Saturday, June 28, 2025
No Internet
Sorry. Internet malfunction. I'm borrowing a coffee shop Internet long enough to say I'm not posting today or tomorrow because my home Internet is down. Don't worry ... I'll be back soon.
Friday, June 27, 2025
Flee
We know the idea of "flee" in the Bible. Yeah, yeah ... don't do these things. Flee immorality (1 Cor 6:18). Flee from idolatry (1 Cor 10:14). Flee from youthful lusts (2 Tim 2:2). Flee the love of money (1 Tim 6:10-11). These kinds of things. Because if there's anything we know about Christianity, it's a whole list of things we're supposed to avoid.
I would argue that this isn't a complete concept and, maybe, not even that helpful. If I tell you to "flee that lion" who is charging you, where are you going to look? At the charging lion, of course. But Scripture offers a different perspective. For instance, Paul told Timothy to flee the love of money, but he didn't stop there. He said, "And pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, perseverance and gentleness" (1 Tim 6:11). He told him to "Flee from youthful lusts" followed immediately by "and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart" (2 Tim 2:22). You see, the point is not what you're fleeing; it's where you're going. The idea isn't "What's the wrong way to go?" but "What's the better way to go?" Paul told the Philippians, "Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things" (Php 4:8). I don't see any of "Think about what you did wrong" in that. I don't see, "Dwell on the bad stuff you shouldn't do." It's ... a different direction. It's not "from" bad things, but "to" good things. So we are commanded to "rejoice in the Lord always (Php 4:4) and "Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you" (Eph 4:32). We aren't called to "judge one another" but we are called to "Bear one another's burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ" (Gal 6:2).
Sometimes it feels like we're so busy worrying about the things we shouldn't do that we don't look much at the things we should do. If Jesus said, "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35), I'd think we'd want to make it a point to actively love one another instead of worrying about what we (or others) are doing wrong. Perhaps we need to reconsider our direction, not in terms of where we shouldn't be, but in terms of where we should be. Not merely "flee from," but "flee to." A better direction.
I would argue that this isn't a complete concept and, maybe, not even that helpful. If I tell you to "flee that lion" who is charging you, where are you going to look? At the charging lion, of course. But Scripture offers a different perspective. For instance, Paul told Timothy to flee the love of money, but he didn't stop there. He said, "And pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, perseverance and gentleness" (1 Tim 6:11). He told him to "Flee from youthful lusts" followed immediately by "and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart" (2 Tim 2:22). You see, the point is not what you're fleeing; it's where you're going. The idea isn't "What's the wrong way to go?" but "What's the better way to go?" Paul told the Philippians, "Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things" (Php 4:8). I don't see any of "Think about what you did wrong" in that. I don't see, "Dwell on the bad stuff you shouldn't do." It's ... a different direction. It's not "from" bad things, but "to" good things. So we are commanded to "rejoice in the Lord always (Php 4:4) and "Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you" (Eph 4:32). We aren't called to "judge one another" but we are called to "Bear one another's burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ" (Gal 6:2).
Sometimes it feels like we're so busy worrying about the things we shouldn't do that we don't look much at the things we should do. If Jesus said, "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35), I'd think we'd want to make it a point to actively love one another instead of worrying about what we (or others) are doing wrong. Perhaps we need to reconsider our direction, not in terms of where we shouldn't be, but in terms of where we should be. Not merely "flee from," but "flee to." A better direction.
Thursday, June 26, 2025
Election
We all know the doctrine of election. It's from Calvin ... or, at least, Calvinism. Thought up out of thin air. Should be jettisoned. Election ... yeah, right. Like God chooses people whom He will save. What drivel! But ...
Turns out that Paul spoke often of election. He says God "chose us in Him before the foundation of the world" (Eph 1:4) and "predestined us for adoption" (Eph 1:5). He refers to believers as "the elect" and says such amazing things like, "So then He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills" (Rom 9:18) and "So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy" (Rom 9:16). He says a lot. So apparently Paul is confused on this point.
But ... it turns out that Jesus said it before Paul did. He told His disciples, "You did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16, 19). He told people about His sheep (John 10:16) that He knew but didn't yet exist. In fact, being His sheep was a prerequisite for faith (John 10:26}. He said, "No one can come to Me unless it is granted him by the Father" (John 6:65). So ... apparently Jesus was in favor of the idea. But ... maybe it was just a New Testament idea. Or ... not.
Turns out the doctrine of election has been in effect practically from the beginning. God chose Noah. God chose Abraham. God chose the nation of Israel. It is actually a primary theme of Scripture. It is apparently a fundamental concept in the Bible. And, of course, it is abundantly logical. I mean, if we're dead in sin (Eph 2:1-3), how in the world do we get to choose if we get saved? If we're naturally hostile to God (Rom 8:7), how would we possibly get to choosing Him? It seems as if it is necessary that God initiate this process if it's going to happen. It must be without any value in us or it won't be grace. Maybe ... just maybe ... it's a thoroughly reasonable and biblical idea.
Turns out that Paul spoke often of election. He says God "chose us in Him before the foundation of the world" (Eph 1:4) and "predestined us for adoption" (Eph 1:5). He refers to believers as "the elect" and says such amazing things like, "So then He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills" (Rom 9:18) and "So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy" (Rom 9:16). He says a lot. So apparently Paul is confused on this point.
But ... it turns out that Jesus said it before Paul did. He told His disciples, "You did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16, 19). He told people about His sheep (John 10:16) that He knew but didn't yet exist. In fact, being His sheep was a prerequisite for faith (John 10:26}. He said, "No one can come to Me unless it is granted him by the Father" (John 6:65). So ... apparently Jesus was in favor of the idea. But ... maybe it was just a New Testament idea. Or ... not.
Turns out the doctrine of election has been in effect practically from the beginning. God chose Noah. God chose Abraham. God chose the nation of Israel. It is actually a primary theme of Scripture. It is apparently a fundamental concept in the Bible. And, of course, it is abundantly logical. I mean, if we're dead in sin (Eph 2:1-3), how in the world do we get to choose if we get saved? If we're naturally hostile to God (Rom 8:7), how would we possibly get to choosing Him? It seems as if it is necessary that God initiate this process if it's going to happen. It must be without any value in us or it won't be grace. Maybe ... just maybe ... it's a thoroughly reasonable and biblical idea.
Wednesday, June 25, 2025
Forgive?
The word, "forgive," comes from Old English word, forgiefan, that means to grant or pardon, where "for" means "completely" and "giefan" means "to give." It refers to completely giving up the desire to punish. Fine. Okay. But I learned something interesting the other day.
We're familiar with the phrase in the Lord's Prayer, "And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors" (Matt 6:12). The word in that text (and Matt 6:13-14) is aphiēmi. The word means "to send forth." Interesting, isn't it? If you back up a step and put that back in, Jesus said, "And send away our debts, as we also have sent away the debts of our debtors." That's an interesting image ... and helpful. It's not "feel better about." It's not "don't remember." It's not "make excuses for." It's not "mitigate." It's "send away." The image is an offense (debt) standing between you, and you choose ... to set it aside. Take the loss. Move on. Let it go. Forgive.
If you look at the rest of that text, Jesus said, "But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions" (Matt 6:15). Wow! I can't tell you how many Christians have told me, "I can never forgive that person." But one of the characteristics of love is "does not take into account a wrong suffered" (1 Cor 13:5), and we are told to love our neighbors ... including our enemies (Luke 6:27). We're told that the one who is forgiven much loves much (Luke 7:47) ... which implies they forgive much. We're told to forgive each other "just as God in Christ has forgiven you." So ... apparently this "sending away" of offenses is kind of important for genuine believers.
We're familiar with the phrase in the Lord's Prayer, "And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors" (Matt 6:12). The word in that text (and Matt 6:13-14) is aphiēmi. The word means "to send forth." Interesting, isn't it? If you back up a step and put that back in, Jesus said, "And send away our debts, as we also have sent away the debts of our debtors." That's an interesting image ... and helpful. It's not "feel better about." It's not "don't remember." It's not "make excuses for." It's not "mitigate." It's "send away." The image is an offense (debt) standing between you, and you choose ... to set it aside. Take the loss. Move on. Let it go. Forgive.
If you look at the rest of that text, Jesus said, "But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions" (Matt 6:15). Wow! I can't tell you how many Christians have told me, "I can never forgive that person." But one of the characteristics of love is "does not take into account a wrong suffered" (1 Cor 13:5), and we are told to love our neighbors ... including our enemies (Luke 6:27). We're told that the one who is forgiven much loves much (Luke 7:47) ... which implies they forgive much. We're told to forgive each other "just as God in Christ has forgiven you." So ... apparently this "sending away" of offenses is kind of important for genuine believers.
Tuesday, June 24, 2025
Regret
The word means "a feeling of sadness, repentance or disappointment." It comes from Old French, where greter means "to weep," so to "regret" means "to weep again" ... or something like it. Someone recently asked me, "Do you have any regrets?" It turns out it's a harder question than I originally thought.
On the surface, everyone has regrets, from "I shouldn't have eaten the whole cake" to "I shouldn't have married that person." Everyone has them. But the real question was about long-term ... something you continue to regret. And I think it's a complicated answer ... to believers. Do we regret ... sins? If "regret" means "repentance," then we have to. But ... what about long-term? Now it gets sticky. On one hand, we're tempted to think, "If I hadn't done what I wasn't supposed to, or if I had done what I was supposed to, things would have been better." Is that true? I think it's not. Consider some examples. If Joseph's brothers had not sinned, God's plan to save Israel would have failed (Gen 50:20). Yes, their intent was evil ... but God had different ideas. Or take Judas Iscariot. He furthered God's plan for our salvation by betraying Christ. Absolutely necessary, but Jesus said, "For the Son of Man is to go just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born" (Mark 14:21). Again, that "both-and" function, where, yes, it was sin and wrong, but it was God's plan. In fact, we all know "that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose" (Rom 8:28), which obviously includes sin.
I believe in a Sovereign God. He does whatever He wants. Everything that occurs does so by His hand or His permission. So, yes, we sin, and it should be regretted, but, we are forgiven (so we don't have to keep regretting it) and He always uses it for good, so there is no need for long-term regret. We can let it go. Which, of course, isn't always easy, is it?
On the surface, everyone has regrets, from "I shouldn't have eaten the whole cake" to "I shouldn't have married that person." Everyone has them. But the real question was about long-term ... something you continue to regret. And I think it's a complicated answer ... to believers. Do we regret ... sins? If "regret" means "repentance," then we have to. But ... what about long-term? Now it gets sticky. On one hand, we're tempted to think, "If I hadn't done what I wasn't supposed to, or if I had done what I was supposed to, things would have been better." Is that true? I think it's not. Consider some examples. If Joseph's brothers had not sinned, God's plan to save Israel would have failed (Gen 50:20). Yes, their intent was evil ... but God had different ideas. Or take Judas Iscariot. He furthered God's plan for our salvation by betraying Christ. Absolutely necessary, but Jesus said, "For the Son of Man is to go just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born" (Mark 14:21). Again, that "both-and" function, where, yes, it was sin and wrong, but it was God's plan. In fact, we all know "that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose" (Rom 8:28), which obviously includes sin.
I believe in a Sovereign God. He does whatever He wants. Everything that occurs does so by His hand or His permission. So, yes, we sin, and it should be regretted, but, we are forgiven (so we don't have to keep regretting it) and He always uses it for good, so there is no need for long-term regret. We can let it go. Which, of course, isn't always easy, is it?
Monday, June 23, 2025
Don't Miss Now
We are all connected in some way to difficulties. Maybe we're in them. Maybe we're coming out of them. Maybe we're heading to them. Maybe we're in the lull between. Jesus said, "In the world you will have tribulation" (John 16:33). He went on to say, "But take heart; I have overcome the world." I think sometimes we miss out on a whole lot of good stuff when we hunker down and try to bear up under difficulties. Lots of people are desperately waiting for the relief in the end, and, frankly, it's a promise, so it's not bad. But ... what about now?
Christians have long held the upper hand on tribulations and trials. Whether or not we use it, we've always had the certainty of heaven in the end. "Pie in the sky," skeptics call it. We all know that someday we'll have absolute perfection, perfect peace, and no more tears. Not so for the rest. But we're missing out if that's where we stop. We have ... so ... much ... more. We have the certainty that God causes all things to work together for our good (Rom 8:29-29). We have the opportunity, the right, and even responsibility to rejoice in tribulation (e.g., Rom 5:1-5; James 1:2-4) not because we can endure it, but because we're improved by it. In the middle of pain, we can say with Paul, "I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me. Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ's sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong" (2 Cor 12:9-10). We aren't passengers on this wild ride of troubles and pains. "In all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us" (Rom 8:35-37). "In all these things." We "overwhelmingly conquer."
We are humans and we will experience human frailty and the consequences of sin in the world. It won't be easy. But, as Jesus said, "Take heart; I have overcome the world." We don't live as others do. We live by the Spirit (Gal 5:25; 1 Peter 4:6). We are not alone. We are not muddling through. We are not "hanging on." We're in the Spirit, living by His power. We're more than conquerors. Look forward to heaven, by all means, but ... don't miss now.
Christians have long held the upper hand on tribulations and trials. Whether or not we use it, we've always had the certainty of heaven in the end. "Pie in the sky," skeptics call it. We all know that someday we'll have absolute perfection, perfect peace, and no more tears. Not so for the rest. But we're missing out if that's where we stop. We have ... so ... much ... more. We have the certainty that God causes all things to work together for our good (Rom 8:29-29). We have the opportunity, the right, and even responsibility to rejoice in tribulation (e.g., Rom 5:1-5; James 1:2-4) not because we can endure it, but because we're improved by it. In the middle of pain, we can say with Paul, "I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me. Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ's sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong" (2 Cor 12:9-10). We aren't passengers on this wild ride of troubles and pains. "In all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us" (Rom 8:35-37). "In all these things." We "overwhelmingly conquer."
We are humans and we will experience human frailty and the consequences of sin in the world. It won't be easy. But, as Jesus said, "Take heart; I have overcome the world." We don't live as others do. We live by the Spirit (Gal 5:25; 1 Peter 4:6). We are not alone. We are not muddling through. We are not "hanging on." We're in the Spirit, living by His power. We're more than conquerors. Look forward to heaven, by all means, but ... don't miss now.
Sunday, June 22, 2025
What Wondrous Love
I love the "but God" texts in Scripture. In Genesis, God flooded the earth, "But God remembered Noah" (Gen 8:1). Joseph told his brothers, "You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good" (Gen 50:20). Peter, preaching his first sermon, told the people they nailed Christ to the cross, "But God raised Him up again" (Acts 2:23-24). Paul wrote of being afflicted on every side, "But God, who comforts the depressed, comforted us" (2 Cor 7:5-6). In Ephesians Paul describes us as "dead in sin" (Eph 2:1-3) and follows it with, "But God, being rich in mercy ..." and tells of how He made us alive (Eph 2:4-7). There are more, but I was looking at this one.
Jesus said, "He who is forgiven little, loves little" (Luke 7:47), speaking of the woman who was forgiven much and loved much. I think it might be beneficial sometimes for us to recall what we've been forgiven. I think a reminder of the great love with which He loves us (Eph 2:4) is important for us. I think it's good for us to think back to the "sinner" and "enemies of God" status that we were in when He saved us. Remembering His love and His forgiveness should drive us toward greater love, greater gratitude, and greater forgiveness, and that's a very good thing.
For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Rom 5:6-8)The "But God" here is in contrast to the apparent impossibility of anyone ever dying for the ungodly. Maybe a good man, but not ... sinners like us. Yet ... God the Son did. Note, as a matter of importance, why He did: to demonstrate His own love toward us. He says, "If while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life" (Rom 5:10). "Enemies of God." He died ... for His enemies ... in order to demonstrate ... His love.
Jesus said, "He who is forgiven little, loves little" (Luke 7:47), speaking of the woman who was forgiven much and loved much. I think it might be beneficial sometimes for us to recall what we've been forgiven. I think a reminder of the great love with which He loves us (Eph 2:4) is important for us. I think it's good for us to think back to the "sinner" and "enemies of God" status that we were in when He saved us. Remembering His love and His forgiveness should drive us toward greater love, greater gratitude, and greater forgiveness, and that's a very good thing.
Saturday, June 21, 2025
News Weakly - 6/21/2025
Go Figure
The Supreme Court upheld the Tennessee law that prevents minors from receiving "gender-affirming care" (in quotes because to call it that is actually a lie). Apparently a majority of justices did not see defying science and nature as a constitutional right. Go figure.
"No Truth" Protest
Newsweek reports that Donald Trump's approval rating dropped 6 points after the "No Kings" protest last weekend. That's because ... people are sheep. They don't bother noting that Trump was duly elected. They don't pay attention to the fact that the judicial system has stopped said "king" from doing a lot of what he wants to do. They don't care that the system appears to be working. They just ... buy ... the hype. Truth in America is no longer an issue since we've redefined it as "whatever I think it is."
Celebrations Denied
The town that started the "Juneteenth" Holiday canceled their celebrations this year. And not only them. There were quite a few. Apparently there is a public backlash against the new holiday and businesses that recognize it in some places face boycotts. Juneteenth marks June 19th as the end of slavery ... even though the Emancipation Proclamation was issued in 1863. I'm not concerned much about the holiday. I just wonder about the furor over both the holiday and its opposition.
Remember to Pray
You're aware of the "tensions" (How's that for an understatement?) in the Middle East. I don't need to gather the stories for you. I only ask you to remember to pray. "Pray for the peace of Jerusalem! 'May they be secure who love you!'" (Psa 122:6). Pray for Israel. Pray for the Palestinians ... especially persecuted Christians there. Pray for Iran. With Paul, "I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity" (1 Tim 2:1-2). Including Trump.
Your Best Source for Fake News
The Dems announced that they would celebrate Juneteenth by giving their slaves an extra 5-minute break. (It's only funny if you remember it was the Dems who pushed for so long to retain slavery, even after the Civil War.) In other news, Democrats are wondering exactly what children are for if you can't mutilate them or kill them. (Again, only funny if you remember that the Dems are avid "pro-abortion" folk.) And this last one ... just made me laugh. I don't know ... too many GEICO commercials, I guess, coupled with the current events in the Middle East. The Ayatollah let out a big surprise this week. He revealed how much he saved by switching to GEICO. Wow!
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
The Supreme Court upheld the Tennessee law that prevents minors from receiving "gender-affirming care" (in quotes because to call it that is actually a lie). Apparently a majority of justices did not see defying science and nature as a constitutional right. Go figure.
"No Truth" Protest
Newsweek reports that Donald Trump's approval rating dropped 6 points after the "No Kings" protest last weekend. That's because ... people are sheep. They don't bother noting that Trump was duly elected. They don't pay attention to the fact that the judicial system has stopped said "king" from doing a lot of what he wants to do. They don't care that the system appears to be working. They just ... buy ... the hype. Truth in America is no longer an issue since we've redefined it as "whatever I think it is."
Celebrations Denied
The town that started the "Juneteenth" Holiday canceled their celebrations this year. And not only them. There were quite a few. Apparently there is a public backlash against the new holiday and businesses that recognize it in some places face boycotts. Juneteenth marks June 19th as the end of slavery ... even though the Emancipation Proclamation was issued in 1863. I'm not concerned much about the holiday. I just wonder about the furor over both the holiday and its opposition.
Remember to Pray
You're aware of the "tensions" (How's that for an understatement?) in the Middle East. I don't need to gather the stories for you. I only ask you to remember to pray. "Pray for the peace of Jerusalem! 'May they be secure who love you!'" (Psa 122:6). Pray for Israel. Pray for the Palestinians ... especially persecuted Christians there. Pray for Iran. With Paul, "I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity" (1 Tim 2:1-2). Including Trump.
Your Best Source for Fake News
The Dems announced that they would celebrate Juneteenth by giving their slaves an extra 5-minute break. (It's only funny if you remember it was the Dems who pushed for so long to retain slavery, even after the Civil War.) In other news, Democrats are wondering exactly what children are for if you can't mutilate them or kill them. (Again, only funny if you remember that the Dems are avid "pro-abortion" folk.) And this last one ... just made me laugh. I don't know ... too many GEICO commercials, I guess, coupled with the current events in the Middle East. The Ayatollah let out a big surprise this week. He revealed how much he saved by switching to GEICO. Wow!
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Friday, June 20, 2025
Forgive and Forget
Lots of Christians have the mistaken idea that when God forgives our sin, He forgets our sin. Now, this is obvious nonsense. An Omniscient Being cannot forget. He can't not know ... anything. So why would we think He forgets our sin?
In the Old Testament, there are lots of references to "forget." The word is shakach, and it means ... well ... to forget. But that word is not found in reference to God and our sin. The word in Hebrew for "remember" is zakar. It means to be mindful of ... to call to mind. And we're often called on to "remember" in that sense ... to call to mind ... God's compassion and blessings, His goodness and even God Himself. But in Jeremiah, God speaking, we read, "They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know YHWH,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more" (Jer 31:34). There it is. Repeated in Hebrews 8:12, we have the promise that He will forget out sin. Or ... do we? Wouldn't that require that He cease to be Omniscient?
I've often been amused by the image of me, calling out to God, saying, "Forgive me for that sin," and Him saying, "What sin?" I'm amused because apparently I know things He doesn't. But I don't think that's true. There is certainly a connection to "forget" and "not remember." The dictionary gives as the first definition of "forget" as "to fail to remember." But I think there is a subtle notion here that shouldn't be missed. If God forgets, He cannot recall. But the text actually says ... He does not recall. He does not ... "call to mind." It's not that it's not stored. It's that He has set it aside, no longer to be considered. And that seems ... better than a forgetful God who just doesn't have the capacity ... like an aged relative on the edge of senility. No ... He doesn't forget. He knows everything. But He graciously refuses to call it to mind, and I'm grateful for that.
In the Old Testament, there are lots of references to "forget." The word is shakach, and it means ... well ... to forget. But that word is not found in reference to God and our sin. The word in Hebrew for "remember" is zakar. It means to be mindful of ... to call to mind. And we're often called on to "remember" in that sense ... to call to mind ... God's compassion and blessings, His goodness and even God Himself. But in Jeremiah, God speaking, we read, "They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know YHWH,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more" (Jer 31:34). There it is. Repeated in Hebrews 8:12, we have the promise that He will forget out sin. Or ... do we? Wouldn't that require that He cease to be Omniscient?
I've often been amused by the image of me, calling out to God, saying, "Forgive me for that sin," and Him saying, "What sin?" I'm amused because apparently I know things He doesn't. But I don't think that's true. There is certainly a connection to "forget" and "not remember." The dictionary gives as the first definition of "forget" as "to fail to remember." But I think there is a subtle notion here that shouldn't be missed. If God forgets, He cannot recall. But the text actually says ... He does not recall. He does not ... "call to mind." It's not that it's not stored. It's that He has set it aside, no longer to be considered. And that seems ... better than a forgetful God who just doesn't have the capacity ... like an aged relative on the edge of senility. No ... He doesn't forget. He knows everything. But He graciously refuses to call it to mind, and I'm grateful for that.
Thursday, June 19, 2025
Sell All Your Possessions - Reprise
In October of 2006, I wrote this piece. It is my most viewed entry and it has almost 200 comments. I wonder if it's still controversial today.
________
What does He mean? Well, let's take it at face value (always a good idea if possible). It would appear as if He is commanding us to sell all we have. What would that mean? Well if "sell all your possessions" is taken purely literally, then I would need to sell off this computer, get rid of the house, the car, the furniture, stove, refrigerator, etc., my clothing, anything I possess. If this is the case, then the command is to become a homeless person with nothing of your own. Well, perhaps you could rent a place, but it couldn't have any furnishings or the like. Is this the command? Maybe. Jesus had no place of His own. And others have taken it quite literally. The first disciples appeared to do so. Some monks have taken vows of poverty. Saint Antony of the Egyptian Desert took it quite at face value, sold everything, and went to live in the desert. It was these passages that started the Monasticism movement.
Others suggest a different understanding. One site's interpretation says, "Jesus does want us to ask this question: where does my ultimate loyalty lie?" Carl Rohlfs, in a sermon preached in the University United Methodist Church says, "He does not say 'Sell ALL your possessions'; just 'sell your possessions.' Sell those things available for sale. Don’t hang the weight of excess wealth and accumulation as the millstone holding you down." Tracy Lesan of the Berean Bible Society suggests that the command was for a particular time, and that God isn't doing that anymore. (I apologize. The links to the three references from 2006 no longer work. They were there at the time.)
We are at an impasse here. If we are to take the Bible at face value, then nothing less than abject poverty is the command for all Christians anywhere. We need to sell everything we own or we aren't "Bible-believing Christians". On the other hand, there are rational approaches to these passages that suggest that "sell all your possessions" was not really in mind here at all, and it is not necessary to do so.
Allow me a few observations. First, what is in view? Is it God's intention that His own be people of poverty? I don't think so. What is His intention? "For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" (Luke 12:34). The goal isn't poverty, but rather love. What do you love? If it is your possessions, you're in trouble. Clearly the problem with the rich, young ruler was an inordinate love for his possessions. That's why Jesus said it was hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom.
Second, consider the parallel:
Third, note that it is true that only one passage mentions "all", and that one doesn't say to sell all, but to "give up". The ESV says "renounce". This doesn't mean "divest yourself", but "surrender ownership". When you hear yourself say, "That's mine", you haven't surrendered ownership.
Finally, notice the first century church. According to Acts, they "were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need" (Acts 2:45). Some have said, "See? Sell all you have! They did." But this isn't an accurate representation. First, it wasn't compulsory; it was voluntary. Second, we have the example of Ananias and Sapphira. In their example, they sold what they had, then lied about the price. What did Peter tell them? "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal?" (Acts 5:4). You see, keeping the property, or even retaining part of the price was not a sin. Their sin was not in withholding something for themselves, but in lying about it. So Peter was not mandating that they sell all they possessed. That was not required.
On one hand, it appears to be a mandate for all Christians to live in abject poverty. On the other hand, there appears to be viable alternatives to this "face value" concept. Which is right? I'll leave that up to you. One thing that is inescapable here. Jesus called for radical disciples who would cling to nothing here on Earth and who would follow Him at all costs. This isn't the vision of the American Christian. We tend to be comfortable, accumulating wealth if possible, certainly not giving to charity as we could and should. Indeed, we worship comfort. Perhaps Jesus didn't mean a literal "sell everything", but He unavoidably commanded that we should not be materialists ... and for the most part, we are.
________
And behold, one came to Him and said, "Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?" And He said to him, "Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." He said to Him, "Which ones?" And Jesus said, "You shall not commit murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother; and You shall love your neighbor as yourself." The young man said to Him, "All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?" Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieved; for he was one who owned much property.Of course it's a "hard saying". Even the disciples were baffled. But the part I want to look at is verse 21. Jesus said, "Sell your possessions and give to the poor." "Yeah, yeah," you might counter, "but Jesus was only talking to this guy. He didn't say it to everyone." Oh?
And Jesus said to His disciples, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. "And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." And when the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, "Then who can be saved?" And looking upon them Jesus said to them, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible" (Matt. 19:16-26).
"Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" (Luke 12:33-34).Oops! So it isn't just to the rich young ruler. In fact, it's an imperative without which we cannot be His disciple.
"No one of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions" (Luke 14:33).
What does He mean? Well, let's take it at face value (always a good idea if possible). It would appear as if He is commanding us to sell all we have. What would that mean? Well if "sell all your possessions" is taken purely literally, then I would need to sell off this computer, get rid of the house, the car, the furniture, stove, refrigerator, etc., my clothing, anything I possess. If this is the case, then the command is to become a homeless person with nothing of your own. Well, perhaps you could rent a place, but it couldn't have any furnishings or the like. Is this the command? Maybe. Jesus had no place of His own. And others have taken it quite literally. The first disciples appeared to do so. Some monks have taken vows of poverty. Saint Antony of the Egyptian Desert took it quite at face value, sold everything, and went to live in the desert. It was these passages that started the Monasticism movement.
Others suggest a different understanding. One site's interpretation says, "Jesus does want us to ask this question: where does my ultimate loyalty lie?" Carl Rohlfs, in a sermon preached in the University United Methodist Church says, "He does not say 'Sell ALL your possessions'; just 'sell your possessions.' Sell those things available for sale. Don’t hang the weight of excess wealth and accumulation as the millstone holding you down." Tracy Lesan of the Berean Bible Society suggests that the command was for a particular time, and that God isn't doing that anymore. (I apologize. The links to the three references from 2006 no longer work. They were there at the time.)
We are at an impasse here. If we are to take the Bible at face value, then nothing less than abject poverty is the command for all Christians anywhere. We need to sell everything we own or we aren't "Bible-believing Christians". On the other hand, there are rational approaches to these passages that suggest that "sell all your possessions" was not really in mind here at all, and it is not necessary to do so.
Allow me a few observations. First, what is in view? Is it God's intention that His own be people of poverty? I don't think so. What is His intention? "For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" (Luke 12:34). The goal isn't poverty, but rather love. What do you love? If it is your possessions, you're in trouble. Clearly the problem with the rich, young ruler was an inordinate love for his possessions. That's why Jesus said it was hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom.
Second, consider the parallel:
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of Me" (Matt. 10:34-38).It seems quite obvious that Jesus isn't commanding us to hate our families, or this would contradict too many other Scriptures. What He is saying is that there will be a conflict between earthly loves and a heart for God. What He is saying is that love for Him must clearly outweigh love for even family. In like manner, the point of the command to "sell possessions" isn't poverty, but the question of "Where is your heart?"
Third, note that it is true that only one passage mentions "all", and that one doesn't say to sell all, but to "give up". The ESV says "renounce". This doesn't mean "divest yourself", but "surrender ownership". When you hear yourself say, "That's mine", you haven't surrendered ownership.
Finally, notice the first century church. According to Acts, they "were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need" (Acts 2:45). Some have said, "See? Sell all you have! They did." But this isn't an accurate representation. First, it wasn't compulsory; it was voluntary. Second, we have the example of Ananias and Sapphira. In their example, they sold what they had, then lied about the price. What did Peter tell them? "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal?" (Acts 5:4). You see, keeping the property, or even retaining part of the price was not a sin. Their sin was not in withholding something for themselves, but in lying about it. So Peter was not mandating that they sell all they possessed. That was not required.
On one hand, it appears to be a mandate for all Christians to live in abject poverty. On the other hand, there appears to be viable alternatives to this "face value" concept. Which is right? I'll leave that up to you. One thing that is inescapable here. Jesus called for radical disciples who would cling to nothing here on Earth and who would follow Him at all costs. This isn't the vision of the American Christian. We tend to be comfortable, accumulating wealth if possible, certainly not giving to charity as we could and should. Indeed, we worship comfort. Perhaps Jesus didn't mean a literal "sell everything", but He unavoidably commanded that we should not be materialists ... and for the most part, we are.
Wednesday, June 18, 2025
Think This Way
You've heard we should "walk this way." Maybe it's how we should act in certain situations or how we should be good Christians or something else. And it may even be good advice. Have you ever considered how we should think?
This seems like an impossible task. We're surrounded every day with "elementary principles of the world." We're bombarded with "immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed." It's in our entertainment, our advertisement, our conversation, our entire lives. And Paul says, "Your life is hidden with Christ in God." Are we living that way? Are we thinking that way? When I learned to drive, my instructor told me, "Don't look at the parked cars." "Why?" I asked him. "I need to avoid them." He said, "You always go where you look. Look down the road and not just in front of you." Paul is telling us the same. Don't look around you. You'll go that way. Look to Christ, to the things above. Think that way.
Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory. Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry. (Col 3:1-5)The "therefore" at the beginning refers to Paul's explanation in the previous chapter that we were "buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God" (Col 2:12). Based on that, we "have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world" (Col 2:20). So, raised with Christ, we must "keep seeking the things above." We need to "Set your mind on the things above." Think this way
This seems like an impossible task. We're surrounded every day with "elementary principles of the world." We're bombarded with "immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed." It's in our entertainment, our advertisement, our conversation, our entire lives. And Paul says, "Your life is hidden with Christ in God." Are we living that way? Are we thinking that way? When I learned to drive, my instructor told me, "Don't look at the parked cars." "Why?" I asked him. "I need to avoid them." He said, "You always go where you look. Look down the road and not just in front of you." Paul is telling us the same. Don't look around you. You'll go that way. Look to Christ, to the things above. Think that way.
Tuesday, June 17, 2025
Me Submit? No Way!
We're Americans. You know, "the land of the free." And, although it's a myth, we're mostly free. In earlier eras the rank and file were used to submitting, but not us. Oh, no. "No kings." "No tyrants." "Don't tread on me." We will not bend. So it is often a problem when we come across such things as the one that says we're supposed to be "submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ" (Eph 5:21). Often it's the particulars that trip us up. "Wives submit? No way!" "Children, obey? Yeah, right." Oh, and "Slaves, obey? That's not even right." But what about "submit"?
The word in the text is a military term. It means literally to rank under ... to place oneself under. Like in the military when you sign up and immediately find yourself outranked. It's not that you're less important, less of a person, less valuable. No. It's a matter of rank. Authority. Priority. Paul says we are to be submitting to one another -- ranking under each other. Note that it's voluntary. By that, I mean it's something you choose to do. It doesn't just ... happen. Do it. Notice also that it's universal. "To one another." Everyone. Paul gives examples in husband and wife relationships, parent and child relationships, and master and slave relationships (Eph 5:22-6:9). Don't get bogged down in the examples. Everyone ... submit. Set self aside. Paul wrote the same thing in Philippians. "... with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others" (Php 2:3-4). That's "submit." Rank yourself under others.
We don't like it, but it's in there. In fact, it's all the way through. Jesus was the example, emptying Himself (Php 2:5-8). And it's not easy. Paul precedes the command to submit with the command to "be filled with the Spirit" (Eph 5:18) because it's a God thing. But it's the right thing. We are supposed to live a submitted life, where we elevate others over ourselves. Will you? Will you deny yourself (Matt 16:24)?
The word in the text is a military term. It means literally to rank under ... to place oneself under. Like in the military when you sign up and immediately find yourself outranked. It's not that you're less important, less of a person, less valuable. No. It's a matter of rank. Authority. Priority. Paul says we are to be submitting to one another -- ranking under each other. Note that it's voluntary. By that, I mean it's something you choose to do. It doesn't just ... happen. Do it. Notice also that it's universal. "To one another." Everyone. Paul gives examples in husband and wife relationships, parent and child relationships, and master and slave relationships (Eph 5:22-6:9). Don't get bogged down in the examples. Everyone ... submit. Set self aside. Paul wrote the same thing in Philippians. "... with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others" (Php 2:3-4). That's "submit." Rank yourself under others.
We don't like it, but it's in there. In fact, it's all the way through. Jesus was the example, emptying Himself (Php 2:5-8). And it's not easy. Paul precedes the command to submit with the command to "be filled with the Spirit" (Eph 5:18) because it's a God thing. But it's the right thing. We are supposed to live a submitted life, where we elevate others over ourselves. Will you? Will you deny yourself (Matt 16:24)?
Monday, June 16, 2025
Biblically Informed
Most people don't know it, but the Bible inhabits a lot of the corners of our lives without us even knowing it. We have a lot of idioms and sayings that are biblically sourced.
Take, for instance, "the skin of your teeth." It comes from Job 19:20, where Job "escaped with the skin of my teeth." I'm sure we've all heard that a leopard can't change its spots, which comes from Jeremiah 13:23. "A fly in the ointment" comes from Ecclesiastes 10:1. "No rest for the wicked" (which has been thoroughly butchered since then) comes from Isaiah 57:20-21. The idea of "putting words in my mouth" comes from 2 Samuel 14:3. "Seeing eye to eye" comes from Isaiah 52:8. There are some you probably know, like "the writing on the wall" from Daniel 5 and "cast the first stone" (John 8:7). Lincoln said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand" as a direct quote from Jesus (Mark 3:25). "Going the extra mile" was from Jesus's Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:41) and being a "good Samaritan" was from Jesus's parable (Luke 10:30-37). "A wolf in sheep's clothing" was from the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 7:15) and to "wash your hands of something" is from Pilate's actions when he sent Jesus to be crucified (Matt 27:24).
That's a sampling. I've found quite a few. I just think it's funny that God's Word has worked its way into our daily conversations even as our nation tries to push it out.
Take, for instance, "the skin of your teeth." It comes from Job 19:20, where Job "escaped with the skin of my teeth." I'm sure we've all heard that a leopard can't change its spots, which comes from Jeremiah 13:23. "A fly in the ointment" comes from Ecclesiastes 10:1. "No rest for the wicked" (which has been thoroughly butchered since then) comes from Isaiah 57:20-21. The idea of "putting words in my mouth" comes from 2 Samuel 14:3. "Seeing eye to eye" comes from Isaiah 52:8. There are some you probably know, like "the writing on the wall" from Daniel 5 and "cast the first stone" (John 8:7). Lincoln said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand" as a direct quote from Jesus (Mark 3:25). "Going the extra mile" was from Jesus's Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:41) and being a "good Samaritan" was from Jesus's parable (Luke 10:30-37). "A wolf in sheep's clothing" was from the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 7:15) and to "wash your hands of something" is from Pilate's actions when he sent Jesus to be crucified (Matt 27:24).
That's a sampling. I've found quite a few. I just think it's funny that God's Word has worked its way into our daily conversations even as our nation tries to push it out.
Sunday, June 15, 2025
Happy Father's Day
Scripture refers repeatedly to a person of the Trinity that is called "the Father." Jesus often referred to Him as "Father," which upset the Jews of His day. It's not like they hadn't heard it before (e.g, Isa 63:16) Scripture refers to Israel as "the children of God" (Deu 14:1). Jesus made it clear that He was about His "Father's business" (KJV) repeatedly (e.g., Luke 2:49). And while a whole lot of people think of humans as "all God's children," Scripture says,
I've heard people complain about God as "Father." "I never had a good father. I don't know what that means." I suspect that's not quite true. They know they never had a good father ... because they know what a good father is and didn't have one. Fortunately, on this Father's Day, we can celebrate the perfect Father and give thanks for the father's He gave us.
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:12-13)We're told that we are adopted (Eph 1:5; Gal 4:5-7; Rom 8:14-19). It's silly to "adopt" your own children. So humans are surely God's creation and "children" in that sense, but those who are not saved are "of your father, the devil" (John 8:44), and genuine "children of God" are born of God (John 3:5).
I've heard people complain about God as "Father." "I never had a good father. I don't know what that means." I suspect that's not quite true. They know they never had a good father ... because they know what a good father is and didn't have one. Fortunately, on this Father's Day, we can celebrate the perfect Father and give thanks for the father's He gave us.
Saturday, June 14, 2025
News Weakly - 6/14/2025
California Burning
Californians are mad. They're violently protesting Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration in Los Angeles. Protesters protested the deployment of the national guard, but LA police chief Jim McDonnell refuses to participate in any way because SB 54 makes Los Angeles a "sanctuary city" in defiance of the law. California is suing Trump for stopping the riots and enforcing the law without their permission. So, Mr. Trump, you need to stop being the president of Los Angeles and San Francisco and just leave them be. Of course, make sure they get no federal funding and all. I mean, you need to be consistent. Maybe a border wall around those or something?
A sidenote on the L.A. story. in 2008, the courts struck down a California law approved by 70% of the voters that defined marriage as a man and a woman. That year, Californians again voted, this time to make that definition part of the state constitution. Again, the courts struck it down. So it's very odd to hear Californian protesters saying it's anti-democratic for the federal government to enforce federal law, but that's what they were saying in California. Double standard much? (And a side question. Why so many Mexican flags in an American protest?)
Better Than I Expected
Israel seized a ship headed for Gaza ... that happened to be carrying Greta Thunberg. Greta was (wisely) deported and appears to be headed back to Sweden. Her plan was to save the Palestinians ... which, of course, would require the elimination of Israel, since that's the Palestinian position. But she still considers hers a "humanitarian mission."
Unrest
Israel attacked nuclear sites in Iran and Iran retaliated. Understandable ... except Israel attacked nuclear sites and Iran attacked Israel's citizens. And we'll call it "unrest in the Middle East" and debate who was right.
Say No to Democracy
You know that thing people do where they label someone "Hitler" as if that's a meaningful or even truthful thing, and it becomes the "truth"? In what seems to be the ultimate irony, they're planning a massive "peaceful" protest called ... get this ... "No Kings Day" to protest ... the duly elected president ... the "existential threat to democracy." Because by applying these labels in contradiction to fact, they win their argument ... without, you know, arguing ... or evidence.
Your Best Source for Fake News
On the Middle East, the headline reads, "Global Community Condemns Israel for Attacking Peace-Loving-Nation of Iran." No need for further comment. On the riots in L.A., CNN reports another peaceful night in L.A. where the majority of cars are not on fire. It's all in the spin. And Governor Newsom is promising to protect the illegal immigrants who elected him. Now that's representative government.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Californians are mad. They're violently protesting Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration in Los Angeles. Protesters protested the deployment of the national guard, but LA police chief Jim McDonnell refuses to participate in any way because SB 54 makes Los Angeles a "sanctuary city" in defiance of the law. California is suing Trump for stopping the riots and enforcing the law without their permission. So, Mr. Trump, you need to stop being the president of Los Angeles and San Francisco and just leave them be. Of course, make sure they get no federal funding and all. I mean, you need to be consistent. Maybe a border wall around those or something?
A sidenote on the L.A. story. in 2008, the courts struck down a California law approved by 70% of the voters that defined marriage as a man and a woman. That year, Californians again voted, this time to make that definition part of the state constitution. Again, the courts struck it down. So it's very odd to hear Californian protesters saying it's anti-democratic for the federal government to enforce federal law, but that's what they were saying in California. Double standard much? (And a side question. Why so many Mexican flags in an American protest?)
Better Than I Expected
Israel seized a ship headed for Gaza ... that happened to be carrying Greta Thunberg. Greta was (wisely) deported and appears to be headed back to Sweden. Her plan was to save the Palestinians ... which, of course, would require the elimination of Israel, since that's the Palestinian position. But she still considers hers a "humanitarian mission."
Unrest
Israel attacked nuclear sites in Iran and Iran retaliated. Understandable ... except Israel attacked nuclear sites and Iran attacked Israel's citizens. And we'll call it "unrest in the Middle East" and debate who was right.
Say No to Democracy
You know that thing people do where they label someone "Hitler" as if that's a meaningful or even truthful thing, and it becomes the "truth"? In what seems to be the ultimate irony, they're planning a massive "peaceful" protest called ... get this ... "No Kings Day" to protest ... the duly elected president ... the "existential threat to democracy." Because by applying these labels in contradiction to fact, they win their argument ... without, you know, arguing ... or evidence.
Your Best Source for Fake News
On the Middle East, the headline reads, "Global Community Condemns Israel for Attacking Peace-Loving-Nation of Iran." No need for further comment. On the riots in L.A., CNN reports another peaceful night in L.A. where the majority of cars are not on fire. It's all in the spin. And Governor Newsom is promising to protect the illegal immigrants who elected him. Now that's representative government.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
Friday, June 13, 2025
Don't Look Now
We had a special event at church recently. At one point, the speaker had the married couples stand. Then he told husbands to repeat after him and say what he told us to say to our wives. After that, he did the same for the wives to repeat to their husbands. You know the underlying message, right? "You're not doing this right, and you need to admit it." I was amused, of course, that the men were making more mistakes than the women, and, moreso that my wife told me, "You're already doing all he said you should be." I don't think I'm even remotely a perfect husband, but I'm pleased she's pleased.
It made me think. Have you noticed that the commands in Scripture for husbands and wives are not contingent? I mean, nowhere does it say, "Wives, submit to good husbands" or "Husbands, love your wives if they're treating you well." Every command for husbands and wives are commands without regard to the corresponding spouse. Husbands aren't told to love their wives who submit and wives aren't told to submit to husbands who love. In fact, Peter says, "Wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word" (1 Peter 3:1) -- the opposite of what you might think.
If you pay attention to the standard wedding vows, they are intentionally unconditional. The promise is to love without consideration of the circumstances "'til death do us part." In the same way, we're commanded to treat our spouses in a way that glorifies God and not contingent on our spouses. We aren't to be analyzing their worth or obedience to Christ to determine our proper response. We're supposed to look to God for our motivation in doing what's best for our spouses ... unconditional love, powered by God, sanctified by the Spirit and freely given to our spouses. Imagine what love, freely given and not conditioned on the recipient, would do to marriages.
It made me think. Have you noticed that the commands in Scripture for husbands and wives are not contingent? I mean, nowhere does it say, "Wives, submit to good husbands" or "Husbands, love your wives if they're treating you well." Every command for husbands and wives are commands without regard to the corresponding spouse. Husbands aren't told to love their wives who submit and wives aren't told to submit to husbands who love. In fact, Peter says, "Wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word" (1 Peter 3:1) -- the opposite of what you might think.
If you pay attention to the standard wedding vows, they are intentionally unconditional. The promise is to love without consideration of the circumstances "'til death do us part." In the same way, we're commanded to treat our spouses in a way that glorifies God and not contingent on our spouses. We aren't to be analyzing their worth or obedience to Christ to determine our proper response. We're supposed to look to God for our motivation in doing what's best for our spouses ... unconditional love, powered by God, sanctified by the Spirit and freely given to our spouses. Imagine what love, freely given and not conditioned on the recipient, would do to marriages.
Thursday, June 12, 2025
Surpassing Peace
The word, "surpassing," means "going beyond." Scripture says, "Do not be anxious about anything. Instead, in every situation, through prayer and petition with thanksgiving, tell your requests to God. And the peace of God that surpasses all understanding will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus" (Php 4:6-7). What a concept!
Some translations say "Don't worry about anything." I've heard people suggest that worry is a sin. "Don't ever say you're worried!!" I don't think that's the idea here. I think it's saying, "Worry is unnecessary. Anxiety isn't required. Go with the alternative." The alternative would be prayer and thanksgiving. In those two things we will find ... surpassing peace. To what does the "surpassing" refer? Understanding. This peace is not ... normal. It's not rational. It's not what we'd expect. What is it? It is a pure and simple reliance on God.
We live in turbulent times. Guns, murder, crime. The Middle East, Russia vs Ukraine. Stupid politics and stupid politicians. Sickness, death. Family troubles, work troubles, all kinds of troubles. It's easy to worry. It's natural to worry. It's even sensible to worry. But ... for us, it's unnecessary. If your trust is in the Lord, it's completely unnecessary. King David wrote, "YHWH has established His throne in heaven; His kingdom extends over everything" (Psa 103:19). Over ... everything. This peace surpasses understanding because it's predicated on God's character ... His grace and mercy, His Sovereignty and Omnipotence, His love and His Omniscience. It doesn't make sense ... to the world. Makes perfect sense to those who know Him.
Some translations say "Don't worry about anything." I've heard people suggest that worry is a sin. "Don't ever say you're worried!!" I don't think that's the idea here. I think it's saying, "Worry is unnecessary. Anxiety isn't required. Go with the alternative." The alternative would be prayer and thanksgiving. In those two things we will find ... surpassing peace. To what does the "surpassing" refer? Understanding. This peace is not ... normal. It's not rational. It's not what we'd expect. What is it? It is a pure and simple reliance on God.
We live in turbulent times. Guns, murder, crime. The Middle East, Russia vs Ukraine. Stupid politics and stupid politicians. Sickness, death. Family troubles, work troubles, all kinds of troubles. It's easy to worry. It's natural to worry. It's even sensible to worry. But ... for us, it's unnecessary. If your trust is in the Lord, it's completely unnecessary. King David wrote, "YHWH has established His throne in heaven; His kingdom extends over everything" (Psa 103:19). Over ... everything. This peace surpasses understanding because it's predicated on God's character ... His grace and mercy, His Sovereignty and Omnipotence, His love and His Omniscience. It doesn't make sense ... to the world. Makes perfect sense to those who know Him.
Wednesday, June 11, 2025
Accept
I grew up being told that in order to become a Christian you had to "accept Christ." Is that true? It turns out you can't find that in Scripture. You can find, "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name" (John 1:12), but is that "accept"? Is there a difference?
According to the dictionary, the primary difference between "receive" and "accept" is that "accept" requires a conscious choice while "receive" is more passive. Is that the case here? It's interesting that the word "accept" is used in Scripture elsewhere. The word there in John for "receive" is lambanō while the word, say, in Romans 14 (Rom 14:1) translated "accept" is proslambanō. You can instantly see a difference ... the prefix, "pros," attached to "accept." And what's the intent of that prefix? It's a direction ... "toward." It implies "to take to oneself" where the base word means "to take." That is, one requires initiative and the other does not.
Scripture talks about our salvation as a gift (Eph 2:8-9). Grace is unmerited favor. It would seem to me that anything we add to God's salvation is ... worthy of merit, even if it's just, "I made the right choice." So I would argue that "receive" -- a passive receiving -- is the correct concept and "accept" -- our efforts to bring something to ourselves -- is not. I'm not quibbling over words, but I think the concept is vital since we so readily want to take some credit ... from God.
According to the dictionary, the primary difference between "receive" and "accept" is that "accept" requires a conscious choice while "receive" is more passive. Is that the case here? It's interesting that the word "accept" is used in Scripture elsewhere. The word there in John for "receive" is lambanō while the word, say, in Romans 14 (Rom 14:1) translated "accept" is proslambanō. You can instantly see a difference ... the prefix, "pros," attached to "accept." And what's the intent of that prefix? It's a direction ... "toward." It implies "to take to oneself" where the base word means "to take." That is, one requires initiative and the other does not.
Scripture talks about our salvation as a gift (Eph 2:8-9). Grace is unmerited favor. It would seem to me that anything we add to God's salvation is ... worthy of merit, even if it's just, "I made the right choice." So I would argue that "receive" -- a passive receiving -- is the correct concept and "accept" -- our efforts to bring something to ourselves -- is not. I'm not quibbling over words, but I think the concept is vital since we so readily want to take some credit ... from God.
Tuesday, June 10, 2025
Useful
If you're a believer, you certainly want to be used by God for His glory. Maybe some or maybe a little or maybe a lot, but all believers have their hearts tuned to God to some extent. So we want to be used by God for His glory. How's that working for you? The question, of course, is more complex than it first appears. You want to be useful to God. How do you know if you are? That is, by what do we measure "useful"?
God declares that our hearts are deceitful and desperately wicked (Jer 17:9), so Paul says we need to be renewing our minds (Rom 12:2). God told His people, "My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts" (Isa 55:8-9). Obviously, then, we're going to have a problem. Does what we consider "useful" line up with what God considers "useful." I would argue that it typically does not. Take, for instance, Jesus's words on Judas Iscariot. "For indeed, the Son of Man is going as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!" (Luke 22:22). Judas was "determined" to be the one who would betray Christ. That betrayal was necessary, but ... evil. Judas ... was "useful" in his sin. Or how about Joseph's brothers? "You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result" (Gen 50:20). Joseph's brothers sought to kill him and eventually sold him into slavery. Not good ... but it was useful to God. I would argue that we have a hard time, lacking omniscience, accurately measuring "useful to God."
Scripture talks about special people that are loved by God. David was "a man after God's own heart" (Acts 13:22) John was "the disciple that Jesus loved" (John 21:7). Peter says we should add to our faith a list of qualities (2 Peter 1:5-7). He concludes, "For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:8). Paul writes, "Now in a large house there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also vessels of wood and of earthenware, and some to honor and some to dishonor. Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from these things, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work" (2 Tim 2:20-21). So remember that when you pray and when you act to serve God. Don't measure your effectiveness by the obvious results. Consider your character like Peter and Paul told us to do. Consider your heart ... are you pursuing God or your own interests? But don't look at the results and conclude, "That didn't work." You don't get to decide that. God will use whatever He will use to accomplish His best, and that's useful.
God declares that our hearts are deceitful and desperately wicked (Jer 17:9), so Paul says we need to be renewing our minds (Rom 12:2). God told His people, "My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts" (Isa 55:8-9). Obviously, then, we're going to have a problem. Does what we consider "useful" line up with what God considers "useful." I would argue that it typically does not. Take, for instance, Jesus's words on Judas Iscariot. "For indeed, the Son of Man is going as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!" (Luke 22:22). Judas was "determined" to be the one who would betray Christ. That betrayal was necessary, but ... evil. Judas ... was "useful" in his sin. Or how about Joseph's brothers? "You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result" (Gen 50:20). Joseph's brothers sought to kill him and eventually sold him into slavery. Not good ... but it was useful to God. I would argue that we have a hard time, lacking omniscience, accurately measuring "useful to God."
Scripture talks about special people that are loved by God. David was "a man after God's own heart" (Acts 13:22) John was "the disciple that Jesus loved" (John 21:7). Peter says we should add to our faith a list of qualities (2 Peter 1:5-7). He concludes, "For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:8). Paul writes, "Now in a large house there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also vessels of wood and of earthenware, and some to honor and some to dishonor. Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from these things, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work" (2 Tim 2:20-21). So remember that when you pray and when you act to serve God. Don't measure your effectiveness by the obvious results. Consider your character like Peter and Paul told us to do. Consider your heart ... are you pursuing God or your own interests? But don't look at the results and conclude, "That didn't work." You don't get to decide that. God will use whatever He will use to accomplish His best, and that's useful.
Monday, June 09, 2025
The Weak in Faith
Paul wrote,
First, it's not about carnivores versus vegetarians. They're examples of a principle. What, then? He's talking about matters of "opinion." The Greek word is dialogismos and is clearly connected to "dialogue," so he's talking about things we are discussing or considering. He's talking about doubtful issues ... disputable matters. Now, Paul had no problem with "disputable matters" (as some translations put it) in things like the gospel (Gal 1:6-10) or sexual sin (1 Cor 5:1-5). He believed some things were worth defending and required real correction. He's talking about things that are disputable as opposed to things that are in dispute. Not things like "Can women lead over men?" (1 Tim 2:12-14) or "Is homosexual behavior a sin?" (1 Cor 6:9-10) because those are clear. He was talking about food issues (in his example) or "It's wrong to smoke" or "It's wrong to drink alcoholic beverages" that aren't covered. There are absolute essentials for salvation that aren't even close to "disputable" that are not up for dispute. He's not talking about those. It's not "matters that are being disputed." It's matters without clear biblical answers.
Paul says to accept them. Don't pass judgment on them. When Scripture says not to divorce and that the one who is not bound (1 Cor 7:15, 27-28) may remarry, don't make it an issue. When Ted says it's a sin to drive a car because it's bad for the environment, don't be judgmental of Ted. Take care of Ted ... and all the rest. Strive for unity. Show love for each other (John 13:34-35). And don't require them to violate their own conscience (Rom 14:23). We need to be better believers ... for God's glory (Rom 15:7).
________
As an aside, I would like to point out that "accept the weak in faith" does not mean "agree with" them. That's the modern version of "accept," but not the idea here. This is to embrace them without necessarily embracing their ideas.
Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. (Rom 14:1-3)The passage always made me laugh ... primarily at myself. He starts with accepting those weak in faith and goes on to say that vegetarians are weak in faith and my first thought is, "See? I knew it!" ... meaning I'm judging them. Oops! Okay, so let's back off and see what he's saying.
First, it's not about carnivores versus vegetarians. They're examples of a principle. What, then? He's talking about matters of "opinion." The Greek word is dialogismos and is clearly connected to "dialogue," so he's talking about things we are discussing or considering. He's talking about doubtful issues ... disputable matters. Now, Paul had no problem with "disputable matters" (as some translations put it) in things like the gospel (Gal 1:6-10) or sexual sin (1 Cor 5:1-5). He believed some things were worth defending and required real correction. He's talking about things that are disputable as opposed to things that are in dispute. Not things like "Can women lead over men?" (1 Tim 2:12-14) or "Is homosexual behavior a sin?" (1 Cor 6:9-10) because those are clear. He was talking about food issues (in his example) or "It's wrong to smoke" or "It's wrong to drink alcoholic beverages" that aren't covered. There are absolute essentials for salvation that aren't even close to "disputable" that are not up for dispute. He's not talking about those. It's not "matters that are being disputed." It's matters without clear biblical answers.
Paul says to accept them. Don't pass judgment on them. When Scripture says not to divorce and that the one who is not bound (1 Cor 7:15, 27-28) may remarry, don't make it an issue. When Ted says it's a sin to drive a car because it's bad for the environment, don't be judgmental of Ted. Take care of Ted ... and all the rest. Strive for unity. Show love for each other (John 13:34-35). And don't require them to violate their own conscience (Rom 14:23). We need to be better believers ... for God's glory (Rom 15:7).
________
As an aside, I would like to point out that "accept the weak in faith" does not mean "agree with" them. That's the modern version of "accept," but not the idea here. This is to embrace them without necessarily embracing their ideas.
Sunday, June 08, 2025
In What Name?
Growing up, I understood that every real prayer had to end in "In the name of Jesus, Amen." I mean, didn't Jesus say, "Truly, truly, I say to you, if you ask the Father for anything in My name, He will give it to you." (John 16:23)? Well, of course He did. So ... tack on "In the name of Jesus" and you'll get it. Now, we all know that doesn't actually work, so ... was Jesus wrong? No. We're just being silly.
What does it mean to ask "in the name of Jesus"? It is not some literal, magical use of the word, "Jesus." You'd think so, given the number of songs you hear about how "the name of Jesus" is ... beautiful, saving, breaking every chain, etc. "I pray the name of Jesus over you." I don't even know what that means. There are those who believe the word itself is ... magical. But we know better. What do we mean when we use the phrase? The dictionary says it means "under the authority of or on behalf of." When a police officer says, "Stop in the name of the law!" he's saying, "On the authority of the law, you must stop." When a rider rode into an old village in the Middle Ages with an edict "in the name of the king," it was "under the authority of the king." This isn't hard. In Scripture the term refers to that as well as the character of someone else -- the whole person. Not "Bob," but "all that Bob is and represents." When we say, "He has a good name," we are saying "He is of good character."
We are indeed called on to be baptized in the name of Christ (Acts 2:38) and act charitably in the name of Christ (Acts 3:8), to give thanks in the name of Jesus (Eph 5:20) and more. We're told, "Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father" (Col 3:17). Don't think that it's a function of the spelling of the name or some magic applied to it. We're talking about the authority and character of Christ to which we submit. Remember that the next time you pray "In the name of Jesus" -- "under the authority of and according to the character of Christ." It sure changes the meaning, doesn't it?
What does it mean to ask "in the name of Jesus"? It is not some literal, magical use of the word, "Jesus." You'd think so, given the number of songs you hear about how "the name of Jesus" is ... beautiful, saving, breaking every chain, etc. "I pray the name of Jesus over you." I don't even know what that means. There are those who believe the word itself is ... magical. But we know better. What do we mean when we use the phrase? The dictionary says it means "under the authority of or on behalf of." When a police officer says, "Stop in the name of the law!" he's saying, "On the authority of the law, you must stop." When a rider rode into an old village in the Middle Ages with an edict "in the name of the king," it was "under the authority of the king." This isn't hard. In Scripture the term refers to that as well as the character of someone else -- the whole person. Not "Bob," but "all that Bob is and represents." When we say, "He has a good name," we are saying "He is of good character."
We are indeed called on to be baptized in the name of Christ (Acts 2:38) and act charitably in the name of Christ (Acts 3:8), to give thanks in the name of Jesus (Eph 5:20) and more. We're told, "Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father" (Col 3:17). Don't think that it's a function of the spelling of the name or some magic applied to it. We're talking about the authority and character of Christ to which we submit. Remember that the next time you pray "In the name of Jesus" -- "under the authority of and according to the character of Christ." It sure changes the meaning, doesn't it?
Saturday, June 07, 2025
News Weakly - 6/7/2025
Captain Obvious
Carried to its logical conclusion, a pro-Palestinian man attacked a demonstration in support of Israel in Boulder Colorado. He used a homemade flame thrower and incendiary devices. If "From the river to the sea" is the aim, any means is acceptable. If pro-Palestinian protests produce this kind of response, is it different than shouting fire in a crowded theater?
Mass Attack
Twelve men were stabbed in a men's shelter in Salem, Oregon. No guns were used. Strange ... I thought guns were the problem.
Reversal on Reverse
The Supreme Court revived a woman's claim that she was discriminated against at work ... because she was straight. Since we redefined "racism" in terms of power and "sexism" in terms of power, we've been running down this insane idea that only people in power can discriminate. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled it's not so, and that reverse discrimination does happen. We'll see how that goes.
Coming Out
The military has turned a corner and will begin banning (and discharging) transgender personnel. June 6 was the deadline to self-identify and get out. I'm baffled by this idea that anyone and everyone should have the right to serve in the military ... as if serving in the military is a basic human right. But, in today's "Me First" mentality, it make sense that "what I want" must be "what I get."
Your Best Source for Fake News
A federal judge blocked Trump from deporting the family of a Boulder terrorist (actual story), or, as the Bee reported the judge blocked deportation and required the Jews to be lit on fire. Nintendo released the new Switch 2 (actual story), so we have the report of a new virus escaping a lab in Japan causing millions of Americans to call in sick. Finally, on the Trump/Musk feud, a judge has decided Trump gets the nation on weekdays and Musk gets every other weekend and holidays.
Must be true; I heard it on the Internet.
Carried to its logical conclusion, a pro-Palestinian man attacked a demonstration in support of Israel in Boulder Colorado. He used a homemade flame thrower and incendiary devices. If "From the river to the sea" is the aim, any means is acceptable. If pro-Palestinian protests produce this kind of response, is it different than shouting fire in a crowded theater?
Mass Attack
Twelve men were stabbed in a men's shelter in Salem, Oregon. No guns were used. Strange ... I thought guns were the problem.
Reversal on Reverse
The Supreme Court revived a woman's claim that she was discriminated against at work ... because she was straight. Since we redefined "racism" in terms of power and "sexism" in terms of power, we've been running down this insane idea that only people in power can discriminate. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled it's not so, and that reverse discrimination does happen. We'll see how that goes.
Coming Out
The military has turned a corner and will begin banning (and discharging) transgender personnel. June 6 was the deadline to self-identify and get out. I'm baffled by this idea that anyone and everyone should have the right to serve in the military ... as if serving in the military is a basic human right. But, in today's "Me First" mentality, it make sense that "what I want" must be "what I get."
Your Best Source for Fake News
A federal judge blocked Trump from deporting the family of a Boulder terrorist (actual story), or, as the Bee reported the judge blocked deportation and required the Jews to be lit on fire. Nintendo released the new Switch 2 (actual story), so we have the report of a new virus escaping a lab in Japan causing millions of Americans to call in sick. Finally, on the Trump/Musk feud, a judge has decided Trump gets the nation on weekdays and Musk gets every other weekend and holidays.
Must be true; I heard it on the Internet.
Friday, June 06, 2025
So?
Interesting word ... "so." The dictionary defines it as "to such a great extent" or "to the same extent" or "referring back to something" or "in a way described; thus." How do those work together? Not so much, I guess. (See? "Not so much" is "not much to a great extent.") Then, as a conjunction, it's "for this reason" or "with the result that" or "and then" or "introducing a question" or "in the same way." It becomes important, I think, to figure out which is being used because it changes the meaning.
Take, for instance, "God so loved the world" (John 3:16). Is that "God loved the world to a great extent"? Or is it "God loved the world in a described way"? Most of us use it in the former sense, but, as it turns out, the Greek word is specifically "in like manner." Thus, Jesus said, "God loved the world in this manner" and described the manner in which God loved the world -- by giving His Son for whomever would believe ... not a quantity ("so much"), but a quality of how God loved the world ("in this way").
There's another interesting "so" I saw recently. "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven" (Matt 5:16). Modern translations correctly say something like "in such a way" because that "so" before "shine" is intended to convey a particular way. It's puzzling to take this verse in a vaccuum because it's easy to wonder "In what way do I do good works in order that the Father gets glory?" We find the answer in the previous verses. "You are the light of the world. A town put on a hill may be seen by all. And a burning light is not put under a vessel, but on its table; so that its rays may be shining on all who are in the house" (Matt 5:14-15). Like a light on a hill or a candle on a table, do your good works to glorify God. That is, make your life a shining example of a changed life, a sacrificed life, a life lived for Him. He's saying to intentionally make your life a beacon for others to see. So ... what will you do? (See what I did there?)
Take, for instance, "God so loved the world" (John 3:16). Is that "God loved the world to a great extent"? Or is it "God loved the world in a described way"? Most of us use it in the former sense, but, as it turns out, the Greek word is specifically "in like manner." Thus, Jesus said, "God loved the world in this manner" and described the manner in which God loved the world -- by giving His Son for whomever would believe ... not a quantity ("so much"), but a quality of how God loved the world ("in this way").
There's another interesting "so" I saw recently. "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven" (Matt 5:16). Modern translations correctly say something like "in such a way" because that "so" before "shine" is intended to convey a particular way. It's puzzling to take this verse in a vaccuum because it's easy to wonder "In what way do I do good works in order that the Father gets glory?" We find the answer in the previous verses. "You are the light of the world. A town put on a hill may be seen by all. And a burning light is not put under a vessel, but on its table; so that its rays may be shining on all who are in the house" (Matt 5:14-15). Like a light on a hill or a candle on a table, do your good works to glorify God. That is, make your life a shining example of a changed life, a sacrificed life, a life lived for Him. He's saying to intentionally make your life a beacon for others to see. So ... what will you do? (See what I did there?)
Thursday, June 05, 2025
The Undead - The Sequel
We looked yesterday at "dead in sin." One of the recurring themes in Scripture is "dead to self." Jesus said, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me" (Matt 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23). No ... not quite "dead to self." But Paul wrote about being "crucified with Christ" (Gal 2:10) and said we should "lay aside the old self" (Eph 4:22-24). He told the Colossian Christians, "consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry" (Col 3:5). He wrote, "Consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus" (Rom 6:11). He urged us to "present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship" (Rom 12:1) and "those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires" (Gal 5:24). There's a whole lot of "dead to self" going on here. What does that mean?
So, it appears that "dead in sin" and "deny himself" are both the same thing. In the passages above, "self" is described for us. There is "immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed." It is "the flesh with its passions and desires." Peter wrote, "He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed" (1 Peter 2:24). "Self," then, is "sin." John wrote, "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world" (1 John 2:16). That "self" -- the worldly self. The remedy for this particular "self" isn't pretty. It is ... death. One author wrote,
So, it appears that "dead in sin" and "deny himself" are both the same thing. In the passages above, "self" is described for us. There is "immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed." It is "the flesh with its passions and desires." Peter wrote, "He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed" (1 Peter 2:24). "Self," then, is "sin." John wrote, "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world" (1 John 2:16). That "self" -- the worldly self. The remedy for this particular "self" isn't pretty. It is ... death. One author wrote,
The flesh, the enemy within, dons a friendly uniform, one that a Christian might wear, and suggests reasonable directions. We welcome him into our ranks. When he causes trouble, we try to whip him into shape, get him to cooperate with the program and stop interfering with our efforts to do things right. Or we work hard to figure him out. What makes him tick? Why does he demand gratification that way? Maybe a journey into the past will uncover the source of these crazy tendencies and enable us to reason more effectively with him.We are repeatedly told to die to self. Jesus said it is a prerequisite to being His disciple. Scripture describes it as a "daily" thing (1 Cor 15:31). Is it your experience? Is it your aim?
What we need to do, of course, is shoot him ... And if he doesn’t stay dead, we must shoot him again, then beat him, then tie him down in the sand under a hot desert sun, turn loose an army of red ants on his body, and walk away without sympathy. And then we must do it again and again, 'til we're home. An overdone metaphor? Not when we see the enemy for who he is, for what he wants to do. We are at war. The enemy within is the flesh, and he wants to ruin our relationships and thwart God’s plan.
What am I to kill? The answer, of course, is the flesh, that nature within me inclined to sin. But what is it? How do I recognize it? As a start, think of it this way: sin is any effort to make life work without absolute dependence on God. It is giving higher priority to my satisfaction than to God's pleasure. It involves a follow-up commitment to find joy for my soul outside of God, a commitment rooted in the belief that there is something truly good that God does not provide. It boils down to self-dependence and self-preoccupation and self-centeredness, attitudes that look to other people and things for the satisfaction we were designed to enjoy.
- from Connecting by Larry Crabb
Wednesday, June 04, 2025
The Undead
Paul wrote, "And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience" (Eph 2:1-2). Now, what does that mean ... "dead in your trespasses and sins"? I mean, he's obviously writing to people who are currently alive, so it wasn't physical death. "No, it's spiritual dead," most concur, but what does that mean? To a lot of people it's a sort of "Princess Bride" death -- "mostly dead." That is, it's not actually death in any real sense. Anyone at any time can choose Christ, so they're not physically or spiritually dead.
One author assures us that "where Paul says that as non-Christians, we were 'dead in trespasses and sins,' he is not saying that we are unable to believe in Jesus Christ for eternal life, or that the capacity for faith is non-existent." He assures us we all have the capacity to do good and to choose Christ on our own. Except ... Jesus said, "You do not believe because you are not of My sheep" (John 10:26). Apparently a prerequisite for "believe" is being His sheep. Jesus said, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father" (John 6:65). Note the "no one can" ... the lack of ability. Apparently "granted from the Father" is a prerequisite ... and not everyone is. (To say "X is a prerequisite" with the certainty that everyone has it is nonsense ... pointless.) Paul wrote, "A natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised" (1 Cor 2:14). Again, "cannot." Again, apparently there is a prerequisite ... in this case, not being merely "natural man." Spiritual death, then, is not nonexistence, but inability. It is the natural consequence of sin (Gen 2:17). Jesus said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3). "Cannot." The requirement is not just a treatment, some therapy, some careful reasoning; it is new birth. "Dead in sin" means walking according to Satan's course (Eph 2:2), "indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind" (Eph 2:3). We naturally lack the ability not to do that.
We have a tendency to diminish the problem of death -- in particular, the biblical argument of being born ... dead. Spiritually dead. Incapable of spiritual life. And the remedy is not "try harder" or "open your eyes" or "figure it out." The answer is,
One author assures us that "where Paul says that as non-Christians, we were 'dead in trespasses and sins,' he is not saying that we are unable to believe in Jesus Christ for eternal life, or that the capacity for faith is non-existent." He assures us we all have the capacity to do good and to choose Christ on our own. Except ... Jesus said, "You do not believe because you are not of My sheep" (John 10:26). Apparently a prerequisite for "believe" is being His sheep. Jesus said, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father" (John 6:65). Note the "no one can" ... the lack of ability. Apparently "granted from the Father" is a prerequisite ... and not everyone is. (To say "X is a prerequisite" with the certainty that everyone has it is nonsense ... pointless.) Paul wrote, "A natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised" (1 Cor 2:14). Again, "cannot." Again, apparently there is a prerequisite ... in this case, not being merely "natural man." Spiritual death, then, is not nonexistence, but inability. It is the natural consequence of sin (Gen 2:17). Jesus said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3). "Cannot." The requirement is not just a treatment, some therapy, some careful reasoning; it is new birth. "Dead in sin" means walking according to Satan's course (Eph 2:2), "indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind" (Eph 2:3). We naturally lack the ability not to do that.
We have a tendency to diminish the problem of death -- in particular, the biblical argument of being born ... dead. Spiritually dead. Incapable of spiritual life. And the remedy is not "try harder" or "open your eyes" or "figure it out." The answer is,
But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. (Eph 2:4-7)The solution is God's love demonstrated in making us alive with Christ when we were dead. One of those marvelous "but God" passages that is the difference between "hopelessly condemned" and "wondrously saved" ... from death (Rom 6:23). "So that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)