in John 20:30 that "... many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;...." So that we understand the signs recorded in John as having been selected out of the many signs He did. Some have made a point of observing the appropriateness of the signs as they correlate with, and figuratively highlight aspects of, Christs' teachings in John. For example, in John 11 we have the accomplishment of a sign. Jesus' returns to dangerous Judea in order to raise Lazurus from the dead. This sign is coupled with the teaching "The good shepard lays down his life to save the sheep." By the way Jesus does not get out of Judea after this sign without dying. In John 8&9 Jesus heals a man who has been in darkness (blind) from his birth and that sign is coupled with "Jesus is the Light of the World," and so on.

In each case there are symbolic illustrations of truths which have otherwise been stated plainly. So that we see how Christ's works and His teachings mesh together in such a way as to re-iterate the announcement of the Kingdom of God.

A Theme of Matthew is; "Jesus came for Israel, to be Israel, and to define Israel around fidelity to God, which Jesus himself embodies." Related to that theme is the idea that Jesus is able to relieve Israel of judgments which God has determined to give the unfaithful nation. And this relief for Israel is one that the teachers of Israel, the prophets and such, were not able to bring about even in their lesser faith. But Jesus, the faithful comes, and in keeping with God's will, is able to deliver.

Looking at the event of Matthew 17:14-22 through a lens already colored by the pattern of Jesus' mission to, for, and to be, Israel will strengthen our understanding of both the overarching pattern and of this event.

Mat 17:14-23 "When they came to the crowd, a man came up to Jesus, falling on his knees before Him and saying, (15) "Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is a lunatic and is very ill; for he often falls into the fire and often into the water. (16) "I brought him to Your disciples, and they could not cure him." (17) And Jesus answered and said, "You unbelieving and perverted generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring him here to Me." (18) And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him, and the boy was cured at once. (19) Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, "Why could we not drive it out?" (20) And He *said to them, "Because of the littleness of your faith; for truly I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you. (21) ["But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting."] (22) And while they were gathering together in Galilee, Jesus said to them, "The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men; (23) and they will kill Him, and He will be raised on the third day." And they were deeply grieved

Israel (the people of God) have been embroiled in a long history of insufficient loyalty to God.

(Isa 1:4) Alas, sinful nation, People weighed down with iniquity, Offspring of evildoers, Sons who act corruptly! They have abandoned the LORD, They have despised the Holy One of Israel, They have turned away from Him.

It is Israel's ongoing insufficient loyaty that evokes these words from Jesus: "You unbelieving and perverted generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I put up with you (Matt17:17)?"

The Israelite boy in Matthew 17 is a representative Jew...In Israel's history "the demon" of bad faith has done nothing but get Israel into trouble with God. Israel needs help being Israel. She needs help overcoming her failings as much as the young man needs deliverance from this demon.

(Isa 8:7) "Now therefore, behold, the Lord is about to bring on them the strong and abundant waters of the Euphrates, Even the king of Assyria and all his glory; And it will rise up over all its channels and go over all its banks.

(Isa 30:27-28) Behold, the name of the LORD comes from a remote place; Burning is His anger and dense is His smoke; His lips are filled with indignation And His tongue is like a consuming fire; (28) His breath is like an overflowing torrent, Which reaches to the neck, To shake the nations back and forth in a sieve, And to put in the jaws of the peoples the bridle which leads to ruin.

There is no real health for Israel until Israel (through the representative Israelite...Jesus) realizes that doing God's will is better than any short-term, apparent, benefit of ignoring God's will. The first step, and the last step, of a man doing God's will is going to be the step of loyalty toward God. A small and failing loyalty is not what is needed to get Israel out of the fire and water of God's judgment.

Loyalty-to-God does the will-of-God, even with the cost of present suffering. This is the lesson which needs to come across, especially in this part of Matthews Gospel.

(Mat 16:21-24) From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day. (22) Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, "God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You." (23) But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God's interests, but man's." (24) Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.

(Mat 17:12) but I say to you that Elijah already came, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands."

(Mat 17:22-23) And while they were gathering together in Galilee, Jesus said to them, "The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men; (23) and they will kill Him, and He will be raised on the third day." And they were deeply grieved.

To see more passages on the connection between fire and water and the judgemant of
God consider: fire Deut.32:22; Ps. 21:8ff, 89:46; Isa. 66:15ff.; fire + cup=divine judgement: Ps.11:6, Luke12:49, Mark 10:38 as a testing or proving of quality: 2Thess.1:7,8; Heb. 12:29;water Ps.69:14; Ps. 18:4; Ps. 88;6.

2 links: #1christ in OT, #2 historical transitions in "faith"

2008-10-07T08:15:00.000-07:00

I just wanted to offer a couple links today. The first one is a link-to-a-link from Denny Burk which he posted last week. It is a great discussion about Christ filling up the Old Testament. The participants are Peter Gentry, Jim Hamilton, Duane Garrett, with Tom Schreiner moderating.
(click here)

The second is a link to the portion of a book in which a scholarly skeptic named Marcus Borg has some helpful comments on change in the use of "faith." (click here)

looking further into faith as loyalty.

2008-10-01T13:59:00.000-07:00

Some of us are reading through the 11 passages of Matthew which use the word "faith." I think this survey of passages is an excellent place to think of "faith" in terms of "loyal-recognition" or "loyal-acknowledgment." As an introduction to the whole faith-as-loyalty topic. I will post links to a few documents I have gathered together.
The first document (click here) just looks at modern English definitions of Faith which include the concept of loyalty. click here to see how a handbook translates "loyalty" into modern Greek.
Click here to see how an expert responds to the request to translate "loyalty" into ancient Greek.

loyal to Jesus

2008-09-29T13:47:00.000-07:00

It's not hard to be loyal to Jesus. There is no great hurdle that you can not jump. There is no locked door you can't get through. In a most important sense, loyalty to Jesus is easy. You just take whatever loyalty you've got and day by day you bring it to one place: -Jesus-.
You might not have much but you have only got one place to bring it, one person to give it to! And loyalty by its nature is something that goes with you. All of your loyalty to Jesus goes with you tomorrow to school! Your loyalty to Jesus goes with you back to the house tonight. Your loyalty to Jesus goes with you to work and to Bed. Your loyalty, by its definition must have an "on-goingness" to it. So, go be loyal to Jesus with whatever loyalty you have got and you will not be disappointed in Him.

a compelling irony

2008-08-29T14:19:00.000-07:00

A literal translation of Colossians 2:14,15 reads like this:
Wiping out the (against us)handwriting in ordinances which was contrary to us,and has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross putting off the rulers and authorities he exposed them with openness triumphing over them in it.

The institutionalized religion of Jerusalem and institutionalized government of Rome, at their most illustrious conspired together to undress this Jesus of Nazareth and hang him out in open shame...but actually it was the "rulers" and the "authorities" who were being exposed as inept. The judgment of God has been manifest against "the church" and "the state". They shall not go forward into the Kingdom of God.

Keep reading Colossians without being defrauded the prize of Jesus.

a little more on "baptizo"

2008-08-19T17:40:00.000-07:00

These quotes are from an article by G.R. Beasley-Murray in "The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology" edited by Colin Brown.

"...baptizo is an intensive form of bapto and means (a) dip, and (b) cause to perish (as by drowning a man or sinking a ship). While there is some evidence that bapto was occasionally used in secular Greek of a ritual bath, there is none to show that baptizo was so employed (perhaps because of its association with the idea of perishing)...."

"...6. The nouns baptismos, baptisma and baptistes. (a) baptismos, dipping, immersion, has in the classical literature the connotation of perishing,like the vb. baptizo...."

Reading Colossians and asking once again "what the baptizo?"

2008-08-13T15:43:00.000-07:00

What the baptizo are Greek speakers talking about? I remember how important the study of this word was to me over a decade ago when I was trying to work my way out of sacramental confusion. I was able to spend hours studying and praying for light on this word and the watery rite of baptism. I would say the Lord gave me enough understanding to abandon the sacramental confusion, but I have still wrestled with some awkward sounding passages that use this word. Reading Colossians has provoked further study. It boils down to this...

Baptizo has 2 closely related meanings:

Baptizo
1) immerse.
2)pass-through
("pass-through,often has the sense that "pass-away" or "pass-on" evokes in English for example "pass-through" to the dead, or "perish").

With the "pass-through" meaning I am trying to make an important note. "Baptizo," when contextualized in such a way as to mean "pass-through" communicates an idea which parallels what "pass-away" or "pass on" carry in modern English. In other words, "baptizo," with the sense of "pass-through" connotes "to perish".

I think maintaining this definition helps make sense of a literal reading of Colossians 2:10-12.

"And ya'll are in Him [Jesus] having been filled, who is the head of all rule and authority in whom also ya'll were circumcised with a circumcision not handwrought in the putting off of the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, co-buried with him in the pass-through, in whom also ya'll were co-raised through the faithful operation of God, raising him from [the] dead."

note: There is no confusing watery rite present in this reading of the passage. This reading of Colossians 2:10-12 is an educated proposition from a non-expert. If you are familiar with the lexical tools you may see how I arrived at this definition and this reading. I should explain the process more thoroughly and I am hoping for some critical feedback.

I think the 2 part definition I have given above fits all uses of the word and the "pass-through" part I am emphasizing may be especially helpful in reading Mark 10:38,39; Luke 12:50; Rom.6; 1Cor. 15; Gal.3; Col.2; and 1Peter 3.

I would also like to discuss how these passages stand in relation to "the immersion of John for all the people of Israel" as mentioned in Acts 13:24, and how that water immersion was participated in even by the disciples of Jesus especially as a Levitically inspired rite of repentance and corporate confession of uncleanness for those who would be the Israel of God. To be thorough, I would also like to discuss the gradual and intentional displacement of John's immersion in water for Israel with the immersion into the Spirit for the Remnant of the Lord as mentioned in Acts 1:5 and Acts 11:16.

Faith vs a judaising majority...THE issue in Determining who is an Israelite in the New Testament

2008-06-18T14:58:00.000-07:00

I listened to a good interview with NT Wright yesterday. The interview was enjoyable. I appreciate Wright's desire and ability to be "biblical" in the best sense. I do wonder when/if his correct view on "the works of the law" will catch up with his incorrect usage of sacramental theology. He correctly emphasizes that "works of the law" are chiefly circumcision and temple qualification. And Paul clearly teaches one is not counted as legitimate by God through these markers. Unfortunately the widely received forms of the Christian religion have manipulated water baptism and "the Eucharist" into precisely the same role that "the works of the law" played in the early judaizing controversies of the New Testament. Roman Catholicism more directly, and Reformed Protestantism more circuitously, both teach a legitimacy attained through these means as renovated "works of the law." The actual teaching of the New Testament however is that one is counted legitimate only by loyal recognition and fidelity in Jesus Christ, -that is FAITH, even the obedience of faith.

"...through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name's sake, (Rom 1:5)"
"...among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ; (Rom 1:6)"

"...for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Rom 3:26)"
"...For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. (Rom 3:28)"

more on FAITH/BELIEF

2008-06-17T07:37:00.000-07:00

When thinking about our important religious words it pays to investigate what the original words of scripture meant in their original context. Kittel's "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament" is a very useful tool for getting at the original meaning of the language of the New Testament. We must try to translate that original meaning to our modern minds. This way we hear the scriptures in their "own voice."

Part of the process of truing up our understanding of "Bible words" from the way they are popularly used now, may include examining how our modern usage has developed. Here are a few entries from an online etymological dictionary that give earliest dates when a word is found being used with a specific significance.

faith: c.1250, "duty of fulfilling one's trust," from O.Fr. feid, from L. fides "trust, belief," from root of fidere "to trust," from PIE base *bhidh-/*bhoidh- (cf. Gk. pistis; see bid). For sense evolution, see belief. Theological sense is from 1382; religions called faiths since c.1300. Faith-healer is from 1885. Old Faithful geyser named 1870 by explorer Gen. H.D. Washburn, Surveyor-General of the Montana Territory, in ref. to the regularity of its outbursts.

belief: c.1175, replaced O.E. geleafa, from W.Gmc. *ga-laubon (cf. O.S. gilobo, M.Du. gelove, O.H.G. giloubo, Ger. glaube), from *galaub- "dear, esteemed." The prefix was altered on analogy of the verb. The distinction of the final consonant from that of believe developed 15c. Belief used to mean "trust in God," while faith meant "loyalty to a person based on promise or duty" (a sense preserved in keep one's faith, in good (or bad) faith and in common usage of faithful, faithless, which contain no notion of divinity). But faith, as cognate of L. fides, took on the religious sense beginning in 14c. translations, and belief had by 16c. become limited to "mental acceptance of something as true," from the religious use in the sense of "things held to be true as a matter of religious doctrine" (c.1225).

FAITH

2008-06-02T15:28:00.000-07:00

There are a few very important words which will always be worthy of our special attention. "Faith" or "Believe" is just such a word. The biblical word group "pistos," pistis," and "pisteuo," is translated into our English bible versions as "believe" and "faith." There is no more important teaching for us to grasp than this: -He who believes in the Son has eternal life (John 3:15-18). There is a difference in how some habitually use the English word faith/believe and the biblical meaning. In the scriptures to have faith, or to believe, is to have a loyal recognition or loyal acknowledgment. One important thing about this "loyal recognition" is that it is directed toward a person...in this case the personal God who is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and The God who is personally recognized in His son Jesus Christ. This biblical idea of faith as a "loyal recognition" is different from the modern idea of faith as a generic "positive mental force" or "optimism." Some teachers have mistakenly emphasized "faith," as something valuable in and of itself...for which the object of that faith is irrelevant. In many cases people mistakenly think of faith as a "mind over matter" self-exertion. When this happens the biblical meaning is lost. A few passages are normally misread by these teachers. I will add some to this post with a few observations about them soon; but know that faith is all about who you are having faith in. Faith is about having a loyal recognition of God through a loyal recognition of Jesus Christ, God's son.

Holy Ephesian Saints, what does "hagios" mean?

2008-05-28T10:22:00.000-07:00

Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are at Ephesus and who are faithful in Christ Jesus...(Eph 1:1)

Some of us have begun reading Ephesians. We are trying to read the whole letter once a week and then concentrating our discussion on a specific section. Having invested so much well spent time in Isaiah last year, I feel like I will never be able to read the books of the bible in the same way.

The KJV translated the greek word "hagios" as "holy" 161 times, and as "saints" 62 times. I have picked this word out of Ephesians 1:1 to consider the jewish weightiness of its meaning. Paul who I now know to be steeped in the God-given world-view of the prophets is using "saints" in a way completely informed by God through His prophets.

In the New Testament the word "hagios" translated "saints" or "holy ones" has everything to do with the special remnant of Israel. To this remnant we may now graciously be added, not through the "works of the law" like circumcision, but by the obedience of "a loyal recognition" to Jesus Christ. (This "obedience of a loyal recognition" is what most english versions have as "obedience of faith" in Romans 1:5)

"In that day the Branch of the LORD will be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth will be the pride and the adornment of the survivors of Israel. It will come about that he who is left in Zion and remains in Jerusalem will be called holy[saint]--everyone who is recorded for life in Jerusalem (Isa 4:2-3)."

"Yet there will be a tenth portion in it, And it will again be subject to burning, Like a terebinth or an oak Whose stump remains when it is felled. The holy seed is its stump (Isa 6:13) ."

And they will call them, "The holy people, The redeemed of the LORD"; And you will be called, "Sought out, a city not forsaken (Isa 62:12)."

"I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you will know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might (Eph 1:18-19)."

remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. AND HE CAME AND PREACHED PEACE TO YOU WHO WERE FAR AWAY, AND PEACE TO THOSE WHO WERE NEAR; for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, (Eph 2:12-19)

The Kingdom of God is not of this evil age.

2008-05-27T18:11:00.000-07:00

The Kingdom of God is not of this evil age. It is not defined in the ways that the kingdoms or even the institutions of this age are defined.The Isaiah shaped worldview is the correct worldview for the people of God. It is a worldview which God will vindicate over against all others. People immersed in other worldviews can use the language of the scriptures to present faulty views to the general public but those who know the mysteries of the kingdom should recognize the dissonance. This perspective is centered on Israel and therefore it is centered on Jesus as Israel's Messiah. Again we see the importance of the observations of an earlier post in which we noted that Jesus came for Israel, He came to be Israel and He came to ultimately define Israel around Himself. We made these observations while studying the first four chapters of Matthew. From the same gospel, a hidden truth about the very nature of the kingdom of God is revealed. The Kingdom of God is not communicated or defined at the institutional level, but is realized at the level of individual response and fidelity.
"Hear then the parable of the sower. "When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is the one on whom seed was sown beside the road. "The one on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, this is the man who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; yet he has no firm root in himself, but is only temporary, and when affliction or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he falls away. "And the one on whom seed was sown among the thorns, this is the man who hears the word, and the worry of the world and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful. "And the one on whom seed was sown on the good soil, this is the man who hears the word and understands it; who indeed bears fruit and brings forth, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty." (Mat 13:18-23)
This Kingdom of God is for the saints, and the saints are those of Israel set apart by loyal recognition of Jesus the Messiah.

evil empires are God's instruments (part 2)

2008-05-16T09:02:00.000-07:00

When we look at the big story, we see God's concern with nation-states is actually focused on one nation-state; Israel. Also known as the children of Abraham, Israel finally becomes a people who anticipate the realization of the kingdom of God. We can think of exceptions to this Israel-focus, Jonah's mission to Nineveh is one example. But the motif sustained in that story will fold into God's focus later in the big story. God's focus, and therefore the focus of the big story, is clearly upon the formation, purification, and realization of the perfect kingdom -a kingdom anticipated in old testament Israel.

National -laws, -religion, and government, were all tools of this evil age before the Israel-specific, God-given, versions were provided to The People through Moses.

We recognize that the national law given through Moses has a temporal, provisional, and pedagogical role in the big story (ie Matt.19:7,8). But the national tools 0f this age even when provided by God, fail to produce the perfect nation. This part of the big story brought the wrath of God on the people because of their unfaithfulness.

In Isaiah chapter 10 we can highlight how God uses "evil" nations as a tool in this age.

First we hear God's testimony of displeasure with Israel. "Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees, and the writers who keep writing oppression, to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right, that widows may be their spoil, and that they may make the fatherless their prey (Isa 10:1-2) !"

God uses Assyria as a tool, as a vessel of wrath, to pour out punishment on Israel. "Ah, Assyria, the rod of my anger; the staff in their hands is my fury (Isa 10:5) !"

And yet God still holds Assyria responsible for their imperfection (evil).
"When the Lord has finished all his work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, he will punish the speech of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the boastful look in his eyes. For he says: 'By the strength of my hand I have done it, and by my wisdom, for I have understanding; I remove the boundaries of peoples, and plunder their treasures; like a bull I bring down those who sit on thrones. My hand has found like a nest the wealth of the peoples; and as one gathers eggs that have been forsaken, so I have gathered all the earth; and there was none that moved a wing or opened the mouth or chirped.' Shall the axe boast over him who hews with it, or the saw magnify itself against him who wields it? As if a rod should wield him who lifts it, or as if a staff should lift him who is not wood (Isa 10:12-15) !"

Assyria, like all other nations is not the chosen nation of Israel and they are certainly not Israel's anticipated "Kingdom of God" therefore they are not to be feared, nor are they to be imitated even though they presently exercise a God ordained authority over both, God's chosen and over other peoples of the earth.
"Therefore thus says the Lord GOD of hosts: 'O my people, who dwell in Zion, be not afraid of the Assyrians when they strike with the rod and lift up their staff against you as the Egyptians did. For in a very little while my fury will come to an end, and my anger will be directed to their destruction (Isa 10:24-25)'."

evil empires are God's instruments (part 1)

2008-05-14T10:11:00.000-07:00

First I should mention that the word "evil" is used differently in scripture than the way we might often think of it.

Jesus said "Or what man is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone? "Or if he asks for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he? "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him (Mat 7:9-11)!"

According to Kittle's "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament," the word behind "evil" (poneros) has a range of meaning that includes bad, useless, disadvantageous, detrimental, harmful, troublesome, unserviceable, and defective, as well as the more familiar "morally reprehensible."

The point is that "natural fathers" are called "evil" because of their imperfection. And yet earthly good is received from these evil fathers. similarly, we find the prophetic perspective on national governments to be that they are evil. Yet, people under those governments (Egypt, Babylon, Persia, China, Rome, USA, the modern nation-state called Israel are all examples) receive the "good" of being under a government. In this sense all nation-states are thoroughly evil even if they are not completely evil and yet they are instruments in God's hand.

If our minds become saturated with the prophetic perspective as found in Isaiah, even as Paul's was, then our view on the role of nation-states in contrast to the kingdom of God will "true up."

For that purpose I need to discuss Isaiah ch. 10 and 45:1 in my next entry as a glance at the framework-of-thought in which Romans 12:9-13:13 makes amazingly clear sense.

Thinking about Jesus and Politics

2008-04-24T14:37:00.000-07:00

If you have time check out the interesting dialogue here .

"Just War," What Is It There For?

2008-04-01T13:45:00.000-07:00

"On that day I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel (Hos 1:5)."

What does “Just War” theory have to do with following Jesus? Not much. “Just War” theory is an attempt to weave a criteria and a justification for the use of deadly force among nominal “Christians.” “Just War” criteria was not adhered to by God in his war instructions to Israel in the Old covenant. Nor is man’s “just war” a fitting policy for those who would be joined to the cause of Jesus in the New Covenant. In the Old Covenant with the Nation of Israel, God spoke to Israel in a way that would point the faithful (through symbols) to the ultimate hope of the age to come. God did this by condescending and speaking to man in language of the known about that which was to be known. God, by first participating in the shadowy warfare of this age, and then by refraining from it in the life and ministry of his Son, has discarded the warfare of this age for it's weakness. It is inadequate as the vehicle of vindication for the just. In many ways under the old covenant God was granting a temporary concession to the ways of this age in order to ultimately demonstrate man’s weakness and God’s patience and perfection (see Jesus’ response when questioned about divorce in the law of Moses for a truncated example of this). So that in the Old Testament wars, which were pressed by God himself, God accomplishes several things:

1) God pictures and foreshadows the ultimate war. by entering into the high drama of human warfare God speaks to us on our level about a truly effective spiritual war which must be won by Jesus and his saints. (thus Paul’s view that the weapons of OUR warfare in the new covenant are not carnal but they are strong to pull down strongholds).

2) God demonstrates His absolute right over the affairs of men, and his absolute ability to overrule in the affairs of men (after all He will one day bring a final end to the future hope of a multitude in judgment).

3) God demonstrates the inadequacy of our strength, a strength which is natural, nationalistic and exercised as a knee-jerk effort to overcome the illegitimacy of this age.

So that now Jesus comes with a legitimacy which overcomes Israel’s shortcomings (amartia) in both ill-treatment of neighbor (which was not sanctioned under the Old covenant) and the natural and nationalistic hatred of enemy (which was sanctioned under the old covenant). Jesus gospelizes (announces) the Kingdom of God, not with a public policy for Rome or the United States, or even an ill-defined “national” Israel, but with a public policy for the saints.

"On that day I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel (Hos 1:5)."

Hosea, 1Kings 21, and the meaning of "Jezreel"

2008-03-19T14:51:00.001-07:00

In the fairly short book of Hosea we have no shortage of symbolic names. In Chapter one Hosea, in accord with God's instruction, marries Gomer and has children who he names Jezreel, Lo-ruhamah, and Lo-ammi.

Lo-ruhamah means "no compassion", Lo-ammi means "not my people". These names are all about God's judgment and the name Jezreel not only speaks of judgment but also opens a window into God's reason for judgment. Jezreel is the place of injustice upon God's prophets and upon Naboth the innocent vineyard owner (read 1Kings passage below). An especially heinous injustice meted out by those in authority who were supposed to be God's representative light to the Gentiles. Interestingly the crime against Naboth foreshadows the Crime against Jesus the Messiah in that those who were supposed to lead Israel falsely charge the legitimate vineyard owner with cursing both God and the King.

Now it came about after these things that Naboth the Jezreelite had a vineyard which was in Jezreel beside the palace of Ahab king of Samaria. Ahab spoke to Naboth, saying, "Give me your vineyard, that I may have it for a vegetable garden because it is close beside my house, and I will give you a better vineyard than it in its place; if you like, I will give you the price of it in money." But Naboth said to Ahab, "The LORD forbid me that I should give you the inheritance of my fathers." So Ahab came into his house sullen and vexed because of the word which Naboth the Jezreelite had spoken to him; for he said, "I will not give you the inheritance of my fathers." And he lay down on his bed and turned away his face and ate no food. But Jezebel his wife came to him and said to him, "How is it that your spirit is so sullen that you are not eating food?" So he said to her, "Because I spoke to Naboth the Jezreelite and said to him, 'Give me your vineyard for money; or else, if it pleases you, I will give you a vineyard in its place.' But he said, 'I will not give you my vineyard.'" Jezebel his wife said to him, "Do you now reign over Israel? Arise, eat bread, and let your heart be joyful; I will give you the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite." So she wrote letters in Ahab's name and sealed them with his seal, and sent letters to the elders and to the nobles who were living with Naboth in his city. Now she wrote in the letters, saying, "Proclaim a fast and seat Naboth at the head of the people; and seat two worthless men before him, and let them testify against him, saying, 'You cursed God and the king.' Then take him out and stone him to death." So the men of his city, the elders and the nobles who lived in his city, did as Jezebel had sent word to them, just as it was written in the letters which she had sent them. They proclaimed a fast and seated Naboth at the head of the people. Then the two worthless men came in and sat before him; and the worthless men testified against him, even against Naboth, before the people, saying, "Naboth cursed God and the king." So they took him outside the city and stoned him to death with stones. Then they sent word to Jezebel, saying, "Naboth has been stoned and is dead." When Jezebel heard that Naboth had been stoned and was dead, Jezebel said to Ahab, "Arise, take possession of the vineyard of Naboth, the Jezreelite, which he refused to give you for money; for Naboth is not alive, but dead." When Ahab heard that Naboth was dead, Ahab arose to go down to the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite, to take possession of it.
(1Ki 21:1-16)

Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus, so that they might put Him to death. They did not find any, even though many false witnesses came forward. But later on two came forward, and said, "This man stated, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God and to rebuild it in three days.'" The high priest stood up and said to Him, "Do You not answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?" But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, "I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God." Jesus *said to him, "You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN." Then the high priest tore his robes and said, "He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy;
(Mat 26:59-65)

As a result of this Pilate made efforts to release Him, but the Jews cried out saying, "If you release this Man, you are no friend of Caesar; everyone who makes himself out to be a king opposes Caesar." Therefore when Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus out, and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called The Pavement, but in Hebrew, Gabbatha. Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. And he *said to the Jews, "Behold, your King!" So they cried out, "Away with Him, away with Him, crucify Him!" Pilate *said to them, "Shall I crucify your King?" The chief priests answered, "We have no king but Caesar."
(Joh 19:12-15)

That the injustice of Jezreel must be overturned is further signified in 2Kings 9:7.
"You shall strike the house of Ahab your master, that I may avenge the blood of My servants the prophets, and the blood of all the servants of the LORD, at the hand of Jezebel."

Under each statement of judgment in chapter 1 there is also a remnant of hope.
Those who had stewardship over the shadowy power in the earth abused the legitimate so God overthrows the power and those with its stewardship without help from the shadows.

"But I will have compassion on the house of Judah [a remnant of Israel] and deliver them by the LORD their God, and will not deliver them by bow, sword, battle, horses or horsemen."
(Hos 1:7)

This passage has as its ultimate referent that compassion which comes through the Lion of the tribe of Judah -Jesus.

R U reading Hosea also?

2008-03-05T15:24:00.000-08:00

Notice the difference between the mindset that complains about "the problem" of suffering over against the mindset demonstrated in the prophetic scriptures. the truth of who god is, and who we are, will never come into proper focus as long men so shallowly concieve of fidelity or faith to God as that which may need to be jettisoned when faced with real adversity. On the other hand the reader of the prophets must regularly hear the mind of a people, and of persons, who gladly acknowledge that even though God is in charge when big suffering comes their way, they again gladly profess the goodness of God and that God remains the worthy object of all their loyalty.

Ho Ho Hosea and a Harlot named Gomer

2008-02-26T22:14:00.000-08:00

Some of us are moving on to reading Hosea while others are spending some more time in Revelation. Hosea was one of the earliest of the canonical prophets, although we should note his life and prophetic ministry overlapped with Isaiah's (see kings mentioned in Isa. 1:1 and Hos. 1:1). The insensitive reader might at first glance think the problem in Israel was that of adultery and harlotry -that women in Israel were selling there sexual acts to men not there husbands for a quick profit and perhaps that men in Israel were buying. But actually the references to a married woman giving herself to other "lovers" for quick payment are meant as a picture of Israel's more general and more pervasive sin. Israel, a people who were supposed to be God's faithful bride, were ascribing worth to other gods and therein finding satisfaction in less than what God would have for "her". In reading the first few chapters of Hosea we find the actual sins to be Idolatry and violence toward neighbor. As Israel worshiped false gods (Baals) and the man-made images of those gods, they reinforced the error of behaving according to man-made ideas of acceptable behavior, especially toward one another. But hey, you read the first 4 chapters or so, of Hosea and note whether or not specific passages as well as the whole message of Hosea warrant these observations.

The Harlot Theme (Part C)

2008-02-03T15:38:00.000-08:00

While reading Revelation 17-21 we see the use of the harlot/bride metaphor as interchangeable with the city figures Babylon/New Jerusalem. The Harlot = "Babylon" and the Bride = "New Jerusalem." This kind of poetic representation was used by Isaiah as well.

How the faithful city has become a harlot, She who was full of justice! Righteousness once lodged in her, But now murderers. (Isa 1:21) This passage spoke the truth about Jerusalem in Isaiah's day but it was brought to it's fullest realization with Jerusalem's treatment of Jesus.
Jesus speaking against the state-oriented religious institution of Jerusalem said,
"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!" (Mat 23:37-38)

It is appropriate to speak of man's religio-cultural pursuits (void of fidelity to God) under one symbol.
"And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which mystically is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified(Rev 11:8)."

This style of representation is what makes the most sense of Peter saying that "She [the congregation] who is in Babylon sends you greetings"(1Pe 5:13);when he was most likely in Jerusalem.

It also makes sense that we find "Babylon" spoken of, and described, by the author of The Revelation in ways that would bring the city of Rome to mind. On the larger scale, Rome most clearly represented the height of man's religio-cultural achievements.

she has chosen judgement

2008-02-01T23:28:00.000-08:00

In the letter of "1st John," we have a straight foward warning.
1Jn 2:15-17 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. (16) For all that is in the world--the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and vainglory of life--is not from the Father but is from the world. (17) And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.

Now what if I wanted to give you a picture, really a personification, of the human tendancy to ignore the warning and yet be in some sense convincingly religious, you might see a symbolic woman that could make the claim of belonging to God as her husband yet unfaithfully selling herself to that which would offer an immediate payment less substantive than the rich, everlasting benefit of belonging to God.
Rev 18:4-8 Then I heard another voice from heaven saying, "Come out of her, my people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues; (5) for her sins are heaped high as heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities. (6) Pay her back as she herself has paid back others, and repay her double for her deeds; mix a double portion for her in the cup she mixed. (7) As she glorified herself and lived in luxury, so give her a like measure of torment and mourning, since in her heart she says, 'I sit as a queen, I am no widow, and mourning I shall never see.'
(8) For this reason her plagues will come in a single day, death and mourning and famine, and she will be burned up with fire; for mighty is the Lord God who has judged her."
Even as the "state'ish church" of Jesus day, out of a fearful lust for their position, found it "wise" to put to death the Nazarene, so we hear of the harlot generally that "in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all who have been slain on earth(Rev 18:24)." For the unchanging "Harlot," flawed desires will end in the flawed way of life.

clothes make the woman

2008-01-29T10:14:00.000-08:00

In Revelation 19 we are told that, in contrast to the "Harlot", the "Bride" has made herself ready for the marriage of the Lamb. "She" has made herself ready by being specially clothed with the legitimate actions of the saints. Here are some examples of the clothing metaphor as used in Revelation.

(Revelation 3:5) 'He who overcomes will thus be clothed in white garments; and I will not erase his name from the book of life, and I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.
(Revelation 3:18) I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see.
(Revelation 4:4) Around the throne were twenty-four thrones; and upon the thrones I saw twenty-four elders sitting, clothed in white garments, and golden crowns on their heads.
(Revelation 7:9) After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands.
(Revelation 7:13-17) Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, "These who are clothed in the white robes, who are they, and where have they come from?" I said to him, "My lord, you know." And he said to me, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. "For this reason, they are before the throne of God; and they serve Him day and night in His temple; and He who sits on the throne will spread His tabernacle over them. "They will hunger no longer, nor thirst anymore; nor will the sun beat down on them, nor any heat; for the Lamb in the center of the throne will be their shepherd, and will guide them to springs of the water of life; and God will wipe every tear from their eyes."
(Revelation 16:15) "Behold, I am coming like a thief. Blessed is the one who stays awake and keeps his clothes, so that he will not walk about naked and men will not see his shame."
(Revelation 19:7-8) "Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready." (8) It was given to her to clothe herself in fine linen, bright and clean; for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints.

The Harlot is dressed a bit differently.
(Revelation 17:4) The woman was clothed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a gold cup full of abominations and of the unclean things of her immorality (prostitution),
(Revelation 18:16) saying, 'Woe, woe, the great city, she who was clothed in fine linen and purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls;

The Harlot Theme in the OT (part B)

2008-01-25T23:28:00.000-08:00

One of the Earliest prophetic messengers to the people soon to be exiled from the promised land was Hosea. Hosea was to marry a Harlot named Gomer and be a Husband to Her even though she would pursue other temporary riches as a harlot. In this way Hosea would not only speak to the people about their unfaithfulness to God, he by this marriage would actually live out a picture of God's Relationship to His supposed bride the Children of Israel. As a husband Hosea would endeavor to provide an environment in which his wife might flourish. But she chose to live foolishly for the temporary payment of those who did not have her best interest at heart.

Hos 1:1-11 The word of the LORD that came to Hosea, the son of Beeri, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel. (2) When the LORD first spoke through Hosea, the LORD said to Hosea, "Go, take to yourself a wife of whoredom and have children of whoredom, for the land commits great whoredom by forsaking the LORD." (3) So he went and took Gomer, the daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and bore him a son. (4) And the LORD said to him, "Call his name Jezreel, for in just a little while I will punish the house of Jehu for the blood of Jezreel, and I will put an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel. (5) And on that day I will break the bow of Israel in the Valley of Jezreel." (6) She conceived again and bore a daughter. And the LORD said to him, "Call her name No Mercy, for I will no more have mercy on the house of Israel, to forgive them at all. (7) But I will have mercy on the house of Judah, and I will save them by the LORD their God. I will not save them by bow or by sword or by war or by horses or by horsemen." (8) When she had weaned No Mercy, she conceived and bore a son. (9) And the LORD said, "Call his name Not My People, for you are not my people, and I am not your God." (10) Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered. And in the place where it was said to them, "You are not my people," it shall be said to them, "Children of the living God." (11) And the children of Judah and the children of Israel shall be gathered together, and they shall appoint for themselves one head. And they shall go up from the land, for great shall be the day of Jezreel.

Hos 2:1-23 Say to your brothers, "You are my people," and to your sisters, "You have received mercy." (2) "Plead with your mother, plead-- for she is not my wife, and I am not her husband-- that she put away her whoring from her face, and her adultery from between her breasts; (3) lest I strip her naked and make her as in the day she was born, and make her like a wilderness, and make her like a parched land, and kill her with thirst. (4) Upon her children also I will have no mercy, because they are children of whoredom. (5) For their mother has played the whore; she who conceived them has acted shamefully. For she said, 'I will go after my lovers, who give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, my oil and my drink.' (6) Therefore I will hedge up her way with thorns, and I will build a wall against her, so that she cannot find her paths. (7) She shall pursue her lovers but not overtake them, and she shall seek them but shall not find them. Then she shall say, 'I will go and return to my first husband, for it was better for me then than now.' (8) And she did not know that it was I who gave her the grain, the wine, and the oil, and who lavished on her silver and gold, which they used for Baal. (9) Therefore I will take back my grain in its time, and my wine in its season, and I will take away my wool and my flax, which were to cover her nakedness. (10) Now I will uncover her lewdness in the sight of her lovers, and no one shall rescue her out of my hand. (11) And I will put an end to all her mirth, her feasts, her new moons, her Sabbaths, and all her appointed feasts. (12) And I will lay waste her vines and her fig trees, of which she said, 'These are my wages, which my lovers have given me.' I will make them a forest, and the beasts of the field shall devour them. (13) And I will punish her for the feast days of the Baals when she burned offerings to them and adorned herself with her ring and jewelry, and went after her lovers and forgot me, declares the LORD. (14) "Therefore, behold, I will allure her, and bring her into the wilderness, and speak tenderly to her. (15) And there I will give her her vineyards and make the Valley of Achor a door of hope. And there she shall answer as in the days of her youth, as at the time when she came out of the land of Egypt. (16) "And in that day, declares the LORD, you will call me 'My Husband,' and no longer will you call me 'My Baal.' (17) For I will remove the names of the Baals from her mouth, and they shall be remembered by name no more. (18) And I will make for them a covenant on that day with the beasts of the field, the birds of the heavens, and the creeping things of the ground. And I will abolish the bow, the sword, and war from the land, and I will make you lie down in safety. (19) And I will betroth you to me forever. I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love and in mercy. (20) I will betroth you to me in faithfulness. And you shall know the LORD. (21) "And in that day I will answer, declares the LORD, I will answer the heavens, and they shall answer the earth, (22) and the earth shall answer the grain, the wine, and the oil, and they shall answer Jezreel, (23) and I will sow her for myself in the land. And I will have mercy on No Mercy, and I will say to Not My People, 'You are my people'; and he shall say, 'You are my God.'"

Hos 3:1-5 And the LORD said to me, "Go again, love a woman who is loved by another man and is an adulteress, even as the LORD loves the children of Israel, though they turn to other gods and love cakes of raisins." (2) So I bought her for fifteen shekels of silver and a homer and a lethech of barley. (3) And I said to her, "You must dwell as mine for many days. You shall not play the whore, or belong to another man; so will I also be to you." (4) For the children of Israel shall dwell many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or pillar, without ephod or household gods. (5) Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the LORD their God, and David their king, and they shall come in fear to the LORD and to his goodness in the latter days.

The Harlot theme in the O. T. (part A)

2008-01-20T12:01:00.000-08:00

The God of Abraham has a Way of fidelity for His people to walk in. When they neglect or abandon the Way which He has for them and make for themselves another way their actions are spoken of as harlotry or adultry. consider each of the passages below.

Exo 34:11-16 "Observe what I command you this day. Behold, I will drive out before you the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. (12) Take care, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land to which you go, lest it become a snare in your midst. (13) You shall tear down their altars and break their pillars and cut down their Asherim (14) (for you shall worship no other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God), (15) lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and when they whore after their gods and sacrifice to their gods and you are invited, you eat of his sacrifice, (16) and you take of their daughters for your sons, and their daughters whore after their gods and make your sons whore after their gods.

Lev 20:4-6 And if the people of the land do at all close their eyes to that man when he gives one of his children to Molech, and do not put him to death, (5) then I will set my face against that man and against his clan and will cut them off from among their people, him and all who follow him in whoring after Molech. (6) "If a person turns to mediums and necromancers, whoring after them, I will set my face against that person and will cut him off from among his people.

Num 15:38-40 "Speak to the people of Israel, and tell them to make tassels on the corners of their garments throughout their generations, and to put a cord of blue on the tassel of each corner. (39) And it shall be a tassel for you to look at and remember all the commandments of the LORD, to do them, not to follow after your own heart and your own eyes, which you are inclined to whore after. (40) So you shall remember and do all my commandments, and be holy to your God.

Deu 31:16 And the LORD said to Moses, "Behold, you are about to lie down with your fathers. Then this people will rise and whore after the foreign gods among them in the land that they are entering, and they will forsake me and break my covenant that I have made with them.

Jdg 2:16-17 Then the LORD raised up judges, who saved them out of the hand of those who plundered them. (17) Yet they did not listen to their judges, for they whored after other gods and bowed down to them. They soon turned aside from the way in which their fathers had walked, who had obeyed the commandments of the LORD, and they did not do so.

Jdg 8:27, 33 And Gideon made an ephod of it and put it in his city, in Ophrah. And all Israel whored after it there, and it became a snare to Gideon and to his family. (33) As soon as Gideon died, the people of Israel turned again and whored after the Baals and made Baal-berith their god.

the bride and the harlot revisited

2008-01-06T22:22:00.000-08:00

How important are the themes of "the harlot" and "the bride" to a full and well-rounded understanding of Gods word to us? In our reading groups we are still engaging the book of Revelation. The Representation of The Harlot City (and The Victory of Christ Over Her) is found in Rev. 17-20:15. The Representation of The Bride of Christ (or The New Jerusalem) is found in Rev. 21-22:7. These two figures are key and climactic representations in this book. But the idea of their contrast does not originate in this last book of the bible. The contrast between a faithful bride and an unfaithful harlot is already developing in the book of Exodus.

"You shall tear down their altars and break their pillars and cut down their Asherim (for you shall worship no other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God), lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and when they whore after their gods and sacrifice to their gods and you are invited, you eat of his sacrifice, and you take of their daughters for your sons, and their daughters whore after their gods and make your sons whore after their gods."(Exodus 34:13-16)

If the passage above was all we had from the Old Testamnet as a figurative use of "harlotry" for corporate unfaithfulness to God by the figurative lady who would call herself, "the people of God", we would only have a small connection to our passages in Revelation. Actually though, this theme of Faithful Bride or Unfaithful Harlot becomes very much more important in the story of God and his people.

somebody better recognize

2008-01-04T23:00:00.000-08:00

In a basketball game at our gym I heard this interesting phrase. It was shouted out when a player on one team demonstrated that he had a particularly good 3 point shot and he was not receiving adequate defensive attention from his opponents. After he hit his second poorly contested 3 point shot in a row it was shouted from the bleachers, "Somebody better recognize!" meaning acknowledge this person for who he is, his ability on the court, and his presence on the court, and behave accordingly.
In the Bible, the "pisteuo" word group (usually translated believe/faith) is used with the meaning of "loyal recognition" toward a person.

I think that outside the Bible, people are using the word "faith" in ways that confuse our bible reading. In modern culture the English word "faith" is often used to express "confidence," "religious confidence," "self-confidence," or "a religious optimism about the future." With this meaning the word is used in sentences like, "You just got to have faith." "I'm keeping the faith." "Do you have a strong faith?" with a meaning that gives the word an impersonal and generic slant not appropriate to it's use in scripture. Some common uses for "believe" are also out of step with the scriptural idea. Outside prophetic scripture you may find statements that we "believe" or do not "believe" in a proposition such as: "there will be a resurrection", but this usage does not carry the biblical meaning of the more personal "loyal recognition." When propositions are the issue, the authors of scripture use different vocabulary. For example the Pharisees "say" there is a resurrection and the Sadducees "say" there is not. We don't find "they have faith in" or "they believe in" the resurrection. In the prophetic scriptures the idea of "Loyal recognition" is not easily divorced from obedience. The biblical author James shores up the "loyal" part of the "loyal recognition" meaning. The demons "recognize" God and they often "recognized" Jesus, but Abraham had a "loyal recognition" that was born out in his acts of obedience. This means that if we would read the prophetic scriptures on their own terms, a close definition of the "pisteuo" (believe/faith) word group will be worth our careful observation.

Representations of things that must go on immediately

2008-01-01T20:37:00.000-08:00

From the prologue and the epilogue of the Revelation we (along with the original reader's) seem to be given the sense that the whole of the Revelation is representing the events of the immediate period transpiring until the glorious return of Israel's Messiah.

prologue:
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show (represent) to His bond-servants, the things which must shortly take place (that which must go on immediately); and He sent and communicated by His angel to His bond-servant John, who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near (ready, at hand) Revelation 1:1-3.

epilogue:
And he said to me, "These words are faithful and true"; and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent His angel to show (represent) to His bond-servants the things which must shortly take place (that which must go on immediately). "And behold, I am coming quickly,. Blessed is he who heeds the words of the prophecy of this book." And I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down at the feet of the angel who showed me these things. And he said to me, "Do not do that " I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brethren the prophets and of those who heed the words of this book; worship God." And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near (ready, at hand). Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and let the one who is filthy , still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and let the one who is holy, still keep himself holy. Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying. "I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright and morning star." And the Spirit and the bride say,"Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost. I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming quickly." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen. Revelation 22:6-21.

Again there are things which must go on during this whole season of anticipation which is looked upon by the faithful as "a little while longer while the number of your fellow servants is filled up".

status vs. work

2007-12-31T12:15:00.000-08:00

All who would make Disciples to Jesus should recognize that our STATUS as a teacher is not so important as WHAT WE DO for others and the SPIRIT in which we work.

A Revelation for the People of God

2007-12-30T15:27:00.000-08:00

The Book may be divided into 7 representations highlighting 7 facets of that which must (go on immediately) soon take place.

1) The Representation of The Glorified Christ Among His Churches 1:9-3:22.
2) The Representation of God, The Presiding Almighty and The Lamb Opening The Seven Sealed Book of God's Decrees 4-8:1.
3) The Representation of The Prayers of the Saints and The Seven Trumpets 8:2-11:19.
4) The Representation of The People of God as a Woman and Her Conflict With Satan 12-14.
5) The Representation of The Wrath of God in Seven Bowls 15-16.
6) The Representation of The Harlot City and The Victory of Christ Over Her 17-20:15.
7) The Representation of The Bride of Christ or The New Jerusalem 21-22:7.

Only Camping In This Age

2007-12-29T14:10:00.000-08:00

Lee Camp has written an extraordinary book on discipleship called "Mere Discipleship." I would like to share the following excerpt with you.

The Constantinian cataract distorts our vision so that we believe it to be the power brokers, the emperors, and the mighty who control human history. Believing that we must make things "turn out right," we seek to get hold of such power for the purposes of the "good" and the "right" and even "God." In Christendom, we try to employ the methods of the rebellious principalities and powers to beat them at their own game.
But one thing the scriptures make very clear is this : the principalities and powers of this world, the kings and princes and queens and presidents--they do not run the world, though they may think they do. It is not nation-states that run the world or determine the real meaning and purpose of history, but God.

Camp goes on to say that God has chosen an obedient, despised minority to be the salt and light of the world, without trying to beat the powers of this age at their own game.

I think his perspective is in keeping with the Gospel and in keeping with what is communicated in the representations of the Revelation.

"Pure Bride or Unfaithful Harlot"

2007-12-17T10:24:00.000-08:00

Revelation is a book filled with representations. These representations are meant to communicate a specific set of impressions by which the readers may correctly interpret the events transpiring in the world until they see the risen Lord Jesus in his exalted and full manifestation. One representation in Revelation is that of the Harlot. She is focused on in chapters17-20. Another representation, the bride, is focused on in chapters 21 and 22. These two, the Harlot and the Bride are collective nouns being used to represent peoples. God's complaint through the prophets has been that she who would have claimed to be the bride has proven to be the harlot.

In this case the woman you are a part of must be one or the other. You may be a part of the Harlot or you may be a part of the bride but fidelity is not a simple matter of association. Think of the warnings and exhortations to the churches in chapters 2 and 3...If I am reading this theme correctly through the entire Book of Revelation, then the determining marker may have more to do with your personal faithfulness to Jesus than it has to do with organizational participation or "membership."
With a higher desire for Jesus and his faith,
Jeff Miller

2007-12-12T14:43:00.000-08:00

Image-Honor: The Perennial Use of Man's Art

Symbolic art has long been appreciated for its usefulness in religion. Many of the oldest works of art discovered in modern times are thought to have been created for religious purposes. Man has given art highest honor when he has used it as a symbol for God and sought to honor God by honoring the symbol. Man's desire to engage in this high use of art, though at times thought of as inadequate, or inappropriate, has proven to be a basic, and perhaps inalienable, pursuit of humanity.
The emergence of civilization, writing (thus history), and the religious use of art can be traced to the region known as Mesopotamia.

"Mesopotamian sculptors, particularly the Sumerians, were adept and sophisticated. They did not produce realistic representations of reality --that was not their purpose. Rather, they aimed at creating symbols of religious piety or political or military power. Sumerian statues tend to be stiff and solemn. The head and face are carved in detail, and the body is neglected and sometimes merely represented by a geometrical form (Noble 21).

From Mesopotamia, the Babylonians used symbols to represent God. The tablet below depicts the nature of Babylonian "Image-honoring." Note that the large figure is the anthropomorphic deity seated on a heavenly throne and represented to the priest, king, and (presumably) people by the symbol.

"The tablet of which a representation is given was erected by Nebobaladan, king of Babylon, an ardent votary of the worship of the sun-god, about 900 B.C. The god is seated on a square seat, placed inside a porch supported by pillars, and holds in his hand a ring and a short rod....Of the three figures standing with their faces turned toward the disc, the first is a priest, who holds the stool with his left hand, while with his right he grasps the left hand of the second figure--the king whose right hand is raised in adoration. Above the heads of the three figures three lines of inscription: 'The image of the Sun-god, the mighty lord, the dweller in the temple of Uri, which is within Sippara (Patrick 642).

Mesopotamia was also the seed-bed that produced the antithesis to this basic desire for "image-honoring." Abraham, the father of the Hebrews, came from Mesopotamia. It was among his progeny that Abraham's God gave (through Moses) the strict prohibition: "You shall not make for yourselves any carved image, or any likeness of anything...you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I the Lord your God am a jealous God...(Exodus 20:4,5)." This law becomes the foundation for sporadic resistance to "image-honoring" throughout history, in Judaism, Islam, and sometimes Christianity. The fact that the Christian, New Testament also prohibited idolatry resulted in a repression of art's highest place among the early Christians.
"For the first four centuries of the history of Christianity, the fear of introducing the pagan practice of idolatry deterred the use of images in churches (Morse 4816)."
This was the case even though a close reading of the Hebrew text would not forbid images, but rather the bowing before, or worshiping of them. In the Middle Ages, Roman Catholicism had to overcome the internal struggles of the Iconoclastic controversy in order to legitimately sponsor some of the greatest works of art of the High Middle Ages and early renaissance. At the second council of Nicea, in 787 c.e., the Catholic Church sought to deflect the pejorative use of the word "idolatry" by the Iconoclasts who had sprung up within her ranks. The second council of Nicea overcame the objections of the iconoclasts by two methods. One, by claiming that "...the honor given to the image passes to the prototype" (EOWA 811), and Two, by creating a distinction between "idolatry" and "image-honoring". This the Roman Catholic Church did without offering a sufficient apology for the Hebrew prophets, who refused to accept the Babylonian practice of worshiping the god through the image. Nor did those assenting to the council recognize that "idolatry" and "image-honoring" would have been synonymous at the time the New Testament was written.
During the Reformation "Protestant aniconism severed the bond between the visual arts and worship" (819). Nevertheless, an acceptance of "image-honoring" has prevailed among many of the Protestant churches, especially since the Romantic period. As the Anglican author Massey Shepard notes in his book titled "The Worship Of The Church": "The setting of liturgy may also be richly decorated and include a wealth of symbol carved in wood or stone....Ceremonial is thus intimately related to art. Hence ceremonial styles prevailing in the successive generations of history. The cut of a vestment, the ornament and decoration of a church, are obvious examples of the accepted art-forms of the period when they were made. But ceremonial gestures of reverence, such as standing, bowing, genuflecting, etc., also reflect the good manners of the age in which their use in church was introduced (Shepard 57-58).
So that finally, "great-tradition Christianity" serves as a narrower test case indicative of the broader streams of humanity's religious endeavors. Christianity, in its central form--most consonant with culture and the arts--affirms our thesis. The ancient practice of "image-honoring" supersedes the more strict dogma of written revelation. The idea that man's projected concept (god), should reveal a willful command against such a fundamentally desired practice is by and large extinguished. Humanity, since the dawn of civilization, has sought to bestow its highest honor upon both art and God; to symbolize God and God's presence, and then to honor God by honoring the symbol.

-Jeff Miller

Encyclopedia Of World Art: Volume 7. England: McGraw-Hill Pub., 1958

Morse, Joseph Laffan, ed. "Image Worship." Funk and Wagnalls Standard Reference Encyclopedia. New York: Standard Reference Works, 1959.

Noble,Thomas F.X., Carry Strauss, Duane J. Osheim, Kristen B. Neuschel, William B. Cohen, David D. Roberts, eds. Western Civilization. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1998.

Patrick, David, and William Geddie, eds. "Babylonia." Chamber's Encyclopedia. London: The Waverly Book Co., 1925.

Shepard, Massey. The Worship of the Church. New York: Seabury Press, 1952.

Whole Book Reading Reminder

2007-11-29T20:11:00.000-08:00

Just a reminder here of the fact that we want to read all the way through our designated book...ideally at least once a week, in a single sitting. Several times a week, each in a single sitting, would be nice. With this approach to bible study over several months of concentrating on a single book we should have several single- sitting whole-book-reads.

We are convinced this "whole book reading" is something that is missing for most serious students of scripture. Think about it. We all listen to sermons that are zeroing in on a small section. We quote and memorize and understand(?) isolated passages. We seek deeper understanding by considering other passages from other books which we think are on topic. We do "thru the Bible" reading as a spiritual discipline and these readings will carry us thru the Bible but only a section at a time, stretched over a period of several months and often interspersed with other readings. Even our commentary reading tends to be subject to the same "passage, isolated from passage, isolated from passage" weakness. What is missing? Reading through a whole book, seeing the themes, repeated and contextualized vocabulary, and whole book message, from the intended framework for understanding the parts -The whole book! So read on "whole bookers".

Revelation, so how do we read it?

2007-11-28T13:56:00.002-08:00

The two commentaries, one by Leon Morris the other by James Knotek, would both have us read the book in a way that sees several parrallel descriptions of what the saints can expect in the world before final day of judgment. This approach calls us to gain an impression from the symbolic detail. Each parrallel emphasizing a facet of the story unfolding. Each having: 1)main characters, 2)symbolisms from God's throne, 3)A heavenly view of this facet.

We have noticed a lack of specifics in translating symbolic detail into physical detail by these authors. This differs from the approach that takes the book as a single time-line with chapters 4-22 yet to be started. In the "Chapter 4-22 is all future" approach much of detail can be given a very concrete (if speculative) expected fulfillment. With an appetite for the concrete we may not find the approach of these authors as satisfying. But the single time-line approach seems to bump most of Revelation out of its intended purpose of being an immediate motivation for all of the saints living between the 2 advents of Christ. The majority of the book would not have a present word of exhortation for the saints in our ongoing history, except for the benefit it would have as a prediction of the very last things.

Even if we go forward with diverse approaches to interpreting the book, there are some common places to stand so that we hear from God as we read this book. first of all in chapters 2 and 3 we have the messages to the churches. What is the main drift of these messages? It certainly seems that we are being told we should take Jesus seriously. The churches are not given to much room for just setting back in life with a sense of entitlement. It seems they are being warned about challenges to the purity and simplicity of devotion to Christ. Some of those challenges even come from teachings within their churches. The word "persevere" shows up a lot. The saints are going to be tested. They are going to have enemies in the world but they are to hold on to the faith and works of Jesus Christ.
Another area we can concentrate on together is the theme of 2 contrasting "cities" and two contrasting "women". This identification and contrast is meant to help the saints understand their place in what could otherwise be a confusing unfolding of events before Christs return.

Reading the Revelation

2007-10-24T14:22:00.000-07:00

Alright, some of us have been reading the book of Revelation. I thought that the Idealist view was very helpful the last time I did a concentrated study of this book. At my suggestion we are using Leon Morris' commentary along with a book that emphasizes the parallels called "Unlocking the Mystery of Revelation" by James Knotek. the approach found in these commentaries has some pretty big speed bumps in it for those of us who are in the habit of reading it as referring to future events. We may have been better off using something like the "Four Views.." book by zondervan as a companion to our reading the text..but oh well.

A different approach to the book sounds so odd if we are used to reading it as a timeline with chapter 4 through 22 applying to events that will begin only at the last seven years of tribulation which will end of this age. I am convinced that the timeline with chapter 4 to be inaugurated at some future date is not the most fruitful way to understand this book.

The timeline-in-the-future approach has the advantage of maintaining a literal feel to the way we read some of the imagery in Revelation. This feel is naturally attractive to those of us who stand against reading biblical narrative like the flood account as if it were Myth. Yet I still think the time-line approach gets in the way of much that God intends to reveal to his people in this rich book.

Here are a few lines from Robert Mounce in the NICNT commentary that touch on timing and symbolism.
On Rev.1:1-3 he notes:
The most satisfying solution is to take the expression "must soon take place" in the straight forward sense, remembering that in the prophetic outlook the end is always imminent. (In biblical prophecy temporal judgements are regularly expressed against the backdrop of the final eschatological events. This is a profoundly theological view, in which everything God does by way of judgement is to be understood in light of the final events.) Time as chronological sequence is of secondary concern in prophecy. This pespective is common to the entire NT. Jesus taught that God would vindicate his elect without delay (Luke 18:8), and Paul wrote to the Romans that God would soon crush Satan under their feet (Rom 16:20).