Friday, August 29, 2008

The Outward Appearance

Jesus told a parable about tares growing up in a wheat field, and the workers of the field wanted to pull up the tares, but the master said, no, don’t do that, you might uproot some of the wheat, too. Just let them grow together until harvest, and then we can separate them, and burn the tares.
A tare is a weed. From what I understand, most of the time, it looks very much like a wheat plant, except that, at harvest time, because it’s a weed, it doesn’t bear any grain. Farmers generally don’t like weeds growing among their crops, but if it’s hard to tell the difference, well, then sometimes you just have to let things be. Besides, sometimes weeds get their roots entangled with the roots of other plants, so, if you pull up a tare, then you may uproot some wheat plants, too.
Some people say that the tares represent false churches. I don’t think it’s so much false churches, as just, false Christians. Don’t misunderstand me; I have no doubt that there are entire churches full of false Christians. My point, though, is that there have always been people, in and around the church, that managed to maintain the appearance of Christianity, without ever actually being converted.
Even Jesus Himself asked His disciples, “Have I not chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?” They didn’t get it. I’m not sure that even Judas realized that Jesus was talking about him. When it came down to the Last Supper, Jesus told them that one of them would betray Him, and the other eleven each asked, “Is it I?” before Judas did. Even when Judas asked, and Jesus told him to go, the others thought that Jesus was sending Judas out to buy something. Think about that for a minute: Each of the other eleven thought it more likely that he himself would betray Christ than that Judas would. Judas certainly had them fooled, didn’t he? He didn’t fool Jesus, though.
Sometimes we get caught up in appearances, even though we have been warned not to look on the outward appearance. This person seems like such a good Christian, he/she has got to have a place reserved, right by Jesus’ side in heaven. Or, this person can’t seem to do anything right, there is no way that he’s going to make it. But God looks on the heart.
Don’t misunderstand me, you can’t make it to Heaven without bringing something of worth, just as a stalk of wheat with no grain on it is just another weed, but a lot of what looks like success to us, isn’t really, and what looks like failure, at least shows a willingness to try. When you get right down to it, someone who never fails doesn’t accomplish much of anything either, because all they do is what they know they can do. People that fail are often those that will step out in faith, and say, I can do all things through Christ, which strengtheneth me, even though, sometimes, what they are doing isn’t what Christ wanted them to do. We all make mistakes. Some of us repent of our mistakes, and keep following the path that God has set before us.

Thursday, August 28, 2008

There Is No Try, There Is Only Do

James 1:22 says, “Be ye doers of the Word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.” James goes on to compare a man that hears, but doesn’t obey, to a man that looks at his reflection in the mirror, and then walks away, and forgets what kind of man he is. If you look in the mirror, and see that your hair needs to be combed, you would comb it, wouldn’t you? If you don’t like the way you look in the mirror, you would take some kind of corrective action, right? If you see something in the mirror that you don’t like, and then walk away and forget about it, what does that say about you as an individual? Worse than that, if you hear the Word, and realize that you need to make some corrections, and just forget about it, what does that say about the state of your soul?
There are a lot of passages in the New Testament that talk about doing things. In Luke 6, Jesus made a similar comparison, but Jesus compared the doer to a man who built his house upon a rock, and the hearer to a man who built his house upon the sand; one had a solid foundation, and the other didn’t. In Matthew 5:44, Jesus told us to love our enemies, to bless those that curse us, and to do good to people that hate us, and to pray for those that persecute us. In Matthew 7:12, He taught us the Golden Rule. In Mark 3, Jesus came across a man with a problem with his hand on the Sabbath day, and the Pharisees watched to see if Jesus would heal this man on the Sabbath. Jesus asked them if it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath, but they wouldn’t answer Him (of course, Jesus healed the man anyway). In Luke 17:10, we are told that when we have done everything that we are commanded to do, we are still unprofitable servants (good thing God is rich, and doesn’t need us to turn a profit). At the wedding at Cana, Mary told the servants, “Whatsoever He saith unto you, do it.” That’s good advice for all of us.
Jesus Himself said that He did nothing of Himself (John 8:28). The former blind man in John 9:33 told the Pharisees that unless Jesus were of God, He could do nothing. In John 14:12, Jesus said that we would do greater works than He did.
In 1 Corinthians 10:31, we are told that whatever we do, we should do to the glory of God. Hebrews 13:16 tells us to do good. 2 Peter 1:10 says to be diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you do these things, ye shall never fall. 1 John 3:22 says that when we ask of God, we receive, because we do those things that are pleasing in His sight.
Now, Romans 7:15-22 gets really interesting. Here Paul talks about not doing what he wants to do, but doing things he hates doing, because in his flesh dwells no good thing, so, as much as he wants to do good, he finds himself committing sin, anyway. So, if we do things that we don’t want to do, it isn’t because of us, it’s because of the sin that lives in us. Of course, if you commit sin because you want to, then you are just a sinner, but if you get caught up doing things that you really, honestly don’t want to do, then God understands. Galatians 5:17 tells us that the flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh. The two are contrary to each other, because flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, so the flesh is going to try to get its fun now, while the spirit is going to strive for an eternal reward. The question is, which one do we want in charge? Which is more important, to enjoy the pleasures of the flesh in this life, or to reap rewards in the life to come?
The bottom line is, we can never do enough, that’s why salvation is a gift. At the same time, if we don’t do anything, we aren’t going to make it. A lot of people get hung up n the ides that it is simply a matter of faith, but read Hebrews chapter 11: How is the faith of those that have gone before us described? Isn’t it by their actions? Look at James 2:17, faith without works is dead. Don’t walk around with dead faith; that doesn’t do anybody any good.

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Final Destination

I was reading something the other day; a guy claims to have found evidence that the early church believed that, although devout Christians would go to Heaven when they die, everyone else would go to a kind of a waiting place, and be allowed to repent, and work their way into Heaven later. According to this guy, the Roman Catholic Church suppressed this knowledge, for the sake of keeping better control over its members (do what we say, if you want to go to Heaven).
I have to say that my skepticism kicked in right away. This "waiting place" sounds an awful lot like purgatory to me. Now you want me to believe that the early church believed in purgatory, but the Catholics killed that idea? That sounds exactly backwards to me. Granted, purgatory is a little different; most Catholics believe that you have to be Catholic just to get into purgatory. Still, if this idea really did exist in the early church, it would seem to be the basis for the idea of purgatory, at least. Why would the Catholic Church suppress this? Is it because they would have had to add some heavy nuance to the idea to make it fit what they wanted purgatory to be? Sorry, I just have a hard time believing that.
Upon further reading, this person quotes someone named Gregory (probably Gregory of Nazianzus) as preaching this doctrine in the late fourth century. Fourth century? I thought we were talking about the early church here. I'm sorry, but to me, the early church would be the first century, maybe early second century. If you read about the Council of Nicea in the early fourth century, it quickly becomes clear that a lot of confusion had crept into the beliefs of many of those who called themselves Christians.
Unfortunately, this guy wants me to buy his book to learn more of his conspiracy theory, and, of course, I will not. I suspect that he will probably sell a lot of books to people who really just want to argue with him, and he may sell a few to people who will actually believe him. I have a feeling that the more I learn of what he is selling, the less believable it will become...
It is true that there are two different Greek words translated as Hell in the New Testament: Hades and Gehenna. Hades was where the Greeks believed evil people would be sent after death for eternal punishment, and Gehenna, derived from the Hebrew term, "Ge Hinnom" which means, the valley of Hinnom. The valley of Hinnom was just outside of Jerusalem, and it is a place that was used to burn garbage. Quite frankly, it is an apt metaphor for Hell, because the fire in Ge Hinnom was never allowed to go out, and whatever went into it never came out again.
Some people believe that the term Gehenna was intended to refer to a place of purification, or refinement, as in a purifying fire, or a refiner's fire. That might make more sense if it were not for the fact that the literal Ge Hinnom had never been used for such. It was used to get rid of undesirable things, such as garbage. The Bible does say, where a tree falls, there shall it lie. On the surface, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense; dead trees get moved all the time, just never of their own accord. If you stop to think in terms of can one be reconciled to God after death (since a tree that falls is generally dead), then it would seem that, no, just as a dead tree has no control over its final resting place, so too, we cannot influence judgment after our own passing. Furthermore, even if Gehenna is purgatory, or something like it, then why is Hades mentioned at all? Doesn't that indicate that, at the very least, some people are going to Hell?
Of course, the argument would be that if Hades and Gehenna were the same place, why did Jesus use two different terms to describe it? Why not use one or the other all the time? I would have to suggest that Jesus knew His audience. Some of the people that He preached to would not have been familiar with Gehenna (for example people that didn’t live in Jerusalem might not have been familiar with it), while others might not have been familiar with the Greek idea of Hades, so Jesus would have used the terms that made the most sense to the people that He was addressing at the time.
By the way, some people also gripe that the word Hell actually comes from the Hebrew word Sheol (not true, by the way), which simply means, grave, but, the word Hell in the New Testament, as I mentioned earlier, is translated from the Greek word, Hades, meaning place of eternal torment. Just for the record, the dictionary says that the word Hell comes from the Norse (or Viking) term, Hel, which was a place of torment for evildoers and those not fortunate enough to die in battle. Unlike Hell, though, Hel was reputed to be very cold...

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Elkanah

I have posted about Hannah before, but it occurs to me that her husband, Elkanah, deserves some attention, too. In 1 Samuel 1, Elkanah had two wives, Hannah and Peninnah. God shut up Hannah’s womb, but Peninnah had several children. Elkanah loved Hannah more than he loved Peninnah, but Peninnah took the opportunity to harass Hannah about it. I have to believe that Peninnah was jealous of the way Elkanah treated Hannah, and tried to convince Hannah (and herself) that she was the better wife, because she was providing Elkanah with a legacy.
Unfortunately, Elkanah either wasn’t fully aware of what was going on, or he just didn’t know how to deal with it. To be honest, I don’t understand why Elkanah had two wives in the first place. I realize that it wasn’t considered immoral at that time, but it was something that was usually reserved for men with some measure of power. Perhaps Elkanah was wealthy, it doesn’t say. If he loved Hannah, then why was he also married to Peninnah? I have to think that he wasn’t overly bright—having two wives just isn’t a good idea. At the same time, I know men today, that, in a situation like that, would probably tell Hannah, “What are you complaining to me for? Peninnah’s not having any trouble conceiving; the problem obviously isn’t on my end!” Apparently Elkanah was at least smart enough to realize that there would be times when he would be asleep, while Hannah was awake under his roof, possibly even in his bed. Believe me when I tell you that falling asleep while there’s an angry wife in the house is a bad idea.
I think that Elkanah tried to at least do things for her, to try to make up for her barrenness. At one point he said, “Am I not better to thee than ten sons?” For the here and now, maybe he was, but Hannah wanted a legacy. The question itself shows that maybe he didn’t really understand what she was going through (or maybe he was just frustrated because he didn’t feel that there was anything he could do). Thanks to Peninnah, Elkanah had a legacy, but Hannah wanted to have her own children and grandchildren and possibly even great-grandchildren. There was nothing Elkanah could do that would make up for that.
He could have told Peninnah to leave Hannah alone, or he would rip her lips off. Perhaps he was not aware that Peninnah was giving Hannah a hard time; possibly he had told Peninnah repeatedly to stop harassing Hannah, but she continued behind his back—He couldn’t be with them 24 hours a day, after all. Hannah doesn’t seem like the type of person that would running to Elkanah every time Peninnah said something to her, either.
Elkanah, to some extent, was caught in the middle. He had a wife that he loved very much, and she had an adversary right there under his roof. Unfortunately for Elkanah, Hannah’s adversary was just as much Elkanah’s wife as Hannah was. I’m sure that when he married two wives, he wasn’t planning on being their referee. Even more than that, though, Hannah had a problem that Elkanah couldn’t even identify with. She had no children, and it grieved her. He had children, just not by her, but he didn’t even seem to understand why it bothered her. You know, sometimes you just have to be willing to cry with someone only because you know that they are hurting, even when you don’t understand what it is that has upset them.
The bottom line, of course, is that Hannah had to go to God for her answer. God had shut up her womb, as part of a greater plan. She wanted a legacy, and, oh boy, did God give her a legacy. Not one but two books of the Bible are named for the son that she gave birth to after God answered her prayer, and she continued to have more children after that. God had a plan all right.
We need to understand from Hannah’s story that we are going to have adversaries. Whether it’s a ‘friend’ who can’t resist telling you about how good her life is (and if that’s the case, you might want to look at what you’ve got that she hasn’t got, because there is a good chance that she’s only telling you that because there’s something in your life that she’s jealous of), or a boss that sets unrealistic goals (in which case, pray for him that he could understand your job better, so that he can do his job better), or maybe just somebody that doesn’t like the fact that you are a Christian (pray for that person, too, because they really need to get saved). There is bound to be somebody, and the people that we love, and that love and care for us aren’t necessarily going to help (sometimes they honestly won’t be able to help, and sometimes they won’t understand your problem enough to be able to help, and sometimes they’ll just be too wrapped up in their own problems). Keep in mind, though, that God has a plan. His plan won’t necessarily be clear to us, but in the end, all things work together for good…
What we can learn from Elkanah’s story is that people around us are going to have problems. We won’t always be able to solve their problems (men, in particular, find it really frustrating to not be able to solve problems, even someone else’s problems—especially our wives’ problems), but we can show some sympathy, and take the problems to God. Sometimes it will take a considerable amount of work just to understand the problem, but a soul may hang in the balance. Keep in mind that oftentimes God allows problems to exist only so that He can be glorified, but we have to have the faith to see it through.

Monday, August 25, 2008

The Sons of God

In Genesis chapter 6, it talks briefly about the sons of God, and the daughters of men. It goes on to say that there were giants in the land, and that the sons of God and the daughters of men had children together. Those children became mighty men, men of renown. Some translations use the term Nephilim instead of giants. Some people teach that this is talking about angels coming to earth, sneaking around behind God's back, and fathering children. These children, the Nephilim, were giants--the progenitors of Goliath. Some even say that the Nephilim could be identified, because they had six fingers on each hand. The six fingers stems from a son of Goliath referenced in 2 Samuel 21:20 and 1 Chronicles 20:6, even though there is no reference to anyone else in the Bible having that particular distinguishing feature. I would also like to point out that it doesn't say that the giants were the children of the sons of God, in fact, it mentions the giants first, and then the sons of God having children by the daughters of men.
Now, Romans 8:14 says that anyone who is led by the Spirit of God is a son of God (unless, of course, one is a daughter of God). I think I should point out that the English language has some interesting gender protocols, as opposed to, say Spanish: In Spanish, the word for son is ‘hijo,’ but the plural of hijo (hijos) isn’t necessarily masculine, it could mean sons, or it could mean sons and daughters. I suspect that Greek is very much the same, so what was translated as ‘sons’ was probably not intended to be gender-specific. 1 John 3:1 says, "Behold what manner of love the Father hath given unto us, that we should be called the sons of God..." I have a hard time with the idea that in Genesis chapter 6, the phrase "sons of God" means angels, but every where else it is used, it means the faithful (and there are other places where the phrase is used [Hosea 1:10, Galatians 4:6, and Philippians 2:15], but only in Genesis 6 could it even be interpreted to mean angels). On the other hand, if what it is talking about in Genesis is faithful followers also, but that were then led away by women that were not faithful (that would never happen, would it? To be honest, I hate to even bring that up, having recently posted that the faithful women in Scripture far outnumber the ‘wicked’ women, but, at the same time, it does tend to be a recurring theme, faithful men getting themselves into trouble by being drawn away from God by things—or people—that look good. We have been told to walk by faith, and not by sight), then it would make sense that God's response to this was to flood the earth, wouldn't it? If it were talking about angels, then wouldn't God's response have been to do something about the angels, rather than about humans?
Further, if the Nephilim were the ancestors of Goliath, why did they not die in the flood? Did one of Noah's sons marry a woman of the Nephilim? Would she have fit in the ark? Maybe, because of their stature and greater physical prowess, they were able to tread water for forty days and nights. Oh, but it only rained for forty days and nights, it still took a considerable amount of time for the floodwaters to recede. I think that we can safely assume that the Nephilim, whatever they were, drowned along with every other living thing that didn’t make it into the ark.
I think that at best, it is considerably unlikely that angels ever had the ability to procreate. I tend to go with Kevin Smith's theory that, from a human perspective, they are as anatomically impaired as a Ken doll (granted, Mr. Smith’s theory suggests that was a change that God implemented after the Nephilim, but a God that knows the end from the beginning would seen the need to keep angel anatomy separate from human anatomy before it ever became a problem). Even if they could, I don't see how their descendents could have survived the flood. I do think that it's an interesting coincidence that, the same verse that talks about the children of God having children that were great warriors also talks about giants, and that Goliath was a giant who was a great warrior, but sometimes things just happen. There’s no real reason to believe that one has anything to do with the other.

Friday, August 22, 2008

A Piece of the Rock

There is an insurance company that advertises, “Get a piece of the rock.” Of course, they are trying to sell insurance by claiming that their company is rock solid (their corporate logo includes a stylized image of Gibraltar). I’m not about selling insurance, though, at least, not that pays out cash settlements.
In Matthew 16:18, Jesus renamed one of His disciples, who was previously named Simon, Peter. Peter is derived from the Hebrew word Petra, meaning rock. Peter was sometimes called Cephas by other disciples, because Cephas was the Chaldean word for rock (in fact, the Gospel of John even says that Jesus renamed him Cephas rather than Peter). Immediately after renaming Simon, Jesus said, “upon this rock will I build my church.” There has been some contention between Catholics and Protestants as to whether Jesus was actually saying that He would build His church on Peter… To be honest, reading this, I would tend to agree with the Catholics. Almost all of the other references to rocks or stones that the church is built on, though, suggest something entirely different.
In Matthew 7, though, Jesus talks about two men that built houses. One man built his house on a rock, and the other on sand. Jesus doesn’t really tell us much about the construction of the houses; they may have seemed identical upon completion. Later on, though, a violent storm blew in, and the house on the rock stood, but the house on the sand collapsed. I believe that’s architecture 101. A chain is only as strong as it’s weakest link, and no building is stronger than its foundation. If you aren’t building on a good foundation, whatever it is you are building isn’t going to last; that’s why construction crews work so hard on foundations before they build the actual building.
In 1 Corinthians 10:4, we are told that the Rock was Christ. At least in terms of the firm foundation, it makes sense that Christ would be the Rock; if we build our lives on His life, and on His teachings, then we have our lives founded on something that cannot be moved. There are Old Testament prophecies about this as well: In Isaiah 28:16, there is a reference to God laying a sure foundation, and a cornerstone.
Peter even refers to Jesus as the cornerstone. He goes on to call Jesus a stone of stumbling to those who refuse to believe, and a rock of offense (this is a reference to Isaiah 8:14, which Paul also refers to in Romans 9:33). In Luke 20:17, Jesus refers to the Messianic prophecy in Psalms 118:22, and says that people that fall on the rock shall be broken, but the people that the rock falls on shall be ground into powder. Neither one of those options sounds pleasant to me, but, giving it some thought, I came to the realization that, by coming to Jesus, I have been broken. My old man is dead, and the new man is reborn to live for Him. If I had not been broken, though, then eventually I would have to answer for why not, and then the Rock would fall on me, and I would be cast into outer darkness.
Peter also tells us, though, in 1 Peter 2:5 that we are all “lively stones.” I believe that this in reference to what Jesus told the Pharisees in Luke 19:40, that if the people singing Jesus’ praises were to be quiet, then the stones would begin to cry out. So, although Jesus is the cornerstone of the Christian church, we are all lively stones, raised up to praise Him (including Peter). Of course, that means that it is our duty to worship; and, to be honest, He has given us ample reason to praise and worship Him. For any that refuse to worship, God can always find another stone.
By the way, I’ve heard it said that bad things come in threes. Personally, I think that has more to do with the fact that we, as human beings tend to look for patterns, and so we ignore when a single bad thing happens, but we take notice when three bad things happen together. Having said that, my sons’ maternal grandmother died recently, a co-worker’s paternal grandmother died this week, and my favorite cyber friend lost her maternal grandfather this week. It has been difficult for the families of the deceased, and so I would like to solicit your prayers for them. Thank you.

Thursday, August 21, 2008

Letter to a Muslim Girl

It has been on my heart for some time now that there were some reports in various parts of the western world of Muslim fathers killing their daughters because of a refusal to wear a hijab to school. One would hope that these are sporadic acts by men who have come somewhat unglued. What is clear is that there is a clash of cultures resulting from immigrant parents (or, at least, very traditional Muslim parents) raising children in a western culture. I remember when I was in high school, the big thing with teen-age girls was the ability to wear make-up. Some of the parents in that area at that time didn’t think teen-age girls should be wearing make-up to school; some didn’t care. There were a number of girls who kept compacts in their lockers or purses, so that they could put on make-up at school, after their parents dropped them off, and then wash their faces before going home at the end of the school day. I personally didn’t care much, one way or the other; to be honest, most of the girls at my high school weren’t very good at applying make-up anyway; some of them actually looked better at the beginning and end of each day when they weren’t wearing make-up. Of course, it really had a lot less to do with looking good as it did fitting in. The girls who weren’t allowed to wear make-up felt out of place because “everyone else” was wearing make-up.
The point is, a Muslim girl in a predominantly “western” high school can feel very much out of place wearing a hijab, even if she really wants to wear it. Take a girl who wants to fit in, and have her parents tell her that she has to wear a hijab, mix in a little of the standard teen-age rebelliousness, stir well, and see what kind of problems float to the surface. Oftentimes Muslim parents worry that their teen-ager is becoming “westernized” and isn’t growing up to accept the values that have been important to the family for generations. I don’t really expect such parents to take advice from me, but I would like to suggest that it might be a phase. Many teen-agers go through a period where they feel mature enough to make up their own minds, but when they become adults, then they accept the values of their ancestors anyway—often without even realizing that they are doing it; these are the strongest proponents of those values, because they had the opportunity to decide for themselves what they believe.
From what I, as a Christian, understand about that culture (I started to say Muslim culture, but, to be honest, Islam is a religion, not a culture, and many Muslims don’t believe that a young woman has to wear a hijab, anyway), the hijab is a form of protection. Now, it would be easy for me to ridicule the idea that a scarf provides protection, but I want to be respectful, and I am aware that many Christians wear St. Christopher’s medals when they travel for much the same reason. I would have to contend that a hijab protects a young woman just as much as a St. Christopher’s medal protects a traveler. I think most fathers of teen-aged girls wish that they could be with their daughter all day long. Part of that is because fathers have an understanding of teen-aged boys, having been teen-agers once, ourselves. Of course, that isn’t possible. Some Christian fathers get their daughters to wear promise rings (some Christian daughters choose to wear those rings, too, but I have to believe that not every girl that wears one is sincere about it). If nothing else, promise rings and hijabs make fathers feel better about their daughters being out in the world.
I started out talking about “honor killings.” I have to put that in quotes because I fail to see any honor in the practice. I think it is abhorrent that parents would murder their teen-age child for being rebellious (“my teenaged daughter refuses to protect herself, so I will kill her rather than risk her bringing dishonor upon me.” Sorry, that’s just selfish). Here’s hoping that it never happens again. On the other hand, though, I would like to appeal to the daughters whose parents want them to wear a hijab, and do not, themselves, want to: I may not completely understand your dilemma, but I think that I probably understand about as well as anybody could who hasn’t actually been through it. May I suggest one of the things that Christians and Muslims both believe is that one should honor one’s parents. As long as you live under your parents’ roof, you should live under your parents’ rules. If your parents want you to wear a hijab to school, then wear a hijab to school. When you are older, and you are paying your own rent, then you can make your own decisions. I would suggest that, out of respect, when you go to visit your parents you should put on a hijab. If they come to visit you, the respectful thing to do would be to wear a hijab, but, in your own house or apartment, that is largely up to you. You protest that your high school friends won’t understand. I disagree. Anyone you know that doesn’t understand isn’t a good friend. Your true friends will understand, I promise.
One other thing: I know that some schools have tried to ban hijabs. There are some circumstances where wearing a headscarf is not appropriate, due to safety concerns. Some school administrators may feel that they are doing the girl a favor by not allowing her to do something that she didn’t want to do anyway, but I would have to ask the question, what about the girls that really do want to wear a hijab? Shouldn’t they have the right of freedom of expression to wear one if they want to? And as far as the girls that only wear it at their parents’ insistence, what right does the school have to undermine the parents’ authority over the child (other than for the child’s own safety—and no, wearing a hijab to school does not constitute a safety issue)? I can understand that a dress code can be a good thing, but there should be some allowance made for individual cultures. Where do we draw the line? Considering how strongly some people feel about the hijab, that’s probably not a good place to draw the line. I don’t know of any other clothing item that provokes such strong feelings, though. I realize that some schools ban promise rings, and some parents may be less than understanding if the school allows hijabs, but doesn’t allow promise rings. I’m not convinced that it’s a fair comparison, though: The hijab goes back hundreds of years and is an integral part of that culture, the promise ring is a recent development and really isn’t part of our culture at all. That might be something that should be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Peter

In Luke 22:32, Jesus tells Peter what to do “after thou art converted.” This seems like an odd thing for Him to say, Peter has been part of His ministry for three years. Peter has walked on the water; he has witnessed the transfiguration, and seen Jesus with Moses and Elijah (how did Peter know who the other two men were?); he has proclaimed Jesus to be the Christ, to which Jesus responded that that was revealed by His Father. Peter was the Rock on which Jesus would build His church. How is it that Jesus is talking about Peter’s conversion in future tense?
There are a lot of things in the Gospels that would indicate that Peter was a minister of the Gospel. He witnessed a lot of miracles: a coin in a fish’s mouth, that Peter himself hooked from the sea; his mother-in-law healed of a grave illness, a fig tree that withered because Jesus cursed it. He was right by Jesus’ side for most of the three years of Jesus’ ministry. He himself cast out demons and healed the sick.
At the same time, there are instances that showed that Peter really didn’t understand what Jesus’ ministry was all about. Once Jesus rebuked Peter sharply, because Peter promised to defend Jesus if anyone tried to hurt Him. Even after being rebuked for that, when the soldiers came to arrest Jesus, Peter grabbed a sword and was apparently ready to fight off the entire Roman army. Peter didn’t want to let Jesus wash his feet (but then when Jesus explained to him that He had to wash his feet in order for Peter to have a part in Jesus, then Peter wanted his head and hands washed, too). Peter fell asleep at the Garden of Gethsemane, during a time when Jesus most needed the support of His disciples. Peter was also the one that denied that he knew Jesus.
So what happened to cause Peter to be converted? What was the event? The big thing that happened after Jesus made that statement was that He was crucified. Remember that Jesus told Nicodemus that he had to be born again. How does one get born again? Romans 6:4 says that we should walk in newness of life after we have been buried with Him by baptism unto death. 1 Corinthians 5:7 tells us to purge out the old leaven, and become a “new lump” and makes reference to Christ being our Passover sacrifice. 2 Corinthians 5:17 says that we are new creatures in Christ; all things are become new. Hebrews 10:20 tells us that we have a new and living way, through the flesh of Jesus.
It becomes clear that being born again has a lot to do with the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, that, really, there were no Christians prior to the death, burial, and resurrection. There were followers of Jesus, but they didn’t have the whole Gospel truth, because it hadn’t happened yet. If Peter had his way, then Jesus would never have been crucified, and we would all be in our sins. Of course, Peter was converted when he understood the why of it all: that Jesus came as a sacrifice to save us from our sins.

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Balaam

In Numbers 22, there is an interesting story about a man named Balaam. It seems that Balak, king of the Moabites, had heard about the Israelites coming out of Egypt, and that God was tearing down any opposition to them along the way. Balak was worried that the Israelites were going to roll right over him and his people and there was nothing he could do about it. Balak had heard about this guy Balaam that had some kind of power, and whoever he cursed ended up in bad shape, and whoever Balaam blessed ended up prospering. So Balak thought to hire Balaam to curse Israel for him, so that they would, essentially, self-destruct, and solve Balak’s problem. Apparently the idea of creating an allegiance with the Israelites never occurred to him (Of course, in those days, forming an allegiance usually meant an exchange of money, and Balak probably thought he couldn’t afford an allegiance with such a powerful people).
So Balak’s messengers came to Balaam, and made their proposal. Balaam told them to stay the night, and he would give them an answer in the morning. Balaam did something that a lot of people would probably consider odd; he prayed about it. I wonder how many of us, if offered a huge moneymaking business opportunity, would stop to pray about it? “Why, that’s a no-brainer! Surely God would want me to have the money, so that I can better support His work…” It strikes me as particularly interesting that Balaam was not an Israelite, yet he clearly had a relationship with the one true God. How does one outside the true faith develop a relationship with the true God? I’m not sure that I have a good answer to that, but I think that it shows that God has always been accessible to everyone, even in a time when most people didn’t think that he was.
Balaam had a conversation with God, and God told him not to go with these men back to Balak. So, Balaam told the men that God wouldn’t let him go. These men went back to Balak, and told him simply that Balaam wouldn’t come; they did not explain why. The why might not have been important to Balak, anyway; Balak seems to have thought that this was a negotiating tactic. So Balak sent more men, with a bigger financial offering (I would think that he could probably have bought an allegiance with Israel with that amount of money, but he was in the mindset to do things his way—actually, I suspect that if he had sent messengers to Israel offering a simple non-interference treaty, that is, I won’t mess with you if you don’t mess with me, the Israelites probably would have gone for it, as long as there were no Moabites living in the Promised Land, and as frightened as Balak was of Israel, he might have been willing to forcibly evacuate any of his people that were living in the land that the Israelites claimed).
So, now Balaam is meeting with more powerful men in Balak’s kingdom, and they are offering him more money to come curse the Israelites. He tells them that he will not go against God; whatever God tells him to do, that’s what he’s going to do, no matter how much Balak offers. Again, Balaam invites them to stay the night, and again, he prays. This time, God tells him that, if the men ask again in the morning, then he should go with them. So Balaam gets up in the morning and saddles his donkey. He doesn’t wait to see if the men will ask, he gets ready to go. Now here’s a guy that, just hours before, said that he wouldn’t do anything more or less than what God told him to do, and now he’s going beyond his instructions.
Is he in trouble? Well, an angel met him along the way, only the angel was invisible to him. Balaam’s donkey saw the angel and took evasive maneuvers. Balaam, not understanding why his donkey wasn’t following his instructions, got upset with the donkey, and began to beat her. God opened the donkey’s mouth, and she asked Balaam if he had ever known her to disobey him. At this point, Balaam began to realize that something weird is going on (cue Twilight Zone music), but he still didn’t get it. God made the angel visible to Balaam, and explained that if the donkey hadn’t disobeyed Balaam, then Balaam would have paid the ultimate price for disobeying God. The angel even goes so far as to suggest that the donkey would have been better off obeying Balaam—at least she wouldn’t have gotten beaten.
Balaam, of course, repented, and told the angel that he was going back home. The angel told him, no, go ahead and go with these men, but keep in mind what will happen if you don’t do exactly what God tells you to do. Balaam assents, and he goes with the men.
Balaam meets with Balak, and Balak shows him the Israelites, and asks him to curse them. Balaam tells Balak that he will not do anything that God doesn’t want; and he tells Balak to prepare a sacrifice unto God. Balak does that, and Balaam pronounces a blessing on Israel. Balak, understandably, gets upset, but Balaam reminds him that he said he could only do what God would have him to do.
Balak leads Balaam to another mountain, and says that perhaps it will please God to curse them from there. Long story short, no matter what Balak does, Balaam will not speak a word against Israel. The harder Balak tries to get Balaam to curse Israel, the more Balaam blesses the Israelites.
The points we can take away from this are: Just because one has a relationship with God, it doesn’t necessarily follow that one is in the right religion. On the other hand, just because one isn’t following the right religion, it doesn’t necessarily follow that what one has to say about God is wrong, or even that God can’t speak through that individual. Also, if one has instructions from God, one should follow those instructions to the best of one’s ability. Also, if you think you’re doing the right thing, but things keep going wrong, you might want to take a minute and check to see just who it is you are fighting against. There are sometimes barriers to doing the right thing, but perseverance and God’s help will get you through, but God will also try to keep you from doing the wrong thing, but if you ignore Him long enough, He will eventually let you have your own way, but the price for that may be more than you were expecting. So pray about it; you don’t want to fight against God.

Monday, August 18, 2008

Is This For Me?

It occurs to me that many people have some confusion as to what was written to them, and what was not written to them.
Some churches actually teach that you shouldn’t read the Old Testament, because it wasn’t written for Christians. I think that is erroneous, as the Old Testament writings help one to understand the New Testament. There are many times that the New Testament refers to prophecies in the Old, which don’t make much sense without some knowledge of the Old. Further, there are many things in the Old Testament that help to illuminate the conditions under which the New Testament was written, so knowledge of the Old Testament can be very valuable in understanding the New Testament. Just as an example, I have posted before about how the Passover sacrifice compares to the crucifixion. Some of what was written in the gospels makes a lot more sense with an understanding of the Passover.
Some people are under the impression that, although the Gospels relate Jesus’ teachings, it is the epistles that really teach the message of salvation. This, too, is erroneous. The epistles were written to people who already had a relationship with Christ. Notice that generally the epistles are addressed to believers (Romans 1:7, 1 Corinthians 1:2, 2 Corinthians 1:1, Galatians 1:2, Ephesians 1:1, Philippians 1:1, Colossians 1:2, 1 Thessalonians 1:1, 2 Thessalonians 1:1, 1 Timothy 1:2, 2 Timothy 1:2, Titus 1:4, Philemon 1:1, etc. Hebrews is not addressed to anyone, James is addressed to “the twelve tribes”, but, in general), either a church, or an individual, that were already saved. I would imagine that might be possible to put together a study on salvation using only the epistles, but it would be difficult, at best; I’m not entirely sure, I’ve never tried—nor would I. The only reason that I suspect that it’s even possible is because the apostles writing letters to the churches would, at times, want to talk about what the church needs to offer to those outside the church. To be honest, though, the main purpose of the epistles was to encourage those who were already saved, not only to stay saved, but also to grow in Christ. In some cases, they were used to correct things that the churches were doing wrong. Realistically, though, if you want to learn about salvation, you should look at what Jesus taught in the Gospels, and then look at what the Apostles did with that teaching in the Book of Acts; keeping in mind that He worked with them for three years, and He wouldn’t have sent them out to spread His message unless He knew that they understood it.
There are also some people that seem to think that we shouldn’t worry too much about what the epistles say, because those were written to specific individuals or churches, and not so much to the modern church. Again, I think this idea is erroneous. The group of believers that I belong to may not be in the situation that, say, the church at Corinth was in when 1st Corinthians was written, but there is a good chance that we will be if we aren’t careful. It wouldn’t be in the Bible if it would never apply; God is not a fan of idle words. Think of it as having tools in a toolbox. Sometimes you may pick up a tool, and not recognize it, or understand what it is for, and you may be tempted to throw that tool away. You should probably put it in your toolbox anyway, because if you find yourself needing that tool later, you may not be able to find it again. God doesn’t give us tools for no reason. Sometimes He gives us tools long before we understand the reason, though.

Friday, August 15, 2008

Food

“Food, wonderful food…” A lot of people have become concerned lately, particularly here in America, that we have become, largely, a nation of obesity. I haven’t actually seen any real data on the subject, but I think it is fair to say that we are among the heaviest people on earth.
Jesus said that it’s not what goes into a person’s mouth that’s the problem; it’s what comes out of a person’s mouth. Of course, He said what, not how much. Too much of anything is a bad thing. I realize that a lot of people believe that if some is good, then more is better, but, generally, that doesn’t work out to be the case.
We know that, during the Exodus, Moses leading the Children of Israel out of Egypt, with the intention of bringing them into the Promised Land, the Children of Israel became obsessed with what hey were going to eat. In some ways, that’s understandable, they were in the wilderness, there weren’t any obvious sources of food around them, they started getting hungry, and very quickly assumed that they were going to starve to death. At the time, the dearth of edibles around them was more significant to them than the memories of the miracles that God had performed in order to get them out of Egypt in the first place. If they had stayed focused on the miracles, then they would have realized that God didn’t lead them into the wilderness to let them starve. Instead, however, they relegated the knowledge of the miracles to somewhere in the backs of their minds; even to the point of giving Moses sole credit (or blame) for leading them out of Egypt. It’s not surprising that they didn’t believe Moses could feed them. Still, when they called on Moses that they were hungry, Moses prayed to God, and God provided manna and quail. The word ‘manna,’ incidentally, comes from a Hebrew term meaning, “What is it?” They didn’t know what it was, and we don’t really know what it was, either, but it apparently provided sufficient sustenance to the Hebrews. God seemed to be okay with them wanting it (to be honest, I think He may have been a little peeved, but He understands how we are). Some of the people starting eating quail as though they hadn’t had meat in months (okay, they hadn’t had meat in a few weeks, but they could have at least they could have been more polite about it). Many people died because of their gluttony.
The early church had a similar problem. There were times when the early church came together and took communion together. Some of the people in the church clearly exhibited some form of gluttony (even to the point of some church members were unable to take part in communion, because they ran out of unleavened bread). Apostle Paul took these people to task, essentially saying, don’t come to these gatherings half-starved; if necessary, eat something at home before you come to church, and be on your best behavior with your brothers and sisters in Christ.
In Proverbs, we are told that if one is at a meal, and one knows that one is given to appetite, that one should put a knife to one’s own throat as a reminder to not eat too much. I realize that we are under a new covenant, and we have a lot more freedom now as far as what we eat, but I tend to believe that we should still watch our appetites. We should be an example of the believers in all things, including how much we eat.

Thursday, August 14, 2008

Philip and the Eunuch

In Acts chapter 8, we are told about an eunuch from Ethiopia, who had traveled to Jerusalem, and was returning to Ethiopia when Philip the Evangelist was led of the Spirit to go out into the desert and meet this man. Philip shared the Gospel with him, and they came across an oasis in the desert, and Philip baptized him.
There are several points that I would like to make here. First of all, a lot of people have come to the conclusion that this eunuch was the first Gentile to become a member of the early church. I don’t think so. The Bible tells us that the eunuch was in his chariot reading Isaiah the prophet. It seems to me that this man must have been a Jew, or he wouldn’t have been reading the Jewish text. It would seem that he was already a Jew, and had received special dispensation from his queen, Candace, to travel to Jerusalem to worship at the temple. I don’t know of any Ethiopian religion that would have required him to go to Jerusalem to worship.
Additionally, Peter is the one who was given the keys to the kingdom, and Peter is the one who, amid much criticism, baptized a Roman citizen later. Much of the time, the early church seems to divide people into two basic categories: Jews and Gentiles. Sometimes the terms used are circumcision and uncircumcision, sometimes Jews and Greeks, but, in context, it is pretty clear that the early Christians really only recognized two ethnic groups. Peter preached a sermon on the day of Pentecost that led to baptizing Jews from every nation, and Peter preached to Cornelius, a Roman, which led to, what would seem to be, the first Gentiles becoming Christians.
Another point that I would like to make is the fact that, although the Bible doesn’t tell us what Philip preached to the eunuch (it only says that he preached unto him Jesus), by the time they came to a place in the desert where there was water, the eunuch had decided that he wanted to get baptized. I have had people ask me the question, “What if you were in the middle of the desert when you realized that you needed to be baptized?” Well, of course that is exactly what happened to the eunuch. When I point that out, though, then these people generally scoff, “Oh, I suppose you think God put that water there just so the eunuch could get baptized!” I am always tempted to point out that it would be foolishness to think that the devil put that water there so that the eunuch could get baptized (okay, I admit it, I have told people that a few times. It never helps the situation, though). I certainly don’t think that it was coincidence that, just about the time the eunuch decided that he needed to be baptized, they came across a place in the desert where he could be baptized.
Another thing, too, Philip told the eunuch that he wouldn’t perform a baptism, unless the eunuch believed. It seems to have become common practice these days, most churches don’t seem to really care if you believe or not. I have heard of churches where people have been talked into getting baptized simply because the church only performs baptismal ceremonies every so often. Sometimes it is because the church is trying to set a new record (“We’ve never baptized fifty people before! Right now there are forty-nine, you could make it fifty! Come on, get baptized!”). Of course, I have known of other churches who swing the other way, refusing to baptize someone for at least three weeks using the philosophy that it is better not to get baptized than to get baptized and then lose interest within a couple of weeks. There may be some truth in that, but I can’t help thinking that it could go the other way: if I had been forced to wait three weeks to get baptized, I might have started to think that baptism wasn’t that important (particularly since the church that taught me about baptism was now delaying the event), and probably would have gone back to my old ways. I’m not sure where I would be now if that had been the case, but almost certainly I would not be a Christian now.

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

the Armor of God

Let me start with an apology. I have had a hard time coming up with a topic today, so I am posting late, and this will be a short post.
In Ephesians 6 it talks about the armor of God.
It tells us to protect our heads with the helmet of salvation. Heads are important, because that where our brains are, that’s where we think. It’s important that we keep our minds stayed on Jesus, and that we protect our thoughts.
It tells us to wear the breastplate of righteousness. This is to protect our vital organs, but most importantly, our hearts. We need to keep our hearts directed Heavenward; we need to love God with all our heart. We should not let anything interfere with our love of God.
It tells us to have our feet shod with preparation of the Gospel of Peace. We need our feet to be able to take us wherever God would have us to go, and we need to be prepared to share the Gospel with anyone we meet. Most of the people that we meet are not going to be interested in the Gospel, and that okay. We shouldn’t try to force it on them, but to be ready to share when an opportunity arises.
It tells us to carry the sword of the Spirit. The Bible tells us that the Word of God is sharper than any two-edged sword. Even if we don’t have a physical Bible with us, we should have the substance of the Scripture in our hearts. We should always be ready to give an answer of the hope that lies within us.
We should have our loins girt about with truth. We should not allow ourselves to be drawn into compromising situations; we should always be setting an example.
We must carry the shield of faith. It is a shield of protection. No warrior would ever go into battle without some form of shield. We always need to defend ourselves against the things that come against us—the fiery darts of the wicked.
Notice that it never says anything about protecting one’s back. You only need your back protected if the enemy is behind you; that should only happen if you are running away from the battle. Never run away from the battle; always run toward it.

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Cain and Abel

Cain and Abel were Adam and Eve’s first two children, or at least, their first two male children. For some reason, the Bible doesn’t mention Eve ever having any daughters. Either she just didn’t have any, and God made more people so that the children of Adam and Eve could find spouses, or, they were considered to be not worth mentioning (a lot of literature from Ancient times is like that, females of the species were somewhat undervalued).
In any case, the Bible tells us that Abel raised animals, and Cain farmed fruits and vegetables. The Bible tells us that Abel offered unto God the firstlings of his flocks. It also tells us that Cain offered unto God from what he grew in the field. God respected Abel’s offering, and blessed him, but God didn’t respect Cain’s offering. We are never specifically told why that was. Perhaps Cain did not offer enough, or perhaps he didn’t offer the right thing (the Law of Moses would indicate that God has a preference for animal sacrifices).
I don’t really think that what we are talking about is a lack of whichever things were being sacrificed to God. I suspect that it would have been written down if Cain’s sacrifice had not been of the appropriate volume. It might have been difficult for Cain to be sure what the appropriate amount was that he should be sacrificing, but if he was jealous of the kind of blessing that Abel was getting, I think that he would have made a comparison of the amount of sacrifice and, if necessary, increased his. I suspect that he may have done just that, only to find that it didn’t make any difference. I know if I was jealous of a reward that my brother was getting in return for something he was doing, my first immediate action would be to do exactly what he was doing, only more and better.
It’s also possible that the real question wasn’t so much how much of, but what. As I mentioned before, the Law of Moses lists different things that should be sacrificed for different offenses, everything from turtledoves to lambs, but very little in terms of plant life. Perhaps Cain should have traded some grain with his brother for a lamb that he could have sacrificed. It may have been a matter of pride; Cain thinking that he shouldn’t have to rely on his brother in order to please God. At the same time, surely they did trade back and forth: Abel would have wanted potatoes to go with his steak, or bread to make sandwiches… I also have a hard time believing that Cain was a vegetarian, anyway. So, would it really have been a big deal to Cain to offer a sacrifice to God something that he had gotten in trade from Abel? Probably not. To be honest, though, I think that God would have accepted a sacrifice of corn or wheat or even flour from Cain if that had been the best that Cain had to offer.
Maybe it really stems from the attitude of their respective hearts. The Bible does specifically tell us that Abel offered the first fruits; it makes no such claim about Cain. This would tend to indicate that Cain didn’t respect God in the same way that Abel did; no wonder God didn’t respect Cain. Of course, you kind of have to wonder why no one ever explained to Cain what it was that he was doing wrong. Maybe someone did, and he just disregarded it. The Bible does tell us that God suggested to Cain that if he did well, he would be accepted, but apparently Cain disregarded what God told him. Perhaps no one else realized that Cain wasn’t offering the first fruits of his harvest. That is something that really would have been between Cain and God, because it’s really a matter of attitude. It’s hard to be sure what is in someone else’s heart. Sometimes people do all the right things for all the wrong reasons, and God sees, but the rest of think that person is doing well. Other people end up getting so many things wrong, and yet, in their hearts, have a real love and devotion for God, and God sees that, too, but the rest of us just see a failure. Adam and Eve, and even Abel, may not have realized that Cain was doing wrong, up until he invented murder.
One interesting thing, as an aside: After God confronted Cain about Abel’s death; He put a mark on Cain. Many people seem to think that the mark was a scarlet letter of sorts, that it let every one know what Cain had done wrong. This is not the case; the mark was there to show that Cain was under God’s protection, and that no man was to try to exact vengeance for the death of Abel.

Monday, August 11, 2008

The Return

I have blogged before about falling from grace; it occurs to me that I should post something about the possibility of returning to grace.
Is it possible to return from a backslidden condition? One would certainly think that a loving God who created us, and has done so much to make it possible for us to be saved would understand the human condition and be understanding of human frailties that result in mistakes. He is, after all, a loving and forgiving God. If we stop to consider the parable of the lost sheep, how the shepherd left the ninety and nine to go search for the one that was lost. Wasn’t that one lost sheep part of the flock before that shepherd went to look for it? Didn’t Jesus say that the shepherd rejoices more for the one sheep that was lost than for the ninety-nine that weren’t? At first glance, that may not seem to make sense, but if you stop and think about it, the shepherd would have been so relieved that he found that sheep before some predator did. That is not to suggest that he would have willingly sacrificed the ninety-nine in order to save the one; quite frankly, it wouldn’t make sense to put even one of the ninety-nine at risk to try to find the one. The one may have already been killed before the shepherd even noticed it was gone. One sheep, off by itself, doesn’t stand much of a chance. Sheep don’t have much in the way of defense mechanisms; pretty much all they’ve got is staying with the flock. One off by itself is easy pickings for a wolf or lion. The Bible tells us that Satan is like a lion, seeking whom he may devour. He is looking for people who are not part of, or have become separated from, God’s flock. God is, of course, looking for those people, too, but He allows us freedom of choice. So, even when one has separated oneself from God, one still has a choice, whether to let God lead them back to the flock, or to stay off on their own where they become simply prey.
Is there a limit to how far God will allow us to go and still return? Jesus talked about things that one can do and still be forgiven, but he also said that there is one act that can never be forgiven. He even said that you can talk bad about Him, and it can be forgiven you. That’s pretty impressive, isn’t it? It seems to me, though, that most people that walk away from the truth end up getting caught up in their own wants and desires and end up not ever even attempting to return, anyway. These people are so involved with things that, in the long run, don’t really matter anyway. At the time, these things seem absolutely urgent, but from the perspective of eternity, really don’t matter. Quite frankly, if you take your eyes off of the prize, it is possible to become so distracted that you never look back at the ultimate gift again.

Wednesday, August 06, 2008

Genesis 9:25

Genesis 9:25 talks about Noah cursing Canaan, and this particular verse has been used to suggest that Africans, including African-Americans, are under a curse, and therefore should not be afforded the same rights as other human beings. Some churches have even taught that they cannot be saved. Let’s examine that for a few moments.
First of all, Noah had three sons, and their wives, in the ark. These sons, Ham, Shem, and Japheth, are generally considered to be the forerunners of modern race. For the most part, Japheth’s descendents settled in Europe, Shem’s in Asia, and Ham’s in Africa. There are some exceptions, of course. The name Ham actually comes from the Hebrew word for burnt, so it stands to reason that Ham was the darkest of the three, and, apparently, his wife was dark-skinned, also (we don’t know, the Bible doesn’t say anything about the wives).
It seems a little odd, though, that Canaan, Ham’s son, was cursed, even though he didn’t have anything to do with the incident that upset Noah. It seems that, after the ark landed, Noah planted a vineyard. After the grapes grew, he made wine. In the meantime, Noah’s sons were busy repopulating the earth. Anyway, when Noah got some wine made, he and his wife celebrated. Hard. Sometime later, Ham wandered by the tent door and got an eyeful. The King James Version says that he “saw the nakedness of his father.” He went and told his brothers, and they got a covering, and went backwards into their father’s tent, and covered up their parents. When Noah woke up, and realized what had happened, he cursed Ham’s son, Canaan.
Having said that, let me point out that in Leviticus we are told that one should not uncover one’s father’s wife, because it is your “father’s nakedness.” So, it would appear that the actual incident involved Ham’s mother being exposed, more than Ham’s father. Even with that understanding, we should consider that what Ham did was accidental, and probably could have been easily forgiven had he handled it differently. After all, he didn’t have to go and tell his brothers, “Hey! Guess what I just saw!” He could have done the respectful thing and covered up his parents himself, and not involve anyone else.
It also seems odd that Noah cursed Canaan, and not Ham; Ham was the one he was upset at. I’m not sure if Ham had any other children yet (Canaan is the only one mentioned so far), it’s possible that Canaan was an only child, so by cursing Canaan, Noah was cursing Ham’s lineage. In any case, Ham eventually had four sons, Canaan, Cush, Mizraim, and Put. Leviticus tells us that, when the Children of Israel came up out of Africa, they found the Canaanites living in the Promised Land. As a matter of fact, to everyone else, that land was known as Land of Canaan. The Canaanites had built up great cities, and planted fields full of crops. The Bible describes it as a land flowing with milk and honey.
Perhaps Noah cursed Canaan because he had already realized that Ham’s other three sons were good kids, but that Canaan had the worst traits of his father. I don’t know for sure. I do know that using Canaan’s curse to justify racial prejudice is just plain ignorant. Even if there are any descendents of Canaan living today, they would not have to worry about the curse, because Jesus became a curse for us. Let’s face it, without the sacrifice of Christ, we were all under a curse, and those of us who were not descendants of Canaan were not any less cursed. We have been redeemed from the curse, there is no more curse.

Tuesday, August 05, 2008

What Should We Believe?

I had someone tell me once that they think the important thing is that one believes whatever one was brought up believing. I have a problem with that, personally, and not just because I no loner believe what I was raised to believe. Oh, don’t misunderstand me, I was raised in a Christian denomination, and I am still a Christian, but I now belong to a non-denominational church. Some might not consider that a change in beliefs so much as a change in emphasis, but it seems to me that if God requires people to continue to believe what they were raised to believe, then I am in trouble. Let’s consider, for a moment, though, that the members of the early church were mostly raised to believe in Judaism. Now, again, one could say that the difference between Judaism and Christianity is more a change in emphasis than in belief. After all, the Jews believe in the Messiah, they just don’t believe that He’s come yet. I suppose that there is something to be said for that, but then a lot of the early church came from some form of paganism, if not what is now known as Roman mythology, then Greek. Surely those can’t be considered the same belief. That was different, though; God was beginning a new religion, making it available to more people. “For what purpose?” I would have to ask. Those people already believed in something. If the important thing is believing in something, and not so much believing in the right something, then why would God bother? The crucifixion was a pretty horrific experience; I don’t think that I would have even wanted to watch it, much less go through it. And yet, so many people think that Jesus went through that just to give us another option. I can’t accept that. Jesus said that He was the Way, the Truth, and the Life. He also said that no man comes to the Father but by Him. I also have to question, “What if I had been raised as an atheist?” Would that be okay with God if I disregarded all that He has done for me, simply because my parents didn’t believe in Him? Would Jesus’ sacrifice then be meaningless, because I didn’t believe? Am I absolved of doing anything for God because I don’t believe? Would I be welcomed into Heaven because I kept the teachings of my parents, even though those teachings excluded all of God’s teaching? I don’t mean to down any other religion. I have known many Buddhists that were good people. Some of them are better people than some of us who call ourselves Christians. If you know anything about Buddhism, though, you know that Buddha never claimed to be God, or even that he knew the way. He only taught that one should search out the way, and he tried to teach what he had been able to learn about the search for the way during his life. He was certainly right that we should seek the Way. Even those of us who have come to know that Jesus is the Way should seek to know Him better, and allow Him to guide our steps and direct our paths. We should never take His sacrifice for granted. If it’s possible for any living human being to be held responsible for the death of Jesus Christ, those are the people that take His suffering for granted. Those of us who have come to love Him for what He has done for us have been absolved, as long as we keep the faith. Karl Marx said that religion is the opiate of the masses. If it doesn’t matter what you believe (other than, perhaps, that it be the religion of your parents), as long as you believe something, doesn’t that make religion the placebo of the masses? Of course, I don’t believe that at all, but I think part of the problem is that people don’t think of religion as real, so they think it just doesn’t matter what you believe—one sugar pill is as good as another. The problem is that a substitute religion can never replace the truth, any more than laetrile can take the place of a good cancer treatment protocol.

Monday, August 04, 2008

My Strength

In 2 Corinthians 12:10, Apostle Paul makes an interesting statement, he says, “…when I am weak, then am I strong.” That would seem to be a contradiction, in and of itself, but I think if we spend a little time with it, we can understand what he meant by that.
There is also a passage in Hebrews in the faith chapter that talks in general terms about the heroes of the Old Testament, that they, through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens. Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:” It goes on from there, but what I want to bring out is that in the middle of that it says “…out of weakness were made strong…” So, apparently, the passage in 2 Corinthians is not an isolated incident, or accident, this is a concept that we might do well to get familiar with.
In John 3:30, John the Baptist said, “He must increase, but I must decrease.” John was, of course, talking about the fact that the purpose of his ministry was to prepare the way for Christ’s ministry, and now that Jesus was beginning his ministry, John’s ministry, of necessity, must decrease. John may very well have known that he didn’t have long to live. I don’t think that John was overly concerned about that, he knew that he had done what God wanted him to do, and he was prepared to go on to his reward. I think sometimes that we get caught up in thinking about what we think is important for us to do, instead of doing what God would have us to do. If we get too strong in our strength, we can miss the will of God. We need to be strong in God, so that when he works through us, it is clear that he is the one doing the work. In Philippians 4:13, it says, “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.”
If we examine the context of the passage in 2 Corinthians, Paul is discussing some of the things that God had allowed him to see and do. He goes on to say that he had a problem. He doesn’t go into detail about what his problem was; only that it bothered him, and he indicates that he felt he could be more effective if God would deliver him from it. He prayed about it three times, and then God told him that His strength is made perfect in weakness.
I have posted before about abiding in the vine, that when growing grapes, the tree really only provides support for the vine. The vine bears the grapes, and the vine, really does the work. We have been commanded to bring forth fruit, and yet, Jesus tells us that He is the vine, and that we are the branches. We aren’t growing the fruit; we’re only providing a vessel through which Christ can work, to bring forth fruit. Jesus even says that without Him, we can do nothing.
There is a song that they have been playing on the radio a lot lately, and one of the lines in the song is, “I’m so thankful that I’m incapable of doing any good on my own.” I am honest enough to admit that I have a hard time manufacturing any real gratitude over my inability to do any good. I am extremely grateful to understand that I am incapable of doing anything worthwhile on my own. Without God’s help, the best I can do is make a mess. Now I can make a pretty darn good mess, but, let’s face it, it’s still a mess. It might be good as messes go, but that’s really not very good.
The bottom line is, our strength, like our righteousness, really doesn’t amount to anything in the long run. God’s strength, through us, can do anything.

Friday, August 01, 2008

Security of the Believer--as Long as You Believe

In Romans 8, there is a long list of things that cannot separate us from the love of God. It would seem to be an all-inclusive list: “35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. 37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. 38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, 39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Wow. That’s encouraging. At the same time, though, in Isaiah, God says, “But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.” Is there a contradiction here? Is this Old Testament vs. New Testament? No, really it isn’t; look at the passage in Romans again. We are not promised that we can’t separate ourselves from God. Everything in the list is external to one’s self.
Many people use Romans 8 as an excuse to say that one cannot fall away, once one has made a profession of faith. It is true that God will remain faithful to us, as long as we remain faithful to Him, but He doesn’t take prisoners: You always have freedom of choice, even in terms of whether you choose to remain faithful or not.
In explaining the parable of the sower, Jesus said, “They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.” Now why would Jesus talk about falling away, if one couldn’t fall away? Further, in the parable of the foolish virgins, the foolish virgins couldn’t go in to the wedding because their lamps had gone out. Please notice that it doesn’t say that they couldn’t go in because their lamps had never been lit, which would indicate that they had never shined for Jesus, but because their lamps had gone out, they were no longer shining for Jesus.
In Hebrews 6, it talks about falling away. Some people have said that it is describing a “hypothetical situation,” something that could never really happen. It does say “it is impossible” and it also says, “if they shall fall away” but it goes on to say, “to renew them again unto repentance.” I don’t think it means that it is impossible to fall away, it just impossible to renew someone unto repentance after they have fallen away. I think that grammatically, that makes more sense, logically, it doesn’t make sense to spend so much time warning the church about falling away if that could never happen, and spiritually, if Hebrews says that Jesus is wrong, and we can never fall away, then we should disregard Hebrews (but that’s a hypothetical situation, because Hebrews doesn’t contradict Jesus).
1 Timothy 4 talks about people departing from the faith, speaking lies in hypocrisy. Should we expect to meet those people in Heaven? I think not.
In 2 Peter 2, it tells us that someone who escapes the pollutions of this world through Jesus, and then is entangled again in the things of the world, that “… it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.” Wait, you mean that it is better to be lost than to be backslid? That almost makes me wish that I had never known the truth. Then again, though, it is definitely not a good thing to be lost.
Someone told me once that you can’t ever lose your salvation, because God holds you in His hand. I haven’t been able to find that particular scripture (that doesn’t mean it isn’t there, just that I haven’t found it), but, as I said earlier, God doesn’t hold prisoners. It seems to me that, if you’re in God’s hand, and you try to leave, that he isn’t going to stop you. He will guide and direct us as long as we are willing to be led and directed, but He is not going to again stretch out His hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people. He’s had enough of that, that’s why He has chosen us, in hopes that we will not be like those people.