Why Did God Create Evil?

Some time ago I posted something on the subject of why did God create Satan. At the time, I pointed out that God created Lucifer as an angel, but that Lucifer became evil later. Someone else pointed out to me that the Bible actually says that God created evil. So, it gets more complicated. Why did God create evil? It occurs to me that perhaps the best illustration comes from an old children’s movie.

Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (the 1971 film, not Charlie & the Chocolate Factory from 2005 based on the same book) was an interesting film, to say the least. A lot of the special effects don’t look nearly so good today as they did almost forty years ago, but the film still holds up pretty well. TBH, I thought Deep Roy in CatCF made a better Oompa Loompa than the guys they had in the original. Jonny Depp made a passable Willy Wonka, but Gene Wilder was better. Also, it seemed to me that Tim Burton (who directed CatCF) missed the point of the movie (although I could be mistaken—I understand that Roald Dahl, who wrote the book, hated WWatCF).

In any case, in both films, Willy Wonka has been reclusive for many years, but for whatever reason, he decides to include golden tickets in five candy bars manufactured at his chocolate factory. Each child who collects a golden ticket is invited for a special tour of the factory. Also included is a sample of a new candy called an everlasting gobstopper. Each of the five winners is approached by a creepy, mysterious man named Arthur Slugworth, who tells them that he is the head of a rival candy factory, and that the everlasting gobstopper threatens to put him out of business, unless they sell him their sample, and his people can reverse engineer it before Wonka puts it out on the market. During the tour, each of the five children, in turn, breaks one of Willy Wonka’s rules, and is eliminated from the tour (WARNING: Spoiler Alert! Don’t read the rest of this until you have seen the movie unless you have already made up your mind that you aren’t going to watch it). Charlie’s grandfather gets angry at Willy Wonka, and tells Charlie that he should sell his gobstopper to Slugworth. Their family is not well off, and the money that Slugworth has offered would make a tremendous difference. Even watching the movie (the first time) I couldn’t help but wonder, does Willy Wonka expect these children to be perfect? Charlie considers, but, decides that Willy Wonka is right, he did break the rules, and he can’t expect any special treatment. In order to eliminate temptation to change his mind later, he makes his way to Willy Wonka’s office, where Willy Wonka looks absolutely crushed, as though he can’t believe that none of the five children could follow a few simple rules. Charlie apologizes, and returns the everlasting gobstopper. Willy Wonka’s whole demeanor changes instantly, and gets very excited that one of the children actually did the right thing. It turns out the Wonka had a pretty good idea that none of the five children would be able to follow all of the rules for the entire length of the tour, but he wanted to see if any of them would take responsibility for their own actions. He names Charlie as his heir, Charlie will inherit the Chocolate factory, and introduces Charlie to his assistant, Arthur Slugworth, who shows Charlie the other four gobstoppers. At this point, we realize that Slugworth was part of the test (and, of course, prevented the gobstoppers from falling into competitors hands to be reverse engineered). I hope that the Biblical parallels are obvious…

The point is, if there were no evil, how would we know to choose the good? If we only do good because we have no other options, what have we really accomplished? If there were no Satan tempting us, then we would have no battles, and we would have no victory. Of course, Satan is not God’s assistant, but he does God a service by providing us with choices. If we want to be the heir, though, we will fight Satan’s choices, and stick to God’s.

Being Judgmental

Last week I mentioned that we Christians sometimes come off as judgmental, and that we put too much emphasis on what a person outside the faith is doing or not doing other than coming to Christ. I neglected to mention that when a person (whether they are of the Body or not of the Body) commits sin, and we just stand by, as condoning that sin, then we become partakers of that sin. We have been commissioned to warn people about the wrath to come.

When the adulterous woman was taken before Jesus, He did not (directly) prevent her stoning, although he was certainly more compassionate towards her than her accusers; He did tell her to go and sin no more, which made it clear that her earlier behavior was not acceptable (although one would hope that her narrow escape from a death by stoning would have made that point abundantly obvious). At the same time, He didn’t browbeat her about her past sins, in fact, He said, “Neither do I condemn thee.”

When he was at the Pharisee Simon’s house for dinner, and the woman (was it the same woman? I suspect that it was, but the Scriptures don’t say) anointed His feet, Simon found fault with Jesus, supposing that Christ didn’t know what sort of woman was touching Him. Of course, Jesus did know what she had been, but, unlike Simon, He was aware that her repentance was genuine; she was no longer what the Pharisee thought she was. Unfortunately, even those of us that call ourselves Christians often have more in common with Simon than with Christ. We are very limited in what we can see and sense. Many of us have been fooled more than once by people who have offered repentance as a pretense in order to gain, and then betray, our trust. I can forgive such a betrayal, but it is very hard for me to ever again extend trust to such an individual. We look at people with our human eyes, and we see their human faults, and, well, let’s be honest about it, we pass judgment, even though we know we aren’t supposed to. What we are supposed to do is meet people where they are, and help them to see what they could be.

I have talked before about Rahab the Harlot; out of all the people living in Jericho, she was the one who showed some measure of righteousness, if only because she feared God. When the two spies went into Jericho, they didn’t pass judgment on her for her profession, they understood that she was in the same predicament as the rest of the people of Jericho; if they didn’t repent, they would all die in their sins. Of course, Rahab showed by her actions that she feared God, and she was ready to change her entire life.

I’m trying to show that there are ways to convey that certain behaviors are not acceptable (most people have a pretty good understanding of what those behaviors are anyway) without being judgmental. People outside of Christ don’t need judgment from us, they will face righteous judgment in the next life anyway; what they need is mercy (hasn’t God showed each of us more mercy than we deserve?). They do need to be warned, but that should be done as compassionately as possible. Having said that, let me also point out that some people are going to need their cages rattled before they will be ready to accept a warning. Sometimes the most compassionate thing to do is to let compassion go by the wayside and let the sinner have it with both barrels, but, that’s the exception rather than the rule. We seriously need to pray that God would allow us, and help us, to see people the way that He sees them.

Nobody's Perfect

I think we’ve all heard the expression, “Nobody’s perfect.” That’s true; God doesn’t create perfect people. Even the best of us have our faults and foibles. A lot of us are painfully aware of our own, although there are many that seem to be blissfully aware of theirs. To be honest, that kind of makes me wonder if I don’t have traits that I am unaware of, that other people are all-too aware of…

Part of the problem with that is that people outside the church will often judge the church by the people in it. If that person is a Christian, shouldn’t they act better? To be honest, all of us should be acting better than we are. Unfortunately, our human selves get the best of us, sometimes. All of us know, on some level, what we should be doing (or not doing), but find ourselves doing the wrong thing instead. I mentioned Paul’s writing recently, where he talks about doing things that he doesn’t want to do. Paul is talking about wanting to do the right thing, but then not doing it, or doing something he doesn’t want to do. He goes on to say that “it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.”

Does that mean that we shouldn’t worry about how we treat people outside the church? Should we assume that if God really wants them to be saved, that He will blind their eyes to ours faults? Let me first point out that there is no “if”—God wants them to be saved (“For God so loved the world…). Let me also point out that Apostle Paul started out as one of those nitpickers; he found fault with everything the early church did, until God opened his eyes. Let me also remind you that Jesus taught us about taking care not to offend. Okay, if you look at the accounts in Matthew and Mark, it’s clear that Jesus was talking about new Christians, but someone who has yet to be won to Christ isn’t going to become a new Christian if they become offended before they get the chance. So, we need to do the best we can with unbelievers (although not to neglect the believers) and then pray that God would cover our shortcomings.

Now, to those outside the church who are considering taking the plunge, but are having a hard time dealing with the apparent hypocrisy inside the church, I say: I understand that much of what we do seems hypocritical. We say, “Judge not,” and then we tell people how to live their lives. We say, “Love one another,” but we have lists of the type of people that we won’t associate with (as though sin were contagious). We say, “Look not on the outward appearance,” and yet look down our noses at a woman whose skirt is perhaps a little too short, or a man whose pants sag too much. Many times we worry way too much about the actions of those that don’t even claim to be Christian. If a person has no interest in Christ, and is a drunkard, does it matter that he drinks? He isn’t going to Hell because he drinks, he’s going to Hell because isn’t saved. Now, it might be much easier to get him to church if he were sober, and we certainly shouldn’t let him think that it’s okay with God if he spends his life in a drunken stupor, but the important thing is that he know what he needs to do to get right with God. Even then, if he honestly isn’t interested, then telling him about Jesus is essentially casting pearls before swine. I think that sometimes we get too involved in making sure people understand what it means to live right, when they aren’t interested in living right to start with. Often we avoid those who don’t live the life that we lead; we strengthen each other by sticking together. The point here is, we’re doing the best that we can, but we aren’t perfect, just forgiven. If you had a job to do, and you didn’t do it, and then when the boss asked you why you didn’t get your work done, all you could do is point at other people, you probably wouldn’t be collecting a paycheck for very long, at least, not if your boss was wise and fair. God is very wise and fair, and if, on judgment day, all you can say in your defense is that I wasn’t persuasive enough; that, in your mind, my mistakes outweighed the righteousness that I have tried to show you, He will remind you that your life is your responsibility. I will regret, and I will feel bad that I was unable to convince you (at least until God removes you from my memory), but, ultimately, your choice is your own, and I can only do what I can do. If my problems are really that much of a barrier to you finding your way to Christ, then I would ask that you pray for me. What good are the prayers of an unbeliever? I don’t know for sure, but I know that God listens to sincere prayer, and I know that He wants you to be saved, so if you pray for me to be a better Christian so that you can become one also, perhaps He will grant that request. Please don’t let me get in your way.

Dealing With Urges (Part II)

The last time a posted a blog, I discussed the difference between urges and sin. It occurs to me that I may not have made one point in that discussion as clearly as I could have, so I will try to rectify that now.

Jesus said that if a man looks after a woman to lust after her, he has committed adultery with her already in his heart. John said that a man who hates his brother is guilty of murder. I think that it’s a pretty safe assumption that that same train of thought applies to other things, as well. If you plan out a bank robbery, and the only thing that keeps you from carrying out that plan is the fear of getting caught, well, in God’s eyes, you’ve already been caught. Now, if you walk past a bank, and it occurs to you that it would be nice to have the money in that bank, and keep walking, and don’t think about it any more, that’s completely different. Of course, if you keep walking by that bank, thinking about how much you could use that money, then, eventually, you’re going to start thinking about robbing the bank. By the same token, if you notice a person that you find attractive walking down the sidewalk as you are driving down the street, that really just shows that your eyes and brain still work. On the other hand, if you circle the block to get another look, then you’re in trouble with God.

There’s also a difference between being angry with someone, and hating them (thank goodness). Even the best of friends have arguments occasionally. If you stop and think about it, if you and your best friend always agree on everything, then what is either of you getting out of the relationship? Oh, sure, you can have some good times, and you would probably enjoy each others company tremendously, but neither one of you is growng. The Bible says that iron sharpeneth iron. I don’t imagine that would feel too good to the iron (if iron could feel), but it’s important that your knife or sword be sharp; a dull blade doesn’t cut well. An occasional disagreement can help you to see a different perspective, to expand your horizons, as it were. Sometimes we take those unpleasant discussions too personally; a friend who points out what he or she thinks is a mistake on your part is really only trying to help you. If the mistake is actually theirs, in thinking that you have erred, well, be patient with them and explain yourself the best you can. On the other hand, if they are right that you are not acting in your own best interest, then it’s better that you listen to them. Either way, you gain valuable experience.

By the way, one other thing, when we think of lust, we generally associate that with physical attraction. I suppose that’s the most common form of sexual lust, although that doesn’t necessarily follow. For one thing, lust isn’t necessarily sexual; one can lust for money or power as well. If you desire someone because they have money, that is just as much lust as if your interest in them was purely physical. On the other hand (by now you’re probably thinking that I have too many hands), if you desire someone even though they don’t have money and you don’t find that person particularly attractive, that may or may not be lust. The real test is what do you hope to accomplish by being with them. Do you want to get married, and raise children, or maybe just grow old with them; or, do you just want what you want, with no regard for the long term? One of the problems here is that we often confuse our own motives. Amnon, the son of David, had a half-sister named Tamar that he wanted badly. If he had asked his father the king for her hand in marriage, David probably would have let them wed. I’m not sure why he didn’t ask; maybe he was afraid that David would refuse, and take steps to keep those two apart, or maybe he was afraid that he would actually wind up married to her. In any case, he got what he wanted by subtlety, and his guilt turned into hatred towards her. I feel pretty confident that he wouldn’t have done what he did if he had realized that it would cause him to hate her; I also feel confident that if he had really loved her, he would have simply married her. In any case, he wanted what he wanted, and he spent way too much time trying to figure out how to get what he wanted by trickery without thinking through the consequences of his actions. If he had just walked away from the urge…

Dealing with Urges

I recently heard from someone who has written a great many Christian songs, with powerful lyrics, and, if I understand him correctly, has chosen to give up the fight. His logic comes down to, God made me what I am, but what I am doesn’t conform to Scripture, therefore, the Scripture must be wrong. Surely God created me as He wanted me to be.

That’s a strong argument, and, to be honest, one that I have fallen for myself, in the past. I will admit that I get urges that don’t conform to the dictates of scripture. It would be nice if, once one has dedicated one’s life to Christ, all the negative influences just went away. Some of the thoughts that pop into my head are just incomprehensible, yet they keep coming. As I spend more time studying Scripture, and praying, they come less frequently, and less powerfully, but they still come. Scripture tells us that the creation has no right to ask the creator, “Why hast thou made me thus?” Yet, we, as human beings, can’t seem to help but wonder why it is that God created us as we are. I think that it is significant that we are not just slaves to our DNA, but we are affected by environment, as well.

Still, Apostle Paul once wrote that he was aware that in his flesh was no good thing. David wrote that he was conceived in sin, even though his parents were married at the time. None of us are strangers to temptation. Even Jesus was tempted, but He withstood the temptation, and set an example for the rest of us. It is important that we be prepared to fight ourselves. It is not by accident that scripture says that the Kingdom of Heaven suffereth violence, and the violent taketh it by force. It isn’t Heaven that we are fighting, though, it is ourselves, our sins, our transgressions, and our temptations.

We have been commanded to walk in the Spirit, so that we will not fulfill the lust of the flesh. It is important that we strive. The Bible also says that the righteous are scarcely saved. It is important to remember the difference between being “good” and being “righteous.” There are a lot of good people; there are not so many righteous. We have to remember that we are not worthy of the gift of salvation, but we shouldn’t use that as an excuse to sit back and do nothing. We have a duty and a responsibility to do what is right, even when we don’t feel like it, and when it isn’t convenient. God didn’t call us to watch. It’s easy to say that if it’s truly God’s will, it will come to pass, but it’s much more convicting to say that if it is to be, it’s truly up to me.

Jonah ran from God, and God had to persuade him to do God’s will. I’m not sure of Jonah’s motivation; it’s been suggested that Jonah didn’t like the Ninevites, and was afraid that if he preached to them, they would repent, and God wouldn’t destroy them. He seemed to understand that God wanted to save them. We can’t count on God holding off on judgment until we get ready to preach, though. The Bible talks about people being in the valley of decision; what if there is someone ready to receive while I am busy with my own concerns, but it is their last chance? That person may not make it, because I wasn’t focused on following the leading of the Holy Ghost. What can I say to that person?

The bottom line is, there will always be distractions, urges, temptations; anything to keep us from doing what God has called us to do. We need to remain focused, allow ourselves to be led of God, and do whatever it is that needs to be done. How do we grow closer to God so that we can hear His voice more clearly? I would recommend prayer and fasting.

Tithing

It occurs to me that there seems to be some confusion concerning tithing in the New Testament.

Really, not a lot is said about tithing in the New Testament. Jesus once got onto the Pharisees about paying tithes of mint, cumin, and anise. He didn’t say that they were wrong for tithing, but he did tell them that they had neglected the weightier (or more important) parts of the law. I had someone tell me once that the Pharisees were so legalistic that they were counting the leaves on the plants in their gardens and cutting off one-tenth of the new leaves to give to the temple. I have two problems with that: One, Jesus didn’t even suggest that they were wrong for doing what they did, in fact, he said, “These ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.” Two, these plants are not known for their blossoms. All three are known for their aroma; they are sometimes used in perfumes, and in cooking. Even today, in many countries where rainfall is scarce, spices such as these are used to mask the unpleasant smells that result from infrequent bathing. It may occur to you that Ancient Israel didn’t get a lot of rain. My point is that the Pharisees were probably not growing these plants as a hobby, they were probably making a living by selling these spices. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the Pharisees didn’t start out growing these plants specifically to be used in the Temple, but then were allowed to sell the excess to pay their living expenses. If that were the case, though, wouldn’t they be expected to tithe of the money they received by selling the excess, rather than to simply tithe of what they were ostensibly growing for the Temple? I don’t know for sure, that’s really just supposition on my part.

In any case, a lot of people seem to think that tithing was part of the law, and, since we are not under the law, but under Grace, then tithing is no longer required. I would have to argue that. Very little is actually said about tithing in the New Testament. There is the passage mentioned above, and a similar passage in Luke (although this one mentions rue—also known for being very aromatic—and “other herbs” rather than cumin and anise); there is also a passage in Luke where Jesus compared a proud Pharisee to a humble sinner who were praying in the Temple at the same time; and then there is a passage in Hebrews where Apostle Paul reminds us of the Priest Melchisedec, to whom Abraham paid tithes after the slaughter of the kings. Now Abraham lived long before Moses the Lawgiver, so clearly he did not do what he did because of any requirement of the Law. We, of course, claim to be led of the Spirit. Are we not led by the same Spirit that led Abraham to pay tithes to Melchisedec? If the spirit that’s leading you isn’t directing you to pay tithes, then I would strongly suggest that you carefully examine yourself, and see what spirit it is that you are following.

Another argument that has been made is that, “God doesn’t need my money.” You’re right, He doesn’t. He didn’t need Esther to approach King Ahasuerus, either, but it was His will that she do that. By giving you an opportunity to pay tithes, God is offering you the chance to reap a blessing. I would advice caution, though; there are a lot of people out there that claim to be ministers of the Gospel that are no different than the money-changers in the Temple… Before you pay a tithe to a man, an organization, or even a church, spend some time in prayer asking God’s direction that you can pay your tithes in such a way that your offering will be used for the glory of God. I’m sure that there are more than a few theologians out there that will rush to tell me that an offering is not the same thing as a tithe; technically that’s true: a tithe is one-tenth of one’s income, and an offering is anything above that. Still, if one’s tithe is not offered freely, then there is no reward from God for that. In other words, if you pay a tithe only because you feel you have to, then you may as well keep your money. How’s that for a conundrum? But, if the tithe is offered freely, then, to my mind, it is an offering. Besides, grammarians will no doubt understand why I chose not to use the word tithe twice in one sentence (although they will object to my starting a sentence with a conjunction. Sigh. You can’t please everybody, but if you can please God…).

Forgiveness

This past weekend I watched the movie In My Country (also known as The Country of My Skull) starring Samuel L. Jackson (A Time to Kill as well as many other movies) and Juliette Binoche (The English Patient and Chocolat). In this movie, she plays an Afrikaner writer, and he, a writer for the Washington Post. Both have been asked to cover the Reconciliation talks after the collapse of Apartheid. Obviously, they go into it with very different attitudes. She feels that it is important to find out exactly what abuses occurred under Apartheid, but he feels that it is important to bring the Afrikaners to justice, and feels that every Afrikaner has a share of the blame for what happened. She, and some other locals, try to explain to him the concept of Ubuntu. I thought Ubuntu was a Linux operating system, but I digress (okay, I knew the word Ubuntu meant something before anybody ever named an OS after it, but I wasn’t clear on the meaning). Eventually he came to understand that we are all connected, and, if you do something that hurts me, it also hurts those around me, and, eventually will hurt you, too, even if you do what you do because of something I did to you. That, in a nutshell, is Ubuntu.

It occurred to me that the people who practiced Ubuntu are better at forgiveness than I am. By the way, I could be mistaken, but I got the feeling that the two main characters in the movie were either fictional or composite characters; at the beginning of the movie, though, they showed a disclaimer that basically said that the Reconciliation talks were faithfully recreated, that the script-writers did not write any of that dialog. In many cases, those who testified wanted only to have the bodies (or body parts) of loved ones returned to them for proper burial. It’s hard for me to imagine what those people must have been feeling, but clearly they had accepted the fact that killing or imprisoning those who had abused their power would not bring back their loved ones; it would only make the healing of their country more difficult.

We are, of course, commanded to forgive. In fact, we have been told to pray for those that despitefully use us. I have to admit, I haven’t had to deal with too much “despiteful use” myself. Perhaps if I lived in another part of the world I would get a chance to really test my faith (not planning on doing that any time soon, though). I have certainly been lied about, but then, I guess all of us have had to deal with that at one time or another.

I just got an E-mail from a good friend who just found out that her family has been embezzled from. They don’t know how much was taken, but it could be a considerable amount. The embezzler is someone who has been very close to the family for quite some time, and was never even suspected. She understands that she has to forgive this person; she wants to feel love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance, but right now, it’s hard. She is in prayer, and she has asked me for prayer, and I am asking for prayer on her behalf, as well.

Perhaps the best known Scriptural reference is the Lord’s Prayer, in Matthew 6:9-15. You notice that, in the prayer, Jesus teaches us to pray for forgiveness, but also for God to help us to forgive others. At the end of the prayer, He points out that our forgiveness from God is dependent upon our ability to forgive others. Has anyone ever wronged us as much as we have wronged Him? Remember also that Peter once asked Christ how many times was he required to forgive, and Jesus surprised him with how much forgiveness Peter was responsible for. That applies to us, too.

The Transfiguration

This week I’ve been posting from Mark chapter 9. Up until now, I’ve been going off of the middle part of the chapter (a man brought his son to Jesus’ disciples, and they were unable to help, but Jesus healed the son). The first part of the chapter talks about the Transfiguration.

Jesus took three of His closest disciples, Peter, James and John, up to the mountaintop. While they were there, Jesus was transfigured, and Moses and Elijah appeared. Now, the disciples didn’t quite know what to make of this. Peter suggested building three tabernacles, one for each of the three, but Jesus thought differently. If those three men hadn’t already known that they were in the presence of greatness, they definitely knew it then. You would almost think that they had seen so much by then that nothing could surprise them, but this particular incident not only surprised them, I would say it stunned them.

In any case, I think that we should spend a little time discussing the significance of the Transfiguration. I don’t think that there is any real controversy over the idea that Moses appeared because he was the Lawgiver, and Jesus had come to fulfill the Law (and yet instill Grace). Some have said that Elijah was the greatest prophet of the Old Testament, so it makes sense that he would appear with the greatest prophet of the New Testament (not to suggest that Jesus was only a prophet, as some have said, He was much more than that). I have to question, though, whether Elijah was the greatest prophet of the Old Testament. Certainly, one of the greatest, but, I don’t think he has clear claim to the title of greatest prophet. I would be willing to entertain the notion that perhaps Elijah was there because he had ascended into Heaven, therefore foreshadowing the end of Jesus’ ministry, except that Enoch did that first.

The day that Elijah was taken up, his protégé Elisha made a point of staying with him all the way up until Elijah was taken from him. Several times Elijah told Elisha to wait for him at one place or another, and each time, Elisha insisted on going with his master. At one point, Elijah broached the subject that neither one of them wanted to talk about, and he asked Elisha what he wanted after his mentor was gone. Elisha responded that he wanted a double portion of the spirit that he knew rested on Elijah. Elijah said that he had asked a hard thing, but, if he saw Elijah after he was taken up, then he would get it. If you read up, Elisha did some amazing things after that (see also here, and here, and here). I would think that Elisha should be considered a greater prophet than Elijah.

To be honest, I think this may be the point that Jesus was trying to make. Elijah was the master, and Elisha followed him. Even after Elijah was taken, Elisha never departed from the ways that Elijah had taught him. It was clear that the same spirit was on him that was on Elijah. At another point, Jesus said that if His disciples remained faithful than they would do greater works than He Himself had done (not that any of them would ever be greater than Him, but that they would do greater works). This promise extends also to us, if we allow the spirit that was in Jesus to flow through us. Of course, that would require us to walk in the Spirit, and allow God’s spirit to guide us, and direct us, and to remember that it isn’t us that’s actually doing the work, it’s God.

All In the Family

Yesterday I posted about the man in Mark 9 whose son was demon-possessed. Today I would like to look at another aspect of that incident. At one point, the man asked Jesus to “have compassion on us.” He could have asked Jesus to have compassion on the young man who was possessed, but he made a point of asking for compassion for both of them. I think that it’s important to note that when a family member isn’t right, then it affects the entire family.

King David had a son named Absalom that he loved very much. Absalom was very self-willed, and at one point, tried to overthrow the kingdom, and make himself king of Israel. David sent his men out with orders to defeat Absalom, but not to kill him. The general over David’s army, Joab, had opportunity to take Absalom alive, but chose not to, in direct conflict with the king’s wishes. There is a certain wisdom in Joab’s actions, although I would not condone killing a man unnecessarily, I can understand that if Absalom had lived, he would have only continued to cause problems. Joab rebuked David (imagine that, being in position to disobey the king, kill one of the royal family, and then rebuke the king!) and reminded him that Absalom would have been only too happy to kill the king and every Israelite that was loyal to David. Joab, in effect, asked the king what he would have had Joab do, let Absalom run roughshod over everything else that the king held dear, just as long as Absalom lived?

In 1 Samuel, the priest Eli had two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, that he was supposed to bringing up to take over his job when he got too old to do it (or died), but they were rebellious and used their positions in the Temple to fill their own bellies. Granted, they were supposed to eat of the offerings that people brought, but they got tired of eating boiled meat, and started demanding meat that hadn’t been prepared in accordance with Temple Law. Eli knew what was going on, and he made some attempt to correct his sons, but they did what they wanted to do anyway. Eli took in Samuel, and raised him better than he had raised his own sons, and at one point, God told Samuel that He was displeased with Eli because of his sons. Eventually, God took Hophni and Phinehas, and, when Eli heard about it, he fell down, and broke his neck.

At the same time, in the gospels, we are told that when Jesus called Simon, Andrew, James, and John, that they left their fathers with the fishing boats and just walked away and followed Jesus. I would imagine that they at least said good-bye, although the Bible doesn’t say that they did. These were men that knew the call of God, and were not about to let their families interfere with what they had to do (later on, we find out that Simon Peter was even married—presumably had kids; what do you suppose his wife thought about her husband wandering all around the country with Jesus for three years?). I’m sure it wasn’t easy for these men to live the lives that they did, and I suppose that their families understood; even the non-believers recognized that Jesus was very influential.

We are more fortunate. Most of us will never have to abandon our families for the Gospel, but all of us need to remember that family must always take second to God. Jesus said that he who loves father or mother or son or daughter more than Jesus, is not worthy (which is not to suggest that any of us is truly worthy anyway), and it is clear that He takes precedence over all else. If it helps, understand that He wants the absolute best for every one of us, so, by putting Him first, you are making things better for your family, as well.

Who Is Your Faith In?

In Mark chapter 9, we are told that Jesus, having separated from most of His disciples for a time, returned and found the scribes disputing with them, and a man with a demon-possessed son. For many years, in reading this, I assumed that the son was a child, however it never says that, in fact, Jesus asked the man how long his son had been tormented, and the man said, “Of a child,” which would imply that the son was no longer a child. In other words, because the son was possessed by a demon while he was a child, the father has attempted to take care of him even after the son was old enough that he should have been able to take care of himself, if he had not been afflicted.

It occurs to me that there is a lesson here in the fact that the disciples had unsuccessfully attempted to cast the demon out before Jesus returned. I seriously doubt that this was the man’s first attempt to have his son healed; we are told that his son had suffered for a long time, but Jesus’ ministry only lasted about three years, total. I would think that he would have tried anything he could think of before Jesus was even tempted in the wilderness.

It’s hard for me not to consider that many people with problems will go to great lengths to try to solve their problems. Doctors and psychiatrists can help with many things, but there are some things that only God can fix. I wonder how many people go from this to that, hoping for a cure, and not finding it, and then start trying different religions, and still not getting out from under, and finally going to a Christian minister, and still not getting satisfaction, because they are looking to the man for answers, instead of to God. One would hope that a minister of the Gospel would be able to call down power from on high, but, if Jesus’ own disciples were not able to cast out the demon from this young man, and had to wait on Jesus to do the work, then we have to understand that every minister has his limitations. God, however, does not.

It’s interesting, too, that at the beginning of the chapter, Mark describes an event that has become known as “The Transfiguration.” Peter, James and John went up the mountain with Jesus, and He was transfigured; His raiment became shining white, and Moses and Elijah appeared with Him. Now, Elijah’s protégé was named Elisha, and in Elisha’s time, there was a man named Naaman that came from Syria to try to buy a healing from his leprosy. Elisha wouldn’t even talk to him. He sent a messenger to talk to Naaman, and told him what to do to be healed. Apparently, Elisha didn’t want there to be any confusion about who was doing the healing. Naaman went and dipped himself in the Jordan River seven times, and came out of the water completely healed. Now, he knew that it wasn’t the water that healed him, and he hadn’t even seen Elisha, so he can’t have thought that the prophet healed him; he would have known that the God of Israel healed him.

I don’t mean to suggest that you shouldn’t talk to your pastor about your problems; you should. I do mean to say that if your pastor’s advice helps you, then that’s of God; if it doesn’t, then maybe you should prayerfully consider who it was that you were putting your faith in: Your pastor, or God?

The Draught (not to be confused with the drought)

In Luke Chapter 5, it says that Jesus was teaching the multitude by the shore, and there were some fishing boats there, and He stepped into one of the boats and asked Simon to take Him out a little way from the shore. When He finished His teaching, He told Simon to let down his nets for a draught. Simon protested that they had just spent all night fishing and hadn’t caught anything, but, since Jesus said so, he let down the nets. They ended up catching lots of fish. Now I personally am not a fisherman, but they tell me that, generally, the night is the best time to fish. There are other factors, of course: tides, currents, water temperature, and such things, but, in general, if you can’t catch anything at night, you aren’t going to catch much during the day either.

It goes on to say that they caught a draught of fishes. Now, I have to admit, that confused me for a while. As I said, I’m not a fisherman, but I have done some sailing in my time, and I know that the draught (or draft, as we spell it here in the U.S.) of a ship is how deep it sits in the water, that is, the depth of its keel. I had always assumed that Jesus was simply telling Simon not to let the nets down any deeper than the keel of his boat. Of course, that didn’t explain the second use of the word. I finally looked up the word “draught” and discovered that the British use that word (among other things) to refer to a quantity of fish (as in, more than a few). So Jesus was telling Peter that if he would lets down his nets, he would catch a quantity of fish. This, of course, was not guesswork; Jesus knew how many fish were down there, and that they were ready to be caught, and even knew how they had avoided the nets during the night. He may very well have been responsible for all of that.

This revelation, as it were, led me to wonder about the other uses of the word “draught” in scripture. It is used only once in the Old Testament: In 2 Kings 10:27, Jehu broke down the house of Baal in Israel, and made it a draft house. I have been unable to ascertain exactly what that means: It could mean a place set aside for drawing (a place for draftsmen, if such a thing even existed then), or a place where casks of liquid were stored (although I know of no Biblical references to draft beer), or, perhaps a gaming parlor (what we call “checkers,” the British call “draughts”). I think it’s a little more likely that it was a place for writing (as in different drafts of a given document), perhaps even for copying over existing texts, but I’m not sure. The point is, though, that it was no longer used as a house of worship. There is an interesting point, in and of itself: Does it matter what house of worship one attends service in, as long as one knows in one heart that they are worshipping the one true God?

Both of the other places that the term is used in the New Testament, it is used to refer to something somewhat less mentionable. Jesus said that what goes into a man doesn’t defile the man, because it goes into the belly, and ends up in the draft. Again, I know what that sounds like, but, to be honest, I can’t be sure. I haven’t been able to find a definition (for draft or draught) that fits what it seems to me that Jesus was talking about. The first definition that my dictionary lists for draught is the drawing of a liquid from its receptacle, which is sort of close, but it doesn’t really sound like He was talking about stuff leaving the body in the form of a liquid to me… Maybe He was, the people He was talking to didn’t have the anatomical knowledge that we have, but it seems pretty obvious that whatever the body takes in that it can’t digest goes right back out again pretty much as solid as it went in. Maybe this is one instance where it’s really better not to know exactly what Jesus was talking about.

Um, I just did a little more research: It occurred to me to check the ancient languages that the Bible was translated from, and it seems that the Ancient Hebrew word that was translated as “draught house” in Second Kings and the Ancient Greek word translated as “draught” in Matthew 15 and Mark 7 both essentially mean latrine. I imagine that the ultimate rejection of a religion would be to turn its house of worship into a latrine. Apparently that’s a usage of the term draught that hasn’t survived the almost-400-years since the Bible was translated.

Unconditional Love

I was at work the other day and I saw this picture on IHasAHotdog.com. It occurred to me that when things get rough, it is comforting to have the unconditional love of some other individual. A lot of times it doesn’t even matter if that one can help the situation or not, the love makes things feel better. I will leave it to others to debate whether animals are truly capable of love. I know that often animals will act as if they love someone, but I also know that there are some who say that isn’t really love, that we just tend to ascribe emotions to other things as though they were people (not just animals, but inanimate objects as well). It has been suggested that if you really want a measure of the love that those closest to you feel, try locking your dog and your wife in the trunk of your car for a couple of hours, and then see which one is happy to see you when you release them (I don’t recommend actually trying that).

On my way home, I heard an old Twila Paris song called Every Heart That Is Breaking. In this song, she lays out all manner of grievous circumstances, and then in the chorus, tells the unfortunate victims that she has a message for them. That message is, quite simply, He loves you. That is an unconditional love that cannot be matched by any pet.

The Ancient Greek word for unconditional love is agape. In the King James Version, the word agape is sometimes translated as ‘charity.’ Unfortunately, charity has come to mean an organization devoted to helping other people. Some of the more modern translations use the term love for agape, to avoid confusion. Unfortunately, they don’t do anything to distinguish between agape-love and phileo -love (phileo being the Ancient Greek word for—well, I don’t want to say conditional love, but love that isn’t necessarily unconditional). Of course, when I say that, I am aware that most of the time that the word ‘love’ appears in the New Testament, it is translated from agape, rather than phileo.

Scripture makes it clear that our God understands everything that may befall us. When He took the form of man, He was tempted in all the same ways that we are. Scripture also tells us that there is no temptation taken you but such as is common to man. Taken together, it becomes clear that none of us has ever been subjected to anything that Jesus didn’t endure Himself. Whatever you are going through, He has been through the same, if not worse. Whatever it is, He understands.

In Romans, we are told that nothing can separate us from the love of God. Nobody can take that love away from us. No matter how little we may deserve His love, He still loves us. Don’t misunderstand me, that doesn’t mean that you can just disregard Him, there are still consequences for our actions (or inaction). It does mean that He will always love us, even when He is severely disappointed in us. For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son… Of course, He gave the world Noah, too, but of all the people in the world in Noah’s day, only eight souls were saved. I worry that the ratio may not be too much better in our day…