the Armor of God

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

Cain and Abel

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

The Return

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

Genesis 9:25

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

What Should We Believe?

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

My Strength

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

Security of the Believer--as Long as You Believe

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