Mark 2:18-22
There is a question posed here in vs. 18. The people asking the question essentially want to know why Jesus and his disciples do not look like other disciples they have seen, mainly those of John and the Pharisees. The customary religious practice of that day was to fast, to forgo eating and drinking in favor of religious piety. This was accepted as the religious norm of the day, and now here is a man claiming to be God's son and yet does not conform to this religious tradition. But Jesus tells them that it is exactly because he is God's son, with them, that neither he nor they fast (vs. 19). The very reason they thought should give merit to their fasting is the very reason they are not fasting. Why observe a religious tradition meant to draw near to God when he is right there with them in the flesh? He informs them that fasting will take place, but it will be different and only after he leaves (vs. 20). The old way of fasting, according to law, is no longer necessary; a new way is being ushered in, a Christ-led way (vs. 21, 22). This is a great example of Jesus not looking like the cookie-cutter religious people of the day. They had embraced law and tradition, and it resulted in their questioning and doubting Jesus, simply because he didn't look like other religious people. Even John the Baptist was thrown off by this break from ordinary, customary religion. Not long after this instance (recorded in Matthew 9), he sends disciples to question Jesus' legitimacy (recorded in Matthew 11). What do we follow? Hollow, religious tradition that conforms to the religious atmosphere of the day and rejects Jesus? Or do we follow Jesus, who rejects the normal religious atmosphere?
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Friday, September 16, 2011
God doesn't need our help
Matthew 26:52-56
I love how Peter here is so zealous for Jesus that he steps in to help him and defend him, as though he is helpless and in dire need of help. Peter truly feels that his help is needed and that by intervening he is rescuing Jesus, when in fact Jesus is there to rescue him by doing the very act Peter is trying to prevent from happening. Jesus does not need Peter's help or our help, as indicated by his ability to appeal to the Father (vs. 53). We desperately need his help. We have to get out of our minds the notion that we offer something that Jesus needs. This is simply not the case (Acts 17:25). In fact, Peter's "help" here is actually an obstacle to fulfilling God's plan and purposes, not a complement to it. Our help is never complimentary to God's will, it is a barrier, because this notion that we can help stems from flesh, and flesh never has the things of God in mind (Matthew 16:23). He is the one that has to work out his purposes through us, not alongside us (Philippians 2:12, 13). He existed long before we did and was just fine. We do not meet some need he has or fill some void he has. Just the opposite. We are the ones with the void and need. He is self-sufficient, we are not. He does not fawn over us and desperately chase after us, we fawn over him and desperately seek after him. He yearns jealousy over our worship, not our help (James 4:5). All he needs from us is death and surrender, in other words, for us to get out of the way so he can work through us (Romans 6). As long as we are trying to help out we are nothing more than a barrier to his purpose (Romans 8:5-8). The song that says "You would rather die than to ever live without me" has it wrong. It should be "You would rather die than for ME to ever live without YOU".
I love how Peter here is so zealous for Jesus that he steps in to help him and defend him, as though he is helpless and in dire need of help. Peter truly feels that his help is needed and that by intervening he is rescuing Jesus, when in fact Jesus is there to rescue him by doing the very act Peter is trying to prevent from happening. Jesus does not need Peter's help or our help, as indicated by his ability to appeal to the Father (vs. 53). We desperately need his help. We have to get out of our minds the notion that we offer something that Jesus needs. This is simply not the case (Acts 17:25). In fact, Peter's "help" here is actually an obstacle to fulfilling God's plan and purposes, not a complement to it. Our help is never complimentary to God's will, it is a barrier, because this notion that we can help stems from flesh, and flesh never has the things of God in mind (Matthew 16:23). He is the one that has to work out his purposes through us, not alongside us (Philippians 2:12, 13). He existed long before we did and was just fine. We do not meet some need he has or fill some void he has. Just the opposite. We are the ones with the void and need. He is self-sufficient, we are not. He does not fawn over us and desperately chase after us, we fawn over him and desperately seek after him. He yearns jealousy over our worship, not our help (James 4:5). All he needs from us is death and surrender, in other words, for us to get out of the way so he can work through us (Romans 6). As long as we are trying to help out we are nothing more than a barrier to his purpose (Romans 8:5-8). The song that says "You would rather die than to ever live without me" has it wrong. It should be "You would rather die than for ME to ever live without YOU".
Thursday, September 15, 2011
The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak
Matthew 26:36-46
This is a great lesson Jesus is teaching here. Our spirit is willing, but our flesh is weak (vs. 41). This seems such a simple, obvious lesson and yet it seems to elude the disciples, much as it does us today. It was only a few verses ago that Jesus warns the disciples that they will all fall away on account of him that evening (vs. 31). They rebut him and confess differently (vs. 35). Go back just a few verses more and we see that he warns them one will betray him this very evening (vs. 21). Instead of contradicting him here, the disciples feel sorrow and sincerely hope it is not them, asking him one by one (vs. 22). I believe when they realize it is not them they grow a little confident, thinking to themselves they are not capable of such a thing. I believe this is evidenced by their rebuttal of Jesus here in vs. 35. This is the second time he has warned that he will be turned against, but they passed the first warning, and they feel confident they will pass this one as well. Here, in vs. 41 is the final lesson in this progression of flesh we have looked at: your flesh is weak and it cannot carry out the desires of spirit (Romans 8:5-8). You may have a sincere heart, as these disciples did, but you cannot rely on flesh to carry out these sincere desires. They truly desired to not fall away and fully intended not to, but they relied on flesh to carry this out. We cannot do this (Philippians 3:3). He was teaching them; he knew they pridefully pledged to stick with him, but he also knew they could not do it because of their reliance on their own strength and ability (flesh). This is a lesson they learn well, especially Peter. He is the one specifically addressed in these episodes (vs. 34, 40) The flesh is strong in him, so Jesus takes special care to rid him of it and show him the futility of trusting and relying on it, as he sees later on (vs. 69-75). Let us learn this lesson well as we hear our Savior's words and see the disciple's errors (I Corinthians 10:12). They trusted in something other than Jesus: flesh. Do not be deceived.
This is a great lesson Jesus is teaching here. Our spirit is willing, but our flesh is weak (vs. 41). This seems such a simple, obvious lesson and yet it seems to elude the disciples, much as it does us today. It was only a few verses ago that Jesus warns the disciples that they will all fall away on account of him that evening (vs. 31). They rebut him and confess differently (vs. 35). Go back just a few verses more and we see that he warns them one will betray him this very evening (vs. 21). Instead of contradicting him here, the disciples feel sorrow and sincerely hope it is not them, asking him one by one (vs. 22). I believe when they realize it is not them they grow a little confident, thinking to themselves they are not capable of such a thing. I believe this is evidenced by their rebuttal of Jesus here in vs. 35. This is the second time he has warned that he will be turned against, but they passed the first warning, and they feel confident they will pass this one as well. Here, in vs. 41 is the final lesson in this progression of flesh we have looked at: your flesh is weak and it cannot carry out the desires of spirit (Romans 8:5-8). You may have a sincere heart, as these disciples did, but you cannot rely on flesh to carry out these sincere desires. They truly desired to not fall away and fully intended not to, but they relied on flesh to carry this out. We cannot do this (Philippians 3:3). He was teaching them; he knew they pridefully pledged to stick with him, but he also knew they could not do it because of their reliance on their own strength and ability (flesh). This is a lesson they learn well, especially Peter. He is the one specifically addressed in these episodes (vs. 34, 40) The flesh is strong in him, so Jesus takes special care to rid him of it and show him the futility of trusting and relying on it, as he sees later on (vs. 69-75). Let us learn this lesson well as we hear our Savior's words and see the disciple's errors (I Corinthians 10:12). They trusted in something other than Jesus: flesh. Do not be deceived.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Luke 9
As I was praying today the Lord showed me something. My big frustration has been how surrendered I have been and yet the Lord has not come. The life the disciples had and the fellowship they had with the Lord has remained a mystery to me. And as I prayed today the Lord told me, "In reality Mike you are not surrendered". I am not talking audible voice here or anything but one of those things you know he is saying to you in his grace and mercy. And so I persisted asking him to show me what it was that I had not surrendered because I was sure I had surrendered everything. I felt like the rich man who came to Jesus confessing that he would do anything he had to to join in the kingdom. Jesus then showed this man that he was not as willing as he thought. I felt like God was showing me the same. And then he showed me that I was not willing to die to what I want. I have been deceived into thinking I am so surrendered and I am in actuality not. A better illustration would be Luke 9:57-62. These men were probably good people who did good things. They were obviously good family men, who provided and took care of their families. They probably contemplated the things of God and were intrigued enough by Jesus to come to where he was teaching, and bold enough to approach him and confess their loyalty to and admiration for him. But the real issue here is not that they were rebuked and unwilling, but that they were deceived. They actually thought they were truly surrendered and willing to give up everything, why else would they have approached Jesus with such confidence and boldness? And it is not that they had sin or bad things that were pulling them away, it was simply the fact that something, anything was pulling them away. Whether or not something is wrong that distracts us is not the issue, it is the fact that something is distracting us. No matter whether it is "good" or "bad" is of no consequence. Anything that distracts must go. And this is what God was showing me, I am these men. Not in my turning from Jesus and walking away but in my deception of being surrendered. We must pray and pray specifically and pray with perseverance until God shows us where we are not surrendered. And then pray and ask him to strengthen us to overcome and surrender. We can't do it alone, and prayer is our key to enlist his help in the matter.
Monday, September 12, 2011
The Parable of the Talents
Matthew 25:14-30
I find it interesting in this parable that after the master gives the servants the talents, he gives them no further instructions. They are never told what to do with the talents. He simply gives them out according to their ability, then leaves (vs. 15). Clearly they know what to do with the talents, but how? Based on the confession of the last servant in verse 24 it is because they know their master. They know what he is like and what he would will them to do with his talents. They are close enough in relationship to know his heart. Upon receiving the talents they immediately go out in the interest of the master to do what pleases him with these talents. The master is the focus of their business. Except for one of them. One servant has his own interest at heart. He knows what his master is like yet cares more for his own interest than that of the master (vs. 24, 25). So he does what he thinks will serve himself best upon the master's return. The last servant never denies or abandons the master. He never asks for another master. He simply exposes, by his actions, who the real master is, and it is himself, not the true master. The others allow the interests of the master to determine their actions, while the last servant does not. The master even recognizes this in verses 26 and 27. You can sense the master's confusion. If the servant knew the master so well and what he would want, why did he not allow that to determine the use of the talents he was given instead of the servant's own interests? How penetrating this parable is. One can know the master, serve in his household, be given talents from the master, yet all the while he is self-serving, not master-serving. There is a deception involved here in thinking that simply knowing the master and what he is like, even to the point of being labeled a servant and given property, is enough (vs. 14). Clearly it is not enough since this last servant is cast out (vs. 30). One must know the master and serve the master, sure, but also must have the master's interest and heart, bending to his will, in all things. If we know him and serve him out of self-interest we are no closer to the master than anyone else. To know him and his interests and yet continue in self-interest is, in actuality, to not know him at all. And this servant never realized it until it was too late. Only the master could expose this; the servant never saw it of his own. Whose interest are we serving? We must ask.
I find it interesting in this parable that after the master gives the servants the talents, he gives them no further instructions. They are never told what to do with the talents. He simply gives them out according to their ability, then leaves (vs. 15). Clearly they know what to do with the talents, but how? Based on the confession of the last servant in verse 24 it is because they know their master. They know what he is like and what he would will them to do with his talents. They are close enough in relationship to know his heart. Upon receiving the talents they immediately go out in the interest of the master to do what pleases him with these talents. The master is the focus of their business. Except for one of them. One servant has his own interest at heart. He knows what his master is like yet cares more for his own interest than that of the master (vs. 24, 25). So he does what he thinks will serve himself best upon the master's return. The last servant never denies or abandons the master. He never asks for another master. He simply exposes, by his actions, who the real master is, and it is himself, not the true master. The others allow the interests of the master to determine their actions, while the last servant does not. The master even recognizes this in verses 26 and 27. You can sense the master's confusion. If the servant knew the master so well and what he would want, why did he not allow that to determine the use of the talents he was given instead of the servant's own interests? How penetrating this parable is. One can know the master, serve in his household, be given talents from the master, yet all the while he is self-serving, not master-serving. There is a deception involved here in thinking that simply knowing the master and what he is like, even to the point of being labeled a servant and given property, is enough (vs. 14). Clearly it is not enough since this last servant is cast out (vs. 30). One must know the master and serve the master, sure, but also must have the master's interest and heart, bending to his will, in all things. If we know him and serve him out of self-interest we are no closer to the master than anyone else. To know him and his interests and yet continue in self-interest is, in actuality, to not know him at all. And this servant never realized it until it was too late. Only the master could expose this; the servant never saw it of his own. Whose interest are we serving? We must ask.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)