What the locust has eaten

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law,
do by nature things required by the law,
they are a law for themselves,
even though they do not have the law,
since they show that the requirements
of the law are written on their hearts,
their consciences also bearing witness,
and their thoughts now accusing,
now even defending them.

Romans 2:14-15 (NIV)

Ernest Hemingway carried his readers to far more places than most men witness in a lifetime, from war in the Pyrenees to the African Savannah. As he wrote of exotic places, he also wrote of human emotion and motivation. His characters appear real even though they are often privileged and self-obsessed. When I read Hemingway as a youth, I noticed how his tragic heroes, though they were flawed, were never the source of their own undoing. In Hemingway's universe, mere men may have been created equal but his protagonist's existence is altogether stellar, tragic, and accidentally so. Hemingway, it seems, would blame the sun for Icharus' destruction rather than holding Icharus to account for his ambition. We are most blinded by our own weaknesses, so the blindness of Hemingway's heroes makes them seem autobiographical. The reader is swallowed by the writer's pity for his broken creatures. We see their faults, but we sympathize with weaknesses we might otherwise revile because we recognize them as human.

Recently, it occurred to me to read "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" again. We searched the house for the book until we were satisfied that we no longer possessed it, and then Lisa checked it out from the local library. Hemingway begins his story on the last day of his protagonist's life. Harry knows he is dying. Although Harry has lived a bawdy and selfish life, he does not regret hurting people who trusted him as much as he regrets that he will never live to write about it all. He knows that he has eroded as a person, but he believes that by writing, he might redeem himself. As he drifts into unconsciousness, Harry's vignettes seem to be a catharsis of Hemingway's own unwritten memories and imaginations. As Harry comes to an end, his regrets fall short of remorse, and true to Hemingway's prose, Harry feels cheated.

In the preface of his story, Hemingway frames Kilimanjaro as "Ngàje Ngài," or the House of God. He writes, "Close to its western summit there is a dried and frozen carcass of a leopard. No one has explained what the leopard was seeking at that altitude." If you have not read "The Snows of Kilimanjaro," its fewer-than-30 pages accelerate toward this summit and the answer to this riddle in ways the reader would not expect. It is well worth the read.

As I read the story again, I was stricken by the religious symbolism. Harry's demise begins with a scratch from a thorn bush: From Genesis 3 through Hebrews 6, thorns are a symbol of the curse of sin. Harry is merely scratched, and he does not understand the severity of his wound: likewise the deceptiveness of sin. By the time Harry knows he is badly infected, it is too late.

As Harry's leg succumbs to gangrene, it symbolizes the creeping moral decay of his life to the point where he is useless, feels nothing, and is repulsive to others. As a symbol, gangrene is powerful expression of self-loathing. Yet the imagery takes on religious overtones, as well. The Apostle Paul, speaking of his own sin, asks, "What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?" Romans 7:24 (NIV) The prophet Isaiah quotes, the Lord, saying, "And they will go out and look upon the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind." Isaiah 66:24 (NIV)

In the story, a hyena personifies death or the messenger of death. Likewise, Isaiah speaks of the destruction of Babylon saying,

Hyenas will howl in her strongholds,
jackals in her luxurious palaces.
Her time is at hand,
and her days will not be prolonged.

Isaiah 13:22 (NIV)

As Harry passes, he finds himself in a vision where he is flying above the savannah. He sees a vibrant earth lush, green, full of life symbolizing his past potential. In his vision, he sees "a new water he had never known of;" perhaps this is Hemingway's allusion to what might have been. As Harry continues climbing he sees clouds of locust symbolizing the erosion of all this potential and the squandering of his life. The prophet Joel wrote long before Hemingway,

What the gnawing locust has left,
the swarming locust has eaten;
and what the swarming locust has left,
the creeping locust has eaten;
and what the creeping locust has left,
the stripping locust has eaten.

Joel 1:4 (NASB)

In the end of his vision, Harry realizes he is approaching Kilimanjaro – the House of God – unrepentant and having already condemned himself by his own standards and expectations.

Some believe Kilimanjaro symbolizes the pinnacle of Harry's aspirations, and in a sense this is true. Yet Hemingway drew early attention to Ngàje Ngài, and so there must be an accounting. Harry, like the frozen leopard in the prologue, is unequipped to make the ascent into the House of God though he is drawn there in his vision by primordial impulse.

The heart of man was designed to fellowship with God. Yet hamartia both separates us from our Creator and causes us to fall short of our potential. The Apostle Paul wrote, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Paul also writes:

We will all stand before God's judgment seat. It is written:

"'As surely as I live,' says the Lord,
'every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will confess to God.'

So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.
Romans 14:10-12 (NIV)

In this regard, Hemingway's "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" employs religious symbolism to speak universal truth.

Yet Paul carries us where Hemingway cannot. Paul tells us that although we fall short of God's glory, we "are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." Though Paul felt tormented by his wretchedness, asking, "Who will rescue me from this body of death?" He answered his question, declaring, "Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!" The prophet Joel speaks of reconciliation to God saying,

Then I will make up to you for the years
That the swarming locust has eaten,
The creeping locust, the stripping locust and the gnawing locust,
My great army which I sent among you.

"You will have plenty to eat and be satisfied
And praise the name of the LORD your God,
Who has dealt wondrously with you;
Then My people will never be put to shame.

"Thus you will know that I am in the midst of Israel,
And that I am the LORD your God,
And there is no other;
And My people will never be put to shame . . .

. . . And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the LORD
Will be delivered;
For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem
There will be those who escape,
As the LORD has said,
Even among the survivors whom the LORD calls

Joel 2:25-27, 32 (NASB)

 

Law of freedom

This morning, when I was certain that Lisa was awake, I asked her a question that I had been mulling all night. In James chapter 2, what does James mean when he says, "So speak and do as by the law of freedom"? What is the law of freedom?

Lisa asked questions about the context; then she asked if any other New Testament writer uses the same phrase, law of freedom (no other writer does). Finally, she admitted that she had no idea. "It sounds like an oxymoron," she said. Of course, she was right. The phrase, law of freedom, presents an immediate paradox. I'm convinced that James thought so, too, which makes the pursuit of this concept all the more interesting. James 2 presents two basic themes:

1. Favoritism within the assembly is sin.
   
2. Faith without works is dead.
   

Bridging these sections, James presents a conundrum. Showing favoritism violates the Law of Moses because the Law requires that one love his neighbor as he would love himself. James goes on to explain that one infraction of the Law makes one a violator of the whole Law. He uses the sins of adultery and murder as examples. If you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you are guilty of violating the Law. Once the Law was violated, there is no [CTRL-Z] undo. James' answer, then, is to "speak and do as if you are about to be judged by the law of freedom." He goes on to explain, saying, "For judgment is merciless to the one not having mercy, and mercy glories over judgment." James 2:13 (AB)

James then goes into his discourse about faith, or belief, with and without works. He concludes this section saying, "For as the body separate from the spirit is dead, so also the belief separate from the works is dead." James 2:26 (AB) James illustrates this by recalling Abraham. Scripture says, "Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness." James 2:23 (AB), but James notices that Abraham was also justified by works, ". . . having offered Isaac, his son, upon the altar." James 2:21 (AB) If Abraham believed God, then he would have no reservations obeying God. However, if Abraham disobeyed God, then there is no evidence that Abraham believed. Faith without works is dead.

How does this relate to the law of freedom? Just as violating the Law of Moses brought man under the judgment of the entire Law, so obeying the law of freedom affirms our faith! There is a converse relationship between the two laws. Paul calls the Law of Moses, the "law of sin and death." He writes, "The law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus freed me from the law of sin and death." Romans 8:2 (AB) Violating the Law is irreversible—you cannot un-murder someone. Likewise, responding by faith to the law of freedom likewise forever sets us free from the law of sin and death. By faith, the law of freedom leverages God's mercy, and "Mercy triumphs over judgment." James 2:13 (NIV)

Abraham's example in James is especially interesting when we consider that Abraham believed and was justified before the Law (and the even the covenant of circumcision) was given (Romans 4:9-12). Abraham's actions did not emit from his obligation to the Law, but rather Abraham's actions flowed from his faith. This is how James is telling us to live. If we have no actions to show for our faith, then our faith is worthless — even the demons believe that God exists. If we indeed have true faith, however, it will fill our actions. This is the law of freedom! Actions flowing from faith may not look like a punch list; however, they stand as testimony to our faith.

James uses an example: suppose you know someone in dire need and you say something like, "Good luck with that," but do nothing to help, what good is it? On the other hand, the law of freedom causes us to intercede for the destitute. The law of freedom causes us to be merciful. The law of freedom causes us to treat people equally without discrimination. The law of freedom transforms our faith into actions.

Just as James merges two opposing concepts, faith and works, into one idea, he likewise coins the phrase, law of freedom, to describe how faith and works cooperate together. The law of freedom insists that our faith will result in works of kindness and mercy, just as the Law insists that sin results in death. The law of freedom is incontrovertible – almost like gravity – we may resist it, but if our faith is real, the law of freedom will demonstrate itself in our actions. However, the law of freedom is not a law of external coercion but rather a law of internal impulse. We will act as we believe.

Poor in the eyes of the world

Pat Robertson, the media millionaire, attracted attention to himself by implying that the Haitians had it coming. Surely, no one still takes Pat Robertson seriously. This is the same Pat Robertson that converted charitable donations into a 1.9 billion dollar for-profit media company. He then cashed it in for a personal gain of over 100 million, i.e. more money than President Obama initially promised Haiti in US aid. Is this man a credible spiritual leader?

Nevertheless, Pat Robertson tells the world that Haiti is paying the price for rebelling against French Colonial rule. It probably never occurred to Pat that Haiti might be still paying the price for enduring French colonialism in the first place. The other half of Hispaniola, the Dominican Republic (a former Spanish colony) does not fare so poorly as Haiti. Of course, this is merely my own speculation.

It takes arrogance to blame the victims while they still lie dying under the rubble of Port au Prince. If Robertson thinks that the tragedy in Port au Prince relates to some Haitians’ deal with the devil, what does his 1.9 billion dollar transaction with Rupert Murdoch portend for his future?

When tragedies occur, it is natural for people to ask, “Why?” We just need a smarter answer than Pat Robertson is likely to supply. Luke chapter 13 records people coming to Jesus wanting an answer to their question, “Why?”

Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”

Then he told this parable: “A man had a fig tree, planted in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it, but did not find any. So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, ‘For three years now I've been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven't found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?’

“‘Sir,’ the man replied, ‘leave it alone for one more year, and I'll dig around it and fertilize it. If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.’”

Luke 13:1-9 (NIV)

Pilate, who was governor of Jerusalem, had killed some Galileans who apparently had come to Jerusalem to offer sacrifices. Rome had been in Israel for over a hundred years. Initially, they had come as a peace-keeping force, but as time went on they came to assume that they owned the place. Many Jews were hoping for a Messiah who would deliver them from the brutality of their Roman peace. Luke doesn’t tell us why Pilate killed the Galileans. Why? Probably because it doesn’t matter.

When people brought the news to Jesus, he didn’t even wait for them to ask him, “Why?” He said to them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way?” It had crossed their minds. Jesus emphatically tells them that their assumptions are incorrect. “I tell you, no!” he said. The Galileans killed by Pilate were no worse than others. But Jesus doesn’t stop there. Instead, he directs the listener’s concern inward when he says, “But unless you repent, you too will all perish.” Jesus would not entertain speculation regarding why certain people had suffered an untimely death. Instead, he directed his listener to examine his own heart.

The killing of the Galileans was a political event, so Jesus elaborates and discusses some accidental deaths. Eighteen people had been killed when a tower fell on them. Jesus asked, “Do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem?” Again, it had crossed their minds. They probably assumed it to be true. But Jesus says again, “I tell you, no!” Those eighteen were no worse than others. And again, Jesus draws the listener’s attention inward, saying, “But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”

Jesus was telling his listeners not to speculate regarding God’s judgment when bad things happen to other people. Instead, he tells them each to examine his own heart.

After telling his listeners that unless they repent, they will perish, he tells them a parable. A man had a fig tree that was three years old. The tree should have produced fruit, but it had not. The man was tempted to cut it down. The gardener intervened and asked for one more year to nurture the tree so that it would produce fruit. The owner of the land relented.

Jesus ends the story there. He doesn’t say whether the tree produced fruit and was spared or whether the gardener’s work was for naught, and the tree was destroyed. He left the listener to imagine the outcome.

In the parable, the tree represents the listener. His destiny will be decided in the indeterminate future. The gardener represents Jesus. He came to seek and to save those who were lost. The land owner represents God, the Father, who demands fruitfulness. What is the fruit demanded by God? Clearly, what God requires, Jesus already pronounced: “Unless you repent, you too will all perish.”

When we see human tragedy, it is not ours to speculate why one suffers what we do not. From Jesus’ words we can be assured that we do not have a greater intrinsic value than those who suffer. When Pat Robertson blames Haitians for Haiti’s earthquake, he rejects Jesus’ instruction to avoid such speculation.

Disasters and violence do not claim lives because the victims deserve it more than the rest of us. Standing before God, we all deserve death. The Apostle Paul writes, “. . . by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” Romans 5:12 (NIV) We will all have sinned, and we will all die. There is no distinction among us in this regard.

Jesus renounced men’s speculation regarding the cause of disasters. Likewise in John chapter 9, Jesus corrected his disciples whose only question was whether the blind man or his parents had sinned. Jesus told them that the man’s blindness did not occur because of a someone’s sin, but rather so that the work of God could be revealed. Jesus then spat on the ground, made clay, and sculpted the blind man a new set of eyes. The work of God in man is a new creation to which we attain only through repentance by faith.

Perhaps the work of God’s new creation comes more easily in Haiti than in less troubled parts of the world. James, the brother of Jesus, writes, “Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him?” James 2:5 (NIV)

The only barrier between us and the grace of God, is our pride. Repentance requires humility before God. The fruit of our repentance is faith. True faith results in faithfulness. By this faith we are transformed into a new creation. This transformation is completed at the resurrection of the dead. The Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians, saying,

We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed — in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true:

“Death has been swallowed up in victory.”
“Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?”

The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 15:51-57 (NIV)

The good pleasure

by John D Ramsey

I live in a world of jargon. Jobs in multiple industries have acquainted me with a spectrum of vocabulary that is common among the cognoscenti, but meaningless to outsiders. As a technical manager, my current working vocabulary includes networking, programming, and business words and acronyms. Lisa and the little girls struggle sometimes to understand me. Sometimes I have to pause before I speak to consider whether the listener and I share a common vocabulary.

Within the context of a discipline, jargon and even acronyms are very helpful things. If you think about your own experience, there are certainly words and phrases that communicate specific meanings to industry insiders. While a reasonably informed person might be able to follow your conversations with your peers, his understanding might be more generalized. The outsider might not understand in detail exactly what is conveyed by your jargon.

The Bible also incorporates jargon; although thankfully, it does not incorporate acronyms. The New Testament writers John and Peter use the term, “born again,” for instance, as a synonym for “salvation.” Likewise, the word often translated “gospel,” in the Greek is a compound word meaning, simply, “good news.” In Luke 2:10, the angel announced “good news” to the shepherds at the incarnation of Jesus Christ. While the King James, and other translations say, “good tidings” or “glad tidings,” the same word very quickly becomes “gospel.” When Jesus, reading Isaiah, says, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor,” a literal translation might say, “good news,” instead. There is no doubt that the good news that the angels brought to the shepherds is the same good news that Jesus preaches to the poor, but translators recognize the recurrence of the word, and it becomes part of the New Testament jargon.

This jargon encapsulates ideas that Christians understand in common. This is within the writers’ intent that we understand that the Christ’s coming is indeed the “good news.” Translators should not be faulted for recognizing and highlighting the jargon of the Bible. The Gospel, or good news, is the same to the shepherds as it is to each of us. God himself became a man to deliver man from his bondage to sin.

When we read the word, “gospel,” we understand that it refers to the Good News, and not just some good news. In Luke 2:14, similar word appears. The King James translates it in this context, “good will” as in “good will to men.” Unlike the “good news,” which becomes “gospel,” “good will” or, more accurately, “good pleasure” is not treated evenly when it occurs in other passages.

Matthew 11:25-26 and Luke 10:21 are nearly identical. In these verses Jesus prays,

I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.

The phrase translated “good in thy sight” contains the same word translated, “good will” in Luke 2:14. A literal translation might read, “it was good pleasure before you.” In other words, the “good pleasure” is the Father’s revelation of the Son! Does this pattern hold up in other New Testament passages? Surprisingly, it does. Paul evokes “good pleasure” in Romans 10 to express his desire that Israel should come to the knowledge of Jesus Christ. Likewise Paul refers to the revelation of Jesus Christ to believers as “the good pleasure of his will” and “his good pleasure” in Ephesians 1:5 and 9. Paul tells the Thessalonians,

We pray at all times for you, that you should fulfill every good-pleasure of goodness, and word of belief with power, so that the name of our Lord Jesus Christ should be glorified in you.

2 Thessalonians 1:11 (AB)

Fulfilling the “good pleasure” is the glorious revelation of Jesus Christ in our lives. This is the same blessing which the angels delivered to the shepherds when they cried out, “Glory to God in the highest, and peace upon earth, and good pleasure among men.”

Philippians 2:12-13 reads in the King James,

Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God who worketh in you both to will and to do his good pleasure.

Other translations say things like “do what pleases him.” The King James rightly translates the word “good pleasure” in this instance, but the Greek does not read “his good pleasure;” rather, it literally means, “the good pleasure.” The article preceding “good pleasure” indicates that the Philippians should already know what “good pleasure” means. Earlier in Philippians, Paul tells them that some preach Christ because they were motivated by envy and strife, but some preach Christ through “good pleasure.” In Philippians 2, Paul says, “the good pleasure” because “good pleasure” like “good news” is part of the New Testament jargon.

“Good pleasure” refers to the glorious revelation of Jesus Christ by the will of God, the Father. When Paul writes, “God is the one operating in you both to want and to operate for the good-pleasure,” the “good pleasure” is not some hidden whimsy as some translations make it out to be. By recognizing the jargon of the New Testament, we can understand that “God is the one operating in [us] both to want and to operate for the revelation and glorification of the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Christmas

I feel conflicted about Christmas. I'm happily anticipating the holiday this year for several reasons. It will be a long weekend away from the office. My older kids will come home. Dad will come down. We’ll give gifts to the kids. I enjoy the decorations Lisa displays in the house. The ornaments on the Christmas tree remind me of years past. Lisa is a wonderful cook, and I enjoy what she feeds me.

Nevertheless, there are many things that puzzle me about Christmas. The New Testament church did not celebrate what we call Christmas. The Bible is ambiguous regarding the time of Jesus’ birth, but better guesses would indicate that it did not occur in December. Personally, I think Sukkot, or Feast of Booths, is the likely anniversary of Jesus incarnation. He who came to tabernacle among men ordained this day to remind Israel that they were travelers in a hostile land. Israel was to look forward to the promise of rest that is fulfilled only in Jesus Christ. In defense of December 25, I concede that if Sukkot is the anniversary of the birth of Jesus, then sometime around the end of December the Annunciation would have occurred (Luke 1:26-38).

I am puzzled by Christians who “defend” Christmas by confronting society with what they perceive as improper celebrations. This seems by be a type of bully evangelism over the sanctity of a day never ordained in Scripture. Surely, a little peace on earth and good will toward men would be more appropriate.

At the same time, I’m puzzled by Christians who incorporate a non-Christian deity (Santa Claus) in their celebration regardless of their passion for Christmas. Consider the attributes of Santa Claus (omniscience, omnipresence, immortality, etc) and tell me that he isn’t a deity.

I am puzzled by Christians who justify the Christmas tree by quoting legends about Martin Luther, or by associating the Christmas tree with the cross. To me, the Christmas tree is a place where we celebrate family. If Jesus bore my sins in his body on the cross (1 Peter 1:24), why would I hang sentimental ornaments on a Christmas tree that symbolizes the cross of suffering and shame? Moreover, if the Christmas tree holds any religious significance at all, why would I bring such an idol (object of reverence) into my house?

Around Christmastime, I remind myself that Christians have only one New Covenant holiday. According to Hebrews 3:7, Hebrews 4:7, and Psalm 95:7-8, “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.” Today, is the day that God established. Today, we commemorate the incarnation and sacrifice of Jesus Christ in our lives. Today, we respond to God’s voice in faith. I ask myself, while we have Today, what value does Christmas add?

While I debate the Christian’s proper response to the Christmas holiday, I am also amazed that for a day or a season, much of the world pauses and some men still contemplate that, He who was from the beginning, appeared to men, announcing the Word of life (1 John 1:1-2). I am awestruck when I contemplate that the Word, who called the universe into existence,  became flesh and tabernacled among men. (John 1:1-14, Hebrews 1:1-2)

I am reminded that upon the birth of Jesus Christ, God reached out both to the shepherds who were nearby, and to the Magi who were far away, and he drew them to His Son. We should celebrate this, Today.

Propitiation

The Greek word,  [propitious], is first used in Genesis 43 in the LXX (Septuagint). In this passage, Joseph's brothers have returned the silver that Joseph surreptitiously had refunded on their original trip to Egypt. His brothers plead their case, saying, "We do not know who put the silver in our bags." Genesis 43:22 (AB) Joseph replied to them saying, "Kindness, be to you, do not fear. Your God, and the God of your fathers gave you treasures in your bags." Genesis 43:23 (AB)

While Moses was receiving the Ten Commandments from God on Mount Sinai, Israel compelled Aaron to fashion a golden calf for them to worship. Aaron declared to the people, "These are your gods, O Israel, who hauled you from out of the land of Egypt." Exodus 32:4 (AB) Israel's rebellion angered God, and he said to Moses, "And now allow me! For being enraged in anger against them, I will obliterate them." Exodus 32:9 (AB) Moses interceded for the people, pleading, "Cease in the anger of your rage, and be propitious to the evil of your people." Exodus 32:12 (AB) In response to Moses' intercession, "The LORD dealt kindly concerning the bad which he said he would do to his people." Exodus 32:14 (AB) In this passage from the LXX (Septuagint), the root word translated in the New Testament as propitiation, appears twice: Moses asked God to be propitious, and the LORD dealt kindly.

Moses again interceded for the people in Numbers 14 after their refusal to enter the land which God had promised them. God spoke to Moses, saying, "I will strike them in death, and I will destroy them, and I will make you into a great and populous nation rather than this one." Numbers 14:12 (AB) Moses pleaded, "Dismiss the sin of this people according to your great mercy, just as kindness happened to them from Egypt to the present."

After Naaman was healed of leprosy by bathing in the Jordon River, he requested that Elisha give him dirt from Israel so that Naaman could offer burnt offerings to God on ground that was not contaminated by his former idolatry. Naaman said, "And the LORD shall deal kindly with me, your servant in this matter." 2 Kings 5:18 (AB)

David cried out to God saying, "Because of your name, O LORD, atone [propitiate] my sin! For it is great." Psalm 25:11 (AB) In another Psalm, David declares, "Lawless words overpowered us; but you shall atone [propitiate] our impieties." Psalm 65:3 (AB) Asaph, another contributor to the Psalms, writes of Israel in the desert,

And they loved him by their mouth, but by their tongue they lied to him. And their heart was not straight with him, nor did they trust in his covenant. But he is one pitying, and he shall atone [propitiate] their sins, and he will not utterly destroy. And he will fill the turning of his rage, and shall not kindle all his anger.

Psalm 78:37-38 (AB)

In these and other Old Testament passages, the words propitious, propitiate, and propitiation convey a reversal of outcome. Joseph's brothers discovered that what should have been debited against them was credited back to them. Israel's rebellion warranted God's wrath, but instead God turned his wrath into kindness. Naaman was healed of leprosy. David was forgiven his sin. When we look throughout Scripture we see propitiation turn away from the natural outcome towards kindness.

In the Old Testament tabernacle worship on the Day of Atonement, the high priest would once a year pass through the veil, into the most holy place, and sprinkle the blood of the sacrifice on the mercy seat, or propitiation seat. On this day, Israel would confess their sins, and God would propitiate. In the New Testament, the word atonement or propitiation is used to describe the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. Understanding the meaning of propitiation is crucial to our understanding of the cross. The Apostle John writes, "In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins." 1 John 4:10 (NASB)

At times we fill words with our preconceived ideas. Often Christians fill the words atonement or propitiation with un-Biblical theology. Some perceive atonement to be a surrogate punishment; however, the principle meaning of the word deals with kindness. While other words can be translated kindness or kind, propitiation is a special type of kindness. Propitiation reverses adverse circumstance into kindness. When we read that Christ is the propitiation for our sins, we should recall that he turns God's wrath into God's favor. The word propitiation alludes to the Old Testament system of tabernacle worship, the Mercy Seat, and the Day of Atonement. The NIV translates 1 John 4:10, "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins." The Apostolic Bible renders the literal English translation, "In this is the love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his son as an atonement for our sins." We could also translate 1 John 4:10 to say, "This is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his son [to deal kindly with our sins]." How does the cross of Jesus Christ demonstrates God's kindness toward sinners? The Apostle Peter writes,

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. For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.

1 Peter 2:24-25 (NASB)

In what way did Christ's death on the cross demonstrate kindness? He demonstrated kindness toward us by carrying our sins into death. Because he carried our sins into death, we do not have to die in our sins. The Apostle Paul explains it:

God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Romans 5:8-18 (NIV)

Though necessary, why was the cross of Jesus Christ such a brutal ordeal? Would a peaceful death have accomplished the same objective? Some claim that God punished the Christ instead of punishing us. They claim that the Father poured out his wrath on the Son and then turned his face away. They concoct support for this theory based on Jesus' quoting Psalm 22 while hanging on the cross. However, Jesus' words are an invitation to read the entire Psalm, and reading the entire Psalm in the context of the crucifixion one would not come to the absurd conclusion that the Father ever despised the Son.

After crying out "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" the Psalmist prophetically affirmed,

God has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted;
Nor has He hidden His face from him;
But when he cried to Him for help, He heard.

Psalm 22:24 (NASB)

Christ did not suffer by the hand of God, the Christ suffered by the hands of men as Isaiah 53 eloquently prophesies. God's supposed wrath against the Son did not propitiate our sins. Rather the complete obedience of the Son merited his Father's favor. The writer of Hebrews tells us, "Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered. And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation." Hebrews 5:8-9 (NIV) Paul wrote to the Philippians regarding the depth of Jesus' obedience, saying,

Although He existed in the form of God, [he] did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.  Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.  For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father

Philippians 2:6-11 (NASB)

Jesus excruciating death on the cross is not a picture of God's wrath against sin. Rather it is a demonstration of Jesus' complete obedience to the Father. What Adam destroyed through disobedience, Jesus restored through obedience. By the disobedience of one we became enemies of God, and by the obedience of one we are reconciled to God. God's wrath will come, Jesus said,

The Father loves the Son and has given all things into His hand. He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.

John 3:25-26

The obedience of Jesus Christ is our propitiation. In obedience to the Father, he dealt kindly with our sins. Jesus reversed our outcome of wrath into the overwhelming kindness of God.

Fire or ice

The American poet, Robert Frost, once wrote,

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

Today bloggers of the world unite to discuss climate change. Politicians say the world is getting warmer, while some statisticians now say it it getting cooler. So we, the non-experts, are left to speculate, as Robert Frost once did, “Fire or Ice?”

How ironic that Blog Action Day would waste Internet bandwidth and its immeasurable electric wattage from dubious coal-fired generators to discuss the amelioration of global climate change as if the weather was an issue of social justice or morality. We have gathered together today in virtual self-righteous hypocrisy to ignore true causes of social injustice and human suffering to talk about the weather. Why? The anti-pattern, “low hanging fruit,” I suppose.

When you address the problem that isn’t a problem, then you’re guaranteed the appearance of success. Kudos, we’ve already saved the planet. Empirical evidence reveals that the earth  in previous centuries has been warmer and cooler than present. Empirically, then, we might suppose that the earth might be both warmer and cooler in the future. To claim any degree of accuracy in our calculations, however, would be absurd. Most of us can’t solve complex mathematical equations without at least a calculator, and fewer of us can program supercomputer algorithms. Even those who program supercomputers are prone to human mistakes and their algorithms fail to account for all data. Otherwise, the weather would never surprise.

Aside from the empirical, I refuse to indulge in any debate regarding global climate change because any historical data older than 30 or 40 years is woefully incomplete and possibly a work of fiction. I place no more faith in climatologists than I do in meteorologists. They can only be right part of the time. Climatologists use current datasets to extrapolate historical sets based on certain assumptions, and then use this data to prophesy doom and gloom scenarios. Their circular logic translated by politicians into social imperatives is merely a form of shamanism or juju.

We have only begun to measure the weather; let’s give technology a millennia or two to calculate man’s impact on climate change before we start extrapolating absurd conclusions. Meanwhile, let’s focus on real issues that plague our society.

I met a man the other day who works as a probation officer for a county in the Kansas City metropolitan area. He told me that the issues he faces everyday are symptomatic of the deterioration of the family. I introduced this man to another acquaintance of mine who works in a residential treatment center for at-risk teenagers. I was amused that these two strangers knew so many people in common having never met each other. Both have dedicated their careers to ameliorate the impact of the disintegration of family within our culture.  Meanwhile, both strive to protect their own families from the destructive influences of our society. I wish them success on both fronts of the culture war.

The deterioration of the family may not be the only cause of cultural morass. Selfishness is the root of all other vices. Consequently, selfishness is the root of the family decay. In Frost’s analysis of the world’s predicament, fire and ice represent the spectrum of human self-centeredness. Greed and hatred both grow from the same root of inflated self-importance. While Frost viewed fire and ice from a universal perspective, hubris devastates at home, too.

The biggest problem the ideology of global climate change faces is the absence of a norm. The earth has gone through an ice age; deserts were once inland seas; Greenland used to be green. What in-between state is the appropriate norm, and who gets to decide the acceptable variance? Meanwhile, Martian  polar caps are shrinking, begging the question whether Earth's observed climate changes might be extraterrestrial in nature.

But climate change is not about the weather. Climate change has become a weapon of political engineering wherein scientists and politicians seek to exert patrician control over the proletariat. The global-climate-change faithful exult, not in the process of cooling the planet, but rather in the opportunity to reengineer society: hence BAD 2009.

The entire culture of global climate change is predicated upon faith in fallible humans and their mystical equations. You may believe it, but I remain skeptical. Better wisdom comes from a lesser poet than Frost: “Don’t follow leaders, watch the parkin’ meters.” Ironically, this revolution has forgotten that governmental mandates infringe on freedom. This generation rushes headlong into a type of eco-fascism demanding that the government infringe upon personal and economic freedom of others. To what end?

The nebulous facts of global climate change propels the political rise of a new patrician class at the expense of personal and economic freedom. Whether the outcome is justified will be determined by those in control. The absence of an objective norm will leave the proletariat believing their beloved fathers saved them from from something.

I agree that social values should be re-engineered or realigned, but global climate change is not my motivator. Society cannot be reformed by top down declarations from political scientists.

Unlike global climate change, the devastation of the family and the fire and ice of interpersonal relationships can be ameliorated by applying absolute standards with predictable results. Such a claim is predicated upon faith in the Creator God who has expressed Himself through graphos and logos, i.e. the Scripture and the revelation of God through Christ, His Son.

Accepting the words of Scripture, and especially the words of Jesus, as authoritative regarding family provides a framework which will transform our personal relationships. Two of the Ten Commandments deal with familial relationships:

“Honor your father and mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.”

“Do not commit adultery.”

The commandments of God that Moses brought down from Mount Sinai did not speak in part to children and in part to adults; consequently, the command to honor Father and Mother speaks to adults as well as to children. The command against adultery has been abandoned by the most modern Christian denominations in deed if not in word.

The prophet Malachi confronted Israel’s problem with divorce. He tells them that God no longer listened to them because they had abandoned the wives of their youth. Malachi writes,

. . . guard in your spirit, and the wife of your youth do not abandon! But if by detesting, you should send her forth, says the LORD God of Israel, then impiety shall cover over your thoughts, says the LORD God almighty.

Malachi 2:15-16 (AB)

The health and prosperity of the entire nation turned upon the commitment within individual marriages. Jesus echoed Malachi’s proclamation when he said, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.” Mark 10:11-12 (NIV) Most Christian churches today seek to affirm adulterous relationships as a type of second chance rather than encourage repentance. In so doing, the church has made itself complicit in the disintegration of the family.

The foundation of a family must be a committed marriage as defined by God from the beginning, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” Genesis 2:24 (NIV)

Real marriage requires selflessness to succeed. The degree of selflessness required for a successful marriage and family is enumerated by the Apostle Paul, he wrote to the Ephesians, saying,

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.

In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church — for we are members of his body.

“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery — but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Ephesians 5:25-32 (NIV)

The love and respect commanded within Christian marriage mirrors Christ’s love for us and our regard for him. Society is built one family unit at at time. Some of us still have the power to contribute to the success of one family. The church, in turn, is to build upon those familial relationships and operate as extended family or community focusing inwardly toward the building up of the whole.

To be effective the church must define itself apart from the culture, “In the world, but not of the world.” Modern Christianity is clearly of the world. The erosion of family within the church is symptomatic. Many churches cater to families, not by drawing families together but by driving them apart. Church has become like a Disney family cruise, with something for everyone, but little substance to bind all together.

Even as churches resist moral decay in the culture, they do so by engaging in external political tactics rather than internal edification. The morality of the culture should not matter to the church, but morality within the church should be of high importance. The Apostle Paul did not care about cultural morality, but he cared deeply about the purity of the church, he writes, “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. ‘Expel the wicked man from among you.’” 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 (NIV) Clearly, not everyone belongs in church, but modern Christianity takes a different stance – they accept everyone. Today, people are not expelled from church for immorality, but rather for confronting abusive leadership.

The man expelled by the Corinthians later repented of his sin and Paul encouraged the Corinthian church, saying,

The punishment inflicted on him by the majority is sufficient for him. Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him, so that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. I urge you, therefore, to reaffirm your love for him.

2 Corinthians 2:6-8 (NIV)

The purity of the church and the reconciliation of sinners is not inconsistent. Yet, today, churches are so eager to forgive, and even indulge immorality, that they become a stumbling block to the innocent and the guilty alike. Children learn that there are no consequences to sin, and the sinner learns that there is no need for repentance.

The modern church is more concerned with creating a culturally accommodating environment than a spiritually nurturing environment. In so doing, church has become an extension of the culture rather than an extension of the family. The church has abandoned its first love, and one wonders whether the depreciation of marriage and the family, as Malachi lamented, is to blame.

Between the rabid lust of the culture and the moral indifference of the church, Christian families today face external perils of fire and ice.

Though the culture and the church will proceed like the weather, Christian fathers can make a choice within the family to set aside their own selfishness and take upon themselves the selflessness of Jesus Christ. This begins by obeying the command, “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.”

Autumnal reminiscence

Last night I cleaned birch leaves from the valleys on the roof and noticed that 2009 has been a terrific year for moss.


I looked out my bedroom door this morning and saw that it had rained again. After a tentative summer, autumn has arrived unexpectedly. Leaves are falling and the apples (such as they are this year) are ripe. The little girls are picking what they can reach. The harvest will not equal last year's bounty. The cool summer, birds, and squirrels have taken a toll.


A week from tomorrow, the full moon will announce Sukkot and in our home we will remember the birth of the Christ, who tabernacled among men for a season.

John 1:1-14 (KJV)

In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him;
and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
And the light shineth in darkness;
and the darkness comprehended it not.

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
The same came for a witness,
to bear witness of the Light,
that all men through him might believe.
He was not that Light,
but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

That was the true Light,
which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
He was in the world,
and the world was made by him,
and the world knew him not.
He came unto his own,
and his own received him not.
But as many as received him,
to them gave he power to become the sons of God,
even to them that believe on his name:
Which were born, not of blood,
nor of the will of the flesh,
nor of the will of man, but of God.

And the Word was made flesh,
and [tabernacled] among us,
(and we beheld his glory,
the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,)
full of grace and truth.

Insipidity and self-importance

It is no mystery that Jesus often spoke in mysteries. When his speech alludes to Old Testament passages, He provides a dimension that should enlighten and constrain our interpretation of the passage. The second half of the ninth chapter of Mark’s Gospel appears on casual reading to contain several disconnected thoughts. A footnote in the 1966 Jerusalem Bible claims, for instance, “It appears that v. 50 cf. Mt 5:13, has been inserted here for no other reason than the recurrence of the word ‘salt’.”

Really? Imagine the self-importance of the translator – God’s editor –presuming that because he doesn’t understand something in Scripture that it just doesn’t belong there.

While chapter divisions in Scripture are arbitrary, there are apparent sections. Mark 9 is divided into three segments. The first section recounts the Transfiguration. The second deals with the healing of a demonized boy, and the third section, verses 33-50, addresses the disciples' sense of self-importance. The disciples argued among themselves who among them was greatest. When Jesus asked them about their discussions none wanted to admit to their petty competition. Jesus rebukes them saying, “If anyone wants to be first, he shall be the last of all, and the servant of all.” Mark 9:35 (AB)

Jesus then offers an illustration of what he means. Embracing a child he tells his disciples, “Whoever should receive one of such children in my name, receives me; and whoever should receive me, receives not me, but the one having sent me.” Mark 9:37 (AB)

John, remembers someone whom the disciples had not received. He tells Jesus, “We beheld a certain one in your name casting out demons, who does not follow us; and we restrained him, for he does not follow us.” Whether John was seeking clarity or justification is uncertain, but Jesus tells his disciples, “Do not restrain him! For there is none who shall do a work of power in my name, and be able to quickly speak evil of me. For he who is not against us, is for us.” Mark 9:38-40 (AB)

The disciples were obviously absorbed with their status as followers of Christ that they felt justified and even responsible to dictate the behavior of strangers. Their arrogance was so extreme that they commanded someone friendly to the cause of Christ to cease and desist performing miracles in the name of Jesus.

Rather than telling his disciples how to treat people, as he had with the child, he presents the logical converse, saying, “For whoever should give you a drink of a cup of water in my name, for you are of Christ, amen, I say to you, in no way should he lose his wage.” Mark 9:41 (AB) Earlier Jesus told his disciples that if they received a little child in his name, they received him and the one who sent him. Here he explains that strangers who likewise show the disciples favor will certainly be rewarded. Jesus presents scenarios wherein the disciples are both giving and receiving favor.

By rebuking the one casting out demons in Jesus’ name, the disciples responded to favor with disfavor. Jesus commanded them to share God’s grace both as givers and receivers.

Jesus follows his instructions with a series of warnings. Using the same child as an illustration he says, “Whoever should cause to stumble one of the little ones trusting in me, it is good to him rather if a millstone encompass around his neck, and to be thrown into the sea.” After instructing the disciples to receive a child in His name, he illustrates the severity of causing a child to stumble. He does not specify how the child would be caused to stumble, but in the context he confronts the disciples’ arrogance.

Next, Jesus again presents a logical converse. Instead of picturing the disciples causing a child to stumble, he presents three scenarios whereby something might cause the disciples to stumble. Rather than pointing to external sources for the disciples’ hypothetical stumbling he chooses three very personal things. He says,

1. If your hand should cause you to stumble . . .
2. If your foot should cause you to stumble . . .
3. If your eye should cause you to stumble . . .

Jesus points out that while a disciple might cause a trusting child to stumble, should a disciple stumble, he would have no one to blame but himself. Jesus tells them, It better to enter into life crippled, lame, or one-eyed than to be “thrown into Gehenna, into the inextinguishable fire, where their worm does not come to an end, and the fire is not extinguished.” Mark 9:48 (AB)

Many of the disciples were fishermen. Without a hand, or a foot, or an eye, their potential in first century society would be severely impeded. Moreover, once maimed, a Jewish man became somewhat of a pariah. According to Leviticus 21, a Levite with a deformity or injury was disqualified from service in the tabernacle. Surely, Jesus words must have seemed bizarre to his disciples. The very things that they might imagine as impediments to God’s acceptance were actually impediments to their salvation.

Jesus is speaking figuratively. Our hands, feet, and eyes do not cause us to stumble. Nevertheless, our pride does. Jesus was telling his disciples that anything about them that caused them to feel superior to even the lame or blind, they should forsake to gain life. When Jesus speaks of Gehenna, he alludes to Isaiah 66:24,

And they shall go forth, and shall see the carcasses of men, the ones violating against me. For their worm shall not come to an end, and their fire shall not be extinguished. And they will be a sight to all flesh.

Isaiah 65 and 66 speaks of the time of the Messianic kingdom where “. . . wolves and lambs shall graze together; and the lion shall eat straw as an ox.” Isaiah 65:25 (AB) At this time, those resisting God will be punished. By quoting Isaiah in the context of Mark chapter 9, Jesus demonstrates the severity of the disciples' pride. By comparing them to the living dead forever burning outside the city, he implies that their pride is the same as rebellion against God.

Jesus then addresses the disciples’ confusion over their proper place. They had been arguing about who among them was greatest. Jesus concludes his discourse saying,

For all shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt. The salt is good; but if the salt becomes insipid, by what means shall you season? Have salt in yourselves, and make peace with one another.

Here Jesus alludes to Leviticus 2:13, “every gift offering of your sacrifices shall be salted with salt. You shall not discontinue salt from the covenant of the LORD with your sacrifices.” Most of the sacrifices of the Old Testament were consumed by the priests and the giver. The salt on the sacrifice made it savory or pleasing.

In Mark 9, Jesus is telling his disciples that they will all be tried by fire. They will all make sacrifices. The salt of the sacrifice demonstrates their willingness to endure trials for the sake of Christ. The salt makes the sacrifice pleasing. Jesus tells them, however, “if the salt become insipid, by what shall you season? Have salt within yourselves, and make peace with one another.”

The disciples' imagined self-importance was making their service to Christ insipid or flavorless. While a casual reader might presume to think that Mark 9:33-50 is a disconnected narrative, Jesus is actually teaching one central thought – the consequences of pride.

• The disciples’ pride was an impediment to others’ faith.
• It was an impediment to the disciples’ relationship with God.
• Moreover, the disciples’ pride made their service meaningless.

The disciples had been arguing about who among them was greatest but Jesus tells them, “Have salt in yourselves, and make peace with one another.”

As I was discussing this passage with Lisa, she heard the words “Have salt within yourself” and was stunned by the imagery that Jesus used. In the New Testament, yeast or leaven always refers to the sin of pride. Some scholars believe that Matthew 13:33 and Luke 13:20 depart from this pattern, but they miss Jesus’ warning in these passages entirely. What Lisa knew about salt that I did not know, is that salt is an impediment to yeast.

In the Old Testament, leavening was banned from the sacrifices; however, salt was required.

In other New Testament passages, Jesus commanded his disciples to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees (an obvious reference to the destructive power of self-importance.) In Mark 9, Jesus tells them to have salt in themselves and make peace. He warns them to cast off their pride and take upon themselves humility and sacrifice.

The disciples were displaying the affects of leaven. They were becoming puffed up. Jesus rebukes them, saying, put a little salt on that insipid pride.

Forbearing one another

We visited a house church in the Houston area over the weekend. One of the passages of Scripture read that evening was Ephesians 4:2, “With all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love. . . Someone asked the group what the word, forbear really means. This question surprised me. I can define forbear, but I realized that I had no idea what it meant in Scripture.

The Bible in Basic English translates the phrase as “putting up with one another.” The NASB says, “showing tolerance for one another.” The NIV merely says, “bearing with one another.” Because I realized my ignorance of the word forbear, I did not contribute to the discussion. Instead, on the drive back to Kansas City Lisa helped me conduct a word study of anexomai, which is often translated forbear, endure, and such.

Any New Testament word study must include a study of the Greek translation of the Old Testament. While I use many English translations, I conduct serious study from The Apostolic Bible. Not only does the Septuagint (LXX) enlighten the meanings of New Testament Greek words, it was the version Scripture commonly available to the Apostles. The language of the LXX framed the language of the New Testament more so than the Hebrew and Aramaic.

In the LXX, anexomai first appears in Genesis 45:1. Joseph was unable to contain himself as he revealed his identity to his brothers, so he sent all of his attendants away. The Apostolic Bible says, “Joseph was not able to withhold.” Imagine Joseph, many years after being sold as a slave and deported to Egypt. He is now second only to Pharaoh. He has restrained himself as he assessed his brothers’ change of heart. Now overwhelmed by emotion, he reveals himself and asks, “Is my father still living?” Joseph was not able to withhold. Imagine the effort it must have taken for him to withhold his emotions to this moment. Suddenly, anexomai appears to be a stronger word than “putting up with” appears to be.

---

Job chapter 6 contains the next two occurrences of anexomai. Job asks in his misery, “What is my strength, that I remain? or what is my time, that my soul endures?” Job questions how his soul can endure his present suffering. Here anexomai again appears to be an intense word. Later in the same chapter, Job tells his friends turned accusers, “Nor will your reproof cause me to cease my words; for neither your utterance of a word will I endure. Besides that, you fall upon an orphan, you assail against your friend.” Job refuses to receive the accusations from his friends. He hears them, but he will not endure them.

---

The Greek translation of Isaiah uses anexomai several times. In chapter 1, God speaks through Isaiah to Israel saying, “If you should bring fine flour, it is vain; incense is an abomination to me, I cannot endure your new moons and the Sabbaths and the great day.” God rebukes Israel for their rote ceremonies because their hearts were far from God.

In Isaiah 42 God promises a day of judgment, saying, “I kept silent from the eon; shall I continually keep silent and endure?” Throughout history God has revealed himself through Creation, through prophets, and in the person of His Son, Jesus, the Christ. A day is coming when God will no longer withhold knowledge of himself. In that day, the unbelieving will have to account for their unbelief in the light of the revelation they have rejected. A careful reading of Isaiah 42 reveals a companion passage in Romans 8, but this is an entirely different discussion.

In Isaiah 46, God promises deliverance to Israel, saying,

Hear me, O house of Jacob, and all the rest of Israel! O ones being lifted up from the belly, and being corrected from childhood until old age; I AM, and until whenever you should become aged, I AM. I endure you. I made, and I shall spare. I shall take up and I shall deliver you.

Isaiah 46:3-4 (AB)

In Isaiah 63 and 64, Israel turns to God in repentance, asking God,

Where is your zeal and your strength? Where is the abundance of your mercy and your compassion, that you withhold from us? For you are our father. For Abraham did not know us, and Israel did not recognize us. But you, O LORD our father, rescue us! From the beginning your name is upon us. Why did you wander us, O LORD, from your way. You hardened our hearts to not fear you? Return on account of your servants! on account of the tribes of your inheritance that we should inherit a little of your holy mountain.

Isaiah 63:15-18 (AB)

In this passage, anexomai is translated “withhold.” God endured or withheld his blessing from Israel. Isaiah 64 recounts the pain inflicted upon Israel, and Isaiah says, “All over all these things you endured, O LORD, and kept silent, and humbled us very much.” In Romans 11, Paul explains why Israel experienced a hardening, but again, this is another discussion.

---

The next appearance of anexomai, we find in Amos 4. The Lord indicts Israel’s unbelief saying, “I withheld from you the rain before the three months of gathering crops . . . And you returned not to me.” God persisted in judging Israel, but they would not respond in repentance. Likewise because of Israel’s disobedience, the Lord says through Haggia, “On account of this the heaven withholds of dew, and the earth keeps back its resources.” Haggai 1:10 (AB)

---

Moving into the New Testament, Matthew 17, Mark 9, and Luke 9 recount the healing of a demonized young man. Jesus’ disciples had not been able to cast out the demon and Jesus responded saying, “O unbelieving and perverted generation, until when shall I be with you? Until when shall I endure you?” Jesus then rebuked the demon and the child was healed. Jesus was intensely involved in his disciples lives. He was teaching them, but they exasperated him at times? He’s asking rhetorically, How much more time do we have here? Jesus’ enduring of his disciples was not a casual “putting up with” them. It was intensive, intimate, daily involvement in their lives.

---

In Acts 18, the Jews in Corinth dragged Paul to the rostrum before the ruler Gallio. There they complained that Paul’s teachings were contrary to their own. Paul started to offer his defense, which was his right, but Gallio interrupted and said,

If indeed then it was some offense or evil villainy, O Jews, on this account I would have endured you; but if the matter is concerning a word and names and a law of yours, you shall see to it yourselves; for I do not want to be a judge of these things.

Acts 18:14-15 (AB)

Gallio sent the Jews away, and some of the Greeks grabbed Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue and beat him publically. In this account, Gallio was obligated to follow the legal process. However, he would not see it through to the end because it did not interest him. He abruptly ended the proceedings because he was not willing to endure.

---

In 1 Corinthians, Paul speaks of his affliction, saying,

As far as the present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted and unsettled; and we tire of working with our own hands. Being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we endure; being blasphemed, we appeal; as the rubbish of the world, we were all the sweepings until now.

1 Corinthians 4:11-13 (AB)

In this passage, the Bible in Basic English does not translate anexomai, “put up with” . It says, “When we undergo punishment, we take it quietly.” Of course, that is a bad translation, but at least it acknowledges that anexomai is not a casual word.

---

In 2 Corinthians 11, the word anexomai appears five times. Paul implores the Corinthians to endure his foolishness as he compares his credentials with those who also commend themselves to the Corinthians. Paul commends them for not enduring another Gospel, but he also chides them for enduring those who enslave them, promoting themselves, and even those who slap the Corinthians in the face.

When Paul asked the Corinthians to endure his foolishness, he was not asking to be casually ignored or put up with. Rather, he was asking them to consider his credentials using the same criteria by which they evaluated false teachers who were abusing them. They endured those who enslaved them! Paul, of course, was telling them they should rather withstand such false teaching. Paul’s play on words becomes apparent in the context illustrating that anexomai does not mean merely tolerating anything, but rather standing firm in a course of action.

---

Paul commended the Thessalonians telling them that he boasted of them in the assemblies for their “endurance and belief in all [their] persecutions and the afflictions which [they] endure.” 2 Thessalonians 1:4 (AB)

---

Paul warned Timothy, saying,

For their will come a time when they will not endure healthy teaching, but according to their own desires they will accumulate to themselves teachers tickling the hearing. And from indeed the truth, the one hearing, they shall turn away, and they shall be turned aside unto the fables.

2 Timothy 4:3 (AB)

Conversely, the writer of Hebrews implores us, “Brethren, endure the word of the exhortation!” Hebrews 13:22 (AB)

---

Paul told both the Ephesians and the Colossians to “endure one another.” Considering the intensity surrounding the word anexomai in the rest of Scripture, it is unfathomable that Paul uses it here to mean something less.

Paul does not tell us to forbear everyone. He says endure one another. One another conveys mutuality to the equation. We know from 2 Corinthians 11 that we are not to forbear those who teach another Gospel, or those who promote themselves at the expense of others. We should learn to spot such people and follow Paul’s instructions in Titus 3:10.

Still, “Forbearing one another” is not supposed to be easy. Paul uses an intense word to tell us that we are to remain involved in each others' lives even when it is not easy. Forbearance in Scripture is not casual neglect. Rather it is engagement or entrenchment. We are to entrench ourselves mutually in the lives of our fellow believers. We are supposed to stick it out from the beginning to the end.

---

I appeal then you you,
I the prisoner in the Lord,
to walk worthy of the calling
of which you were called,
with all humility,
and gentleness,
with leniency,
enduring one another in love;
hurrying to keep the unity of the spirit
in the bonding together of peace.
One body,
and one spirit,
as also you were called in one hope of your calling.
One Lord,
one belief,
one immersion;
on God and father of all,
the one over all,
and through all,
and in you all.

Ephesians 4:1-6 (AB)

---

Put on then as chosen ones of God,
holy ones, and beloved,
feelings of compassion,
pity,
graciousness
humility,
gentleness,
long-suffering!
enduring one another,
and granting forgiveness to each other
if any should have any blame against any.
As also Christ granted forgiveness to you,
so also you.
And upon all these things
the love which is the bonding together of the perfection.
And let the peace of God preside in your hearts!
in which also you were called in one body.

Colossians 3:12-15 (AB)

Though with tears he sought it

For we have become partakers of the Christ, if indeed the beginning of the support we should hold firm until the end.

Hebrews 3:14 (AB)

There is a smug mantra within Evangelical Christianity that states, “Once saved, always saved.” The inference is that once a person becomes a “Christian” by some ritual action, an eternal reward is secured regardless. Many Evangelicals believe that once a person prays a little “sinner’s prayer” their eternal destiny is sealed. Faith, they believe, is an instantaneous epiphany, which obligates God to grant eternal life regardless of the convert’s faithfulness. Evangelicals often scoff at those who think that salvation might not be so easily secured. They brand those who differ from their viewpoint as legalists who must believe salvation comes by works.

While there are legalists who think that salvation comes by works, the once-saved-always-saved Evangelicals are the worst of the lot because they teach a works-based salvation of the lowest possible standard, “Repeat after me, ‘Dear Jesus, blah, blah, blah . . .’ Congratulations, you’re now a child of God.” These so-called believers reject the truth that faith and faithfulness are the same word in Scripture! They teach salvation without repentance, and they manufacture word meanings that deceive people into false assurances of salvation.

The writer of Hebrews makes it clear that the end must validate the beginning. A plausible beginning does not guarantee the expected end. How have we “become partakers of the Christ?” Only if “we should hold firm until the end!” Hebrews does not tell us we might become partakers of the Christ, if we hold firm to the end. Rather, it says we have already become partakers of the Christ. Nevertheless, the proof requires that we hold firm until the end.

Not only so, those not holding firm to the end are in peril!

For where voluntarily we sin after receiving the full knowledge of the truth, no longer is left a sacrifice for sins; but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and a zealous fire being about to devour the adversaries.
Hebrews 10:26 (AB)

The writer of Hebrews uses Esau as a negative example. He commands believers to be involved in each other’s lives lest any should lack God’s grace. We are supposed to watch out for those in peril such as Esau,

. . . who for one portion of food delivered over his rights of the first born. For you understand that also afterwards wanting to inherit the blessing, he was rejected; for no place for repentance was found though with tears he sought it.

Hebrews 12:14-17 (AB)

Some so-called Christians mistakenly believe that in the Old Testament, salvation came by obedience to the Law. Hebrews rebuts this theory in chapter 11 revealing that salvation has always come by faith. Even scoundrels like Jepthah, who sacrificed his daughter, were enshrined in the “Hall of Faith” not because of their deeds but because of their faith in God.

Paul encouraged the Philippians to work out their salvation with “fear and trembling.” Paul exhorted the Corinthians to examine themselves to see whether they were in the faith. What was the standard of the test he proposed? “Do you not recognize yourselves that Jesus Christ is in you – except you be rejected.” 2 Corinthians 13:5 If Christ is in us, then it will become evident.

For many, salvation is more a gradual process than a instantaneous enlightenment. Saving faith is not merely intellectual assent. However, such knowledge of the truth, puts one in jeopardy should they subsequently reject the truth and fall away.

The writer of Hebrews seems almost obsessed with those within the assembly who were not fully committed to Jesus Christ. He warned against the hardening of hearts which also prevented Israel from obtaining God’s favor.

Take heed, brethren, lest at any time there should be in some of you a wicked unbelief in heart in the separating from the living God. But encourage yourselves according to each day,  as long as of which it is called today, that you should not be hardened, any of you, any by the deception of sin.

Hebrews 3:12 (AB)

The tone in Hebrews is urgent. We must continue on in our sanctification because the consequences of falling short of God’s grace are so severe.

It is impossible for the ones once enlightened, having tasted also of the heavenly gift, and becoming partakers of holy spirit, and having tasted the good word of God, and of powers of the eon about to be, and having fallen, again to renew to repentance; crucifying again to themselves the son of God, and making an example of him.

Hebrews 6:4-6 (AB)

The word translated, “having fallen”, or parapesontas, only appears once in the New Testament. Usually word meanings are best inferred by comparing many contexts. The scarcity of parapesontas actually helps us understand that to which the writer of Hebrews was alluding. The New Testament, of course was written in Greek, and the Old Testament source available to the New Testament writers had been translated into Greek. In the Greek Old Testament, parapesontas occurs in only two books. In Esther 6:10, the evil Haman is told that he must not fall short of his duty to honor Mordecai, whom he hates. Elsewhere, in Ezekiel, parapesontas is used five times to refer to Israel’s rebellion against God.

In Ezekiel 18, Israel accuses God of injustice. God reminds Israel that they are the ones who are unjust. God promises to punish the lawless and reward the righteous. In the middle of this discourse, God says,

And the lawless one, if he should turn from all his lawless deeds which he did, and should keep all my commandments, and should do equity and righteousness and mercy; to life he shall live, and he shall not die. All his transgressions, as many as he did, they shall not be remembered to him; in his righteousness which he did he shall live.

“By volition do I want the death of the lawless one?” says Adonai the LORD? “No, but as to turn him from his way and enliven him.”

But in the turning the just from his righteousness, and he should commit iniquity according to all the iniquities which the lawless one did, if he should do thus, he shall not live. In all the righteousness of his, which he did, in no way shall they be remembered; in his transgression in which he fell, and in his sins in which he sinned, in them he shall die.

Ezekiel 18:21-24 (AB)

The writer of Hebrews 6:6, echoes what Ezekiel had prophesied long before. God earnestly desires for sinners to repent. But the righteous, having fallen, it is impossible to renew him to repentance. Jesus said, “I have not come to call righteous ones but sinners unto repentance.” Luke 5:32 (AB) Yet, in Matthew 12, Jesus condemned the Pharisees for their blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. The Pharisees saw the power of God demonstrated, yet they refused to believe. Their willful rebellion sealed their destiny.

Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Christ for thirty pieces of silver and was later overwhelmed by regret. Regardless of Judas’ remorse, Jesus referred to Judas as the “son of destruction” and “a devil.” Though he had walked three years with Jesus – possibly performing miracles on missionary journeys (Matthew 10:5-15) – Judas had no avenue for repentance after his betrayal of Christ.

A good beginning is not a measure of faithfulness. Those with an intellectual acknowledgment of the truth, without having received God’s favor, face incredible risk. Should they fall away into deliberate rebellion, there is nothing that can restore them to repentance even if they become rapt with regret.

Esau wept with remorse. Yet he could not find repentance.

While some may ignore Scripture regarding those who fall away after knowing the truth, Scripture is clear that their condition is hopeless. The examples given in Scripture are extreme: Esau, the Pharisees, and Judas. However the danger is real enough that the writer of Hebrews emphasizes the risk. Paul wrote to Timothy saying,

Because of this I endure all things on account of the chosen, that also they should attain deliverance of the one in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

Trustworthy is the word,
For if we died together, also we shall live together;
if we endure, also we shall reign together,
if we deny, that one also will will deny us;
if we disbelieve, that one is sure to abide;
to deny himself he is not able.
2 Timothy 2:10-14 (AB)

Paul states clearly that denying Christ will result in His denying us. Nevertheless, God’s grace allows us room for imperfection because if we disbelieve, Christ remains faithful. Clearly, God forgives our hamartia (1 John 1:9), but His purpose is also to cleanse us from hamartia and not to have us wallow in it. Should we reject God’s favor after knowing the truth, then is God’s judgment unjust?

Both Paul and the writer of Hebrews emphasize finishing what we started. How we finish validates how we began. Faith results in faithfulness because faith and faithfulness are the same. God knows the hearts of men better than we know our own. While we might set our hopes of salvation on doggerel recitatives, God looks passed our actions and into our hearts. He knows those who belong to him.

Paul closes his last letter to Timothy, saying,

For I am already am offered as a libation, and the time of my separation stands by. The good struggle, I have struggled; the race, I have finished; the belief I have kept. Remaining reserved for me is the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will recompense to me in that day; and not only to me, but also to all the ones loving his grandeur.

2 Timothy 4:6-8 (AB)

As we learn more about Him, are we also drawn closer to Him? Are we still clinging to the hope by which we began our lives in Jesus Christ?

Ecclesiastical hierarchy

by John D Ramsey

And through covetousness
shall they with feigned words
make merchandise of you.

2 Peter 2:3 (KJV)

Did anyone read the AP headline about the former Indiana pastor and his sons who allegedly scammed 11,000 people by securities fraud? Really? The marks thought they could make money by purchasing bonds for church building. Really? Is anyone truly surprised? Don’t say Peter didn’t warn you.

Peter says that because of them, “the way of truth will be blasphemed.” 2 Peter 2:2 (AB) It is maddening that people use positions of respect to manipulate and devour the naive. Peter spends the rest of the chapter describing the severity of God’s judgment against such men. He calls them “slaves of depravity” (NIV), and compares them to a “dog having returned unto its own excrement.” (AB) Most translations soften the object of the preposition saying, instead, “vomit,” like that’s so much better. The Greek is rather direct, however.

The notion of an ecclesiastical hierarchy exacerbates the problem of frauds within Christendom, whether they be shysters or sexual predators. People implicitly trust so-called Christian leaders. In reading my Bible I can find no basis for such obeisance. Peter warned of false prophets and teachers in 2 Peter 2. Paul warned of “grievous wolves” in Acts 20 who would “draw away disciples after them” (AB). John warned the elder Gaius, in 3 John, about Diotrephes, “the one enjoying being first.” In Revelation 2, the Lord Jesus condemns the practices of the Nicolaitans, or “conquerors of the people.”

The Apostle Paul, did teach an ecclesiastical hierarchy. Nevertheless, the hierarchy Paul taught was consistent with the words of Jesus,

But you are not to be called Rabbi,
for you have only one Master and you are all brothers.
And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’
for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.
Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’
for you have one Teacher, the Christ.

Matthew 23:8-10 (NIV)

Modern churches mostly ignore the concept of equality among the brethren. In so doing, they ignore Paul who scolded the Corinthians for causing divisions within the body. Most translations, especially the NIV, strain to justify the favoritism the Corinthians practiced, but Paul told them that because of their divisions they did not celebrate the Lord’s Supper, but their own. He went on to say that because their practice did not recognize the body of the Lord, many were weak and sick and others had died. The church, the body of Christ, consists of many members, but only Christ is the head.

The concept that Christians should organize in hierarchies is un-Biblical. Paul taught a ecclesiastical hierarchy, but it is rather shallow. He says,

But I want you to know,
that the Christ is the head of every man;
and the head of the woman is the man;
and the head of Christ is God.

1 Corinthians 11:3 (AB)

Modern Christianity largely rejects or ignores Paul’s statement that the “head of the woman is the man.” It’s a free country, and they’re welcome to start their own religion. Nevertheless, what I see within this paragraph is simply this, if Christ, being God, and equal to God, can submit to the Father, then a woman, being equal to the man, can submit to her husband without incurring any inferiority. Women are equal to men, according to Galatians 3:28; their submission is only for the purposes of orderliness. It certainly reflects the character of Christ and the natural divine order designed by God. Moreover, in this ecclesiastical hierarchy every woman is only three from the top which is much higher than organized Christianity puts most anybody.

The simple beauty of this passage is that “the Christ is the head of every man.” No Christian leader stands in any position of ecclesiastical authority over any other man. In fact, Paul takes it further and says, “Every man praying or prophesying having anything on his head, disgraces his own head.” 1 Corinthians 11:4 (AB) Many scholars obfuscate this passage to make it sound like a man must not wear his ball cap at the table while saying grace. Yet clearly, Paul is saying, Christ is your head; do not cover yourselves with any other presumed spiritual authority.

If no man can have ecclesiastical authority over you, then you also have no ecclesiastical authority over him. As Jesus said, “You are all brothers.” 

When any so-called Christian leader touts his credentials, beware. He is deceived and likely a deceiver. The only valuable credentials he can possibly have is that Christ is his head. Those credentials are no more valuable than your own, if you belong to Christ. Even Paul called his vast credentials foolishness in 2 Corinthians 11. He sarcastically tells the Corinthians that he knows they will indulge his foolishness because they “put up with anyone who enslaves [them] or exploits [them] or takes advantage of [them] or pushes himself forward or slaps [them] in the face.” 2 Corinthians 11:20 (NIV)

Although no man holds ecclesiastical rank over another, the truth is always authoritative. That is why Paul preach authoritatively and could also compel Titus saying, “These things speak, and encourage, and reprove with all command! Let no one speculate about you.” Titus 2:15 (AB) Titus did not have all authority, yet the message he delivered was authoritative. Similarly Peter proclaimed, “If any speaks, let it be as oracles of God.” 1 Peter 4:11 (AB) As each of us declares the truth, we should do so with authority.

In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul outlined what a church service should look like. Very briefly, the assembly of believers was designed to be interactive. One speaks, others discern. If one stands up to speak, the one speaking sits down. All things were to be orderly. No one leader emerges, yet all lead as the Holy Spirit directs. Each brings something that builds up the body.

In modern Christianity, we idolize the authors, the orators, and the entertainers. We elevate the credentialed and ordained. In so doing, we ignore the truth that only Christ is our head. We open the doors for the ravenous wolves, those who seek a following for themselves. We enable those who by “feigned words make merchandise of” us. By ignoring our lofty position with respect to Christ, through false humility, we deny him.

Knowing that only Christ is our head should compel us to know him better. As brothers we are told to respect and defer to those who are older—this is the natural order. We are also supposed to submit to one another while avoiding those who love being first.

When we begin to see believers as equals and not superiors or inferiors, and when we begin to see only Christ as our head, then it should become easier to spot those who assert themselves or attract fan clubs for themselves. These are certainly not believers, because by elevating themselves, “They have turned from the holy commandment delivered to them.” 2 Peter 2:21 (AB)