The Sign On Your Heart

There is a verse in Isaiah that prophesies that the day will come when seven women will try to marry themselves to one man; they don’t want anything from him—they can supply their own needs—they just want to be called by his name. In this day and age, when polygamy is pretty much a thing of the past, and a lot of modern women really don’t feel the need to get married, anyway. I have a hard time seeing, say, John Johnson being approached by seven different women, all wanting to be Mrs. John Johnson, and assuring him that he doesn’t have to provide for them, they just don’t want to be Miss Spears, Miss Aguilera, Miss Taquila, Miss Hilton, Miss Alba, Miss Biel, and Miss Fox anymore. They just want to be able to say that they found a husband. So what is this all about?
I have mentioned before that there a number of New Testament references that compare the relationship between Christ and the church to a bridegroom and his bride. Now we know that there is only one true church. I don’t mean that one specific denomination is right and everybody else is wrong; but that there are a lot of people out there that want to call themselves Christians, but not really want to have anything to do with Jesus. They aren’t going to partake of the daily bread that He provides, they won’t wear the garments that He provides, they don’t even intend to abide in His house; they just want to be called Christians. I have written before about the significance of the wedding garment in parable of the wedding feast, but suffice it to say that God cast out a man that came to judgment not wearing the robes of righteousness that God provides to true Christians. If the Bride of Christ is the church, then it follows that these other seven women that want to be called by the name of some man that, let’s face it, they married in a sham marriage, these women represent false churches. Keep in mind that a church is a body of believers, not a building or a denomination or even a religious organization. You may sit beside someone in church on Sunday morning that doesn’t believe what you believe, and so, even though you may worship together, the two of you aren’t really part of the same church. The tares grow right in the midst of the wheat, after all….
There’s an amusing series of videos on GodTube (a parody of the Apple commercials where one guy is a Mac and the other one is a PC) where one guy says he is a Christian and the other one is a Christ-follower. The thing is, though, it doesn’t matter what you call yourself, if you aren’t following Christ, then you aren’t a Christian.
One thing that bothers me about the religious world today: A lot of times when I ask someone what religion they are part of, they tell me what denomination they belong to. I understand that it may be important to convey specifically what you believe, but is your greater allegiance to your denomination, or to your Lord and Savior? In the long run, the sign over the door to your church is a lot less important than the sign on the door to your heart—which should say, “No Vacancy.”
I was going to provide a link to some song lyrics here, but I can’t find the lyrics I wanted anywhere on the web. That’s pretty unusual. Anyway, here are the lyrics:

“Brand New Sign”
I’ve got a brand new sign,
With bright red letters,
Hanging on the door of my heart.
Since the Lord moved in,
I have never felt better;
My life has changed,
I’ve made a new start.
So I’ll let the devil know
He isn’t wanted anymore,
When he comes calling on me.
Oh, how mad he’s gonna be
When he begins to read,
“Full up, no vacancy!”

Like a Lamb to the Slaughter

There’s an old story about a minister in a small town. This is one of those towns where everybody knows everybody, even to the point of you know when somebody misses church, even if they don’t go to the same church you do. Anyway, this minister was out picking up some things at a store on a Friday night, and a man came stumbling by the store, extremely inebriated. Now the clerk in the store didn’t attend church at all, but knew that the drunk out on the sidewalk attended the church where this minister was the pastor. “Gee, preacher, isn’t that one of your disciples?” The pastor let out a sigh, and said, “He must be one of my disciples, ‘cause he sure isn’t one of the Lord’s”
Two important points to the story: One is that the reverend didn’t distance himself from his congregant just because the parishioner had fallen off the wagon; of course, he didn’t try to justify it, either. The other is that there will always be people that try to find fault with Christians, with Christianity in general, and with the Bible. It’s kind of funny, isn’t it? William Shakespeare wrote a number of plays around the time that King James had the Bible translated into English. All of Shakespeare’s works continue to be performed and published using the same words that the Bard wrote, even though some of those words have changed meaning. As far as I know, no person has even suggested that we should try to update Shakespeare to make his works easier to understand. There is one version of the works of William Shakespeare, and there have been no changes made (a little editorializing here and there, but the words themselves have not change). No one tries to edit Shakespeare, but many people try to edit God.
I have heard some criticism of the Messianic prophecy in Isaiah 53:7, which states, “He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.” The problem is that, although Isaiah prophesied (twice in one verse) that Jesus would be oppressed and afflicted, that He would not open His mouth. Yet we know that Jesus did have a conversation with Pontius Pilate at His trial, so, the question is, how did Jesus have a conversation with Pilate without opening His mouth?
Let me start by saying that maybe Jesus’ trial before Pilate was not what Isaiah was referring to. We also know that Pilate initially refused to try Jesus, and sent Him instead to Herod. Herod attempted to try Jesus, and, quite frankly, he was much more amenable to Christ than Pilate was (even after Pilate’s wife said to leave “that just man” alone). When Jesus was taken before Herod, He refused to speak to Herod at all. In the natural, that seems pretty stupid. If Jesus were just a flesh and blood con artist, he probably could have come up with some trick, some illusion, some argument to convince Herod to let him go, but He refused to even talk to Herod. Before Herod, where Jesus had the best chance of walking away from this alive, He opened not His mouth. Perhaps that’s all Isaiah meant.
I have to consider something else, though: Isaiah compares the Messiah to a lamb brought to the slaughter, or a sheep taken to be shorn, and says that He didn’t speak any more than they would. Does anyone believe that a lamb or a sheep wouldn’t bleat under those circumstances? Wouldn’t the animal have to open its mouth to bleat? Perhaps Isaiah is simply using an expression that has been lost to us in the intervening years. It doesn’t seem feasible that Isaiah intended to be taken literally, the comparison doesn’t make any sense. If Isaiah simply meant that, just as there is not going to be anything to come out of the mouth of a sheep led to slaughter that will change its fate, so, too, Jesus wasn’t going to let anything come out of His mouth that would alter the outcome of His trial, either. He had something important to do, and He was going to do it.
The real problem is that some people read the Bible out of contention, and some people read the Bible to learn from it. If you read it just to find fault with it, you will; if you read to learn from it, then you will, also. If you have trouble understanding some part of it, seek God about it.

The Crucifixion

I have been reading an article written by a Muslim scholar who has obviously spent a great deal of time and effort trying to explain why he does not believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and why no one else should, either. He does make some good points, but there is also a great deal of confusion in what he writes. The article can be found here.
Let me address some of his concerns (I don’t think that I can possibly address all of them, and probably not any of them to his satisfaction, but here goes):
First, he quotes Apostle Paul as saying that, “For all your good deeds are like filthy rags.” Of course, Paul never said that, it is in Isaiah (and the article gives the chapter and verse), but his point is that, according to Paul, salvation is only through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
He goes on to say that Jesus clearly had one thing in mind, but had to change his plans as the situation changed, and that crucifixion was not on Jesus’ agenda. He cites the prayer in the garden as evidence of this, and yet, if you read the prayer, Jesus is clearly submitting to God’s will. Jesus was, even then, setting the example that, sometimes, even when we pray for one thing, God’s will is not in it, and we have to be willing to do what God wants us to do. Further, Jesus himself prophesied the crucifixion, in Matthew 20:17-19.
He goes on to say that Allah tells them (and, I presume us) to demand proof (Koran, Sura 2, verse 111 “Say, ‘Produce your proof if ye but speak the truth’”). I find it interesting that the Koran is not subjected to the same burden of proof that the Bible is. Of course, he assures us that the Koran is the inspired Word of Allah, just as Peter tells us that the Bible is. He insists that any reader must be allowed to analyze the proof, and I agree, but I would ask that the proof be analyzed with a great deal of prayer, as opposed to simply gainsaying the evidence (of course, I say that, knowing full well that Ahmed Deedat would insist that he did pray over this, and he is not gainsaying the evidence, and that I should pray and not gainsay the Koran).
He insists that Jesus was not crucified, that Jesus was only assumed to be dead. He takes a lot of issue with the fact that “most” depictions of the crucifixion show Jesus being crucified differently than the two thieves. I have never noticed that, personally, maybe I just never paid that much attention. To be honest, I don’t really care how an artist painted the crucifixion, I don’t know of any artist that was there and painted it. It doesn’t surprise me that there are inaccuracies in the paintings. I would hope no one bases his or her faith on paintings done hundreds of years after the fact.
Mr. Deedat also goes on to say that we Christians have essentially charged the Jews falsely for the death of Christ. He further goes on to say that Muslims should defend their Jewish cousins from the Christians. There is an interesting concept. I have to agree that Jews need to be defended. Part of me wants to blast the anti-Semitics in Islam at this point, but I am very much aware that there are many anti-Semites that call themselves Christians as well. Quite frankly, if one believes in the crucifixion and resurrection, one should be thankful to the Jews for helping to orchestrate it (it was God’s will, after all), if one does not believe in the crucifixion, than what exactly is it that one blames the Jews for?
He also objects to the idea that Jesus, who taught His disciples to turn the other cheek, would tell them to buy swords. He rejects out of hand the idea that Jesus was talking about spiritual swords, even after the disciples told Jesus that they already had two swords, and He said, “It is enough.” If Jesus were planning sedition, His disciples were clearly going to need more than two swords. Particularly since, as we read later, Peter, who bore one of the swords, was only able to inflict a relatively minor wound on one of the High Priest’s servants (not one of the High Priest’s guards, mind you, one of his servants). The Apostles might have been manly men, but they were not trained in combat, as were the Temple Guard.

I could go on, but there is a lot here already. Perhaps some other time.