The Outward Appearance

The adage is, “Don’t judge a book by its cover.” There are a lot of really good books that don’t have fancy covers, and there are other books that have really nice covers but don’t have much of anything worth reading inside. 2 Corinthians 10:7 tells us not to judge by the outward appearance. Paul was upset at the church at Corinth because they were showing favoritism based on how people looked. Some people still do that, today, even in church. Let’s be honest about it, the economy is tough. If somebody comes to church, and their Sunday best happens to be jeans and a T-shirt, what is that to you? Granted, if you have nice clothes that you could wear to church, and you choose to wear something grubby, that’s disrespectful. The question is, if someone else comes to church wearing casual attire, you should consider that those clothes might be the very best they have.

This applies to other things, as well. Some people are just big-boned, or have a really slow metabolism. If someone appears to be large enough to be unhealthy, that may be an indication that they suffer from gluttony, but that would be between them and God. For all you know, they have been dieting and/or exercising for some time now, and they just haven’t been able to lose the weight. A person’s size doesn’t have anything to do with where they stand with God, and it shouldn’t make any difference to how you treat that individual.

Now, we, as Christians, know that the outward appearance is not, and never has been, what mattered, but we also know that many other people don’t understand that. We must be ready to do good to all people, even the ones that want to nitpick how we look. Don’t misunderstand me, we as Christians should try to look our best, as ambassadors for Christ. Understand that when people don’t want what you’re trying to give them, one of the easiest ways to push back is to criticize. It’s kind of funny, isn’t it? If Ed McMahon showed up on their doorstep with a great big check, they wouldn’t tell him that he was fat, or that they didn’t like what he was wearing, they would be too excited about all that money. Here we are trying to give people something so much more valuable than simple cash, and they want to give us a hard time for not meeting their expectations as far as how we look.

The bottom line is that, even though we know better than to pass judgment, sometimes we do it anyway, so we certainly shouldn’t expect others to show us that courtesy. We just have to remember that our purpose is greater than we are, and none of us is perfect, so someone who wants to nitpick will always be able to find fault. Jesus said that if He would be lifted up, that He would draw all men unto Him. He didn’t say that if we dressed nicely, or if we had perfect figures, of if we were as handsome or as beautiful as movie stars, that we would draw people to Christ… Sharing the Gospel isn’t about us, but we should be about spreading the Gospel. If anyone wants to blame us for not sharing the Gospel effectively, based on how we look, then they should be talking to God about that, and I really don’t think that excuse is going to fly very far (if at all).

Good Job

Some time ago, there was a document that got faxed around, from office to office (back before the internet) showing Charlie Brown, with an added caption that was very un-Schulz-like, “Doing a good job around here is like wetting your pants in a dark suit. It gives you a warm feeling, but nobody really notices.” It is, to say the least, an interesting sentiment. I think that it mostly just shows that there are a lot of people that don’t feel appreciated. Of course, a lot of us aren’t really good at showing appreciation (myself included). I suspect that sometimes people are more appreciated than they realize, it’s just that the boss, the spouse, the kids, the neighbors, whatever, aren’t as good at showing appreciation as they should be.

I wonder sometimes how God feels about it. There is a story in the gospels that Jesus healed ten lepers. Imagine that, for a minute: Ten men, who, because of a disease, were made social outcasts. These men were not allowed to stay with their families, or anyone else that didn’t have the same disease. They couldn’t work; they were reduced to begging for the charity of others. There was no “Lepers Hunger Fund” in those days, whatever charity they got was on a one-on-one basis. Jesus comes across these men, and He tells them to go show themselves to the priests. As they went on their way, they were healed. One of them returned to thank Jesus. One of the ten. Jesus asked the question, “Where are the nine?” He knew, of course; He just wanted to make sure that we didn’t miss the point. Most of us don’t bother to thank God for what He has given us.

Can you imagine being cured of leprosy, and not thanking God for it? What if you were healed of cancer? What about those of us that have never had cancer? Shouldn’t we thank God for our good health? On the other hand, some of us have real health problems, but still finds ways to contribute. Let’s face it, if you have a means of thanking God, then you should be thanking God for that. If all you can do is thank God, then thank God.

Now, let’s take this the other way. If you are doing your best for God, do you think He doesn’t notice? He may not (in fact, probably will not) pat you on the head on a daily basis and tell you what a good job you’re doing, but He knows. It may seem a little unfair sometimes… Let’s be honest about this, life in general seems unfair almost all the time. Remember the workers in the field? The ones that were hired early in the day were promised a penny, the ones hired later in the day were also promised a penny, and the ones hired for the last hour of the day were also promised a penny. Is it fair that each worker got paid the same, when some of them clearly did more work? Would it be fair to the ones who were hired at the end of the day to pay them less than what they were promised? Would it be fair to pay the men hired in the morning more than what they agreed to work for that morning? The point is, God gives out His rewards at the end of life. He is going to give us more than we deserve, anyway, so it doesn’t make sense to sit and complain that someone else got more than we think they should have: They got what God thought they should get, and we got more than we should have, so what right do we have to complain about what someone else got?

Daniel 12:3

Daniel 12:3 is a verse that has come up a couple of times in the past week, and I can’t believe that it’s a coincidence, so I will attempt to elaborate on that verse today. First of all, that is part of a prophecy that was given to Daniel. The prophesy itself appears to be an end-times prophecy, but that particular verse would seem to be timeless: I do not believe that those words are just for the end-times.

It starts out talking about “the wise.” Clearly Daniel was considered to be wise, although I suspect that he would have denied that he was, pointing out that whatever wisdom seemed to come from him actually came from God. I would submit that true wisdom is simply allowing the Holy One to flow through you, and any attempt to take credit for such things would interfere with that process. In James 1, we are told that if we lack wisdom, then we should ask God for it, and that He gives liberally. James goes on to warn that we need to ask in faith believing, and that if we don’t fully believe, then we will not receive. Of course, if we ask for wisdom in order to benefit ourselves, rather than the Kingdom, we still won’t get it.

It goes on to say that the wise shall shine as the firmament of Heaven. In Matthew 5, Jesus commanded us to shine. In order for us to shine, do we have to be wise? Perhaps not, but Jesus also commanded us to be wise, anyway. In Matthew 10:16, Jesus told us to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. That’s an interesting instruction, in and of itself. How wise are serpents? Well, if you stop to consider that serpents are cold-blooded creatures who can normally find sources of warmth when it is cold, and they generally are able to sneak up on their pray when they are hungry, I’d say that they are as wise as they need to be. Of course, if we are talking about two-legged serpents, they also are good at finding sources of warmth, because they are cold-blooded creatures, they are generally good at sneaking up behind people, (or blatantly walking up pretending to be friendly) and stabbing them in the back, and are clever enough to push their own agenda, and to get what they want by whatever means is available. There is a certain wisdom there, just not the “good kind” of wisdom that we’re used to. The point is, that Jesus wants us to be as clever and as subtle as we need to be to spread the gospel, but not to use that cleverness to hurt anyone (not even people that we perceive to be enemies of the gospel). Notice again that in Matthew 5, Jesus tells us to let our light shine, that others would see our good works, and glorify our Father… I mentioned earlier that God isn’t going to give us wisdom for us to fulfill our own selfish desires. What we do, we should do for the furtherance of the gospel, and not for ourselves. Whatever we do, we should be able to do so that people would be aware of God in us, and so that they can see how much God loves them.

The passage in Daniel also talks about turning many to righteousness. Remember that we are commanded to preach the gospel to every creature. Somewhere along the line, the term creature has taken a negative connotation (I think Mary Shelley is to blame for that), but a creature is simply a created being; we are all created beings. It was pointed out to me recently that, in this particular context, the term creature doesn’t necessarily include cats and dogs, although you can practice preaching to them if you want to. I would suggest that cats make better practice than dogs, at least your own dog. Let’s face it, if you tell your own dog that baking powder mixed with Sprite makes decent shaving cream, he will look at you as if to say, “Why that’s brilliant! Thank you so much for telling me! I never would have thought of that, but now I know exactly what to do the next time I run out of shaving cream!” Very few people will react anywhere near that enthusiastically when you tell them about Jesus. I believe that cats would give a better approximation of the sort of reaction that you can expect from most people.

From Good Things to Evil Things

It’s said that the enemy of the best is the good, or even the better. It’s easy to decide that something is good enough, even when it isn’t the best, when the price tag of “the best” is prohibitive. In a lot of circumstances, that’s absolutely true. If you’re looking to buy a computer, for example, You could spend a lot of money and get the very best, fastest, and newest computer out there, knowing that in six months it won’t be any of those things any more, or you could spend a lot less for the computer that was the very best six months ago. You may even find that the very best computer for your needs isn’t the fastest or newest anyway. If your main concern is doing word processing and a little web surfing, you don’t need the graphics capability and processor speed that someone would want for playing on-line video games 23/7.

Having said that, let me point out that God wants you to have the very best. Not necessarily the best and fastest computer, or the biggest and nicest house, or the prettiest and fastest car, because all of those things are temporal. Those things really don’t mean anything in the long run. God wants us to have the best and closest relationship with Him, He wants us to have inner peace in times of trouble, He wants us to know that we will spend eternity in a good place instead of a bad one. That’s the sort of “best” that God wants for us.

The other side of that, though, is that God wants our best. He doesn’t want us to just do good things, or even better things; He wants us to do our best. Don’t misunderstand me, our best is never good enough; that’s where grace comes in, but He does want our best. In 1 Samuel 13, King Saul is waging war against the Philistines, and the prophet Samuel was supposed to meet him, but Samuel didn’t show up within the time frame that Saul was expecting him. Saul was worried that the Philistines would attack before Samuel got there, so he offered up a sacrifice to God, to try to curry favor with the Almighty before the battle began. Obviously, Saul had some good thoughts: He didn’t want to go into battle without the Lord being on his side; He was willing to make a sacrifice to God (which puts him at least one step above a lot of people). Of course, the first concern is a little backwards; it isn’t a question of whether God is on our side, it’s a question of whether we are on God’s side. Realistically, though, Israel was God’s chosen people, God wanted the best for Israel, just as He wants the best for us, and that would only include being subjugated to the Philistines if Israel needed to be taught a lesson. As far as Saul wanting to make a sacrifice unto God, in this particular instance, that wasn’t his place. To the human mind, offering a sacrifice to God would seem to be a good thing to do, but, if it isn’t what God wanted, then it isn’t such a good thing. If Saul had simply trusted God to take care of His people, there would not have been a problem. Samuel arrived well before the battle actually started, and, even after Saul’s mistake, God delivered Israel from the Philistines, but God told Saul (through Samuel) that he would be removed from being king. If Saul had truly repented, and put forth a renewed effort to try to be the sort of man that God wanted him to be, who knows whether he might have been able to turn God, as the Ninevites did? Instead, if you continue reading, you find that Saul slowly fades from being a good king (although perhaps not the best king), to being a man that tries, not only to maintain his power, but to pass it on to his sons, as God works to take power from Saul, and give that power to someone who will give his best to God, and do his best for Israel.

We can get caught up in the same thing. We can try to do good things for God, and find that what we consider good things are not the things that God wants from us. When we find that we have misjudged what God expects of us, we can develop a bad attitude, as Saul did, or we can work to improve that relationship. Seek God, pray that He would help us to become what He called us to be, or backslide. There’s a reason that it is called “backsliding;” it is when one slides back to one’s old life, and that’s a slow process. It doesn’t happen overnight, and God will generally give one lots of chances to get right, but, the sooner one starts turning things around, the easier it is. If you are climbing a hill, and start sliding back down, the sooner you catch yourself and start back up the hill again, the easier it is, but, if one lets it get too far, eventually there is no stopping; spiritual backsliding is no different.

A Heinous Sin

Part of me hates to bring it up, but rape is mentioned a few times in the Bible, and only very briefly each of those times. I believe that there are some important items for discussion in those stories. There are two women that were raped in the Bible whose stories I want to discuss.

The first one is Jacob's daughter, Dinah. It seems strange to me that there is no account at all of her reaction to being raped. I understand that the general consensus at the time was that women thoughts and feelings were not important, but it still seems strange to me. It does say that her brothers were extremely upset. Perhaps that's an understatement. Her brothers destroyed a city in order to get vengeance. Jacob felt that they overreacted. We don't really know his reaction to the rape itself, either; we only know his reaction to his sons' reaction. I can't imagine that he was happy about his only daughter being raped, but, at the same time, he clearly worried for the safety of his entire family if some other group of people decided to take vengeance on behalf of the people that his sons had killed. The thing that I find interesting is that Shechem, the man who raped Dinah, expressed a desire to take her as his wife. Was this an act of conscience? Was he saying, "Oh, I realize that I have done wrong by you, marry me, and let me try to make it right."? Maybe he just felt it was socially acceptable to rape a woman as part of the dating ritual... It just seems very odd to me; I can't imagine raping a woman, and then asking her to spend the rest of her life with the one that raped her. Can she possibly expect that to ever develop into a loving relationship? To be honest, though, I have to admit that stranger things have happened.

The other woman was Tamar. Tamar was one of King David's daughters. One of David's sons, Amnon, Tamar's half-brother, convinced himself that he loved Tamar, but that David would never let him marry her. Apparently he thought David wouldn't approve of a sibling wedding, even when the two were only half-siblings. Tamar thought that David would approve, but he wouldn't even consider approaching his father with such a request. Finally, on the advice of a friend, Amnon lured Tamar to his house, and raped her. Afterwards, having forced her, Amnon now hated her. I think, psychologically, it's fair to assume that he felt guilty, and even the sight of her reminded him of his guilt, so he couldn't stand to be around her. She, meanwhile, having a forgiving heart, was willing to spend the rest of her life with him. I cannot even imagine what that must have been like for her. He sent her away, though, even though she protested that sending her away under those circumstances was worse than the act of rape.

For what it's worth, the victim's brother(s), in both instances, reacted pretty much the same way (Tamar had a full brother, named Absolom, that later killed Amnon). Both victims’ fathers are portrayed as being pretty passive about the incidents. I can't believe that Jacob and David didn't care, but, in both instances, there were other concerns. Jacob and his sons were surrounded by other peoples, and Jacob had to concern himself with how these other peoples would react if they demanded vengeance, David had the problem that the rapist was his own son.

The attitudes of the two rapists, after the fact, couldn't be more different. One wanted to marry his victim, even though he barely knew her; the other had known his victim for years, and, up until he raped her, thought that he loved her, but after the fact, couldn't bear the thought of marrying her. Violence and sexual intimacy are two things that can change a person forever. They tell me that rape is an act of violence, not a sexual act, but even if sex is not the main intent of the perpetrator, for the victim, it is an act of sexual violation. This is the sort of thing that leaves an invisible scar. God can heal those scars in time, but for most victims, they carry that scar for all of this life. Some people won’t want to hear this, but sometimes the attackers carry scars, too. Sometimes a thoughtless act causes mental anguish later, when one recognizes the effect that the action had on other people, and feels a responsibility for it (not that all attackers come to feel responsible, but some do).

Friends of God

Relationships with God are interesting, to say the least. At one point, God told Miriam that He would speak to Moses directly, but that He would only speak to most prophets through their dreams. To be honest, not many people have had that kind of relationship with God. God spoke to Abraham directly, long before Moses. God also spoke to Balaam directly (and he wasn’t even a Jew). There were, a lot of faithful men in the Bible to whom God never spoke to, even in a dream. I’m sure God had His purpose for maintaining a relationship with Balaam, though.

In the New Testament, we find that God spoke to a few individuals here and there, and not all of them because they were good Christian people. God talked to Saul the Pharisee on the road to Damascus, evidently because Saul thought he had a relationship with God, and God particularly wanted Saul to have such a relationship, and because God had a laundry list of things for Saul to do as a Christian. Interestingly enough, God told Saul to go on to Damascus, to see what he needed to do, and then God told Ananias to go meet with Saul. In fact, God told Ananias that He had already told Saul that Ananias was coming. Peter, on the other hand, seems to have been one that God would only speak to in a dream.

Jesus said that we are His friends if we do whatsoever He commands us to do. Of course, Jesus understands that we are human, and we will never be able to do everything that we are commanded. Keep in mind, though, that He can see what’s in your heart, so He knows whether you are honestly giving Him your best. He knows whether we are His friends or not. Jesus also said that He laid down His life for His friends.

It’s clear that we should want to be friends with God. Some among us are happy to be just servants of God. Certainly, you won’t hear Him say the words, “Well done, thou good and faithful servant” unless you have actually been a good and faithful servant. Jesus isn’t going to lie to you and call you a servant if you haven’t been one. More importantly, though, you shouldn’t want to be just a servant of God, you should want to be a friend of God. Why settle for anything less?

When the Prodigal Son came to his senses, he realized that he would be better off as a servant in his Father’s household than feeding swine (and feeling jealous of how much food the pigs got). He knew that his Father was a just individual, and took care of His servants, whereas whoever he was working for cared more about the pigs than the servants. The prodigal didn’t feel right even asking to be let back into the family again, he just hoped that his Father still cared enough for him to put him on the payroll; he would have been happy just to be a servant in the house where he grew up. The Father wouldn’t have it, though; this was His son, who was back from the dead. We have the Spirit of adoption, God wants us to be His servants, but He also wants us to be His friends, and, more than that, He wants us to be His children.

The Love of God

I was listening to the radio this past weekend, and they were talking about “love languages.” They were talking in terms of married couples, that is, husband and wife, but it occurs to me that the church is the bride of Christ, so, to some extent, this sort of thing applies to all of us. Of course, it is important that we love the Lord, but we are also commanded to love one another.
All of us have needs, but we have different ways that we treat our needs. Some people advertise their needs to anyone who will listen, while others of us try to hide our needs. I don’t think that whining is a Christian virtue, but, then again, I don’t think that one should expect God to meet every need just through prayer. Somewhere in between, there is a balance. Don’t misunderstand me, sometimes God will send someone to you because you are in need and you have prayed about it. Sometimes, though, once we have prayed, we need to allow ourselves to be led to the person that God wants to have help us. The old adage is, “God helps those who help themselves.” Sometimes it isn’t enough to pray, one has to be willing to step out in faith, although sometimes praying is all one can do. Remember that God sent Philip to the Ethiopian eunuch, and He sent Ananias to Saul, but He also sent Jairus and the woman with the issue of blood to Jesus.
The flip side of this is that we, as Christians, need to be alert, aware, and prayerful of the needs of others. Just because someone voices a need, it doesn’t necessarily follow that God wants us to tend to that need; He may have a different plan than the one that seems obvious. On the other hand, just because someone doesn’t ask for our help (or even specifically says that they don’t want our help), it doesn’t necessarily follow that they don’t need it (word of caution, though, if you try to help someone who has specifically asked you not to help, make sure that it’s of God, or you’re just going to make a mess). We should have the kind of love for people that God has; to see the needs, and to be ready and able to do what’s best for those around us.
Some years ago, Twila Paris came out with a song (and an album) called, “Cry For the Desert.” At first, the title didn’t make sense to me, but after I got it home, and read through the written text that came with it, I came to realize that ‘desert’ just fits in song lyrics better than, ‘people lost in the wilderness of sin,’ which is what the song is really about. If we love each other, and we love those outside the faith, then we will have compassion for them as well. That involves seeing people the way that Jesus sees them, which isn’t always easy for us to do. More recently, Brandon Heath has come out with a song that says very much the same thing called, “Give Me Your Eyes.”

Socialism

We live in a capitalist society. I don’t think there’s anything particularly righteous about capitalism, in fact, the Bible tells us that the early church had all things common, and distribution was made according to need. That sounds like an ideal system. Unfortunately, human nature is that different people have different levels of need, and some people have a hard time distinguishing between needs and wants.
I will admit it, I have a mild form of hypochondria. It’s not serious, as a matter of fact, most of the time, I feel fine, and sometimes I feel really good. The problem is that sometimes I get sick or injured and, because I know I’m a hypochondriac, I tell myself that it isn’t that serious. I twisted my ankle a few years ago, and went to the doctor a week later because the swelling hadn’t gone down, and I was still limping. He X-rayed my ankle, and then put a cast on it. I imagine that most hypochondriacs would have gone to the emergency room that night. In retrospect, that’s what I should have done; that would have been the right thing to do. I have known other people that run to the emergency room convinced that they had broken something, and the emergency room staff couldn’t even find a bruise. So, how would we establish how much medical care each individual needs?
The same thing applies to other ‘needs’ as well. How much food do I actually need? Probably less than I actually eat. Should each person have a nutritionist to make sure that they get exactly the amount of food that they actually need, no less, and no more?
How much living space does one actually need? Should someone who is claustrophobic get larger living quarters? How do we keep people from faking claustrophobia in order to get more spacious accommodations?
Scripture also teaches us that if one will not work, neither should that one eat. I’m sure that we can all appreciate that there will always be some that can’t work, or at least, can’t work as effectively as others. If someone is disabled, should that person starve? We are also taught to be compassionate. I don’t think that God expects us to let a brother or sister suffer because of conditions beyond their control. On the other hand, though, most of us aren’t really qualified to make a determination as to who is capable of performing a strenuous task and who is not. Am I expected to take from my own family in order to feed a malingerer?
My point is, socialism, for all its detractors, has its points. In all honesty, I think, at its heart, socialism is a more righteous system then capitalism. If you are dealing with a group of people, each of whom is committed to being completely honest with each other and compassionate one towards another, socialism would be a great system. Let’s be honest about, though, the early church might have been able to pull that off, but how many of us actually believe that this would work even in our own church family? Now expand that thought: If it’s shaky in your church family (or even if you feel confident that it would work), how well would socialism work for society in general?
In short, capitalism is not without its drawbacks. There are many reasons why we, as Christians, should be pushing to have a more moral system put in place. Unfortunately, however, if there is a viable alternative to capitalism, I certainly don’t know what it is. I am quite certain that it isn’t socialism, though.

East, West, North, and South

Here’s an interesting trivia question: Which states (of the United States) are the farthest North, East, West, and South? I’ll give you a hint: The answers are not four states; the correct answer contains fewer than four states. I’ll give you another hint: Fifty years ago, the answer would have been Maine (farthest North and farthest East), Florida (farthest South), and Washington State (farthest West), but none of those states are on the list now.
Okay, I’ll admit it, it’s actually a trick question. First of all, most of us that live in the contiguous United States (or lower forty-eight) have a bad tendency to forget about the other two states, Alaska and Hawaii. Even those that think about those two realize that Alaska is the farthest North, Hawaii is the farthest South, but usually aren’t sure which one is farther West, and even then, most of would never consider either one of them to be the farthest East. They are both West of the lower forty-eight, how could either one of them be considered the farthest East? The answer is that somewhere along the line, mapmakers decided that we needed an imaginary line that splits the Eastern Hemisphere from the Western Hemisphere. This line passes through Alaska. So, in general, if one stands and faces North, then to one’s left is West, and to one’s right is East. If one stands on that line in Alaska, though, then to one’s left is East, and to one’s right is West. One could be standing two feet on either side of that line, and the normal rules apply, but, since Alaska spans the two hemispheres, it is considered to be both the farthest East and the farthest West of all the United States. Of course, this is essentially due to convention; in any given person’s mind, when traveling in a westerly direction on a spherical planet like ours, one is always moving farther West, no matter how many imaginary lines one crosses, or even if one return’s to one’s original position.

Casting Crowns released a song awhile back that asks how far the East is from the West. The purpose for the question is because the Bible tells us that when God pardons a sin, He separates that sin from us as far as the East is from the West. I want to make it clear that, in that context, at least, God has no respect for our imaginary lines (it’s possible that He has no respect for our imaginary lines in any context, I’m not sure; to be honest, I don’t know of any context where He would respect longitudinal lines). He’s not talking about standing on an imaginary line and saying, “Okay, you’re on one side of the line, and your sins are on the other.” He’s not even talking about standing at the equator and removing your sins from you by a distance of 12,500 miles (approximately half the circumference of the earth at the equator). He’s really just saying that once He forgives you, and separates your sin from you as far, or farther, than you can possibly imagine. Once God separates you from your sin, you don’t have to ever worry about hearing about that sin from God again—unless you refuse to forgive someone else. You might be very surprised at how quickly God remembers everything you ever did wrong if you refuse to forgive someone else for what they did to you. It’s no accident that Jesus said that if we don’t forgive other men’s trespasses, then God wouldn’t forgive our trespasses either.

The Spirit of Divination

In Acts 16, there is a reference which, I must admit, puzzles me considerably. Perhaps someone else has seen something here that I haven’t, and can clear this up for me. It says that Paul and Silas came across a woman who was possessed by a spirit of divination, and her masters made use of her soothsaying to make a profit. I suppose it is possible that she merely told fortunes, but I get the distinct impression that she was able to predict shortages of certain materials or foodstuffs, and so her masters were able to stock up on such things before they became scarce, and then sell them at a higher price than the norm, thereby making considerable profit. It says that she followed them around for several days, announcing that these men were the servants of God, which show us the way to salvation. Finally Paul became grieved and commanded the spirit to leave her. After that, though, the men who owned this woman got angry at Paul and Silas, and had them arrested and thrown in prison.
What I am wondering, though, is the nature of the spirit. As far as I know, angels don’t go around possessing people, nor would an angel allow itself to be used by men to turn a profit, so that would suggest that this spirit was a demon. On the other hand, if it were a demon, why did not Paul cast it out immediately upon becoming aware of it? I’m also a little concerned at the thought of a demon, apparently of it’s own volition, following around men of God, and telling anyone who would listen that these were, in fact, men who were knowledgeable in the ways of God. I think that if I were a demon, the last thing I would want people to know is how to get saved, or who to talk to about how to get saved.
Of course, if you read through the Gospels, I don’t think that there were any demons cast out by Jesus that tried to deny who He was (some people today could learn from those demons) (see Luke 4:34). I can only assume that those demons were constrained by a mightier Spirit. Perhaps the same mechanism was at play in Acts 16. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not suggesting that demons can't lie about God, or about who is truly serving God, but I do think that demons are only as powerful as God allows them to be. If God does not allow them to lie, then they cannot lie.
That still leaves the question of why Paul waited so long to cast out the demon. Perhaps because it was God’s will to let this demon (known for clairvoyance) speak the truth for a time. There were men that were making a profit off of this demon, and God may have wanted them to have no excuse, because they would have had a chance if they had listened to her. In all honesty, it seems particularly strange that these men ignored what the demon said about Paul and Silas repeatedly for days. These men got angry at Paul and Silas, because she lost her ability to divine the future. If they had kept her away from Paul and Silas, they could have continued to make money off of her. If they had listened to what she said about Paul and Silas, they might have been considerably less concerned about material things. They were worried about making money, and missed the most important thing that ever came out of her mouth.

The Four Horsemen

I’ve been doing a little catch-up lately. A while back, I suddenly lost about half the channels I had been getting from my cable provider. When I called, they told me that I wasn’t supposed to have been getting those channels, that the cable installer had actually made a mistake, and given me a much more expensive package than what I had been paying for. When I inquired as to what it would cost to get those channels restored, I was quoted a price more than double the bill I was paying. Upon reflection, I decided that it was not worth paying the extra money, but then considered what I was actually watching on the channels I was still getting, and realized that the package I was getting was not worth what I was being charged, and cancelled my cable service altogether. In the interim, the programs that I missed have come out on DVD, so I am watching TV programs that are a year or two old, a few at a time (and I am paying less for DVD rentals than what I was paying for cable, anyway).
Interestingly enough, the book of Revelation came up twice in two different shows from two different seasons. Had I actually been watching the shows when they aired, I would have seen them far enough apart that I probably wouldn’t have given it a second thought, but, they not only mentioned Revelation (although one of them consistently referred to it as Revelations), they mentioned Revelation 6, the four horsemen. One of the advantages of watching TV on DVD is that sometimes there are commentaries. Both of these shows did have commentaries by the writer. One of them admitted that he did not actually reference the Bible when he was writing the script, but that one of the actors corrected him from the set. He expressed gratitude that the actor knew the difference between the white horse and the pale horse, because someone watching the show would have caught it if they hadn’t caught it prior to filming.
I must confess, I would not have known the difference, myself. I have read Revelation more then once, but I haven’t really exerted a lot of brain grease trying to figure out what it means. I can’t help but think that, although John wrote down as accurately as he could what God had shown him, he was limited in what vocabulary existed, and that, at least in some instances, God had to show him things in a way that he could understand. In other words, the horses were conveyances, a means of getting to and from. If a modern day John were to be given the Revelation today, it is entirely possible that we would be discussing four SUV-drivers, or four airplane pilots, rather than four horsemen. My personal philosophy is that most of it (if not all of it) will be clear in retrospect, and that understanding Revelation is not a pre-requisite to understanding the rest of the Bible. Of course, if one lives life according to the teachings of Jesus, then one will be prepared for the events described in Revelation when they happen, whereas having an understanding of Revelation without living the life simply means that one knows exactly how bad one will have it as those events unfold.
Having said that, I did go look at the chapter in question, to see if I could glean any understanding of what it describes. The first horseman rides a white horse, and he carries a bow, and has a crown, and it is given to him to go and conquer. The second horseman rides a red horse, and he carries a sword, and he goes out to war against the earth. The third horseman rides a black horse, carries a set of balances, and a voice says, “A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny, and see thou hurt not the oil, and the wine.” The fourth horseman is Death, and he rides a pale horse, and goes out to kill, with sword, and by hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.
The easy stuff first: The first horseman represents someone, or perhaps many people, who wish to conquer either the whole world, or at least their part of it. The second obviously represents war. The third would represent commerce (or lack thereof). We generally think of the scales as representing justice, but in Biblical times, the scales were used extensively in trading, to measure out a specific amount (by weight) of wheat or barley, etc. Fortunately, the voice pretty much spells this out for us. Incidentally, the coin referred to here, a penny, is the same coin (even in Greek) that is used in the parable where Jesus talked about people working all day for a penny, so, apparently this is talking about people working all day to buy one measure of wheat. The fourth horseman requires no deduction: we are explicitly told that he is Death.
I got curious about the colors of the horses. Red is associated with war because it is the color of fire and of blood. Black and white, depending on the culture, generally mean life and death, or evil and purity. Of course, death of one being frequently means life for another. What color is pale, exactly? My first instinct was that a pale horse is probably light brown, or tan. I did some research, though. The Greek word that is translated as “pale” is actually chloros, which was derived from chloe. Chloe is an herb characterized by a pale, yellow-green color. The term chloros is used four times in the New Testament, and the other three times it is translated as green. Bible scholars say that the term can mean either green, or pale yellow. Apparently the translators decided that, in this case, it meant pale yellow (perhaps because they had a hard time with the idea of a green horse). Given that, in this case, pale actually means yellow, that makes our four colors black, white, red, and yellow. I can’t help but think that there is significance to the fact that people are usually described by the same colors: black, white, red, and yellow. I don’t mean to suggest that there is a correlation to a specific ethnic group and a method of destruction; simply that it seems to me that the horses in this passage represent us; we human beings are the means by which war has entered into the world, etc. I don’t think any particular ethnicity has a monopoly on nutcases with a thirst for world domination, or an ability to go to war, or a particular propensity for economic hardship, and we are all capable of dying, or of causing the death of others.
I have to also point out that a lot of people are looking for these things to come, but it occurs to me that these things have been among us for pretty much all of human history. I have no doubt that they will get worse, but I think that it is a mistake to think of the four horseman as a prophesy of some new kind of destruction, they simply represent an escalation of the things that we are already doing to ourselves.

This Is Good

I just heard this, and I think it’s a great story.

There is a story about a king in Africa who had a close friend that he grew up with. The friend had a habit of looking at every situation that ever occurred in his life (positive or negative) and remarking, "This is good!"
One day the king and his friend were out on a hunting expedition. The friend would load and prepare the guns for the king. The friend had apparently done something wrong in preparing one of the guns, for after taking the gun from his friend, the king fired it and his thumb was blown off. Examining the situation the friend remarked as usual, "This is good!" To which the king replied, "No, this is NOT good!" and proceeded to send his friend to jail.
About a year later, the king was hunting in an area that he should have known to stay clear of. Cannibals captured him and took them to their village. They tied his hands, stacked some wood, set up a stake and bound him to the stake.
As they came near to set fire to the wood, they noticed that the king was missing a thumb. Being superstitious, they never ate anyone that was less than whole. So untying the king, they sent him on his way.
As he returned home, he was reminded of the event that had taken his thumb and felt remorse for his treatment of his friend. He went immediately to the jail to speak with his friend. "You were right," he said, "it was good that my thumb was blown off." And he proceeded to tell the friend all that had just happened. "And so I am very sorry for sending you to jail for so long. It was bad for me to do this."
"No," his friend replied, "this is good!"
"What do you mean, ‘this is good!’ How could it be good that I sent my friend to jail for a year?"
"If I had not been in jail, I would have been with you."

Romans 8:28. Sometimes we don’t see the good, but it is there. We have been conditioned by the world to see things a certain way; we live in a microwave society. Many times if things don’t seem right, right now, then we assume that everything is wrong. It is sometimes hard for us to take the long view. Do you think Job understood why he was suffering? His words make it clear that he didn’t. What about the man born blind in John 9? Jesus said that this man (keep in mind that this is a grown man, not a preschooler, or a young boy) was born blind that the works of God might be made manifest in him. In this day and age, I think that a lot of people would have been upset if they found out that they had lived for many years without their sight just so that God could “show off.” Not this guy, though, he rejoiced to have been given sight. Maybe that’s why he was chosen for that purpose. Look at it from the other perspective: He was part of Jesus’ ministry, and was instrumental in making salvation available to the whole world. This is good.