Isaiah 2:1-4: "All literally fulfilled"?

As pointed out in Sandy's "Plowshares and Pruning Hooks", some prophecies are transparent in that the reader can clearly see what the prophet is saying. Whereas some prophecies are translucent in that enough light is seen by the reader that though the clear details are not evident, the general shape of fulfillment actually is.

“Now it shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the LORD’s house shall be established on top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow to it

translucent on the grounds that speak of Hebrews 12:22, Revelation 3:12, 21:2, 10 which all tell of a “Heavenly Jerusalem” which “comes down from God out of Heaven”. If it comes down from Heaven, then there is reason to believe that this “New Jerusalem” will be in the same geographical proximity, but that it will possibly hover (it’s hard to say that with a straight face) In other words, it wasn’t discernable until the New Testament what was meant by these words.

Many people will say, ‘Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob

translucent on the grounds that Revelation 21:22 say God and Jesus are the “temple” of this New Jerusalem. In other words, it wasn’t discernable until the New Testament what was meant by these words;

He will teach us His ways, and we shall walk in His paths.’ For out of Zion shall go forth the law

transparent on the grounds that Romans 11:26 shows a literal “turning away of ungodliness” by a certain authority in “Sion” (Jerusalem),

and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem

transparent on the grounds that Matthew 23:39 has Jesus announcing the literal city welcoming Him as “the One Who comes in the name of the Lord”. Many have said this is merely a reference to His entrance on Palm Sunday, but this already occurred in Matthew 21:9. Matthew 24 then follows up with a history that surrounds the city of Jerusalem according to verses 2 and 3.

He shall judge between the nations

transparent on the grounds that Luke 19:11’s parable speaks of a literal kingdom coming which the disciples merely thought, both here and in Acts 1, was going to be in “literal Jerusalem”. The point is that verses 15 & 22 speak of a real judgment that will take place (according to verse 11),

and rebuke many people; They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; Nation shall not lift up sword against nation

translucent on the grounds that Luke 21:24 speaks of literal Jerusalem being ravaged with “the edge of the sword” (though this passage may refer to the A.D. 70 siege, “the sword” is typical of hyperbole which can simply refer to “violent death”). In other words, the “sword” and the “spear” may simply be a translucent reference to the instruments of death being used for industry or commerce in the coming kingdom. Moreover, it wasn’t discernable until the New Testament what was meant by these words,

neither shall they learn war anymore.”

To investigate today's church's methods in making disciples...

Methods, Materials, and Programs commonly used today

1 Thessalonians 5:20 "Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good" (or, "Eat the chicken and spit out the bone".)

Competency Model

The “Competencies Model” is seen as a way to teach thirty specific competencies to include beliefs, practices, and virtues. The competency of the day is emphasized in the worship service, rehashed in the 40-member group, and practiced in 12-member small groups aimed at meeting the need of their community. These same groups are led by lay leaders that have a way of keeping its members accountable through peer-assessed “profiles”.

Assessment: This seems like a very strong possibility in my own church. It narrows the theme of the week down to one “vision”. The pastor preaches, the teacher teaches (40-member), the Wednesday-night small group laboratory practices, and the vessels are evaluated by all the other handy vases in the shop. This is also a very good way to keep from “thematic overload”.

Missional Model

This model has six core beliefs ranging from “being passionately committed to Jesus Christ” to “being socially responsible and impactful”. These get introduced with an 8-week “joiners’ class” in which they form groups of 14, and are introduced to a development plant that focused on one of the six core beliefs and a year-long trek to get to the goal. The group stays together for three years to pray for one another with their emphasis core in one-year increments.

Assessment: This seems good focused enough, but why “six”? Why not more? Why one year increments? What does this church do to make sure these developmental groups are practicing their new “qualities”? This doesn’t seem answerable at this point.

Neighborhood Model

The church ideals are re-enforced with “neighborhood groups” that meet twice a month, and are led by well-trained lay pastors. These groups split between worship and service, and are the primary means of showing benevolence to the world it has been given. Group members are encouraged to join a discipleship group of less than 10 people which focuses on developing five areas in the person’s life. One can spend three years (in one-year increments) in these groups before being expected to lead such a group themselves.

Assessment: It seems that there is a sparseness of meeting among neighborhood groups. Can there possibly be good accountability or encouraging setting with a bi-weekly meeting? What about financing? Is the full financial allotment towards meeting the needs of the world available to these small groups? Who decides which “group” gets this funding? These answers seem elusive. Also, I am not sure I feel comfortable with encouraging someone to join a “worship and service” group before they become a dedicated disciple.

Worldview Model

This is a two-year program which is open to all volunteers. This program focuses dialogue that brings people into a Christian worldview of any issue at hand. Clearly there is an emphasis on curriculum written locally and tuned to addressing case studies and current events. This is positively given to making people struggle over the issues of the day and to choose sides. These groups are typically two years in duration with no apparent building-block approach (you can join at any time and finish the course). These participants are encouraged to be a part of a small group which is led by a trained leader which incorporates peer-evaluators.

Assessment: There doesn’t appear to be a leadership assessment regarding these “discipleship” groups. Also, there doesn’t appear to be a difference of function between these groups and the “small groups”. It seems apparent that one would choose one group or the other.

New Life

This is the name of the discipleship ministry at Shawnee Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky. This program includes available literature (on topics ranging from soul-winning to marriage), media items to include DVD’s, tapes, and CD’s on about the same range of topics, tracts, sheet music and music CD’s.

Assessment: Although this ministry seems fresh, it appears that it is information distribution at its crux. Perhaps it will develop into much more, but the author of this critique has a background with churches whose discipleship ministries end at dissemination of information. Very little personal touch is involved other than the expectation of the new believer to get active into church and even, quite possibly, invest some finances to acquire tools for their growth.

The Potter’s Institute

Then there are some, like the Potter’s House of Dallas, Texas, who make “discipleship” a matter of entering a separate entity known as a Bible institute of sorts offering classes on subjects ranging from “doctrine” to “relationships”. There are six five-week terms per year, and the cost is anywhere between $40-$75 depending on the class, and its requirements.

Assessment: This seems like a good idea. The cost is a little steep, but if it includes a certificate, everyone loves their certifications. Why, though, is this “discipleship” seen as an “auxiliary”-type of situation where you have “the general assembly” and the “inner circle” ideals (quotes are the author’s)? Perhaps this is being overly critical, but one can be comfortable being a member, and not being a disciple? Perhaps another issue is the seeming lack of objective is expressed with the new knowledge that a graduate would have.

Matthew 25 Opportunities are so valuable!

The question is not, "Why does God seem so unjust in not allowing everyone into Heaven?" The question is not even, "Why doesn't God 'draw' more people with His 'effectual calling'?" The question really is, "Why have you rejected it?" Everyone desires for God to explain Himself before they obey. Heaven' economy doesn't allow for a mutual exchange.

This passage teaches that those who do nothing with the talents entrusted to them are cast into hell (verse 30). There are some points that must be made.

1. The talents appear to be oppurtunities or assets that the Lord has entrusted us with to bring him glory until the time of Jesus' return (verse 13 and 19). These opportunities and assets are given to people based on the master's volition. God is absolutely Sovereign.

2. We must make faithful choices in management of talents resulting in rulership responsiblities following the coming of Christ, and more talents. (verse 28)

Some choices are foolish and result in loss of the talents and outer darkness. Consider 2 Peter 2:17 and Jude 13.

Picture what this may be like in Exodus 10:21,22.

Where anguish displayed in weeping and grinding of the teeth will occur from the inflicted pain.

3. The attitude causing the different choices.

The wise stewards took the goals of their lord seriously understanding the pending accountablility day.

The foolish steward did not believe his lord, towards whom he was bitter, would return. (verse 24)

4. The lord gave to his servants what he knew they could handle. More than likely, this was based on their experiences with him. (verse 24)

The "good and faithful" had proven themselves before to be reliable and did, once again, the same.

The foolish man, on the other hand, had already proven himself unfaithful and not good. This was, perhaps, the last chance this man would get to prove himself "profitable".

His one talent is indicative of those who are at a point of salvation-- the absolute minimum opportunity one can "invest" for the kingdom's sake. Hebrews 6:4-6

5. The conclusion:

A. Review:

1. The talents are oppurtunities to use assets given to us from God such as the oppurtunity of salvation. We know this man made no attempt to use ANY of the talents entrusted him by his lord.

2. We all have choices to use these oppurtunities (even if it is merely that one talent, one chance, to come to Jesus for salvation).

3. Our attitude about Christ will dictate whether we use this first talent and come to Christ (John 5:38-40).

4. One who is totally unprofitable (with that one talent) will not enter the kingdom.

if Your presence doesn't go with me...

It is simply not enough to have His Word. I need His surety.

I may tell my little ones that I have taken care of an issue for them because I have called ahead. However, I don't expect that to be enough for them. I expect they will have true fact upon which they can rest their faith if I accompany them to assure that whatever party lies on the other end of their way subordinates him or herself to the terms of my promise.

It's true that I promise these things for the benefit of my children...because I count myself an aspiring good father. The truth is, whether those who are affected by my promise towards my children are in favor of, or against the terms of my promise to my children is quite inconsequential. I promise for their good, and my name's sake. So...this requires my attendance in many cases to be sure that what I have promised comes to fruition.

God promised Moses that He would accompany him and the people of Israel on their journeys in Exodus 33:14, and Moses increased the emphasis so that, at least in his mind, God was aware that he (Moses) was aware that God's presence was not only desired, but it was desperately required. For in verse 15, Moses basically says, "If you decide not to be with us on this journey, then let's just die right here where we sit. We are better off to meander around in this ridiculous sandbox, than we are to face our foes and find our way by ourselves."

And so it is with me. I need both the message and the Sender to accompany me to this world. I need both the bullet and the gun; the power and the explosion; the promise and the Promiser; the kinetic power and the potential power; the law and the Lawgiver; the grace and the Gracious; the go ahead and the Rearguard; the Sealer and the Liberator.

It is simply not enough for me to have "well wishes" and a good 'ol book. I must have the two-fold Witness of God: His Word and His Spirit; His Spirit and His truth; His fish and His loaves.

And so, I say, "O God, if you are no respecter of persons, and yet, you require obedience before sacrifice. Then, I implore you to assist me in running before the chariots of this world with the message. I ask you to give raising power with regenerating words. I beseech you to quicken this mortal body with that which reflects the Your fingerprints. Because...without you, I am undone!"

Discipleship, Education, Spiritual Formation—What’s the Difference?

The purpose of this essay is to describe the similarities and differences between the three terms listed above. One needs to ask themselves, “What is the desired end of this ministry that I am about to invest time and energy into at the expense of other opportunities? What is the level of commitment or growth that we see in our people?”

Discipleship

To be a disciple today, one must be a diligent student of the teachings of Christ under both the Spirit of Christ and pastors whom He has given to the church. These are not the necessarily the professionals. These are merely disciples who, too, have listened to the voice of Christ, and spent much time with pastors “according to [the heart of God]” (Jeremiah 3:15) which resulted from a life-changing decision that occurred when he or she became a believer (John 3:16; 8:31).”

What is obvious is that “discipleship” is far more than “education”. There must be something more to seeing people grow in Christ than simply sharing information.

Education

This is simply sharing information. This is not just any collage of facts, however. The church is not in this business. Education is “teaching people how to think”. People benefit greatly when they leave with more questions than they came with. Perhaps more classes would be “round-table” rather than lecture-like if people didn’t come with the expectation of being spoon-fed. Oddly enough, it is quite difficult to separate “education” from the idea of parenting. If teaching doesn’t take place in the home, where does it happen?

In ministry, one must understand that there is a sincere helplessness-like that of a child, in the lives of those who need to become disciples, and eventually find spiritual formation (Matthew 18:3).

Spiritual Formation

“Formation” has the idea of “causing to exist”. This starts, of course, at the desperation to find facts, continues on to discipleship (that is, following the teacher to the extent mentioned above), and finally realizes freedom in maturity. The only time in the New Testament this word is found in this sense is Galatians 4:19. However, it is quite passive. It is not the individual disciple who finally achieves spiritual formation for himself, but rather, Jesus Christ the Master, is formed in the disciple, bringing lasting spiritual maturity. As Hendricks says, “Don’t let the world squeeze you into its mold”. Let Christ be formed in you.

Conclusion

Everyone must begin with knowledge (education). There must come a point of decision, however, to change one’s lifestyle to mirror their master (discipleship). Finally, to abstain from Phariseeism, one must pursue spiritual maturity by allowing Christ to take up residence—fully forming Himself in him or her (spiritual formation).

How to Have a Winning Team

From John Maxwell's "Developing the Leader Within You":

Great Leaders...
1. Create the right environment; know basic human needs; keep control of finance, personnel, and planning; avoid the 7 deadly sins.
2. Pick Good People (See section below)
3. Play to win (not to keep from losing)
4. Make Team Members More Successful by knowing the key to each player; mapping out the mission; defining the role of each player; creating a group identity; use first person, plural pronouns; communicate with everyone.
5. Keep improving the team—which may mean firing the ones who will make you miserable if you don’t.


Five Principles for Picking People for Teams and Ministries (Page 186).
1. The Smaller the Organization, the More Important the Hiring.
A person's effect is greatly increased when they go from an organization of 100 to an organization of five. Let there be no mistake, when a person makes a mistake on a team of five, the ripples in the lives of the remaining four are much larger than the "ninety and nine" who are effected in the organization of 100.

2. Know What Kind of Person You Need.
Maxwell gives 20 things that one looks for in a potential hiree. Of course there are things like a “track record” (#14) that may simply not be present on the resume. This may be something, however, that is seen in the educational discipline of the candidate. If he or she is a “C” student, is this somebody, with no ministerial experience, whom you would want to be your event coordinator? What if there is no school experience or work experience to go on. Would their “track record” of being a “D” student in High School be a good qualifier even if he was an all-American football player?

3. Know What the Job Requires.
There is nothing more frustrating than being hired for a job which has no clear expectation or scope. How difficult it is to be hired for work not yet defined! There must be clear expectations to include conduct, duties, times, reporting chain, parameters, required commitments, and very, very little implication. It becomes clear to many when they are having a position created for them. As a sidenote, there needs to be regular evaluations to gauge the employee’s progress and performance. Otherwise, there are no clear grounds to give any kind of adverse action for perceived poor performance or lack of professional development.

4. Know What the Potential Staff Member Wants.
That is, allow the candidate to speak clearly and freely about his expectations and aspirations for himself, his family, and his new ministry/position. What are the things, given the research they have done, which they would like to see within the church ministries as a result of their contribution to the team? Allow this to be done in person with the promptings given to them before hand so that they can have notes handy if possible. They can speak intelligently about their hearts’ desires if they are given adequate notice. There is no need to discount or disqualify somebody because of a perceived inability to speak if the only issue is their preparation of their comments.

5. When You Cannot Afford to Hire the Best, Hire the Young Who Are Going to Be the Best.

In other words, don’t let people train your ministers and employees if you cannot afford to do so. Train your own. Invest your time. See to it that the leaders you have are those who have been groomed within your own mentorship program. If there is a time and energy investment, there will be a loyalty that can be withdrawn. If there are minimal energy deposits, the organizational leadership should be little surprised when there are few loyalty withdrawals that can be made.

A Review of Shandon Baptist Church

I left Fayetteville, NC right after kissing the family one last time before this trip around 7am this morning. I intended on getting the early service at the above church at 10. It was the traditional service I was to be attending.

My first acquaintance with this church was with my good friend, Rob Jackson, from Alabama (he's ok anyway). We drove in on a Sunday evening to find out that this massive church, 1 mile from the Fort Jackson gate, had no Sunday evening service. Now, everyone who has spoken with me about the issue knows that I don't think you must have 2 services on Sunday to be Biblical. I go twice a day on Sundays in Fayetteville because I am a member of a church that has two services on Sunday. I just wondered what thought process said, "we know longer need an evening service."

In any case, I knew I was attending a SBC church this morning because there were no Independent Baptist Churches in the area that I could find which had an early service (so I could be on time to Fort Jackson to report). Some of you are done reading now so go ahead and pout and cross me off your Christmas card list (have a nice day).

I pulled around the mammoth auditorium which faced the road to the parking lot in the back. I backed my Park Avenue into a spot in the 3rd row of what looked like 12-15 rows of parking spots complete with marquee signs pointing to the "Worship Center", "Welcome Center", etc.... I received a warm welcome by a man greeter and a woman greeter who opened the door to a large hallway with beautifully finished wooden beams which crossed over the hallway, but under a glass (domed?) ceiling. I passed a two-storied classroom complex on my left and on my right with restrooms on the lower level. I took a picture of a marvelous missions display with slotted walls where mission project fliers could be displayed.

I found my way to a large vestibule where there were happy people behind a welcome center desk. I looked across the vestibule to find another welcome center facing the opposite direction. In the middle were comfortable-looking pieces of furniture with wrapped Christmas gifts stacked high around a tree. I assume they were doing some kind of Christmas project, and that these were not simply for display. I went by a smiling usher with a suit jacket on who handed me a very sharp bulletin. It is probably 14"x5" and had the order of service on the front.

I walked down one of the aisles and found lots of seats near the front right side (audience vantage point). After awhile, the choir came out and sang numerous songs to include 3 solos throughout the service. There was a great time of traditional worship with a few newer choruses. It was very good. Dick Lincoln, has been there 31 years as the pastor, and is leading the church into "pledge Sunday" coming up on two weeks. He preached from Romans 1:17, but also Hebrews 11:1-6.

I noticed they had their choir practice during the Wednesday evening Bible study time. Interesting. Maybe it's ok. They did have quite the sound. If there is a devotional and a time of prayer, maybe this is good? I noticed they had microphones hanging from the ceiling throughout the entire choir loft.

Takeaways:
Good:
The pastor had been here 31 years. He is definitely identified with the church. He has led them through 2 building programs. The latest one was building a 15-22 million dollar sanctuary. It looks every dollar of that. He mentioned this range in his preaching as what was budgeted versus what was entered in the bidding process, so I don't know which to go with. In any case, a leader with some longevity to go with his vision can get some mondo things done.

The flow of the service was very good. There was little or know dead time between songs, and almost no commentary to fill the dead time that was there. It was a 20-minute (or so) time of singing.

I appreciated (I thought I would never say this) the choir robes. I think it's too bad that they have to be worn, but if a preacher says, "Honeys, you need to pull up your blouses and pull down your skirts so that we cannot see your undergarments", that's a little abrupt. So they deal with the demonic influence of immodesty by making people wear robes. Good fix if you desire attire to be out of the play as a descriminator.

They had attendance sheets. At the end of each pew, was a pad. The one on the end would take the pad, rip a sheet off (2"x4"?), and pass it down the pew. I had to fill in my contact info and check "member" or "guest". They have a visitation/evangelism pastor that screens the "guest" cards after they are put in the plate at the time of offering.

Bad:
If you think I'm a bad guy for this, just hit the "page down" button, and maybe you'll skip this part. I am still not comfortable, based on what I understand in 1 Chronicles 16, 1 Corinthians 14, and 1 Timothy 2, with a woman leading a mixed crowd in worship. I think it shows a lack of reverence for the Lord and His church, and respect for His Word. There was one lady who did the welcome and announcements, and another one who came out of the choir to lead in a time of prayer.

On the good side, there was a deaf interpreter. Amazingly powerful in its interpretation of worship, it is also a ministry to those who are not able to hear. I thought I sat down in the middle of the deaf section at first, but then I noticed that there were only two deaf ladies. On the bad side, the lady had to keep yanking down her skirt because the whole right 1/3 of the lower, lower level of the auditorium was able to see that it was too short. Too bad. It really detracted from her appearance, and brought discredit to the ministry.

I suppose the last problem I had was that the church was very, very, very quiet during the preaching. Now, it was a traditional church service, but even after the songs, there was nothing going on but clapping. I like 1 Chronicles 16:36 which says the people responded with "Amen" when an act of worship was completed. What ever happened to people "lifting up their hands in the sanctuary, and blessing the Lord" (Psalm 134:2). Whatever happened to people saying "Amen" when the Word of God is read and proclaimed (Nehemiah 5:13; 8:6)?

Overall, I enjoyed it, and I went as both a participant and a critic. Why? Because the world is my classroom, and "we are in the world". If I can make my own ministry, both present and future, better...why not?

Why we must go...

Matthew 28:19
1. Because of the posterity we lead. Our children are watching. If we place things above the will of God and the glory of His name, we should expect our children to do the same. To preach the Great Commission and spend years showing our children other priorities is hypocrisy.

2. Because of the prayers we pray. (Matthew 9:38) If we think only those on our prayer list need the courage to go, the committment to stay there, and the faith for provision from God; yet we are expecting God to "make every light green" before we even start on the journey, we are hypocrites.


3. Because of the power we desire. (2 Corinthians 12; 1 Peter 4) I am afraid that I will never know what it is to see God "walk in on the 4th watch" or "provide in the 11th hour". I am afraid it is all nothing but great lyrics and fine preaching. I am afraid it is wonderful theory and of little practical value. Because of this, we can never be the story of victory. We only read of them, tell of them, dream of them and sing of them.

Keith Green didn't have all the doctrine right, but he wrote a song that said, "Jesus commands us to go! It should be the exception that we stay!"

Why is everyone looking for reasons to stay when we have an abundantly good reason to go?

Are you "exclusive"?

A definition of exclusivism: "A person must know about Jesus intellectually before putting faith in Him experientially, and this faith is required for salvation."

I ask, “What about they who have no Scripture?” Is there a Divine authority to whom they submit themselves? Romans 1-3 seems to say repeatedly that “there is no man that seeks after God”. Man seems delighted to rebel.

John 3:16-18 says God “gave His Son”, “He sent His Son into the world”, and that men must believe on Him to be “saved”. Now, the inclusivist would say that it is possible for one to believe on Him indirectly. The answer is, “Not in the sense here in John”. Six chapters later, the writer takes all the mystery out of what it means to “believe on Christ”. Does it mean to believe on Jesus—knowing Who He is-- intellectually identifying Him as a person? See the “man born blind” in John 9. Jesus asks Him if He believes on the Son of God. The man said, “Who is He, Lord, that I may believe on Him?”

John makes it clear that a person must know Who Jesus is in order to believe on Him, and that they must believe on Him in order to be saved and be delivered from condemnation. This is absolute. John spends his entire Gospel proving that Jesus is The Christ so that we may believe on Him and “that believing, we may have life through His name” (John 20:31).

Does one have to know they are trusting Christ to go to Heaven?

Ahhh, yes, "Do I have to know I am trusting Christ to save me for Him to save me?" Or, "Even though Jesus is the only way to God, does this mean I have to know Who the object of my faith really is (Jesus), or do I merely have to 'believe in Him to the degree to which He has been revealed to me'"?

Inclusivists believe that a Buddha worshipper and an Allah worshipper are all "anonymous Christians". "They are Christians without knowing it". But what about the peace-loving man of no official religion who humbly walks within the revelation God has given him? Is He an "anonymous Christian as well?" The Inclusivist says, "Yes". Of course the question follows, "How humbly does he have to walk?"

Romans 1-3 shows how general revelation has an opposite effect than the "inclusivist" says—it sets a basis for God damning someone.

Many have seen God as this tyrant Who, in order to prove that he is not a tyrant, must save all types of unbelievers—even those who haven’t believed in Christ, but are still “searching”. The marvel is not found in the figuring of God’s obligation to save every man, the marvel is found in the grace that He chose to save any man.

Moreover, the reader of John 3:18 is told that he is condemned for one reason: “He has not believed on Christ”. One is saved by “believing on Christ” (with understanding of who they are believing upon) as John 9’s blind man taught us, we cannot believe on Him until we know Who He is.

Matthew 5:19-20 "At least as righteous..."

Notice the following about the righteousness of the Pharisees.

The righteousness of the Pharisees was one of hypocrisy. "preaching without practice" (Matthew 23:2).

The righteousness of the Pharisees was one of outward actions without the right heart attitude (Matthew 23:23).

The righteousness of the Pharisees was one of doing the absolute minimum and supposedly having the approval of God.

This can be seen from this verse all the way through chapter 7. It could be said that the sermon on the mount was and indictement on the Pharisees.

BUT: Those of us who have been saved have received the rightousness through the law-keeping Christ (Romans 9:31,32; 10:3,4).

We who have been saved HAVE BEEN MADE totally righteous apart from the merit of every work except the work of Jesus on the cross (2 Corinthians 5:21).

CONCLUSION:
It may be said if one has the righteousness of Jesus Christ, they have become righteous. They have, then, a new nature which drives them to true acts of righteousness. True salvation will bring true salvific characteristics (like a salvaged automobile for example). It appears restored! (1 John 3:4-9; Revelation 19:7,8)

“The purpose of the Great Commission is to make disciples who worship Jesus.”

Is that statement true?

In order for this statement to be agreed upon, it must first be analyzed. “The purpose of the Great Commission is to make disciples who worship Jesus.”
1. “To make disciples…”
2. “who worship Jesus”.

Who can argue with part one? If one reads Matthew 28:19, and finds “Go ye therefore and teach all nations”, they will find the Greek word matheteuo which means “to disciple; to enroll as a scholar”. Since proving that Matthew 28:19-20 is the Great Commission seems to be outside of the scope of this posting, it will be taken for granted that all parties agree that “The purpose of the Great Commission is to make disciples…”

What about the last part of the phrase? Since there is no Scripture reference cited, there is difficulty in knowing the context of this usage of “worship”. Webster says it is “to adore; to pay divine honors to; to reverence with supreme respect and veneration”.

The question is, “What did Jesus intend to be the result of this Great Commission?” When one realizes that the beneficiaries of this commission are saved, baptized, and taught the teachings of Jesus, one can accept that a person can be a scholar who studies from a teacher, yet does not worship that teacher. Therefore, if the statement under scrutiny is true, it is not because this “truth” is explicit within the Commission.

One merely needs to travel to John’s Gospel to find what God is looking for: someone who will “worship [the Father] in spirit and in truth” (4:23-24). Jesus “just had” (“must needs”- 4:4) to go through this audience’s town to find people who “didn’t know what they were worshipping” (4:22). The end result was new disciples (4:42). Jesus said the words in John 4:23-24. He was on earth.

What about after His exaltation, though? Philippians 2:9-11 indicate that when Jesus is worshipped, the Father is glorified (or, effectively…”worshipped”).

So, “yes, Virginia”, “The purpose of the Great Commission is to make disciples who worship Jesus”.

Let's Be Reasonable About Music! (re-mix)

"Go to now, ye that say, 'God loveth the good 'ol hymns'."

Ephesians 5:19
"Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;"

Colossians 3:16b
"...admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord"

Now, if you're one of those dear folks who says all music used in the church needs to be under one of the three headings above...or, if you're one of those who says that music in the church must be divided evenly between the three areas, I don't believe the intent of the author was to give you a "do it guide" approach to church music. Let's say that it is, though--for just a minute:

1. Singing parts is wicked-very wicked. Why? Ephesians 5:19 says "melody". There is nothing in this passage about harmony. So, if you have a quartet or a choir that sings parts, is it wicked? Is it wrong?

Hmmm. I think you would agree that it doesn't mean all of that?

2. Incidentally, for those out there who think God only loves "the 'ol hymns" (by "'ol", you must mean 100 years old since that is the average age of those blessed songs in your hymnal--but hey "if it's good enough for Paul, it's good enough for you", right?), do you also include Psalms and Spiritual songs in your music program? If not, your music director is not right with God.

So, these little slams on "7-11 songs" are a tad hypocritical.

As my dear brother, Jonathan Andrews, would say, "If those short songs or chants with few words bother you, don't go to Heaven" (Revelation 4:8).

Have a nice day.

Revelation 20:11-15

1. The timing of this judgment is after the 1000-year reign of Jesus (20:4-6), after the final rebellion on earth (20:7-9), and after Satan and the beast and false prophet are in the lake of fire. (20:10)

2. 2 sets of books.

A. "The books" indicates a second judgment based on works and degrees of judgment based on these works (Matthew 10:15; 11:24; Mark 6:11; Luke 10:12,14).

B. "Another book...the Book of Life" indicates there are some present who are and some present who are not written in the book of life. Furthermore, this book determines the final, eternal abode of those excluded by the book of life.

Christmas in Hawaii Preaching

January 2008, Pastor Larry of Calvary Independent Church of Wahiawa, Hawaii asked me to bring a 15 minute message to include an appeal for salvation. We had at least 3 lost souls in attendance. I pray God continues to work in the hearts of those dear people. One of them is the wife of one of my dear friends.

Below are the words I prepared for those in attendance:
“Many, many people are distracted, today, from things that matter.”
“Most people are distracted everyday from people that matter”.
“Most Christians are distracted through life from the Christ that matters”.
“Even good Christians are distracted at Christmas time from Christ.”

“This is just a reflection of how petty we really are is it not? Do we really ever get down to what really matters? The eternal subjects slip from our priorities as we chase our temporary comforts and happiness…forgetting all the while that the most important eternal consideration—Jesus Christ—will one day judge us at that great Judgement Seat.

Think about it. How long has it been since you have heard complete messages about Christmas regarding Mary, Joseph, wisemen and shepherds. Some even fit Elizabeth and her pregnancy into their agenda. The well-known even go as deep as Simeon and Anna. I am not just speaking of church preaching; for I am sure that Jesus is made much of here at Calvary by our dear pastor. I speak of radio, television, and dramas in which these characters of the story are given as much spotlight as the Character of History.

But, on a birthday, is it the guests or the mother or the father or the pastor or the politicians of the day who receive recognition…though they may be in attendance? Perhaps application should be made to the commercialism and over-gifting of people whom we love by asking, “How would I feel if everyone else got presents at my birthday”?

Can one be any more exact than Thomas when, as he stares at Jesus, declares “My Lord and My God”? Christmas is a “true belief in the Incarnation—that realization of the Divine and human united forever in the One Person of the Son of God.” (BIBLE ILLUSTRATOR)

The important thing is not the date of this birthday celebration, for we are not celebrating the calendar. We are not even contending for the rightness or the wrongness for the tree. This also is a side issue that distracts one, as much as the cake, from the One whose birthday we celebrate at other times.

I must journey to the Gospel of John this midday and read to you 4 verses: John 1:1-3,14

Let me point out some points about this Jesus, our Birthday subject.

1. He was in the beginning.

This can be seen as the “first of firsts”. Genesis 1 makes it clear that this beginning was before anything existed. All that existed was God.

Proverbs 8 makes it clear that during this time, Almighty God had a relationship between the persons which make up His Being, and that they, according to John 17, shared glory before the world ever was.

Micah the prophet made it clear that Jesus had an eternal existence.
Bottom line: The Eternal was entering time.

He became subservient to the laws of this creation which He entered getting hungry, thirsty, tired, disappointed, and frustrated.

Hebrews 2 speaks of His becoming like men to be able to truly help them.
He created everything. Colossians 2 speaks of all things “consisting” by Him, and being created for Him. Hebrews 1 says that “He upholds all things by the power of His word”. Who was that back in Genesis 1 Who made up the “us” when “God” said, “Let us make…”

2. He made camp among us in becoming a man.

That is, He came as a human to us. By the way, He is still human…though He is God.
Colossians 1:15 makes it clear that Jesus is the physical image of the invisible God. In other words, God came in the form of His Son.

The Creator become as the created. Philippians 2 speaks of Him “having the form of God and then emptying Himself to be found in the fashion of a man”. The Sovereign became the slave. Man is, after all, slave. Even if he is, humanly speaking, free to do as he wishes, he is a slave to his body, to his mind.

While in Baghdad in 2003, I read a book entitled, “About Face” by a somewhat vulgar individual who served in the Army during Korea and Vietnam, and retired as a Colonel. His name is David Hackworth. He spoke often about officers who would visit lower commands on the front lines to “inspect” and “inquire of the morale of the troops”. Later, they would recommend themselves for a “Silver Star” for their “bravery” removing any pretense one might have had about their sincerity.
This General, who was, according to Hebrews 2 made flesh to become the “Captain of our Salvation” knew that only enduring the hardships of those whom He desired to lead would earn Him the right to do so.

Hebrews 4:13 makes it clear that He was in ALL points tempted like us, yet without sin.

4. Jesus offers Himself to you. Why do you need him? Because you are inherently full of darkness. Verses 4 and 5 speak of the world being a place completely opposite to God, Whom John says in his first letter, has no darkness at all. All through history, God and His Word have been endeavoring to infect humanity with divinity, yet they don’t “comprehend” it—or it could be said, “they don’t receive it”.

Furthermore, it should be pointed out that He, a Jew of the tribe of Judah, came to His own people, and they wouldn’t receive Him (v. 11).

As a result, God offers His Word to all who will receive Him. When this happens (v. 12), you receive divine power to become a child of God. Right now, without Jesus, you are not a child of God…you have no power to become such. You are powerless to become God’s child. You cannot even will it to happen (v. 13) apart from reception of the Person of Jesus Christ.

How does this happen? How do we receive Jesus Christ? The last phrase of verse 12 makes it clear that this occurs through faith…”Even to them who believe on His name”. In today’s culture of pluralism and pragmatism, it behooves us to mention what it does not say. It doesn’t say, “to those who call on His name”. To “call” and to “believe” are different and in their specific usages in Scripture, they have their intended contextual meanings. This promise of becoming a child of God is not given to those “who eat the body and blood of Jesus through the Eucharist” as some have said on this very island for many years. What is plain in this Scripture is that becoming a child of God occurs only through the faith enacted by someone in the person of Jesus Christ.

Why should I trust Him to make me a child of God? What has He done to earn such a trust? This is the wrong line of questioning. The question should be “Why would I trust anyone else to make me a child of God and take me to Heaven?” Only Jesus, 17 verses later, is described as the “Lamb of God Who took away your sin”. When did He do this? In the 19th chapter of this same book He died for our sins on the cross erected upon a little hill outside of a Palestinian city of Jerusalem called Calvary.

He did all that was necessary to make you a child of God. What do you contribute to your salvation? 2 things: Your sin and your faith in the Savior from that sin.

1 Peter 3:20-21 and "baptism that saves"

1. We are talking about water baptism (3:20).
Just as water lifted Noah above the reproach of God, so water lifts us above reproach concerning the coming judgment which "begins at the house of God" (1 Peter 4:17).

Just as being in the ark did not save Noah's soul, baptism does not save ours.

Just as Noah's soul-saving faith was verified by his obedience in the "ark episode", so making a public expression of our faith in Christ in the face of suffering verifies our soul-saving faith.

2. Contxtually, we are talking about salvation from a the judgment spoken of in 4:17. ("the answer of a good conscience toward God")


The word "conscience" is used in 2:18 and 3:16.

We learn that a good conscience toward God will cause a man to endure grief and suffer wrongfully 1 Peter 2:18-19.

We learn that a good conscience toward God will cause one to have a good defense (answer) of the Lord God (1 Peter 3:15-17).

3. Salvation does not always have the idea of being saved from Hell.

This word for "save" is used 1 other time in this book (4:18).

We see that righteous are saved (scarcely) from judgment. The fact these are righteous indicates that they are saved. Furthermore, the fact these are saved from judgment indicates there is still an aspect of salvation needed for every Christian from the day of judgment- though not from Hell.

We see the judgment at which the righteous appear is a different judgment than the "ungodly" endure (verse 18). The rightous are judged on the basis of how they suffered as Christians, whereas the ungodly are judged on the basis of "if" they are Christians.

Isaiah 7:14: A baby boy in Isaiah's day?... Or, Jesus?

An Assignment from my class on Isaiah--answer the questions using the following references:

a. Walton, John H., “Isaiah 7:14: what’s in a name?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 30 (1987): 289-306.

b. Wolf, Herbert M., “Solution to the Immanuel Prophecy in Isaiah 7:14-8:22,” Journal of Biblical Literature 91 (1972): 449-56.

c. Oswalt's "NIV Application Commentary" on Isaiah.

1. Is the promised child referring to a child in Isaiah’s day, to the future Messiah, to both, or to an unidentified child or group of children?

I see a contemporary fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 in the son of Isaiah. “God with us” is the Lord God coming in judgement in the usage of the King of Assyria to raze Judah (7:17; 8:8) and punish the Israelites. There is absolutely no “blessings” overtone in the original prophecy given to Isaiah in 7:14. However, I believe it is also speaking of the Messiah on the grounds that 1 Peter 1:10-11 speaks of prophets who were not always clear of the time elements involved in their prophecies.

What details in the larger context of Isaiah 7-9 lead you to this conclusion?

I see a very clear time transition between chapters 8 and 9. “Nevertheless” in 9:1 begins a clause that does not end until the comma in the middle of the verse, and then one finds a period of great blessing beginning in 9:3, and finding its foundation in 9:6. Jesus, the “Son that is given” is also called the “Mighty God” which makes Him the new “Immanuel” since He is the ultimate “God with us” and makes it clear that He is also spoken of in Isaiah 7:14 where “God with us” is prophesied in the son of Isaiah.

This should not surprise us when one considers the idea of a First and Last Adam. Did Moses know that he was writing historically and prophetically? No, but Paul’s clear lesson on typology in 1 Corinthians 15 makes this reality clear.

Walton stated (p. 289) that it is speaking of the Messiah because it is addressing the entire house of David (7:13)—not merely a “link” in the chain such as Ahaz. Therefore, as long as there is a “house of David”, the “sign” of Isaiah 7:14 is still to be expected until it is realized. I simply see this as a stretch.

Walton loses me on page 296, though, when he starts playing with the tense of “bear” and comes up with an amazingly difficult idea of one of the king’s concubines being the “virgin” that shall “conceive”. This wouldn’t be merely as ridiculous if he didn’t try to substantiate it with a non-canonical book.

Oswalt said that this passage has “ a single meaning but a double significance” (p. 140). How frustrating to be so vague. Dr. Oswalt, is it one virgin or two? Is it one woman or two? Is the “single meaning” you speak of that which includes two women?

2. What is the meaning of the term `almah (translated as “virgin” by some or “young woman” by others)? What evidence leads you to this conclusion (what about the other uses of this word that are found in the OT)?

Historically (at the time of it’s writing by the prophet Isaiah), it is clear that the word does not have to be translated “virgin”. Walton stated (p. 291) that many Bible translations who feel compulsed to translate this alma as “virgin” in this location, don’t seem to see the necessity to do so in any other location where this word is used. Furthermore, he makes it clear that when this same Hebrew word is used, there is no concrete reason to believe that it “should be” translated “virgin” (although there are times when it “could be”; page 292). There is good reason, he said on the same page, to believe that it refers to one in their young adulthood.

Oswalt belives this word usually means a “young woman of marriageable age” (p. 140).

Wolf, on his 450th page, describes several places in the Bible where a young woman who is seen as an almah is one who is about to be married. Of course, his contention is that Isaiah does not intend to say that a woman is still a virgin when she conceives as Matthew would utilize Isaiah 7:14 to say in Mary’s case.

Does this create a problem for Matthew’s usage of Isaiah 7:14 to prove Mary’s virginity at conception (and at Christ’s birth- Matthew 1:25)? Wrong question! How do we know Matthew was using this passage to do that? I submit that he was using this passage merely to prove “God is with us” in Christ because He was God’s offspring (1:18).

3.How does the quotation of this passage in Matthew 1:23 influence your understanding of Isaiah 7:14?

Walton said on page 289 that to superimpose Matthew’s interpretation onto the original writer’s intent in Isaiah 7:14 is to elevate hermaneutics above exegesis. I agree. If we think Isaiah 7:14 should be “virgin” because we believe Matthew said so, the poetic license of New Testament writers is suspicious at best.

Wolf points out (p. 456) that Mary’s virginity does not depend on Isaiah 7:14 because Matthew’s 1st chapter is explicit about Matthew virginity (Matthew 1:18). Therefore, as said under the last paragraph under point 2, Matthew was providing a prophecy for “God with us”, not for “virgin conception”.

Abraham, the "Visionary"

Introduction

Towns says that Abraham’s leadership style is that of “Leading Through Vision” (Towns 2007, 6). Abraham, in other words, is a risk-taker (Ibid, 11). His “Prime Mover” was his relationship with God. God visited Abraham (Acts 7:2), and Abraham responded in faith.

Strengths
This visionary spirit is attuned to “faith” (Hebrews 11:8). If Abraham did not believe the promise of God (Acts 7:7), he would not have followed God. He was promised 400 years of bondage prior to the fulfillment of this pledge (7:6). At the age of 75, he leaves a magnanimous retirement with a household large enough to field a militia of over 300 men (Genesis 14:14). He must have had great influence as a man of means (12:5) which was evident in his ability to sustain a caravan of goods and expendables across modern Iraq while braving the potential of desert bandits. In all of this, one finds a man who left a position of leadership in the Ur of the Chaldees (Acts 7:2). He uprooted his immediate family from everything they had ever known—to include his cousins and their families (mostly). Why? He was “called to go out” (Hebrews 11:8). He followed by faith because the alternative was to stay in a city made by hands that had questionable foundations (11:10). He may not have known what his goal looked like, but he knew what he was looking at was not his goal.

The faithful visionary is usually very sacrificial (Hebrews 11:17)—knowing “God [is] able” to return this great sacrifice to him (11:19). This leader is interested in the law of the harvest (Galatians 6:8)—knowing he “will reap if [he] faints not” (6:9).

The visionary is, in the case of faithful Abraham, one who relentlessly pursues the goal. It doesn’t matter that “all hope is gone” (Romans 4:18), and that 25 years had passed since the first vision (4:19). He, the spiritual leader, faithfully pursues the realization of God’s promise—driven by God’s initial visitation into his life.

Weaknesses

The antithesis of this great visionary is the impetuous way he feels he must “make things happen”. The first example of this is when Abraham fears for his wife and/or his life in Egypt in Genesis 12. He knew that God was supposed to give him “seed” (12:7), and yet, he fears for his life before his seed arrives (12:12). The visionary wants to have the entire path illuminated on his road. Another example is provided in chapter 16 when Abraham provides the means whereby he believes God will fulfill His promises: He has sex with his servant girl (verse 3).

Conclusion: Opportunities

Understanding that an “opportunity” arises from a utilized “strength”, one finds that resolute pursuit brings about repeated visitations from God: First at 75, then at 86, then at 99. Why did God keep showing up? Was it because Abraham always did right? No, it was because Abraham constantly pursued the vision of God as if it was his own—even to the point of trying to find a wife for his son Isaac to carry on as the “promised seed” (chapter 24).

Threats

Understanding that “threats” can result from an un-remedied “weaknesses”, one can see how Abraham’s fearful half-truths were duplicated by Isaac in coming chapters. One can also see how his decision to be sexually unfaithful to his wife brought another race into the world that proved to be a significant burden to the “promised seed” for many years. Perhaps the most sobering thought one can take from Abraham’s example is that the leader is leading even if he doesn’t want to at a given time. Those who followed learned many things from their leader—even his “weaknesses”. 

Towns, Elmer L. 2007. Biblical models for leadership. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.

"Worship brings cleansing"

Acts 22:16
This is Paul's story of his conversion is told here (Acts 22:16) to the governor Festus.

A lengthy discussion could be held as to all the usages and meanings throughout Scripture as to what "call upon the name of the Lord" means. What we need to notice out of these Scriptures is:

1. It was a common activity among the saints to "call upon the name of the Lord". (verse 13, 14)

2. It was a public activity among the saints "to call upon the name of the Lord". (verse 21)

3. It no doubt included preaching, prayer and praise in an audible way as seen in the church's activities throughout the book of Acts and other places (1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 1:23; 2 Timothy 2:22; 1 Peter 1:17).

4. Therefore, Ananias wanted Paul to identify with the other believers in an act of worship ("calling upon the name of the Lord") with him and be baptized to show he had a change of heart.

5. Paul's identification with the church brought him a secondary, practical type (not salvational) of cleansing brought on by his public worship and baptism (see also Hebrews 10:19-22).

So, when dealing with Romans 10:13, one should interpret "call upon the name of the Lord" in this light and see its connection in Romans 10:9--realizing that "confessing Jesus as one's Lord" (verse 9) is worship. Therefore, one must honor Christ as their Savior and Lord to be saved based on Romans 10.

"Why Don't We Listen Better?" Critique

Information/Summarization of Book

Peterson, James C. 2007. Why don’t we listen better? Communicating and connecting in relationships. Tigard, OR: Peterson Publications.

James Peterson does an outstanding job of showing how many family members are better talkers than listeners. That, even when one thinks they are doing a good job of listening by merely remaining silent, perhaps he is absolutely witless in this idea of active listening and mental inactivity (Peterson 2007, 7). Outstanding intricacy is given to thought, emotional, and instinctual analysis as Peterson does a swell job of keeping the reader “on the hook” without giving him the slightest reprieve from the “good intentions” of just staying quiet long enough to say one’s piece. After all, what more can be said of the husband’s typical shortcomings emotionally other than, “Even when you think you’re listening, you’re really only ducking with the hopes of bringing the upper cut that ends the fight!” (Ibid, 54)

Peterson does not leave the poor listener without hope. He does a fine job of training the reader on “blocking” the blunt edge of an insult for the sake of all “flat-brained” people who wish to prolong the argument(s) lest some incredibly long and hurtful verbal tussle ensues (Ibid, 29). Sometimes, of course, one must be willing to lose the battle to the other person in order win the war with the other person against the common enemy. Now this “blocking” involves taking the “gut shot” (where the survival instinct takes place), checking in at the “heart” to realize that humanity involved on the “other side”, and finally being able to think clearly with “checked emotions”. In other words, “feeling” and “thinking” are two different functions from two different entities of self, and must be treated as if coming from two sources that mingle in a variety of gradations (Ibid, 11).

This “heart check” is important enough when one realizes that people speak clearly when their emotions are under their charge. The “spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets” (1 Corinthians 12:32). It can be perhaps quite life-changing when one realizes that they are susceptible to the very faults they see in others (1 Corinthians 10:12), and as such, must have mercy on the speaker when decoding the message (Peterson, 145).

Even more important than decoding someone’s message is the affirmation that the listener brings to the speaker by making sure they have taken the time to get the whole message—feeling it in the spirit of the speaker. When one realizes that the listener cares by investing the time and mental energy to listen to and decode the message, the overriding principle is “He cares about my feelings” (Ibid, 20).

“Head talk” is most important. Many would’ve kept themselves from potentially hurtful situations if they had merely spoken about these things which bother them so. Once one hears the issues at hand proceeding from their own mouths, they may see these “issues” as “non-issues” (Ibid, 77). So, these three kinds of “talk” must be balanced accordingly (Ibid, 76-88).

My Personal Response

I wish I could say that this had little application to my life. The truth is, I’m afraid it was in my “front yard”. I forget people’s names seconds after hearing it. I ask my wife the same questions three or more times before I really retain the information. I wish I could say that I am able to calm my youngsters when they are emotionally distraught (Ibid, 67). Many times I am able to hear what my wife is saying without truly hearing what she is attempting to communicate (Ibid, 4). As the spiritual leader of the home, my attempt ought to be towards the birthing of her thoughts in verbal form (Ibid, 153).

As I have been reading these textbooks, I have found myself, in the middle of arguments, feeling profoundly foolish at the notion of being “flat-brained”. I have thought, “I am the one taking these counseling courses, and I cannot even be the ‘big boy’ of the argument.”

We received a call today from my sister-in-law Holly. She told my wife that their uncle Mike died. After the normal thoughts of “we’re on part-time internship for the chaplaincy at our church and our savings account is for emergencies, and not for going to attend funerals and comfort family” passed through both my wife’s mind and my mind, I realized that my wife’s thoughts were not being communicated, but I found it entirely inconvenient for my wife’s uncle to die. He didn’t do it at just the right time. He dropped of a heart attack in an auto-parts store. How aggravating! So, I finally looked up from this book of Peterson’s and asked, “Do you have any idea of how this can be done (this trip to Kentucky for the funeral)?” That’s what she wanted to hear.

Reflections on Peterson’s Book

I have been praising this book for two sections already, so the “’aha’ I learned something” moments are somewhat more of the “’aha’ I think I found a glitch” moments.

First, Peterson has me just a little confused with the idea that two emotional people are going to stop throwing verbal punches long enough for one of them to say, “Ok, you go first”. Even more humorous is the idea of both parties surrendering to a third person who says, “Phil, you wait, because I can see Joe is far more concerned about his point of view. Obviously, he’s one ticked-off dude!” I can only see an informal surrender of one person’s will. Humility and a desire for reconciliation are going to have to be the victor in this battle. “The fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them who make peace” (James 3:18).

Next, chapter 11: I love pictures, but the idea of putting three kinds of talk on a teeter-totter while arbitrarily assigning them the weight required to promote true balance is a stretch. My suggestion is the process described in my “Hey” section.

Lastly, Peterson continually stresses the need for people to remain neutral in order to hear the speaker by not formulating their “response” (Peterson, 120). The dilemma is this idea that one can really remain neutral. People are constantly thinking about their response. Thinking about one’s response to the speaker is realistic so long as the listener is adjusting his response while he is practicing good listening skills.

On a positive note, this book, as stated in the top section, does a fine job of addressing the layers of humanity by speaking of the soul/heart (“instinct emotionalism”), spirit (“heart”), and body (“mind”). We are multi-componential, and as such, we require a holistic approach.

Actions/Changes Resulting from Learning Journey

First, “Nothing makes a dumb idea seem more sensible than keeping it trapped inside our heads” (Ibid, 76). I need to find some peers that will tell me when they think I have planned something unwise in my latest scheme. We need people who will allow us to vent, and present us with some good feedback. Our speaking needs to be done with a mood which communicates that we desire feedback. Therefore, we need to expect honesty from the listener. I will endeavor to surround myself with honest people, and thank them for their candor.

Furthermore, I need to allow those whom I have counseling the same benefit. Perhaps, I will allow them to defuse for a few minutes prior to my speaking (while still offering signs of active listening). This fits into the intervention scenario by helping the person’s intellect (soul) to come alive through the development of ideas that may be helpful in obtaining not only exceptions to corrupt patterns, but also obtaining solutions—as they are the experts on their problems

Second, “[To] drop the human factor (‘heart talk’) [out of preaching] drops the human factor [out of preaching]” (Ibid, 84). When someone hears the smack of the gavel, rather than humanity in the voice of the speaker, they hear the voice of “a god”. When they hear the humanity that God placed in the image of His creation bearing His message, they hear “God” instead. I will speak as one of the people, yet for God. I will remember that the grace of God is what enables me to help. Grace, however, does not enable me to judge as “a god”.

When speaking of this regarding the intervention scenario, one sees the “spirit” engaged. Communication on a “humanity” level occurs, and both the counselor and care-seeker are apparently quite human, and prone to imperfection.

Third, “Most people listen, but don’t really hear each other” (Ibid, 7). I am afraid that I listen so that I can use the information in my answer. I am more interested in winning than I am in helping. I will stop talking in my mind so that I can listen to the speaker. I know that it is impossible to throw out all of the inward activity, but I desire to listen objectively and withhold judgment until I have all pertinent information.

Fourth, I will endeavor to draw people to their solution. This implies their being drawn to an understanding of what the real problem is as well. The care-seeker is the expert on their problem.

Here again, a caring, active listening on the part of the care-provider (counselor) brings incalculable results to the core (soul) and spiritual aspects of the care-seeker. We are endeavoring to treat the entirety of the care-seeker. We are seeking to enable this dear one to deal with the amazing intricacy wherewith their Creator has formed them.

Believers are Endurers

First, let's see the other places where Matthew 24:13's phrase is used (Matthew 10:22; Mark 13:13).

It is apparent from the context of Matthew 24 this verse is around the coming of the Great Imposter (Matthew 24:14,15).

When you see the number of Scriptures that say the same thing (above), you see this is a principle often used to tell that true believers will believe until the end. Noone should expect to be saved who does not have the endurance through trial and persecution. Some of these Scriptures seem to indicate that a person is saved by "staying strong" through persecution (Matthew 13:18-23; Mark 4:13-20; Luke 8:11-15; 1 Corinthians 15:1,2). However, there is another possible sense-- that is the sense of identification of true believers by their endurance. See 1 John 2:18,19.

It is apparent the Armenian-type theologians and believers are out to lunch when it comes to the security of the believer. The problem is with us who give credence to a shallow salvation experience with little resulting change.

So, another way to read the above verse is "the ones who endure are the ones who are saved".

Be a Mighty Man!

Philippians 2:24-28 and 4:18

Authorial cross references

2 Corinthians 10:4, Ephesians 6:11, 1 Timothy 6:12, 2 Timothy 2:3


Contextual cross references

1:17 "set for the defense of the Gospel"

1:27 "striving together for the faith of the Gospel"

3:16 "let us walk (march) by the same rule"

3:18 "there are enemies of the cross of Christ"

4:1 "stand fast in the Lord"

4:21 "Salute every saint in Christ Jesus"



These references within and without Philippians tell us that Paul was a soldier even after the age of 55. As it was 15 years from the time of his conversion to the time of his third missionary journey and another 10 to the writing of this letter. Furthermore, being a probable "ruler of Jews" which required an age of no less than 30, at the time of his conversion, that equals at least 55.


Philippians 2:25 Yet I supposed it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother, and companion in labour, and fellowsoldier, but your messenger, and he that ministered to my wants.

The Christian life is a warfare; there are many foes to be overcome; the period which we are to serve is fixed by the Great Captain of salvation, and we will soon be permitted to enjoy the triumphs of victory. Paul regarded himself as enlisted to make war on all the spiritual enemies of the Redeemer, and he esteemed Epaphroditus as one who had shown that he was worthy to be engaged in so good a cause.

Immediate Context

Epaphroditus showed himself a "fellowsoldier" of Paul:

1. In the way he served (Philippians 2:25)

A. Someone to help "bear his burden" (like an assistant gunner)

B. Someone who he could count on. (Dependable)

-----One who would accomplish the mission without "perfect conditions"

-----Imagine Paul or his fellow soldier saying, "I just don't know if we can do this".

C. Someone who can handle his "assigned weapon" against the enemy within and those within.

He was a fellow soldier; the work was a work of difficulty and danger, they were obliged to maintain a continual warfare, fighting against the world, the devil, and the flesh.

2. in the way he Sorrowed (Philippians 2:26)

He knew these Philippians knew that he was sick and he was sorry they knew so as this may affect their soldierly expectation of them.

3. in the way he Sacrificed (Philippians 2:26,27)

He fought through discomfort ("unto death")

4. in the way he Supplied. (Philippians 2:28-30)

A. He sought to be a need-meeter.

B. He knew that a need meant you didn't necessarily have to feel "a call".

C. He did not confuse activity vs. productivity or efficiency vs. effectiveness.

5. In the way he Savoured (Philippians 4:18).

A. Not misrepresenting or embellishing the truth.

B. Not exagerrating or excusing circumstances. He truly represented one to the other and became a savour in his representation.

Critique of E.M. Bounds' "Necessity of Prayer"

Biographical information

The life of E.M. Bounds extends from the 1830’s until August of 1914. After desiring to study law, he felt the call to be ordained as a Methodist preacher. Furthermore, he served as a chaplain in the confederate army wherein he was spent some time as a Prisoner of War.

He cared for the souls of men through prayer during his time as a pastor, and editor, and an evangelist. He passed away in Washington Georgia.

Purpose/Thesis of This Book

The purpose of this book was to relay the teachings of Mr. E.M. Bounds concerning prayer. The main idea herein is that prayer is essential for every part of any one desiring to be a person who walks with God. There are no shortcuts in the believer’s life. Bounds goes even further to state that if there is no inclination to pray, there is no indwelling Holy Spirit. Hence, this person is lost without Christ.

Summary of the Book

Since these were mere notes that were edited by another individual, it would be somewhat inappropriate to assess Mr. Bounds’ ability to layout a book. However, the book begins with three chapters discussing the role of faith and trust (which I think are synonymous) in prayer (Chapters 1-3). These are indispensable elements. Then, there is a progression to the role of “desire” (Chapter 4)—then, of “fervency” in prayer (Chapter 5). Then, profoundly, one finds the bar raised even higher to find two chapters on “importunity” (Chapters 6 &7), and the importance of endurance in prayer. Later on, there is a further progression of “vigilance” of prayer in one’s perspective (Chapter 11).

Then, there are a series of elements that are both instigative and responsive of a prayer life such as “character and conduct” (Chapter 8), “obedience” (Chapters 9 & 10), rich knowledge of the Word of God (Chapters 12 & 13), and church attendance (Chapter 14).

One does not see an over emphasis on things the writers of today may write concerning such as career enhancement, financial prosperity or self esteem. One might assume that these were concerns in Dr. Bounds’ day, but that he held that these would “take care of themselves” in the process of putting things in their proper order.

Assessment of the Book
Theological Perspective
As are most Methodists, Bounds is quite Armenian in his perspective. In his first chapter he says, “…we are to give diligence to making our calling and election sure, which election is rendered certain adding to faith which in turn, is done by constant, earnest praying”.

It can be said that “perspective” is a certain color of glasses. When one’s practical Theology is taken into consideration, it cannot be divorced from His systematic Theology. Dr. Bounds believes that prayer is instrumental in the maintenance of one’s salvation. Whatever good may come from this book, it must be kept in mind that these are the writings of one who has placed a lesser value on the grace of God as revealed in the security of the believer.

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Skills
These two terms allude to the questions, “What is there?” and “What does it mean?”

Obviously the man has great ministerial credentials. Furthermore, it can be said that he held a prayerful discipline with which few can share company. What is certain is that He believes in the authority of Scripture as there is, in every one of the fourteen chapters, repletion of Holy Writ.

There is, by and large, an apparent adherence to the Word of God. One must be mindful, however, that in going from Scripture to Scripture can lend itself to hasty interpretation (exegesis) which displays itself today in much of what calls itself “expository preaching” (but is, in actuality, far from it).

There is a good example, however, of just the opposite in the chapter three where Dr. Bounds deals with “Prayer and Trust”. He says, “Trust is not a belief that God can bless, that He will bless, but that He does bless, here and now.” One may take great exception to this since he just dealt with Mary and Martha in the aftermath of Lazarus who felt as though “God’s blessing” would be revealed in a brother who would not have died. As Bounds shows, God’s blessing “here and now” was revealed in letting Lazarus die so a greater miracle could be performed (John 11).

Concepts and Principles reflected in the article

Of course, one does not need to rehash fourteen chapters to get the sense that prayer permeates each part of the believer’s life. One even gets the idea that he mentions those most crucial themes in their order of importance as they thrive throughout the writing of this book. There are some prevailing themes, however, that should be pointed out:

1. Prayer is both a result of, and a source of most spiritual traits and disciplines.
2. A prayerful life must have militant posture.
3. Prayer cannot be paid forward or paid back.

The Effectiveness with which the author applies those specific concepts and principles

1. Prayer is both a result of, and a source of most spiritual traits and disciplines.

Take, for instance, the idea of “Prayer and Faith” covered in chapters 1 and 2: In chapter one, he says, “when faith ceases to pray, it ceases to live”. Dr. Bounds is saying that the exercise of prayer is one that strengthens the inner man. He goes on to say “faith is kept alive by prayer”.

However, he also says that effective prayer is impossible without faith. In chapter two, he says, ”Doubt and fear…usurp the place of faith, and although we pray, it is a restless, disquieted prayer that we offer, uneasy and often complaining”. He then goes on to use Philippians 4:6 quite effectively.

What is apparent from his writing is both the mutual benefit which prayer and faith share, and the resultant progression of faith within prayer. Faith also sparks desire to pray which strengthens the new man to new heights of faith.

2. A prayerful life must have a militant posture.

This militant posture bears fruit in the traits of “fervency” (Chapter three) and “desire” (Chapter four). There is an emphasis placed on declaring a war of sorts against frivolous thinking (“the menace of prayer—wandering thought”- Chapter four), an emphasis placed on zealous declaration of one’s needs as before a king (“God requires to be represented by a fiery church”), an emphasis placed on the need for a living man to keep praying to stay alive spiritually (“it stays and pleads and persists, and refuses to let go until the blessing has been vouchsafed”).

Dr. Bounds has it right, we are to emulate the “Author and Finisher of our Faith” (Hebrews 12:2) in “striving against sin” (Hebrews 12:4). One cannot read these Scriptures without remembering the picture of a battling, praying Christ in the wilderness, in the garden, on the cross, and in the grave.

3. Prayer cannot be paid forward or paid back.

Dr. Bounds is a champion of the idea that you cannot pray for today’s needs tomorrow. The fact that it is a militant issue (point 2) gives the element of appropriateness and urgency. One cannot pray for tomorrow’s needs today. There is the overwhelming Sovereign hand of God which knows all and sees all, but to pray effectively, one needs as many details as possible to “ask and receive”.

He drives this point home throughout, but says in chapter one, “As every day demands its bread, so every day demands its prayer. No amount of praying, done today, will suffice for tomorrow’s praying”. We have not, “because we ask not” (James 4:2). We have no “reception” because we have done no “asking”- no doors open, because we have not “knocked” (Matthew 7:7). So, it is certainly difficult to pray for as we ought when the situation has not developed fully enough for us to pray intelligently.

Conclusion
You don’t get any more utilitarian than taking part in the action of prayer. Bounds has shown its relevance to every part of the Christian endeavor—from faith to church attendance.

Understanding that this book was a labor of love and work of editing done by his good friend Homer Hodge, one wouldn’t leave the seeming overabundance of devotional material upon Bounds. There does seem to be much more of a “deeper life” emphasis, and less of a “nuts and bolts” feel. In other words, though this book could be split up even further than it is already in the chapter divisions, the real answer, once again, is editing.

I would not recommend this book to anyone who is already convinced that the Scriptures are the authority on prayer simply because I believe it is much more readily defined in the pages of the Gospels, in about as many words.

Critique of "The Four Views of Hell" by Zondervan

Introduction

Walvoord, a Presbyterian pastor and servant at fifty years at Dallas Theological Seminary (“Literal”), Crocket, a graduate of Princeton and professor of “New Testament” at Alliance Theological Seminary (“Mataphorical”), Hayes, a retired professor of theology at Catholic Theological Union (“Puragorial”), and Pinnock, professor emeritus of systematic theology at McMaster Divinity College (“Conditional”) provide both confrontational and benevolent debate on the subject of the nature of Hell.

This paper will endeavor to show how the “Literal View”, the “Metaphorical View”, and the “Purgatorial View” are inept regarding the nature of Hell, and how the “Conditional View” makes good sense of theology, philosophy, and reason to give the Bible believer insight on the nature of Hell. There is great reason to believe the “Literal View” is defensively antagonistic, the “Metaphorical View” is unnecessary, and the “Purgatorial View” is simply unscriptural.

Summary

This book contains four legitimate views that vie for the “biblical view” of the nature of Hell. The first one is the “Literal View” which believes in the inherent immortality of the soul, literal fire in Hell, a second “Hell” known as the Lake of Fire which takes place after a judgment, never-ending, and a conscious torment of the lost. There is also a seeming divorce of biblical exegesis from theological reasoning.

The “Metaphorical View” holds to a “metaphorical” fire. In other words, one cannot know what Hell is like, but it must be horrible. Therefore, the language used is only a picture of the terrors of Hell. This ideal is, no doubt, carried over to other areas of Scripture where “some people confuse a high view of Scripture with taking every word of the Bible literally”. There does not appear to be any conflict with the ideas of “inherent immortality”, a second “Hell” (Lake of Fire), or “conscious torment” which the “Literal View” also holds. However, in addition to the nature of the “torment”, this view differs with the “Literal View” in the involvement “theological reasoning” plays within the view. Issues like “God’s justness and His provision of joy for the righteous” are brought into being when considering normal tenants of the “Literal View”.

The “Purgatorial View” holds to a kind of universalism (using “purgation” as the vehicle of bringing all things into salvation ), salvation by works (to include “prayer for the dead” ), a metaphorical “fire”, and extra-biblical revelation.

The “Conditional View” espouses eventual final destruction versus eternal, conscious torment. Theological reasoning is also much espoused in this view as it applies eternal torment to Satan, rather than to God. Doctrinal reconstruction is not a stretch for this view either as both the eternality of Hell and the immortality of the soul are doubted.

There are some noticeable differences, obviously across the spectrum. These deserve analysis and criticism. Hereafter lies the task.

Criticism of the “Literal View”: The view holding to unending, conscious torment in literal fire.

Walvoord makes this issue that of Scriptural inerrancy. Naturally, if one does not have a problem with the Scripture, he will not have a problem with Walvoord’s “Literal View”. There is a sense of illogical flow here. Walvoord is assuming that all Bible believers take his view. Perhaps consideration should be made here that many Christian denominations that can be considered “orthodox” and/or “unorthodox” depending on the eye of the beholder. Seventh-Day Adventists hold to the “Scriptures” as do the “Lutherans”. Two very different people can look through two very different color-shaded glasses at the same object and see it differently. Whether a matter of bias or perspective, not all people who hold to the authority of Scripture interpret the images contained therein the same. Much to the credit of Walvoord, he minimizes the merit of history in the eyes of Scripture.

Walvoord then takes the reader through a series of Old Testament occurrences of “Hell”. He shows the natural transition from sheol in the Old Testament Hebrew to hades in the New Testament Greek doing a fine job of displaying the myriad of passages that deal with existence after death such as Psalm 73:24. If there is a shortcoming to his approach, however, it is found in the passages that he uses that can be interpreted from many different perspectives. It would seem that in Psalm 94:1,2, the annihilationist could claim “destroy” as a proof text for their viewpoint. Hence, it seems counterproductive to cite countless Scriptures without giving due diligence to handle the possible variants in interpretation. What could also be included as an example of a crash course in the “Literal View” is the quick quotations of Luke 12:5 and Matthew 10:28 which clearly remove any kind of “never-ending” sense to the soul with phrases like “kill the soul” and “destroy the soul in Hell”. Perhaps more attention should be given to these as the reader is not aloof from understanding these phrases.

Throughout Walvoord takes the time to explain how “all”, “grave”, “sheol”, “fire”, “eternal”, and other such words vary in their meaning in accordance with their respective contexts. Perhaps, this too would be a good reason to save the panoramic method for a larger work—since, at the outset, it appears that his interpretation of so many Scriptures seems overly subjective.

There seems to be a conundrum of reasoning when one considers Walvoord’s usage of gehenna in which he uses the valley of burning trash ideal to give the historical backdrop of this word. The problem that one may foresee is the aforementioned usage of “forever”. If the Lake of Fire is to be unending, conscious torment in literal flame (based on the historical understanding of gehenna), then would expect that the observers of Jesus day would see the bodies of dead animals and other forms of refuse still burning, and never being consumed in the fire. Furthermore, one would expect that the fire would never, ever go out (which it has, by the way).

In arguing against annihilation, Walvoord uses Revelation 20:10, and the presence of the “beast and the false prophet” after 1,000 years in the Lake of Fire as a proofext. The problem with this is that Walvoord has already spent a great deal of space arguing for “degrees of punishment”. Why then could it be only the beast and the false prophet who are in the Lake of Fire for 1,000 years because of the influence they had in leading the world against Christ?

The most comical part of the “Literal” approach is the way it is ended…with a symbolic reference in Zechariah 3:2 stating that God’s people are “brands plucked from the fire”.

The remainder of this paper has been misplaced. I am sorry. Luckily, textual critics are working through the night to better construct the original.

And you thought God knew everything.....

BUT
Genesis 2:19 says God didn't know what Adam was going to call the animals before He brought them to him.

AND
Genesis 22:12 says God tempted Abraham to sacrifice Isaac to "know" if Abraham "feared" God.

AND
Exodus 16:4 says God gave Israel boundaries wherein they were to collect their manna to "test them whether they would keep [His] law or not".

AND
Deuteronomy 8:2 says God allowed the children of Israel to wander in the wilderness for 40 years "to know what was in [their] hearts".

AND
Deuteronomy 13:3 says God allowed false prophets to be correct at times "to know whether" the children of Israel would go after other gods.

AND
Judges 2:22 says that God allowed the children of Israel to endure times of trouble with their enemies to "prove Israel, whether they will keep the way of the LORD to walk therein, as their fathers did keep it, or not."

AND
2 Chronicles 32:31 says God "withdrew from [Hezekiah]...that He might konw all that was in his heart." He didn't know already?

What do we say about these things? Is it right to say God didn't know what was going to happen? Did He have to bring Adam, Abraham, and the children of Israel to these points for His own knowledge?

What think ye? What saith the Scripture?

The Seals, the trumpets, the personages, and the vials...end simultaneously!

How do I know these all happen at the same time?

1. The 6th Seal shows the Jesus' coming. (Revelation 6:12-17)

2. The 7th Trumpet shows Jesus' coming. (Revelation 11:14-19)

3. The 7th Personage shows Jesus coming. (Revelation 14:14-20)

4. The 7th Vial shows Jesus' coming. (Revelation 16:13-21).

This may botch up the whole "Revelation is totally chronological" ideal, but we're not stuck to a system if the Scriptures don't agree...right?

Abraham heard the Gospel which Paul preached

We see in the first several verses of Galatians the word "Gospel". Truly Paul knew what the Gospel was. Furthermore, he said in 3:8 "the scripture...preached before the gospel uinto Abraham saying, 'in thee shall all nations be blessed'"

Now, this "Gospel" was preached to Abraham in Genesis 12:2 and 22:16. It was also preached to Isaac in Genesis 26:3 and Jacob in Genesis 28:13. This Gospel, which was the same one Paul preached, was preached to the Patriarchs.

We know Paul preached the Gospel as the "death of Christ for our sins, His burial, and His witnessed resurrection" (1 Corinthians 15:3,4) When did Abraham hear this? Apparently, he heard it around the time that he got the good news that "all nations would be blessed in him".

Galatians 3:16 says Christ was the ultimate fulfillment of this promise. That is- all who are "in Christ" are "the seed of Abraham according to the promise" (3:7, 29; 4:28). That is, we (the ever-growing body of Christ) are "all the nations of the earth" that are being blessed in Abraham (in Christ).

Mark 13 tells us the Gosple must be preached among all nations before His coming.

Revelation 5:9 and 7:9 tell of a time in the future when this will be a fulfillment in its entirety.

The Patient Opportunist

I have been most perplexed in my study of Joseph’s temperament as I have not found Joseph to be truly anyone of these as a solid fit. However, given Dr. Towns’ summaries of the temperaments, I am inclined to believe that Joseph best fits the category of the “Sanguine”.

I do not believe that Joseph fits the “Choleric” idea because I do find a certain contentment and gentleness in him that, though he may have had it because he was filled with the Spirit of God, I am more likely to believe that all of those years in prison where he was gainfully employed watching other prisoners, he could’ve tried to redeem himself and find his way out of there. He could have demanded his rights. Now, this may have happened, but I find no evidence.

I find no evidence of the “Melancholy” makeup. As I read this story last evening, I did not find a single instance of Joseph feeling regret about his actions nor do I find him being “self centered” in the slightest. I do not find any isolationist mood that says “I am the problem. Unclean! Unclean!” He is not given to extremes and being extremely introverted at times of perceived failure.

I have difficulty spotting the “Phlegmatic” tendency in Joseph as well. I do not see a spectator in him at all. For instance, when the baker and the butler are troubled in their faces from their dreams, Joseph instigates conversation and speaks into their lives—offering advice and revelation (Genesis 40).

I do have a pretty easy time, however, finding the “Sanguine” in Joseph. He does have a “lively outlook on life”. One example is when he and his brothers “officially” reunite and he assures them that their sin of jealousy was nothing more than the Providential hand of God (Genesis 45:5), and again following their father’s death some seventeen years later (Genesis 50:20).

Conclusion: Joseph was filled with the Holy Spirit (Genesis 41:38). Could it be that God needed a “Sanguine” to preserve the seed of Jacob in Egypt? Or, did God produce a Sanguine when He needed one in Egypt?

Leadership Style: On Page seven, Towns does mention that the leadership style is unique with each person. What I find in Joseph is the “patient opportunist.” This is the man who, when able to excel in Potiphar’s house, he does. When given opportunity to excel in prison, he does. When provided with opportunity to interpret the two officials’ dreams, he does. When elevated to Pharaoh’s courts to interpret his crises-filled dreams, he does so. When confronted with another’s dilemma and the opportunity to solve “world hunger”, he does. When his family walks before him after twenty-two years, he does not shrug the opportunity to allow them the chance to make things right. When handed the opportunity to see his father and brother again, he receives it with vigor! He takes control of each one of these situations while allowing God to peak into His life periodically to provide more opportunities.

I am a Choleric! I don’t like it. I pray that God will change the part of me that finds its discontentment in its own power struggle. There is an amazing tendency to be impetuous, and then to overbalance by being stubborn in my lack of decision! O wretched man that I am! Thanks be to God that He delivers me out of this body of sin.

"God turned the curse into a blessing unto you"

So says Deuteronomy 23:5 (later quoted in Nehemiah 13:2). The fact is, we desperately need to know somebody is on our team. I have watched those who "sorrow as though there is no hope", and I must tell you that I am glad to be one of His.

Gainsayers and critics abound. "Has beens" and "would've beens" are not content to forsake their past apathies and move on...they must also believe that you will not be blessed. They may even whisper words of cheer when they watch you fall. Those of your own household; those of another; they may all watch with anticipation to see if their doubts and "curses" of you will come true.

"What shall we then say to these things?" Shall we despair? Shall we think for even a nanosecond that our God has turned His back upon those that are His? Nay! For He did this once upon my Substitute. There is not a reason for His back to be towards me. Should we expect His hand of blessing to turn into a hand of chastisement. Again, the penitent man or woman finds no reason for a grudging Father.

O you have stumbled upon this blog--may you find an ever merciful God Who is not willing that any of His should be lost! Will you seek to be one of His? Will you not trust the once-bleeding hands of the Savior which were nailed to an altar for your sins?

Believer, will you not realize afresh and anew that all of the promises of God are "Yes" and "Amen" in Christ (2 Corinthians 1:20)? Will we not rest in His work, His promise, His presence?

There is no better time to bow the knee.

Friday--7 days until my return to the center of the Universe

Thank God for military schools, military uniforms, military literature, military life, and military movies.

For about the 5th time in 7 years, I viewed "We Were Soldiers". There is some language in this movie that you might expect around a military setting. I don't like it, and the language along with the war-like violence is something I can get over in small doses. So, it's alot like cake and Christian Contemporary Music--probably not good for you at all in normal dosage, but good at times for the temporary fix. It's late, so if that doesn't sound spiritual enough for you, pray for me.

I have truly enjoyed this week's classes. We have heard from some chaplains here at the school that have known what consistent service and ministry look like from the other end of 30 year+ careers. I have enjoyed hearing their stories, their sometimes silly jokes, their sometimes belabored points; but I have enjoyed, if nothing else, the opportunity to be around people who have known the route God had for them, and staying relatively solid in that path for so long. I want to be that kind of guy.

I do not like war. When you get past the adrenaline of being mortared and shot at, and when you get past the thrill of scanning rooftops for "tango's", you realize that war separates families, boosts egos, swells wallets, and populates Hell all in one fowl swoop. Now, I'm not for "giving peace a chance" when the diplomatic approach has failed, so don't hear what I'm not saying.

Anyway (more rambling to follow), I am grateful for the 8 1/2 years that I had the opportunity to serve in the Active Army. I am even more grateful about soon becoming a "pastor/prophet/evangelist" within this same world. I am no longer SSG(P) Sturm, I am now 2LT, and quite frankly, I still feel like an NCO. What a struggle (which needs another posting). What an opportunity! What a calling! 8 Seminary Courses and another trip down here to South Carolina in the late fall, and I'm so there!

I am most grateful for a dear wife who is almost as interested in this stuff as I am. I love you, honey. This is her life too. She has watched me agonize over doing the stupid correspondence courses to make Sergeant when I was a PFC in Germany. She has watched me stay up late and get up early for the 5 years (including two OIF deployments) that it took me to get my BS in Religion (hold your comments). She has watched me struggle with my courage and faith in family decisions regarding this move to the Chaplain Candidacy when I am "loud and proud" leading a Prime Power Section in the Army. The truth is, I'm strong because she's strong.

Oh, yeah, I've got three incredible children too. They are the three most forgiving people on planet earth. Somehow, they forget all of the hasty, rediculous actions of their father. They listen to his long-winded devotions, play his games (let's hear it for "chess"!), and take his out-of-the-way sightseeing trips (to old churches and historical markers).

Well, I know it sounds like I just made a rather verbose speech before accepting some kind of award, but I am feeling rather sentimental and even (sniff) a little thankful.

I ate, for the 3rd time in 3 weeks, at "Little Pig's" tonite. Andy Parker figured out what real pulled pork tastes like. I could just hear myself getting fat in that place (of course, it could've been any of the tables around me as well). People don't usually go there to read the comics.

To wrap things up, I called four funeral homes to get my name on their list for available pastors who are able to facilitate services for families who don't have much money or much of a church background. I have to get some funerals and weddings under my belt...so if you've got some templates or scripts for either, send them at me! The last wedding I did was in Muhlenberg County Jail (nice, huh?) in 1999, and the last funeral I assisted in was in Tucker's Funeral Home in 1997. Needless to say, "Marryin' and Buryin'" is not something I've done much of, and the Army wants to see me do a bunch of both before I become an Active Duty Chaplain.

Ok, I'm goin' off the air. Astalapasta!

What Have YOU Overcome?

Revelation 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

The overcomer will have the Tree of Life restored to him.

Revelation 2:11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.

So we see that those who overcome will not be cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:14).

Revelation 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

1. He that overcomes will be nourished from Heaven much like the Israelites were with bread from Heaven. "Hidden" refers to the secrecy wherewith the overcomer is strengthened.
2. The "white stone" was a sign of aquittal given to those who have been aquitted by a jury. Therefore, we have aquittal for crimes charged to the overcomer. In other words, the overcomer is justified.

Revelation 2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:

We see here the overcomer will rule as a king.

Revelation 3:5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

1. The overcomer will have a robe of righteousness (or purity).
2. His name will remain in the book of life and he will be claimed by Jesus in the presence of God and the angels. (Matthew 10:33; 2 Timothy 2:12)

Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

The overcomer will be forever housing the glory of God in the New Jerusalem.

Revelation 21: "And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it."

The overcomer will have the name of the Lord on Him, the name of his city and the name of the Lamb on Him.

Revelation 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

The overcomer is heir of everything and will have a never-ending relationship with God. (Titus 3:7)

An overcomer is simply someone who has been born of God (Compare 1 John 5:4 with John 3:3, Titus 3:5 and 1 Peter 1:3,23).

What about spanking?

Proverbs 10:13
"In the lips of him that hath understanding wisdom is found: but a rod is for the back fo him that is void of understanding."


Is this a reference for spanking? Do you really take a rod to the back of your child for correction? Actually, when taken with Exodus 21:20, you can see this was a common practice of discipline within the Theocracy of Moses. Now, while it's true that this is an admirable practice:), it should be noted that this is not a proof text for "whipping" your kids. See Proverbs 26:3 for a similar feel.


Proverbs 13:24
"He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes."


Does this mean that to prove my love for my children, I need to strike him with the rod early ("betimes") in life or early in relation to his developing rebellion?

Proverbs 22:15
"Foolishness is bound in the heart 0f a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him."


Proverbs 23:13,14
"Withold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shal beat him with the rod", and shal deliver his soul from hell".


I will admit that I have heard this applied as, "You can beat your son/daugther, and get them right so they won't grow up to be God-denying heathens-thus finding themselves in an eternal Hell".


Sounds good as a rule-- but was not a universal truth, though. One only needs to read Deuteronomy 21:18-21 to see that it doesn't always work.


Others have pointed out that "Hell" can be simply "death"...you can save your children from pre-mature death. In either case it is a general principle, and not necessarily a promise from God.


Proverbs 29:15
"The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother shame".


You know this is true. Don't discipline your children, and you can see what happens at Wal-Mart or the Commissary in any aisle.


Conclusion: Using the rod is not the same as threatening to do so. "I'm gonna whip you!" "I'm gonna make you respect me!" blah, blah, blah. Shut up and do it! Keep one in your car...whatever...just don't be a nag. Do it, for crying out loud!

Aim right. Don't lose your temper. The issue is correction...not venting.

One last note: The word "back" includes the "backside" and is what is in view within these passages no doubt.

1 Corinthians 11:3 "Women- 2nd rate?"

1 Corinthians 11 is very good at pointing out the relationship between God and His Son. Surely, anyone who believes in the deity of Jesus does not believe that He is second rate or less important or even less “God” than the Father because of His submission to the Father.

Furthermore, none who view this relationship see the wife in the home or the wives in the church as being second-best because they are to submit themselves to “their own husbands”.

1 Corinthians 14:34 seems clear enough that a woman, who according to 1 Peter 3 is to be adorned with a meek and quite spirit, is not to partake in public, exhortational-type speaking before a company of men in the church.

1 Timothy 2 says that the “shamefaced” woman is not to usurp authority over the man in the church. Now, many detractors of this view see these as culturally binding, but God has not changed His principle of authority and subordination in the Trinity--so there is no reason that He has changed this relationship either.

My Conscience Keeps Me From Being "Protestant"

Galatians 3:1-3 asks some soul-searching questions:

1. Who has bewitched you? (verse 1)

2. Did you receive the Spirit by faith or by works? (verse 2)

3. Can you begin in the Spirit and continue in the flesh? (verse 3)

How is it possible for anyone who is saved by faith in the work of Christ find themselves down the road trusting sacraments as means of grace? How is it that those who are justified by faith are now sanctified by works?

Yea, a brother may say, "Well, if the Lord's Supper builds your faith, and faith is a gift by the grace of God, then the Lord's Supper is a means whereby God gives His grace".

To which I answer, "If a man says keeping the Old Testament ceremonial law builds his faith (which is a gift of God's grace), then can it not be said that 'the works of the law bring the grace of God'?"

Romans 11:6 answers this idea of mixing grace and works. They don't mix.

Where do we get this calm version of "transubstantiation"? Where do those who protested Rome find a prooftext for this idea that Christ is "with" the bread and wine?

Where do we find the "Lord's Supper" "nourishing our souls" in Scripture? Why do we say the church ordinances have any power to change one's soul? Where is this?

Where have you heard it, Bill Sturm? I have heard it in virtually every Protestant church service that I have been to. I am not saying "Protestant" in the Army sense--for they see Baptists and Pentecostals as "Protestants".

as if...

I want to live today as if it were quite possibly my last.

I want to conduct myself at all times as if God was watching.

I want to read my Bible as if it is the only book God ever wrote.

I want to treat my wife as if she is the only life partner God ever gifted me with.

I want to pastor my flock as if the Holy Ghost made me their overseer.

I want to preach my message as if it were God's message to Jesus' body.

I want to live each moment as if it will never be re-made.

I want to raise my children as if they will carry the weight of my influence.

I want to reach lost people as if they are souls that will never die.

I want to pray as if it is the only way to get things from God.

I want to give my life as if it were all I have to give.

...The truth is, these are all very, very sobering truths--not hypotheticals.

Slippery Slope?

Revelation 20: When it comes to the opening verse of our six-verse section, one must determine the nature of the “binder”. The reader finds that it is an angel. It is more than possible that “angel” is symbolic here. That is, the “angel” represents something else.

Why? Because we are told Lucifer is “an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11), so it is possible that he doesn’t appear to be a dragon here, yet that is what he is called.

This does not mean that the binding, the chain, the key, and the pit are symbolic necessarily. It could be that “angel” and “dragon” are symbols, but what is realized is that Satan is “bound” for "1,000 years".

If this angel, prior to the "1,000-year reign" is metaphorical, then it stands to reason that the angel in the 5th trumpet (9:1), the angel with 7 thunders (10:1), and the angel as the announcer of Babylon's judgment (18:1) could also be metaphors.

If Jesus was not "virgin-born/conceived", He was not God!

Let us begin with defining the word “incarnation”, distinguishing it from the idea of a “virgin birth”. It comes from two words which mean to "take on meat".

The eternal “Sonship” of Jesus is established in such Scriptures as Galatians 4:4 and Isaiah 9:6.

While it is true to say, “If Jesus was not virgin-born, He was not God in the flesh”, it could also be said, “If Jesus was not virgin-conceived, He was not God in the flesh”. Divinity begets divinity; humanity begets humanity. He is the Son of Man, and the Son of God.

The question of "Why did God become a man?" can be answered in one statement: “God took on flesh to die in order to redeem His creation.”

The Kingdom of God--Future: Revelation 20:1-6

It is in the Future
There is a hint in Matthew 12:25-29 mentioning both “the kingdom of God” and the “binding” of Satan. This passage seems like a good parallel. Jesus said in no uncertain terms that this kingdom would involve an invasion of the “strongman’s house” that requires “his binding”. We can see from 1 Peter 5:8 that Satan is not bound in this bottomless pit as he is quite active “walking about”. Furthermore, one can see from 20:3 that the goal of this binding was to keep Satan from “deceiving the nations”. One need to merely read 2 Corinthians 4:5 that he has blinded the minds of the lost. He has deceived them with all manner of excuses or justifications for their case and condition. One may safely assume, regardless of the symbolic nature of this episode, that Satan is actively engaged in people’s lives today- unbound and still deceiving. Therefore, the millennium is still future.

Thousand Years (at least)
Regarding the length of the millennium: While it is true that 1,000 is a figurative word used often in Scripture as an arbitrary large number to depict a large amount (such as the reference to “a cattle on a thousand hills” in Psalm 50:10), we may rest assured that the period of time is large enough that the writer John meant a minimum of 1,000 years. Isaiah 65 speaks of a 100-year old man dying during this period and being considered an infant when he died. That sounds like a larger number than “1,000” since this would be the equivalent to an 80 year old man dying at 8 years old in a literal timescale. So it seems like the time period would be, perhaps, several thousand in actuality.

The Timing
This time period occurs following the coming of Christ to earth in chapter 19. One understands that, since this book is a book of signs, you cannot simply, dogmatically take for granted the order of visions as their order of occurrence in their fulfillment. However, what makes this order of mention probably also the order of occurrence is that there is no clue that Satan is bound before the coming of Christ (possibly the coming of the angel in 20:1), yet he must be bound before the 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth. Why the earth? Revelation 5:9 and 20:6 make it clear that this “reign” will be “on the earth”.

"Don't be conformed to this world"

Romans 12:2
The bottom line from Paul is: "Don't think like the world".

Here's a good question for people like me to consider: "Am I more American than I am Christian?" Or, better yet,

"Am I more for the Constitution than I am for the Bible?" I consider questions like these when I take concerted interest in civic/legal matters.

How about, "Am I more Baptist than I am Christian?" I consider this question when I care more for Baptist History and fellowship with Baptist Christians significantly more than Christian History and Christian fellowship. Of course, I am speaking of more than nominal Christianity.

Can I see Jesus angrily expending His energy contending for the right to bear arms? Hmmm. Can I envision Him caring more for "Baptist Distinctives" than "Christian fundamentals"?

1. Let the world fight its wars...

What am I saying? Man thinks their fight is with one another. James makes it clear that this is so as a result of lust (James 4:4). I understand this is a general principle and is not ALWAYS the case, but is it not almost always?

Ephesians 6:12 makes it clear whom Christians are fighting...it is not the other man-- the other nation in particular. We better be real careful to know the difference between civil duty and contention that has eternal effects. We better be really careful about placing "holy war" or "just cause" on every little skirmish our blessed country gets into.

It seems now that "Just Cause War" is code for "just 'cuz".

with its weapons...

2 Corinthians 10:4 says the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God.

for its own kingdom.

Matthew 6:33 says we are to seek a different kingdom above all else. What does this mean for the believer who wishes to over-concern his or herself to the political scenes of this world? He or she is fighting for an inferior kingdom.

2. Let the world raise their children with an appetite for power and prestige.

Ephesians 6:4 makes it clear that we are to raise them in the "nurture and admonition of the Lord". What does that mean? To admonish has the idea "to remind" or "to put into someone's mind". We ought to be watching shows, playing with friends, playing games, taking rides and looking at scenery all with the idea of "How does God see this?"

3. Let the world spend excesses of time exercising the body while we exercise ourselves in godliness. (1 Timothy 4:8)

In other words, while the world spends millions of minutes and dollars making themselves tanner, leaner, stronger and faster, may we be careful to be "moderate".

4. Let the world weary themselves getting ready for retirement through IRA's and 401K's etc..., while we teach our sons and sons in-laws to care "for their own".

Unless of course, we like their being "worse than an infidel" (1 Timothy 5).

Is there really a need at this point to mention that pastors or ministers "retiring" is foreign to the Word of God?


I yield back the balance of my time.
OUT

Does God want me to declare vows? Moses even says "Yes".

Some, including me, think this is also covered under "swearing".

Who are some people in the Bible that think you should make vows?

a. Moses seemed to think it was good. The children of Israel were commanded to "swear by His name" (Deuteronomy 6:13).
b. Asaph seems to think it's ok: Psalm 76:11 "Vow, and pay unto the LORD your God:"

1. I don't know why others make them, but I know why I have made them. I make them because I feel like it is a good way of convincing myself that I am "really serious this time". Sometimes it's because I am sure God will think I am serious also. The issue is not, however, whether I can go looking for certain things to promise, the issue is, will I keep my promises when I am confronted with the opportunity to do so?

The same could be said for "putting out fleeces". Why not just obey?

2. New Testament Scripture, however, tells us that it is foolish to make these oaths, swearings, or vows:

Matthew 5:33,34 [Jesus said] "...ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time...thou shalt perform unto the LORD thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all... But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil".

James 5:12 says, "Swear not, neither...by any other oath, but let your yea be yea, and your nay be nay, lest you fall into condemnation".

3. Scripture does make it clear that if you do make the unfortunate oath instead of a simple "yes" or "no" answer, you had better follow through.

Psalm 15:1,4 (David)
"LORD, who shall abide in thy tabernacle?...He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not".

Psalm 50:14
"...pay thy vows unto the most High:"

Psalm 116:14 and 18 both say,
"I will pay my vows unto the LORD"...

Psalm 119:106
"I have sworn, and I will perform it, that I will keep thy righteous judgments"

Ecclesiastes 5:1-6 (Solomon)
"Be more ready to hear, than to give the sacrifice of fools...Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, adn thou upon earth: therfore, let they words be few...and a fool's voice si known by multitude of words....When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou has vowed Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay. Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin;"

4. There are times when you must decide, "Should I 'take my chances' in not paying my vow, or paying my vow and breaking another point of God's law?" (James 2:10)

Judges 11 tells the sad story of Jephthah the judge who "spoke rashly" and had to pay.

Is everyone Supposed to Preach?

Given our Master’s emphasis on “preaching” in the Gospels, one would wonder, “Is everyone supposed to preach, or was that a particular command given to the disciples because they were apostles?” Is there a gift of preaching, and not just a general command for all believers to preach?

Romans 1:15, 15:19, 16:25, 1 Corinthians 2:4, 12, 11:7, Galatians 2:2, 4:13, 5:11, Ephesians 3:8, 2 Timothy 4:17 and Titus 1:3 show that Paul, the Apostle, preaches.

Romans 10:8 (the "we" is interpreted by 1:1), 1 Corinthians 1:17-23 (the "we" is interpreted again in 1:1), 9:6-27, 15:1-12, 2 Corinthians 1:19, 4:1,5 (interpreted by 1:1), 10:14, Galatians 1:8-16 (interpreted by 1:1), Colossians 1:28 (interpreted by 1:1), and 1 Thessalonians 2:9 (interpreted by 1:1) point out that those who travelled with Paul also preached.

In 2 Timothy 4:2, Paul is commanding Timothy to preach. What was Timothy? We see from several of the above verses that he was Paul’s companion in ministry who often traveled with Paul. Timothy was left to pastor at Ephesus as can be seen in 1 Timothy 1:2. Therefore, we see that Pastors are to “preach the word”.

CONCLUSION:
1.Paul never commanded every believer to preach.
2. Only those called to preach ought to make a habit of preaching.

Ephesians 4
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

The call to preach is the highest calling and deserves the highest respect.

"The Just Shall Live By Faith" What does that mean?

Romans 1:16,17
Notice that the one requirement for this "power of God" is “belief”. This is repeated in the very next verse where it is said to be something that is given “by faith”. Many have added to this. Perhaps Paul should have said something here about the sinner’s prayer being instrumental in making one a “son of God” by “the power of God unto salvation”? Maybe it would be wise, however, to assume that God correctly “gave the word, and the great company published it” (Psalm 68:11). Perhaps it is time to keep salvation—that is, the act of salvaging souls from the realm of “unrighteousness”—as simple as God through Paul did in this passage.

What is granted to the person who “believes”, “has faith in”, or “trusts” this Gospel? As has already been said, one is salvaged. They are taken from a realm of ruin and destruction and brought to “live together with Christ in Heavenly places” (Ephesians 2:6). They were “brands in the fire” (Zechariah 3) which have been “plucked out”. “As good as dead” seems to be an adequate idiom for the book of Romans as those outside of Christ are seen as “condemned” though not yet standing at the Great White Throne Judgment spoken of in the by John (Revelation 20:11-15). Now, a person is brought, by the power of God from the house of the lame to the table of the king. They are no longer residents of Lodebar as poor Mephibosheth (2 Samuel 9), but now have “an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, that fades not away” (1 Peter 1:4).

With Martin Luther, the reader feasts his or her eyes on the text of Romans 1:17b and finds that “the just live by faith”. Actually, it appears that this phrase is an outstanding carryover from the previous sentence and precursor to the following thoughts of general revelation. Just as “the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven” in verse 18, His “righteousness is revealed in this Gospel” in verse 17. Indeed, those who “live by faith” are the “just”. The reader dare not get “the cart before the horse” when considering Romans 5:1 which places faith as the actuator of justification. If one is to treat “live” as a synonym, or even a description of those who are “in Christ” as elsewhere in the New Testament, then it seems adequate to say, as do the rest of the writers, that one has new “life by faith which justifies”.

It seems the best way to clarify this phrase—“from faith to faith”--is to say that as one is saved by faith in Christ and carried forth into living by faith in Christ, the very righteousness of God is revealed in him. Schreiner describes this as both “forensic” and “transformational”. The righteousness of God, as the “wrath of God” in verse 18, shows that these are both actions of God as they are both revealed. Therefore, when God justifies the believer making Him righteous, it is apparently “forensic” at salvation, and “transformational” in service following. Or, as Phillips says, it is “received by faith and reproduced by faith”. Perhaps, better said, he quotes Vine, “’From faith’ points to the initial act; ‘to faith’ to the life of faith which issues from it”.[3]

[3] John Phillips, Exploring Romans (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1969), 21.

Alone in my thoughts...(is anybody out there?)

Joe did a great job of preaching this morning. I am so delighted that the pulpit wasn't empty and God filled the preacher with power.

I was so disappointed with the numbers. I expected God's people to be in their places. Why does it take so very little to keep people in bed? How is it that people can be more patriotic about America than they are loyal to the Heavenly kingdom?

Now, I understand that the "Chapel Class" is not built around me, but I must admit, there are some real tremors in my heart about not being able to get more people connected to Jesus. People come and go because "we're not getting connected" as if this is some stupid byline. Why don't you go to a Bible study to learn about the Scriptures, look around you, say "hello", get a phone number and quit being so selfish?

I expect lost people to be so petty...they're lost. They are lost consumers. They expect to come to church occasionally and to get their helping of "God". Believers should have their minds renewed and quit with the worldly mindset that we go to church so people can scratch my back and make me feel important.

I might even expect younger Christians to feel dis-enfranchised and desire closeness, but I am about nauseated over people who have claimed salvation for 5 or more years who are still looking to be served: "Make me feel important! Invite me over! Shower me with gifts! Recognize me from the pulpit! Serve Coffee and doughnuts at your Bible study or I'm not coming".

Who can find a faithful servant?
I cannot tell you which emotion is stronger: The frustration over babified, professing veteran believers or thankfulness for other faithful servants of Christ.

Thank you for being faithful!

Cold, Hard Fact: your leader is dead.

Underline 2 Samuel 2:7 in your Bible. David is addressing the dear people of Jabesh-Gilead who fought along side King Saul, and then buried him following his death (of course). David told them that He was going to be kind to them as they were to his king.

Now then, David acknowledged their mourning. There was no explanation given as to "Why God allowed this?" or "Why did Saul fall on his sword?" Bottom line: The show goes on.

Warriors are hard enough to find. Paul says if you fight, you don't get entangled in civilian life (2 Timothy 2:4). There just comes a time when, as a soldier in the struggle, you don't even think about home. You just think about winning (2 Timothy 2:5)...with your own blood on your clothing, and with your enemies blood on your weapon.

So then, the issue is not one of explanation to these men of Jabesh-Gilead. The issue is one of endurance (2 Timothy 2:3). David steps to these men and says, "Your leader is dead. Stand up! Gird up! Pack up! You do not get a reprieve from battle simply because your leader is dead! You can rest when you follow your king in death! And if you're fortunate enough to make it through the next battle, you can go home to your families, kiss them for a great length of time, get acquainted again around the table, lead them to the temple for worship, and look forward to another day of battle! One day, you will have license to lay your weapons down in that land of swords and spears becoming plowshares and pruning hooks! Until then, 'be strengthened, and be ye valiant! For your master, Saul, is dead!"

William Wallace had nothing on King David.

Another Great Fathers' Day

Another Great Fathers' Day it is when your dad is still around to call, to love with hugs and time together! What a privilege it is go to him for counsel; to honor his counsel; to magnify the family name with dignity knowing your dad is watching. To have a father to go to is something for which I am grateful.

A Great Fathers' Day it is when you can look at your children, and they love you; they call you "dad"; they know you take good care of their mother; they know you protect their home. To be a father is something for which I am quite grateful.

These two views of fatherhood are significant when we give thanks to the "Father of Lights" with Whom there is "no variableness nor shadow of turning"; to the "Father of spirits" Who "subjects" us as a loving Father with His chastening hand; to the "Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ" Who died for us and rose again.

This view of The Heavenly Father will humble us as imperfect, earthly fathers while we remain gracious in the judgment of our fathers. "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy".

Call when you don't think you need to call.

Jeremiah 33:1-3 tells us of a man who was in prison. Jeremiah the prophet was told to ask God for a special insight. "God ahead, Jeremy. Just say the word, and I'm going to show you something about this country's future". 1 Chronicles 12:32 describes a group of men who "understood the times to know what Israel should do". The truth is, sometimes we can't handle the truth...for if we were told the future in many instances, it would cause our ears to "tingle" (1 Samuel 3:11). May we have understanding of the times, made possible by a continual calling towards God....yes, even if we sit in prison..."Where men should praise the Lord for His goodness, and His wonderful works unto the children of men" (Psalm 107:8-10).

The Parable of Fishing

A Good thought on being "Fishers of men"

Amazing! I have published this three times now. It never gets old to me!

Now it came to pass that a group existed who called themselves fishermen. And lo, there were many fish in the waters all around. In fact, the whole area was surrounded by streams and lakes filled with fish. And the fish were hungry.

Year after year these who called themselves fishermen met in meetings and talked about their call to fish, the abundance of fish, and how they might go about fishing.

Continually they searched for new and better definitions of fishing. They sponsored costly nationwide and worldwide congresses to discuss fishing and to promote fishing and hear about all the ways of fishing.

These fishermen built large, beautiful buildings called "Fishing Headquarters." The plea was that everyone should be a fisherman and every fisherman should fish. One thing they didn't do, however; they didn't fish.

They organized a board to send out fishermen to where there were many fish. The board was formed by those who had the great vision and courage to speak about fishing, to define fishing, and to promote the idea of fishing in far-away streams and lakes where many other fish of different colors lived.

Also the board hired staffs and appointed committees and held many meetings to define fishing, to defend fishing, and to decide what new streams should be thought about. But the staff and committee members did not fish.

Expensive training centers were built to teach fishermen how to fish. Those who taught had doctorates in fishology, but the teachers did not fish. They only taught fishing. Year after year, graduates were sent to do full-time fishing, some to distant waters filled with fish.

Further, the fishermen built large printing houses to publish fishing guides. A speaker's bureau was also provided to schedule special speakers on the subject of fishing.

Many who felt the call to be fishermen responded, and were sent to fish. But like the fishermen back home, they never fished.

Some also said they wanted to be part of the fishing party, but they felt called to furnish fishing equipment. Others felt their job was to relate to the fish in a good way so the fish would know the difference between good and bad fishermen.

After one stirring meeting on "The Necessity for Fishing," a young fellow left the meeting and went fishing. The next day he reported he had caught two outstanding fish. He was honored for his excellent catch and scheduled to visit all the big meetings possible to tell how he did it.

So he quit his fishing in order to have time to tell about the experience to the other fishermen. He was also placed on the Fishermen's General Board as a person having considerable experience.

Now it's true that many of the fishermen sacrificed and put up with all kinds of difficulties. Some lived near the water and bore the smell of dead fish every day. They received the ridicule of some who made fun of their fishermen's clubs and the fact that they claimed to be fishermen yet never fished.

They wondered about those who felt it was of little use to attend the weekly meetings to talk about fishing. After all, were they not following the Master who said, "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men?

Imagine how hurt some were when one day a person suggested that those who didn't catch fish were really not fishermen, no matter how much they claimed to be. Yet it did sound correct. Is a person a fisherman if year after year he never catches a fish?

Eli and a glimpse of His Savior

I cannot argue that Eli was a lowsy enforcer of the standard of God. God told Eli that his sons were a disgrace and a stumbling block for the ministry (1 Samuel 2:24). God told Eli that people didn't even like coming to church in all Israel because of his sons' unbridled debauchery (2:17). God told Eli that the reason it was so was because Eli loved his sons more than God (2:29). In other words, Eli failed in the ministry because he failed as a father.

Or to say it plainer, Eli was an unfaithful high priest because he was an unfaithful father. That is why Titus says a bishop should have children that are under control. A man whose children know no correcting hand of their father are children who will mock the correcting hand of God.

God promised Eli that there would be a "faithful priest" that would serve in His temple "forever" (2:35). My mind journeys to the book of Hebrews, 2:17 and 3:1-2 to be specific, and I find a "faithful High Priest" Who "lives forever to intercede" (Hebrews 7:25), and I praise the Lord that there is one who is greater than Eli. This Jesus does not fail in His fathering nurture in that He "brings many sons unto glory" and did so "through suffering" (Hebrews 2:10).

"Bless the Lord, ye His saints!"

Are "leaders" more desirable than "managers"?

A classmate of mine said the following in answer to this question:

Mangers can only think about the task set before them and ask questions such as What? Who? How? and When? They know about efficiency and how to get the job done. Leaders, on the other hand, have the more desirable ability to think beyond the present task. They are visionaries who ask Why? Why not? What if?

The issue is not which is more desirable, we must remember both are necessary. Some grow through the stage of "management" into "leadership". Some are created for "management", however, and they find perfect, peaceful fulfillment in "management". It is a terrible mistake to take a "Philip" and seek to make a "Peter" out of him.

Below is my response: Your last paragraph has my attention. For the purposes of this class, you are probably correct that "leadership" is more desirable than "mangement".

In reality, though, if you are a "big picture-type of visionary", you will be quite glad that you have detail-oriented "managers" below you. They are your "reality checkers". They are your "duration experts" when you have deadlines. They are your human resource facilitators when you have personnel expectations. They know what kind of trees are in the forest you are trying to clear off of the "field". The leader says, "I know that field needs to move". The manager says, "Yes, sir/maam. These are 'hickory' wood which will require x-number of chain saws with x-type of blades and x-number of trucks, skidders, and axmen. They will be able to clear this type of forest in x-number of days/weeks".

The leader then decides between several possible courses of action: 1. Clear the forest under discussion because we must absolutely have that field. 2. Find another field to clear. 3. Do nothing, and table the matter.

It is possible, you understand, that this leader was a good manager in this trade at one time or another, but this may not be so. A person who is a leader provides vision with direction (that is usually nothing more than left and right boundaries).

For your edification,
Bill

Another assignment: "Are these guys right?"

Warren Bennis and Burt Nanus (Leaders, 1985, p. 21) state that "Managers are people who do things right and leaders are people who do the right thing. The difference may be summarized as activities of vision and judgment (effectiveness) versus activities of mastering routines (efficiency)."

My experience, without a doubt, shows this distinction is quite true. I have no less than four years of project management experience in the electrical engineering field within the military coupled with five years of leadership experience within the non-commissioned officer (NCO) ranks of the U.S. Army.

I can say without hesitation that leadership is as defined in Field Manual (FM) 6-22 "influencing people to accomplish a mission by providing purpose, direction, and motivation". There are many who can manage a portion of a project by making sure so many cables are properly terminated and tested by a certain amount of people who are geared to working a certain speed for a certain amount of time. These "managers" can determine the "duration" of phases of a project so as to keep the "critical path" on line, but many are absolutely incapable of foresight and longterm planning which is required of "leaders". Moreover, the only "influence" they have to "get others to accomplish the mission" is "legal influence". There is little inspiration fostered, and more often than not, resentment settles in when people see that they are putting much effort into those things which matter little. In other words, people who follow "managers" are "first class on the wrong flight" much of the time.

Without this visionary function, "managers" have no direction and will find themselves getting very good ("efficient") on things that do not matter and show little "value added" to the team or to the project in the final analysis. "Managers" are needed--absolutely! There is, however, no substitution, for "managers" who are led by visionaries.

You silly ant!

Parkwood Circle is where I live. It's our trailer park. Yesterday, I went out and ran the Bragg Blvd loop. I got back and started to walk when I arrived at Parkwood Circle.

Just as I was walking my last lap so that I could be inside to shower with plenty of time to spare before my appointment, I noticed a crawling thing.

I stooped, looked closer, and stared--realizing it was not crawling at all. It was walking. It was an ant.

Now, my normal inclination is to step upon the ant and feel quite big. I have been resisting such impulses lately. I kept my foot very still, and I observed the ant. It kept walking toward my foot. It scurried around my foot with occasional trips up to the very edge of the sole. I thought, "You don't even know that it's me. You think it's an obstacle--something toward which you may be annoyed; something that is a nuisance; something somebody 'probably put in your way to keep you down'".

I suppose it was just then, I felt a finger from the sky poke me in the chest, and I felt this sort of sense say, "You're the same way. I'm involved in your world constantly. I place a part of me in your way, and you call these things obstacles, nuisances, delays. You say you believe your times are in my hands, yet you are so very impatient, and you despise my correction".

I replied, "O God, I'm so sorry. If I would just see these things as your involvement in my life, I would cease my attempts to avoid them...resenting you, putting up with you because I have no other, serving you with a apprehensive endurance so that I can 'really experience God'."

You see my dear friends, we need "spiritual eyes" to see God's involvement in our world. When Dothan was surrounded by Syrian soldiers, and the servant of Elisha was fearful, Elisha prayed for his servant to have "open eyes" to see that "the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire" to defeat the enemy (2 Kings 6:17). I need spiritual eyes.

Job 42:5 (after the storm) "I have heard of you with the hearing of the ear, but now mine eyes seeth thee".

The "error of Balaam" in Jude 11

We hear about this "error", and say, "Hey, the guy pronounced blessing on Israel". True, but we have good reason to believe he never crossed over to the good team.

In Numbers 31:8 we see that Balaam was one of those killed when Israel decided it was time to throw some Holy Hellaciousness down on the Moabites. Why was Balaam included? He was there.

There is a value in leaving your place of service if you are entangled with the "dark side".

A time for mourning.

I read in Numbers 20:29 that Israel mourned for Aaron for 30 days.

Egypt mourned for Jacob for 70 days.

The folks in Numbers probably had good reason to believe they would see Aaron again. Yet, they mourned. Why? They missed him.

Socrates said it...

"What you cannot enforce, do not command."

Now, I don't know if he was the only one who did, but I have often thought about this quote since the first time I heard it back in Prime Power School during 2004/2005 at Fort Belvoir, VA.

I often think about how this principle is lived out in things like:

1. General orders that General Officers never intend on enforcing. We had a "no hats on backwards" rule at the Post Exchange in Schofield Barracks, HI. Amazingly, I never saw a General officer correct this infraction. I never saw an MP enforce this rule either.

2. Homework: If you're not going to follow up on it, quit giving people a reason to mock authority! Stop giving it!

3. "Bobby, one more time, and I'm gonna whip you!" One more time, two more times, three more times.... Bobby finds a reason to question whether authority means anything.

4. "Everyone who works here will be at the _________ meeting". Someone blows off the leader's guidance. That someone is considered far too important to upset and push away from the organization so they are not held accountable. As a not-so-wise instructor once told me, "You get what you inspect, not what you expect".

5. A Madison, WI cop tells me that they will not stop anyone on the Beltway unless they are going 14 or more over the speed limit. Then, why have a speed limit? Why not have a 79 m.p.h. speed limit that you will enforce instead of a 65 m.p.h. limit that you will not enforce? Have you not been mocked lately?

Bottom line: To be "wise as serpents" (Matthew 10) tells me that I should see these silly excuses for guidance (legislation) as bumps on the road leading away from the "Amazing Vacuum of Retardation" to a land of better days that find us with 10 rules to govern our moral decisions and a minimal government that preserves our "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

The fearful responsibility of being the Leader of God's People

...which is why James 3:1 says there shouldn't be many "masters" ("teachers", "leaders") lest one "fall into condemnation".

When you come to Numbers 20, you find a grieving Moses. He has lost his sister. Of course she was old enough to look after him when he was a baby in "ark of bulrushes", so she was at least a few years older than he.

1. In any case, you would think that God would be sensitive to Moses--giving him some leniancy since he was grieving. He received, apparently to the observor, no understanding from God.

2. How about the many times Moses stood in for these people? Exodus 32, Numbers 14, Numbers 16--Moses stood for these people. Surely God would give Moses some leniancy in view of Moses' leniancy towards the people? No.

God's standard for His leaders are very, very clear. You must live above the expectation of the "general population" (as they say in the Army). Numbers 20 has Moses losing his temper and beating the rock instead of doing it God's way, and speaking to the rock.

Hey, beating it worked before! Why not now?

Why not now? Because God doesn't always subscribe to a methodology that worked yesterday, and when we put Him into a box, He becomes small. When He becomes small, people do not see Him as being "Above the Rest". That is, they don't see Him as "separate" or "Sanctified" (20:12).

Pray for your leaders. Be slow to take places of leadership. Be ready to live under a higher standard. Be prepared to exalt God by keeping Him out of your box. He may do things differently now than He did the last time He nourished His people. Be careful.

Cut Off

This describes the man or woman in Numbers 19:20 who has been defiled, will not purify themselves, and attempts to worship in the temple of God. God said, "You better kill him, or I will".

The truth is, there is no need to debate over why God kills people. The question you and I need to ask ourselves is, "Why do we defile His temple?"

After all, we're told in 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 and 6:19 that we Christians are temples or sanctuaries of the Holy Spirit. We're told that He lives in us; He tabernacles in us; He walks in us. That's right, brother, it's not just a praise song. God is in us, and the price for defiling this "earthen vessel" (2 Corinthians 4:7) is mighty high (Numbers 19:20; 1 Corinthians 3:17).

On a corporate level, the assembly is the temple of God (Matthew 18:20; 1 Timothy 3:15), and we as the temple of God are to be a house of prayer (Matthew 21:13).

I wonder how the King of Glory (Psalm 24) feels about His house walking around at 300 pounds? I wonder how He enjoys hearing the backbiting? I wonder how He enjoys having the nicotine blowin in His face? I wonder how He enjoyes the gut-rot alcohol? I suppose He enjoys seeing the wicked thought life reflecting defiling images --"idols set up in our heart" (Ezekiel 14:4).

Yes, perhaps, God is sickened, ready to vomit (Revelation 3:16). The real problem is that we simply don't have a conscious ackowledgement of the Omnipresence of God! He's there when it's convenient.

Losing the Yoke

In one of my Bibles, I'm in Numbers. In the other, I'm in Leviticus. I read until God speaks to me, and then I stop for that time of reading.

Today, it's Leviticus. I'm in chapter 20, and I find God speaking to the Israelites saying that He delivered them from slavery (v. 12), and "broke their band so they could walk upright". What an awesome verse!

I find a twofold application:

1. We just look better, and feel better when we lose our burden. "A broken spirit dryeth the bones", the wise man said in Proverbs. When my conscience is clear, and my mind is calm, and my spirit is content, I feel better; I look better; I accomplish more. Oh, by the way, I can do the right thing when I am delivered from bondage!

2. When we have the "straps of our yoke snapped", we find a spiritual wherewithal to walk in a way that honors God when we're not being oppressed. Perhaps the idea that I "can do right because the power of sin has been crushed in my life" is also present. Let's be honest folks, it was hard to honor God with any of my labor prior to conversion.

Which is the probable interpretation? I would say that both are involved here. Listen, I want feel better now that I can serve better now that I serve no other master. Americans, this means, have more reason than many others to honor God.

Another favorite--Apollos

Acts 18 paints a good first-time picture of this guy.

1. He's "mighty in the Scriptures" (verse 24).

How many knuckle-headed preachers are better at knowing what Rick Warren, Joel Olstein or John MaArthur think than what God's Impeccable Word has to say? I want to be "mighty in the Scriptures". I want to have a command of what God said, and where He said it--for me! For others! For times of crisis!

2. "He spoke boldly" (verse 26).

When I'm on the street, in the church, or on the beach-side walkway, I cannot stand timid preaching! If this is a problem, pray for me! I want to know, stuttering or not, stammering or not, scared or not, that you are a man who believes what he is saying! Be a man that speaks "with authority, and not as the scribes"! Did you hear me? You can either sound like rote intellectualism, or you can sound like a voice from God! Be a "burning and shining light" (John 5:35)!

3. He remained teachable (verse 26).

That is, he wasn't rebelliously ignorant. He was a person that could say, "Ok Priscilla. Ok Aquilla. I see what you're saying. I can definitely see where we're going here. Got it". There's nothing more grotesque to a young preacher than to see the older ones who are afraid to say, "I was wrong about this teaching".

4. He used His "updated knowledge" (verse 27-28).

There is not a hint of "interim period" in this passage. He was corrected. He corrected His preaching. He went on "disputing". Glory to God! Team me up with Apollos!

Favorite Bible Personalities-Onesiphorus

You don't run into this guy very often, but every time I read this verse, I feel challenged to be a blessing:

2 Timothy 1:16 "The Lord grant mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chains".

I want this to be said of me. Think of it: "Bill Sturm refreshes me!" What if my wife always said this? What if my children were able to say this? What if my pastor could say this? What if my office partners could say this? I want to bring the "cold cup of water to the weary soul" (Proverbs 25:25; see also Matthew 10:42).

I want to be this today, tomorrow, always. I want it to be said of me, "I love that Jesus because I love Bill Sturm". I want people to think to themselves, "I am so glad he was here. Why does he have to leave?"

I suppose it is only adequate that the person closest to me finds me "refreshing" to be around. I cannot tell you how disheartening it is to find preachers with duplicit lifestyles. They are "happy go-lucky" around the parishoners, and plain non-delightful at home. I truly want my life partner to say, "I love you, and I love the ministry, because it is not a burden. It is refreshing. And it is refreshing because you are refreshing". I want to leave a legacy to my children of a "masterful family man". I want to perfect the little things by the power of God.

Lord Jesus, grant this reality in my life--in our lives--that You may be glorified in your people (Ephesians 3:21).

"Running Water in a Vessel"

Numbers 19:17: This is that which was "sprinkled upon an unclean person" and all their dwellings and belongings. That is, this "running" water, this "living" water, was applied to an unclean person on the third and seventh days of their uncleanness.

We can fastforward about 1500 years to John 4. There was a lady who was told that Jesus could give her living water, which if she drank, she would never thirst again. So there is this idea that "living water purifies the unclean", and this idea in John 4 that "living water quenches thirst".

Yet, there are so many "thirsty" Christians. How did this happen? Why do we find people who are still dying of thrist yet they say they did drink of this "living water" that makes one "never thirst again"? How is it that a person can find no satisfaction in the Christ of God? How is it that they can drink at this "fountain"--this "well"--and still find no peace?

We have two options: 1. Jesus was mistaken, or 2. They have not drawn from This Well.

"'All' means 'all', and that's all that 'all' means!"

John 12:32 states, "if I will be lifted up, I will draw all men unto me".

I have interpreted that to mean that God will draw every individual to Himself because of His death on the cross, but when one reads the context, however, we see the Greeks (general term for non-Jews and the populace of the world in general) in verse 20 wanting to see Jesus.

It makes good contextual sense that Jesus is saying He will draw the nations (even the Greeks) of the world in a general sense when He says "All men".

Makes me wonder about every other time "every" and "all" are used. Are they speaking of "every type" or "all types"?

Not you? Ok, let's see:

1 Timothy 2:1 says we should pray for "all men". Do you? Well, either "all" means "many" or "all types" or you are not a praying person who glorifies God!

1 Timothy 6:10 says the love of money is the root of "all evil". So, that means when you were fishing for that complement yesterday at work, you really were after some money from somewhere? No? Well, then "all" must mean "all kinds".

Hebrews 11:13 says "these all died in faith". So, either the writer of Hebrews forgot that he wrote about Enoch not dying 8 verses previously or "all" means "all generally speaking".

James 3:7 says "every kind of beast, birds, serpents, things in the sea is tamed, and has been tamed by man". So, either "reprsentative of every kind of sea animal is domesticated" or "generally, representatives every kind of sea animal has been domesticated" or "many (that I know of) kinds of sea animals have been domesticated".

"Come now, let's reason together..."

Why must I have Apologetics as a part of my ministry?

1. A Personal Reason: The thing that matters most to me is whether I can say, “I stand here for good reason”. When difficult times arise, I do not care primarily for whether something simply has logical flow. I must have something that works. Some might call this “pragmatism”. When it comes to ministry, I cannot have inward wonder concerning the ability for a piece of counsel to be effective in a parishioner’s heart and mind. Furthermore, there has to be a certainty that the guidance of the Lord works for me before I can confidently distribute such wisdom.
2. A Mutual Reason: When a body of believers has some common ground such as provable, believable tenants to their faith, great things can happen in the area of prayer. Acts chapter two speaks of being of “one accord” in “one place”. How was this possible? Christ spent forty days around His followers giving them many “infallible proofs” that He was indeed risen from the dead. They took this calm assurance of the risen Lord to Pentecost and prayed in fervency until the presence of the Holy Ghost was most evident. Consequently, Lives were changed, and the Risen Christ was glorified.
3. A Reason for Those on the Outside: Perhaps there is a measure of vanity in believing your point makes sense to “outsiders”, but this also solidifies one’s confidence. When an unbeliever sees the coherency of a view, understands the logical flow, and can agree with its tenants, but chooses not to do so, at least there is no room for assuming the Christian is an intellectually lazy person. This may not be the most important reason, but it is a reason nonetheless.

In conclusion, there are many good reasons for apologetics in my ministry: Personal assurance, mutual prayerfulness, and reputable strength are good reasons.

"Religion and Science Don't Mix"?

Agnostics/Atheists say that Religion and Science are different realms—religious truths are different from scientific truths:

"Free Dictionary Online" says "science" is the ability to "know through experience". This seems acceptable since we say God is "Omniscient" ("knows everything"). In order for "religion" to be free from "experiential knowledge", you would have to get "know-so" informed about every facet of ever religion and prove that there is no evidence for any of these facets or tenants.

This is much like saying "There is no such thing as ______". As far as evidence is concerned for such a statement, one must be omnipresent (everywhere at once) to be omniscient (all-knowing) in making such a statement.

Bottom line: You must be omniscient to say there is no "science" in "religion".

More on the journey to the Chaplaincy

Well, we left Honolulu after the morning service last Sunday, March 8th. We found ourselves, after a layover of 1 hour in Atlanta, landing in Charleston, SC about 8 in the morning on March 9th. It was at this time that myself and Leah took a taxi to the vehicle lot where the military was storing our vehicle after the 2 1/2 weeks it took to ship my vehicle from Honolulu.

We were able to get the vehicle, gas it up, and head back to the airport where Nikki and the other two had gathered the luggage. At that point we drove towards Fayetteville, NC until we found the first Cracker Barrel. A dear brother and sister had given us some money to eat at Cracker Barrel on the way home. That was nice, huh?

After fighting the tired (and some other issues) on the 3 1/2 hour ride home, we found ourselves at our temporary home owned by our friend Wayne. Waiting there was our dear friend Christi (she and her husband were part of our Small Group the last time we were here). After an 1 1/2 hours, we found ourselves eating at Red Robin (How's that for a day of eating?) with Pastor Sean and his family enjoying a re-aquaint.

How God has blessed!

The Gospel of John and the word "believe" --tonite's my last night with the boys

These were shared one at a time, with a review, each week with my 4-6 grade boys at AWANA. I have treated John like a sort of journey, and so...

Start Line: John 1:12, at the beginning of the Gospel, says one is given power to become God's child by "believing on His name".

There are, then, examples of those who take Jesus' offer, and became "living children of God".

1. Nate ("Nathaniel" for you stuffed shirts with no imagination): John 1:48-50

2. Nick ("Nicodemus" for you starchy types that are scared to laugh): John 3:1-15

Way Side (Get gas, get a meal): John 3:18

3. NotinPot (referring to the water that never made the pot which was left on the well by "The woman at the well" who immediately witnessed to her "townsfolk"): John 4:28-41

4. Nobel ("The Noble man" for you uptight people that feel that I'm being irreverent): John 4:53)

Way Side (the place where you use the bathroom and the place where you get snacks): John 6:47

5. Peter: 6:68--He tries to speak for everyone else, but we know he spoke for him. Was he saved here? He said that he fulfilled the conditions spelled out in 20:31.

6. Nocansee ("The blind guy" for you people that don't like "pidgeon"): John 9:35-39

Way Side: John 10:26-29 (only "sheep" are believers!)

7. Bethabara: 1:28; 10:42 Those who were with Jesus where John "first baptized"

8. Neighbors ("The folks who lived next to Lazarus"): John 11:45

9. Rulers of the "church house" (couldn't think of an "n"): John 12:42

Way Side: John 17:20

10. John (the author of this book): John 2:22; 20:8

11. Thomas (the doubter who eventually believed): John 20:27-29

Finish Line: John 20:31, near the end of the Gospel, says one has life through His name by "believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God".

My, O My!

My Jesus does it right! I was approved for the "absolutely not happening" transition leave last week! I have my orders ammended to enjoy my 48 days of leave.

I was told I couldn't have it because of the discharge which I was getting, and that I would have to sell my leave back (which means no housing allowance, no cost of living allowance, no separate rations, no health/dental benefits, and what remains is taxed at around 30%).

After asking questions and not accepting two-bit shortcut answers, we were approved. I'll be leaving here next week for Fayetteville, and we'll be in the Army until April 24th. Blessed be God!

People who "went out from the presence of the Lord"

When one considers Psalm 91:1, being away from His presence is most frightening.

"Then Cain went out from the presence of the LORD" (Genesis 4:16)

"So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD" (Job 2:7)

"But Jonah arose to flee from Tarshish from the presence of the LORD" (Jonah 1:3)

Half-Honest Condemned People!

Honest enough, many are, to say they are not good enough to make it to Heaven on their own. But ask them if they are bad enough to go to Hell, and that is a different thing altogether.

John 3:18 is explicit. You are condemned as an unbeliever. Unbelievers are condemned- not "sinners" in general, but unbelievers specifically.

Another observation from a recent evangelism outing: My partner, Dave, asked me if I believed in the Sovereignty of God in the election of sinners (as we stuffed tracts into Joel Olsteen books at Borders). I said "definitely so. All I have to do is go soul-winning to know that". You can see it in their eyes. You can see it in their mannerisms. Make them make priorities! Let them go if they want. Make them say, "No, I want to hear more" or let them walk.

On the other hand, maybe you are the kind of person that is uncomfortable letting them go without a "committment to Christ" decision to tell all your friends about. Maybe you'd feel better getting them to pray the damning sinner's prayer while getting them to ignore the finished work of Jesus on Calvary's cross. Your work's not done, after all, until you get them in the tub or filling out a card, right?

Principles in Gospel Declaration (preaching)

1. Speak of Christ.

Though it is possible to start with anything or anybody, it is pointless to Christians to hear of even Biblical facts without knowing the connection to Jesus.

2. Speak of His redemptive work.

Though it is possible to learn much about His teachings and His work, it is always necessary to bring about the pinnacle of God's plan for the benefit of the hearers.

3. Choose the words, not just the ideas, wisely.

While it is true the Jesus said the Holy Ghost would give us words in the hour of persecution, many of us are not pushed into spontaneous or even extemporaneous speaking engagements. I have come to the conclusion that writing sermons and lectures out before hand can be a help in choosing correct words as, when they are being written out, they are being preached back to the preacher.

4. Don't waste all of your time finding the words of other people.

History tells the tale in my life that I have made the mistake of too much study of other men's words and not enough of my Lord's.

5. Don't make it a lifestyle if you are not called.

Certainly God gives opportunity to people periodically, but be careful about seeking opportunity too often if you are not clearly called by God. Failure is certain...eventually.

I feel a great many preachers pastor full time because they can't hold a job...not because they love their people, and are simply called to preach.

6. Respect people's time.

That is, make it worth their trip to come and hear you. Make sure they are not hearing your version of the liturgy. Make sure you have the message from God for the hour for those people. Next, preach the message from God for the hour for those people. Next, shut your mouth!

I fear being concise is not the trademark for most preachers today. They feel they have not really preached a message unless they have reached a certain time on the clock or a certain tone in their voice. It's disgusting. As they say in the Army--"Train to standard, not to time".

"Come out from among them, and be ye salty"

I was troubled with the 2 Corinthians 6:17 thought of "being separate" mingled with the Matthew 5:13 thought of being "salt of the earth".

Certainly salt does not have its worth from being in the shaker. So how can we be effective "salt" (kinda redundant) if we are separated from that which we are to savor?

Context, context, context, and context: Adam Clarke reminds us to check the context when he speaks of these Corinthians wanting to worship two Gods... the God Whom we serve and His Christ or "Belial". Bottom line: This verse is teaching to hate idolatry.

Is it likely that we are worshipping other gods if we fellowship with someone who uses the New King James Version or if we eat at Outback Steakhouse inspite of their alcoholic beverage menu?

So, be very careful how you apply 2 Corinthians 6:17. If you're uncomfortable about something...fine. Say so. Make it plain that you are staying away from this or that until you have peace that it is ok, but don't make your conviction a litmus test for Godliness by assigning a verse to it that means nothing more than staying separate from idolatry.

"Who do they represent?"

Revelation 5:9
When the 24 elders said Jesus had "redeemed them by His blood out of 'every' kindred, tribe, people and nation", who were they representing?

They must have been representing someone as there are more than 24 kindreds, tribes, peoples and nations.

"Elders" are leaders of churches and leaders of cities. Is it possible that the "church of the firstborn- written in Heaven" (Hebrews 12) has a governing body called "elders", and that this group of elders speaks for the "church of the firstborn"?

The Trinity and Spiritual Gifts

Commentary on I Corinthians 12:4-6

Paul’s purpose of this entire discourse is to keep the Corinthian believers free from ignorance because of the fakes and pretenses of “spirituality” in that day. What is going to be seen right away from this “commentator” is a love for numbers and lists.

There are some truths which are apparent right away:
1. The Spirit of God is concerned with the “gifts” (12:4).
2. The Son of God is concerned with “administrations” (12:5).
3. God is concerned with “operations” (12:6).

It is the opinion of the writer that the best “commentary” on the Word of God is the Word of God itself. There is an uncanny relationship between the sections of this book we call the “Bible”.

The involvement of the Godhead is obvious. Now it is appropriate to look at each of these three prooftexts and develop them:

1 Corinthians 12:4
“There are different kinds of gifts, but the same spirit”.

The term here behind “gifts” is charisma, and is what is commonly known as the spiritual gifts.

Some notes from the context are in order here:

1. These gifts are known as “spiritual gifts” (12:1) because they are given to the members of the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit at His discretion (12:11).
2. Only believers in Christ as “Lord” are avenues of “spirituality” in the gifting sense (12:3).
3. Every believer in Christ is an avenue of “spirituality” in the gifting sense (12:7).
4. These gifts are listed as “word of wisdom”, “knowledge”, “faith”, “healings”, “miracle-working”, “prophecy”, “discerning of spirits”, “different kinds of tongues”, and “interpretation of tongues” (12:8-10). There also appears to be a partial list, along with different “callings” at the end of this same chapter which includes what some might call “offices within the church” to be discussed under 12:5 below.
5. Some gifts are said to be “best” gifts. There are, from different perspectives, better gifts that one has, and there should be an interest in accumulating these gifts as available vessels (12:31).
6. There is a significance regarding the spiritual gifts of the individual at the coming of Christ (1:7). Perhaps there will be an accountability of all those who were stewards of these “spiritual gifts”.

1 Corinthians 12:5
“There are different kinds of administrations, but the same Lord”.

The term here behind “administrations” is diakonia, and is the function of the same Jesus Who is confessed to be “Lord to the glory of God the Father” by “every tongue” (Philippians 2:9-11).

Some notes from the context are in order:
1. The only other time Paul uses this term in this letter is in regards to service by the “house of Stephanas to the saints” (16:15).
2. In his letter to the Ephesian believers, Paul said that some of the gifts, also mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12 (referred to in point 3 under 12:4’s commentary), were for the work of the diakonia (Ephesians 4:12). Or, the gifts were given by the Holy Spirit (12:4) for Jesus’ “ministries” or “administrations” to His body, the church (Ephesians 4:12).
3. In his letter to the Colossian believers, Paul said that a certain “Archippus” was given a diakonia (“ministry” or “administration”) from the Lord Jesus (4:17).
4. One can only conclude that the “gifts” are given by the Holy Spirit as He sees fit. “How” the “gifts” are used is the function managed by the Lord Jesus. That is, “how” His body benefits from these gifts, is up to Him.
5. Another way to say it is that the Holy Spirit determines the “what” concerning the gifts to each believer, and Jesus determines the “how” concerning their use.

1 Corinthians 12:6
“There are different kinds of activities, but the same God”.

The term behind “operations” is energema, and is the function of the Father. The reason one can say it is the Father is because “God” is indicative of “the Father” in the New Testament as seen all through the Gospel of John where “God” is contrasted with “the Word which was made flesh” (John 1:1, 14). This Greek word is used only twice in the New Testament, and both of these occurrences are found in this passage (12:6,10).

One might expect that the Holy Spirit is responsible for the “energy” or the “effect” of these spiritual gifts. However, the Father is given the credit for this.

Some notes from the context are:
1. The Holy Spirit of God is given the credit for the assignment of “spiritual gifts” to members of Christ’s body.
2. The Son of God (Jesus) is given the credit for the usage (exercise, mode) of these “spiritual gifts”.
3. God is given the credit for the effects of these “spiritual gifts”. Of course this seems quite Sovereign of God to be able to dictate the result of the exercise of “spiritual gifts”, but God is previously given the credit for the responders to Christ’s offer of salvation (6:37, 39, 44, 65; 10:29).

Conclusion: The Discipleship process is incomplete without the exercise of one’s spiritual gifts within the church. God had in mind, first of all, that all men profit from one another’s gifts as they are growing in Christ. Secondly, God’s process of discipleship involves the identification of the convert’s gifts so that he can see how he fits into the body of Christ. 1 Corinthians 12, Romans 12, Ephesians 4, and 1 Peter 4:10 make these statements clear.

Did Tongues Cease?

Well, if they did, you can't prove it with 1 Corinthians 13:8.

1 Corinthians 13:8 speaks of the gifts (tongues and prophecy) in particular ceasing when the “perfect” arrives. The question is, “What is ‘that which is perfect’?”

This can prove to be a double edged sword since these gifts are definitely going to last until “the perfect comes”- or at least, these “imperfect gifts” will be forever unnecessary only when “that which is perfect is come”.

Whatever "that which is perfect" is, it was in the future tense from Paul’s perspective. Furthermore, the cessationist argument from this passage is weak as it could just as easily be the “perfect age” or the “perfect Christ” or the “perfect kingdom”.

Why do these gifts “make a comeback” after we already have the “completed canon” anyway? You cannot have it both ways. Why do these "gifts" immediately precede the Day of the Lord (2,000 years later- yet, still the “last days” according to Joel in Joel 2 and Peter in Acts 2) after the New Testament has already been completed?

ANSWER: Because "that which is perfect" is not the completion of the NT.

God is Sovereign and I am Chosen!

Read 1 Peter 1:2

1. Notice the election is in accordance with the foreknowledge of God.

2. Both the cause (obedience) and the effect (sprinkling of the blood) are results of "election" and "foreknowledge". His mention of “election” (His sovereignty) and “foreknowledge” (His omniscience) does not chronicle their placement in order of occurrence.

3. Be careful, though, about making every "election" passage mean "chosen to salvation":

Consider 1 Timothy 5:21: I think, when compared with Isaiah 14, Ezekiel 28 and Revelation 12, you can see these angels were "elect" because they chose to stay in Heaven. In other words, "elect" means "Divine" or "favored". Consider 1 Peter 2:4-6: We see that God was kind enough to define "elect" twice as "precious" (or "divinely favored" as above). Otherwise, you would have to believe God chose which angels would not rebel.

Therefore, when we see "believers" as "the elect" in the New Testament, we are seeing them as "divinely favored" because of our decision to trust Jesus Christ. Now, whether we were "predestined" to believe is a conversation for another time. The purpose of this short post was to hinder us from always interpreting "election passages" as "God choosing those whom He wished to believe on Him beforehand."

Lots of stuff going on back there!

Well, I heard yet another message that spoke of my name being written in the "Lamb's Book of Life", and thought, "I am so upset about this". Revelation 17:8 says that it was written there before the "foundation of the world". In other words, God's foreknowledge allowed Him to complete this book before creation.

Then, the author of the book of Revelation brought another verse to my mind that I had read many times previously-- Revelation 13:8 which says Christ was "slain from the foundation of the world". I think we would all agree that Jesus didn't die before creation.

Romans 4:17 describes God as one Who "calls those things which do not exist as though they did".

In other words, I'm eating crow. I can no longer prove that this book actually existed anywhere before the foundation of the world (besides in the mind of God).

Is the "fig tree" Israel?

Mark 13:28 says, "when the fig tree's branches have become tender, and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near".

I have heard preachers for some time say Mark and Matthew (in Matthew 24:32) are speaking of Israel when they speak of the fig tree. Well, there are times when this image is used to speak of Israel, but is that the intent here?

I love these Gospels! Luke clears it all up for us. He does? Yes, he does. If one takes Mark and Matthew at face value, perhaps it is just as likely that Christ was speaking of Israel as it was that He was just using "the budding fig tree" as a handy example of what signs of soon-coming events looks like.

These Gospels don't contradict. They do, however, give extra details of accounts that the other two guys cover in less detail. Luke 21 says "Look at the fig tree, and all the trees".

Israel cannot be the "fig tree" or else the rest of the world would be included ("all the trees"), and hence, every nation on earth would have to be extinguished and rebirthed the generation prior to Jesus' return.

Deaf Dogs, Open Gates, Apathetic Mormons, and a New Convert

Today, on Walker Avenue in Wahiawa, I took a little while and decided to distribute some tracts door to door.

I cannot tell you how protected I felt. I would see signs of "Beware of Dog", and see no signs of dogs! I would go up to the door, leave the tract, and make my way towards the driveway only to hear a furious dog behind me! I turned around about three times to see different dogs, with chains fully extended, wondering how I could get past them.

I felt guided. I found a three-floor apartment complex. I went to the top floor only to look down and see the driveway I had just entered on foot was now closed off with a gate. "How did I get through there?" I don't know, but it sure is easier to tract 30 doors behind security fences when the gates are opened.

I passed another Mormon temple here in this town. I thought I had seen the only one in town, only to find this 2nd temple as well. So, I went in, and carefully feathered out a number of tracts (entitled "Mormonism Has Another Jesus") on two separate tables. Nobody got up out of the service to "greet the visitor" who was wearing neither black pants nor a white shirt. Interesting. Anyways, I trust the stragglers or fringe-types were blessed by the "Mormon Tracts" in hallways and foyer.

Then, there is Jeff Talupa. I suppose he is in his early to mid 20's. The short story is that I pled with him concerning the claim of Jesus Christ upon his life as both Lord and Savior. He told God that he was trusting the death of Jesus on the cross to pay for his breaking of the commandments. I told him I'd be back in a couple of days to share some more Scriptures with him. Maybe we can get a house Bible study started before I leave. At any rate, I will not drop this discipleship ball.

God protects, guides, and converts. We are seeing rudimentary examples of Acts' sleeping guards, swinging gates, and religious "nair-do-wells" who halt between two opinions. Oh, God still saves sinners, too.

Mark, what's this all about? 1:1

Have you ever read 1:1 of Mark? He tells us that his story, which begins with Jesus' baptism at age 30 (Luke 3), is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Do you find this odd? Have you ever been told that Jesus' ministry, which began at His baptism and ended sometime before His ascension, is the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

"His ascension", you say?

Look at 16:15, and find Jesus commanding His disciples to preach the Gospel. 3 verses later, He's going up.

You can learn alot by reading your Bible.

The Commander's Interview

About 2 months ago, I got a new commander. Yipee, huh? Anyway, he decided he wanted to interview every soldier in the company for 30 minutes. My time came on a Monday in early January.

There was a brief questionaire to fill out. We had to tell so many things about ourselves, our goals, what we thought should be sustained or improved within the company. I filled it out.

Then, we met. I gave him the bottom line of my remaining two months in the company. "I'm going to be a Chaplain Candidate".

After about 20 minutes of philosophizing about what's wrong in his company, he asked me to tell him something about myself that wasn't on the paper.

So, I began to tell him my testimony. He heard the gospel-the death of Christ "for our offenses", and his "rising for our justification" (Romans 4:25). He heard about my coming to faith in the work of Christ. He heard about the wicked hopelessness of the world. He heard an invitation to "whosoever will".

God is certainly good to allow me to witness to my commander. This has happened a several times since I've been in the Army.

America is a needy mission field. The military is a field for "incarnational ministry" that is 2nd to none!

Ministry Requires Proximity

Ministry Demands Proximity
The first thing I had to do was to break down this phrase, and see if there was an easier way to say it to my children.“Service demands availability”.
“My meeting of needs requires my presence”.

How did this pan to the ministry of the Lord?
“Salvation requires incarnation”.

How does this apply in the professional, full-time, vocational ministry?
“One cannot pick cotton if he spends no time in the field”.

Probably most significantly, is the course material’s “On Team Building” which defines this phrase as “Sharing in someone’s life”. This seems entirely incomplete, and so vague. The intent of the author is met, however.

Mark 3:14

Here is Jesus wanted his disciples to be with Him, and to go forth to preach… We find involvement in two aspects within this verse:

1. Jesus wanted to be in the midst of His disciples. He wanted them to be effective disciples so He spent some time with them to make it so. If one examines the last week of Jesus’ life, he or she might wonder how effective of a disciple-maker Jesus was. The proof can be seen under two months later, however, when they are used mightily of God to bring forth fruit that remains.

2. Jesus understood that disciples who made disciples could not always be around Him. There had to be some time when they left His presence, and became present in another’s life. They went forth. They went out. They left the comfort to accomplish a mission. They didn’t set up shop in a storefront, and simply put in advertisement in the paper. They went out, and met needs in the proximity of the people.

Acts 4:13
The religious leaders of Jerusalem are questioning Peter and John concerning the healing that took place at the temple in Jerusalem and the subsequent sermon that Peter preached (3:12).

They noticed, from these men’s works and words that they had spent some time with Jesus. The prayers they prayed; the boldness they displayed; the lame man standing before them. All these were evident of time spent with the Master—so much so that they said in verse 20: “We can’t help but continue on as witnesses”. They could just as easily have said, “We cannot change. We’ve spent too much time around the Master, and His ways, His vision, His practices, His mannerisms, His figures of speech, His personality, His temperament are ingrained in us. Though we are individuals, no doubt, still our familiarity with the master has allowed us to be who we are today in front of you”.

They were in close proximity to Jesus. Jesus spent time with them. Jesus wouldn’t have settled for “three to thrive” thinking that He had covered the bases on the main services of the week. He invested His life in them. Jesus would not have called a message board quality time with His men. He would not have counted a monthly men’s prayer breakfast as discipleship. Time spent together discussing things that were eternally significant followed by time spent together practicing the theory is what set the disciples apart.

1 Thessalonians 1:5; 2:6-10
Paul states that these believers know what it is to see a powerful Gospel. This is was made possible by the presence of Paul in the proximity of these believers. This power, assurance, and fruit of the Holy Ghost (1:5) manifested itself in gentle nourishment at the hands of Paul and his companions.

What men of today’s ministry are able to say, “I have imparted my soul to you?” What commitment! “I have spent so much time around you giving you what I have in the area of maturation that I feel like you have a part of me in yourselves—the way you believe, the way you witness, the way you behave. It reeks of me! I worked with you all day and through the night at times to reach your friends, to study the Scripture, to know God through prayer, and to answer the touch questions. I lived righteously in front of you.”

Even more astounding is how sure Paul was that these believers would find him “unblameable”. He was sure all of his time in Thessalonica was a stupendous example of virtue and consistency for his disciples to behold. They would not be left without an example

What does an environment like this look like?
Perhaps it would be better to write what it would not look like. This environment would not look like a bowling league or a glee club. This would not look like a program with boxes to check or clocks to worship. There wouldn’t be priorities that struggled with emplacement of the minister’s allegiance and investment. There would be less “church-hopping”, and church splits. People would be less prone to speak so flippantly about the ministry. The pastor wouldn’t be the popular dude who gets the cheers of everyone when he cannot point to a single convert of his from the last five years. There would be less talk, and more walk. There would be less complaining and more praying. There would be less experts and more students.

This almost sounds like an environment of revival.

What do "Noah's Commission" and the Great Commission have in common?

Genesis 9:1 commands Noah and his descendants (of which you are one) to fill the earth.

Acts 1:8 commands the disciples and their spiritual descendants (of which you saved folks are some) to reach each of these descendants of Noah.


Remember

It took a tower of Babel to confuse the people and scatter them (Genesis 11:1-8).

It took persecution to get the believers of Jerusalem to scatter to the "regions beyond" (Acts 8:1-8).

The vehicle- God provides again

Many of you dear folks know that vehicles don't get shipped as fast as people do. So we knew we were going to have to do without our van on one side of the trip or the other--or both. So, we took the 33 "usual" days it takes to ship a vehicle, and put it on this side. Low and behold, a friend from church finds out about it and offers us the use of her 2nd vehicle (since her husband is deployed).

So, we shipped our vehicle today, and picked up this sister's van for our use until we leave the island. Praise God!

Ever Faithful- My Jireh!

I have been busily job searching for sometime.

At the same time, we have been praying that we would be able to work on paid staff at the church where I was to have an internship. I was concerned at how much I could really contribute to my ministerial training at the church if I was taking college classes and working full time.

Praise God. I received confirmation this morning that I will be able to have what my family has been requesting from the Lord.

What did Paul do about discipling?

“Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you.” (Philippians 4:9)

What is apparent about Brother Paul is that he is terribly consistent and that his preaching is inseparable from his lifestyle. He didn’t know what it was to have a “walking” message, and then to have a “talking” message.

The book of Philippians was written approximately 10 years after the founding the church in Acts 16, and Paul was obviously involved with teaching as is obvious with his reminding them of their “learning and receiving.”

Let it also be said, however, that there was some observation of the lifestyle of Paul to pair up with his speaking and teaching. The first two verbs refer to “Paul’s own teaching; the second two his personal example”. 2 Timothy 2:2 is clear with Timothy’s observation—hearing “of Paul among many witnesses” could mean either that he heard from Paul personally “among many witnesses” or that he heard from Paul, 2nd hand, “through many witnesses”. It really depends on how one takes the little word “of”. What is not up for debate is that Paul had a reputation “among many witnesses”.

So it was among the Philippians “heard” and “saw” things concerning Paul either first hand or second hand as 3rd person disciples watching the work get done. This idea of having traveling “understudies” was not abnormal as seen in Acts 17:10 and 20:4. Paul used these men, in part, to pastor the churches he labored to plant as is the case with Timothy and Titus (1 Timothy 1:3; Titus 1:5).

Much can be said about the practice of ministry today-beginning with the setting out of disciples in two’s beginning in Matthew 10 and continuing through Acts. If, however, people follow the example of Jesus, His expectation was for His disciples to be preachers as well (Mark 16:15). Therefore, if we are to take discipling as seriously as Paul, then the expectation for all believers should be to become zealous disciples discipling others.

Maxie D. Dunnam, The Communicator’s Commentary: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon (Waco: Word Books Publisher, 1982), 316.

Archibald M. Hunter, The Layman’s Bible Commentary: Volume 22 (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1968), 107.

The road to the Chaplain Candidacy "Where He leads, He feeds"

One of the problems we had with getting out in the firstplace was that we would be losing our Tricare health insurance and SGLI life insurance. Why? Well, as I've stated, I would be discharged from Active Duty to be in the Individual Ready Reserve. This is totally non-deployable and is used provisionally to get us the occasional training we would require.

I got an email yesterday from the Chaplain Candidate manager (a Lieutenant Colonel at the Pentagon) saying that Chaplain Candidates are no longer IRR, but are now "Reserve Select". Wow! Then, he explained what that means.

I'll still be an 2nd Lieutenant in the Army Reserve, but I'll be able to get Tricare medical and my SGLI life insurance for a miniscule premium! Wowie!! Do you believe this? Every little hurdle just so happens to be someone else's fight as well!

I learned on a little trip returning from Colorado in July 2000 that while we're steaming over how we're going to handle something, God is already fighting for us on the other end! "The Lord shall fight for you!" were the words of Moses, to which God replied, "Speak unto the children of Israel, that they go forward!" Exodus 14:14-16.

The road to the Chaplain Candidacy "Where He guides He provides"

Thank God for having His way in the whirlwind!

How encouraged I was to hear from by friends Sean and Jim from North Carolina last summer! They said the post-911 GI Bill was going to pay housing allowance to full time college students who have been veterans in the armed services!

After I applied for the chaplain candidacy, I read up a little on this benefit and found that the approved Distance Learning program I was enrolled in was not eligible for this benefit because it was...not a residency program.

I had tried three times, at least, to get the VA to grant me some kind of waiver or exception to policy. I was getting rather flabbergasted when the "Army Times" came out with an article on the "GI Bill Fairness Act" that will grant the housing benefit to Distance Learning students as well.

What a blessing! It hasn't been voted on yet, but by the time I need it, I am quite sure God will have moved in a mighty way! "Brethren, pray for us!"

This thing called "tithing"

I had a man who I would call a good friend discuss tithing with me not long ago. I was challenged to revisit the issue. I sought the help of R.A. Torrey's Treasury of Scripture Knowledge for help.

This is a handy little tool that gives you innumerable cross references for pretty much any reference in the Bible. I highly recommend it for your next book.

Malachi 3:10 is the flagship verse for those who wish to say that tithing is still required for NT believers. Take your Bible out and read it now.

"The storehouse" and "My house" are key phrases in this verse. If they can be said to be the NT church today, then, there is mighty-fine reason to believe we are to carry on with this practice.

Numbers 18:24, 2 Chronicles 31:4-10 and Nehemiah 10: 33-39;12:44,45;13:5-12
These verses have the people of Judah bringing their firstfruits (also called "tithes") to the temple so that those who worked in the temple would be able to eat.

Ok, we are told in 1 Timothy 3:15 that the "church" (God's saved, baptized, committed people) is "the house of God" (See also 1 Peter 4:17). Easy enough? We're also told in 1 Corinthians 9:13,14 that the pastors ought to receive the same benefit as the priests of old who served in the temple. We are to "esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake (1 Thessalonians 5:12), and count them "worthy of double honor" (1 Timothy 5:17).

1 Corinthians 16:2 and "store"
I suspected that the words "in store" in this verse was the same Greek word found in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) translated "storehouse" in Malachi 3:10. Most scholars I have read after believe this Septuagint translation was done around 250B.C. (except one "scholar" named "Ruckman" who said it didn't show up until the time of Origen--cough).

David Sorenson, in his "Understanding the Bible" Commentary confirms this very thing (same Greek word in the Septuagint) on page 168 of volume 10. They are the same word in Malachi 3:10 and 1 Corinthians 16:2. Paul was saying, more than likely, "every one of you lay in the storehouse each Sunday..." The Apostle Paul was probably implying that the church was to have a "fund" (if you will) that was made up from the tithes of God's people. Caring for the poor saints, in addition to paying the salary of the pastor(s) is the responsibility of the NT storehouse.

So, there you have it. It's not only good practice with most financial planners to give 10%, it's Biblical!

What is a Disciple?

The Description and Definition of Discipleship
An Essay by WJ Sturm

The definition of discipleship could easily be stated as, “the act of making disciples”. This can be further stated as “an adherent to the doctrine of another”.[1] A disciple is one who takes diligent care to follow the teachings of the one to whom he has committed him or herself. Therefore, “discipleship” is the “act of making people who adhere to the teachings of another.” Moreover, it will be shown that “discipleship” is “the act of making followers of yourself.”

Disciples of Jesus are Believers in Jesus
Perhaps, this is an adequate time to mention what Jesus said concerning His disciples: “Then said Jesus to those Jews who believed on him, ‘If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;’” Jesus never intended on any believers to become disciples “later on in life”. What would be the result of soul-winning churches today if people were called to, instead of “faith in Christ ending in a trip to Heaven”, a new lifestyle consisting of a new Master teaching a new set of values through which to live this life in preparation for the Heaven He has provided for believers?

The word behind “believers” in the above verse (John 8:31) is mathetes which means “a learner”.[2] Yet, the vast percentage of “believers” have not learned much truth in the recent years. The reasons are numerous, but the trend is to use “discipleship” as another “feather in the cap” whenever it is sought (no matter how seldom)—much like being a success on the job or in the home.[3] The dilemma arises, and the fakes are “called out” when things aren’t going perfectly in every other area of life: All of the sudden, the non-paying “success” of discipleship goes out with the trash.

Disciples of Jesus spend a great deal of time with Him
This seems almost too easy, but “physical proximity” has much to do with how well people are discipled.[4] Disciples, pupils, and learners do not treat their teacher and leader is nothing more than the captain of the bowling team whom they would like to see once or twice a week. This is a relationship to which both parties commit for a longer term. It is, after all, a changed lifestyle. One cannot expect to become an “adherent” to the teachings of someone else if they cannot have personal contact with them on a regular basis.

Disciples of Jesus are Disciples of those who were Disciples before them.
That is, every leader in the Christian faith since the time of Christ, officially or non-officially, was at one time, a disciple. There are no good leaders who did not master “following”. Furthermore, one cannot dishonor God’s “stand-in” and still claim to honor God. “The powers that be are ordained of Him, after all” (Romans 13). But in a less legal sense, authority is something to which the true disciple and believer submits himself to all of his days upon this earth. “Whenever a few brothers in Christ come together, immediately a spiritual order falls into place”.[5] Furthermore, Christ knew “the mission would outlive [the disciples whom He personally taught]” thus fulfilling the spirit of 2 Timothy 2:2 and the idea of multi-generational discipleship.[6] Rayburn is careful to point out that Acts 9:1 and 14:21 uses the term “disciple” as though the audience spoken of was made up of first-hand listeners of Christ…yet Luke’s reader has no guarantee that this is the case![7]

Furthermore, as John 8:31 established believers as “disciples”, Jesus prays later in this Gospel (17:20) for His anticipated grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc…, in the faith through the words of those who heard Him.

It must be said again, one cannot be a disciple of Jesus unless he is a disciple of one who also was a disciple of Christ through the discipline of yet another before him. Paul told the Corinthians to be followers of him as he followed Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1) whereas he told the Philippians to mimic his actions (Philippians 4:9). If the faith today’s disciples adhere to is not the faith “once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3), today’s disciples are not disciples of Christ—nor, as we have seen, are they to be counted as believers in Christ (John 8:31).

This idea of passing down God’s truth should be no great marvel. As Quinn points out, this is not a practice original to the church. This began in its Jewish roots when “Moses instituted a discipling process between fathers and sons” in Deuteronomy 6:6-9).[8]

Conclusion
To be a disciple today, one must be a diligent student of the teachings of Christ under both the Spirit of Christ and pastors whom He has given to the church. These are not the necessarily the professionals. These are merely disciples who, too, have listened to the voice of Christ, and spent much time with pastors “according to [the heart of God]” (Jeremiah 3:15) which resulted from a life-changing decision that occurred when he or she became a believer (John 3:16; 8:31).

[1] Noah Webster. American Dictionary of The English Language (San Francisco: Foundation for American Christian Education, 2002), ___.

[2] James Strong. The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990), 54.

[3]George Barna. Growing True Disciples (Colorado Springs: Waterbrook Press, 2001), 38.

[4] Merrill C. Tenney. The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible Volume 2 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 130.

[5]Watchman Nee. Spiritual Authority (New York: Christian Fellowship Publishers, 1972), 22-23.

[6]Bill Hull. The Disciple-Making Church (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 21.

[7] Walter A. Elwell. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 235.

[8]John MacArthur. Pastoral Ministry (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2005), 262.

A word in season Isaiah 50:4

Take a moment and underline this verse in your Bible. It's one of my favorite verses (certainly not because I have attained). It's a good reference along with Proverbs 25:11.

Notice some explications and implications:

1. God has to make you sound educated.
2. You have to listen well to be educated.
3. You become educated so you can be an encouragement to someone who is weary.
4. You still have to be timely to be encouraging (the "right" thing at the wrong time is really the wrong thing).
5. We listen best when God starts the conversation (don't worry, He's always talking).
6. These conversations should happen daily (you can only bear one's burden as you bear yours-- Galatians 6:2,5).
7. There is always someone worse off than you--someone who is just plain weary.

Let's talk a minute about the "Judgment Seat of Christ"

This terminology is found in Romans 14 and 2 Corinthians 5. It has often been said, especially in the last 100 years by guys like Larkin and Schofield, Ironside and Ruckman, that this is a place that only believers go to.

Based on the word thronos being used in Revelation 20 when speaking of a "Great White Throne", I would say these guys are right. By the way, this word is used only of the throne of God in the Greek NT.

The point of contention is this idea that only rewards will be given out for these believers based on the popular notion that the bema seat has a background found in Greek olympic-type games where rewards are given out.

Before your blood pressure starts to rise, consider that this same word is used of Pilate's seat (Matthew 27:19, John 19:13), Herod's seat (Acts 12:21), Gallio's seat (Acts 18:12,16,17), Festus' seat (Acts 25:6,17), and Ceaser's seat (Acts 25:10). So, I guess these guy's were just interested in rewarding Jesus, James, and Paul, right?

Probably not. So, there should be some idea here that more than rewards will be given out at the Judgment Seat of Christ which will be attended by all believers.

You can have me...you can have my stuff.

2 Corinthians 12:15-- Brother Paul gave the above sentiment when he said, "I will very gladly spend and be spent for you".

This has rung in my heart for many days now, along with John 13:35, as the most effective way of showing one's love to the brethren thereby becoming the ultimate means of evangelism.

1. I will spend my resources- I wonder how many can say this. Being in bondage to consumer credit will keep you from being a blessing with your resources. Giving of one's goods or showing hospitality is almost impossible without preparation. Spending later to have now is a poor habit and will keep you from exercising the gift of "giving" found in Romans 12. I desire that gift earnestly (1 Corinthians 12:31).

2. I will spend my energy- How easy it is to say this until we realize that we are time poor. We have overcommitted ourselves to the point where we cannot take the moment to help someone. It is entirely to inconvenient, we think, to "do the work of the ministry" (Acts 7) and build up the body of believers (Ephesians 4) because we are on the way to "God's Work" (Luke 10:31,32). We're in the choir; we clean the church bathrooms; we teach the children at home or at the academy; we volunteer for the associations; we like that "do-gooders'" club, and so on..to the point where we cannot give three hours to watching someone's children while they suffer their God-given distresses (2 Corinthians 12:10).

Remember this: You can always make more money, but you'll never make another second of time.

The conclusion of the whole matter: Prioritize. Prioritize. Prioritize. You cannot do everything. You cannot do many things as they ought to be done. But you can do a few things extraordinarily! Pick some. If you are a spouse, that's one. If you are a parent, that's two. If you are the breadwinner for your family, that's three. Since you're a member of a church, that's four.

Notice what is not on the list so far? Being an "Red-Blooded" American, Die-hard Republican/Democrat, Member of John Birch Society, the NRA, side business ownership (Quixtar, which of course "is not Amway, but it is much better"), Family Readiness Group (FRG for you army folks), endless education, limitless internet activity to include forums and all such time vacuums.

Hey, listen, I want to be able to say, "I am free to spend and be spent for you", but I cannot do that if I can't keep from being so double-minded towards othere interests. And you can't do so for me if you can't prioritize the brethren near the top. I thank God for the friends and brothers that I have learned to count on. Thank you.

"I suppose"

That's my answer. When I sat reading my devotions this morning in Genesis 18:25, I came across this passage. My heart says, "YES!". My mind said "I suppose".

We're watching a 31-year-old friend die of cancer. We're watching a man that will soon be a widower in his early 30's. He'll have a 4-year-old and a 2-year-old that won't remember much about their mother.

I wondered why God allows so little of what Jesus seems to have promised in John 14:12. I feel pretty certain that if we were able to "pull something off" in Jesus' name that we would take some glory. I'm sure that wouldn't be risked.

I don't know. I feel like Job's friend to my brother up at the hospital. I just sit there and say nothing for fear that I will say something stupid, insensitive, or inappropriate.

Bob Jones University, will you please pick a team?

The following can be found at

http://www.bju.edu/about/translation.html

"Although Bob Jones University does not hold to a King James Only position, we continue to hold the widely-used King James Version as the campus standard in the classroom and in the chapel pulpit. The position of the University on the translation issue has not changed since the founding of the school in 1927. We believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible in the original manuscripts, and we believe that God has supernaturally preserved every one of His inspired words for us today. However, from the Founder to the present administration, we have never taken the position that there can be only one good translation in the English language."

Please notice how they are not KJV (last phrase). Also notice how they believe "God has supernaturally preserved every one of His inspired words for us today".

Which is it genius? Wearing blue pants and gray shirt again?

Ok, ok. Which translation has the "preserved inspired words of God"? None? Why don't you make one? After all, you have had countless "scholars" there who were up to the task to correct the Authorized Version with the Greek and Hebrew.

OOOO, that's right, BJU. You believe in textual criticism. That is you don't even believe in a perfect Greek Text! So where is the Greek and Hebrew that make up the "preserved, inspired words of God?" OOOO, you don't know because you're still discovering it along with the other folks who don't believe Psalm 12:6,7 is a very practical verse. Perhaps they are only preserved in Heaven? (Psalm 119:89)

Each archaeological dig gives you more of His "preserved, inspired words", right? What good is that? Quite frankly, if man lives by "every word of God" (Matthew 4:4; Luke 4:4), then we Baptists--who supposedly have the Bible "as our only rule for faith and practice" are in deep sheep dip! (Or maybe our Baptist distinctives are not so good-- you decide)

But wait!!!!!!! BJU says they are "preserved for us today"! O, thank God!! We people of 2009 are the first ones to have the Words of God in over 1,900 years in their entirety! "Ain't we special?" They're being dug up and interpreted for us as we speak!

Hey, all I'm saying is, you either need to say "We have no idea where His Words are at in their entirety, but we're trying to find them", or "We know which 'words' are'the words' of God, and here they are!"

Pick a team! You don't have to be KJV-only, but at least pick a team! Produce your "preserved words of God"!!

12 years ago, I left a BJ-endorsing Bible college and Baptist Church over this double-tongued"ness". All I want is to know where you stand. I don't need any longer of a paragraph, paper, or book. I don't want to know "why". I just want to know "what".

"Revelation" is Jewish- Part 4-- The Seals

Other posts of mine place the seals, the trumpets, the thunders and the vials in parallel with one another. That is, they at least end at the same time in the last days commonly known as the "the tribulation".

Revelation 6:8 makes it clear that the four horsemen, who make up the first four seals, are Jewish in that they occur in and around Jerusalem. That's right. Read it again. Jerusalem. How do I know?

Having my devotions yesterday, as preachers still do, I found Ezekiel 14:21 which says, "How much more it shall it be when I send my four severe judgments on Jerusalem--the sword and famine and wild beasts and pestilence--to cut off man and beast from it?"

I was astounded to find Revelation 6:8 said the horsemen "kill with sword, with hunger, with death, and by the beasts of the earth". Do you believe that?

Hey, I know this messes up your study Bible notes, but you should "compare Scripture with Scripture", right? That's good hermeneutics, right?

Are you beginning to see that the book of Revelation was written to people assuming they knew something about the Old Testament? Are you beginning to see it is Jewish in nature? Are you beginning to see why the church simply wouldn't be mentioned as a Gentile bride of Christ in this book in any case (unless it is the spiritual Israel)?

Hey! Are you beginning to see that you cannot have your cake and eat it too? Either the church and "The Israel of God" (Galatians 6:16) are different and you shouldn't be trying to prove a pre-trib rapture out of Revelation because it is a Jewish book, or they are the same and you shouldn't be trying to prove Matthew 24's audience is not the church (since the same audience IS the church in 28:19,20).

Which is it?

You cannot be both "KJV-only" and still believe in an "imminent rapture"!

Why do I say that?

"Imminent" means that "nothing else has to occur prior to it".

2 Thessalonians 2 says "the day of Christ" must be preceded by the revelation of "the man of sin".

Now, before you say, "the day of Christ only speaks of the return of Christ to earth 'with His saints' at the end of the tribulation", perhaps you should see all of the other places where "day of Christ is used": 1 Corinthians 1:7,8; 5:5; 2 Corinthians 1:14; Philippians 1:6; 1:10; 2:16

You will be hard-pressed to prove that the "day of Christ" is NOT the rapture with these usages. Come on! Compare Scripture with Scripture! That is Hermaneutics, right?

With this in mind, you may be interested to know that all modern versions (excepting the NKJV) show "day of the Lord" which may give a "way out" for "imminent return" proponents. So, which is it-- do you believe in an "imminent return" or do you believe the KJV is without error?

Requirements, Stipulations, Expectations

How heavy we make our burdens! Why? Can't we find sufficient resistance in the incidental trials of life without adding to it our own expectations, stipulations and requirments? What is it about "a yoke that is easy and a burden that is light" (Matthew 11:30) that just totally turns us off?

The truth is, if we want to plow with Jesus through this life, that is the only kind of burden or resistance that we should anticipate. It goes with 1 John 5:3 which says "His commandments are not grevious". Why? Because His requirements, stipulations and expectations are reasonable.

Micah 6:8 gives us three things the Master requires:
1. Do justly,
2. Love mercy,
3. Walk humbly before God.

I would suggest that these three things are easier in their scope, but more difficult in their attainment, and that is why we add to the list. If we can add 50 or 60 things to the list, then achieving or attaining 50 out of 60 is about 83.33%, but if we have a rough day, and cannot "do justly", we have only obeyed about 66.6%.

So, if we add things to the list that "God requireth", of course, they are things we already think we can handle, and we do those things which we have stipulated becoming "more spiritual" (though only in our own eyes), and those who do not follow suit become lothesome in our eyes.

So maybe we should try to live according to God's list (above), and find great relief in knowing the list is short, His yoke easy, His burden light.

Jesus is found in Moses' Book

Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, [Jesus] expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

John 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

John 5:46 [Jesus said] For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

See Acts 7:37,38,52,53 where Stephen equates rejecting Jesus with rejecting Moses' law.

Acts 26:22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I [Paul] continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: 23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

Acts 28:23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he [Paul] expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.

It was Me

Hosea 2:6-8

An oustanding Scripture that gave me two opportunities to underline in my Bible.

In verse 6, Israel runs off from her husband, Jehovah, much like Gomer ran off from her husband, Hosea.

God said He is going to surround their lives with thorns....to keep them in? to keep others out? to keep them together? Yes, yes and yes.

"God preserves the way of His saints" we're told elsewhere. I believe He keeps marriages together. I do believe "charity suffereth long" (1 Corinthians 13). There is no telling how many marriages would work if the couple would just hang in there a little longer. The same can be said of our relationship with God...sometimes He makes it hard to sin--inconvenient to try.

Verse 8 is a heart-softening statement by Hosea (or is it God to Israel, or both Hosea to Gomer and God to Israel?) that says, "Gomer, you're going to realize that I was the one funding your little wandering escapades. When you came to your front door, it was I who left those groceries. When you had nothing in your cabinets after an evening of working the streets, it was me left the bottle of wine on your table. I was the one who gave you the money that you then gave to your 'manager'."

Now, how many of us have gone after the things of this world in this last year for even just a moment only to find out that one day as a doorsmen in the house of God is better than thousands elsewhere (Psalm 84:10)? "Friendship with the world" is still "enmity with God" (James 4:4). At the end of the day, we'll find we've been eating from the hand of God all along.

Something is quite wrong

A week ago, somone in our church was prayed over "to follow the book of James". This dear sister has been struggling with cancer for some time now. So, the pastor, the deacons, the trustees, the nursery workers (ok, not them, but it seemed like more were going to be called up) laid hands on this dear lady.

There was then a short commercial given by the pastor for some oil from the Holy Land if anyone else felt they needed to be anointed.

Today, she took a turn for the worse.

Does this bother anyone else? When we can get someone to halfway follow the Bible, nobody seems to wonder why it is not followed all the way. Can anyone tell me how "trustees" or "deacons" qualify as "the elders of the church" (James 5:14)? I thought Baptists use the Bible as "the only rule for faith and practice". Where do we get our prooftexts for this stuff?

I suppose another point that really gets under my epidermis is that nobody asks "How come this didn't work?"

Is anyone else sick of all the prayer promises from God's Word being forgotten? How is it that we think we can "check the 'prayer box'" by closing the service out in some kind of "Brother ____, would you please close us in prayer" nonsense?

What do you do with "the prayer of faith shall save the sick and the Lord shall raise him/her up" (James 5:15)?

1. Either something wasn't followed directly.
2. Or, the passage simply didn't apply.

One thing we know, James didn't lie.

You sow a bunch, and reap almost nothing!

This is the sentiment found in Haggai 1:6.

Now, in this day and time, many will give the evangelical a semblance of conentment if they but sow the seed of the Gospel. There does seem to be a rebuke here, however.

This is a rebuke to those who, in verse 4, were making upgrades to their homes while still leaving the temple-- the place where God dwells-- a mess.

Is this a parallel to this time? Matthew 18:20, 1 Corinthians 3:16,17, and 2 Corinthians 6:16 indicate that the church (God's assembling people) is the habitation wherein He dwells.

Do we keep God's people in good shape by speaking those things that build them up (Ephesians 4:29)?

Do we truly love the brethren in word and deed? If not, this--our lack of caring for the temple of God--may be why we sow so much and reap so little. John 13:35 is still the crux of New Testament evangelism.

The Book of the Revelation is Jewish (Part 3)--remix 2

The throne room, as seen in Revelation 4 and 5, is distinctively Jewish.

1. Out of the throne proceded lightening, thundering, and voices. This sounds much like Exodus 19:16 and 20 :18 when the Jews saw lightening, thundering and trumpets. This is the same God!

2. The creatures found in Revelation 4:6 who continually say "Holy, Holy, Holy..." are found in the Jewish prophet Ezekiel's 1st chapter. They are around the same throne in Ezekiel 1:26.

3. The reference of the Lamb being "The Lion of the Tribe of Judah, and the Root of David" (5:5)is a reminder on two counts:

Genesis 49:10 talks about our great "Shiloh"--a Jewish title for "Peace Bringer".

Isaiah 11:1 speaks of a "rod coming out of the stem of Jesse". This would be the Jewish Prince and King--David. It also says a "Branch shall grow out of his (David's) roots". So, Christ, being the "Branch out of David's roots" is essentially the "root of David".

4. Reigning on the earth "unto God" (5:10) is a promise to the Jews in the Old Testament (Isaiah 60:14,15).

"Revelation" is a Jewish book- Part 2--remix 3

The letters to the 7 churches in chapters 2 and 3 make it clear that John is communicating with the 1st century-Jewish Christians who may have been tempted to not "overcome".

1. To the churches of Smyrna and Philadelphia, he speaks of false Jews and a "synagogue" (2:9; 3:9).

2. To the church of Pergamos, he speaks of Balaam casting a stumbling block before the Jews (2:14), and he speaks of "manna"- the food that Jews ate in the wilderness (2:17).

3. To the church of Thyatira, he speaks of Jezebel, the arch-enemy of everything good as the former queen of the Jews (2:20), and he speaks of the reign of Jesus in terms readers of the Jewish Psalms would understand (2:26,27 cross-referenced with Psalm 2:9).

4. To the church of Sardis, he speaks of those who have "not defiled their garments". Readers of the Jewish prophet Isaiah (61:10) would identify this as God's bestowment to His bride. Yes, that's right, the "marriage" was an OT idea. The church being grafted in was the mystery Paul eludes to in Ephesians 5.

5. To the church of Philadelphia, he speaks to them as having a "the key of David" to control some kind of door. David, of course, is a Jewish reference, but that is there is more from the Jewish prophet, Isaiah in 22:22. This is a reference to having the authority in the kingdom of David...or His son Christ.

Of course, this comes as no great suprise. Revelation in general, these letters in particular, are replete with promises of rulership to Christ's followers.

6. The church of Philadelphia is given a promise that its followers will worship at it's feet. This was a promise given to the Jews in Isaiah 60:14

7. The New Jerusalem was name that was given to convey hope to the Jews who had loved their city of Jerusalem.

As will be seen in later chapters, virtually every detail of the New Jerusalem is found in the Old Testament.

Ok, what's the point?
When one realizes the audience of a writing is someone other than themselves, they need to ask themselves, "Do I have any right to claim this mail?"

Either we are "Israel" as the spiritual seed of Abraham (Galatians 3:7).

Or, we should not look to see any implicit "church" (1 Corinthians 12:13) doctrine in this book.

You can't have it both ways.

The Book of Revelation is a Jewish book (remix of part 1)

Why is the church not mentioned, by and large, in Revelation? It's a book to Jews...just as the book of "Hebrews" is Jewish. Believers in Christ who may have been tempted to "draw back" (Hebrews 10:38,39) are found in the many references to "he that overcometh" in Revelation.

Notice the Introduction (Revelation 1)

1. "The Revelation", all of it, was a sign (Revelation 1:1). Yet, we're told that it is "the Jews that require a sign" (1 Corinthians 1:22). Matthew calls the Revelation the "sign of the coming of the Son of Man" (24:30,31).

2. Jesus is referred to as "the First and the Last" in verses 11 and 17. The Old Testament Jewish prophet Isaiah spoke of "God" as "the First and the Last" (48:12)

3. Jesus is said to be standing in front of 7 candlesticks in verse 13. The tabernacle of Moses, the Jewish place of worship, had seven candlesticks (Exodus 37:23).

4. Jesus is described as the "Son of Man" in verses 13-15. The Jewish prophet Daniel said this "Son of Man" would restore the kingdom to Israel (Daniel 7:9-14).

The Gospel to the World

I would like you to know how God is reaching the world through his servant family- the Sturms.

Door to door soul-winning, tract distribution, confrontational soul-winning, open air preaching, encouragement of pastors and teaching or preaching within the church has taken place since entering the Army in 2000:

1. Fort Jackson, SC
2. Fort Gordon, GA
3. North Augusta, SC
4. Grovetown, GA
5. Lexington, KY -- Leave/Hometown Recruiting
6. Scottsburg, IN -- Hometown Recruiting
7. Dupont, IN -- Leave/Hometown Recruiting
8. Madison, IN
9. Central City, KY
10. Sun Prairie, WI
11. Madison, WI
12. Baumholder, Germany
13. Hoppstadten, Germany
14. Trier, Germany
15. Ramstein, Germany
16. Launsteuhl, Germany
17. Graffenwoer, Germany
18. Hohenfelds, Germany
19. Camp New Jersey, Kuwait
20. Baghdad, Iraq
21. Babylon, Iraq -- 40th Engineer Battalion
22. Kuwait City, Kuwait -- 40th Engineer Battalion
23. Fort Belvoir, VA -- United States Army Prime Power School
24. Washington D.C.
25. Bailey's Crossroads, VA
26. Mount Vernon, VA
27. Arlington, VA
28. Kenova, WV
29. Fort Bragg, NC
30. Fayetteville, NC
31. Sanford, NC
32. Mubarak Military City, Egypt
33. Ali Asileen, Kuwait -- 249th Engineer Battalion
34. Al Asad, Iraq -- 249th Engineer Battalion
35. Dallas, TX -- Leave
36. Lousiville, KY -- Leave
37. Watertown, NY -- Leave
38. Oahu, HI
39. Fort Leonard Wood, MO
40. Kauai, HI
41. Fort Gillem, GA
42. Fort MacPherson, GA
43. Atlanta, GA
44. Baton Rouge, LA
45. Angola State Penitentiary, Angola, LA
46. Sulphur, LA
47. Orlando, FL
48. Chicago, IL

"We have this treasure in earthen vessels that the excellency of the power may of God and not of ourselves" 2 Corinthians 4:7

The desk clerk

I am staying at the “Spring Hill Suites” Hotel in Orlando, Florida this week. I went downstairs to get away from the computer for a few minutes. I determined that I was going to read my complimentary US Today newspaper and wait for someone to sit down so I could witness to them.

I really enjoy striking up conversations with people. I can’t get past the feeling of speaking with them with the motivation of witnessing to them. I used to “do” Amway and Quixtar and found myself always talking to them so I could ask them (eventually), “So, do you ever look for ways to make some extra money?” I still feel a hint of insincerity as I am only speaking with them to give them the Gospel. Anyway, I went to go throw my paper away, when Michael (the desk guy) asked me how I was doing.

I told him I was doing “great” and that I liked his shirt. After he complained about the hotel making him wear it he said a “thank you”. We spoke of his degree plan in hospitality management at CFU here in town. Then, I said, “On a scale of 0-10, how’s your relationship with God’s Son?”

“I don’t know”.

“Ok, 0 is ‘I don’t know’, and 10 is ‘I know, and it’s great’”.

Then, he said, “Mediocre, I guess…a 5”.

I said, “Why’s that? Have you not given this thing any thought before?”

“I don’t know”.

“Well, Michael, it’s inescapable. You’re 22. You may live to be 122, but you’re going to die. Now, you may not know if you’re going to get your Master’s degree, but you may rest assured you will die. How do you think you’ll stand?”

“I don’t know. What do you think is going to happen after you die?”

“Well, it doesn’t matter what I ‘think’, but let me tell you…I was 21 years old, a pastor of a church, a life-long Baptist, and an all-around pretty good guy, and I realized that if God is as good as that Bible says, and I am as bad as the Bible says, that I would deserve Hell. So, Why do you suppose Jesus died?”

“I don’t know”.

(Sigh) “He came to die. He came to die for your sin. He came to die for my sin. He lived 33 years to prove He could die for our sin. Otherwise, if He were a sinner, He could only die for His sin. This must mean that you would pay for your own sin if He didn’t come. Now, I would say that you and I are both sinners. Let’s just look at the 10 commandments—just one of them…” I continued with his lying qualifying him as a liar and a law breaker. I then asked him “Where would you- a lawbreaker- need to go?”

He said, “I don’t know”.

I usually go after this stuff. What do you mean, “I don’t know? When we were talking about your big plans, you knew all about them. When we were talking about your school, you knew about it. If we were to discuss politics or your parents or this hotel or your boss, you would know, but when we discuss eternal matters…you don’t know anything!”

He replied, “I just know what I believe.”

“Ok..then, what do you believe? About God? About after life? Do you really think that you stand ‘ok’ to die when you haven’t given a moment’s notice to God all day? How can you be so cold and uncaring about the state of your own soul?”

“I just try to live day by day”.

Interlude for ranting begins here: You see, reader! The masses are godless! They are blinded, yes! But they have chosen to deny Jesus Christ even in their consciences. Don’t try to blame it all on the devil! They love their wickedness, and their wicked heart is what causes the unbelief—don’t blame just the devil. Ranting Complete

“C’mon, Michael. You know that is nonsense. Nobody plans their life like this. You plan your degree, your career path, and you are more than willing to discuss it. Why are you now getting upset, red in the face, and clamming up about the eternal state of your soul? You know what…you’re an American, and you have rights, don’t you?”

Finally, I got Michael to admit he knew something. "You don't have to talk to me. You don't have to talk about God or confess anything". “Well, Michael, I certainly hope God’s American—for your sake”.

It may sound like I am shouting, but I was actually talking slowly, calmly and deliberately. I walked away somberly and like I had failed.

I certainly hope I don’t get deducted on my grade for not bringing him to a “point of decision”, but I must tell you, he made a decision at some point!

Judy, the short, white, theistic, Buddhist...yikes

The time is 5:00 P.M., and we are boarding the plane from Honolulu to Chicago. I am not sure how I am going to find my first “servant evangelism lab” to document. I have determined that I am going to serve whoever is next to me for the next eight hours of our flight.

Of course, I was thinking this in the terminal before I met Judy. The woman who didn’t sleep, breathe or relax.

There I was sitting in my aisle seat, 40H of that 767. The window seat was empty, and I thought I had hit a homerun. “I am the only one on this plane that has an open seat next to me!” This thought precluded my nestling in with a book for my comfortable trip to the mainland.

Then… there she was, at least a foot shorter than me and probably my mother’s age. She was rather rotund and quite happy. This itself is a welcome change as I am usually the life of the party. I thought this might be nice to not have to carry on both ends of this conversation. She is a doctoral student pursuing her PH.D. in Psychology in California while acting as an online professor for University of Phoenix in Honolulu. You can learn a lot from someone like this (especially when they tell you everything).

Anyway, I was able to reach into the overhead compartment seven or eight times to fish out “the next textbook” for a class she was working on. “Can you put my bag up there? Never mind, I think I have room for it here. After all, my feet just dangle. I might as well rest them on this. I am sorry to keep doing this to you. “ With the exception of perhaps an hour on the flight, she was the only one that I can remember who didn’t turn off her light. It was always on. All I could think about was the day following with its meetings and, yes, the homework for two classes I was completing through LBTS.

Juuuust as I was about to drift off into the sweet land of "oblivion", I hear, “Bill, I hate to do this, but I need to get out to use the bathroom.” She would annoy the person in front of us by jerking back on their seat to get out of our row. Then she’d come back and crinkle wrappers and shift her suitcase and ask me to put something up or get something back, or hold her “coffee for a minute while [she] looks for something”. All I kept wondering was how I was going to use this “gentlemen’s act” to get into the witnessing thing to bring it to a point of decision so I could get credit for this assignment. So far, so good.

Then, we came upon a topic I could probably turn around. We discussed my undergraduate degree in Religion. I found out, somehow, that this lady calls herself a “Buddhist who believes in God”. Naturally after reading “Unexpected Journey” in this class, I felt sharp enough to say why I thought that was an oxy-moron.

She disagreed, and I realized that this was not the way it was going to happen. I asked the Lord for wisdom, and received some (James 1:5). I took THEO 250, taught by Gary Habermas, that described how one could not really believe in the resurrection, and still get away from the words of Christ (since He is the only One Who has done this great miracle).

So I asked her if she believed that Jesus arose from the dead. She replied that she did. I went on to explain that she was believing in a faith (Buddhism) that taught her about the afterlife from people who have never been back to tell us about it. I told her that it doesn’t make much sense to believe this great thing of Christ’s resurrection, and yet deny the words that claim “no one can come to the Father but through me” (John 14:6).

We spoke about many other things, and I pled with great sincerity with Judy that she should consider the ramifications of the words of Christ for herself if He indeed rose from the dead, and what would they mean concerning her? I asked her if she would consider the claims of Jesus Christ on her life and soul if He was indeed risen from the dead.

Hours later, as we were waiting for the aisle to clear to get off the plane, she said, “By the way, you have given me much food for thought, and I will consider it”. We had a good time, and I praise God.

Larry, the old Cafe dude

It’s 3:10 PM, and I just got done talking to “Larry” at the Starbucks in the overseas terminal here at Honolulu Airport. He works at an adjacent café and he is rather elderly appearing.

I noticed by the watch on his wrist that he probably didn’t have to be working. He even said he was doing it for exercise. Of course, trips are a most welcomed time because I get opportunity to do what I like doing a lot of—watching people. I get to watch my children a lot, and everyone knows you can’t be around my two younger children without answering a host of questions.

Be that as it may, I have five witnessing opportunities I need to accomplish for this report, and Larry will be the first. I need to do one a day for the next five days. As I was waiting for my Egg-nog Latte, I noticed him sitting there. I asked him quite comfortably, “What’s your story”. He began telling me about his twenty-five years in California, but the rest of his life was here, before and after.

He spent some time running a flower business there, and had to find his way home.
I asked him if he was satisfied with his life, and he responded that he was, saying, “I’m pleased with where I’ve been”. I replied with, “Are you pleased with where you’re going?” He carried on about how he would keep working as long as he could. I then asked, “What then?” He said, “I guess I’ll just lay down and then die.”

I saw my open door—“Then what?”
“Who knows?”
“Don’t you think your life was significant?”

He said, “Oh, I suppose there is someone in charge. I’ve seen a lot of ways, and I would say it is one man?”

“And who is that ‘one man’?”

He replied, “Well, whether you call him ‘Buddha’ or ‘God’ or whatever, he’s in charge”.

“How do you feel like you will fair at the judgment?” He replied that he didn’t believe God judges people. I asked him if he thought it was ironic that he didn’t know who was in charge, but he did know that whoever it is, he doesn’t judge. “After all”, he continued, “do you think this is Heaven?”

I said, “No, do you believe it is Hell?” Larry was obviously textbook illogical. None of his reasoning made sense. He had made his own god, and it fit his wishes while requiring no rational explanation for the problems contained therein.

“I understand, Larry, that nothing is good here, but if Hell is the opposite of Heaven, are you saying this is the very worse you will ever have? Because that is what ‘Hell’ is!”

Larry basically said he didn’t know by what standard “God” would judge us. I said, “What if it is by your conduct?” Larry admitted that he would most certainly go to Hell.

I said, “Larry, are you comfortable with that possibility”. He said, “If that’s what judgment is, then I guess so”. Of course, I told him that he didn’t believe in judgment, because if he did—believing that Hell would be his—he would not be so casual about his plight.

Remembering that this witness must be brought to a point of decision to get credit for this class project, I asked him, “Larry, if you were wrong, would you want to know it?” At this point, Larry had to conclude his coffee break and get back to work. Prayerfully, Larry, who is now on my prayer list, will think of the inadequacies of his ways, and at least find resolution to his self-opposition (2 Timothy 2).

Psalm 2 Great Commission Fulfillment? Millennial Fulfillment? Both?

Psalm 2:8 has God the Father telling God the Son "Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession".

It dawned on me that this phrase is found in another place, which really gives us the execution whereby we achieve the desired endstate: Acts 1:8 "ye shall be witnesses utno me...unto the uttermost part of the earth".

Well, is this achieved? Hebrews 8 seems to say it is: "for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest".

This is achieved through the Great Commission!

O, I'm the guy on a crutch called faith?

But, you, the smart agnostic, humanistic scientist, you don't have any presuppositions do you? You don't take anything by faith do you? You were there observing everything you state occurred weren't you? You personally measured all the distances in your "red shift" phenomenon didn't you? You measured exactly how cold it was on the edge of the universe which gave you "proof" of a big bang didn't you?

You would rather believe life began on the back of a crystal? You would rather give the glory for what you see to some randomness out there? You! You also have great faith!

You hypocrite! Truly "the Fool has said, 'there is no God'" (Psalm 14:1).

I find myself asking, "Where do I fit in all of this?"

So I am reading this book for one of my graduate courses from Liberty BT Seminary, and I come across this page. I believe this quote will change my life.

"Christian churches are a subculture with their own worldviews, language, rituals, and social patterns. In order for us to evangelize others, we have to move outside of our comfortable subculture and enter into the cultures of other groups. We have to go to the world of the lost, not sit around expecting them to come to ours."

So, what do you do about page 156? I could forget it, but the nagging reality is, "Whatever I am doing is not working". Whatever my church is doing is not working. In order for someone to fit in our church, they have to already fit our subculture or they're simply not welcome.

They have to like reading 250-year old English, sitting on 200-year old seats, singing 100-year old songs, relating to 75-year old traditions and fads of the "ruling class" (which happens to be the norms of the generation previous). They have to know our language, dress acceptably, not feel like a stooge for not dropping something in the offering plate (or bag), carry a Bible into church, and don't forget...the lucky ones who find Christ, and want to serve, must first prove themselves worthy by attending 3 times a week.

I wonder why we're not effective? I wonder why we lose children, without fail, around the same age?

Oooooh, it's probably because Suzie wears britches or Johnny got a hold of a New Living Translation. Perhaps it's because they apostatized, and attended a state college only to find out that their "1-2-3 repeat after me" profession didn't cut the mustard. Go ahead...get mad. The truth is so stubborn that long after you surf away it will meet you on your pillow and nag you like a wicked rash!

Let's just say I am tired of being so ineffective. It's not a lack of programs! Get it! It's not because we need to remodel the sanctuary! It's not because we need to change the music program! It's because we are too busy being churchy! You don't believe me? Ok...name your last convert. Name your last disciple unto Christ. Name the last person you gave a ride to church.

Amen, and pass the gunpowder!

Is Judas Iscariot the AntiChrist?

Genesis 3:15

There is not only a promise seed of the woman, but there is also a promised seed of the serpent.

Genesis 6

There was a time when angels had offspring (and were punished) (2 Peter 2:4).

John 6

Jesus said one of His disciples that He chose was a "devil". Was he possibly the "seed of the serpent" from Genesis 3:15?

John 17

Jesus calls Judas Iscariot "the son of perdition".

Acts 1

We are told Judas went to "his own place".

1 Timothy 3:16

"God manifest in the flesh" in the form of His son is "the mystery of godliness".

2 Thessalonians 2

1. The man of sin is known as "the son of perdition".

2. The man of sin is "the mystery of iniquity".

If this is the opposite of the "mystery of godliness" found in 1 Timothy 3:15, then the "mystery of iniquity" is "Satan manifest in the flesh" in the form of his son.

Revelation 17

The Beast "comes out of the bottomless pit", and "goes into perdition".

So, we have a possibly literal seed of Satan (John 6) who is called the "son of perdition" (John 17) possibly going to the bottomless pit (Acts 1, Revelation 17), and coming back out (Revelation 17) to be the son of perdition (2 Thessalonians 2).

Ephesians 1:4 "Chosen! (in Him, of course)"

My dear friends, I am bewildered when I think of how man has super-imposed their theological framework onto certain Scriptures.

1. It is easy, I suppose, to give more credence to a commentator, a movement leader, or even a simple preacher or teacher of the Word.

2. It is simple to love a body of doctrine so much, that the very Scriptures upon which the doctrine is supposedly based is not even considered when articulating this doctrine. Phrases like, "Well that can't be what that verse says because it doesn't fit with my overwhelming understanding of Who God is".

Listen, that's dangerous! If you're willing to discount an individual Scripture, you are missing the trees because of "that big forest in the way"! I love my forest! It's big! It's green! It's shady! "So this tree, and that tree, and that tree, and that tree that are brown or altogether leafless can't be brown or leafless because the forest is green!"

Not only that, but for all we know, the only letters these "saints" received were this one and the book of Revelation. What if we tell these Jews and Gentiles they don't have a good understanding of "God's Sovereignty" because they don't have Dr. ______'s book on ______? Or they don't have "so and so's" book on Theology? Or because they didn't get formal training at "bottle stopper university"?

They had this verse, though, didn't they?

This verse says, "He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world". Notice that the Apostle Paul doesn't give some kind of arbitrary decision of the Lord to "unconditionally elect" these "saints" (verse 1).

God chose us "in Christ". Paul didn't say, "He chose us to be in Christ". Simply put: "He chose the coffee because it was in the cup already. He didn't chose the coffee because He wanted it to be in the cup".

How will I know when "the tribulation" begins?

This is a good question that a dear brother and friend of mine asked a few evenings ago.

1. When the "prince that shall come" (Anti-christ) makes a covenant with Israel (Daniel 9:27).

2. When the two witnesses (probably Moses and Elijah) begin their ministry in Jerusalem (Revelation 11:3).

Who is Daniel 9:24-27 speaking of?

In dealing with this assignment, I wish to let Scripture interpret itself, and I would like to suggest some points with the “Bottom Line Up Front” Approach:

1. Judas Maccabeus is the one that “finishes the transgression” (9:24).
That is, in these 70 weeks, or 490 years, “finish the transgression” will be a reality. So, what is “the transgression”? We could either: 1. Read all the commentaries man has written on the subject. 2. Or, we could read the best commentary on Daniel—Daniel. We find reference to “the transgression” one chapter earlier where we are told that a “little horn” (Antiochus IV says Miller, 225) comes out of the “goat” (Greece says Miller, 225), and commits “the transgression” (8:12) of taking away the sacrifice.

Furthermore, we are told “the transgression” would continue for 2300 days. What happened in 2300 days? Judas Maccabeus “cleansed the temple” (8:14) or “finished the transgression” (Daniel 9:24).

Does it happen within the 490 years as promised in Daniel 9:24? Yes. Did Jesus the Messiah do it? No.

2. Antiochus IV made an “end of sin” or “ended the sin offering” (9:24).
The word “sin” in this same verse is used 294 times in the Hebrew (Enlishman’s Dictionary), and many of those times it is translated “sin offering” [as pointed out by Adam Clarke (Biblesoft.com)].

The question remains: “When was this ‘sin offering’ ‘sealed up’ or ‘stopped’? When Antiochus IV “ordered the cessation of temple sacrifice in 167 B.C” (Longman, 206-207), there was “an end to the sin offering”.

The immediate context just one chapter previous does not allow for such a flow past the immediacy of Antiochus IV.

So, again, was this done within 490 years? Yes. Did Jesus do it? Not in the context.

3. Judas Maccabeus “made reconciliation for iniquity” (9:24)
Again, it’s interesting to note that this word behind “reconciliation” is used 182 times in the Hebrew (Englishman’s Dictionary), and most of those times, in the KJV, it is translated “atonement”. Incidentally, this word is not used any other time in Daniel, so immediate context is not going to help us on the usage of this word alone.

However, the word behind “iniquity” is used only two other times in the book of Daniel, and they are both in this chapter (verses 13 and 16). What is the “iniquity” in the context? Whatever it is, it caused God to bring the enemies of Israel (in this case, Greece) against their Jerusalem (9:16). Does it not make sense, then, that this “making atonement for iniquity” is the exact opposite of “making an end of the sin offering” (point #3)?

In other words, though most English translations produce “making an end of the sin offering” and “making atonement for the iniquity” two different momentous waypoints in these 490 years by putting a comma and the word “and” in between them, I submit that these are to be seen as “action (Antiochus IV) and reaction (Judas Maccabeus)” as proven in the above two points.

In other words, Daniel 9:24 could be read as: “490 years are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, to stop sacrifices and start them again to atone for the reason for which they were removed in the first place…”.

Did this happen within the specified 490 years? Yes. Did Jesus do it? Not likely.

4. Jesus brings in “everlasting righteousness” (9:24).

How can I be so sure?

Psalm 9:7 But the LORD shall endure for ever: he hath prepared his throne for judgment. 8 And he shall judge the world in righteousness , he shall minister judgment to the people in uprightness.

Psalm 45:6-7 (and Hebrews 1:8,9) Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. 7 Thou lovest righteousness , and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Psalm 96:13 Before the LORD: for he cometh, for he cometh to judge the earth: he shall judge the world with righteousness , and the people with his truth.

Psalm 119:142; Isaiah 11:1-5; Isaiah 16:1; Acts 17:30,31; Revelation 19:11

Does this happen within 490 years? The angel says so. Daniel believes so. Who is going to do it within these 490 years? Only Jesus can bring “everlasting righteousness”.

5. Judas Maccabeus “sealed up the vision” (9:24)

The phrase, “to seal up”, is the same Hebrew word as “to make an end” under point #2 above. Now, what is the “vision” and the “prophecy”?

Take note that the word “visions” is not used, in this sense, prior to Daniel 8. This word is then used 8 times before 9:24. Clearly, in the context, we are speaking of the vision that has points 2-4 wrapped up in it. Relook that “vision” if you have any doubts. Who “ended” or “sealed up” the 2300 days of no sanctuary and no sacrifice in the vision of Daniel 8? Judas Maccabeus.

6. God “sealed up the prophecy” (9:24)

Take note that the word “prophecy” is not used prior to Daniel 9. Then, it’s used three times prior to 9:24 (Englishman’s). Two of them generally refer to “the prophets”. 9:1 makes it clear that the context speaks of Jeremiah’s reference to 70 years of captivity to the Babylonians.

Does the captivity of 70 years end within the 490 years? Of course. Did God do it?

God takes credit for the captivity in the 1st place:
Jeremiah 25:9 Behold, I will send and take all the families of the north, saith the LORD, and Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant , and will bring them against this land, and against the inhabitants thereof, and against all these nations round about, and will utterly destroy them, and make them an astonishment, and an hissing, and perpetual desolations.

God takes credit for bringing them back to their land as well: Isaiah 44:28-45:1.

7. Judas Maccabeus “anointed the most holy” (9:24)

This is 1 of 13 times “most holy” is found in the book of Daniel (Englishman’s Dictionary). 5 of those 13 times are found before this verse. What do they tell us about this expression “most holy”? Daniel 8:13,14 sheds great light, as the immediate context just one chapter earlier, on what the “most holy” really is. This passage has already been expounded upon under points 2-4, but just to emphasize, this “most holy” being “anointed” is a big deal to Daniel. He would have definitely understood 9:24 as the answer to 8:13,14.

Hoehner (p.10), Payne (p.11), and Walvoord (p.6) make the mistake of stating that Christ does all 6 things in 9:24 thus, of course, making it future to us as well as to Daniel- which, of course, removes the historical significance away from the original reader (Daniel). Ray (p.4) and Barker (p.11), on the other hand, rightly apply it to a sanctuary. Which sanctuary? The one restored by Judas Maccabeus.

Wait a minute? Was it common practice to “anoint the most holy place” or “sanctuary”? You be the judge:

Exodus 30:26 And thou shalt anoint the tabernacle of the congregation therewith, and the ark of the testimony,

Exodus 40:9 And thou shalt take the anointing oil, and anoint the tabernacle, and all that is therein, and shalt hallow it, and all the vessels thereof: and it shall be holy.

Leviticus 8:10; Numbers 7:1

Conclusion
Apparently, Israel gets engaged with some sort of Old Testament worship during the 1st half of this future 70th week of Daniel thus rejecting the work of Christ accomplished once for all, and, consequently, earning the “fearful looking for the judgment of God”.

It is my opinion that a great many commentators take seriously the idea of “interpreting Scripture with Scripture”, but (again, treading on rough ground) I suggest they are far sighted in such a practice for I have observed more than 10 commentators (Clarke, Barnes, Henry, Keil, Schofield, Darby, Gill, Wesley) which have a great deal of pattern developed in looking past the immediate context to compare “spiritual things with spiritual” (1 Corinthians 2:13). This is not an effort to minimize Our Dear Lord Jesus in the Old Testament, but an effort to be full of integrity in the way I handle these historically-binding Scriptures.

the Olive Tree and those who belong "by faith"

Romans 11:11-25 describes the allegory of the olive tree. God is seen as the “supporting root” (11:18). Others have seen Christ or even Abraham as the supporting root. The Jews are the natural branches; the Gentiles are the wild ones. The reader is informed that this grafting in of the wild branches into the “commonwealth of Israel” (Ephesians 2) was only made possible because of the “breaking off” of the unbelieving natural branches. The requirement to be “supported”, then, according to Romans 11:20 and 11:23 is “belief”. Apparently there was a need to keep the Gentiles humble evidenced by Paul’s helping them to understand that their state is only because they “stand by faith”.

James 2 and "Faith that Works"

1. Notice verse 14 indicates a particular kind of faith that rejects the brethren (v15), seeks profit (v17), seeks to be without works (v18), shows no mercy (v11), and shows respect of persons (v1) does not save.

2. The viewpoint of this justification or salvation in the context is from others. That is, do others justify me (declare me rightous) in light of verses 15 and 16?

3. Abraham was justified by God by faith alone. (Genesis 15:1-6; Romans 4:1-5; Galatians 3:1-11)

4. Rahab was justified by the two spies with works produced by her faith (v. 26).

5. Consider the following as Jesus was justified by his works. [(in the eyes of others) Matthew 11:16-19; Luke 7:31-35]. Does this mean Jesus was "justified by God by works"? Of course not!

Therefore, Justification does not always have to do with salvation from sin.

Do I Have to Forgive Everyone?

Here is the wonderful lesson our family discovered in devotions last evening:

Joseph was in charge. His brothers did wrong previously. When he realized that his brothers were repentant (Genesis 41:21-23), he became tenderhearted (Genesis 41:24), and forgave them (Genesis 45:1-5) fulfilling the command to every believer spelled out in Ephesians 4:32.

We are commanded to be tender-hearted as Joseph was, and to be forgiving. When? Luke 17:3,4 say that when someone is "repentant" as Joseph's brothers, we must forgive them.

What does it mean for someone to be repentant?

What does it mean to be forgiving?

When someone is repentant, they are sorry for what they have done, and would gladly make it right if they could (as seen in the life of Zacchaeus in Luke 19:1-9).

When someone is willing to make restitution, we know they are repentant exhibiting the "godly sorrow that works repentance unto salvation", but when someone is repentant that they have to pay restitution, they have the "sorrow of the world that worketh death" (2 Corinthians 7:10).

When someone is forgiving, they are not holding one's failure (which they have repented of) in their face as a reminder of what they have done as leverage to get things from them such as visible displays of grief, misery of a severed relationship, or extra favors done to "pay us back".

Daniel's 70 Weeks

Introduction
The intention of this paper is to describe the details pertaining to the accuracy of the prophecy of Daniel’s “70 weeks”, the starting time and event for the prophecy of the “70 weeks”, the division of the weeks within the prophecy, and the purpose of the prophecy.


The Duration of these Weeks
Genesis 29:27,28 speaks of Jacob “fulfilling the week of Rachel” when he worked seven years for Laban to have the right to marry Rachel. When Daniel speaks of “70 weeks” to accomplish the six events of Daniel 7:24, he is speaking of 490 years for the duration of the entire prophecy “from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem” (9:25) until the “bringing in of everlasting righteousness” (9:24).


The Beginning of the 490 Years
Daniel 9:25 is clear that these 490 years begin when there is a command to “restore and build Jerusalem”. Daniel 9:1 speaks of this being the “first year of Darius who was made king over [this] realm”. Who made him king? It just so happens that this is the year that Cyrus, King of Persia, conquers Babylon, and thus, puts this Darius the Mede in charge of the realm wherein Daniel resides. Tenney tells us it is October 12, 539 B.C.[1] Maclaren has the date of this conquest as 538 B.C.[2] as does Miller[3], and Sorenson[4]. Halley has the date of this decree as 536 B.C.[5] as does Larkin.[6] In any case, the reader has a window of approximately three years.


Ezra 1:2 shows this command to “restore and build Jerusalem” as says Daniel 9:25. Many have tried to make this a reference to rebuilding the temple only, but Isaiah 44:28 and 45:1 knock this notion in the head as Ezra was apparently only concerned with the temple and not so much with communicating to his readership the rebuilding of the city itself. We would expect this close proximity to the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus to be the case as Ezra 1 makes it clear that this decree took place in the first year of Cyrus’ reign. The bottom line is that this is the obvious decree spoken of as it makes wonderful sense contextually on two fronts: 1. It was the decree given the very same year of this vision. 2. The timing of this decree re-enforces the answer-to-prayer nature of this vision as Daniel was in deep, prayerful distress (9:3) over the captivity of his people. The vision is even said to have been an answer to Daniel’s urgent prayers in 9:20-23.
How urgent is the answer if it doesn’t occur for another 100+ years?

No matter how these 490 years lay out on a timeline, the starting point is without dispute 539-536 B.C. when compared with Isaiah’s writings, and when considered within its context in Daniel 9.

The 1st 7 Weeks
If the reader of this paper is anything like the writer, the experience has been that of lumping the first seven and the middle 62 weeks together into one unit of 69 weeks. Two thoughts soon follow: 1. They were given as 2 units, and should remain as separate entities. 2. Dispensationalists often allow a 2,000 year gap between the 69th and 70th weeks which, in this author’s belief, is likely. Why can there not be the same between the 7th and the 8th? This would certainly allow for the prophecy to begin around 538 B.C.

Since Miller places the beginning of the 490 years in Nehemiah’s time, he offers no insight conducive to the assumption of a 538 B.C. start time.[7] Others, like Longman[8] and Halley[9] give up on interpreting the first seven weeks. Most, however, ignore it altogether.[10]

So, what happened between 490 and 487 B.C. marking the end of the first seven weeks? This author is not entirely sure from his study. Ambiguities, like “what happened after the first 49 years” and “how long the interval lasts between the 7th and 8th week” are not troublesome enough to keep the starting point of 538 B.C. a mysterious riddle.

One Year= 360 days
Let it be clearly understood that the 490 years are 360 days. Why would Daniel use the 365 ¼- day year when it wasn’t the practice of Babylon, Persia or the Jews? Revelation 11:3 and 12:6 describe half of Daniel’s 70th week as 1,260 days, which, when divided by 3 ½ gives the reader a year of 360 days.


One would rightly assume that if, Daniel’s 70th week is described by seven 360-day years, the first 69 weeks would be likewise defined as such. Walvoord[11], Keener[12], Larkin[13], Stauffer[14], Halley[15], and Sorenson[16] agree. With this idea of a 360-day year, the 490-487 B.C. closure of the first 49 years does not change more than a few months.


Conclusion
What has been clarified? The starting time of the 490 years at 539-536 B.C. ending the first “seven weeks” around 490-487 B.C. Also, it is true that the middle 62 weeks (434 years) were over before Jesus died on the cross (Daniel 9:26). Lastly, the 70th week is completed as “everlasting righteousness” is “brought in” (Daniel 9:24).


[1] Merrill C. Tenney, Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible: Volume 1 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 1055.

[2] Alexander Maclaren, Expositions of the Holy Scripture: Second Kings from Chap VIII, and Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah (New York: George H. Doran Compa