True Life Passages

How Should a Christian Vote in November?

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Dan) — Thu, 3 Mar 2016 00:27:00 -0500

The presidential election debate is nearing epic proportions – not the debate between candidates, but the debate about which candidate is most (or in this year’s case) least worthy to receive our vote.

Among Christians, this is especially vexing.

There does not appear to be a competent candidate among the possibilities of either party. If things go as most people expect, the two candidates who are most likely to survive the nomination process are Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

In my opinion, neither of these candidates are morally fit to be president of the United States, even if they were politically qualified, which I do not believe they are. (Not preaching or politicking – just stating my opinion.)

Therefore, if I vote, it seems I must vote for the lesser of two evils, cast a write-in vote, or abstain from voting altogether.

The latter course would be, in my opinion, a desertion of my responsibility as a citizen of the country where God caused me to be born. The point is arguable, but I believe that “render unto Caesar” at least implies a responsibility to be an active part of the process of government.

Furthermore, refusing to vote would, in fact, be a vote, because my missing vote could cause the lesser qualified person to be elected. But at least I could pat myself on the back for taking the moral high ground.

I could cast a write-in vote, but in light of U.S. history, such an action would almost assuredly put into office the very person that I dislike most. Again, I could celebrate a personal moral victory, but it would be a Pyrrhic victory.

The only thing left is to choose between the lesser of two evils, an idea which is equally as abhorrent to me as the previous options. So what is a Christian to do? How do you participate in an election of immoral leaders and continue to promote the righteousness of Christ? There seems to be a general disconnect here.

I know that the word of God can answer every question of life if we allow God to speak to us through it. So I prayed for God to reveal a biblical solution to the dilemma we find ourselves in, and I would like to offer the following as a possible answer to that prayer.

First of all, God revealed to Habakkuk that He (God) was going to judge Israel’s wickedness by calling upon the Babylonians as his tool of discipline. Habakkuk was intensely angered by such a suggestion and argued vehemently against such an idea. How could God use a wicked ruler to carry out His righteous will?

Yet we know that this is exactly what God did.

When Nebuchadnezzar began the conquest of Judah, there was some resistance, but in general, the resistance was futile against such an awesome army as that of the Chaldeans, especially since they were instruments in the hand of God.

In fact, God instructed the prophet Jeremiah to tell the people to simply lay down their arms and surrender to Nebuchadnezzar and to willingly go into captivity.

He did what?!

You can read the entire prophecy in Jeremiah 27, but here are some excerpts (God is speaking):

Jer. 27:5 “It is I who by my great power and my outstretched arm have made the earth, with the men and animals that are on the earth, and I give it to whomever it seems right to me.

8 But if any nation or kingdom will not serve this Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and put its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, I will punish that nation with the sword, with famine, and with pestilence, declares the LORD, until I have consumed it by his hand.

11 But any nation that will bring its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon and serve him, I will leave on its own land, to work it and dwell there, declares the LORD.”

On the face of it, this seems so incongruous.

Why would God not defend Israel from such a wicked people? Why would God allow – or even better, why would God choose a wicked ruler to hold such dominion over His own chosen people?

In a word, the answer is “The Sovereignty of God,” or, in the case of Nebuchadnezzar, “Judgment.”

This is God at work in the world, carrying out His perfect will through the free will decisions of men.

Concerning the rulers of nations, Daniel wrote, “…the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will and sets over it the lowliest of men.” (Dan. 4:17, 25, 32; Dan. 5:21; See also Dan. 2:21 and Dan. 4:35)

Since He is omniscient, God already knows who will win the election in November. In fact, He not only knows who will win, but He determined the winner before there were even any candidates from which to choose.

In that case, we might argue that we are justified in abstaining from voting since the outcome is a given, but such a thought reveals our ignorance of how God accomplishes His purpose.

Although He does not need us, God has chosen to use man for the accomplishment of His eternal purpose.

God created the beautiful Garden of Eden, then placed Adam there with a command to make the rest of the world look like Eden. Why didn’t God just make the whole world look like Eden? Why command Adam to do it?

God chose the nation of Israel to be His chosen people before they ever were a people. And He chose to create the nation by the slow process of procreation beginning with Abraham. Why didn’t God just create a million people and call them His?

God chose Cyrus, the king of Persia, by name 300 years before he was ever born to be the instrument by which the Babylonians were judged and the people of Israel were freed to return to the Promised Land. Why did God wait on Cyrus? Why didn’t He just say the word and release the people instantly?

Why did Jesus have to die on a cross? It seems a cruel way to consummate the plan of redemption. It would seem to us that there must have been a better way.

But we would be wrong.

Except for a few occasions like creation, God always accomplishes His perfect will through the free will decisions of men.

Thus there is no conflict between sovereignty and free will.

This is just how God gets things done.

Thus choosing the lesser of two evils in the upcoming election is not a moral failure on my part, but a fulfillment of God’s plan.

Whoever the choices for POTUS are on the ballot in November will only be the choices because God chose them to be the candidates.

And since everything that God does is righteous, for me to choose the lesser of two evils that God put before me as choices would not be an act of immorality, but an act of righteous obedience.

When Adam Sinned

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Dan) — Thu, 13 Aug 2015 22:27:00 -0400

When Adam sinned, he did so from a condition of perfection.

Before Adam sinned, he knew no sin. His nature was unfallen. He had no experience with disobedience nor any modeling of it from any source within his culture. The only interpersonal relationship he had on a regular basis, other than with Eve, who also was perfect before the Fall, was with God himself – the Lord of all Creation and the archetype of righteousness.

Of course, Adam’s culture changed when Satan – himself a novice at the temptation of humans, though inexpressibly and universally successful on his very first attempt – made his appearance in the Garden in the form of the serpent.[i]

Even with such a nature and inheritance of righteousness, upon the first opportunity that Adam had to express his will in a case calling for a moral decision, seemingly without hesitation or argument he chose to reject the very God who created and nourished him.

Even though he possessed an unfallen nature and derived from an uncorrupted environment, when Adam was given the choice, he chose personal pride over personal perfection and rebellion against God instead of the righteousness of God.

Even though he was perfect in nature and existed in perfect surroundings, with his eyes wide open to the consequences of his actions, Adam found it impossible to exercise his free will in the direction of righteousness when left to his own devices and apart from the direct influence of God.

Yet today there are those who insist that salvation ultimately turns on a man’s expression of his free will. God may offer the gift of salvation, but man must accept the gift before it becomes effective.

This is the same man whose nature, unlike that of Adam’s, is corrupted by sin from the moment of conception and whose environment and culture are equally corrupted as a result of the Fall. This is the same man who is surrounded and nurtured by individuals and a people of the same corrupt nature as himself.

According to this doctrine, man’s salvation is dependent upon his making a free will decision in favor of righteousness – a decision that, by its very definition, cannot be manipulated or managed by any external constraint, including that of God.

God may bring positive and righteous influence into the man’s life. He may have him born into a Christian family, surround him with Christian friends, and manipulate his life so that everything brings the man to the very brink of a decision for salvation. Yet God is powerless to move the man past that point, because God’s will is effectively blocked by the free will of the man.

For God to intentionally and willfully and unilaterally move the man from a condition of certain eternal damnation into a state of eternal life would be immoral – and therefore sinful – on God’s part if such a move was in violation of the man’s will.

Since God is perfect and cannot sin, then man’s free will is effectively more powerful than God. Therefore, assuming this assessment to be true, God cannot be omnipotent.

Yet, God is omnipotent.

And in spite of the apparent contradiction, there is a solution.

[i] Note that Adam never had a conversation with the serpent – with Satan. Satan never attempted to deceive Adam. Adam never bought into the lie that the fruit would make him wise or that he would become like God. Adam ate of the fruit with his eyes wide open to the consequence of death that awaited him and Eve for doing so. His sin was not so much that of pride as it was of idolatry. He listened to the voice of his wife over that of God.

Who Is A Christian, Part 5

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Dan) — Sun, 12 Apr 2015 20:54:00 -0400

This series has been interrupted a couple of times, once by a study of Joseph (Gen. 37) and again by an Easter-related study of the fig tree of Mark 11. Hopefully, the series will continue uninterrupted until its completion. So far, we have looked at two of five categories of evidences that define a Christian, Profession and Practice. Once again, the purpose of the articles is to help answer the question “Who is a Christian.” These are not intended to provide a listing of steps to becoming a Christian or even to becoming a better Christian. This series of articles is intended to define what a Christian looks like. I encourage you to respond if you have any questions or need clarity on any point. Thanks.

PASSION

Another aspect of the evidences from 1 John that stands out from among the rest is Passion. More than any other single feature (16 times), John writes that a Christian will love other people, especially other Christians. Of the 62 items that define a Christian or a non-Christian, just over 25 percent of them refer to the Christian’s ability to love others, in general, and especially love for the brotherhood.

All but five of these references to love include a reference to Christian brothers. This means that a Christian will love other Christians, both male and female, and will love the church in general. No person can legitimately claim to be a Christian who does not love the church which is the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:12-20; Eph. 1:22-23; Eph. 5:30; Col. 1:24).

A true Christian will have a love for the brotherhood, the fellowship of other believers, which means that he will love the church, which is the body of Christ.

However, this is not the first time that John recorded such a thought. In his Gospel, John recorded that Jesus himself taught this principle to His disciples, including John:

By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:35, ESV)

Are you a Christian? Is some other person a Christian? The answer is very simple: Do you love other people? Do you love other Christians? Does that person you may have questions about love the church? Note that this love is so much more than natural affection, or friendship, or fellowship, or brotherly love. This is agape, the kind of intentional, willful love that is passionate and sacrificial in nature.

In the early centuries of the church, church members demonstrated a sincere love for one another and the people around them, so much so that they directly impacted their culture.

Luke wrote in his history of the early church (the book of Acts) that the people of the church lived in “wonderful harmony” and were committed to life together, sharing meals at one another’s houses, “every meal a celebration, exuberant and joyful, as they praised God.” Each person’s needs were met by the sacrifices of others in the fellowship.

Luke goes on to tell us that this love for one another within the church was noticed by the community around them to the extent that “fear came upon every soul.” In other words, the people of the community where the church was located stood in awe of what they were witnessing. The church had favor with all the people, meaning that “people in general liked what they saw.”[1]

One commentator remarked that “the humble and consistent lives” of the members of the early church “won the favor of the masses of the community” and silenced opposition. [2] Another wrote that the early church commended itself by its “lovely demeanor to the admiration of all who observed them.” [3]

In truth, this should be the typical reaction of a community to the church. After all, the church is the body of Christ – the physical reality of the resurrected Jesus. In his first historical treatise (the Gospel of Luke), Luke wrote of Jesus, “Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man.”

In general, when people met Jesus, they liked what they saw. Crowds followed Him everywhere He went, so much so that, on occasions, He had to intentionally plan to get away from them for a time of rest. One reason may be the level of compassion that Jesus demonstrated towards other people. (Matt. 9:36; Matt. 14:14; Matt. 20:34; Mark 1:41; Luke 7:13) And His passion for His disciples and all believers is clearly demonstrated in His pastoral prayer recorded in John 17.

This loving characteristic of the church continued on through the 2^nd and 3^rd centuries, and continued to awe the local communities. Tertullian, a major theologian of the time, wrote of the early church “…it is mainly the deeds of a love so noble that lead many to put a brand upon us. See, they say, how they love one another…See, they say about us, how they are ready even to die for one another…” [4]

In his letter to the Roman Proconsul Scapula, Tertullian wrote, “This is the rule of our faith, that we love those who hate us, and that we beseech God to bless those who afflict us; and herein lies that goodness which is peculiar to us. All men love those who love them, Christians alone those who hate them… Christians have no hatred or ill-will at any man, and least of all at Caesar; for knowing him to be set up by their God, they must needs love him, and shew him worship (reverence and respect).” [5]

In summary, we have seen two standards in addition to a profession of faith for determining whether or not a person is truly a Christian: Are they actively serving God in obedience to His commands, and do they love others, especially other Christians.

PDF

EPUB

KINDLE

[1] The references in these paragraphs are based on adaptations of Acts 2:42-47 as recorded in the KJV and The Message.

[2] Barnes, Alfred. Barnes’ Notes. Online Bible Edition, Version 4.32.01, July 18, 2014, Copyright © 1987-2014, Larry Pierce, Winterbourne, Ontario, Canada NOB 2VO. Referenced hereafter as Online Bible.

[3] Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Commentary, Online Bible.

[4] Quotation taken from Tertullian’s Apologeticum. Translated by the Rev. S. Thelwall, 1869. http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-05.htm

[5] Quotation taken from The Address of Q. Sept. Tertullian, To Scapula Tertullus, Proconsul of Africa. Translated by Sir David Dalrymple, 1790. http://www.tertullian.org/articles/dalrymple_scapula.htm </span>

The Fig Tree, Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Dan) — Tue, 31 Mar 2015 11:49:00 -0400

The one thing that amazed me when I began to study the incident with the fig tree was how this event so paralleled the events of the fall of man in the Garden of Eden.

Part 2

Now let’s travel back in time – all the way back to the beginning of man’s time on the earth, to the Garden of Eden, and to another fig tree – the only fruit tree that we are familiar with to be specifically referenced by name in the Garden of Eden.[1]

In this Garden, God created Adam, the first man, though he was created as an incomplete being until God created man’s complement – a woman, whom Adam later named Eve. Both were created perfectly, for when God was finished, He reviewed His handiwork and announce it, not just good, but “very good.”

Yet all who know the story also know that shortly after their creation, the woman was tempted by and deceived by Satan into doubting the words of God and into acting upon that doubt. The man joined her in her rebellion, though he was not deceived,[2] but acted in willful disobedience to the clear command of God. By this one simple act of self-will, they stood condemned in the sight of God.

But Satan was not through with them yet. We tend to think that Satan has exited the picture about verse 6 of Genesis 3, maybe because he knew that God was on His way, but if we keep reading, the serpent is still in the picture in verse 14. Satan is the Great Deceiver, and he is still active in this story until cast out by God. Here’s how.

Just as they were blinded by the words of Satan, they remained blinded to their true standing before God. Instead of an awareness of their spiritual condition in the eyes of God, they could only see their physical condition. By their act of eating the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, they were made aware of a significant change in their relationship with God and with each other. However, instead of seeing this change in a spiritual sense, they saw only the physical.

Immediately they noticed something that before had been of no consequence to them – they realized that they were naked. Man had eaten of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. He was imbued with a power which was intended only for God [3] – a power he was not capable of wielding.

Yet he tried to wield it and, in the limits of his inability, recognized his sinful condition, but, based on his own misunderstanding of the laws of good and evil, concluded that their nakedness was the sin itself and not the consequence of sin.

Once again, Satan was still at work here. With all of the resources at his disposal, Satan is determined to prevent man from understanding the depth and the degree of the consequences of his rebellion as well as its remedy. He could never allow man to understand that sin, though it may be revealed in the physical, actually finds its roots in eternity – in Satan’s own rebellion against the throne of God.

Since the root of sin is found in eternity, therefore, so must its remedy be found in eternity. Thus the remedy for sin could never be discovered within the realm of the knowledge of good and evil, but only in the grace of an eternal God and the righteous actions of an eternal Savior.

Working within the limits of the knowledge available to him – the knowledge of good and evil – and believing that his sinfulness was in his nakedness, Adam attempted to restore the relationship he had had with his Creator before his willful disobedience. He did so by visiting another tree in the Garden – the fig tree.

From this tree he gathered leaves and, sewing them together, covered up his nakedness and, at the same time – at least, in his own understanding – covered up (made atonement for) his sinfulness in the sight of God.

Because so much of what we believe about the Bible comes from tradition, we often do not stop to consider the truth of an issue in a Bible story. Here is an example.

When you hear the story of Adam and Eve sewing together fig leaves and covering themselves, what is the picture that is immediately formed in your mind? Unless I miss my guess, most people envision a man with leaves in front of or around his loins and a woman similarly attired with leaves around her loins and chest.

But suppose that sewing leaves meant that Adam and Eve wove the branches of fig trees so that they were completely covered. In fact, they were so efficient in their work that from a distance they looked very much like fig trees themselves. There they stood, covered in fig leaves, making a claim of righteousness based on goodness. This was Adam’s profession.

Genesis 3:9 says, “The LORD God called to the man and said to him, ‘Where are you?’” Since God is omniscient, certainly He would not need to ask where Adam was, therefore the question was rhetorical. Maybe when God came looking for Adam, all He could see was what looked like a fig tree.

Yet, when God approached, He who knows all things knew that Adam had been cut off from the source of fruit by his rebellion, and, in spite of his profession, could never bear any fruit worthy of repentance and salvation.

And thus Adam stood condemned and withered by the judgment of God.

PDF

KINDLE

EPUB

[1] From earliest conception, we have visualized or even taught that the fruit that Adam and Eve ate in their rebellion was an apple, but of course, such a belief is from a fairy tale version of the story, not from Genesis. Some would argue that the first fruit mentioned is that of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and that Adam ate of that fruit, which he did. But we have no personal experience with such a tree or what its fruit might have looked like. The same might be said for the Tree of Life. Even though these are trees that bear fruit, we do not have any first-hand experience with such trees. We only know them by the singular reference of Scripture. On the other hand, we all can have first-hand, physical knowledge of a fig tree. Thus this is the first and only fruit tree mentioned in the Garden of Eden with which we have any practical experience.

[2] Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 1 Tim. 2:14

[3] Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever…“ Therefore the Lord God sent him out from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. Gen. 3:22-23

The Fig Tree

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Dan) — Sun, 29 Mar 2015 21:27:00 -0400

This past Sunday morning was Palm Sunday, when Christians around the world once again celebrate Jesus’ Triumphal Entry in Jerusalem at the beginning of the Passion Week. Sometime on Monday, a second significant event took place – Jesus cleansed the Temple of the money changers and those who would profane the house of God.

Yet on that same Monday morning and the following morning, there was another event of paramount importance, witnessed only by the disciples, which seems to slip through the cracks of our memory of all the events that took place that week – the story of the barren fig tree.

For years I have wondered about the story of the fig tree as told in Matthew 21:18-22 and Mark 11:13-14, 20-25. Here was Jesus – kind and loving and full of grace, the Creator of all things. Why would He curse a fig tree? Of all people, He certainly would know that trees are inanimate organisms which do not make decisions and therefore have no moral capacity.

I know I must have heard others teach on this topic through the past 64 years of my life, but apparently I was not listening, or maybe the Holy Spirit simply waited until He knew that I could understand the lesson to give me comprehension.

Whatever the case, I pray you are inspired by this singular event which is often lost amidst the other spectacular events of the Passion Week.

Part 1

After most of the excitement had died down following His Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem, Jesus and His disciples wound their way to the Temple, working their way through the celebratory crowd that had assembled in the city to celebrate the Festival of Passover.

Once arrived, Jesus toured the Temple and the area around it and, finding all was well, and because the hour was late, He and His disciples set out on their nearly two-mile walk, retracing their steps of the morning toward the village of Bethany where they would spend each night of the Passover Week.

They most likely followed the path from the Temple Mount leading through the Golden Gate, through which Jesus had entered riding on a donkey during the Triumphal Entry earlier in the day. After crossing the Kidron Valley, they passed through the Garden of Gethsemane and followed the winding path that led up the steep western slope of the Mount of Olives, passing through the thick groves that topped the hill.

Having reached the ridge, they passed through the small hamlet of Bethphage, whose name meant “house of unripened figs.” This was the same village from which the disciples had gathered the colt upon which Jesus had ridden into Jerusalem earlier that morning. Branching off the road that would carry a traveler to Jericho and turning south, the path began its shallow descent as the company came near to Bethany on the southeastern slope of the Mount of Olives.

The Bible does not tell us what time they made the return journey to Jerusalem the next morning. Maybe they left early enough to miss breakfast, or maybe they left long enough after breakfast that the walk toward Jerusalem stirred their appetites. We might assume they left Bethany somewhat later in the morning to begin the 45 minute walk back to the city, for even as they traveled, the transformation in the environment of the Temple which would spawn such an outburst of righteous indignation is Jesus was already in full swing.

Whatever the case may be, somewhere along the route from Bethany to Jerusalem, Jesus experienced hunger pangs. Then up ahead beside the road in the distance, he saw a fig tree that was completely covered with leaves. To the eye of the hungry traveler, there was the promise of relief. A tree that was so covered with leaves certainly held the promise of fruit. From a distance, the fig tree looked like any other fig tree might look except for one thing – Mark tells us in verse 13 that “it was not the season for figs.”

Commentators[1] do not fully agree on the exact meaning of this phrase, but most seem to agree that this tree should not have been so fully covered in leaves during the week of Passover. The consensus seems to be that the tree was fully leafed out as only a fruit-producing tree would have been, even though this was not the season for fig production. This particular tree seemed to be an anomaly and thus stood out from the other trees around it, making it visible for a good distance.

Here was a tree that, at face value (from a distance) looked like a fig tree and held the promise of figs, but when inspected closely, revealed that it bore no fruit. In spite of its appearance (profession), the tree could produce no evidence (practice or performance) that it was, in fact, a fig tree.

One might wonder right here about why the fig tree is seen in the story in an anthropomorphic light. In other words, the story seems to teach that Jesus held the fig tree morally responsible for not producing figs. Yet to do so seems futile since trees do not make decisions about anything, let alone about whether or not they produce fruit. To understand the nature of fruit trees is to understand that fruit is not the work of the tree. Fruit is the work of nature – that which is produced through the agency of the tree.

Furthermore, fruit is not defined by the type of tree on which it grows. A tree is defined by the type of fruit that it produces. A tree is only a fig tree if it bears figs. A fig tree that is truly a fig tree will produce figs. A tree that looks like a fig tree but does not produce figs is not, in reality, a fig tree.

As Creator of the world, certainly Jesus knew all these things, and, as God in the flesh, He was certainly aware, even from a distance, that the tree bore no fruit. We must conclude that Jesus did not curse the tree because the tree bore any moral responsibility for the situation. His actions in inspecting and ultimately cursing the tree were not motivated by anger or malice or retribution, but by revelation and judgment.

Concerning revelation, this was a teachable moment and the time for such moments was rapidly drawing to a close. Jesus took advantage of the barren fig tree as a living parable – an object lesson for the disciples immediately, on a broader scale for the nation of Israel, and ultimately for the church today. In fact, there are close parallels between this living parable and the actual parable Jesus told in Luke 13:6-9. Jesus saw a tree, inspected it for fruit, found none, and caused its destruction.

Mark 11:14 says that, after inspecting the tree and finding no fruit, that Jesus “answered” (KJV). The word here means “to speak in response to something that had previously been said.” It was almost as if Jesus were responding to a statement – a profession – made by the fig tree. His curse of the tree was his answer.

Mark goes on to say in this same verse that “the disciples heard” what was said. The word “heard” can mean “to give ear to a teaching or a teacher, to comprehend, to understand.” So the disciples understood that Jesus was not simply cursing a fruitless tree but also saw this as a teaching moment – a moment of revelation.

Concerning judgment, Jesus cursed the tree, because giving the outward appearance of being a fig tree without producing figs proved that the tree was worthy of condemnation. The tree professed to be a fig tree by its profusion of leaves, but since there was no fruit to prove it, then it was not a fig tree, and its profession was a lie. Its lack of figs was, of a sort, a type of fruit that proved it worthy of judgment.

Jesus destroyed the tree to prevent others who were hungry and looking for relief from being deceived, and to demonstrate to the disciples that, in the judgment of God, destruction is better than deception.

For the Christian, fruit is not something that he can will himself to produce any more than the fig tree could will itself to produce figs. Just as the fruit of a tree is the work of nature through the agency of the tree, so is the fruit of a Christian the work of the Holy Spirit acting in and through the person.

The tree made a loud profession that allowed it to be seen from a distance, but that did not make it a fig tree. A person may make a firm and a loud profession of the fact that he is saved, but his profession will not prove that he is a Christian. Only fruit will do that. At face value – or from a distance – the one making a profession of faith may appear to be a Christian; however, close inspection will either confirm or deny the truth of the profession.

Maybe that is why, in the Great Commission, Jesus did not insist that His disciples go out and convince men to make professions of faith, but to make disciples – not just to see others from a distance, but to build close relationships that will allow the confirmation of one’s profession of faith.

Just as a fig tree that is truly a fig tree will bear figs, a Christian will bear fruit. The proof of whether or not a tree is a fig tree is an arbor full of leaves that is also accompanied by figs. The proof of whether or not a person is a Christian is a profession of faith that is also accompanied by fruit.

PDF

KINDLE

NOOK

[1] Every commentator has an opinion about this phrase and none seem to agree completely. Here is a sampling of some of the commentaries:

Commonly at the beginning of April the trees that still grow out of the rocks between Bethany and Jerusalem are bare both of leaves and fruit, and so probably it was now with all but the single tree which attracted our Lord’s notice. It was in full foliage, and being so far in advance of its fellows it might not unnaturally have been expected to have had, in the first week of April, the first ripe fruit which usually was gathered in May. Ellicott, Charles John. "Commentary on Mark 11:13". "Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers"."http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/ebc/view.cgi?bk=mr&ch=11. 1905.

Passover-time was "not" the time of figs on Mount Olivet. Morison, James. A Practical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Mark. Ed 3. Hodder and Stoughton:Oxford University, 118, p. 328. PDF version, digitized 22Aug2006. Downloaded from google.com.

Though it was too early for fruit, it was also too early for leaves. The tree evidently had an unusually favorable position. It seemed to vaunt itself by being in advance of the other trees, and to challenge the wayfarer to come and refresh himself.

J. W. McGarvey and Philip Y. Pendleton. "Commentary on Mark 11:13". "The Fourfold Gospel". "http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/tfg/view.cgi?bk=mr&ch=11". Standard Publishing Company, Cincinnati, Ohio. 1914.

The early figs in Palestine do not get ripe before May or June, the later crop in August. It was not the season of figs, Mark notes. But this precocious tree in a sheltered spot had put out leaves as a sign of fruit. It had promise without performance. Robertson, A.T. "Commentary on Mark 11:13". "Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament"."http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/rwp/view.cgi?bk=mr&ch=11". Broadman Press 1932,33. Renewal 1960.

Who Is a Christian, Part 4

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Dan) — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 14:07:00 -0400

After some reflection, I realized that my last post related to this subject was somewhat complicated and technical and no fun to read at all. In this article I will expand on what I wrote last time and will attempt to clarify the conclusions of the last article in a way that hopefully will help and not hinder the message.

I also need to amend the last lesson. In that lesson, I condensed the 62 evidences John gave in his letter to three categories – Profession, Possession, Practice – when there should have been at least five. The other two categories are Passion and Persecution, which I will cover in a later posting.

In an effort to answer the question “Who Is a Christian,” this article will deal with Practice as it relates to Profession.

PRACTICE

Of the 62 evidences that John presented in his letter (1 John) by which a person might evaluate their standing before God, the largest majority of these evidences have to do, not with what a person professes, but with what they practice. In other words, one’s life-style is a much more reliable testimony of one’s love for Christ and evidence of one’s identity as a Christian than one’s words. You have probably heard the saying, “Actions speak louder than words.” That is somewhat the message John is attempting to get across.

Before going any further, we need to be reminded of a very important point. An apple tree is not called an apple tree with an expectation or hope that it will then produce apples. Pear trees look very much like apple trees, but calling a pear tree an apple tree will not cause it to produce apples. An apple tree is called an apple tree because it produces a specific fruit called apples. We may have a doubt about what kind of tree we are looking at, but once we see the apples, all of our doubts are extinguished.

However, there are seasons when the apple tree is not bearing fruit and a person may not recognize it as an apple tree. If they ask someone who knows the tree, that person can testify on behalf of the tree that it is, in fact, an apple tree. We may accept their testimony, but later, when the season is right, we will look for the apples, not because we do not believe the person’s testimony, but because we desire confirmation, even though we may not be consciously aware of the desire. It is simply human nature.

In the same way, John’s list of 62 evidences is not a list of things a person should do or ought to do to prove that they are a Christian. This is a list of things that a Christian will do. This list is not a prescription – or a list of requirements – for a Christian, but the description of a Christian. A person may testify or profess that he or she is a Christian, and their testimony or profession may even be supported by other people. But their fruit, or the absence thereof, will confirm to us the truth of their testimony or profession.

Recently, someone posted on Facebook an article that questioned whether or not President Obama is a Christian. One reader took great offense at such a question and responded quite strongly in the comments following the posting. In part, he said the following:

…no one can say he's not a Christian. You don't know his mind. Whether or not he acts the way you think he should doesn't matter. You claim it's about a "relationship" - you don't know his. If he professes to worship God & accepts Christ as his savior - he's a Christian (by definition). Period…If you profess to be a Christian, you are one.

According to this person, all that a person has to do to prove he is a Christian is say he is a Christian. Clearly, a profession of faith is essential in the process of becoming and acknowledging one’s standing before God, or the New Testament would not put such emphasis on it.

If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Rom. 10:9, ESV)

Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering. (Heb. 10:23, KJV)

But is simply making a profession of faith – is simply saying that one believes in Christ enough to give assurance that a person is saved? Is simply confessing that one believes that Jesus is the Messiah and recognizes Him as Savior enough in and of itself to serve as a proof of one’s salvation?

The Facebook personality mentioned earlier commented further about the subject of faith as it relates to one’s being a Christian:

Any aspect of religion is about faith. It begins and ends there…His actions do not define his faith. Not now, not before, not ever. Only by what he professes will you ever know (whether or not he is a Christian)…

The key words in these comments are “His actions do not define his faith.” There is a degree of truth in those words, but that point will require another discussion. However, this person appears to believe that there is no direct connection between one’s profession and one’s practice when it comes to proving one’s salvation.

This person appears to believe, as so many people do, that all one has to do to confirm that they are a Christian is to announce to others that he does believe. One of the scriptures most commonly quoted to support this idea is John 3:16. However, no theology can be built on only one or even a few scriptures. The Bible must be understood as a unified book that teaches a consistent message throughout.

The Bible, and especially the New Testament, teaches that a profession of faith or a statement of belief is insufficient evidence for determining whether or not a person is saved unless that profession or statement is supported by the practices of a person’s life. Believing is certainly an essential part of the salvation process, but simply stating that one is a believer is not sufficient evidence for proving that a person is a Christian.

James, the brother of Jesus, wrote a book that is included in the Bible. Like the small letter of 1 John, it is also located near the end of the New Testament. In his book, James dealt quite frankly with the idea that simply saying that one believes is enough. In James 2:19, he wrote, “You say you have faith, for you believe that there is one God. Good for you! Even the demons believe this, and they tremble in terror.” (NLT)

In James 2:14, he asked, “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith (he believes) but does not have works? Can that faith (believing) save him?” The questions here are rhetorical, meaning that the answer is generally known and requires no verbal or written answer.

Yet James goes on to tell us that the answer to these questions is “No” when he writes, “So faith (belief) by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” (James 2:17) In plain language, a profession of faith that is not supported by the practical application of that faith is not a profession of faith at all and is useless for purposes of salvation.

In the book of Matthew, and more specifically, in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), Jesus taught this very same principle to His listeners. Near the end of His sermon He said to His disciples, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” (Matt. 7:21)

Basically, then, those who are welcomed into Heaven – those who are truly saved – are not those who simply profess Christ as Lord, or even those who profess Christ and are busy doing benevolent or church-related work. Those who are truly part of the kingdom of God are those who profess Christ as Lord and who express their faith by doing works that fulfill the will of God.

That is the reason God saves us in the first place. Most people think Christianity is first of all about being rescued from hell and going to heaven and having our sins forgiven and living forever. All these things are truly among the benefits of salvation, but God’s primary purpose for saving us is so that He will get glory by the works He does through us.

For we are his (God’s) workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (Eph. 2:10, ESV)

So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. (1 Cor. 10:31, ESV)

PDF Version

Joseph and the Sin of Pride

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Dan) — Mon, 23 Feb 2015 13:46:00 -0500

Case 3: A Baffling Dream

This is the fourth and final article in a series of articles that challenged the premise that Joseph was guilty of the sin of pride in his dealings with his family, especially his brothers, in Genesis 37. There is a link at the bottom where you can download or print this article. If you would like to download the entire series in one PDF, click here. If this article or series was meaningful to you, please share it with others and also take advantage of the Comments section at the end to let me know your reaction to the article. Thanks for visiting.

A third point put forward to strengthen the argument concerning Joseph’s prideful character was his decision to share his dreams with his family. There seems to be a general consensus among preachers that Joseph erred greatly in sharing his dreams with his family. In a sermon concerning Joseph and posted online, one pastor had this to say about Joseph’s sharing of his dreams with his brothers:

There seems to be a problem for Joseph here. Maybe he sees this as a chance to gain a little advantage over his mean older brothers. You know, “Na na na na na!” I had a dream and you all bowed down to me!

I’m convinced that sharing the content of that dream with his brothers was a foolish mistake. He was just pouring fuel on the fire. Joseph was increasing his brothers’ hostility. Why did Joseph do that? There is no indication that God instructed him to share the content of the dream. So why did Joseph share the content of his dream with his brothers? Didn’t Joseph realize how his brothers would react? Was he just naive or stupid? [1]

While this pastor’s content seems to be somewhat extreme, it nevertheless captures what so many preachers and teachers – and thus church members who believe them – generally believe about Joseph. Once again, if we are to understand the truth of the story, we must not listen to what “thus saith my pastor” as we should first begin with studying what “thus saith the Lord.”

The Bible does not tell us how the brothers reacted to the evil reports concerning them that Joseph had given to Jacob. However, when Joseph wore the coat given to him by his father, the Bible says his brothers hated him (verse 4). Then, when Joseph shared his first dream with his brothers, the Bible says they “hated him even more” (verse 5).

One might argue that the brothers were not angry with the dreams as much as they were angry that Joseph told them about the dreams. Yet verse eight says “they hated him even more for his dreams and for his words.” In other words, the brothers were angered that Joseph would even dare to dream such dreams – as if Joseph had control over what he dreamed.

Maybe what has happened here is that too many commentators have allowed the reaction of the brothers to reflect back on Joseph so that he bears some of the blame for the situation. Those who do so are guilty of determining Joseph’s motives by the reaction his words had on his audience.

In the language of today’s cultural philosophy, such an interpretation accuses Joseph of “hate speech.” The fact that Joseph dreamed such dreams was bad enough, but for him to share them with others was completely unacceptable behavior. To speak truth to others who are offended by our speech is not only offensive but intolerable. If what we say causes another person to hate us for saying it, then what we said must be considered hateful speech. Such a concept is totally wrong for today’s culture and equally in error when projected backwards to ancient times.

Once again, there is no evidence, short of conjecture and a dependence on fallacious tradition, that Joseph revealed his dreams to his family for any other reason but curiosity and a simple desire to understand the meaning behind the dreams. Joseph did nothing more than share the dreams given him by God.

He may have given a bad report, but there is no evidence that the report was false or that Joseph intended any malice. He may have worn a coat that offended his brothers, but he most likely did so out of respect for his father. To believe – and even worse, to preach – that Joseph allowed these dreams to go to his head and that he intentionally allowed these dreams to create division in his family is conjecture and not based on what "thus saith the Lord."

Joseph was a dreamer – persecuted because he exercised the gift of God. Here was one man in the crowd who, in the midst of idolatry and hatred, was willing to proclaim the message from God – even though he may not have understood it as such at the time – and we accuse him of pride. How sad.

A quick word study will show that the Bible records 21 dreams by fourteen different people. One could argue that there were many more than 21 if visions are included in the number. The Old Testament seems to equate the two – visions and dreams – on some occasions (For examples, refer to Daniel 7:1, Job 33:15, and Isaiah 29:7.) For the sake of argument, however, this chapter will assume that dreams occur while one is asleep and visions while one is awake.

Regardless of whether or not dreams and visions are categorized together or separately, all of those episodes clearly identified as dreams have one thing in common – they are known. The only way that a dream can become known is for the dreamer to share it with other people. Yet no other dreamer in the Bible is accused of pride for having shared their dreams except Joseph, the son of Jacob.

Abraham, Joseph’s great-grandfather, had dreams in which God promised to make him a nation that would outnumber the stars in the sky and the sands of the sea. And we know about those dreams, so Abraham had to have told someone about them – most likely, his family. Yet no one dares to accuse Abraham of pride for doing so.

Jacob himself had several dreams in which God promised to deliver him from the trials before him and to make of him a great nation, reaffirming the promises made to Abraham and Isaac. Since those dreams are recorded in great detail in the Old Testament, Jacob had to have told someone about them. They were so well-preserved that Moses, the son of Levi, grandson of Jacob, was able to write them down in detail in the book of Genesis.

How did Moses learn about those dreams unless Jacob told his family about them? Why is there no accusation of pride made against Jacob for having shared his dreams – dreams which certainly indicated that Jacob would be one of the greatest men that ever lived – greater than anyone else in his family?

Chapter 7 of the book of Daniel tells about a dream of Daniel while a captive in Babylon, referred to in the text as “visions of his head as he lay in his bed.” At the end of verse one, we learn that Daniel “wrote down the dream and told the sum of the matter.” Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament paraphrase those final words of verse 1: “Immediately thereafter Daniel wrote down the principal parts of the dream, that it might be publicly proclaimed.” [2]

Daniel did not intend to share his dream with just a few close relatives. He intended for the whole kingdom to know about it. Yet there is no biblical commentator who would venture to accuse Daniel of being guilty of the abhorrent crime of pride for his actions. One reason may be that there is no indication that Daniel’s family and friends were angered by his dreams.

Interestingly, there is a man named Joseph who dreamed dreams in the New Testament as well as the Old Testament. This Joseph was the husband of Mary and the earthly father of Jesus. On four different occasions, the Bible records that Joseph had dreams. In the first of these, Joseph was informed that his wife, Mary, would give birth to the Messiah – the most longed for person in all of Jewish history (Matt. 1:20-21).

Since we know about the dream, Joseph had to have related it to others. Why? Could it be because Joseph was filled with pride at being the earthly father of the Messiah? Should we not condemn him for sharing such a dream with others who could easily covet such a revelation and hate Joseph for it?

On other occasions, God gave Joseph specific instructions on when and where to move his family to protect the life of Jesus (Matt. 2:13, 19, 22). Once again, Joseph had to have shared his dreams since no one could have known about them had he not. Here the response of every commentator is the same: not one of them accuses Joseph of pride for sharing his dreams.

One commentator who did not necessarily buy into the idea that pride motivated Joseph’s revelation of his dreams to his family was Alexander MacLaren.

Note that Joseph did not tell his dreams with elation, or with a notion that they meant anything particular. It is plainly the singularity of them that makes him repeat them, as is clearly indicated by the repeated ‘behold’ in his two reports. With perfect innocence of intention, and as he would have told any other strange dream, the lad repeats them. The commentary was the work of his brothers, who were ready to find proofs of his being put above them, and of his wish to humiliate them, in anything he said or did. [3]

Conclusion

A study of the life of Joseph will reveal that the Bible never makes even one negative statement about the character of Joseph, a biblical personality understood by many to be a precursor or type of Christ. To refer to his actions and attitude toward his family in Gen. 37 as prideful is really unfortunate. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing in his life ever indicates that Joseph ever responded to any person or situation except with absolute humility.

James Boice said of Joseph, “He was loved and hated, favored and abused, tempted and trusted, exalted and abased. Yet at no point in the one-hundred-and-ten-year life of Joseph did he ever seem to get his eyes off God or cease to trust him. Adversity did not harden his character. Prosperity did not ruin him. He was the same in private as in public. He was a truly great man.” [4]

Read what the Expositor’s Bible Commentary has to say about Joseph:

In Joseph we meet a type of character rare in any race...what chiefly strikes one in Joseph is a combination of grace and power...self-control and incorruptible purity...Joseph had a surplus of power which enabled him to be cheerful and alert in doleful circumstances...He had Abraham's dignity and capacity. Isaac's purity and power of self-devotion. Jacob's cleverness and buoyancy and tenacity. From his mother's family he had personal beauty, humour, and management...the condut of his father and brothers towards him must have made him self-conscious, even though he had been wholly innocent of introspection. [5]

Certainly Joseph was sinful, as are we all, and pride may have been a challenge for him at times. One might even argue that the reason Joseph was so humble in his later life was due to the traumatic experiences of nearly dying at the hands of his brothers who were angered by his prideful behavior, of then being sold into slavery, and facing an indefinite prison sentence, but the Bible does not tell us this is true.

Though the 19^th Century language may sound a bit over-done for a 21^st Century reader, Charles Spurgeon had a completely different take on the character of Joseph from more contemporary authors and commentators:

When he was a boy, his father loved him. The youth was fair and beautiful; in person he was to be admired; moreover, he had a mind that was gigantic, and an intellect that was lofty; but, best of all, in him dwelt the Spirit of the living God. He was one who talked with God; a youth of piety and prayerfulness; beloved of God, even more than he was by his earthly father. O! how his father loved him! for in his fond affection, he made him a princely coat of many colors, and treated him better than the others – a natural but foolish way of showing his fondness. Therefore his brethren hated him. Full often did they jeer at the youthful Joseph, when he retired to his prayers; when he was with them at a distance from his father's house, he was their drudge, their slave; the taunt, the jeer, did often wound his heart, and the young child endured much secret sorrow. [6]

While Spurgeon’s interpretation of Joseph is certainly more flattering than the examples viewed previously, nevertheless, honesty requires one to note that, like the interpretations which view Joseph as prideful in his conduct with his brothers, there is much more conjecture in this interpretation of Spurgeon’s than there is biblical interpretation. Within the context of Genesis 37 there is no specific statement that would allow one to describe Joseph as having a gigantic mind or a lofty intellect, or of practicing a pious and prayerful habit of life.

But neither is there even one specific statement that would lead to the contrary conclusion – that Joseph acted out of ignorance or pride in dealing with his family or others.

PDF

[1] Derek Morris, former pastor of the Forest Lake Church in Apopka, FL. Used by permission.

http://www.bettersermons.org/article/423/sermon-resources/sermon-series/derek-morris/dangerous-dreams

[2] Keil & Delitzsch Old Testament Commentary, Online Bible Edition, Version 4.32.01, July 18, 2014, Copyright © 1987-2014, Larry Pierce, Winterbourne, Ontario, Canada NOB 2VO. Referenced hereafter as Online Bible.

[3] MacLaren, Alexander. Expositions of Holy Scripture. http://biblehub.com/commentaries/maclaren/genesis/37.htm

[4] This quote by James Boice is used in an online commentary by David Guzik. http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/0137.htm

[5] Nicoll, William R. "Commentary on Genesis 37:1". "Expositor's Bible Commentary". http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/teb/view.cgi?bk=0&ch=37

[6] http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0017.htm

Joseph and the Sin of Pride

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Dan) — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 11:06:00 -0500

Case 2: A Beautiful Coat

This is the third article in a series attempting to discredit the belief that Joseph acted with pride in his relationship with his family. Click here to read the Introduction, and here to read Case 1: A Bad Report.

The second item of evidence offered as proof of Joseph’s pride was that he wore the splendid coat gifted to him by Jacob, his father.

Much has been written about this coat of Joseph’s. Here are some samples of online commentaries that give Joseph a bad grade for wearing the coat.

One writer surmised that Jacob, who felt that Joseph was being unduly picked on by his older brother, gave the coat to Joseph to make Joseph feel better about himself. In other words, the gift of the coat was primarily an issue of self-esteem. In the article, the author wrote, “We can assume at the very least that Joseph wore it with pride and perhaps a bit of smugness at being singled out for this special gift.” [i]

One pastor said in a sermon concerning Joseph, “Whatever this garment looked like, it is clear that Joseph proudly wore it as a constant reminder to his older brothers that Joseph was the favored son.” [ii]

Another writer said, “Joseph himself is portrayed as a young man somewhat lacking in common sense, or perhaps simply a bit self-absorbed.” [iii]

In each case, Joseph was either a troubled young man who did not know how to act civilly within the family or he was simply filled with an overweening sense of pride and self-importance.

Let’s look more closely into the matter of the coat.

There is much debate and disagreement about the nature of the coat. The earliest English texts translate the Hebrew with “coat of many colors,” but later translations say it differently. [iv]

KJV & NKJV: a coat of many colors (note that many is in italics, indicating that the word is not found in the oldest manuscripts but was added by translators to help clarify the text)

Amplified: a long tunic with sleeves

ESV & HCSB: a robe of many colors

NIV: a richly ornamented robe

RSV: a long robe with sleeves

NASB: a varicolored tunic (footnote: full-length robe)

Orthodox Jewish Bible: tunic reaching to palms and soles

New Century Version: a special robe with long sleeves

Dr. W. A. Criswell believed that the tunic was originally white “embroidered gorgeously around the skirt, and the sleeves, and the edges.” He taught that the robe was long enough to reach the hands and feet of the wearer, and was typically worn by those who did not have to work because of their status in society. [v]

According to Strong, the Hebrew word translated “coat” is kuttoneth, which referred to a tunic or undergarment, a long shirt-like garment usually made of linen. [vi]

Easton’s Bible Dictionary describes the coat as “a garment long and full, such as was worn by the children of nobles…a long garment with sleeves… a coat of many pieces, i.e., a patchwork of many small pieces of divers colors.” He adds that this garment was “worn like a shirt next to the skin.” [vii]

In Exodus 28, this same word is used to refer to the tunic worn by Aaron and the priests. There, in verse 24, the word is variously translated as “a specially woven tunic” (HCSB), as a “long and sleeved tunic of checkerwork” (Amplified, NASB), and as a skillfully woven tunic (NKJV).

Again referring to Strong, the Hebrew word translated “colors” is the word pas, which literally meant “flat (of the hand or foot), palm, sole” and was used figuratively to refer to a “tunic reaching to palms and soles.” [viii]

No one seems to know how this word was translated as “color” in the earliest translations (including the Latin Vulgate and the Septuagint), but many believe it was simply a mistake in translation that was carried over into the earliest English versions. However, the suggestion that there are mistakes in translation in such a revered work as the KJV has the potential to ignite a firestorm of dissent.

Once again, let’s look strictly at the text, specifically at Genesis 37:3.

Now Israel loved Joseph more than any other of his sons, because he was the son of his old age. And he made him a robe of many colors.

Jacob loved Joseph more than his other sons. To make sure that no one could mistake his favoritism, Jacob created a distinguishing tunic for Joseph to wear. Whether or not is was multi-colored or long enough to reach his feet and hands is not relevant to the story.

The point is that the coat was not Joseph’s idea, but Jacob’s. If the sons of Jacob were going to be angry with someone, why not begin with their own father? If anyone was prideful in this story, that person was Jacob, not Joseph.

What made the coat a symbol of hatred to Joseph’s brothers was not its cut or color, nor the fact that Joseph wore it. What made them angry was the symbolism – the distinctive nature of the coat.

I remember when I was a lowly high school student. My dad worked hard and provided everything we needed and more. My mom was a terrific mother and home-maker. Both of them desired much more for their children than they could afford. But they gave us what they could and everything we needed, and they sacrificed to do it.

I was not a very popular person in high school, although I had a strong desire to be. I thought much of the cause of my unpopularity (which was truly a figment of my own poor self image) was due to my clothes. One of the most popular clothing items while I was in high school was a London Fog jacket. I craved and coveted a London Fog jacket – especially a navy blue one – that I could wear with the collar turned up like all the popular guys did.

My mom was aware of my desire, but could never have afforded to purchase one from a store. So she did the next best thing – she made me one. In color, it was light brown with a small hounds-tooth pattern. And the material was so limpid that the collar would never stand up. I am ashamed to admit it now, but I was ashamed to wear it then.

Nevertheless, I did wear it – nearly every day. Why? Because my mom made it for me. It was special because she was special to me and I was special to her. I wore it out of respect for her.

Throughout the story of Joseph’s life, one personality characteristic that is very obvious to even the casual observer (except those prejudiced by preconceptions) is that Joseph had a heart of gold. I believe he wore his “coat of many colors” because his father went to the trouble of making it for him and expected him to wear it. To have refused to wear it would have been as offensive to his father as wearing it was to his brothers. Given the choice, which one should Joseph choose to offend?

There is no evidence whatsoever that Joseph wore the coat for the sole purpose of intentionally aggravating his brothers by rubbing their noses in their inferiority. Neither is there any support for the idea that Joseph was insensitive to the feelings of his brothers or that he wore the coat out of ignorance or immaturity. The brothers were angry with Joseph and refused to even speak to him, but it was Jacob’s actions and their own sinful jealousy that caused their anger, not Joseph’s prideful display of his “coat of many colors.”

PDF

[i] Kadden, Bruce. “From the Coat of Many Colors to a Simple Garment: The Unmaking of Joseph.” ReformJudaism.org

[ii] Derek Morris, Pastor of the Forest Lake Church in Apopka, FL

http://www.bettersermons.org/article/423/sermon-resources/sermon-series/derek-morris/dangerous-dreams

[iii] Kathryn Schifferdecker

https://www.workingpreacher.org/preaching.aspx?commentary_id=1032

[iv] www.biblegateway.com

[v] Dr. W.A. Criswell, “The Coat of Many Colors, Genesis 37:3-20,” W.A. Criswell Sermon Library, http://www.wacriswell.com/sermons/1958/the-coat-of-many-colors/#

[vii] Easton’s Revised Bible Dictionary, Online Bible.

[viii] Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon, Online Bible.

Joseph and the Sin of Pride

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Dan) — Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:51:00 -0500

Case 1: A Bad Report

In my last post, I began a study on the interpretation of Genesis 37 concerning the young Joseph that said that Joseph acted with pride in his dealings with his family, especially his older brothers, thus incurring their wrath against him, and making an already troubled family relationship even worse. My premise is that, given a detailed study of the Scriptures, apart from tradition and conjecture, there is no direct evidence for reaching such a conclusion.

The first proof some commentators have offered as evidence of Joseph’s pride was the “bad report” he made concerning his brothers mentioned in Genesis 37:2.

Joseph, a young man of seventeen, was tending the flocks with his brothers, the sons of Bilhah and the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives, and he brought their father a bad report about them. (NIV)

Let’s consider the biblical evidence that explains why this was an evil or bad report.

First of all, could the report have been labeled bad because of its content? The Bible does not tell us if this was an accurate report. It only tells us that the report was bad or evil, which could mean that the report was given badly or with an evil purpose, or it could mean that the report was bad because its contents were of evil things, or it could have been bad because it was false.

Let’s look closely at the words translated “evil report” in verse 2.

The Hebrew word for evil that is used here is the most commonly used word for evil in the Old Testament. About 80% of the time, the word is generally translated as evil, bad, or some form of the word wicked. At other times, it is translated more specifically to refer to that which is disagreeable, malignant, hurtful, and unkind or even vicious.

The word for report is used only nine times in the Old Testament. Three of those times it is translated as “evil report,” but four times it is translated as slander.

Putting these two concepts together, one might reasonably come to the conclusion that this was an evil report because Joseph gave a vicious and slanderous, and possibly even untrue report to Jacob concerning his brothers. The problem is that such an interpretation of Joseph’s behavior contradicts everything else the Bible has to say about Joseph.

Never once in all of one’s study of Joseph will one discover such an attitude about him or such a reaction to his circumstances. There is no evidence that Joseph ever resorted to lying to achieve selfish goals or acted maliciously toward an enemy.

Alternatively, based on these definitions, one might conclude that the report was bad because it contained evidence and/or examples of the vicious slander that was being spread around the country concerning the sons of Jacob. This is the interpretation offered by at least two 18^th century commentators.

The first of these is Professor Peter Lange. According to Professor Lange, the words used here for bad report refer to “a rumor whispered or creeping around.” According to Professor Lange, the reference to Joseph’s giving a bad report concerning his brothers “does not mean that Joseph made accusations against them, as the Vulgate has it, but that, in boyish simplicity, he repeated what he had heard about them.” [i] Boyish simplicity seems very far removed from malicious and slanderous intent.

Continuing with this same theme, The Pulpit Commentary agrees that Joseph did not report what he himself personally witnessed, but simply repeated the scandalous things that were “circulating in the district respecting” the evil characters of the brothers.[ii] And the reports are not difficult to accept when we witness the attitude and actions the brothers take concerning the welfare of Joseph later in Chapter 2.

In the second place, was this report labeled “evil” to indicate that Joseph spoke badly of his brothers to Jacob because he was not happy with them about the way they treated him? Was Joseph guilty of being a tattle-tale – of running to his father to tell on his brothers for spiteful reasons, thus incurring his brothers’ wrath towards him?

The previous discussion addressed this question to a large degree. There is nothing specific in verse 2 to indicate Joseph’s intent or motives in making the report. To assume that he gave a slanderous report concerning his brothers for malicious purposes contradicts everything else we will ever come to discover about the character and personality of Joseph.

Furthermore, consider that there is no direct evidence from Genesis 37 or from the context of this part of Genesis that Joseph had ever been treated badly by his brothers prior to the events of verses 12ff. One might trace the origin of the ill treatment Joseph received from his brothers to the bad reports Joseph delivered to Jacob, but there is no evidence that the bad reports were spawned by Joseph’s ill treatment. If there was no previous ill treatment, what motive would Joseph have had for giving a slanderous report about his brothers?

Such an understanding is most likely the projection of our knowledge of subsequent events that take place in the story and our own knowledge of human nature. In other words, one assumes that, since the brothers treated Joseph so badly later in the chapter, they must have been treating him badly all along. And we have an idea that, if we were abused as we assume Joseph was, we would not be gracious in our reporting.

One might dig a bit further into this situation and ask, “Did the brothers in fact know that Joseph had made this ‘bad report’ to Jacob?” There is nothing in verse 2 to indicate that they did. Later, in verse 8, we read, “And they (the brothers) hated him (Joseph) all the more because of his dream and what he had said.” Those last few words, “what he had said,” could be construed to mean that, at the time Joseph revealed his dreams to his brothers, they were already aggravated with Joseph because of the bad reports he had delivered previously.

However, the context seems to indicate that this phrase refers more accurately to the incident of verses 5-7 where Joseph vocalized the content of his dream. This point will be dealt with a bit later in this article.

Commenting on Genesis 37:2, Jamieson, Fausset, Brown commentary provides the following concerning Joseph’s role as a shepherd and the content of the report:

Joseph…was feeding the flock – literally, “Joseph being seventeen years old was a shepherd over the flock” – he a lad, with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah. Oversight or superintendence is evidently implied. This post of chief shepherd in the party might be assigned him either from his being the son of a principal wife or from his own superior qualities of character; and if invested with this office, he acted not as a gossiping telltale, but as a “faithful steward” in reporting the scandalous conduct of his brethren. [iii]

These commentators are assuming that Joseph went to tend sheep in a supervisory role. They admit that such is “evidently implied.” There is no direct evidence that such was true. Nevertheless, if all these things are true, and assuming that the report was accurate, then Joseph should be commended for his report as one who is reliable, and truthful. Thus Joseph is undeserving of a general condemnation by others just because the report he gave is defined as evil or bad.

More in line with the accusation of pride, one might ask, “Did Joseph give a bad report because he felt superior to his brothers and wished to demean them even further in his father’s eyes with a truthful yet slanderous report?”

Read these comments from the Expositor’s Bible Commentary concerning Joseph’s bad report to Jacob:

Neither are we obliged to suppose that Joseph was a gratuitous tale-bearer, or that when he carried their evil report to his father he was actuated by a prudish, censorious, or in any way unworthy spirit. That he very well knew how to hold his tongue no man ever gave more adequate proof; but he that understands that there is a time to keep silence necessarily sees also that there is a time to speak. [iv]

In summary, there seem to be three options concerning the bad report:

1. The report was bad because it reflected the prideful nature of Joseph who felt superior to his brothers and took advantage of this opportunity to demean them even further in his father’s eyes.

Solution: The Bible does not speak concerning Joseph’s motives for giving the report. There is no direct evidence in the Scripture that Joseph’s report was motivated by pride.

2.The report was bad because Joseph hoped to exact revenge on his brothers for the evil way that they were treating him.

Solution: There is no evidence that Joseph was ever treated badly by his brothers before being sold into slavery. Were that the case, why would Joseph have gone, seemingly alone and undefended, to find his brothers at Shechem? There is no evidence that he approached or entered their encampment with any reservation or sense of fear.

3. The report was bad because its contents were bad. Joseph either reported what he had witnessed, what he had heard from others, or possibly both.

Solution: Based on a literal reading of the text of Genesis 37, this appears to be the only alternative that remains true to the biblical narrative.

Thus we must conclude that, based on what “thus saith the Lord,” Joseph cannot be accused of acting with pride when he gave his evil report to Jacob.

Click the icon below to print or download this article.

[i] Lange, John Peter. A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal, Homiletical, Vol. 1. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. 1864, p 580.

[ii] Exell, Joseph S; Spence-Jones, Henry Donald Maurice. "Commentary on Genesis 37:1". The Pulpit Commentary. http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/tpc/view.cgi?bk=0&ch=37. 1897

[iii] Jamieson, Robert, A. R. Fausset and David Brown. The Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. 1871. Online Bible software, Copyright © 2014, Larry Pierce, Winterbourne, Ontario, Canada, N0B 2V0.

[iv] Nicoll, William R. "Commentary on Genesis 37:1". "Expositor's Bible Commentary". http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/teb/view.cgi?bk=0&ch=37

Joseph and the Sin of Pride

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Dan) — Wed, 11 Feb 2015 19:41:00 -0500

Introduction

Too often our interpretation of a biblical text is skewed by tradition, by the authorities we listen to, by our own misunderstanding of a text, or because we did not apply ourselves to greater diligence of study. In most cases, such errors in interpretation are made quite innocently and do not necessarily create a problem with the overall message of a lesson or sermon. Nevertheless, a teacher or preacher or anyone who proclaims the gospel – especially from a pulpit to a sanctuary filled with trusting listeners – must go the extra mile and give due diligence to getting the story right before proclaiming it as truth.

In 2014, I heard a pastor preach a series of messages based on Genesis 37. This pastor accused Joseph of being guilty of the sin of pride. And he is not alone in this interpretation of Joseph’s character and motives.

A Jewish website called MyJewishLearning.com hosted an article by Rabbi Bradley Artson who wrote, "Joseph has the potential to fill his life with friendship, family and love. Yet his need to be preeminent, his need to belittle the gifts and experiences of this family in order to glorify his own talents, isolate him from his own kin. We get a clue about the extent of Joseph's pride from the very start." [i]

David Guzik commented, “Joseph seems to be afflicted with the sort of pride often apparent among the favored and blessed. He is so focused on how great his dreams are for him, he doesn’t begin to consider how the dreams will sound in the ears of others.” (Italics are his.) [ii]

Even R. C. Sproul, for whom I have the utmost respect, is included in those who accuse Joseph of the sin of pride. In a lesson from his website (www.ligonier.com), Dr. Sproul said that Joseph “was somewhat arrogant and self-absorbed.” [iii] In the same lesson, Dr. Sproul included the following statements concerning Joseph:

“Joseph also seems to revel in his status as Jacob’s most beloved child.”

“Joseph’s pride should be seen as sinful and foolish.”

“Joseph’s haughtiness only worsened his precarious situation and shows us the danger of pride.”

In answer to a question concerning the life of Joseph, an unidentified online author (www.gotquestions.org) replied, “As a 17-year-old shepherd, Joseph is something of a tattle-tale, bringing a bad report about his brothers to their father (Genesis 37:2).” [iv]

This unfortunate interpretation concerning the prideful nature of Joseph has been taught for so long and by such leading biblical authorities that most people seem to take it for granted that Joseph was, in fact, guilty of this most abhorrent of all sins (Prov. 16:5). Yet a straight-forward reading of the text of Gen. 37:1-11 will yield no direct evidence that Joseph ever acted or responded toward any person or situation with an attitude of pride. In fact, these verses yield no direct evidence at all concerning any motives for Joseph’s actions, any misstep in his behavior, or any malicious aspect of his character.

Curious about such a straightforward and undocumented assessment of Joseph as was given on the website previously mentioned (www.gotquestions.org), I emailed the website and asked, “Other than surmise, conjecture, and guesswork, what direct biblical evidence (chapter and verse) can anyone put forward that Joseph was prideful before his brothers and his family?”

I soon received the following email reply from a person identified only as Kevin:

There is nothing in Scripture that points to Joseph's being proud or out of line in sharing his visions with his family. His brothers hated him, but that does not mean that Joseph was at fault. The notion that Joseph was prideful comes from interpreters'/teachers' assumptions. The Bible simply tells what Joseph said and did, which was to share God's revelation with others.

In the sermon mentioned at the beginning of this article, the pastor offered three items of evidence from the story of Joseph’s betrayal in Genesis 37 to support the idea that Joseph was guilty of pride.

In verse 2, Joseph gave a “bad report” to Jacob concerning the behavior of the brothers.
In verses 3 and 4, Jacob made for Joseph “an ornate robe” (NIV) which Joseph proudly wore to remind his brothers that “their father loved him more than any of them” (NIV).
In verses 5-11, Joseph shared his dreams with his brothers on at least two occasions, apparently for the purpose of lording his status over his brothers.

In the next three blog entries, we will investigate the accusation of pride against Joseph using the three sermon points mentioned above, beginning with the subject of the Bad Report (Gen. 37:2). This will be followed by a look at the truth behind the Beautiful Coat that Joseph wore (Gen. 37:3-4). The final lesson will study the Baffling Dreams that Joseph had that caused such consternation in his family (Gen. 37:5-11).

Click the icon below to download or print this article.

[i] Artson, Rabbi Bradley. "From Pride Comes Loneliness." MyJewishLearning, Inc. Web. 21 Nov. 2014. http://www.myjewishlearning.com/aboutus/abindex.shtml

[ii] http://biblehub.com/commentaries/guzik/genesis/37.htm

[iii] http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/joseph-goes-dothan/

[iv] http://www.gotquestions.org/life-Joseph.html#ixzz3Jje6ENTI

Who Is A Christian, Part 3

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Dan) — Mon, 2 Feb 2015 22:13:00 -0500

Montana,

In my last letter, I listed proofs for salvation from the New Testament book of 1 John. (Either refer to the previous blog or click here to download a pdf of the list.) Later, I reviewed the list and organized the items into eight categories listed in the table below. Several items are difficult to place into just one category. In some of these cases, I listed the item in two categories and identified them with an asterisk.

Individual Categories of Proofs

Category	# Ref	Defines Christian	Defines Non-Christian
1. Commands	5	2,3,23,32	4
2. Love	16	5,7,20,21,22,27,30	5,8,10,13,14,15,16,20,22
3. Jesus	12	10,13,15,25,29,34,35	9,17,23,24,25
4. Holy Spirit	4	8,12,24,28
5. Sin	5	18,36,37*	3,11
6. World	7	19,31,33,37	7,18,21*
7. Action	11	1,4,14,16,17,31*	1,2,6,12,21*
8. Truth	4	9,11,26	19

To help with understanding, I will give a brief explanation of each category and of the chart.

The first category, Commands, refers to verses that speak about obedience to the commands of God and of Christ and remaining within the will of God.
Love includes any reference to the subject of loving other Christians or loving in general, or, in the case of the non-Christian, of hate.
The Jesus category includes any reference to a confession of Christ as Lord or as Messiah, or a belief in Christ or God and the things they have taught.
The Holy Spirit category includes references to the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit and the Savior as evidence of salvation. 1 John 4:15-16 makes reference to the indwelling of God, but the purpose of the reference to the indwelling of God is not to prove salvation, but that the one who abides in love gives proof that he is indwelt by God.
Sin includes any reference to the habitual practice of sin or the denial of sin. Item 37 is included in this list because idolatry is a specific sin habitually practiced.
Category six, World, includes any reference to how a person reacts to the world or how the world responds to the Christian. Item 37 is included here because any worship that is not directed toward a biblical revelation of God is directed toward things of the world and is, therefore, idolatry. Item 31 (Defines Christian) and Item 21 (Defines Non-Christian) are included deal with fear. It seemed best to include them in how one reacts to the world around him or her.
This category, Practice, refers to general behavior and actions related to lifestyle and doing the right thing according to righteousness. References to fear are also included in this category because if we are acting according to fear, we are not acting according to faith.
The last category, Truth, has to do with any reference to truth as knowledge. Item 2 (Non-Christian) mentions truth, but is more specifically related to practice than knowledge.

The remaining two columns make reference to the items in the original tables that list references to those verses in 1 John which define a Christian and which define those who are not Christian. For example, under the heading Define Christian, in the first cell is the numbers 2. This refers to Item 2 in the first table, The Apostle John’s Definition of a Christian, which points us to 1 John 2:3, “And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments.”

In the first cell under the heading Define Non-Christian is the number 4. This refers to Item 4 in the second table, The Apostle John’s Definition of a Non-Christian, which directs us to 1 John 2:4, “Whoever says ‘I know him’ but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him.”

Once the items were compiled into the table, one fact stood out above the rest. John makes it very clear that anyone who knows Christ as Savior – anyone who is truly born again and is part of the kingdom of God – will be marked by love. Of the 62 items that define a Christian or a non-Christian, just over 25 percent of them refer to the Christian’s ability to love others, in general, and to love the brotherhood – the church – specifically.

All but five of these references to love include a reference to Christian brothers. This means that a Christian will love other Christians, both male and female, and will love the church in general. The church is the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:12-20; Eph. 1:22-23; Eph. 5:30; Col. 1:24), and no person can legitimately claim to be a Christian who does not love the church.

Further study revealed that these eight categories could be reduced to three summary categories. These are shown in the table below.

Summary Categories of Proofs

Category	# Ref	Defines Christian	Defines Non-Christian
1. Profession	7	10,25,29	4,17,22,24
2. Possession	6	8, 12,16*,24,28,35
3. Practice	50+	Remainder + one*	Remainder + two*

Typically, when a person is asked for proof that they are saved, they will refer to some moment in the past when they invited Jesus into their heart or made a profession of faith in Christ. No matter how far back in their lives this event might have occurred, this is the moment they go back to as proof that they are a Christian. Their profession of faith becomes their greatest proof of salvation.

One’s profession of faith in Christ is certainly proof of salvation, or John would not have mentioned it. Yet in this summary table of proofs, profession of faith is only mentioned three times out of the 62 proofs that John identified. More than 50 (over 80%) of the proofs for whether or not a person is truly saved relate to that person’s practice, not their profession.

In fact, in two verses (1 John 2:4; 1 John 4:20), John points out that people who make a profession of faith that is not supported by practice are actually not saved, an indication that a profession of faith alone is insufficient in and of itself to determine whether or not a person is saved. He adds in 1 John 3:18 that a Christian is not to “love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.”

In other words, the primary evidence for whether or not a person is saved is not their profession of faith or a statement of salvation or even baptism, but the practices of their life – their behavior. The person who needs to evaluate their standing with Christ – whether or not they are citizens of the kingdom of God – should consider these questions based on the teachings from 1 John.

Do you love others, especially other Christians (the church)?

Do you obey the commandments of God and of Christ?

Do you avoid habitual sinful practices?

Are you involved in the study and the life-application of God’s word?

Do you choose the righteousness and the teachings of Christ over the morality and philosophies of the world?

Positive answers to these questions cannot be assumed simply because a person walks an aisle and professes them to be true and is baptized. Church membership should be based, not on a person’s profession alone, but on their life practices. This cannot be determined during a time of invitation at the end of a worship service. It can only be assessed over an extended period of relationship with the candidate for membership.

And this can best be achieved in a discipleship relationship where the candidate spends a good deal of time together with a church member or a small group of church members who are able to make such an assessment.

In the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20), Jesus did not command His disciples to make converts – which is the providence of God – or church members. He called them – and Christians today – to make disciples, which requires those who are saved to make long-term commitments of life and love to those who are newly-professed Christians or even non Christians.

Finally, we cannot leave the Holy Spirit out of this discussion. John makes it clear on four occasions (1 John 2:20; 2:27; 3:24; 4:13) that the Christian will know that they are a member of the kingdom of God by the testimony of the Holy Spirit living within them. All of these behaviors mentioned above will come to fruition in a saved person because the Holy Spirit will cause them to happen.

The growth and change in a saved person may not happen overnight, but will happen because the Holy Spirit is not going to leave us or forsake us (John 14:16-17).

And, being God, He cannot fail to accomplish His work in us (Isaiah 46:10; Isaiah 55:11; Phil. 1:6).

In summary, no person is a Christian simply because they choose to be a Christian or because they say they are a Christian. A person is a Christian because the Holy Spirit comes into their heart and begins to do a work of grace in them that overflows onto other people. That is called discipleship.

Every Christian is called to discipleship. In fact, you should consider praying about and seeking out someone who can mentor you, who can help you grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I know that this letter has been long and possibly a bit of an overload of information. But I write you this letter for the same purpose that John wrote the letter we refer to as 1 John.

1 John 5:13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.

In Christ,

Pastor Dan

Click here to download a PDF version of this article.

Who Is a Christian, Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Dan) — Wed, 14 Jan 2015 15:16:00 -0500

A friend of mine once said he believes that every so often, an angel steps up to the banister of Heaven, leans out, and shouts a single word or phrase, such as “DISCIPLESHIP,” that echoes across the earth. Once he has done so, we begin to hear that word or subject repeated over and over in sermons, in books, in songs, in Sunday School lessons, and in small group Bible studies and discipleship groups. No matter where you turn, you will hear that word or phrase. I believe that has happened recently.

I disciple a young man who lives in California. We obviously cannot meet on a regular basis, but as long as the internet is active, as long as our phones continue to work, and as long as the mail continues to run, I can continue to teach him the things that the Holy Spirit has taught me. I wrote the first letter to him in January 2015. Since he had only recently become a Christian and was baptized there in California, I felt the first letter should address the definition of the term Christian in biblical terms. My plan is to continue to write him with this as the theme for the next couple of letters.

The same week I wrote that letter, the church we attended announced a one-time class entitled “Who Is or Isn’t a Christian?” Then I received an email from a site at which I had previously registered that encouraged me to read an online article written by John MacArthur entitled “10 Marks of True Conversion.” I tried the link. It did not work. Nevertheless, being wise in the ways of the net, I searched for the title and found a similarly titled article by John MacArthur, “Is It Real? 11 Biblical Tests of Genuine Salvation.”

Sounds like the angel has spoken.

(By the way, If you came here just to view the list of things that John used to describe a Christian, click on this link to download a PDF of the list. I pray you enjoy it. God bless.)

Greetings, Montana in California! (That sounds kinda weird!) JUST KIDDING!

In my last letter to you, I began to explain the meaning of the term Christian. I have continued that subject in this letter. I pray that it helps you in your own spiritual growth.

The word “Christian” is used in multiple contexts by different sources, almost none of whom would agree on a definition of the term. For some, the term is very, very important. It defines their relationship with God and their hope of eternity. For others, it is simply a religious choice. To the Muslim, it is anyone from the West who is not a Muslim, and synonymous with the word atheist. Some use the word with great reverence. Others with great derision and hatred. So just who is a Christian? Is there a litmus test by which a person can be tested to prove whether or not they are truly a child of God?

Many – and I might say most – people who identify themselves as Christians cringe at the thought of such an idea. The American culture has taught us to believe that we are independent spirits with the right of self-determination, and therefore, the right to define terms as we please. For another person to put us to the test is considered offensive and hypocritical. But if this is so, why does the Bible go to such lengths to define the person who is truly a child of God?

Here’s a test. In the next couple of days, stop someone you believe to be a Christian and ask them if they are. He or she may surprise you with a very definite “Yes,” but it is unlikely. More often than not, that person will answer you with something like, “Well, sure, at least, I hope so. I believe in Jesus. I know that Jesus is real, and I try to do all the right things, and live a good life, and not hurt other people, etc.”

Some people might even argue that no one can really know for certain that they are a Christian apart from a hope that they hold in their hearts. However, the Apostle John wrote a letter (1 John in the New Testament) in which he said, “I have written this to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know you have eternal life.” (1 John 5:13)

Most Christians, if asked to give evidence for whether or not they are truly a Christian, will point back to the time when they prayed a prayer and invited Jesus to come into their heart. Or, depending on their denomination or branch of Christianity, they might say something about a moment in their past when they experienced some event, such as a baptism, or an overwhelming feeling of emotion, or even that they come from a long line of believers.

But what does the Bible say about who is and who is not a Christian? My last letter began to answer that question. I would like to continue along that line of thought in this letter. The New Testament has much to say about this subject, but in this letter I will concentrate on the small book in the back of your New Testament called 1 John, written by the same man (the Apostle John) who wrote the Gospel of John and The Revelation. He himself was one of the original disciples of Jesus.

Before embarking on this study, let me say first of all that there is nothing a person can do to become a Christian. Salvation is the work of God. It is a supernatural event in a person’s life. We are not capable of supernatural power within the limitations of the flesh. So when we set out to define a Christian, please understand that I am not teaching that these are things that people can do to become a Christian or might do simply to prove they are Christian. Instead, understand that these are things that define Christians.

An apple can be red or green or yellow, has an outside skin we refer to as the peel, an inner flesh, a core, a stem, and a very distinctive taste. Those are the things that define the apple. Simply because a fruit has an outer peel that is red, green or yellow, an outer skin and an inner flesh, a core and a stem does not make it an apple. It must have the distinctive flavor of an apple. We might at first be confused by the fruit’s appearance, but one taste will reveal the truth.

The same is true when we look at those elements that define a Christian. These are not things we must achieve to become a Christian or a to become a better Christian. These are things that will be true of a Christian – maybe not from the moment they are saved, but eventually. These are the things that a saved person is in the process of becoming. They may not all be true of you yet, so do not get discouraged or overwhelmed. Remember that, just as salvation is a miraculous work of God, so is sanctification – the process by which God converts you into a true son of God.

Right about here, let me encourage you to lay aside this letter. Get out your Bible and turn to 1 John. Read all five chapters. It will not take very long. Then go back and read it again. This time, use a pen and paper to list all the things that John says defines a child of God. The list will be long.

Once you have done that, read the book a third time. Then make a list of the characteristics or habits of those who are not Christian, even though they may claim to be.

Once your lists are complete, come back to the letter and compare your lists to the ones I have included at the end of this letter. Do not worry if you have omitted things I have included or if you have things on your list that I have omitted. None of our lists is meant to be perfect. The idea is to understand that the Bible very clearly defines the term Christian.

I pray that from this study...

You will understand that the term Christian is clearly defined in Scripture.

You may have a better idea of what God intends to happen in the life of a Christian.

When Jesus called Peter and Andrew to become His disciples, He said to them, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.” He called them to follow Him so that He could make something out of them that fulfilled the mission of the kingdom of God.

That is what He intends to do to all who claim Him as Lord and Savior.

God bless.

Pastor Dan

To download a PDF of this article including the charts, click here.

The Apostle John’s Definition of a Christian* PDF

Walks in the light (1 John 1:7)
Keeps his (Jesus’) commandments (1 John 2:3)
Keeps his (Jesus’) word (1 John 2:5)
Walks in the same way that Jesus walked (1 John 2:6)
Loves other Christians (1 John 2:10)
Does the will of God (1 John 2:17)
Continues in fellowship with other Christians (1 John 2:19)
Has an anointing from the Holy One (God) (1 John 2:20)
Knows the truth (1 John 2:20)
Acknowledges the Son (that Jesus is the Christ) (1 John 2:23)
Remains faithful to things taught from the beginning (1 John 2:24)
Has the Holy Spirit to teach him what is right (1 John 2:27)
Filled with courage, not ashamed of Christ (1 John 2:28)
Will do what is right (1 John 2:29)
Has an eager expectation of Christ’s return and his transformation (1 John 3:3)
Keeps himself pure (1 John 3:3)
Practices righteousness (1 John 3:7)
Cannot practice habitual sin (1 John 3:9)
Is hated by the world (1 John 3:13)
Loves Christian brotherhood (1 John 3:14; 4:21)
Ought to lay down his life for other Christians (1 John 3:16)
Loves, not just in word or talk, but in deed and truth (1 John 3:18-19)
Keeps God’s commandments and does what pleases Him (1 John 3:22-24)
Assured of salvation by the Holy Spirit (1 John 3:24)
Confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh (1 John 4:2)
Listens to those who speak the truth of God (1 John 4:6)
Loves others (1 John 4:7, 11-12)
God has given his Holy Spirit (1 John 4:13)
Confesses that Jesus is the Son of God (1 John 4:15; 5:1)
Abides in love (1 John 4:16)
Does not fear (1 John 4:18)
Loves God and obeys his commandments (1 John 5:2)
Overcomes the world through faith (1 John 5:4-5)
Believes in the Son of God (1 John 5:10)
Has the Son (1 John 5:12)
Does not keep on sinning (1 John 5:18)
Keeps himself from idols (1 John 5:21)

*Please note that this list is not an exhaustive list. Others who read this letter of the Apostle John will very likely note other characteristics of a Christian that are unintentionally omitted from this list. Many items in the list are paraphrases of each quality based on my own understanding. Many are repetitive. The significant thing to note is quantity of evidences John gives for defining a Christian.

The Apostle John’s Definition of a Non-Christian* PDF

Walks in darkness while claiming to walk in the light (1 John 1:6)
Lies and does not practice truth (1 John 1:6)
Claims to have no sin (1 John 1:8, 10)
Claims to know Christ but does not keep his commandments (1 John 2:4)
Hates his Christian brothers (1 John 2:9, 11)
Blinded by darkness so does not know where he is going (1 John 2:11)
Loves the world (1 John 2:15)
Does not remain in Christian fellowship (1 John 2:19)
Denies that Jesus is the Christ (1 John 2:22-23)
Does not recognize a Christian (1 John 3:1)
Habitually practices sin (1 John 3:6-9)
Does not practice righteousness (1 John 3:10)
Does not love the brotherhood (1 John 3:10)
Does not love (1 John 3:14)
Hates the brotherhood and is equal to a murderer (1 John 3:15)
Closes his heart against a brother in need (1 John 3:17)
Does not confess Jesus (1 John 4:3)
Speak from the viewpoint of the world (1 John 4:5)
Does not listen to those who speak the truth of God (1 John 4:6)
Does not love and therefore does not know God (1 John 4:8)
Lives in fear (1 John 4:18)
Says he loves God, but hates his brother, and is therefore a liar (1 John 4:20)
Does not believe God (1 John 5:10)
Calls God a liar (1 John 5:10)
Does not believe what God has testified about Christ (1 John 5:10)

*Please note that this list is not an exhaustive list. Others who read this letter of the Apostle John will very likely note other characteristics of a false Christian that are unintentionally omitted from this list. Many items in the list are paraphrases of each quality based on my own understanding. Many are repetitive. The significant thing to note is quantity of evidences John gives for identifying those who are not part of the family of God, even though they may profess to be.

News from California

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Dan) — Sun, 4 Jan 2015 20:39:00 -0500

I recently wrote a letter to a relatively new friend I made in California in 2014 named Montana. At the time we met, he was 18. After I returned to Georgia, we communicated by texting on several occasions. This is the first letter that I wrote to him.

I have edited out the first paragraph which was simply a personal greeting to him and his family. The subject of the letter was the meaning of the term Christian. His response follows the letter. I will let it speak for itself.

I will add that the opportunity to share the gospel message with this young man is due to the trip Ann and I were allowed to take in 2014. My employer, Steve, who has recently moved to California with the goal of planting a church there, paid the way for me to attend some business-related training there in Irvine. We met our young friend on our second night there.

God has a way of working things out so that His perfect will is always accomplished. For that and for all other blessings of life, I give Him praise.

December 28, 2014

To Montana, my friend in California.

Many, many times I have thought about our conversation at Spectrum Center. I do not believe in coincidences. God has a wonderful and perfect plan for His creation and for all who are part of it. He brought my wife, Ann, and I to California for just that time so that we could share with you the wonderful news of the Savior, Jesus.

I am not altogether sure what prompted you to stop and begin talking with us that evening, but as we continued to talk, and as we shared the good news of Jesus with you, you seemed to soak up everything that we were sharing. I felt that you were sincerely listening to everything I said and that the message of Jesus as Savior was having an effect on your heart. I certainly pray that such was the case.

I have told many other people about our conversation that evening. On almost every occasion, they ask me if you were a Christian when we parted. I have to be honest with them and say that I do not know, since I cannot see into men’s hearts. You are the only one who can answer that question.

It may be that you know the answer right away without any hesitation. Or you may be wondering what I mean when I use the term “Christian,” because there is so much confusion in the world about what that term means. So let me explain it a bit. Then, after reflection, you will have a better idea of how to answer the question and where you stand with God.

The Bible says that a Christian will confess with his mouth that Jesus is Lord. That means he will openly and willingly tell other people that Jesus is Lord of his life.

The Bible says this in several places.

If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Romans 10:9)

Everyone who acknowledges me publicly here on earth, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. But everyone who denies me here on earth, I will also deny before my Father in heaven. (Matthew 10.32-33)

Anyone who denies the Son doesn’t have the Father, either. But anyone who acknowledges the Son has the Father also. (1 John 2:23)

Everyone who confesses openly his faith in Jesus Christ – the Son of God, who came as an actual flesh-and-blood person – comes from God and belongs to God. And everyone who refuses to confess faith in Jesus has nothing in common with God. (1 John 4.2-3)

Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. (1 John 4.15)

Furthermore, a Christian will believe in his heart that God has raised Jesus from the dead.

The resurrection is the most fundamental truth of the good news about Jesus. Without the resurrection, Jesus is just another man claiming to be a god. But the fact that Jesus overcame death through resurrection – something He had earlier predicted would happen – means that whatever else He said is also true. It also means that He is a living God, not a man-made god.

Here is what the Bible has to say about the importance of the resurrection.

Jesus was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead. (Romans 1.4)

Jesus said, “Because I live, you will live also.” (John 14.19)

If Christ was not raised from the dead then neither our preaching nor your faith has any meaning at all...and if Christ did not rise your faith is futile and your sins have never been forgiven. (1 Corinthians 15.14, 17)

Thank God, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, that in his great mercy we have been born again into a life full of hope, through Christ’s rising again from the dead! (1 Peter 1.3)

God has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man (Jesus) he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him (Jesus) from the dead. (Acts 17:31)

So, what is a Christian? He is a person who confesses Christ as Lord and believes in the resurrection.

This does not mean that a person automatically can claim to be a Christian if they do these two things. It does mean that, if a person is a Christian, they will do these two things without a doubt: they will confess to others that Jesus is their Lord, and they will believe in the resurrection.

There is much more that I could write along these lines, but I will save it for another letter. Consider these two aspects and let me know where you stand in relation to them.

I close with a paraphrase from the book of Ephesians:

I cannot stop thanking God for you – every time I pray, I think of you and give thanks. But I do more than give thanks. I ask our Master, Jesus Christ, the God of glory to make you intelligent and discerning in knowing him personally, to keep your eyes focused and clear, so that you can see exactly what it is he is calling you to do, so that you are able to grasp the immensity of this glorious way of life he has for Christians and the utter extravagance of his work in us who trust him – endless energy, boundless strength!

All this energy issues from Christ: God raised him from death and set him on a throne in heaven, in charge of running the universe, everything from galaxies to governments, no name and no power exempt from his rule.

And not just for the time being, but forever. He is in charge of it all, has the final word on everything.

At the center of all this, Christ rules the church. The church, you see, is not peripheral to the world; the world is peripheral to the church.

The church is Christ’s body, in which he speaks and acts, by which he fills everything with his presence.” (Ephesians 1:16-23, adapted from The Message)

I pray you have a wonderful New Year and that God will bless you and your family.

Let me hear from you now and then.

In Christ,

Dan

Here is the text I received today from our new friend, Montana:

Hey Dan! I just got your letter. I just wanted to let you know I have accepted Jesus Christ as my father and savior. And I recently got baptized (: I hope your doing well too?

Discipleship and the Unsaved

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Dan) — Mon, 17 Nov 2014 21:31:00 -0500

In Christian circles, there is an on-going debate concerning the difference (if such a thing exists) between being a Christian and being a disciple. For me, there is no difference. A Christian who is obedient to the Lord Jesus will be a disciple as well as a disciple-maker. Simply stated, a person cannot be a Christian – a follower of Christ – unless they are also a disciple of Christ. Only recently have I turned the question around and asked what may be an even more radical question: Can a person be a disciple without being a Christian?

In “The Great Commission” of Matt. 28:18-20, Christ calls every Christian to make disciples. Disciple making is not a spiritual gift that God has given to a few, but a command He has given to all Christians. All who claim to know Christ as Savior are called to be disciples, but to be a disciple requires that we make disciples.

Yet how many of us who hold so firmly to our eternal salvation can actually say that we have even made one disciple in our life times? If the standard of reward in heaven is how many disciples follow along with us, how many of us will have even one to offer to Christ?

Can you name one person whose life has been so impacted for Christ by your efforts on a personal basis that they have turned around and impacted the lives of someone else for Christ?

In his book Radical (which I believe should be entitled Normal), David Platt wrote the following:

Any Christian can do this. You don’t need to have inordinate skill or unusual abilities to make disciples. You don’t need to be a successful pastor or a charismatic leader to make disciples. You don’t need to be a great communicator or an innovative thinker to make disciples. That’s why Jesus says every Christian must do this.[1]

I believe I am right when I say that the church (at least in the last couple of centuries) has come to see discipleship as the next step after getting saved – that before we can help someone grow in their relationship with Christ they must first have a relationship with Christ. While it is true that they must have a relationship with Christ, we are wrong to assume that that relationship must be defined as a salvation experience.

When Jesus commissioned his followers to make disciples, I don’t think He had in mind what we have traditionally had in our minds – first get them saved, then teach them the things of Christ and the Bible. In the Great Commission, Jesus told the disciples first to make disciples from all people groups and then to baptize them. Discipleship begins before a person ever comes to know Christ as Savior.

The belief that salvation precedes discipleship has led the church to place its greatest ministry emphasis on evangelism – on leading people to Christ and getting them saved and baptized – whereas the emphasis of the Great Commission is on discipleship, not evangelism. By placing the majority of our emphasis on justification instead of transformation, we have created a church which is very wide, but at the same time is very shallow. It encompasses large numbers of people under a very broad umbrella while making very little positive impact on the moral and ethical nature of our society or on the long-term spiritual development of families and future generations.

Evangelism is without a doubt a very critical part of discipleship, but it is only a part. It is not the end of discipleship. Making converts is the work of God in Christ by the agency of the Holy Spirit through the power of the spoken word of God (Rom. 10.17). Discipleship is the shared responsibility of sanctification in which a person is conformed to the image of Christ – God’s ultimate purpose in the plan of redemption (Rom. 8:29). And it begins before salvation. It is a process God intended to take place within the context of close and personal relationships.

Furthermore, when Jesus gave the Great Commission, He was not telling the disciples to go make disciples out of other Christians. As far as we know, all of the Christians in the world may have been standing on that mountain with Christ. The Bible says (Matt. 28:16) that Jesus instructed the eleven disciples to meet him on a mountain in Galilee, but it does not say that He excluded others from the meeting. Furthermore, verse 16 says “some doubted.”

In light of all that the disciples had witnessed in the days preceding this appointment with Jesus, we might question why they would have any doubts at all. However, if we assume that there were others there besides the eleven Apostles – some who had never heard or seen Jesus before – then the fact that some doubted begins to make more sense.

Paul mentioned that 500 people together at one time witnessed the resurrected Christ (1 Cor. 15:6). Since this meeting between Christ and his disciples was the only meeting following the resurrection that was definitely appointed (Matt. 26:32), the Expositor’s Commentary proposes that as many Christians as possible may have made the trip to Galilee to participate in such a momentous event and would thus have heard the Great Commission in the flesh. [2]

Of course, all of this is speculation, yet when Jesus commissioned his followers to make disciples, He intended for them to make those disciples, not out of other Christians, but out of “ethnos” – a word the Jews used to refer to people who were not Jewish – in other words, the heathen or pagan peoples of the world. The fact is, that’s the only kind of people there were in the world at the time Jesus gave the Great Commission.

For most of my church experience, the primary emphasis of discipleship has been education – about gaining knowledge – about learning what “thus saith the Lord.” We tended to measure our success as disciples by how much knowledge we had attained instead of how much we had come to look like Christ or by how many other people we had helped come to look like Christ.

Much to my own chagrin, I believed in this concept and modeled my own ministry on the idea of gaining and proclaiming knowledge. I taught much about the Lord, but very rarely became so involved with individual Christians that they could see the practical truth of the things I was teaching demonstrated in my own walk. In large part, this practice contributed to a very disappointing end of my first independent pastorate – but that is another story for another time.

Listen to the Apostle Paul’s caution concerning knowledge:

We know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. But the man who loves God is known by God. (1 Cor. 8:1-3, NIV)

Paul appears to teach that when we define Christian growth in terms of knowledge, we become “puffed up” – all bloated with air, looking bigger and more influential than we really are, having as much effect against the gates of hell as a marshmallow gun against the black gates of Mordor. When we believe that we are in the process of becoming more and more Christ-like as we gain more and more knowledge, we are only deceiving ourselves. How close we have attained to the image of Christ is not measured by how much we know, but by how much we love God which is evidenced by how much we love other people (1 Cor. 13:1-2).

The following thoughts are excerpted from a lecture concerning Christ-centered preaching by Dr. Bryan Chapell of Covenant Theological Seminary. After a reference to 1 Cor. 8:1 (knowledge puffs up), he made the following comments which reinforce what Paul said:

(Knowledge) is actually harmful to us unless there is some way in which it is being used for God’s purposes... God is saying, “What I desire from you is not simply your knowledge of the Word but your ability to communicate it to others.”...For us to really know what God is saying, we have to be actively involved in communicating it to others.[3]

When you couple those verses with the following words of Jesus from John’s Gospel, a picture begins to emerge that better defines what is meant by being a disciple.

If you love me, you will keep my commandments... Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him... If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. (John 14: 15, 21; John 15:10)

Do you have a desire to have a more intimate relationship with God – to experience a closer walk with the Creator of the Universe and the Lord of Eternity? To be known by God, you must love God. How do you love God? By obeying His commands. What was Jesus’ last command before His ascension? Go and make disciples.

Discipleship is not simply sitting in a class and reading a book and taking notes, no matter how interesting the class or how well it is taught. Discipleship is about going – about being personally and intentionally involved in the life of at least one other person – more specifically, a lost person – for the glory of God, for that person’s spiritual well being, and for your own spiritual growth.

Jesus said in Matt. 5:14, “You are the light of the world.” Commenting on Jesus’ words, Adrian Rogers explained that Jesus had cause us to be “the light of the world, not the light of the church. That means we have to get beyond the church walls and take the light out to where it is dark.” [4]

Furthermore, there is no need for us to wait until we have learned how to make disciples or until we have arrived at some educational level or until we have had enough experience. How much would you have to know and how much experience do you need to build a relationship with one other person that would allow you to share the Gospel message with them? Christ intended for us to learn as we make disciples. Better yet, He intended for us to learn by making disciples.

For those who hold to the idea that a person must have a relationship with Christ before they can be a disciple – I will grant that there is something to be said for that idea.

Most of us have heard that discipleship begins with relationship. In other words, we need to become friends with lost people and talk to them about Christ (in other words, begin the discipleship process with them) even before they come to know Christ as Savior. As a result, a lost person who has a relationship with a saved person who understands the meaning of making disciples already has a relationship with Christ, for “we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal (to lost people) through us.” (2 Cor. 5:20)

As you pray for God to give you a disciple – someone you can pour your life into for the glory of God and the sake of the kingdom – don’t expect that person to be a Christian, although they may be. Think about discipleship as the means of evangelism. Begin with a lost person – end up with a brother or sister in Christ who prayerfully will be so inspired by what Christ did for them through you that they will go out and, modeling themselves on your example, begin to make disciples, too.

2 Tim. 2:2 You have heard me teach things that have been confirmed by many reliable witnesses. Now teach these truths to other trustworthy people who will be able to pass them on to others. (NLT)

There’s nothing in that verse that says that the “other trustworthy people” to whom we teach “these truths” have to be saved people when they begin the process of discipleship.

[1] Platt, David. Radical: Taking Back Your Faith from the American Dream. Colorado Springs, CO: Multnomah, 2010, p. 90.

[2] Nicoll, William R. "Commentary on Matthew 28:16". Expositor's Bible Commentary. http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/teb/view.cgi?bk=39&ch=28

[3] Not sure how to cite this reference. Click here for a pdf of the transcript of the lecture by Dr. Chapell. Click here to go to the webpage and listen to the entire lecture.

[4] Rogers, Adrian. "How Can We Be the "Light of the World"?" Jesus.Org. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Nov. 2014. http://www.jesus.org/following-jesus/evangelism-and-missions/how-can-we-be-the-light-of-the-world.html

The Story (True Life Ministries)

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Dan) — Fri, 17 Oct 2014 16:26:00 -0400

Here is a link to a version of The Story witnessing tool. Easy to install the app on your phone and use it whenever the opportunity comes - and it will if you are looking for it.

The Story (True Life Ministries)

No Simple Salvation

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Dan) — Fri, 8 Aug 2014 11:41:00 -0400

Mark 10

23 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!” 24 And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” 26 And they were exceedingly astonished, and said to him, “Then who can be saved?” 27 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God.” (ESV)

Have you ever heard anyone say something like this, “Becoming a Christian is easy; being a Christian is the tough part”?

For anyone practicing the faith that God has instilled in them, the second part of this statement has been proven true on more than one occasion.

However, I would like to take issue with the first part of the statement.

Over and over I have heard pastors and Christian leaders say something like this: “Becoming a Christian is as easy as A-B-C.” You can read an example of this explanation of the A-B-C process of salvation at Lifeway.

Various words are used to complete the acronym. Typically, the “A” is said to mean “Admit (or acknowledge) you are a sinner,” although no one can point to a scripture reference that says that this is the first thing a lost person must do to be saved. At a later date I may discuss this formula, but for now, the word I want to focus on is “easy.”

Most of the teachers who use this phrase or this approach add somewhere near the end of their presentation something like this: “To become a Christian, you simply must pray and invite Jesus to come into your heart and be your Savior and Lord.” No one offers a biblical example where anyone prayed to become a Christian or a biblical admonition for lost people to “invite” Jesus into one’s heart – as if Jesus needed our invitation.

Here again, I could go on about these subjects, but I want to concentrate for now on the word “simply.”

If you are not familiar with Jesus’ encounter with the person we have come to refer to familiarly as “the rich young ruler,” stop here and read Matt. 19.16-26, Mark 10.17-27, and Luke 18.18-27. You can click here for a parallel version of the conclusion of the story from each of the three gospels in which it is told.

For this discussion, I will refer primarily to Mark’s version of the story, highlighting the end of verse 24 – a phrase which was not recorded by either Matthew or Luke. Here Jesus is speaking to His disciples when He says, “Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God!”

In the KJV, Mark 10:24 says, “Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!” However, many commentaries explain that the phrase for them that trust in riches was added by copyists at some point to make the verse more understandable in context.

According to A.T. Robertson, “These words do not occur in Aleph B Delta Memphitic and one Old Latin manuscript. Westcott and Hort omit them from their text as an evident addition to explain the difficult words of Jesus.” The phrase is also omitted in HCSB, NIV, and NLT.[1] Click here to read the verse in multiple translations.

One might argue that the context of the verse lends credence to the appropriateness of the additional words referring to the rich that were added to Mark’s writing in the KJV, especially since Jesus refers to the rich both before and after this statement. Yet the disciples’ reaction indicates that Jesus was not just referring to rich people.

Note that in Luke’s version of the incident, there is no record that the disciples exhibited any astonishment. However, in both Mark’s version as well as Matthew’s, just after Jesus compared a rich man getting into heaven to a camel passing through the eye of a needle, the disciples were “exceedingly amazed” (Matthew) or “astonished out of measure”(Mark, KJV).

According to Dr. Thomas L. Constable, “The disciples' amazement arose from the popular belief that riches were a result of God's blessing for righteousness. They thought riches were an advantage, not a disadvantage in one's relationship with God.” [2]

James Darby, commenting on the text in Matthew, adds, “The disciples, astonished at such a result, and at that which the Lord had said about riches, which, in the eyes of a Jew, were the sign of the favour of God, and which, at all events, furnished the opportunity for doing good works, cry out, ‘who then can be saved?’”[3]

Yet the disciples were not just astonished. They were astonished “out of measure” and “exceedingly.” Both of these are comparative adverbs that modify or, in this case, intensify the meaning of the word being modified. You can get a better sense of the word translated as “out of measure” in the KJV by its use in Mark 15:13-14.

Mark 15:13 And they cried out again, “Crucify him.” 14 And Pilate said to them, “Why, what evil has he done?” But they shouted all the more, “Crucify him.” As the trial of Jesus before Pilate advanced, the people began to shout louder and louder – or exceedingly loud compared to how loud they were shouting before.

Therefore, in both Matt. 19:25 and Mark 10:26, the disciples were not just astonished. They were more astonished than they were at an earlier time.

Mark explains the earlier time in Mark 10:24.

First of all, the rich young ruler walked away sorrowful because he realized the personal cost of following Jesus. Although the Bible does not tell us this specifically, when the young ruler counted the cost of discipleship, he seems to have determined that the price was higher than he was willing to pay.

Jesus knew the minds of His disciples. He knew that, like all Jews, the disciples believed that wealth was an indication of God’s favor and that the wealthy had an inside track to the kingdom. Jesus also knew that the disciples were still thinking of the kingdom of God as an earthly kingdom – or at least a heavenly kingdom that would be established on earth according to earthly traditions where the wealthy were most powerful.

Jesus contradicted their beliefs by remarking how difficult it would be for a rich man to enter into the kingdom.

The disciples responded with astonishment and amazement at this unexpected answer.

But Jesus did not stop there.

He went on to expand His comment to include all people, not just the rich, by adding the last part of Mark 10:24.

Jesus explained that it wasn’t just difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom – that entering the kingdom of God was a very difficult thing to do for any person. In fact, even those whom you believe to be favored by God – namely, the rich – had no better chance of entering the kingdom of God than a camel had of passing through the eye of a needle. In other words, such a thing is impossible. And if it is impossible for the rich, then it is equally impossible for the remainder of mankind.

Now Jesus had rocked the disciples back on their heels. They were “exceedingly amazed” and “astonished out of measure.”

Today we would say that Jesus had knocked the wind out of their sails, or that they were blown away by this revelation. Spiros Zhodiates explains that these phrases are used “…in the sense of knocking one out of his senses or self-possession.”[4]

The disciples were blown away by this pronouncement of Jesus, even though this was not the first time Jesus had commented on the difficulty of entering the kingdom of God. In the latter part of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said to His disciples, “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.” (Matt. 7:13-14 ESV – Emphasis added)

At this point, it appears the disciples had not yet grasped the concept of grace and still believed that men could enter the kingdom of God by merit or, in the case of the rich young ruler, by money. Now that Jesus had slammed the door on any entrance into the kingdom of God by any human means, the disciples began to marvel out loud, as explained by Mark in verse 26, asking among themselves, “Then who can be saved?”

I don’t believe at this point that the disciples were making reference to salvation as deliverance from hell and the penalty of sin as much as they were wondering who would be delivered from the wrath of God once His powerful kingdom was established on the earth. Now it appears by Jesus’ astounding pronouncement that no one could enter into the kingdom. It was an impossible thing.

Once again, Jesus knew their hearts and minds and the questions they were asking and responded by saying, “No man can enter into the kingdom by his own merit, his own goodness, his own will or design. Such a thing is impossible. Entering the kingdom of God is a very difficult thing indeed, but it is impossible for men to enter the kingdom even by their best efforts. But God, who is infinite and all-powerful and full of mercy and grace, has made this impossible thing possible.”

So to those who pronounce that becoming a Christian is as easy as A-B-C, I would answer with the very words of Jesus: “Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God!”

It is only possible because God has made it so.

Once again, this is not a new thought that Jesus is announcing to the disciples, for earlier He had given them an encouraging word concerning their entrance into the kingdom of God with emphasis on the fact that the door to the kingdom is opened from the inside, not the outside: “Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.” (Luke 12:32)

As the psalmist said, “Salvation belongs to the LORD” and “The salvation of the righteous is from the LORD…” (Psalm 3:8; 37:39)

As Jonah cried out from the belly of the fish, “Salvation belongs to the LORD.” (Jonah 2:9)

As the saints from every nation, tribe, and tongue declare around the throne, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!”, and again, “Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God.” (Rev. 7:10; 19:1)

As the Apostle John declared, “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:12-13)

When Jesus gave an invitation, He did not use A-B-C, but D-T-F.

Matt. 16:24 Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.”

The gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few. (Matt. 7:14)

Becoming a Christian is not easy. It is only possible by the supernatural power of God and the precious blood of the Lamb.

[1] Robertson, A.T. Robertson’s Word Pictures. Pierce, Larry. Online Bible Edition. Vers. 4.30. Ontario, Canada: Online Bible Foundation, 2013. Computer software. http://onlinebible.net

[2] Constable, Thomas L. Notes on Mark, 2014 Ed. Sonic Light, 2014, p. 139.

[3] Darby, John Nelson. Pierce, Larry. Online Bible Edition. Vers. 4.30. Ontario, Canada: Online Bible Foundation, 2013. Computer software. http://onlinebible.net

[4] Zodhiates, Spiros. The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament. Chattanooga, TN: AMG, 1993. 552.

Repentance, Part 6: To Follow Jesus

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Dan) — Sun, 27 Jul 2014 17:59:00 -0400

“I have decided to follow Jesus…The world behind me, the cross before me… No turning back.”

These are excerpts from the lyrics of an old but popular Christian chorus that I recently heard sung in church.

To a Christian, the sentiment and the theology behind the lyrics are quite obvious. The singer is professing that he has abandoned the lusts and temptations and desires of the world which would keep him from Christ. He has changed his focus from things of the world to concentrate on the cross. By keeping the cross before him, he seeks to remain on the path of righteousness with no thought of ever turning back.

The reality is that this is seldom true of most Christians – or more accurately, most church members who profess to be Christians. Too many of us have not turned our backs on things of this world, either materially or spiritually. Too many are still determined to live the American dream of working or winning our way into prosperity.

We still sin – sometimes egregiously. We are still guilty of covetousness, of contempt and pride and hatred, of disobedience to parents, of adultery, and of untruthfulness. We are still strongly subject to idolatry, of taking the Lord’s name in vain, and of abandoning any concept of a Sabbath.

Yet I believe God was aware of all of this when He developed the plan of redemption before the foundation of the world. He was aware of all this when He created man and placed him in Paradise. He knew that even those who professed Christ as Lord would be subject to temptation, and sin, and rebellion, and spiritual as well as moral failure. He knew it – yet He staked the future of the kingdom of Heaven on just such people. As C. S. Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity, “…apparently He thought it worth the risk.”

That is why there is grace. That is why salvation is not dependent upon a person’s goodness or behavior or even upon on a person’s confession, but on God’s call on that person’s life. That is why the evidence of being born again is not a profession, or a prayer, or a performance, but obedience.

Matt. 7:21 Not everyone who calls out to me, “Lord! Lord!” will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter.

Read Luke 6.46-49 and Matt. 7.25-26 carefully. The rock upon which the house which can withstand the floods and storms of this world is not belief or profession, but obedience.

Thus the end of repentance is not salvation or the forgiveness of sin, but obedience. True repentance is not signified by walking an aisle or by reciting a salvation prayer or by inviting Jesus to come live in one’s heart, but by fulfilling the Great Commission.

Jesus promised that He and the Father would live in the hearts of those who were obedient (John 14.23). Thus confession that Jesus is the Son of God (1 John 4.15) is not simply making a statement, no matter how sincere. Abiding in love (1 John 4.16) is not settling complacently into a peaceful and relaxed relationship with God. Both of these are actions that follow hard after and give living proof of the reality of repentance.

Jesus called to Peter and Andrew, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.” (Matt. 4.19)

Jesus did not call us simply to save us from death and hell. He saved us so that we would be able to respond to His call to obedience. God determined to build His kingdom through the labors of men and women empowered by His own Holy Spirit. He called us to come by the cross. Then, leaving the cross behind us, we are to focus our eyes on the world through which we are passing as obedient servants of the gospel. (Read Heb. 6.1-3 in the light of Matt. 29.19-20.)

Thus we should maybe rethink the old chorus. Maybe we should revise the song to say…

“I have decided to follow Jesus…The cross behind me, the world before me…No turning back.”

Repentance, Part 5

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Dan) — Sun, 13 Apr 2014 18:55:00 -0400

In my observation of religious practice, when someone mentions the word “repent,” they are most often making reference to a confession of sin and an expression of sorrow for that sin in hopes that God will be merciful towards them, forgive their sin, and rescue them from judgment.

I believe that the reason for such an inadequate understanding of repentance is directly due to the fact that such a concept has been taught from the pulpit generation after generation. Preachers and evangelists are constantly calling people to “repent of your sin” before it is too late.

The implication is that, if the preacher can convince someone of how lost they are, then they will feel enough guilt and remorse that they will repent of all their evil deeds, and God, because He is gracious, will accept that repentance as sufficient cause to respond to their repentance with salvation.

Yet, as I pray this series of articles has thus far demonstrated, there is no scriptural support for calling people to repent of their sins in the sense of confession and sorrow as a step on the road to salvation. That does not mean that confession and sorrow for sin are not an integral part of the salvation experience.

In fact, for repentance to happen there must first be a sorrow concerning our sin. Paul explained this concept in his letter to the church at Corinth: “Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation…” (1 Cor. 7:10)

(I will deal with the sorrow that leads to repentance in a later blog.)

Yet sorrow and confession alone are insufficient to bring one to a saving knowledge of Christ. The reason is that the focus of repentance, as well as the focus of redemption, is not our sin, but Christ.

The process of salvation does not end with repentance. Repentance is only part of a process that ultimately ends in worship of Christ as Lord, as Creator, as God, and obedience to His commands. Repentance, to be effective in the salvation process, must be followed by or accompanied by belief and obedience.

Here are several examples from Scripture where a form of the words repent and faith are used together.

Repent & Believe

Matt. 21:32 John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.

Acts 19:4 Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.”

Mark 1:14 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, 15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

Repent & Faith

Acts 20:21 I (Paul) have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus.

Heb. 6:1 Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God…

First, notice that there is no mention of sin in any of these verses. Go back and read them again and try to read “repent” and “repentance” without subconsciously adding the words “of sin.” It is very difficult to do because the idea is so ingrained in our minds that repentance is tied only to our sin.

Here is a paraphrase of the reference from Mark 1 to help understand how one can read the word repentance without automatically linking it to the confession of sin:

Mark 1:15 The plan of redemption that the Father set into place before the foundation of the world has come to fruition. In fact, His kingdom is right here, right now, in me, the Son of God. I call on you now to change your mind about the way you understand righteousness and reconciliation and to embrace the Father’s plan of redemption revealed by His Son, Jesus.

Second, notice that in these five references, repentance always precedes believing or having faith. This does not mean that repentance is required for belief to take place or that repentance causes belief.

The fact is that both repentance and believing are essential elements in the process of salvation. In the plan of redemption, they are, in essence, simultaneous events. There cannot be a turning to unless there is first or simultaneously a turning from – a turning away from our path of unrighteousness (repentance) and a turning toward Christ (believing).

A person may be penitent without ever believing in Christ as Savior. An example from an earlier lesson is Judas Iscariot.

A person may say they believe in Christ without ever experiencing a change of mind concerning their lives in light of the righteousness of Christ. Listen to what James had to say about faith without obedience (and without repentance):

James 2:19 You say you have faith, for you believe that there is one God. Good for you! Even the demons believe this, and they tremble in terror. (NLT)

In neither case does the person ever experience the grace of God that leads to salvation.

Third, notice the tense of the verbs in these references.

When Jesus preached His first sermon after His baptism in the Jordan River, He said, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” (Mark 1:15)

When Peter preached his first sermon after his baptism in the Holy Spirit, he said, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38)

In response to the Philippian jailer’s question concerning salvation, Paul and Silas answered, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” (Acts 16:31)

All of these verses are salvation-related verses, and all are calls to repentance and belief, not as an invitation, but as an imperative – as a command – obedience to which is a requirement of salvation.

Note that I did not say “requirement for salvation.” Repentance and belief are not actions required of a non-believer before he can know the grace of God in salvation. Instead, both repentance and belief are integral elements in the process of salvation that can never happen apart from the grace of God and without which the grace of God would be ineffective, which it never is.

Charles Spurgeon

"Repent ye" is as much a command of God as "Thou shalt not steal." "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" has as fully a divine authority as "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, with all thy strength." Think not, O men, that the gospel is a thing left to your option to choose it or not!...

God commands you to repent. The same God before whom Sinai was moved and was altogether on a smoke – that same God who proclaimed the law with sound of trumpet, with lightnings and with thunders, speaketh to us more gently, but still as divinely, through his only begotten Son, when he saith to us, "Repent ye, and believe the gospel."[1]

So we see that repentance is a command of God. We see that the goal of repentance is not simply about confessing and expressing sorrow for our sin, but about worshiping Christ. Finally, we see that repentance that leads to salvation is always followed by or accompanied by believing.

Next, we will see that both repentance and believing are gifts from God and that repentance that leads to salvation is always accompanied by obedience.

[1] http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0460.htm

Repentance, Part 4

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Dan) — Tue, 25 Mar 2014 22:09:00 -0400

The concept of repentance is so common in our language and so integral a part of our concept of salvation that the meaning of the word has become blurred and even skewed from its original meaning.

In the second article of this series on repentance I wrote about things that repentance does not mean. In the last article, I ended by stating that the focus of repentance is not our sin, but Christ.

In this article, I will try to put these ideas into a common thread in an attempt to help understand the meaning and the purpose of repentance.

Old Testament

In the Old Testament, there are two words which are most often translated repent. The first of these (nacham) is a word that is most often translated “comfort.” When it is translated as repent, the primary meaning is of regret for past actions or decisions. Very many of these are references to God, who never needs to repent of sin since He knows no sin.

1 Sam. 15:29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent (have regret, ESV; change his mind, NIV): for he is not a man, that he should repent.

(The study of the use of the word repent in relationship to God is another whole study that would merit some space, but since that is not the object of this lesson, I will defer it to another time.)

The second word used for repent (shoob) in the Old Testament means to turn or to turn back. It also may mean a change of heart. The word is used three times in the following text from 1 Kings, but translated three different ways. This is part of a prayer Solomon prayed for the dedication of the newly completed Temple.

1 Kings 8:46-49

46 When they (the people of Israel) sin against you – for there is no-one who does not sin – and you become angry with them and give them over to the enemy, who takes them captive to his own land, far away or near; 47 and if they have a change of heart in the land where they are held captive, and repent and plead with you in the land of their conquerors and say, “We have sinned, we have done wrong, we have acted wickedly”; 48 and if they turn back to you with all their heart and soul in the land of their enemies who took them captive, and pray to you towards the land you gave their fathers, towards the city you have chosen and the temple I have built for your Name; 49 then from heaven, your dwelling-place, hear their prayer and their plea, and uphold their cause.” (NIV)

Another example of the multiple use of the word shoob is found in Ezekiel 18:27-32.

Though the sample is admittedly small and the study brief, we can safely come to the understanding that the meaning of repentance is not that we repent of something, but that we turn from something. We are not instructed in Scripture to repent of our sin in the sense of calling attention to it and confessing it. Instead, we are called to turn from our sin as a result of a changed heart.

New Testament

In the New Testament, the words translated as some form of the word repent are all related to the word metanoia. The word is a compound word. The first part (meta)addresses location or direction. It “denotes a change of place or condition.” The second part refers to the mind. It means “to exercise the mind, think, comprehend.” Together, the word metanoia indicates a change in the direction or focal point of the mind. (Zhodiates 1992, 969)

To carry this a little further, the prefix meta implies “motion (in pursuit of or following) after a person or thing.” When used in a compound word, the prefix implies fellowship, partnership, participation, proximity, motion or direction after, transition, and change. (Zhodiates 1992, 966)

Based on this brief study, one immediately realizes that there is so much more implied in the word repent than simply expressing sorrow for sin or even turning from it in abhorrence, even though these are critical elements of the process.

Repentance is coming to a realization of the error of one’s plans and purposes and experiencing a turn in an opposite direction from the path regularly followed. For there to be a turning from something, there very naturally has to be a turning to something else.

In the context of the plan of redemption, that “something else” that we turn to is in actuality someone else – the person of Jesus Christ.

This is where we have gone wrong in our understanding of repentance. We have understood somewhat the idea of sorrow for our sins. As we reflect upon our sinful behavior, we may even experience abhorrence and revulsion of the sin. The problem is that with time our revulsion weakens and we never truly turn away from those sins.

And even when we attempted to turn away, we are typically unsuccessful because we never completed the process. We may have turned away from our sin for a season, but we never turn toward Christ.

Repentance means that we turn to Christ in fellowship, relationship, and obedience. He becomes the focus of our lives.

Look back at Mark’s version of Jesus’ first sermon. In Matt. 4:17, the sermon simply said, “Repent.”

But Mark added, “…repent and believe in the gospel.” (Mark 1:15)

Several times the New Testament mentions these two aspects of salvation together. That is because the process of repentance is not ended by turning from sin, but by believing in Christ as Savior.

That is the subject for the next lesson.

Proverbs & Discipleship

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Dan) — Tue, 11 Mar 2014 01:12:00 -0400

If you are following the lessons on repentance, please continue to visit. Another lesson is soon to follow. But for now, I felt that this lesson was more appropriate for the moment.

Because of the proliferation of leadership books and church growth books, most people are very familiar with Proverbs 29:18, “Where there is no vision, the people perish.”

The verse has been misused on so many occasions that we have lost sight of its real meaning. While it may not be readily apparent, we should realize that this verse is actually a verse about evangelism and discipleship.

Let’s begin with one of the most well-known verses and arguably one of the most evangelistic verses in the Bible.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (KJV)

John 3:16 For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life. (HCSB)

There is so much to say about the first two parts of this verse, but for the moment, I want to concentrate on those last few words, “will not perish but have eternal life.”

Most people know this verse and are familiar with the promise that God gives eternal life through Christ. But not so many are as familiar with the fact that, in His high priestly prayer of John 17, Jesus defined the term eternal life.

John 17:2-3 …you (God, the Father) have given him (Jesus Christ, the Son) authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

In verse 3, Jesus very clearly defines the meaning of eternal life as the knowledge of the only true God and of Jesus Christ.

Now, substitute this definition into John 3:16.

John 3:16 For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have the knowledge of the only true God and of Jesus Christ.

Notice that there is a direct correlation between perishing and the knowledge of God in John 3:16 just as there is in Prov. 29:18. From John 3:16 we learn that people are rescued from perishing by the knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ. Yet not everyone is saved from perishing. The only ones who are saved are those who believe.

Belief is the verb form for which faith is the noun. Thus believing means to exercise faith.

Yet faith is a gift from God (Eph. 2:8). It does not exist in the human heart until it is placed there by God. That’s why Jesus was authorized to give eternal life only to those whom the Father had given Him (John 17:2).

How does this happen? How does this gift of faith find its way into the human heart where it eventually blossoms into believing? The Apostle Paul explained this for us in his letter to the church at Rome.

Rom. 10:17 …faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. (ESV)

Earlier in that same chapter, Paul explained the process of hearing.

Rom. 10:14-15 But how can they call on him to save them unless they believe in him? And how can they believe in him if they have never heard about him? And how can they hear about him unless someone tells them? And how will anyone go and tell them without being sent? (NLT)

Now let us return to Prov. 29.18.

By taking some liberties and borrowing from several translations and commentaries, the verse might be written in a longer, explanatory form.

Prov. 29:18 Where there is no prophetic vision, no redemptive revelation of God, no revelation of God's will made through and by the people of God to the culture in which they live, the people of the culture are deprived of moral restraints, run wild, become ungovernable, and cannot be reined in.[i]

Here is a simpler paraphrase:

When the servants of God (individual Christians) fail to participate in evangelism and discipleship – in actively making God known to all of the people – then the people lose their moral compass, cast off all moral restraints, and everyone basically does what is right in their own eyes – in other words, they perish.

When the people of God are faithful in fulfilling the Great Commission, people are rescued.

When the people of God are not faithful in evangelism and discipleship, we get the society that we live in today.

And we wonder what’s wrong with the world! Could it be that we who call Jesus our Savior and Lord simply do not believe that the biblical process of making disciples is a sufficient way to change the world?

[i] The additional words and commentary used in this expanded version came from the ESV, the NLT, the Amplified Version, Jamieson Fausset Brown Commentary, and The Pulpit Commentary.

Repentance, Part 3

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Dan) — Mon, 3 Mar 2014 15:42:00 -0500

I apologize in advance for the technical nature of this lesson. My goal is to teach a correct doctrine, and to do that sometimes requires unteaching previous learning. If you continue through this entire series on repentance, I believe you will agree with one of the closing sentences in the previous lesson: The Bible never uses the phrase “repent of your sin.”

Such a statement may cause consternation among the faithful, but I believe you will understand the statement more once you have read through the steps of my study of the word repentance.

1. I did a word search in the Online Bible [1] for the word repent and found 112 uses of the word in its various forms in 105 verses in both the Old and New testaments. [2]

2. I found only 13 verses in both testaments that include both a form of the word repent and a form of the word sin

Furthermore, when a form of repentance is used in direct conjunction with a form of the word sin, the form of the word sin relates to a person, not an action. For example…

Luke 5:32 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

In none of these verses is the word repent directly related to the word sin. And in none of these verses, or in any other biblical verse, are we commanded to repent of our sin for salvation in the sense that it is most commonly taught.

3. There are nine verses in the Bible that use the phrase “repent of” followed by some object or objects.

Five of these verses refer to the actions of God, not to those of a person. [3]

In 2 Cor. 7:10, the phrase “repented of,” as used in the KJV, should better be translated as “regretted” or “without regret” (See almost any other translation other than the KJV).

In the remaining three verses (2 Cor. 12:21; Rev. 2:21,22), the word repent is followed by words related to sin. However, these verses are not calling for the sinner simply to sorrowfully acknowledge their sins, but to turn away from them in abhorrence due to the nature of the sin. (More on this later.)

4. As shown above, in the majority of cases, the word repent (in whatever form) is seldom ever used in the same context as the word sin. There are too many examples to list them all, but here are some examples of the use of the word repent apart from any reference to sin.

Ex. 32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Certainly the word repent in this verse does not mean that God acknowledged His sin and was sorry for it. The actual meaning of this verse is a discussion for another context, but it should be clear that since God is perfect in holiness and righteousness, He is not required to repent of sin.

When God freed the Hebrews from Egyptian captivity, the shortest route to the Promised Land was a week’s journey through the land of the Philistines, but God would not let them go that way “Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt.” (Ex. 13:17)

Obviously, God was not concerned that the people would recognize their sinfulness and express their sorrow for their behavior. He knew that upon the first encounter with an enemy, the people would change their minds about freedom and desire to return to Egypt.

In the New Testament, according to the gospel of Matthew, when Jesus began His public ministry, His first sermon was “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matt. 4:17) Jesus did not say, “Repent of your sin.” He simply said, “Repent.”

5. Finally, the word “of” is a tiny word, but understanding its meaning is very important when understanding how a verse should be interpreted. The word did not originally refer to possession but to source of origin. [4]

For example, in the KJV version of John 15:15, Jesus says, “…all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.” In the NKJV and the ESV, the statement is more clearly translated as “…all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you.”

Now go back and reread 2 Cor. 12:21 and Rev. 2:21,22, substituting the word “from” in the place of “of,” and I believe you will agree that the intent of the verses is more clearly understood.

In summary, there is no biblical reference that says that we must repent of our sins in the sense of naming them or simply acknowledging them. That is confession, which is an aspect of repentance, but which alone is insufficient for salvation.

When we think of the word repent, typically our next thought is of sin. We say or hear things like “Repent of your sin” or “If you want to go to heaven, you must repent of your sin” or “Salvation requires men to repent of their sins.” Yet there is a weakness in such an understanding of repentance.

The weakness is that we are focusing on the wrong thing – ourselves and our sin. We tend to think that we are lost because we have done bad things, therefore, we must do something good to deserve the salvation of God.

The truth is that we have done nothing to be lost except to be born in a sinful condition, which is evidenced by our immediate participation in sin. But our sins do not make us lost. We sin because we are lost.

Since we did nothing to be lost, we can do nothing to be saved. Our salvation is the decision of God by the agency of Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit. The focus of repentance is neither us nor our sin.

The primary focus of repentance is the kingdom – that is, the person of Jesus Christ.

More on this critical understanding in the next lesson.

[1] Click here to review or to download a free version of the Online Bible by Larry Pierce.

[2] Click here for a complete listing derived from the Online Bible of all verses in the Bible using a form of the word repent.

[3] Ex. 32:12, 14; Jer. 18:8, 10; Jonah 3:10

[4] Click here for a study of the use of the word “of” by Burton Scott Easton.

Repentance, Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Dan) — Thu, 20 Feb 2014 22:29:00 -0500

Before taking a look at the meaning of repentance, let’s look at what repentance does not mean.

1. Repentance is not Confession.

Most of what Christians term repentance is actually confession – the agreement with God that our thoughts, motives, actions or inactions have violated the law of God. For a person who is saved, confession of one’s sins will always bring forgiveness (1 John 1.9), but confession alone will not bring salvation to a lost person.

In fact, the only effective confession for a lost person is not a confession of sin but the confession that Christ is Lord (Rom. 10.9).

This may be a bit confusing at first, but I pray that when we get into the true meaning of repentance, this idea will become more understandable.

2. Repentance is not Remorse.

Perhaps it might be better to say that remorse is not repentance. Remorse is typically an element of repentance and a lack of sorrow for one’s sins would bring suspicion on a person’s sincerity in repentance.

Nevertheless, to define repentance simply in terms of sorrow for one’s actions or failures does not adequately define the word repent as it relates to salvation. Here is an example.

Matt. 27:3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he (Jesus) was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders. (KJV)

Judas was sorry for having betrayed Jesus, but he did not repent, for had he done so, he would certainly have been forgiven.

In the NKJV, the verse says Judas was “remorseful.” In the ESV, verse three says Judas “changed his mind.”

The Amplified Version expands on the meanings of the words even more:

When Judas, His betrayer, saw that (Jesus) was condemned, (Judas was afflicted in mind and troubled for his former folly; and) with remorse (with little more than a selfish dread of the consequences) he brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders.

According to Strong’s Concordance, the word used in this verse for repent means “to take care afterward.” This is what happened to Judas.

After Judas recognized the consequences of his actions, he was sorry for what he had done. Things did not turn out as he had hoped or planned. He even acted on his sorrow in an effort to reverse the effects of his former actions. But this was not repentance that leads to salvation because Jesus said in…

John 17:12 While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

According to Alfred Barnes, “True repentance leads to the Savior; this led away from the Savior to the gallows.”[1]

The repentance of Judas was in reality only remorse – sorrow that led him away from Jesus and to commit suicide. He is the real-life example of what Paul would later write in his letter to the church at Corinth.

2 Cor. 7.10 Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.

3. Repentance is not Resolution – an effort or determination to do better in the future.

All of us can relate to having failed on multiple occasions when we resolved to overcome some personal failure or shortcoming in our own power. Just think of how many New Year’s resolutions have ended in failure. Someone said, “A New Year’s Resolution is a to-do list for the first week of January.”

That is about how effective our efforts are at eliminating sinful behavior by resolution.

Thomas Watson wrote in 1668, “Self-love raises a sickbed repentance. But if he recovers – the love of sin will prevail against it. Trust not to such a passionate resolution; it is raised in a storm – and will die in a calm!”[2]

4. Repentance is not Penance – an activity performed to try to atone for one's own sins

When you study the meaning of the English word “repent,” you learn that it is a compound word made up of “re” and “pent” – thus it means to do penance again. The English word does very little in helping us to understand the biblical meaning of the word.

I am sure most of us have had a similar experience following an awareness of sin in our lives. We first feel great remorse and regret – wishing there was some way we could take it back (and probably hoping that our sin is never discovered).

Since we can’t, the next thing we do is think of some way we can make it up to God – maybe by doing a series of good things that will balance out the bad. One writer identified such acts of obedience as “currency by which we pay God back for his gift of the forgiveness of our sins.”[3]

This same writer included the following definition in his blog concerning repentance:

The Roman Catholic sacrament of penance is the process by which the Church absolves a penitent sinner of his sin by requiring him to (1) confess that sin to a priest, (2) demonstrate adequate sorrow over that sin (usually by a prayer) and (3) endure any temporal punishments (such as repeating prayers or performing works of service) levied by the priest in order to make satisfaction for that sin before God.[4]

This is a typical pattern that we have learned through generation after generation of misunderstanding the meaning of repentance.

· We confess our sin to God

· We tell Him how very sorry we are for having failed Him

· We promise never to do it again or that we will be very good in other ways from now on

We repeat that process over and over. Thus we do repentance – or rather re-penance – which is not repentance at all.

Notice that in each of these cases, the focus is on our sin with very little focus on Christ except as the One who can give absolution. Since that is where our focus is, we continue to return to our sin and fail time after time, in spite of our confession, our remorse, our strong resolution, and our repetitive penance.

However, the original meaning of the word repent had nothing to do with sin directly. In fact, if you do a word search of the Bible, you will never find the word repent directly connected to the word sin. The Bible never uses the phrase “repent of your sin.”

Such a statement may come as a surprise to most people, but I pray you will continue to follow this series on repentance and hopefully come to realize the true meaning of the word.

[2] Watson, Thomas. The Doctrine of Repentance. Nook Book created by Lulu.com. 2013. p 11

[3] Riccardi, Mike. "Repentance versus Penance." For Our Benefit. N.p., 13 July 2010. Web. 20 Feb 2014. .

[4] Ibid.

Repentance, Part 1

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Dan) — Wed, 5 Feb 2014 21:33:00 -0500

In my studies I ran across some very interesting articles that claimed that repentance is not part of the process of salvation – that a person does not have to repent to be saved. I was quite surprised to find that anyone could come to such a conclusion in light of the clear teaching of Scripture.

In chapter 3 of the book of Matthew, Jesus is baptized by John the Baptist in the Jordan River. In the first part of chapter 4, Jesus goes off alone into the wilderness where He is tempted by Satan.

Following this time of temptation, Jesus returned home to Galilee, where Mark tells us Jesus began to preach.

Mark 1:15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

Matthew tells us that Jesus then left His home in Nazareth of Galilee to begin His traveling ministry. He did not head into the big city of Jerusalem – the center of Judaism – as you might think He would, but He headed out into the wilderness provinces of Zebulun and Naphtali.

Matt. 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

This is the same sermon that was preached by John the Baptist (Matt. 3.2), and it is the same message that the disciples would preach when they began their first mission trips (Mk. 6.12).

Just before Jesus was ascended to the Father following His resurrection appearances, Jesus said to His disciples…

Luke 24:46 Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

Following the coming of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, the first sermon was preached by Peter. One of the primary points of his sermon concerned the need for repentance.

Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

After Peter preached in the home of the Roman Cornelius and witnessed the coming of the Holy Spirit on those who were not Jewish in national origin, he shared the good news with the leaders in Jerusalem.

Acts 11:18 When they (the Jewish leadership) heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to (all the people groups of the world) God has also granted repentance that leads to life.”

When the Apostle Paul stood face to face with the wisest men of the known world on Mars Hill in Athens, Greece, he preached to them of Jesus and the resurrection, and as he neared the end of his sermon, he said…

Acts 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.

On at least two occasions, Paul stated that his message never changed as he preached to both Jews and to those who were not Jewish…

Acts 20:21 testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

To the church at Corinth Paul would write…

2 Cor. 7:10 …godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death.

Many will argue that all that is required for a person to become a Christian is to believe. And you will notice that belief is mentioned several times in the verses quoted above. However, I want you to understand that belief is not all that is required for salvation.

As we discovered in our recent study of the Revelation on Wednesday nights, millions of people will one day believe in Christ and even recognize that He is Lord, but they will not repent which leads to their doom.

Rev. 9:20 The rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands nor give up worshiping demons and idols of gold and silver and bronze and stone and wood, which cannot see or hear or walk, 21 nor did they repent of their murders or their sorceries or their sexual immorality or their thefts.

Rev. 16:9 They were scorched by the fierce heat, and they cursed the name of God who had power over these plagues. They did not repent and give him glory. 10 The fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and its kingdom was plunged into darkness. People gnawed their tongues in anguish 11 and cursed the God of heaven for their pain and sores. They did not repent of their deeds.

Finally, the writer of Hebrews encourages the believers in the early church by writing…

Heb. 6:1 Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God.

This verse tells us that the foundation of the doctrine of Christ begins with repentance from dead works and faith toward God. Thus we see that one of the fundamental concepts of the gospel of Christ is repentance.

Having established the necessity of repentance in redemption, the next question we need to answer is “What does the Bible mean by repentance?”

I hope to explain that meaning very clearly to you next time. I warn you, you might be surprised at what we discover.

(To comment on this blog, click on comments below or click on the title and scroll to the bottom of the page.)

The Focus of Christianity

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Dan) — Tue, 4 Feb 2014 16:55:00 -0500

For the last few months in our Tuesday Night Bible Study group we have been studying the foundations of Christianity. Our purpose is to seek out the truth of what it means to be a Christian and to see if we can discover how the church has come so far afield from where God intended it to be.

We understand that the focus of Christianity is neither the church nor any creed. It is neither man nor his sin. It is not about what we believe or how we behave. All of these things are important elements in the understanding of Christianity, but none of these things are the focus of Christianity.

The primary focus of Christianity is not...

Being or becoming a better person or citizen

Becoming all you can be in life
Improving your marriage
Raising the best children you can raise
Never being homeless or jobless or free of persecution or discrimination
Receiving the fruit of the Spirit
Getting out of hell and into heaven

Surely all of these things are benefits and blessings of Christianity, but none of these things – which are the gifts of Christianity – are the focus of Christianity.

The focus of Christianity is found in the first syllable – the first six letters of the word – that is, Christ.

For too long the world has made Christianity out to be just another religious choice in a potpourri of religious choices. Indeed, many people today will admit that the reason they claim to be Christians is because they studied the major religions of the world and found Christianity to be the one that most satisfied their needs and expectations.

Others claim to be Christians because they were born into a family where Christianity was the religion of their tradition. The children continued in the footsteps of their parents, assuming that, because their parents were Christians and because they belonged to the church, they were also Christians.

Let us be reminded that God does not have any grandchildren – only children. Every child born in this world is born into sin and has inherited the sinful nature of Adam and requires a Savior – Jesus Christ – to be reconciled to God the Father.

That is why it is so imperative that Christian men understand what Paul wrote in…

Eph. 6:4 Fathers (notice that it does not say mothers, grandparents, aunts, uncles or cousins, but Fathers) do not provoke your children to anger, but (Fathers) bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.

Some claim to be Christians because they fear hell and believe that becoming a Christian will deliver them from the penalty of sin. They do not necessarily make a commitment to Christ, but they join, attend, and support the church and believe the things of the Bible. In fact, many of them can argue things of the Bible with great passion, yet make little to no application of those same biblical principles in their everyday, walking around life.

There may be other reasons that people call themselves Christians, but the Bible makes it clear that the only people who are truly Christians are those…

Who have been called by God the Father to salvation (John 6.44, 65)

Who have been born again by the word of God and the will of the Holy Spirit (1 Pet. 1.23; John 3.5)

Who have repented from sin (Acts 3.19)

Who have the Holy Spirit dwelling in their hearts (Rom. 8.9)

Who have confessed Christ as Lord (Rom. 10.9)

When our focus is on any other person or place or doctrine or blessing above the person of Christ, then our belief system is only a good religion and ceases to be worthy of being called Christianity.

(To comment on this blog, click on the blog title and scroll to the bottom of the page.)

What God Intends for Us to Know

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Dan) — Sat, 1 Feb 2014 20:18:00 -0500

As is often the case, a recent conversation with one of my best friends, Steve, turned into a discussion about the nature of God. This has been an ongoing discussion for several years and grows more interesting as time goes by.

Today, Steve asked, “You know that I am reading through the Bible…”

Actually, both of us are reading through the Bible, though we are using different plans. It is the beginning of the year, so we are both in Genesis. My wife and I are in the midst of the story of the life of Joseph. You will see why this is important as the story progresses.

Now right about here, imagine that my brain has amped up, reviewing what we are both reading, and beginning to formulate my thoughts to stay up with, or maybe even stay ahead of where Steve is going with his point. Since no one’s brain works like Steve’s and since his comments seldom give clear clues to where he is going, I’ve never been successful at this. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to stop trying.

OK. So, now I am thinking. Steve continues...

“As I have been reading lately, I’ve begun to ask the same question more and more, ‘What is it that God wanted Israel to know about Him?’ God delivered Israel after they had been slaves in Egypt for 400 years…”

Right about here in his comments, my mind takes in this new data and, at synaptic speed, continues to process: Almost everyone knows about the years of Israel’s captivity in Egypt. In addition, I had just read about how Joseph was sold into slavery in Egypt and unjustly imprisoned there by his master. In both cases, God intervened in the lives of both Israel and Joseph to free them from bondage and captivity.

So, without giving my words due consideration, I cut in...

“That God is redeemer….”

“Whoa,” Steve interjects before I could utter another word. “Wait just a minute. Let’s stop right here...”

This is not an unusual occurrence in our conversations. Once Steve is on a roll to his objective, he doesn’t want to be interrupted, especially when it is obvious that I have taken the path most traveled by and he is off on a safari to seldom trodden places. More often than not, about the time he is really into his processing and explaining, someone or something will interrupt, like the telephone will ring. This is pestilence. It seems to happen every time. Wait for it…

Steve continues...

“The nation of Israel is in slavery in Egypt, yet God was the one who put them there. He must have had a purpose in doing so, but why? And when He delivered them from slavery, it began with the Red Sea. You know that there was the I-75 route – the shortest route – right up to the Promised Land, but no, He had them turn right and travel through a wilderness. So what is it that He is trying to teach them? What is it that God wants us to learn about Him?”

So here is a clue. My mind should pick up on something here, but I am still processing along my earlier track: Not only did God deliver the Hebrews from slavery in Egypt, much later in their history they were carried off into captivity by Babylon. And, once again, God delivered them and restored them to their homeland and to Jerusalem.

All of these events – Egyptian slavery, Joseph’s imprisonment, and the Babylonian captivity – ended the same way. God delivered His people. They were all redeemed.

The same thing is true of those who know Christ as Lord. We were in bondage to sin and death until God, in His providence, redeemed us and granted us salvation and freedom in and through Christ.

So I chimed in once again...

“He is the God of redemption. God wanted the world to understand Him in terms of redemption.”

Right about here, you guessed it, “R-i-i-ing.”

Steve answers, and the conversation is ended.

I told you that Steve is my best friend, but he is also my employer. As he continued his phone conversation, I returned to the warehouse that I oversee a couple of miles away. Shortly after arriving, I am on a ladder retrieving a file when my cell phone rings.

It’s Steve.

“Remember what you said about God wanting men to understand Him in terms of redemption? You were right about that…”

At this point, I could begin to feel a bit of pride, but from experience, I know that another shoe is about to drop.

“…but...”

See? This is the way it always is. But never fear, because the outcome is always enlightening and on target. Steve has a real gift of discernment and an ability to see a picture from such a different perspective that I am seldom if ever disappointed. This case is no exception.

“…God is the one who put them there. God did not just know that Israel would be slaves; He caused it all to happen. This was His plan. But what is it that He wanted them to learn – that He wanted us to learn from all this? OK, He wanted men to learn about redemption, but I believe that there is much more to this than just redemption. ”

Everything I have shared with you so far is a summary of the events. The conversation was much longer and the dialogue much more involved. I have only used quotation marks for effect.

Now, if you will permit, I want to drop the conversation and summarize where the dialogue lead us.

God is Redeemer and Savior (Is. 43:1-3). When we come to recognize Him as our Lord and our redeemer we are thankful and our love for Him increases and motivates us to worship Him.

Yet, while it is true that God is the God of redemption, there is so much more to be understood about who He is from what He has revealed of himself in the Bible. To see Him primarily as the God of redemption is sufficient to elicit praise and worship from His people, but it is a limited concept of God.

Before there was creation – before there was redemption – there was God. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. And everything He does is for His own glory. (Isaiah 43:6-7) Stated from another perspective, God desires worship.

Angels – including Lucifer, aka Satan in later reference – were also created by God (Col. 1.16; Ez. 28:13-15). Angels were created with personal will or else Lucifer and his followers could not have rebelled against God.

As far as we know based on God’s revelation, angels cannot be redeemed. Thus Satan’s destiny has been the same since the moment he first determined to rebel against God.

So we know that angels recognize God as Lord and worship Him and apparently do so in response to some motivation – maybe even love, but that motivation is not rooted in redemption.

Steve proposed that, for a moment, we forget about redemption. Take it out of the equation. Then ask the same question, “What is it that God wants us to know about Him?”

When God repeated and reaffirmed His promise to Abraham concerning the nation that would come from his (Abraham’s) seed, He also informed Abraham that that same nation would first go through a baptism of adversity as slaves in Egypt for 400 years (Gen. 15:13). He also promised that He would judge Egypt and deliver the nation of Israel, bringing them out of Egypt “with great substance.” (Gen. 15:13-14)

Not only did God know that Israel would spend time as slaves in Egypt and ultimately be delivered from bondage. God was the instrument by which the entire process was set in motion.

The story of Joseph is one of the most interesting stories in the Bible, telling how a set of jealous brothers sold their youngest brother (Joseph) into slavery, how Joseph thrived there and later became the second most powerful man in the nation of Egypt. God instructed Jacob to take his family down into Egypt in response to Pharaoh’s invitation. Jacob was not to fear the outcome of this migration, because God would accompany the people there and would make of them a great nation (Gen. 46:2-4).

Then, at the very end of the story (Gen. 50:20), Joseph convinced his brothers that they had nothing to fear from him because, even though their original intent to harm him was evil, God intended it for good.

God is so much more than a savior. He does not exist simply to deliver us from evil. Instead, He himself orchestrates the evil itself so that it cannot help but accomplish His purpose and His will, which are always good (Rom. 8:28).

The holiness of God is not just a reference to some degree or magnitude goodness, but a statement of God’s relationship to sin and evil. When man considers sin, he is threatened by its ability to demean and destroy, and when he succumbs to temptation and embraces sin, the result is death.

However, the same cannot be said for God for He is holy, meaning that He is impervious and immune to the effects or penalty of sin and evil. In fact, sin and evil are subject to His will. Thus He may handle it, mold it, or use it in any way He chooses to accomplish His will and purpose. God’s plan in redemption is to render the redeemed holy, even as He is holy, so that we, too, are not affected by the effects of sin.

God created man to worship God, not simply for the things that God does – create, sustain, redeem – but for who God is. God is much, much more than the sum of all of His actions.

That is why He identified himself to Moses as “I AM.” God is, and therefore, we are to worship Him simply because He is.

Not only is there no other greater than God – there simply is no “other.” (Ex. 8:10, Deut. 4:35, 39; Is. 46:9) Therefore, none can hold Him accountable or overcome Him or prevent His will or teach Him anything.

He cannot even be disappointed in us, because He has no expectations of us. Based on the dictionary definition of the word, an expectation is a feeling or belief about how successful or good (or bad) something or someone will be at some future time. But God’s awareness of our future actions is not based on a feeling or faith, but on facts. He is omniscient. He has perfect knowledge of who we are and what we do or will do because He is our Creator.

When we look beyond God as simply the source of redemption and blessing and see Him in His sovereign role as Lord of eternity and of the Universe, then we cannot help but to fall on our faces and worship Him in awe and wonder, and we cannot fail to rise and apply our worship in service.

(To comment on this post, click on the title and scroll to the bottom of the page.)