Tuesday, September 21, 2010

The Power of Life and Death

In Genesis it says that Abraham was instructed to offer up his son, Isaac, as a sacrifice to God.  In Hebrews, we are told that Abraham was willing to do this because he knew that God had promised that in Isaac would Abraham’s seed be called, and that Abraham had faith that, if he killed Isaac, that God was able to raise Isaac from the dead.
            In John 11, Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, after he had been in the grave for four days.  In Luke 8, Jesus raised the daughter of Jairus from the dead.  In Luke 7, Jesus raised a man from the dead who was the only son of a poor widow woman.  Later on in that same chapter, two of John the Baptist’s disciples came to Him, and asked if He were the one.  Jesus told them to go back to John and tell John what they had seen, and He included raising the dead among the things that they should tell John that they had seen.
            In Job, Satan comes before the Lord and asks permission to torment Job.  The Lord, willing to show off Job’s integrity, grants that permission, but orders Satan to save Job’s life.  Think about that for a minute: Satan had to get permission before he could touch Job, and even then, God wouldn’t allow Job’s death.
            There are some churches that teach something called, “baptism for the dead.”  Now, I am by no means an expert in this doctrine, but, from what I understand, it basically comes down to this:  If a close friend of yours, or a relative expressed a desire to be baptized, but died before they were able to, then you can get baptized by proxy for them.  This idea comes from 1 Corinthians 15:29, which asks, “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?”  Reading the chapter in context, though, we see that the subject at hand was the resurrection of the dead.  Some of the Corinthians had a faulty understanding of the resurrection, and Paul was trying to make a point.  If there is no resurrection, the Christ is not raised.  If Christ is dead, then all that are ‘asleep’ in Christ have perished.  What is the point of being a Christian, if in this life only we have hope?  What would be the point of being baptized in the likeness of His death, burial, and resurrection if—not wait, scratch that, His death and burial if there is no resurrection.
            I, personally, don’t believe in baptism for the dead; I don’t believe that it would ever be necessary.  I think it’s safe to say that I am in the majority with this opinion (which could be a problem, since many are called, but few are chosen), but there are different reasons for believing that this is not necessary.  Many people do not believe that baptism is necessary, so who cares if a friend or relative wanted to get baptized, but couldn’t?  Others believe that baptism is necessary, but that if one has a sincere desire to do the will of God, that God, having the power of life and death, will not allow that person to die until they have fulfilled God’s will.  Remember Jonah?  God had something for him to do, and he tried to go the other way, but God prepared a ‘great fish’ to swallow him and keep him alive until he was ready to what God told him to do.  I will grant you, God doesn’t usually do that for people who are just being stubborn, but, if He did that for Jonah, wouldn’t He take care of someone who sincerely wishes to serve God?
            The Catch-22 here is that people who don’t believe baptism is essential don’t believe that God will protect someone who wants to get baptized simply because they don’t believe that baptism is essential.  Taking that logic one step further, obviously, baptism isn’t essential, because there is always the possibility that someone could die waiting to get baptized.  It’s circular logic, and, quite frankly, it expresses a lack of faith; who do you think is killing people behind God’s back?  I have not heard of anyone in modern times dying while waiting to get baptized, even in churches that don’t do a baptismal ceremony until they have a sufficiently impressive number of people that want to get baptized (which makes no sense to me; if there is joy in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth, shouldn’t there be joy in the church over one new Christian that wants to gets baptized?).  I did know a man who by all rights should have died before his baptism, but didn’t.  We had a young man in our church that was hospitalized because of problems with his blood pressure.  He was placed in a semi-private room with an older gentleman with terminal cancer.  Between this young man sharing his faith with his roommate, and people from the church coming to visit him, the dying man and his wife both decided they wanted to get baptized.  The doctors forbad it, though, on the grounds that the physical trauma would likely be fatal.  When asked how long he would live without baptism, they answered in days, rather than weeks or months; which raises the question, why not allow the baptism, then?  In any case, we were at an impasse.  He couldn’t leave the hospital without being released by the medical staff, which they, understandably, wouldn’t do with his health being so precarious.  They also would not allow us to bring in a portable baptismal tank and baptize him in his room.  After some prayer, the cancer disappeared.  Personally, I would have been happy if it had simply gone into remission, although I suppose the doctors could have still refused to release him from the hospital.  He did not go into remission, though, he experienced a complete healing, and the doctors had no choice but to release him.  He came out to church and got baptized, and has since died.
            My basic point is this: God loves you, and He wants you to do what is right.  God also has the final say as far as who lives and who dies, and when.  I’m not saying that you should tempt God by going out and doing stupid things because you ‘know’ that He’ll protect you, but don’t think that God is going to let you die when you’re in the process of performing His will.

Monday, September 20, 2010

The Parable of the Talents

Jesus taught a parable which has become known as the parable of the talents.  I want to make it clear, at the outset, that a talent was a certain weight of precious metal.  In other words, the lord left two stewards with something to safeguard and invest while he was gone.  Jesus says that the lord gave to them according to their several ability, not that those were their abilities.  In any case, one of the stewards was given five talents, another two, and the third only one.
Some time ago, I was told that the one talent represented faith.  I suppose that makes sense, after all, faith is the one thing that all Christians have.  I am something of a skeptic by nature, though, and I wanted to see proof.  People were able to give all kinds of logical explanations and arguments, but I was stubborn, and nothing that anyone told me qualified in my mind as proof.
A week ago, though, I heard a sermon in Sunday morning service that I think, although it may still not really be ‘proof,’ it certainly comes much closer, and I now feel much more confident that the one talent was, indeed, faith.  This in spite of the fact that the sermon was not about the parable of the talents; in fact, the parable wasn’t even mentioned.
In 2 Peter, Peter tells us to add to our faith.  He tells us to “add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.“  Now, clearly, Peter isn’t going to tell us to add to something that some of might not have.  Further, what Peter says goes right along with what Jesus said in the parable:  The one who had five, gained another five, the one that had two, gained another two, and they were both recognized as good and faithful servants.  The one that was only given one didn’t do anything with it, and was rebuked for being wicked and slothful.  Peter tells us that the man who doesn’t have virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness, and charity has forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.  Peter goes on to admonish us to give diligence to make our calling and election sure, and that, if we do these things, we shall never fall. Now, everybody slips occasionally; nobody’s perfect; we all make mistakes.  Clearly, Peter is not suggesting that if we have faith, virtue, knowledge, temperance, etc. that we will never mess up.  He’s talking about a much more important and permanent fall here, just as Jesus said of the slothful servant in the parable that he was cast into outer darkness, where there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
In some ways, it doesn’t really seem fair; the third servant didn’t lose his faith, he just never did anything with it.  Mark Twain once said, “The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.”  What good is literacy if you do not put it to use?  By the same token, what good is faith if you don’t use it?  James told us repeatedly in James 2 that faith without works is dead.  He even makes the point that the devils have faith; what they don’t have is obedience.
Don’t misunderstand me:  Faith is the determining factor in salvation, but only if it the kind of faith that drives you to want to try to please God.  Someone who really believes the Gospel message will find themselves wanting to learn more about God, and His plan, and will want to tell everyone about His love.  We could never earn salvation, it is much too precious a gift.  We can, however prove ourselves to be completely unworthy of it.  And, again, don’t misunderstand me; we are unworthy of it, yet God offers it to us anyway.  But there will always be those that will take the gift for granted, and, in truth, treat it as something despised instead of something that is precious and must be protected at all costs and those people have no place with us.
After the parable of the talents, Jesus teaches us that on Judgment Day, the sheep (the obedient ones) will be on His right hand, and the goats (the ones that but all the time) will be on His left.  The sheep will be rewarded for what they did in this life, but the goats will go to eternal punishment for what they didn’t do.

Wednesday, September 08, 2010

Naaman the Leper

In 2 Kings 5, there is a story about a Syrian named Naaman, who also happened to have leprosy.  Apparently, leper or not, he was an important man in the kingdom of Syria, and a very kind man.  I say this because he had a Hebrew slave girl in his household who lamented that they were not in Israel, that the prophet could recover Naaman from his leprosy, and Naaman went to the king to ask leave to go see the prophet. 
A few things strike me here:  First off, the slave girl could have kept her mouth shut, or offered a solution in return for her own freedom.  She chose to do the right thing, though, and advise her master that a healing could be had.  Second, he believed her.  What kind of testimony had she established in his house, that she could say something like that and be believed?  I can’t believe that, with leprosy being what it was in those days, Naaman hadn’t already tried every treatment available, and yet, this girl says that there is a man in her native country that can heal him.  Doesn’t that just sound national pride?  Third, the scriptures don’t tell us who the girl was.
So, the king encourages Naaman to go; and Naaman loads up with all kinds of silver, gold, and garments for the prophet, in hopes that he can, in fact, recover Naaman from his leprosy.  So Naaman goes directly to the king of Israel, seeking his healing.  The king becomes distraught; in his mind, this is nothing but a provocation.  The king of Syria has sent this leper to Israel for a healing, not because he believes that it will happen, but so that, when it doesn’t happen, he has an excuse to wage war with Israel. 
Well, the prophet, Elisha, became aware of what was happening, and sent a message to the king that if he sent Naaman to Elisha, then Naaman and the king of Syria would know that there was a God in Israel.  The king, anxious to get rid of Naaman without starting a war, complied.
So Naaman goes to Elisha.  Perhaps at this point he’s feeling a little jerked around.  The girl certainly didn’t make it sound like it was going to be this complicated.  Elisha doesn’t even talk to Naaman directly, but Naaman was probably used to that, being a leper.  Elisha tells him to go wash in the River Jordan seven times, and he will be healed of his leprosy.
Naaman decides he has had enough.  There are rivers in Syria, much better rivers than the Jordan, in fact, why in the world do I have to come all this way, and you end up telling me to do something stupid like take a bath…  But Naaman’s servants manage to get his ear, and to calm him down a little bit, and remind him that, if the prophet has asked him to perform some heroic deed, or perform some great sacrifice, then he would have done it.  Are you angry because this seems too simple?
Naaman stops, and he thinks.  The servants are, of course, entirely correct.  Naaman was prepared to turn over a considerable worth of merchandise, in fact, he would have done almost anything imaginable if it meant that he could be made clean, so why not dip himself in the River Jordan?  If it doesn’t work, then he’s got a reason to be angry, but if he doesn’t try, after coming all this way, then he will never know.
So, he dips himself seven times into the River Jordan, and after that, his flesh is returned to him, completely whole and free from leprosy.  Naaman went back to Elisha, and thanked him, and tried to give the man of God those things that he had brought, but Elisha wouldn’t have any of it.  We know that you can’t buy a gift of God, but Naaman could be forgiven for not knowing. 
My main point is this:  Naaman believed, before he left Syria, or he wouldn’t have come.  He tried to buy his healing, but God wasn’t interested in his money, only his obedience.  The water of the River Jordan didn’t heal him; taking a bath does not cure leprosy.  What healed Naaman was his faith in operation.  Now, you may tell me that Naaman was in the Old Testament, things are different now, and you’d be right.  We’re not under the law, we’re under grace.  At the same time, God hasn’t changed, only His covenant with us has.  Also, Apostle Paul told us that the law was a schoolmaster that helped to bring us unto Christ.  James has taught us that, although it is our faith that saves us, that faith is dead if it is not accompanied by works.  The story of Naaman wasn’t included in the Bible to show us how different things were then, it was to give us an example of faith in operation because God knew then that we would still need that principle today.