Luke 9:46-48
An argument breaks out among the disciples as to who will be the greatest in heaven. Jesus has just been transfigured before their eyes into dazzling glory, mingling with Elijah and Moses (vs. 29, 30); some of them have been engulfed by God's presence, hearing his voice, which testifies to Jesus' authority (vs. 34, 35); then after coming down the mountain Jesus rebukes an unclean spirit after no one else has been able to (vs. 40-42). After all these marvelous things the disciples begin to get the wrong impression, as evidenced here in this argument they are having. After experiencing all these incredible things they begin to wrongly perceive that it is in these incredible things that one proves his greatness. Jesus has already sent them out under his authority, enabling them to perform mighty works (9:1-6). They have tasted the greatness of God in Jesus, and now interpreted that as true greatness. But Jesus reminds them, in the midst of their "Who is the greatest" discussion that it is not in these mighty things that one shows his greatness, but in the opposite, in the small and insignificant things, such as receiving a simple child, that one shows his true greatness (vs. 48). It is when we think that our legitimacy is found in miraculous works that we venture off the path intended for us, causing us to judge and look down on others, separating ourselves from those "lower" than us (James 2:1-9), just as the disciples did (vs. 49-50, 53-54). They rejected anyone who was not like them, seeing themselves as Jesus' "elite", and others as outsiders, rebuking them and shunning them (vs. 49-50). They had a wrong view of greatness. Even after all these impressive things Jesus had done, he reminds them that he is still going to be handed over and subdued by mere men and, not only does he already know it, but he willingly accepts it (vs. 44), despite possessing the power to obliterate any and all at any moment. It is this attitude of wanting to show Christ in great and mighty works that one begins to falter and ultimately fall (I Corinthians 10:12). Jesus tells them that he is found in the lowly and unimportant (Matthew 25:40), not the big and mighty. It is our acceptance of "the least of these" that shows our humility and Christ-likeness, and our rejection of them that shows our pride and arrogance. Who do we think we are? The disciples thought pretty highly of themselves, ready to condemn anyone who stood against them (vs. 54). And he warns us that if we are not to be found faithful in these small, insignificant, unnoticeable things, then we are not to be trusted in bigger things (Luke 16:10). Besides, anyone welcomed into eternal life is greater than anyone and any work that could possibly be shown forth here on this earth, no matter the grandeur (Matthew 11:11). Our lives should be spent in the unnoticed, insignificant things, and then bigger things may come or they may not, it doesn't matter. It is our acceptance of any and all who are desperate and despised that we show our true greatness and love of Jesus, not in the big things, or the mighty things. We assume our position of humility and lowliness and then it is up to God to do with us as he pleases (Luke 14:8-11). If we assume a position of greatness and honor, we have left Jesus behind and have set ourselves up for a mighty fall. Besides, God is the one who decides what is great and what is not, we do not understand the true nature of things. What we interpret as mighty on this earth is not necessarily so. Jesus, when he was at his "lowest", on the cross, was actually at his greatest (Philippians 2:5-11; Hebrews 12:2). May this be our reality, may our exaltation be found in our humiliation, and our significance in our insignificance. All else is fleshly works.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Sunday, October 30, 2011
A Little Boy Loses His Life
Luke 9:10-17
After Jesus has been teaching the crowds for most of the day, night begins to fall and the crowds are in need of food, of nourishment. This is a desolate place and there is no source of food (vs. 12). Jesus instructs them to find what they do have and bring it to him (Mark 6:38). Let us take the perspective of the little boy who possesses these five loaves and two fish (John 6:9). He has come to a desolate place to hear Jesus, and he has come prepared, bringing with him a full meal. He has wisely planned ahead and provided for himself, knowing this will be needed where he is going to hear Jesus. Then, suddenly, several men (the disciples) approach you, asking for your only meal, and not just some of it, but all of it. Every loaf and every fish filet. Why? Because Jesus is asking for it and they are going to try and feed as many people as possible. This boy must have thought, as we would also, that this is ridiculous. After all, there are thousands of people here and his meal is so meager it will not make a difference for anyone, and most likely he himself will have to go without, as there will be nothing left for him after his meal is divided amongst the crowd. Wouldn't he be wiser to eat what will sustain him and then give what is left to help sustain others? If he is forced to go without, how will he be able to help anyone else? He has come prepared, knowing this meal would be needed. He is the wise one, why should he suffer because all these other people are unprepared and foolish? But he doesn't react this way. He gives Jesus everything he has, his entire meal, his entire means of provision and sustenance, not knowing if he will see any of it again, not knowing if he will now go hungry or if anyone will be helped, not knowing what he will do next, nothing. He simply trusts and gives Jesus exactly what he asks him for, not holding back anything back for himself or taking his fill first then giving Jesus what is left. And Jesus takes this meagrest of meals and this boy's sacrifice and multiplies beyond what anyone, including this boy, must have thought possible, feeding thousands of hungry men and women. And Jesus didn't simply give a piece here and a piece there, just trying to help as many people as possible get a simple morsel, but he feeds them until they are satisfied, and then some (vs. 17). This is a tangible example of what Jesus was trying to teach them, that it is only in losing, in giving up everything without hesitation and without self-interest, fully trusting in him and his ability and not our own, that he is able to multiply our offering to feed and satisfy thousands and thousands of hungry people. If this boy would have done as we would today, he would have helped himself and then maybe helped a few other people with his leftovers. But by entrusting it ALL to Jesus, thousands are satisfied, including this boy. What an incredible example of what he then teaches about in verses 21-27. It is in losing our provision, our means, our very lives that we are then able to be multiplied by Jesus himself into nourishment for thousands of souls, there is no other way (John 12:24). It is in saving our lives, in profiting and providing for self, in storing up for future use that we forfeit what God can and will do, and in the end lose everything. If this boy had decided to sustain his own life and, essentially, gain his own "world", then he would have forfeited, not only himself, but also the thousands around him who were hungry and without. And take notice that Jesus does not ask him to share his meal or part with what he can or is willing. Jesus asks him to give his entire meal, and not to others directly, but to Jesus himself. We must take notice of this or we will end up losing our lives, but it won't be for Jesus. We are told to lose our lives for Jesus and the gospel first, and then he will divide it amongst the hungry. It must be this progression. And this is exactly what Jesus has asked for (Luke 14:33, Mark 10:21), so we must not delude ourselves into thinking this is unique to this boy or that day, or Jesus, or that by giving even extravagant leftovers we are offering Jesus everything (Acts 5:1-11). The question is are we willing to entrust him with our five loaves and two fishes, our everything, trusting he will multiply it. Is he worth everything (Luke 12:41-44)? Can he be trusted? If not then we had better save some back for ourselves. If he can be trusted, then must give everything now, or else lose everything later.
After Jesus has been teaching the crowds for most of the day, night begins to fall and the crowds are in need of food, of nourishment. This is a desolate place and there is no source of food (vs. 12). Jesus instructs them to find what they do have and bring it to him (Mark 6:38). Let us take the perspective of the little boy who possesses these five loaves and two fish (John 6:9). He has come to a desolate place to hear Jesus, and he has come prepared, bringing with him a full meal. He has wisely planned ahead and provided for himself, knowing this will be needed where he is going to hear Jesus. Then, suddenly, several men (the disciples) approach you, asking for your only meal, and not just some of it, but all of it. Every loaf and every fish filet. Why? Because Jesus is asking for it and they are going to try and feed as many people as possible. This boy must have thought, as we would also, that this is ridiculous. After all, there are thousands of people here and his meal is so meager it will not make a difference for anyone, and most likely he himself will have to go without, as there will be nothing left for him after his meal is divided amongst the crowd. Wouldn't he be wiser to eat what will sustain him and then give what is left to help sustain others? If he is forced to go without, how will he be able to help anyone else? He has come prepared, knowing this meal would be needed. He is the wise one, why should he suffer because all these other people are unprepared and foolish? But he doesn't react this way. He gives Jesus everything he has, his entire meal, his entire means of provision and sustenance, not knowing if he will see any of it again, not knowing if he will now go hungry or if anyone will be helped, not knowing what he will do next, nothing. He simply trusts and gives Jesus exactly what he asks him for, not holding back anything back for himself or taking his fill first then giving Jesus what is left. And Jesus takes this meagrest of meals and this boy's sacrifice and multiplies beyond what anyone, including this boy, must have thought possible, feeding thousands of hungry men and women. And Jesus didn't simply give a piece here and a piece there, just trying to help as many people as possible get a simple morsel, but he feeds them until they are satisfied, and then some (vs. 17). This is a tangible example of what Jesus was trying to teach them, that it is only in losing, in giving up everything without hesitation and without self-interest, fully trusting in him and his ability and not our own, that he is able to multiply our offering to feed and satisfy thousands and thousands of hungry people. If this boy would have done as we would today, he would have helped himself and then maybe helped a few other people with his leftovers. But by entrusting it ALL to Jesus, thousands are satisfied, including this boy. What an incredible example of what he then teaches about in verses 21-27. It is in losing our provision, our means, our very lives that we are then able to be multiplied by Jesus himself into nourishment for thousands of souls, there is no other way (John 12:24). It is in saving our lives, in profiting and providing for self, in storing up for future use that we forfeit what God can and will do, and in the end lose everything. If this boy had decided to sustain his own life and, essentially, gain his own "world", then he would have forfeited, not only himself, but also the thousands around him who were hungry and without. And take notice that Jesus does not ask him to share his meal or part with what he can or is willing. Jesus asks him to give his entire meal, and not to others directly, but to Jesus himself. We must take notice of this or we will end up losing our lives, but it won't be for Jesus. We are told to lose our lives for Jesus and the gospel first, and then he will divide it amongst the hungry. It must be this progression. And this is exactly what Jesus has asked for (Luke 14:33, Mark 10:21), so we must not delude ourselves into thinking this is unique to this boy or that day, or Jesus, or that by giving even extravagant leftovers we are offering Jesus everything (Acts 5:1-11). The question is are we willing to entrust him with our five loaves and two fishes, our everything, trusting he will multiply it. Is he worth everything (Luke 12:41-44)? Can he be trusted? If not then we had better save some back for ourselves. If he can be trusted, then must give everything now, or else lose everything later.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
What We Know
Luke 8:49-56
In this passage Jesus encounters a crowd at the house of a man whose daughter has just died (vs. 49). When Jesus tells them to have faith, the girl is only sleeping the crowd laughs (vs. 52, 53), because they don't think she is dead or believe she is dead, they KNOW she is dead. It is a cold, hard, factual reality. She IS dead, not thought to be dead. Obviously this draws laughter from the crowd when Jesus says she is only sleeping. Who is this man that is going against what they know to be true? Sure, he has done amazing things like healing and feeding, but for this crowd, he has just raised the bar, not only going against what is supposed to be true, but what is absolutely, for sure, without a doubt, known to be true. And this, of course, is ridiculous and laughable. People die. This is how things are, the reality of life on this earth. And once they are dead they do not come back, everyone knows this, doesn't Jesus? We are so quick to judge this "foolish" crowd and place ourselves among the believers, along with Jesus and his disciples, believing he can and will raise this girl. How could they doubt Jesus? We know we never would. But haven't we already? In the following passage Jesus sends out his disciples, telling them to take no provision for their journey, nor make any plans or arrangements ahead of time (9:1-5). And he makes this same statement to us also (Matthew 6:25-34). He goes even further, telling us to not only make no provision for yourselves, but also to give away what provision we do have (Luke 14:33), to lose our lives (Luke 9:24), to hate those who are closest to us (Luke 14:26), to avoid earthly treasure and prosperity (Matthew 6:19-21, 19:24; James 5:1), etc. Does this not go against all that we "know" to be true? Have we ventured out with Jesus on these commands, or stuck to what we "know" to be true? Have we forsaken provision and comfort and ease in favor of serving Jesus and advancing the gospel at all costs? Because Jesus calls us to a life of suffering (Romans 8:17; Philippians 1:29), and hardship for his sake, not ease and comfort like the world desires. Which side of the crowd would we be on, those that walk according to what they know, or those that walk contradictory to what is known? The scary thing is that it is made perfectly clear that as Christians, we are not afforded the luxury of walking according to what is known (II Corinthians 5:7). If we walk according to what is known, we have sincerely and completely missed it to the point that Jesus labels us as hypocrites (Luke 12:54-56). Hypocrites we are if we walk according to what is known. Do we believe this? We would say "yes" of course, because Jesus said it and I believe in Jesus. Well, look at your life. Does it not betray your confession? Are we not quick to "amen" this and just as quick to forsake it? It is made crystal clear that those who truly belong to God will walk by faith (Habakkuk 2:4), as Paul reminded those in Galatia (Galations 3). If we prefer to walk according to what we know and can see then Jesus is of no use to us, neither is Christianity, and God is nowhere to be found in that (Hebrews 11:6). It is when we walk contrary to sight, relying and trusting in God alone that we show forth his glory and goodness, not when we live just as the lost world does, according to our judgements. This is not only spoken against, but it is sinful (Romans 14:23). This crowd laughed at Jesus because he went against their "common sense", what they knew to be reality. A synonym for "laughed at" is "to mock". They mocked Jesus because of his statement and stance, the same language used in the crucifixion scene. When we decide to walk according to what we "know" we show ourselves to be hypocritical, sinful, and we mock the Son of God. It is time to stop our hypocrisy; to stop claiming faith in Christ while living according to our own judgements and common sense, abandoning the very faith we claim to have, and start walking "foolishly" telling people that their dead children will live again.
In this passage Jesus encounters a crowd at the house of a man whose daughter has just died (vs. 49). When Jesus tells them to have faith, the girl is only sleeping the crowd laughs (vs. 52, 53), because they don't think she is dead or believe she is dead, they KNOW she is dead. It is a cold, hard, factual reality. She IS dead, not thought to be dead. Obviously this draws laughter from the crowd when Jesus says she is only sleeping. Who is this man that is going against what they know to be true? Sure, he has done amazing things like healing and feeding, but for this crowd, he has just raised the bar, not only going against what is supposed to be true, but what is absolutely, for sure, without a doubt, known to be true. And this, of course, is ridiculous and laughable. People die. This is how things are, the reality of life on this earth. And once they are dead they do not come back, everyone knows this, doesn't Jesus? We are so quick to judge this "foolish" crowd and place ourselves among the believers, along with Jesus and his disciples, believing he can and will raise this girl. How could they doubt Jesus? We know we never would. But haven't we already? In the following passage Jesus sends out his disciples, telling them to take no provision for their journey, nor make any plans or arrangements ahead of time (9:1-5). And he makes this same statement to us also (Matthew 6:25-34). He goes even further, telling us to not only make no provision for yourselves, but also to give away what provision we do have (Luke 14:33), to lose our lives (Luke 9:24), to hate those who are closest to us (Luke 14:26), to avoid earthly treasure and prosperity (Matthew 6:19-21, 19:24; James 5:1), etc. Does this not go against all that we "know" to be true? Have we ventured out with Jesus on these commands, or stuck to what we "know" to be true? Have we forsaken provision and comfort and ease in favor of serving Jesus and advancing the gospel at all costs? Because Jesus calls us to a life of suffering (Romans 8:17; Philippians 1:29), and hardship for his sake, not ease and comfort like the world desires. Which side of the crowd would we be on, those that walk according to what they know, or those that walk contradictory to what is known? The scary thing is that it is made perfectly clear that as Christians, we are not afforded the luxury of walking according to what is known (II Corinthians 5:7). If we walk according to what is known, we have sincerely and completely missed it to the point that Jesus labels us as hypocrites (Luke 12:54-56). Hypocrites we are if we walk according to what is known. Do we believe this? We would say "yes" of course, because Jesus said it and I believe in Jesus. Well, look at your life. Does it not betray your confession? Are we not quick to "amen" this and just as quick to forsake it? It is made crystal clear that those who truly belong to God will walk by faith (Habakkuk 2:4), as Paul reminded those in Galatia (Galations 3). If we prefer to walk according to what we know and can see then Jesus is of no use to us, neither is Christianity, and God is nowhere to be found in that (Hebrews 11:6). It is when we walk contrary to sight, relying and trusting in God alone that we show forth his glory and goodness, not when we live just as the lost world does, according to our judgements. This is not only spoken against, but it is sinful (Romans 14:23). This crowd laughed at Jesus because he went against their "common sense", what they knew to be reality. A synonym for "laughed at" is "to mock". They mocked Jesus because of his statement and stance, the same language used in the crucifixion scene. When we decide to walk according to what we "know" we show ourselves to be hypocritical, sinful, and we mock the Son of God. It is time to stop our hypocrisy; to stop claiming faith in Christ while living according to our own judgements and common sense, abandoning the very faith we claim to have, and start walking "foolishly" telling people that their dead children will live again.
Friday, October 28, 2011
The Instability of Jesus
Luke 8:26-39
After Jesus heals the demon-possessed man, an interesting episode takes place. This man has been tormenting this village for some time now, without hindrance, and now, all of a sudden things are taken care of by Jesus. This man will no longer be a bother to these people, which insights an unexpected reaction from the villagers. Instead of being thrilled at the remedy, they are seized with fear and ask Jesus to leave at once (vs. 37). He has disrupted the norms for them. He is too unpredictable and powerful. They are used to this demon-possessed man. It has become the way things are, and they are powerless to do anything about it (vs. 29). Now a person has come that can do something about it, and demonstrates his power and authority over this situation. The people realize their loss of control in this moment, as Jesus has done what they could not. This is too much for them. If he exerts control over situations they cannot, what more "instability" could this mean for their lives? What if he made them do things they did not want to do? What if he disrupted and inconvenienced their lives and things became hard? They have already experienced a great financial loss at his hands (vs. 32-34), and a disruption of the expected, i.e. a once predictable demon-possessed man has become unpredictably "normal" and different than they are used to. Their routine and bubble has been disrupted. It seems that this Jesus could do whatever he wants to and they are powerless to stop him. This loss of the expected and normalcy leads them to the conclusion that they are better off without this authoritative and powerful Jesus, who exerts control over them and their situations. They would prefer to control things themselves, in their own ways, even if that means cohabitating with evil (as they did with this demon-possessed man). And Jesus represents a loss of this. Is this not the same reason that the men end up abandoning Jesus in Luke 9:57-62? He calls them to a life of unpredictability, of loss of personal authority, which they cannot handle. Is this not, also, the reason the rich young man leaves Jesus standing there after asking him how to attain eternal life in Mark 10:17-22? Jesus meant losing personal opinion and decision-making. These men all realized that Jesus represented a loss of authority and control over their lives. He meant going without their own personal wants and desires and they would be obliged to do so if they chose to follow him, and this they were not willing to do. Paul warned us that Jesus would become a stumbling block (I Corinthians 1:23), and we see this exemplified here in this passage. But look back one passage, at Luke 8:22-25. We have a similar episode with a completely different reaction. The disciples realize Jesus' power and authority in his control over the wind and sea and are struck with fear (vs. 24, 25). Only their fear and loss of control lead to worship, not rejection (vs. 25). For them, a recognition of Jesus' authority meant he deserved all power and control and authority in their own personal lives, and they were obliged and willing to give it to him, whereas the people here in this village were not willing to let it go. They would prefer to run things themselves and do without Jesus, rather than trust their lives into the hands of one as unstable as this Jesus. What has our position become? Are we willing to follow this unstable Jesus into his instability? Have we desired to have Jesus only as long as he does things our way, as we expect and dictate? Because if we have, do not be deceived, we are no different than these villagers who asked him to depart. To not give him full control and complete authority in our lives is to reject him, no matter what your church or pastor or "Christian" friends may say. Either he is an all-powerful Jesus worthy of full control in our lives that drives us to holy fear and worship (Hebrews 12:28, 29) like the disciples, or he is an unstable Jesus who would do better to move on and let us do things the way we think they should be done, like these villagers. Is he God to be followed totally or a stumbling block that we have sent away? Either he is in total control of our lives and we have given up everything to him as commanded (Luke 14:33), or we have not given him everything meaning he is not in control. Do not be fooled, there is no partial or combination giving up and giving control, it is one or the other: everything or nothing (Romans 6:16). Jesus will not remain where he is not wanted, as evidenced by our refusing to give him control (vs. 37) Which is he?
After Jesus heals the demon-possessed man, an interesting episode takes place. This man has been tormenting this village for some time now, without hindrance, and now, all of a sudden things are taken care of by Jesus. This man will no longer be a bother to these people, which insights an unexpected reaction from the villagers. Instead of being thrilled at the remedy, they are seized with fear and ask Jesus to leave at once (vs. 37). He has disrupted the norms for them. He is too unpredictable and powerful. They are used to this demon-possessed man. It has become the way things are, and they are powerless to do anything about it (vs. 29). Now a person has come that can do something about it, and demonstrates his power and authority over this situation. The people realize their loss of control in this moment, as Jesus has done what they could not. This is too much for them. If he exerts control over situations they cannot, what more "instability" could this mean for their lives? What if he made them do things they did not want to do? What if he disrupted and inconvenienced their lives and things became hard? They have already experienced a great financial loss at his hands (vs. 32-34), and a disruption of the expected, i.e. a once predictable demon-possessed man has become unpredictably "normal" and different than they are used to. Their routine and bubble has been disrupted. It seems that this Jesus could do whatever he wants to and they are powerless to stop him. This loss of the expected and normalcy leads them to the conclusion that they are better off without this authoritative and powerful Jesus, who exerts control over them and their situations. They would prefer to control things themselves, in their own ways, even if that means cohabitating with evil (as they did with this demon-possessed man). And Jesus represents a loss of this. Is this not the same reason that the men end up abandoning Jesus in Luke 9:57-62? He calls them to a life of unpredictability, of loss of personal authority, which they cannot handle. Is this not, also, the reason the rich young man leaves Jesus standing there after asking him how to attain eternal life in Mark 10:17-22? Jesus meant losing personal opinion and decision-making. These men all realized that Jesus represented a loss of authority and control over their lives. He meant going without their own personal wants and desires and they would be obliged to do so if they chose to follow him, and this they were not willing to do. Paul warned us that Jesus would become a stumbling block (I Corinthians 1:23), and we see this exemplified here in this passage. But look back one passage, at Luke 8:22-25. We have a similar episode with a completely different reaction. The disciples realize Jesus' power and authority in his control over the wind and sea and are struck with fear (vs. 24, 25). Only their fear and loss of control lead to worship, not rejection (vs. 25). For them, a recognition of Jesus' authority meant he deserved all power and control and authority in their own personal lives, and they were obliged and willing to give it to him, whereas the people here in this village were not willing to let it go. They would prefer to run things themselves and do without Jesus, rather than trust their lives into the hands of one as unstable as this Jesus. What has our position become? Are we willing to follow this unstable Jesus into his instability? Have we desired to have Jesus only as long as he does things our way, as we expect and dictate? Because if we have, do not be deceived, we are no different than these villagers who asked him to depart. To not give him full control and complete authority in our lives is to reject him, no matter what your church or pastor or "Christian" friends may say. Either he is an all-powerful Jesus worthy of full control in our lives that drives us to holy fear and worship (Hebrews 12:28, 29) like the disciples, or he is an unstable Jesus who would do better to move on and let us do things the way we think they should be done, like these villagers. Is he God to be followed totally or a stumbling block that we have sent away? Either he is in total control of our lives and we have given up everything to him as commanded (Luke 14:33), or we have not given him everything meaning he is not in control. Do not be fooled, there is no partial or combination giving up and giving control, it is one or the other: everything or nothing (Romans 6:16). Jesus will not remain where he is not wanted, as evidenced by our refusing to give him control (vs. 37) Which is he?
Thursday, October 27, 2011
We Think We Have
Luke 8:4-18
How much we love to quote Luke 8:18. We always think we are the ones who have much, so we will be given even more. What a wonderful thought for us. But why are we so quick to think we are the ones who have? How do we know we are not the ones who think we have, but in the end are deceived and all is taken from us (vs. 18)? We go back to when we asked Jesus into our heart, look at present day and how we go to church and tithe regularly, are involved in a few things here and there, as long as they are not too time consuming and inconvenient for us, and read our bibles somewhat regularly, and are "blessed" materially, having all of our needs and wants met. We look at all these things and naturally assume we are the ones who have, and the world would agree, and in the future will be given even more, which even more appeals to our self-centered consumerism. How lucky and blessed we are to have so much and expect to receive even more to come! But we must be very, very careful before we begin to jump to conclusions. Let us approach this biblically, not culturally or religiously. Let us look back to the preceding parable in verses 4-15. Jesus tells us that there are several types of seed that are sown. One is obviously sown amiss and clearly misses out on eternal life (vs. 10-12). But the next two seeds are not so clear and definitive. The seeds sown among the rocks and the thorns strongly resemble the seed sown among the good soil. All three receive the gospel with joy, seeing and hearing the truth (vs. 10), asking Jesus into their heart and initially walking in the ways of the Lord. But something happens as time passes, two things begin to creep in and draw us away. The first is hardship (vs. 13). These people have "accepted" Jesus but it is a false conversion. Once things get hard they abandon the faith and move on, taking this whole Christianity thing to be too difficult and not worth the supposed benefits it offers. The next one is even more deceptive. This is where most of us would fall. This seed is also received with joy, Jesus and the gospel are received and initially lived out. But as time passes these people begin to be drawn away by those natural rights we all have, our inalienable rights as our Constitution puts it. The things that aren't "bad", that we continually ask "what's wrong with this" because we don't want to give them up in lieu of Christ. Plus, the lukewarm church and religious culture also tell us they are ok, we can have Christ and all these indulgences and pleasures, God just wants us to be happy, and as long as we have repented and received Christ then we are unshakeably His, not matter our fruit or lack thereof. This is in no way biblical, in fact it is counter-biblical and earthly in mindset. Read these passages and decide what they are saying: Matthew 6:24-25, 24:9-13; Luke 9:23-25, 14:25-33; James 5:1-6, I Timothy 6:9, 10. How can we ever say that all these self-indulgences and pleasures are ok to combine with the gospel, when Jesus is warning us here that they choke out the gospel and deceive men? Is it not alarming to us that we look just like the world, this same world that Jesus warned would hate us and persecute us (Matthew 24:9, John 15:20), and yet for some reason agrees with us today? Stop measuring yourself according to what every other christian and church says your life should look like and start measuring yourself biblically, or else you risk your seed being choked and lost. Have you endured suffering and persecution for Jesus' name? Have you lost your life, given up everything you have, regarded your life as worth nothing apart from Christ, abandoned the world and its luxuries and temptations? These are the biblical measuring sticks that Jesus and the New Testament gives us. Do we stack up? If not, what makes us think that we are the ones who have so much and will be given so much more? Because the world says so? Because a pastor told us this at some point? What does the Bible say? Have we completely missed it? We must wake up, we are the choked out seed and it is evidenced by our affections and passions and self-indulgences in this world and the me first mentality in our "Christianity". Verse 18 tells us that those who lose everything, in reality, think they have so much, but it is only deception, ultimate deception. No one in this parable sees clearly that they are without. Each type of seed is deceived into thinking they are the ones who have so much, but only one does. He who has is he who has lost all for Christ's sake, all other is deception, and it will be revealed in time, no exceptions (vs. 17), only it will be too late. Read Luke 18:10-14 and determine which man was condemned and which man was justified: the one who was so sure he had been given so much or the one who knew he had nothing to offer?
How much we love to quote Luke 8:18. We always think we are the ones who have much, so we will be given even more. What a wonderful thought for us. But why are we so quick to think we are the ones who have? How do we know we are not the ones who think we have, but in the end are deceived and all is taken from us (vs. 18)? We go back to when we asked Jesus into our heart, look at present day and how we go to church and tithe regularly, are involved in a few things here and there, as long as they are not too time consuming and inconvenient for us, and read our bibles somewhat regularly, and are "blessed" materially, having all of our needs and wants met. We look at all these things and naturally assume we are the ones who have, and the world would agree, and in the future will be given even more, which even more appeals to our self-centered consumerism. How lucky and blessed we are to have so much and expect to receive even more to come! But we must be very, very careful before we begin to jump to conclusions. Let us approach this biblically, not culturally or religiously. Let us look back to the preceding parable in verses 4-15. Jesus tells us that there are several types of seed that are sown. One is obviously sown amiss and clearly misses out on eternal life (vs. 10-12). But the next two seeds are not so clear and definitive. The seeds sown among the rocks and the thorns strongly resemble the seed sown among the good soil. All three receive the gospel with joy, seeing and hearing the truth (vs. 10), asking Jesus into their heart and initially walking in the ways of the Lord. But something happens as time passes, two things begin to creep in and draw us away. The first is hardship (vs. 13). These people have "accepted" Jesus but it is a false conversion. Once things get hard they abandon the faith and move on, taking this whole Christianity thing to be too difficult and not worth the supposed benefits it offers. The next one is even more deceptive. This is where most of us would fall. This seed is also received with joy, Jesus and the gospel are received and initially lived out. But as time passes these people begin to be drawn away by those natural rights we all have, our inalienable rights as our Constitution puts it. The things that aren't "bad", that we continually ask "what's wrong with this" because we don't want to give them up in lieu of Christ. Plus, the lukewarm church and religious culture also tell us they are ok, we can have Christ and all these indulgences and pleasures, God just wants us to be happy, and as long as we have repented and received Christ then we are unshakeably His, not matter our fruit or lack thereof. This is in no way biblical, in fact it is counter-biblical and earthly in mindset. Read these passages and decide what they are saying: Matthew 6:24-25, 24:9-13; Luke 9:23-25, 14:25-33; James 5:1-6, I Timothy 6:9, 10. How can we ever say that all these self-indulgences and pleasures are ok to combine with the gospel, when Jesus is warning us here that they choke out the gospel and deceive men? Is it not alarming to us that we look just like the world, this same world that Jesus warned would hate us and persecute us (Matthew 24:9, John 15:20), and yet for some reason agrees with us today? Stop measuring yourself according to what every other christian and church says your life should look like and start measuring yourself biblically, or else you risk your seed being choked and lost. Have you endured suffering and persecution for Jesus' name? Have you lost your life, given up everything you have, regarded your life as worth nothing apart from Christ, abandoned the world and its luxuries and temptations? These are the biblical measuring sticks that Jesus and the New Testament gives us. Do we stack up? If not, what makes us think that we are the ones who have so much and will be given so much more? Because the world says so? Because a pastor told us this at some point? What does the Bible say? Have we completely missed it? We must wake up, we are the choked out seed and it is evidenced by our affections and passions and self-indulgences in this world and the me first mentality in our "Christianity". Verse 18 tells us that those who lose everything, in reality, think they have so much, but it is only deception, ultimate deception. No one in this parable sees clearly that they are without. Each type of seed is deceived into thinking they are the ones who have so much, but only one does. He who has is he who has lost all for Christ's sake, all other is deception, and it will be revealed in time, no exceptions (vs. 17), only it will be too late. Read Luke 18:10-14 and determine which man was condemned and which man was justified: the one who was so sure he had been given so much or the one who knew he had nothing to offer?
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
WIsdom is Justified by her Children
Luke 7:18-35
As Jesus begins to perform miracles and wonders the intrigue about him also begins to grow. So much so that John the Baptist sends disciples to ask him if he is the Messiah (vs. 20). Jesus does not begin to reason with them or appeal to their logic, but instead appeals to the illogical, the incredible, telling them to look at the miracles and decide whether or not he is from God or man (vs. 22, 23). After they leave he turns the people and essentially asks them the same question that John's disciples were asking him. Why had they gone out to see John in the wilderness? To see something expected and natural (vs. 24). To see something impressive or appealing according to earthly standards and curiosity (vs. 25)? Or had they gone out to see the incredible, the unexpected, the unexplainable (vs. 26)? The same appeal that John had with the people (the extraordinary) Jesus had also. John proved his godliness through the incredible works, and so did Jesus, and so should we (II Corinthians 4:6, 7). The people praised this, but the religious rejected this notion (vs. 29, 30). The religious of that day appealed more to the logical (vs. 31, 32), trying to explain the things of God since they embraced law and would do anything to convert people (Matthew 23:15). They rejected John and Jesus despite the incredible miracles, attributing them to the works of evil (vs. 33, 34) because of the threat it posed them and their ways. They had forsaken the miracles of God and his mighty works in favor of appealing to man through the rational, through what makes sense, appealing to logic. If they did A, they expected B (vs. 32), and if anything out of the ordinary occurred then it must be of the enemy, not God, because they believed that God works in ways that we understand and can explain and that make sense, appealing to us on our level, i.e. law. But it is the very absence of what makes sense that displays God's glory (II Corinthians 4:6,7). God does not appeal to our logic and our reasoning (Isaiah 55:8, 9). And this performing of the extraordinary, the unexplainable is to be typical not just of John or Jesus or the biblical apostles, but all his followers (John 14:11-12). It is when our lives makes sense and appeal to reason and logic that God loses his glory in us. He has designed it so that our weakness shows forth an otherworldly power, evidencing that something higher and mightier is at work that is not of us. The people understood this and embraced it, running to John and Jesus, while the religious rejected anything extraordinary as evil. So, let us ask ourselves, do our lives make sense? Have we embraced Jesus' way (expecting the extraordinary, the heavenly, the supernatural) or the Pharisees' way (the ordinary, the logical that makes sense)? Have we set aside God's miracles in favor of earthly standards and appeals? How do we look different from adherents to other worldly false religions? Do we display the God we serve as not much different than we are, no different than the gods of other religions of the world? Does our life show forth that we serve a living, all-knowing, all-powerful God who performs the unthinkable? Or does our life show forth a God who does what is expected and ordinary, trying to persuade and convince the masses in? Do we serve a heavenly God or an earthly God? Do we serve the God of the Pharisees or the Father of Jesus? Because Jesus says that if we serve the true God, the living God then our lives will make no sense and consist of the incredible, as a testimony of his power and authority. Every biblical hero or figure that served God did incredible things, none lived the life of ordinary (Hebrews 11). Why would we think any different today? Have we robbed God of his glory in favor of what we think appeals more to us (Mark 7:9)? Because it is in the unexplainable and incredible that God is glorified and worshiped, not in the typical and expected.
As Jesus begins to perform miracles and wonders the intrigue about him also begins to grow. So much so that John the Baptist sends disciples to ask him if he is the Messiah (vs. 20). Jesus does not begin to reason with them or appeal to their logic, but instead appeals to the illogical, the incredible, telling them to look at the miracles and decide whether or not he is from God or man (vs. 22, 23). After they leave he turns the people and essentially asks them the same question that John's disciples were asking him. Why had they gone out to see John in the wilderness? To see something expected and natural (vs. 24). To see something impressive or appealing according to earthly standards and curiosity (vs. 25)? Or had they gone out to see the incredible, the unexpected, the unexplainable (vs. 26)? The same appeal that John had with the people (the extraordinary) Jesus had also. John proved his godliness through the incredible works, and so did Jesus, and so should we (II Corinthians 4:6, 7). The people praised this, but the religious rejected this notion (vs. 29, 30). The religious of that day appealed more to the logical (vs. 31, 32), trying to explain the things of God since they embraced law and would do anything to convert people (Matthew 23:15). They rejected John and Jesus despite the incredible miracles, attributing them to the works of evil (vs. 33, 34) because of the threat it posed them and their ways. They had forsaken the miracles of God and his mighty works in favor of appealing to man through the rational, through what makes sense, appealing to logic. If they did A, they expected B (vs. 32), and if anything out of the ordinary occurred then it must be of the enemy, not God, because they believed that God works in ways that we understand and can explain and that make sense, appealing to us on our level, i.e. law. But it is the very absence of what makes sense that displays God's glory (II Corinthians 4:6,7). God does not appeal to our logic and our reasoning (Isaiah 55:8, 9). And this performing of the extraordinary, the unexplainable is to be typical not just of John or Jesus or the biblical apostles, but all his followers (John 14:11-12). It is when our lives makes sense and appeal to reason and logic that God loses his glory in us. He has designed it so that our weakness shows forth an otherworldly power, evidencing that something higher and mightier is at work that is not of us. The people understood this and embraced it, running to John and Jesus, while the religious rejected anything extraordinary as evil. So, let us ask ourselves, do our lives make sense? Have we embraced Jesus' way (expecting the extraordinary, the heavenly, the supernatural) or the Pharisees' way (the ordinary, the logical that makes sense)? Have we set aside God's miracles in favor of earthly standards and appeals? How do we look different from adherents to other worldly false religions? Do we display the God we serve as not much different than we are, no different than the gods of other religions of the world? Does our life show forth that we serve a living, all-knowing, all-powerful God who performs the unthinkable? Or does our life show forth a God who does what is expected and ordinary, trying to persuade and convince the masses in? Do we serve a heavenly God or an earthly God? Do we serve the God of the Pharisees or the Father of Jesus? Because Jesus says that if we serve the true God, the living God then our lives will make no sense and consist of the incredible, as a testimony of his power and authority. Every biblical hero or figure that served God did incredible things, none lived the life of ordinary (Hebrews 11). Why would we think any different today? Have we robbed God of his glory in favor of what we think appeals more to us (Mark 7:9)? Because it is in the unexplainable and incredible that God is glorified and worshiped, not in the typical and expected.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Perfection Breads Independence
Creation (Genesis 1, 2)
We all know the creation story, how God made everything and saw that it was good, very good. He made a perfect world, without flaw, without all the bad things we are so familiar with. He made a man in his own image, his perfect image. He provided him with all he would need: food (Gen 1:29), kingship (1:28), companionship (2:18), purpose (2:15), fellowship with God (2:25), etc. God creates man and sets them up for success, giving them everything they could possibly need or want, seemingly. He also gives them a choice by placing two trees in the garden, one being dependence, and the other being independence. God desires their willing and voluntary love and affection, thus necessitating two trees, not one. Programmed love or forced love is not love at all. He desires for us to choose him (Joshua 24:15), as evidenced by the two trees. So we have here a perfect world without difficulty or hardship, and in the midst of it perfect beings made in the very likeness of God. Everything is good, even the two trees. How could they fail? But it is the very perfection that is the breakdown. Since man is given everything he needs to succeed, what more need does he have of God? He doesn't need him for food or provision or safety or companionship or direction, because he had already been given this. And we first begin to see this independence from God in the temptation episode. Eve has found her way to the two trees. After they are tempted and eat the fruit, God is said to be calling out for them (3:9), i.e. they are not in his presence. So where was God when Eve was at the tree? Obviously his omnipresence dictates that he was "there", but they were independent from his tangible presence in that moment. Their perfection and the world's perfection had led to their independence from God. They no longer needed him, or so they thought, they had everything already. And this independence began to cultivate in them the notion that perhaps they too were capable of making their own decisions and that, like God, it would be good. It says during the temptation that Eve saw the tree was desirous to make one wise. And here is the pinnacle that results from perfection: complete independence. Adam and Eve had everything set up for them, everything they could ever want or need, at their fingertips. And it is these very conditions that proved fatal to them. Although they "had everything", they lacked one thing. Call it what you will, but something in Eve caused her to go to that tree, independent from God, and then Satan was able to appeal to something in her. There was some type of leverage he had found within her, something that he offered or said appealed to her within her. We would wonder how a person who had everything could possibly want more? They had it made, how could they mess that up? This is where it is vital to understand something. Everything God made was good, not because he made it good, past tense, but because he was sustaining it as good. God cannot bestow perfection and then bow it, he must bestow perfection and then maintain that perfection for only God is good (Mark 10:18). Adam and Eve were perfect, only as long as they were continually dependent on God for that perfection. The problem is that their conditions, being as easy as they were, led them to stop depending on God. There was no difficulty to lead them back to God, no lacking to run to God with, no hurt or heartache to push them into his arms, nothing. There was only ease, and they began to rely on this ease and their own ability to maintain this ease, not God. We would ask how perfect beings, without the seed of sin in them, could sin. But remember, although they did not have the seed of sin, God gave them two trees, i.e. a choice, and they could only choose God and not sin as long as they relied on God himself to maintain that perfection, to maintain that choice. Although they were perfect, they still had a choice, and without dependence on God the choice will always be the same: self. These are the same words that Jesus spoke to the disciples in John 15:5, telling them that apart from him they can do nothing; Adam and Eve, although perfect and without sin, were no different. The eating of the fruit simply manifested tangibly what was already beginning to take place within (James 1:13-15), intangibly: independence from God. And if the eating of the fruit only revealed already present inner-workings, would they have ever realized their growing independence if not for the other tree and the fruit eating? Or would their growing independence have remained hidden until it was too late? At least now they fully realized their separation and need for a Savior. The other tree was a grace, the original law, serving the same purpose as the current law (Romans 7:7-12). Because if their perfection remained dependent on their not eating of the tree, is that not "salvation" by works? And this was not true then and is not true now (Galations 3:11-12). But, we would argue, they were perfect and not in need of salvation. But clearly this is not true, as evidenced by their decision. No matter how perfect, man needs salvation and is incapable of producing himself. We think that if there was no other tree, there would be no fall, would be no bad things, but something else was stirring within that resulted in the eating of the fruit. Even in a perfect world with no bad things, we tends towards and ultimately choose self, Satan did also and he was in heaven. But God desperately desires for us to learn this lesson of dependence (II Corinthians 1:8, 9), and he has given us hardship and pain to assist in this learning process, our "other tree". It is a lie to believe that the easier things are or better things are the more we will rely on and trust in God. In fact the opposite is true, and we see this ultimately in the perfection and fall of creation, that the easier things are the more we begin to grow independent from God since we do not see our need for him. "Bad things" that happen, pain, suffering, and struggles are loving and gracious reminders that we need God and that he is someone and something that we simply are not, that we are lacking and he is not. That we are finite and limited and he is not. And as incredible as all this is, there is so much more to come (Revelation 10:7). But, perfection, in a worldly sense, is a curse that breeds independence. Imperfection is a gift that breeds dependence, and if this is the lesson that he desires for us to learn, then bad things are a gift and to be embraced.
We all know the creation story, how God made everything and saw that it was good, very good. He made a perfect world, without flaw, without all the bad things we are so familiar with. He made a man in his own image, his perfect image. He provided him with all he would need: food (Gen 1:29), kingship (1:28), companionship (2:18), purpose (2:15), fellowship with God (2:25), etc. God creates man and sets them up for success, giving them everything they could possibly need or want, seemingly. He also gives them a choice by placing two trees in the garden, one being dependence, and the other being independence. God desires their willing and voluntary love and affection, thus necessitating two trees, not one. Programmed love or forced love is not love at all. He desires for us to choose him (Joshua 24:15), as evidenced by the two trees. So we have here a perfect world without difficulty or hardship, and in the midst of it perfect beings made in the very likeness of God. Everything is good, even the two trees. How could they fail? But it is the very perfection that is the breakdown. Since man is given everything he needs to succeed, what more need does he have of God? He doesn't need him for food or provision or safety or companionship or direction, because he had already been given this. And we first begin to see this independence from God in the temptation episode. Eve has found her way to the two trees. After they are tempted and eat the fruit, God is said to be calling out for them (3:9), i.e. they are not in his presence. So where was God when Eve was at the tree? Obviously his omnipresence dictates that he was "there", but they were independent from his tangible presence in that moment. Their perfection and the world's perfection had led to their independence from God. They no longer needed him, or so they thought, they had everything already. And this independence began to cultivate in them the notion that perhaps they too were capable of making their own decisions and that, like God, it would be good. It says during the temptation that Eve saw the tree was desirous to make one wise. And here is the pinnacle that results from perfection: complete independence. Adam and Eve had everything set up for them, everything they could ever want or need, at their fingertips. And it is these very conditions that proved fatal to them. Although they "had everything", they lacked one thing. Call it what you will, but something in Eve caused her to go to that tree, independent from God, and then Satan was able to appeal to something in her. There was some type of leverage he had found within her, something that he offered or said appealed to her within her. We would wonder how a person who had everything could possibly want more? They had it made, how could they mess that up? This is where it is vital to understand something. Everything God made was good, not because he made it good, past tense, but because he was sustaining it as good. God cannot bestow perfection and then bow it, he must bestow perfection and then maintain that perfection for only God is good (Mark 10:18). Adam and Eve were perfect, only as long as they were continually dependent on God for that perfection. The problem is that their conditions, being as easy as they were, led them to stop depending on God. There was no difficulty to lead them back to God, no lacking to run to God with, no hurt or heartache to push them into his arms, nothing. There was only ease, and they began to rely on this ease and their own ability to maintain this ease, not God. We would ask how perfect beings, without the seed of sin in them, could sin. But remember, although they did not have the seed of sin, God gave them two trees, i.e. a choice, and they could only choose God and not sin as long as they relied on God himself to maintain that perfection, to maintain that choice. Although they were perfect, they still had a choice, and without dependence on God the choice will always be the same: self. These are the same words that Jesus spoke to the disciples in John 15:5, telling them that apart from him they can do nothing; Adam and Eve, although perfect and without sin, were no different. The eating of the fruit simply manifested tangibly what was already beginning to take place within (James 1:13-15), intangibly: independence from God. And if the eating of the fruit only revealed already present inner-workings, would they have ever realized their growing independence if not for the other tree and the fruit eating? Or would their growing independence have remained hidden until it was too late? At least now they fully realized their separation and need for a Savior. The other tree was a grace, the original law, serving the same purpose as the current law (Romans 7:7-12). Because if their perfection remained dependent on their not eating of the tree, is that not "salvation" by works? And this was not true then and is not true now (Galations 3:11-12). But, we would argue, they were perfect and not in need of salvation. But clearly this is not true, as evidenced by their decision. No matter how perfect, man needs salvation and is incapable of producing himself. We think that if there was no other tree, there would be no fall, would be no bad things, but something else was stirring within that resulted in the eating of the fruit. Even in a perfect world with no bad things, we tends towards and ultimately choose self, Satan did also and he was in heaven. But God desperately desires for us to learn this lesson of dependence (II Corinthians 1:8, 9), and he has given us hardship and pain to assist in this learning process, our "other tree". It is a lie to believe that the easier things are or better things are the more we will rely on and trust in God. In fact the opposite is true, and we see this ultimately in the perfection and fall of creation, that the easier things are the more we begin to grow independent from God since we do not see our need for him. "Bad things" that happen, pain, suffering, and struggles are loving and gracious reminders that we need God and that he is someone and something that we simply are not, that we are lacking and he is not. That we are finite and limited and he is not. And as incredible as all this is, there is so much more to come (Revelation 10:7). But, perfection, in a worldly sense, is a curse that breeds independence. Imperfection is a gift that breeds dependence, and if this is the lesson that he desires for us to learn, then bad things are a gift and to be embraced.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Dig Deep
Luke 6:46-49
After giving the beatitudes Jesus tells us this parable about two men building a house. But he prefaces it with the question, "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord', and not do what I tell you?" What interesting placement of this passage. He has just finished telling them what to do (the beatitudes) then asks them why they refuse to do it. Then we have our passage of focus: the two builders. The first builder hears Jesus' words and immediately begins construction. He starts by digging into the ground, through the mud and dirt, enduring pain and sweat and struggle and fatigue, all of this so he can then start on the house. He has already exhausted himself and spent himself and lost time and hasn't even started on his house yet. Then, after all this cost, he begins to construct his house. The second man also hears Jesus' words and immediately begins construction. But he avoids the time and pain of laying a foundation, which the first man endured, and is able to start on the house much sooner. Both are able to construct a house, both having the right materials and ability to build. There is no lack of knowledge on either man's part of how to build a house, nor is there a lacking of materials to build with. In fact, the second man is probably able to build his house much quicker. He is probably inhabiting his house, enjoying it and the comforts it offers while the first man is still head high in dirt and mud with his materials still bundled and packaged, waiting for use. How foolish the second man must think the first is. Here he is, enjoying his house and its shelter, while the other man is still exposed to the elements and enduring much struggle and still hasn't started on his house. Doesn't he understand that all that is so unnecessary? He too could be enjoying his house and free from all that hard work if he would just begin building his house and stop with all that extra work. But finally the first man finishes his house. Now, both men have a nice looking house that provides them with the same enjoyments and comforts, built upon hearing Jesus' words and then acting. Upon looking at these two men and their houses one would wonder why in the world the first invested all that extra time and pain when the outcomes are seemingly identical. It is only when the streams rise that these two men are exposed. The first one is described as hearing Jesus' words and the doing them, while the second is described as hearing Jesus' words and not doing them. But both build and end up with a nice looking house, after hearing Jesus' words, so how is one described as doing Jesus' words and the other not? It is the foundation. The first man heard his words and understood and obeyed them for what they are, knowing it involved first digging through the mud and dirt, exposing himself to the elements and enduring pain and suffering for a longer time, until a rock was found, and then and only then could construction on the house begin. The other heard the words but decided to put his own spin on them and use them to his advantage so that he could be sheltered from the elements quicker, and avoid exposure as much as possible. Both came to Jesus, heard his words and then proceeded with work, but only one actually obeyed, while the other kind of obeyed a self-interpreted version that was more preferable to him. Which have we preferred? Jesus' actual commands that involve hardship and suffering and toil with nothing to show for it, no house right away, or his easier to follow, re-interpreted commands that appeal more to us and offer a much more quickly constructed house? Do we call Jesus Lord and yet build in the way and manner and timing we want, or in the way and manner and timing he wants? Do we avoid the struggle and hardship, building a weak and feeble house to shelter us quicker, or endure the pain to build a lasting house? One has Jesus as Lord, desiring his building plan, while the other has Jesus as provider of materials and plans, but actually just wanting a shelter.
After giving the beatitudes Jesus tells us this parable about two men building a house. But he prefaces it with the question, "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord', and not do what I tell you?" What interesting placement of this passage. He has just finished telling them what to do (the beatitudes) then asks them why they refuse to do it. Then we have our passage of focus: the two builders. The first builder hears Jesus' words and immediately begins construction. He starts by digging into the ground, through the mud and dirt, enduring pain and sweat and struggle and fatigue, all of this so he can then start on the house. He has already exhausted himself and spent himself and lost time and hasn't even started on his house yet. Then, after all this cost, he begins to construct his house. The second man also hears Jesus' words and immediately begins construction. But he avoids the time and pain of laying a foundation, which the first man endured, and is able to start on the house much sooner. Both are able to construct a house, both having the right materials and ability to build. There is no lack of knowledge on either man's part of how to build a house, nor is there a lacking of materials to build with. In fact, the second man is probably able to build his house much quicker. He is probably inhabiting his house, enjoying it and the comforts it offers while the first man is still head high in dirt and mud with his materials still bundled and packaged, waiting for use. How foolish the second man must think the first is. Here he is, enjoying his house and its shelter, while the other man is still exposed to the elements and enduring much struggle and still hasn't started on his house. Doesn't he understand that all that is so unnecessary? He too could be enjoying his house and free from all that hard work if he would just begin building his house and stop with all that extra work. But finally the first man finishes his house. Now, both men have a nice looking house that provides them with the same enjoyments and comforts, built upon hearing Jesus' words and then acting. Upon looking at these two men and their houses one would wonder why in the world the first invested all that extra time and pain when the outcomes are seemingly identical. It is only when the streams rise that these two men are exposed. The first one is described as hearing Jesus' words and the doing them, while the second is described as hearing Jesus' words and not doing them. But both build and end up with a nice looking house, after hearing Jesus' words, so how is one described as doing Jesus' words and the other not? It is the foundation. The first man heard his words and understood and obeyed them for what they are, knowing it involved first digging through the mud and dirt, exposing himself to the elements and enduring pain and suffering for a longer time, until a rock was found, and then and only then could construction on the house begin. The other heard the words but decided to put his own spin on them and use them to his advantage so that he could be sheltered from the elements quicker, and avoid exposure as much as possible. Both came to Jesus, heard his words and then proceeded with work, but only one actually obeyed, while the other kind of obeyed a self-interpreted version that was more preferable to him. Which have we preferred? Jesus' actual commands that involve hardship and suffering and toil with nothing to show for it, no house right away, or his easier to follow, re-interpreted commands that appeal more to us and offer a much more quickly constructed house? Do we call Jesus Lord and yet build in the way and manner and timing we want, or in the way and manner and timing he wants? Do we avoid the struggle and hardship, building a weak and feeble house to shelter us quicker, or endure the pain to build a lasting house? One has Jesus as Lord, desiring his building plan, while the other has Jesus as provider of materials and plans, but actually just wanting a shelter.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Decorative Fruit
Luke 6:43-45
Jesus gives us some characteristics of two kinds of people: good and evil. He then finishes it with telling us that according to these characteristics one can be identified and labeled as to which one he is. These characteristics can be grouped into two main categories: attitudes and words. First let us look at the attitude that characterizes good and then evil. Jesus tells us that the attitudes of a good person are spiritual poverty and hunger (vs. 20-21), weeping and mourning (vs. 21), social exclusion and rejection (vs. 23), unconditional love for all, which negates any type of revenge, whether verbal or physical (vs. 27-29), freely lending without every expecting a return of any kind (vs. 30-31, 34), mercy (vs. 36), and personal holiness (vs. 42). These attitudes are necessary for a person to be labeled a good tree bearing good fruit. We can of course manipulate these outward actions and appear to have these motivations and attitudes and appear to be obeying Jesus' words. That is when our speech, our words betray us and expose us (vs. 45). Our words cannot help but reveal our hearts. So let us ask, what is our speech like? Do we talk of the glory and love of Jesus, the kingdom of God and his righteousness, the plight of the poor and needy, our own spiritual convictions and faults? Or is our conversation more seasoned with talk of the mundane, the worldly, personal preferences and indulgences, judgement and gossip of others? Are we performing "godly" acts while the whole time we are talking of worldly, carnal, trivial things? This is characteristic of a bad tree producing bad fruit, under the disguise of good fruit (II Corinthians 11:13-15). We have interpreted obeying Jesus' commands as simply performing the acts and works that he has commanded us to do. Clearly this is not the case here. True obedience to Jesus involves performing those acts and works with the foundation of a proper motive and heart attitude. Performing these works with improper attitudes is like a man building his house without a foundation (vs. 49). Our "righteous" acts do not pass the test and the house we have built (our religion and reputation) does not stand and crumbles and is a spectacle for all to see (vs. 49b). Now let us look, then, at the characteristics of those bad trees with decorative fruit. They are self-indulgent, desiring life's better things (vs. 24), satisfied in the world and indifferent (vs. 25), reputable and cultural (vs. 26), loving towards the lovable (vs. 32), generous towards the friendly and kind, unwilling to associate with the difficult and shameful (vs. 33), good "investors" (vs. 34), judgmental and self-righteous (vs. 41-42). Do we see the deception here? Both people lend, love, help their brother, give, are concerned for spiritual things. Both have a house built and both have a tree bearing fruit. One lasts for an eternity and shines forth the glory and light and mercy and love of God, while the other sparkles and shimmers and glitters and cracks and crumbles, ultimately incinerating in God's holy fire (I Corinthians 3:10-15). Let us ask ourselves: is our fruit real or decorative? And this is a question that must be asked, because decorative fruit is not fruit. In fact it is evil and sinful and opposes God and his work, and deceives to the point of damnation (Matthew 7:21-23). And it is determined, not by outward appearance and performance, but in the attitudes of our heart and what lies within and only God can show us this, we cannot decipher this ourselves (Jeremiah 17:9-10). Who are we in Luke 18:9-14? Who are we in Matthew 25:31-46? Who are we in the beatitudes?
Jesus gives us some characteristics of two kinds of people: good and evil. He then finishes it with telling us that according to these characteristics one can be identified and labeled as to which one he is. These characteristics can be grouped into two main categories: attitudes and words. First let us look at the attitude that characterizes good and then evil. Jesus tells us that the attitudes of a good person are spiritual poverty and hunger (vs. 20-21), weeping and mourning (vs. 21), social exclusion and rejection (vs. 23), unconditional love for all, which negates any type of revenge, whether verbal or physical (vs. 27-29), freely lending without every expecting a return of any kind (vs. 30-31, 34), mercy (vs. 36), and personal holiness (vs. 42). These attitudes are necessary for a person to be labeled a good tree bearing good fruit. We can of course manipulate these outward actions and appear to have these motivations and attitudes and appear to be obeying Jesus' words. That is when our speech, our words betray us and expose us (vs. 45). Our words cannot help but reveal our hearts. So let us ask, what is our speech like? Do we talk of the glory and love of Jesus, the kingdom of God and his righteousness, the plight of the poor and needy, our own spiritual convictions and faults? Or is our conversation more seasoned with talk of the mundane, the worldly, personal preferences and indulgences, judgement and gossip of others? Are we performing "godly" acts while the whole time we are talking of worldly, carnal, trivial things? This is characteristic of a bad tree producing bad fruit, under the disguise of good fruit (II Corinthians 11:13-15). We have interpreted obeying Jesus' commands as simply performing the acts and works that he has commanded us to do. Clearly this is not the case here. True obedience to Jesus involves performing those acts and works with the foundation of a proper motive and heart attitude. Performing these works with improper attitudes is like a man building his house without a foundation (vs. 49). Our "righteous" acts do not pass the test and the house we have built (our religion and reputation) does not stand and crumbles and is a spectacle for all to see (vs. 49b). Now let us look, then, at the characteristics of those bad trees with decorative fruit. They are self-indulgent, desiring life's better things (vs. 24), satisfied in the world and indifferent (vs. 25), reputable and cultural (vs. 26), loving towards the lovable (vs. 32), generous towards the friendly and kind, unwilling to associate with the difficult and shameful (vs. 33), good "investors" (vs. 34), judgmental and self-righteous (vs. 41-42). Do we see the deception here? Both people lend, love, help their brother, give, are concerned for spiritual things. Both have a house built and both have a tree bearing fruit. One lasts for an eternity and shines forth the glory and light and mercy and love of God, while the other sparkles and shimmers and glitters and cracks and crumbles, ultimately incinerating in God's holy fire (I Corinthians 3:10-15). Let us ask ourselves: is our fruit real or decorative? And this is a question that must be asked, because decorative fruit is not fruit. In fact it is evil and sinful and opposes God and his work, and deceives to the point of damnation (Matthew 7:21-23). And it is determined, not by outward appearance and performance, but in the attitudes of our heart and what lies within and only God can show us this, we cannot decipher this ourselves (Jeremiah 17:9-10). Who are we in Luke 18:9-14? Who are we in Matthew 25:31-46? Who are we in the beatitudes?
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Lord of the Sabbath
Luke 6:6-11
The Pharisees here observe Jesus heal a man with a withered hand and immediately protest and grow furious because he has healed on the Sabbath (vs. 11), a day meant to be kept holy unto the Lord, as commanded in Exodus 20:8. They claim he has worked by healing this man, therefore disobeying this commandment. But Jesus probes them further about the actual workings behind this commandment, revealing that, although they were "observing it", they really had actually missed it altogether (vs. 9). Although they appeared to be keeping the Sabbath holy, in actuality they had violated long ago with their pride and selfishness. The problem is that they had embraced these religiously cultural outward laws and regulations as though they brought life, while actually they were only meant to point them to real life (John 5:39-40). Only in Jesus is real life, not in any kind of regulation we can possibly think of and observe. No amount of following religious or cultural laws and regulations will ever draw us closer to Jesus and bestow on us real life. Paul wrote the believers that the kingdom of God has nothing to do with outward observances of laws, as they only have an appearance of wisdom and holiness (Colossians 2:20-23). It is in following Jesus that one actually begins to live and actually obey the commandments of God, not by observing written codes and rules (Romans 7:6). The religious of that day had made an art of this way of life (Matthew 15:6), and it only proved to be their demise, as their rules blinded them to the true light that is Jesus. Even though outwardly they had continued in obedience and observance of the law, inwardly they had stopped following God's commands long ago (Matthew 23:25-28). Our outward holiness must be a reflection of an inward heart change, not simple behavior modification. Jesus is showing them that it is by following him that they are being obedient (vs. 5), because he is the one who is Lord of all, even Lord over the the law. When they began to turn God's commands into sources of pride and self-advancement they began to twist God's holy commands into sources of harm and destruction (vs. 9). They had heaped up piles of religious rules and regulations that were put upon people to try and live up to when they themselves could not even bear them (Acts 15:10), and Paul reminds us that these kinds of things have nothing to do with the Kingdom of God (Romans 14:17). Jesus requires loyalty and obedience to what he says and does, not to laws and traditions. We must look inside our hearts and ask what it is that we are following and embracing. Have we missed life because of laws? Are we following religious culture or Jesus? Because religious rules appear holy and wise, but actually lead to death, a burden that no one can carry, nor are meant to. Cursed are these (Galations 3:10). But Jesus' burden is light and easy and blessed are those who carry it (Matthew 11:29-30). Learn from Jesus not laws.
The Pharisees here observe Jesus heal a man with a withered hand and immediately protest and grow furious because he has healed on the Sabbath (vs. 11), a day meant to be kept holy unto the Lord, as commanded in Exodus 20:8. They claim he has worked by healing this man, therefore disobeying this commandment. But Jesus probes them further about the actual workings behind this commandment, revealing that, although they were "observing it", they really had actually missed it altogether (vs. 9). Although they appeared to be keeping the Sabbath holy, in actuality they had violated long ago with their pride and selfishness. The problem is that they had embraced these religiously cultural outward laws and regulations as though they brought life, while actually they were only meant to point them to real life (John 5:39-40). Only in Jesus is real life, not in any kind of regulation we can possibly think of and observe. No amount of following religious or cultural laws and regulations will ever draw us closer to Jesus and bestow on us real life. Paul wrote the believers that the kingdom of God has nothing to do with outward observances of laws, as they only have an appearance of wisdom and holiness (Colossians 2:20-23). It is in following Jesus that one actually begins to live and actually obey the commandments of God, not by observing written codes and rules (Romans 7:6). The religious of that day had made an art of this way of life (Matthew 15:6), and it only proved to be their demise, as their rules blinded them to the true light that is Jesus. Even though outwardly they had continued in obedience and observance of the law, inwardly they had stopped following God's commands long ago (Matthew 23:25-28). Our outward holiness must be a reflection of an inward heart change, not simple behavior modification. Jesus is showing them that it is by following him that they are being obedient (vs. 5), because he is the one who is Lord of all, even Lord over the the law. When they began to turn God's commands into sources of pride and self-advancement they began to twist God's holy commands into sources of harm and destruction (vs. 9). They had heaped up piles of religious rules and regulations that were put upon people to try and live up to when they themselves could not even bear them (Acts 15:10), and Paul reminds us that these kinds of things have nothing to do with the Kingdom of God (Romans 14:17). Jesus requires loyalty and obedience to what he says and does, not to laws and traditions. We must look inside our hearts and ask what it is that we are following and embracing. Have we missed life because of laws? Are we following religious culture or Jesus? Because religious rules appear holy and wise, but actually lead to death, a burden that no one can carry, nor are meant to. Cursed are these (Galations 3:10). But Jesus' burden is light and easy and blessed are those who carry it (Matthew 11:29-30). Learn from Jesus not laws.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
No Need of a Physician
Luke 5:27-39
We have in this passage a key glimpse into why Jesus had come into this world, and a sobering reminder of the dangers of missing it completely because of pride and self-dependency contained within religion. The Pharisees have just witnessed Jesus heal a man both physically and spiritually (vs. 20-25). He has even met their claims and doubts as to his being the Son of God, validating his testimony according to their own standards (vs. 21-25). They are amazed and in awe, even glorifying God (vs. 26), and yet they have still missed it completely. Their true hearts are revealed in the next verses. When Jesus calls a tax collector into his ministry and begins to fellowship with the like, these same Pharisees begin to criticize (vs. 30). They have just witnessed his miracles and seen his authority and power, but their religious arrogance still grips their hearts. Jesus may have power to heal but stooping so low as to congregate with sinners is too much. But Jesus gives a scathing assessment of their thoughts, saying that he has come for people like this, the sick and sinful, while he has not come for people like the Pharisees, the religious, the well and sinless (vs. 31-32). You see the Pharisees, the religiously devout of the day, did not see their need for a healer or a forgiver because they had their religion that kept them pure. They had law to guide them, what need did they have for Jesus? This is the warning that Jesus gives them here and also in verses 34-39. The Pharisees wonder why Jesus, if he is the Son of God, does not adhere to the norms of religion, including fasting and praying (vs. 33). Jesus informs them that now is a time to celebrate. The old is fading, the new is coming (vs. 34), and when the new has come the old will no longer be compatible and therefore worthless and damning (vs. 36-39). The Pharisees still clung to Old Testament Law (religion) as their means of righteousness which blinded them to the righteousness of Jesus and their vital and desperate need of him. They did not see their need to be healed of their infirmity of sinfulness because they saw themselves as pure already due to their legalism. They could not embrace the life of Jesus while they clung to the death of the Law (vs. 39). They had witnessed incredible things that Jesus did, being amazed and in awe, even coming from great distances to see him (vs. 17) and yet completely missed his whole purpose for coming: to heal the ill. The pride and arrogance of their legalism resulting from their religious and traditional adherence blinded them to their critical condition and their only hope of real life. Jesus plainly told them this and yet they couldn't understand it, didn't want to understand it. The religious ignored it while the sinners embraced it. One group experienced life while the other missed life. What about us? Are we so religious and arrogant to think we have no need of a physician or are we continually drawn to Jesus to heal us? Paul, although doing mighty things, never forgot his condition (I Timothy 1:15-16). Have we quickly forgotten? Have we begun to view ourselves and others as the Pharisees did (vs. 30, 33)? Are we blinded by our religion and tradition? It was the religious that condemned and crucified Jesus and stand condemned themselves. Jesus has ushered in relationship ending rules and regulations, essentially religion (Colossians 2:20-22; Romans 7:6). And one cannot have a mixture or combination, it is one or the other. Which do we have? Religion or relationship? The Pharisees knew Jesus, listened to Jesus, learned from Jesus and yet refused to let go of their law, take up their cross and follow him, giving up everything they have. Have we done the same? Are we content to listen and learn and yet not follow him but follow our own rules and standards we have set? Which most resembles us: Luke 9:23-27, 57-62; Luke 14:25-33 or Mark 10:17-22; Matthew 23?
We have in this passage a key glimpse into why Jesus had come into this world, and a sobering reminder of the dangers of missing it completely because of pride and self-dependency contained within religion. The Pharisees have just witnessed Jesus heal a man both physically and spiritually (vs. 20-25). He has even met their claims and doubts as to his being the Son of God, validating his testimony according to their own standards (vs. 21-25). They are amazed and in awe, even glorifying God (vs. 26), and yet they have still missed it completely. Their true hearts are revealed in the next verses. When Jesus calls a tax collector into his ministry and begins to fellowship with the like, these same Pharisees begin to criticize (vs. 30). They have just witnessed his miracles and seen his authority and power, but their religious arrogance still grips their hearts. Jesus may have power to heal but stooping so low as to congregate with sinners is too much. But Jesus gives a scathing assessment of their thoughts, saying that he has come for people like this, the sick and sinful, while he has not come for people like the Pharisees, the religious, the well and sinless (vs. 31-32). You see the Pharisees, the religiously devout of the day, did not see their need for a healer or a forgiver because they had their religion that kept them pure. They had law to guide them, what need did they have for Jesus? This is the warning that Jesus gives them here and also in verses 34-39. The Pharisees wonder why Jesus, if he is the Son of God, does not adhere to the norms of religion, including fasting and praying (vs. 33). Jesus informs them that now is a time to celebrate. The old is fading, the new is coming (vs. 34), and when the new has come the old will no longer be compatible and therefore worthless and damning (vs. 36-39). The Pharisees still clung to Old Testament Law (religion) as their means of righteousness which blinded them to the righteousness of Jesus and their vital and desperate need of him. They did not see their need to be healed of their infirmity of sinfulness because they saw themselves as pure already due to their legalism. They could not embrace the life of Jesus while they clung to the death of the Law (vs. 39). They had witnessed incredible things that Jesus did, being amazed and in awe, even coming from great distances to see him (vs. 17) and yet completely missed his whole purpose for coming: to heal the ill. The pride and arrogance of their legalism resulting from their religious and traditional adherence blinded them to their critical condition and their only hope of real life. Jesus plainly told them this and yet they couldn't understand it, didn't want to understand it. The religious ignored it while the sinners embraced it. One group experienced life while the other missed life. What about us? Are we so religious and arrogant to think we have no need of a physician or are we continually drawn to Jesus to heal us? Paul, although doing mighty things, never forgot his condition (I Timothy 1:15-16). Have we quickly forgotten? Have we begun to view ourselves and others as the Pharisees did (vs. 30, 33)? Are we blinded by our religion and tradition? It was the religious that condemned and crucified Jesus and stand condemned themselves. Jesus has ushered in relationship ending rules and regulations, essentially religion (Colossians 2:20-22; Romans 7:6). And one cannot have a mixture or combination, it is one or the other. Which do we have? Religion or relationship? The Pharisees knew Jesus, listened to Jesus, learned from Jesus and yet refused to let go of their law, take up their cross and follow him, giving up everything they have. Have we done the same? Are we content to listen and learn and yet not follow him but follow our own rules and standards we have set? Which most resembles us: Luke 9:23-27, 57-62; Luke 14:25-33 or Mark 10:17-22; Matthew 23?
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Actual Encounter
Luke 5:1-11
We have a wonderful account of Simon Peter's encounter with Jesus, his actual encounter. Peter must have some kind of knowledge of or acquaintance with Jesus prior to this because when Jesus initially speaks to him in this passage Peter refers to him as "Master" (vs. 5). And he follows Jesus in obedience to his instructions. Peter has enough knowledge and confidence in Jesus to obey him, despite Jesus' instructions appearing foolish and against Peter's better discretion (vs. 5). If we encountered a person who referred to Jesus as master, and followed him in obedience, disregarding his own will, we would immediately label this person saved, a Christian, one who had encountered Jesus in a saving way. But we may be too quick in this judgement. Because in verse 8, Peter changes his tone and posture before his "Master", falling on his knees before Jesus, asking him to depart from him because he is a sinful man, undeserving of Jesus. This is the real encounter, where Peter touches the divinity and holiness of Jesus, showing him his own sinfulness and separation from God. And how incredible that upon this real encounter Peter does not then pray to receive Christ, but actually asks Jesus to depart from him (vs. 8)! Jesus' holiness and perfection are too great for him to bear and Peter feels so unworthy and undeserving of Jesus that he cannot remain in his presence. And this is not unique, it is the same when Jeremiah encounters God (Jeremiah 1:5-10), when Isaiah encounters God (Isaiah 6:5-7), when Moses encounters God (Exodus 3), when Job confesses before God (Job 42:3-6), when the people hear Peter's sermon after Pentecost (Acts 2:37). When one actually encounters God there is a revealing of sinfulness and wickedness that overwhelms and leads to complete repentance and desperation, not a casual consenting to salvation through a simple prayer, which seems so inadequate. Whereas before Peter knew Jesus and was acquainted with Jesus, now he has actually encountered Jesus, the Holy Son of God, the same that Job says (Job 42:3-6). Note also how his language has changed, now referring to Jesus as Lord, not simply Master (vs. 8). Peter did not choose Jesus, as we saw earlier, he actually asked Jesus to depart. It was Jesus that chose Peter, Jesus that called Peter and the rest of the disciples (John 15:16). It is only after this true encounter with his divinity that Jesus then calls Peter out to follow him in obedience, informing him that he will no longer serve his own interests, but those of his new Lord (vs. 10). And this heart-change and actual encounter of Jesus as actual Lord is further verified by their immediately leaving everything at that moment to follow their new Lord in complete obedience (vs. 11), which is typical of every actual follower of Jesus (Luke 14:33). So we must ask ourselves if we have actually encountered Jesus and his holiness, as revealed by our seeing our endless wickedness and unworthiness, or are we simply knowledgeable of Jesus and acquainted with him? Do we feel unworthy of his salvation, asking him to depart from us for we are wicked, as Peter and the others we listed did, or do we feel entitled to his salvation because of the steps we have taken and the deal we have made with him, obligating him to save us? Have we repented in dust and ashes, despising ourselves, or simply admitted our guilt, as though we have been caught? Have we followed him in all his commands in complete obedience and renunciation as these others did, or chosen to follow him in some commands in mediocrity and indifference as the rich, young ruler did (Mark 10:17-22)? Which have we experienced: an encounter or an acquaintance?
We have a wonderful account of Simon Peter's encounter with Jesus, his actual encounter. Peter must have some kind of knowledge of or acquaintance with Jesus prior to this because when Jesus initially speaks to him in this passage Peter refers to him as "Master" (vs. 5). And he follows Jesus in obedience to his instructions. Peter has enough knowledge and confidence in Jesus to obey him, despite Jesus' instructions appearing foolish and against Peter's better discretion (vs. 5). If we encountered a person who referred to Jesus as master, and followed him in obedience, disregarding his own will, we would immediately label this person saved, a Christian, one who had encountered Jesus in a saving way. But we may be too quick in this judgement. Because in verse 8, Peter changes his tone and posture before his "Master", falling on his knees before Jesus, asking him to depart from him because he is a sinful man, undeserving of Jesus. This is the real encounter, where Peter touches the divinity and holiness of Jesus, showing him his own sinfulness and separation from God. And how incredible that upon this real encounter Peter does not then pray to receive Christ, but actually asks Jesus to depart from him (vs. 8)! Jesus' holiness and perfection are too great for him to bear and Peter feels so unworthy and undeserving of Jesus that he cannot remain in his presence. And this is not unique, it is the same when Jeremiah encounters God (Jeremiah 1:5-10), when Isaiah encounters God (Isaiah 6:5-7), when Moses encounters God (Exodus 3), when Job confesses before God (Job 42:3-6), when the people hear Peter's sermon after Pentecost (Acts 2:37). When one actually encounters God there is a revealing of sinfulness and wickedness that overwhelms and leads to complete repentance and desperation, not a casual consenting to salvation through a simple prayer, which seems so inadequate. Whereas before Peter knew Jesus and was acquainted with Jesus, now he has actually encountered Jesus, the Holy Son of God, the same that Job says (Job 42:3-6). Note also how his language has changed, now referring to Jesus as Lord, not simply Master (vs. 8). Peter did not choose Jesus, as we saw earlier, he actually asked Jesus to depart. It was Jesus that chose Peter, Jesus that called Peter and the rest of the disciples (John 15:16). It is only after this true encounter with his divinity that Jesus then calls Peter out to follow him in obedience, informing him that he will no longer serve his own interests, but those of his new Lord (vs. 10). And this heart-change and actual encounter of Jesus as actual Lord is further verified by their immediately leaving everything at that moment to follow their new Lord in complete obedience (vs. 11), which is typical of every actual follower of Jesus (Luke 14:33). So we must ask ourselves if we have actually encountered Jesus and his holiness, as revealed by our seeing our endless wickedness and unworthiness, or are we simply knowledgeable of Jesus and acquainted with him? Do we feel unworthy of his salvation, asking him to depart from us for we are wicked, as Peter and the others we listed did, or do we feel entitled to his salvation because of the steps we have taken and the deal we have made with him, obligating him to save us? Have we repented in dust and ashes, despising ourselves, or simply admitted our guilt, as though we have been caught? Have we followed him in all his commands in complete obedience and renunciation as these others did, or chosen to follow him in some commands in mediocrity and indifference as the rich, young ruler did (Mark 10:17-22)? Which have we experienced: an encounter or an acquaintance?
Monday, October 17, 2011
Marvel Turned to Wrath
Luke 4:17-30
Jesus is in the synagogue and begins to read from Isaiah 61, declaring wonderful and mighty things that God will bring to pass, then telling the people that he is the one to carry it out, and now is the time of its happening (vs. 18-21). Upon hearing this the people are obviously excited and ripe with anticipation, which leads to their embracing him and speaking well of him, even marveling at him (vs. 22a). But in the second half of verse 22 we have a turning point. This verse says that they begin to ask, "Is this not Joseph's son?" Here is the key. The passage in Isaiah speaks of the one to come, the Messiah. This is what he is telling them of, but they only see him as Joseph's son, as a simple prophet (vs. 22b, 24). Are they excited to see him? Sure. Is it genuine excitement and acceptance of him? Absolutely. But it is not because he is the Messiah, God's own Son that they are glad to see him and readily accept him. It is because of the benefits he offers, the miracles they have heard about, hoping he will do the same for them (vs. 23). They want Jesus, not as Messiah, but as healer, as giver, as provider. They only see him as Joseph's son, miracle worker, prophet, not Messiah, Savior and Lord. But they are willing to accept him anyways since he offers such wonderful benefits to them. He exposes this in verses 24-27. He takes away these benefits, telling them that although there are sick and needy here, he will not be performing these miracles and healing these people in this place, the same as Elijah and Elisha did not heal and perform miracles for everyone in their day. Then the people's hearts truly come out. All of a sudden they are no longer accepting of him. They no longer marvel at him or speak well of him. In fact, they are furious and endeavor to kill him (vs. 28-29). What a quick and harsh reversal. But we must meditate on this before we judge. What if Jesus came to us, telling us he is the Messiah who is capable of showing forth the Lord's favor, but will not be doing so in our lives. How accepting of him would we be at that point? Are we content to have him as Lord and Savior without his blessing? He is perfectly just in withholding from us anything and everything, if he so chooses. He did in Elijah and Elisha's time, who is to say he will not do the same in our time? These people were happy and excited to have a Jesus with fringe benefits. They shouted his praise and accepted him into their lives, much as we have done today. But the real test comes when we do not see his blessing and there are no "miracles". Do we still shout forth his praise and declare his glory? Do we still accept him into our lives? Or do we push him aside, out of the way, as these people sought to push him off a cliff to get him out of the way so he wouldn't interfere and so he wouldn't bless others while ignoring them. Look at our lives and what we invest our time and energy in and we will see which way we have chosen and embraced.
Jesus is in the synagogue and begins to read from Isaiah 61, declaring wonderful and mighty things that God will bring to pass, then telling the people that he is the one to carry it out, and now is the time of its happening (vs. 18-21). Upon hearing this the people are obviously excited and ripe with anticipation, which leads to their embracing him and speaking well of him, even marveling at him (vs. 22a). But in the second half of verse 22 we have a turning point. This verse says that they begin to ask, "Is this not Joseph's son?" Here is the key. The passage in Isaiah speaks of the one to come, the Messiah. This is what he is telling them of, but they only see him as Joseph's son, as a simple prophet (vs. 22b, 24). Are they excited to see him? Sure. Is it genuine excitement and acceptance of him? Absolutely. But it is not because he is the Messiah, God's own Son that they are glad to see him and readily accept him. It is because of the benefits he offers, the miracles they have heard about, hoping he will do the same for them (vs. 23). They want Jesus, not as Messiah, but as healer, as giver, as provider. They only see him as Joseph's son, miracle worker, prophet, not Messiah, Savior and Lord. But they are willing to accept him anyways since he offers such wonderful benefits to them. He exposes this in verses 24-27. He takes away these benefits, telling them that although there are sick and needy here, he will not be performing these miracles and healing these people in this place, the same as Elijah and Elisha did not heal and perform miracles for everyone in their day. Then the people's hearts truly come out. All of a sudden they are no longer accepting of him. They no longer marvel at him or speak well of him. In fact, they are furious and endeavor to kill him (vs. 28-29). What a quick and harsh reversal. But we must meditate on this before we judge. What if Jesus came to us, telling us he is the Messiah who is capable of showing forth the Lord's favor, but will not be doing so in our lives. How accepting of him would we be at that point? Are we content to have him as Lord and Savior without his blessing? He is perfectly just in withholding from us anything and everything, if he so chooses. He did in Elijah and Elisha's time, who is to say he will not do the same in our time? These people were happy and excited to have a Jesus with fringe benefits. They shouted his praise and accepted him into their lives, much as we have done today. But the real test comes when we do not see his blessing and there are no "miracles". Do we still shout forth his praise and declare his glory? Do we still accept him into our lives? Or do we push him aside, out of the way, as these people sought to push him off a cliff to get him out of the way so he wouldn't interfere and so he wouldn't bless others while ignoring them. Look at our lives and what we invest our time and energy in and we will see which way we have chosen and embraced.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Temptation
Luke 4:1-13
This is a very revealing occurrence. We see that in the first instance, the enemy waits until a very desperate moment and then tempts Jesus with the the now exposed weakness, offering a perfectly natural and innocent "way out". He has not eaten in 40 days (vs. 2), so the enemy naturally comes to him tempting him with food. Eating when hungry is not wrong in any sense, but the enemy perverts this natural action by adding the phrase "If you are the Son of God". He takes eating and makes it about Jesus, about his own rights and satisfaction and provision. He is the Son of God and deserves to eat, after all it has been 40 days now, isn't that enough already? But it is in the self denial that he proves he is the Son of God, not in the provision. It is the same with us. Our denial of self proves our heritage, not the provision for self (Luke 9:23) This displays our complete trust, or lack thereof, in God alone, not in our own abilities and desires, even in the seemingly innocent things.
The second instance the enemy offers a most tempting deal. He will give the nations to Jesus in exchange for his worship. At face value this seems so ridiculous that we would all say absolutely not. But think about it, if Jesus has the authority and glory of the nations, couldn't he turn it towards God, and then give the nations to him for salvation of souls? What the enemy means for bad here could mean good for the nations. Jesus can turn it. But the cost is too high, is it not? It would cost Jesus his very soul, and directly disobey scripture (vs. 8). But is this not what we do today? Do we not rationalize that we can use authority and power and the world, the sinful, the distracting, and the carnal to reach people for Christ? Do we not envelope ourselves in authoritative worldliness, in direct disobedience of scripture (vs. James 4:4), in the hopes of reaching the lost? We embrace being at the forefront of culture, leading the way through ingenuity and innovation, and marketing our attractiveness and similarities. The whole time though Jesus warns against these kinds of things very clearly (Luke 9:23, Matthew 20:25-28). So if the cost were too high for Jesus, why is it not too high for us today? The ends did not justify the means for him, so why does it for us today? Why do we think we are so different from Jesus? He would not disobey scripture to reach the lost, and yet we will. Once again Jesus proves his deity and godliness in self-denial, not self-satisfaction. The enemy offers him power and worldly authority but Jesus embraces servanthood and godliness. He will not reach the world through leadership but through servanthood. Do we follow Jesus or Satan?
We are always told that when the enemy comes at us with temptation that we should quote scripture to him and he will be defeated and flee. But, at the end here, we see that is not true, neither is that advocated in scripture as the means to victory. It is surely a basis for resisting, offering us assurance of our position of resistance, the foundation we stand on as proof to resist, but it does not offer us the victory. Jesus uses scripture throughout all three instances here and the enemy does not flee until Jesus has fully resisted (vs. 13), which coincides with James 4:7. Our victory lies in submitting to God not independently quoting scripture or fleeing; he is our victory, not scripture or fleeing. If we just start quoting scripture, he will simply do the same thing back to us, as he did with Jesus (vs. 10, 11). And he probably knows a lot more scripture than we do. Instead, we submit ourselves to God, trusting him to lead us through and out (I Corinthians 10:13, James 4:7), and rely on Christ's power and strength to get us through (Hebrews 2:18, 2 Corinthians 12:9). He will show us to flee (like Joseph Genesis 39) or endure under it, like Jesus did here. Only after this submission and full resistance will the enemy flee, but only for a time. He will return later at another opportune time (vs. 13). It is in his resistance and standing against that Jesus once again proves his deity, not giving in to the temptation. It is not in his defending and proving, answering the critics that he shows his godliness. It is his submission and rising above, in all three instances. Which route do we take? Defense or denial?
This is a very revealing occurrence. We see that in the first instance, the enemy waits until a very desperate moment and then tempts Jesus with the the now exposed weakness, offering a perfectly natural and innocent "way out". He has not eaten in 40 days (vs. 2), so the enemy naturally comes to him tempting him with food. Eating when hungry is not wrong in any sense, but the enemy perverts this natural action by adding the phrase "If you are the Son of God". He takes eating and makes it about Jesus, about his own rights and satisfaction and provision. He is the Son of God and deserves to eat, after all it has been 40 days now, isn't that enough already? But it is in the self denial that he proves he is the Son of God, not in the provision. It is the same with us. Our denial of self proves our heritage, not the provision for self (Luke 9:23) This displays our complete trust, or lack thereof, in God alone, not in our own abilities and desires, even in the seemingly innocent things.
The second instance the enemy offers a most tempting deal. He will give the nations to Jesus in exchange for his worship. At face value this seems so ridiculous that we would all say absolutely not. But think about it, if Jesus has the authority and glory of the nations, couldn't he turn it towards God, and then give the nations to him for salvation of souls? What the enemy means for bad here could mean good for the nations. Jesus can turn it. But the cost is too high, is it not? It would cost Jesus his very soul, and directly disobey scripture (vs. 8). But is this not what we do today? Do we not rationalize that we can use authority and power and the world, the sinful, the distracting, and the carnal to reach people for Christ? Do we not envelope ourselves in authoritative worldliness, in direct disobedience of scripture (vs. James 4:4), in the hopes of reaching the lost? We embrace being at the forefront of culture, leading the way through ingenuity and innovation, and marketing our attractiveness and similarities. The whole time though Jesus warns against these kinds of things very clearly (Luke 9:23, Matthew 20:25-28). So if the cost were too high for Jesus, why is it not too high for us today? The ends did not justify the means for him, so why does it for us today? Why do we think we are so different from Jesus? He would not disobey scripture to reach the lost, and yet we will. Once again Jesus proves his deity and godliness in self-denial, not self-satisfaction. The enemy offers him power and worldly authority but Jesus embraces servanthood and godliness. He will not reach the world through leadership but through servanthood. Do we follow Jesus or Satan?
We are always told that when the enemy comes at us with temptation that we should quote scripture to him and he will be defeated and flee. But, at the end here, we see that is not true, neither is that advocated in scripture as the means to victory. It is surely a basis for resisting, offering us assurance of our position of resistance, the foundation we stand on as proof to resist, but it does not offer us the victory. Jesus uses scripture throughout all three instances here and the enemy does not flee until Jesus has fully resisted (vs. 13), which coincides with James 4:7. Our victory lies in submitting to God not independently quoting scripture or fleeing; he is our victory, not scripture or fleeing. If we just start quoting scripture, he will simply do the same thing back to us, as he did with Jesus (vs. 10, 11). And he probably knows a lot more scripture than we do. Instead, we submit ourselves to God, trusting him to lead us through and out (I Corinthians 10:13, James 4:7), and rely on Christ's power and strength to get us through (Hebrews 2:18, 2 Corinthians 12:9). He will show us to flee (like Joseph Genesis 39) or endure under it, like Jesus did here. Only after this submission and full resistance will the enemy flee, but only for a time. He will return later at another opportune time (vs. 13). It is in his resistance and standing against that Jesus once again proves his deity, not giving in to the temptation. It is not in his defending and proving, answering the critics that he shows his godliness. It is his submission and rising above, in all three instances. Which route do we take? Defense or denial?
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Continual Repentance
Luke 3:3-17
John the Baptist has come on to the scene and is now preaching to the people a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, thereby clearing the way for Jesus to come and preach faith in himself, and usher in salvation (vs. 4-6). But along with John's message of repentance is a warning that we all should take notice of. It is mentioned in vs. 8; we must hear his words. He tells us to "bear fruits in keeping with repentance...And do not begin to say..." Our repentance is not reserved for a time in the past, whereby we asked for forgiveness for past transgressions and have received pardon and can now move on. No, our repentance must be continual, on-going for it to actually bear fruit. Repentance that is left in the past and not currently maintained is deceptive and unable to bear true spiritual fruits. And the second part of verse 8 helps us determine further which we have experienced. He mentions claiming Abraham as father, which in those days basically told those around you that you are religious, a chosen one of Israel. This is the deceptive repentance. It leads, not to fruit-bearing, but to legalistic religion. This is his warning to us and a yardstick to help us measure our "conversion" experience and repentance mindset. Repentance that leads to religious devotion is dangerous and damning. God could raise up simple, mindless, heartless stones that are religious, children of Abraham (vs. 8). True repentance does not make a man religious, but makes him continually broken over sin, continually dependent on Christ and leads to life change, which is fruit-bearing. John did not advise those who had been baptized to then start going to church and bible study and get involved in ministry. He told them to change their wicked ways, to alter the course of their life and continue in their repentance (vs. 10-14). Repentance that does not continue eventually fosters pride and independence within the heart, and causes one to look to his legalistic religious acts instead of actual fruits born from within according to the Spirit, out of a broken and contrite heart. Paul warned of this same thing (Romans 12:3; I Corinthians 10:12). And John warned them that one was coming who would baptize with fire. And that fire would burn up the religious chaff and gather together the repentant spiritual wheat (vs. 9, 17). Our independent religious piety is no determination of our spiritual condition, rather our repentant heart is. One leads to religious, self-righteous acts while the heart remains prideful and dark, whereas the other leads to continual fruit-bearing from a continual repentant and broken heart. One depends on our ability to maintain religious rules and standards and therefore embraces religion, whereas the other depends fully on Christ to maintain his righteousness within our wicked heart, realizing he, not religion, is the only answer to our condition. Are we religious or repentant?
John the Baptist has come on to the scene and is now preaching to the people a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, thereby clearing the way for Jesus to come and preach faith in himself, and usher in salvation (vs. 4-6). But along with John's message of repentance is a warning that we all should take notice of. It is mentioned in vs. 8; we must hear his words. He tells us to "bear fruits in keeping with repentance...And do not begin to say..." Our repentance is not reserved for a time in the past, whereby we asked for forgiveness for past transgressions and have received pardon and can now move on. No, our repentance must be continual, on-going for it to actually bear fruit. Repentance that is left in the past and not currently maintained is deceptive and unable to bear true spiritual fruits. And the second part of verse 8 helps us determine further which we have experienced. He mentions claiming Abraham as father, which in those days basically told those around you that you are religious, a chosen one of Israel. This is the deceptive repentance. It leads, not to fruit-bearing, but to legalistic religion. This is his warning to us and a yardstick to help us measure our "conversion" experience and repentance mindset. Repentance that leads to religious devotion is dangerous and damning. God could raise up simple, mindless, heartless stones that are religious, children of Abraham (vs. 8). True repentance does not make a man religious, but makes him continually broken over sin, continually dependent on Christ and leads to life change, which is fruit-bearing. John did not advise those who had been baptized to then start going to church and bible study and get involved in ministry. He told them to change their wicked ways, to alter the course of their life and continue in their repentance (vs. 10-14). Repentance that does not continue eventually fosters pride and independence within the heart, and causes one to look to his legalistic religious acts instead of actual fruits born from within according to the Spirit, out of a broken and contrite heart. Paul warned of this same thing (Romans 12:3; I Corinthians 10:12). And John warned them that one was coming who would baptize with fire. And that fire would burn up the religious chaff and gather together the repentant spiritual wheat (vs. 9, 17). Our independent religious piety is no determination of our spiritual condition, rather our repentant heart is. One leads to religious, self-righteous acts while the heart remains prideful and dark, whereas the other leads to continual fruit-bearing from a continual repentant and broken heart. One depends on our ability to maintain religious rules and standards and therefore embraces religion, whereas the other depends fully on Christ to maintain his righteousness within our wicked heart, realizing he, not religion, is the only answer to our condition. Are we religious or repentant?
Friday, October 14, 2011
I Must
Luke 2:48-51
When Jesus' parents are traveling back to Nazareth from Jerusalem, they suddenly realize that Jesus is not among them. They locate him back in Jerusalem in the temple. When they ask him why he has done this, he responds, "Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?" To be in the Father's house meant to be with the Father. In those days the Holy Spirit had not yet come, so one had to go to the temple to be with the Father. Jesus' word "must" here indicates a non-negotiable, non-optional, affectionate, loving desire to be with his true Father. He must be with him, and that meant going to the temple. This meant more to him than being with his own mother and father and relatives (vs. 43). He could not bear to leave the Father's house/presence. And this is not unique simply to Jesus because he is the Son of God. Philippians 2 tells us that Jesus took the form of a servant, becoming just like we are. He was no different in his life than we are in ours, experiencing the same things we do, only without sin. He modeled norms for us, not exceptions. Or look in this same chapter at Simeon and Anna. Simeon was led by the Holy Spirit into the temple to see Jesus, in essence to see the Father (John 14:9). And after seeing him he counts his life complete, worships, and then happily consenting to death (vs. 27-30). And Anna is described as never departing the temple, but praying and fasting night and day (vs. 37). She also met Jesus. Do we see the attachment they had to the Father and being with him as much as they possibly could, in the same pattern as Jesus? How could we ever describe this way of life as unique or exceptional, including, the same as Jesus did, the forsaking of familial relationships (Luke 14:26)? It is to be expected. So let us ask the question, would we confess that we must be in the Father's house, as is typical of a Christian? And by this I don't mean simply going to church. They did not go to the temple to be entertained or see friends or hear a good message or fulfill their Christian "duty". As we noted earlier, to go to the Father's house meant going to be with the Father, to encounter the Father, because in those days, before the Holy Spirit had come, he dwelt there for his people. Now that the Spirit has come, we can be with the Father at any moment, at any place. So the question for us takes on a different perspective. If we say that we must be in the Father's house, we are saying that our time is spent with him throughout our day, devoting every moment we possibly can to be with him in worship and prayer. He does not get the leftovers or spare time we have left, but gets the first-fruits. Otherwise, we cannot confess, as Jesus did, as Simeon and Anna modeled, as is expected of any true Christian, that we must be in the Father's house. If we base our time spent with the Father, in his house, as time spent at church then we have severely missed it. Going to church is fine and great, but the question is do we desire to encounter the Father, not simply go to church? Then look at your daily life and this will answer the question, not your church attendance. I wonder, if we still had to go to the temple to be with the Father, would we ever go at all outside of Sunday morning? I fear we would not, because we do not even go to him now, and we don't even have to go to a temple.
When Jesus' parents are traveling back to Nazareth from Jerusalem, they suddenly realize that Jesus is not among them. They locate him back in Jerusalem in the temple. When they ask him why he has done this, he responds, "Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?" To be in the Father's house meant to be with the Father. In those days the Holy Spirit had not yet come, so one had to go to the temple to be with the Father. Jesus' word "must" here indicates a non-negotiable, non-optional, affectionate, loving desire to be with his true Father. He must be with him, and that meant going to the temple. This meant more to him than being with his own mother and father and relatives (vs. 43). He could not bear to leave the Father's house/presence. And this is not unique simply to Jesus because he is the Son of God. Philippians 2 tells us that Jesus took the form of a servant, becoming just like we are. He was no different in his life than we are in ours, experiencing the same things we do, only without sin. He modeled norms for us, not exceptions. Or look in this same chapter at Simeon and Anna. Simeon was led by the Holy Spirit into the temple to see Jesus, in essence to see the Father (John 14:9). And after seeing him he counts his life complete, worships, and then happily consenting to death (vs. 27-30). And Anna is described as never departing the temple, but praying and fasting night and day (vs. 37). She also met Jesus. Do we see the attachment they had to the Father and being with him as much as they possibly could, in the same pattern as Jesus? How could we ever describe this way of life as unique or exceptional, including, the same as Jesus did, the forsaking of familial relationships (Luke 14:26)? It is to be expected. So let us ask the question, would we confess that we must be in the Father's house, as is typical of a Christian? And by this I don't mean simply going to church. They did not go to the temple to be entertained or see friends or hear a good message or fulfill their Christian "duty". As we noted earlier, to go to the Father's house meant going to be with the Father, to encounter the Father, because in those days, before the Holy Spirit had come, he dwelt there for his people. Now that the Spirit has come, we can be with the Father at any moment, at any place. So the question for us takes on a different perspective. If we say that we must be in the Father's house, we are saying that our time is spent with him throughout our day, devoting every moment we possibly can to be with him in worship and prayer. He does not get the leftovers or spare time we have left, but gets the first-fruits. Otherwise, we cannot confess, as Jesus did, as Simeon and Anna modeled, as is expected of any true Christian, that we must be in the Father's house. If we base our time spent with the Father, in his house, as time spent at church then we have severely missed it. Going to church is fine and great, but the question is do we desire to encounter the Father, not simply go to church? Then look at your daily life and this will answer the question, not your church attendance. I wonder, if we still had to go to the temple to be with the Father, would we ever go at all outside of Sunday morning? I fear we would not, because we do not even go to him now, and we don't even have to go to a temple.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Mary's Question
Luke 1:26-38
When the angel Gabriel visits Mary, telling her of the upcoming events, she questions him as to their unfolding (vs. 34). God has set forth certain "laws" in nature to give it order and this angel, who has frightened her initially, has just given her a prediction that operates outside those God-given laws. Certainly her question is understandable under these circumstances. The angel acquiesces to her request and answers her question, which he was not willing to do for Zechariah (vs. 18-20). This seems peculiar. Both do not understand, and both seemingly doubt. Yet one has her question answered, and the other does not. Why? The child that Mary will carry is said to be holy (vs. 35). He is to be the life for us all (John 6:48), necessitating his pure holiness and complete lack of flesh (John 6:63). John is never said to be any of these things. Seeing that Jesus will be and must remain holy, Mary (flesh) cannot have any part in him, and the angel must ensure this. He answers her question and not Zechariah's to keep Mary from acting. If Mary were to exert effort to try and help God out, even with honest intentions, it would only taint what God has set apart as holy. It can have no human touch or involvement or else it is no longer holy. So when she asks how this could possibly take place, he tells her that God, through his Holy Spirit, will birth the child (vs. 35). And he gives further proof that his testimony is valid by informing her that her relative, Elizabeth, who was barren, is also bearing a son, telling her that nothing is impossible (vs. 36, 37). Mary submits, yet still investigates the prediction by visiting her relative, and it is validated by the baby inside Elizabeth leaping upon Mary's arrival, showing Mary that the angel is truly from God, bearing his words. This so overwhelms her that she bursts forth in worship. See the great lengths God goes to to ensure Mary has no part in this, but allows God to do what he has intended to do? If Jesus is to remain holy it has to be this way; Mary has to be kept from being involved, from exerting self-effort. And God, in his sovereignty, ensures this, and will for us too, if we simply allow him. Fleshly involvement and effort only taints what God has birthed as holy (Romans 7:18). Paul said he places no confidence in the his flesh (Philippians 3:3), because he understood that if God is birthing something in our lives then he must be allowed to do so, without assistance from us. As soon as we begin to help out, we hinder God's work. We must let God and his Holy Spirit within us birth and carry forth the work. Imagine if Mary had tried to help God out and her and Joseph had "known" each other to help conceive a child. Would Jesus have still been holy? How are our lives and work any different?
When the angel Gabriel visits Mary, telling her of the upcoming events, she questions him as to their unfolding (vs. 34). God has set forth certain "laws" in nature to give it order and this angel, who has frightened her initially, has just given her a prediction that operates outside those God-given laws. Certainly her question is understandable under these circumstances. The angel acquiesces to her request and answers her question, which he was not willing to do for Zechariah (vs. 18-20). This seems peculiar. Both do not understand, and both seemingly doubt. Yet one has her question answered, and the other does not. Why? The child that Mary will carry is said to be holy (vs. 35). He is to be the life for us all (John 6:48), necessitating his pure holiness and complete lack of flesh (John 6:63). John is never said to be any of these things. Seeing that Jesus will be and must remain holy, Mary (flesh) cannot have any part in him, and the angel must ensure this. He answers her question and not Zechariah's to keep Mary from acting. If Mary were to exert effort to try and help God out, even with honest intentions, it would only taint what God has set apart as holy. It can have no human touch or involvement or else it is no longer holy. So when she asks how this could possibly take place, he tells her that God, through his Holy Spirit, will birth the child (vs. 35). And he gives further proof that his testimony is valid by informing her that her relative, Elizabeth, who was barren, is also bearing a son, telling her that nothing is impossible (vs. 36, 37). Mary submits, yet still investigates the prediction by visiting her relative, and it is validated by the baby inside Elizabeth leaping upon Mary's arrival, showing Mary that the angel is truly from God, bearing his words. This so overwhelms her that she bursts forth in worship. See the great lengths God goes to to ensure Mary has no part in this, but allows God to do what he has intended to do? If Jesus is to remain holy it has to be this way; Mary has to be kept from being involved, from exerting self-effort. And God, in his sovereignty, ensures this, and will for us too, if we simply allow him. Fleshly involvement and effort only taints what God has birthed as holy (Romans 7:18). Paul said he places no confidence in the his flesh (Philippians 3:3), because he understood that if God is birthing something in our lives then he must be allowed to do so, without assistance from us. As soon as we begin to help out, we hinder God's work. We must let God and his Holy Spirit within us birth and carry forth the work. Imagine if Mary had tried to help God out and her and Joseph had "known" each other to help conceive a child. Would Jesus have still been holy? How are our lives and work any different?
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Jesus' Target
Mark 16:7
When the women arrive at the tomb to anoint Jesus' body they encounter an angel who tells them that he is risen, and that they are to go and tell the disciples and Peter the news. There is a distinction made here between the disciples and then Peter. Whether he is still a disciple or not is not the question here, but rather why the distinction? It is in the this question that there is both a fear and a glorious beauty. Jesus had taught his disciples that if they confessed or denied him before men then he would confess or deny them before the Father (Matthew 10:32-33). Peter had denied Jesus before men not once, but three times (Mark 14:66-72). This puts him on very treacherous ground, and merits a distinction from the rest of the disciples. This is the fear aspect of this distinction. But the other aspect shines forth God's glory in a radiant way. Jesus also taught that we are sheep, his sheep, and when one strays he leaves the others to seek out and recover the stray (Luke 15:4-7). Do we see the love and mercy of our Savior here? He was singling out Peter here as a target of his mercy and recovery efforts for his glory. Jesus was coming after Peter in a relentless fashion, to reconcile him, despite the fact that Peter had denied him in a most purposeful, intentional, hideous way. And Jesus beautifully succeeds (John 21). But before all this, Peter broke down over his act (Mark 14:72). There was actual repentance; repentance that broke him and led him into mourning, not the casual, flippant, token asking forgiveness that has no heart-felt motivation behind it and simply admits it is sin. No, Peter felt the weight of his sin, and the stench of it in the nostrils of a holy savior. And it overwhelmed him. That is repentance. This is truly great news for us today. May the Lord single us out, as he did Peter, to the glory of His great name. Romans 8:38-39.
When the women arrive at the tomb to anoint Jesus' body they encounter an angel who tells them that he is risen, and that they are to go and tell the disciples and Peter the news. There is a distinction made here between the disciples and then Peter. Whether he is still a disciple or not is not the question here, but rather why the distinction? It is in the this question that there is both a fear and a glorious beauty. Jesus had taught his disciples that if they confessed or denied him before men then he would confess or deny them before the Father (Matthew 10:32-33). Peter had denied Jesus before men not once, but three times (Mark 14:66-72). This puts him on very treacherous ground, and merits a distinction from the rest of the disciples. This is the fear aspect of this distinction. But the other aspect shines forth God's glory in a radiant way. Jesus also taught that we are sheep, his sheep, and when one strays he leaves the others to seek out and recover the stray (Luke 15:4-7). Do we see the love and mercy of our Savior here? He was singling out Peter here as a target of his mercy and recovery efforts for his glory. Jesus was coming after Peter in a relentless fashion, to reconcile him, despite the fact that Peter had denied him in a most purposeful, intentional, hideous way. And Jesus beautifully succeeds (John 21). But before all this, Peter broke down over his act (Mark 14:72). There was actual repentance; repentance that broke him and led him into mourning, not the casual, flippant, token asking forgiveness that has no heart-felt motivation behind it and simply admits it is sin. No, Peter felt the weight of his sin, and the stench of it in the nostrils of a holy savior. And it overwhelmed him. That is repentance. This is truly great news for us today. May the Lord single us out, as he did Peter, to the glory of His great name. Romans 8:38-39.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Jesus, Our Token King
Mark 15:16-20
Jesus here is clothed in purple, symbolizing royalty, crowned with a crown, labeled as a king (vs. 26), and even called a king and hailed as one, by the soldiers. This is great, they have realized Jesus is King and have dressed him as such and called him as such. Isn't this wonderful news for these soldiers? Anyone reading this would call me crazy for saying this. Obviously these soldiers, although performing all the acts of crowning him king, are doing it in mockery of him. Even though they dress him as king, call him king and hail him as king, they obviously don't see him as king. They place him among the more common, less desirable things of this world (vs. 27, 28). He is no more a king to them than these common criminals hanging on the crosses beside him. How sad that these soldiers can crown, clothe, and call him king, as he so richly deserves, and yet it all be done in mockery, placing him among the less desirable. What about us? We are so quick to dress Jesus as king, call him a king, and hail him as king, but to what extent? Is our crown nothing more than a crown of thorns? Are we "hailing" him as king while placing among the common, less desirable things in this world? Do our lives crown, clothe, and call him king, all the while doing such in mockery of his royalty? How are we any different than these soldiers? Do we obey him as king, respect, honor, worship and glorify him as king, or after having crowned him as king, do we later strip him of his crown and purple cloak and put his own clothes back on him and lead him out (vs. 20)? What I mean is, after being so adamant in claiming Jesus as our Lord and King, do we move on, taking Jesus along with us, deciding what we want to do with him, as these soldiers did? They led him out. Jesus had no say. Is this not a reflection of us? Do our lives not mock his kingship? What place does he hold in our lives? King who leads, or king who is led? Is it all a grand show? Hail Jesus, our token king! God have mercy on us, Roman soldiers.
Jesus here is clothed in purple, symbolizing royalty, crowned with a crown, labeled as a king (vs. 26), and even called a king and hailed as one, by the soldiers. This is great, they have realized Jesus is King and have dressed him as such and called him as such. Isn't this wonderful news for these soldiers? Anyone reading this would call me crazy for saying this. Obviously these soldiers, although performing all the acts of crowning him king, are doing it in mockery of him. Even though they dress him as king, call him king and hail him as king, they obviously don't see him as king. They place him among the more common, less desirable things of this world (vs. 27, 28). He is no more a king to them than these common criminals hanging on the crosses beside him. How sad that these soldiers can crown, clothe, and call him king, as he so richly deserves, and yet it all be done in mockery, placing him among the less desirable. What about us? We are so quick to dress Jesus as king, call him a king, and hail him as king, but to what extent? Is our crown nothing more than a crown of thorns? Are we "hailing" him as king while placing among the common, less desirable things in this world? Do our lives crown, clothe, and call him king, all the while doing such in mockery of his royalty? How are we any different than these soldiers? Do we obey him as king, respect, honor, worship and glorify him as king, or after having crowned him as king, do we later strip him of his crown and purple cloak and put his own clothes back on him and lead him out (vs. 20)? What I mean is, after being so adamant in claiming Jesus as our Lord and King, do we move on, taking Jesus along with us, deciding what we want to do with him, as these soldiers did? They led him out. Jesus had no say. Is this not a reflection of us? Do our lives not mock his kingship? What place does he hold in our lives? King who leads, or king who is led? Is it all a grand show? Hail Jesus, our token king! God have mercy on us, Roman soldiers.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Jesus' Assessment
Mark 14:17-20
Jesus, during the Passover meal, gives a revelation that cuts to the heart of the disciples. He tells them that one of them will betray him this very evening and it arouses sorrow within the disciple's hearts. They begin to ask him who, hoping it is not them. There is reception of his words and it confronts and convicts them, and they receive them with truth and sorrow: initial conviction. However, just a few verses later, Jesus tells them that all of them, though not betraying him as the other person will, will fall away and deny him (vs. 27). The disciples deny this is true, even trying to convince him he is wrong this time (vs. 29, 31). Jesus even gives them evidence it is true by the fruit they produce in Gethsemane. He tells them to watch and pray, lest they fall into temptation (vs. 37, 38). Twice they fall asleep. They cannot even pray, as told to, because they are so very weak, despite what they may think of themselves or desire within. They trust their own assessment instead of Jesus' assessment of themselves. They believed their desires and viewpoint over the fruit they produced (i.e. they could not even pray). Their initial conviction of Jesus' revealing words in vs. 18 have since faded in favor of their own diagnosis and opinion, despite the fruit of their lives. Do we believe Jesus' scathing words: if we love the world we cannot love God (James 4:4; I John 2:25)? that if we do not give up all we have and all we are then we cannot follow after him (Luke 9:24; 14:33)? Or instead believe what we tell ourselves? Even if we have had initial conviction over these radical assessments, that bears no weight on current circumstances. The disciples' initial conviction and sorrow faded quickly, and they refused to believe Jesus' assessment and the fruit that coincided, instead opting to trust their own opinion and they all fell away as a result (vs. 50). Jesus has given us his ways and standards to follow him. He has given us the fruit this life will bear. So, do we believe his assessment or our own? his words or our own opinions? The answers to these will determine whether we will fall away or not.
Jesus, during the Passover meal, gives a revelation that cuts to the heart of the disciples. He tells them that one of them will betray him this very evening and it arouses sorrow within the disciple's hearts. They begin to ask him who, hoping it is not them. There is reception of his words and it confronts and convicts them, and they receive them with truth and sorrow: initial conviction. However, just a few verses later, Jesus tells them that all of them, though not betraying him as the other person will, will fall away and deny him (vs. 27). The disciples deny this is true, even trying to convince him he is wrong this time (vs. 29, 31). Jesus even gives them evidence it is true by the fruit they produce in Gethsemane. He tells them to watch and pray, lest they fall into temptation (vs. 37, 38). Twice they fall asleep. They cannot even pray, as told to, because they are so very weak, despite what they may think of themselves or desire within. They trust their own assessment instead of Jesus' assessment of themselves. They believed their desires and viewpoint over the fruit they produced (i.e. they could not even pray). Their initial conviction of Jesus' revealing words in vs. 18 have since faded in favor of their own diagnosis and opinion, despite the fruit of their lives. Do we believe Jesus' scathing words: if we love the world we cannot love God (James 4:4; I John 2:25)? that if we do not give up all we have and all we are then we cannot follow after him (Luke 9:24; 14:33)? Or instead believe what we tell ourselves? Even if we have had initial conviction over these radical assessments, that bears no weight on current circumstances. The disciples' initial conviction and sorrow faded quickly, and they refused to believe Jesus' assessment and the fruit that coincided, instead opting to trust their own opinion and they all fell away as a result (vs. 50). Jesus has given us his ways and standards to follow him. He has given us the fruit this life will bear. So, do we believe his assessment or our own? his words or our own opinions? The answers to these will determine whether we will fall away or not.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Stay Awake
Mark 13:32-37
After Jesus describes to his disciples the end times he finishes with emphasizing to them to stay awake, lest the Lord return suddenly and find them asleep. I fear we have simply interpreted this to mean those that are awake are those who prayed to receive Christ and are waiting for his return, and those who are asleep are those who have not prayed this and do not know he is returning. To think this is to miss Jesus' warnings. We spend our lives trying to maintain a past decision we made, trying to follow some pattern or standard of what is expected of someone who has prayed such a prayer. This, we determine is the christian life and what Jesus means by staying awake. This cannot be. Take Ephesians 5:11-18 into consideration with this passage. We are told to wake up, to let Christ's light shine to expose our darkness. To walk as wise, understanding what the Lord's will is, and be filled with the Spirit. This is not maintaining a past decision, but persevering in a current walk, which only Christ can lead us in, through his Holy Spirit. Maintaining a past decision according to acceptable standards is fleshly and self-led. Look at Jesus talking to his disciples in Gethsemane (14:32-42). He tells them to watch and pray (same language used here in chapter 13 that we are discussing), and yet finds them asleep. He warns them that the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. It doesn't matter that they wanted to remain awake and or had been awake up until now, their perseverance had stopped, and flesh had taken over, and this is to be asleep, and as a result they all fell away (Matthew 26:31, 56). Take this back to our warnings in chapter 13 and we have our answer. As end of times approach, persecution and deception will increase. If our walk with Jesus is not currently alive and Spirit-led, no matter what our desires are or what our life has looked like in the past, we will either fall away or be led away. If we are not currently following the Spirit then we are following the flesh (Gal. 5:16-18). And flesh is weak and cannot discern false prophets and cannot endure persecution. Matthew 24:10 refers to this as "falling away". Does this not speak of those who are seemingly in Christ, yet fall away from the faith? Not people who are clearly outside the faith. These people are looking for Christ to return, yet they cannot discern between the real one and the false one's that will come. He gives us the example of observing a fig tree and determining seasons by its sprouting. But don't forget the lesson of the fig tree in Mark 11. This fig tree was beautiful in appearance and leafy, yet barren. It had sprouted in the wrong season (11:13), and as a result was withered to the root. The real question is not have you prayed in the past or desired him in the past, but are you currently walking with and truly desiring him? Now the disciples, although they fell away, were reconciled to Jesus after his resurrection, but the falling away we are talking about affords no such luxury. There will be no reconciliation. If lukewarmness or indifference has set in, serious questions need to be asked before it is too late, and we are found to asleep.
After Jesus describes to his disciples the end times he finishes with emphasizing to them to stay awake, lest the Lord return suddenly and find them asleep. I fear we have simply interpreted this to mean those that are awake are those who prayed to receive Christ and are waiting for his return, and those who are asleep are those who have not prayed this and do not know he is returning. To think this is to miss Jesus' warnings. We spend our lives trying to maintain a past decision we made, trying to follow some pattern or standard of what is expected of someone who has prayed such a prayer. This, we determine is the christian life and what Jesus means by staying awake. This cannot be. Take Ephesians 5:11-18 into consideration with this passage. We are told to wake up, to let Christ's light shine to expose our darkness. To walk as wise, understanding what the Lord's will is, and be filled with the Spirit. This is not maintaining a past decision, but persevering in a current walk, which only Christ can lead us in, through his Holy Spirit. Maintaining a past decision according to acceptable standards is fleshly and self-led. Look at Jesus talking to his disciples in Gethsemane (14:32-42). He tells them to watch and pray (same language used here in chapter 13 that we are discussing), and yet finds them asleep. He warns them that the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. It doesn't matter that they wanted to remain awake and or had been awake up until now, their perseverance had stopped, and flesh had taken over, and this is to be asleep, and as a result they all fell away (Matthew 26:31, 56). Take this back to our warnings in chapter 13 and we have our answer. As end of times approach, persecution and deception will increase. If our walk with Jesus is not currently alive and Spirit-led, no matter what our desires are or what our life has looked like in the past, we will either fall away or be led away. If we are not currently following the Spirit then we are following the flesh (Gal. 5:16-18). And flesh is weak and cannot discern false prophets and cannot endure persecution. Matthew 24:10 refers to this as "falling away". Does this not speak of those who are seemingly in Christ, yet fall away from the faith? Not people who are clearly outside the faith. These people are looking for Christ to return, yet they cannot discern between the real one and the false one's that will come. He gives us the example of observing a fig tree and determining seasons by its sprouting. But don't forget the lesson of the fig tree in Mark 11. This fig tree was beautiful in appearance and leafy, yet barren. It had sprouted in the wrong season (11:13), and as a result was withered to the root. The real question is not have you prayed in the past or desired him in the past, but are you currently walking with and truly desiring him? Now the disciples, although they fell away, were reconciled to Jesus after his resurrection, but the falling away we are talking about affords no such luxury. There will be no reconciliation. If lukewarmness or indifference has set in, serious questions need to be asked before it is too late, and we are found to asleep.
Friday, October 7, 2011
The Greatest Commandment
Mark 12:28-34
We must pose a very important question here: have we neglected the greatest commandment, according to Jesus, in favor of his other commandments? I fear we have put serving, giving, studying the Bible, even the great commission ahead of this, the greatest of all commandments. But we have to realize that if we have done this, all these other works are absolutely worthless (I Cor. 13:1-3). All our other works flow from this. We cannot properly perform these other duties until we have first laid hold of this, the greatest of all commandments. We must be very careful because these duties can be performed out of love of religion, or self, or others, or any number of things. These motives are not wrong seemingly, unless love of God is not primary, then they have taken a place where they do not belong. Love of God is essential. It is our testimony to the world (I John 13:35). It is the prerequisite to loving others (I John 5:2). And it is the commandment that all other commandments hinge upon (Matthew 22:39, 40). Look at the fruits of the Spirit (Galations 5:22, 23). Do not all the other fruits seem to stem from the first fruit: love? These are the true indications of whether or not the Spirit is working and leading, not outward appearance. And it is not enough to just know this. The scribe in our story knew it, confessed it, seemingly believed it, and yet Jesus only states he is close to the kingdom, not a part of it (vs. 32-34). We can know this and yet still miss it, just as this scribe did. We must stop measuring our christian lives by how much we witness or serve or give. We must start measuring by God's standard: how much do we love, first him, then others. Because only he can give this (I John 4:19). Getting these out of order is death to our christian walk, no matter how spiritual you and your works may appear.
We must pose a very important question here: have we neglected the greatest commandment, according to Jesus, in favor of his other commandments? I fear we have put serving, giving, studying the Bible, even the great commission ahead of this, the greatest of all commandments. But we have to realize that if we have done this, all these other works are absolutely worthless (I Cor. 13:1-3). All our other works flow from this. We cannot properly perform these other duties until we have first laid hold of this, the greatest of all commandments. We must be very careful because these duties can be performed out of love of religion, or self, or others, or any number of things. These motives are not wrong seemingly, unless love of God is not primary, then they have taken a place where they do not belong. Love of God is essential. It is our testimony to the world (I John 13:35). It is the prerequisite to loving others (I John 5:2). And it is the commandment that all other commandments hinge upon (Matthew 22:39, 40). Look at the fruits of the Spirit (Galations 5:22, 23). Do not all the other fruits seem to stem from the first fruit: love? These are the true indications of whether or not the Spirit is working and leading, not outward appearance. And it is not enough to just know this. The scribe in our story knew it, confessed it, seemingly believed it, and yet Jesus only states he is close to the kingdom, not a part of it (vs. 32-34). We can know this and yet still miss it, just as this scribe did. We must stop measuring our christian lives by how much we witness or serve or give. We must start measuring by God's standard: how much do we love, first him, then others. Because only he can give this (I John 4:19). Getting these out of order is death to our christian walk, no matter how spiritual you and your works may appear.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Render to Caeser What is Caesar's
Mark 13-17
I find it interesting that this passage immediately follows the parable of the vineyard owner (12:1-12). From this first parable one would infer that God has planted the vineyard, provided all the means necessary to harvest it and keep it, therefore he is due all the fruit of it, i.e. he owns everything, we are just working it so we owe him all of "our" earnings. Therefore give him all your money. Seems pretty simple. But then you come across this passage where Jesus commands one to give money to the government, as is due them, rendering it impossible to give all to God, which is due him (Luke 14:33), seeming to contradict his former parable of the vineyard, where the true owner of the vineyard is due the fruit of the vineyard. This is where we must be given ears to hear and eyes to see. God is not after simply our money. We are to give God what is due him: our heart and lives, not simply our money. We can give all our money to him out of peer pressure or guilt or to advance our own name and ministry or legalism, etc., which still holds back from him what is due him: our hearts, missing the whole point and purpose. Simply giving him money out of impure motives is nothing more than paying taxes to the government. If we give out of these motives God is still not our treasure, therefore neither are our hearts his (Matthew 6:21). He most often asks for our money, not because he wants it or needs it, but because we are so attached to it, giving it what only he deserves. And as long as this is the case, we cannot properly serve and love him (Matthew 6:24), despite what we may say or think. The issue here is obedience, not simply giving money. He is due, not only our money, but whatever he asks for, whether that be money or not. Money, to God, is worthless in and of itself. It is earthly and due the government, so let them have it. God is due so much more. Give Caesar your money, but give God your heart and loyalty and obedience and affection and anything else he asks for, showing your true love for him (John 14:15, 21-24). They key is obedience, and to be obedient one must hear from God, not rely on his own understanding.
I find it interesting that this passage immediately follows the parable of the vineyard owner (12:1-12). From this first parable one would infer that God has planted the vineyard, provided all the means necessary to harvest it and keep it, therefore he is due all the fruit of it, i.e. he owns everything, we are just working it so we owe him all of "our" earnings. Therefore give him all your money. Seems pretty simple. But then you come across this passage where Jesus commands one to give money to the government, as is due them, rendering it impossible to give all to God, which is due him (Luke 14:33), seeming to contradict his former parable of the vineyard, where the true owner of the vineyard is due the fruit of the vineyard. This is where we must be given ears to hear and eyes to see. God is not after simply our money. We are to give God what is due him: our heart and lives, not simply our money. We can give all our money to him out of peer pressure or guilt or to advance our own name and ministry or legalism, etc., which still holds back from him what is due him: our hearts, missing the whole point and purpose. Simply giving him money out of impure motives is nothing more than paying taxes to the government. If we give out of these motives God is still not our treasure, therefore neither are our hearts his (Matthew 6:21). He most often asks for our money, not because he wants it or needs it, but because we are so attached to it, giving it what only he deserves. And as long as this is the case, we cannot properly serve and love him (Matthew 6:24), despite what we may say or think. The issue here is obedience, not simply giving money. He is due, not only our money, but whatever he asks for, whether that be money or not. Money, to God, is worthless in and of itself. It is earthly and due the government, so let them have it. God is due so much more. Give Caesar your money, but give God your heart and loyalty and obedience and affection and anything else he asks for, showing your true love for him (John 14:15, 21-24). They key is obedience, and to be obedient one must hear from God, not rely on his own understanding.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Religious Fear
Mark 11:15-19
In Deuteronomy 6 and 10 we are told to fear the Lord our God. This is a good and necessary command. We are told in verse 18 of this passage in Mark that the religious leaders did in fact fear Jesus. But clearly this fear was not in obedience to the command given in Deuteronomy. The fear talked about in Deuteronomy is a reverent fear, a fear of disobeying his commands and wandering from him. This fear sees his holiness and righteousness and our wickedness and wretchedness and realizes the separation, and fears disobedience and straying out from under his mercy, realizing our God is a consuming fire (Hebrews 11:28, 29). This fear drives us to him tighter, clinging to him continually, finding shelter in his wings. The fear talked about here in Mark 11:18 is a jealous fear, a selfish, fleshly fear that stems more from what his presence means for their success and status. And this type of fear drives them to want to destroy him (vs. 19), to eliminate the threat he poses for their self-centered lives. Now, none of us would confess or even entertain the thought of destroying him, that is absurd. But do we not evidence this same reaction by our lives? We read or hear passages of scripture that we don't like so we reinterpret them more to our liking, or justify our position under them in some deformed manner. How is this any different than the reaction of the scribes and priests in this passage, aside from being more subtle and deceptive? We also seek to eliminate the threat he poses, just as they did, we just are more "refined" and "civilized" in our attempts.
In Deuteronomy 6 and 10 we are told to fear the Lord our God. This is a good and necessary command. We are told in verse 18 of this passage in Mark that the religious leaders did in fact fear Jesus. But clearly this fear was not in obedience to the command given in Deuteronomy. The fear talked about in Deuteronomy is a reverent fear, a fear of disobeying his commands and wandering from him. This fear sees his holiness and righteousness and our wickedness and wretchedness and realizes the separation, and fears disobedience and straying out from under his mercy, realizing our God is a consuming fire (Hebrews 11:28, 29). This fear drives us to him tighter, clinging to him continually, finding shelter in his wings. The fear talked about here in Mark 11:18 is a jealous fear, a selfish, fleshly fear that stems more from what his presence means for their success and status. And this type of fear drives them to want to destroy him (vs. 19), to eliminate the threat he poses for their self-centered lives. Now, none of us would confess or even entertain the thought of destroying him, that is absurd. But do we not evidence this same reaction by our lives? We read or hear passages of scripture that we don't like so we reinterpret them more to our liking, or justify our position under them in some deformed manner. How is this any different than the reaction of the scribes and priests in this passage, aside from being more subtle and deceptive? We also seek to eliminate the threat he poses, just as they did, we just are more "refined" and "civilized" in our attempts.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Blindly Finding Jesus
Mark 10:46-52
A blind man on the side of the road is calling out to Jesus as he passes by. He refers to him as "The Son of David", indicating he believes in Jesus as the promised one, the Savior. He cries out and cries out, despite what others are saying to him, telling him to be quiet. He must have this Jesus hear him. And Jesus finally calls out to him to come. So, this poor blind beggar leaves behind his cloak and immediately rises and takes after Jesus. Although he cannot see, he finds his way to Jesus anyways, pushing his way through the crowd, not caring that he cannot see. He trusts that he will get to Jesus eventually, even though this man has not heard Jesus personally call him. He was told that Jesus was calling him (vs. 49). How many times do we wait to see before we will come after Jesus? We wait for the personal voice to come specifically to us and want to see the path to take and see Jesus standing there at the end waiting for us. This man had none of those things, and yet he was desperate enough to walk forward anyways. And his original request was not for healing, it was for mercy (vs. 47), being given what he did not deserve. And when the potential opportunity presented itself he left what little he had and ventured out towards the merciful one. And once he finds Jesus, he does not go back to gather his belongings, what little he did have, he leaves them all behind and continues with Jesus. A cloak for a poor man was probably fairly important, but Jesus is more important, his mercy is more important. How often do we "leave" behind our belongings to come to Jesus in our desperate hour only to return to them later? Does this not evidence that we feel we have received our just due, that we have received what we are entitled to? This man clung to Jesus because he has received what he did not deserve (mercy) and was afraid of returning to his former position, lest he receive what he did deserve (separation from Jesus). We return to our old ways and belongings because we are not afraid to leave the merciful one because we feel we are entitled to mercy whenever we so choose and so we go back to those things that are truly important to us, the things that we are truly afraid of losing, and it is not Jesus. Would we blindly venture out after Christ, leaving everything behind, never to return to them, on the hunch or possibility we may encounter Christ? This man did.
A blind man on the side of the road is calling out to Jesus as he passes by. He refers to him as "The Son of David", indicating he believes in Jesus as the promised one, the Savior. He cries out and cries out, despite what others are saying to him, telling him to be quiet. He must have this Jesus hear him. And Jesus finally calls out to him to come. So, this poor blind beggar leaves behind his cloak and immediately rises and takes after Jesus. Although he cannot see, he finds his way to Jesus anyways, pushing his way through the crowd, not caring that he cannot see. He trusts that he will get to Jesus eventually, even though this man has not heard Jesus personally call him. He was told that Jesus was calling him (vs. 49). How many times do we wait to see before we will come after Jesus? We wait for the personal voice to come specifically to us and want to see the path to take and see Jesus standing there at the end waiting for us. This man had none of those things, and yet he was desperate enough to walk forward anyways. And his original request was not for healing, it was for mercy (vs. 47), being given what he did not deserve. And when the potential opportunity presented itself he left what little he had and ventured out towards the merciful one. And once he finds Jesus, he does not go back to gather his belongings, what little he did have, he leaves them all behind and continues with Jesus. A cloak for a poor man was probably fairly important, but Jesus is more important, his mercy is more important. How often do we "leave" behind our belongings to come to Jesus in our desperate hour only to return to them later? Does this not evidence that we feel we have received our just due, that we have received what we are entitled to? This man clung to Jesus because he has received what he did not deserve (mercy) and was afraid of returning to his former position, lest he receive what he did deserve (separation from Jesus). We return to our old ways and belongings because we are not afraid to leave the merciful one because we feel we are entitled to mercy whenever we so choose and so we go back to those things that are truly important to us, the things that we are truly afraid of losing, and it is not Jesus. Would we blindly venture out after Christ, leaving everything behind, never to return to them, on the hunch or possibility we may encounter Christ? This man did.
Confession is Not Completion
Matthew 16:13-28
Jesus asks his disciples who people say he is, then asks them who they say he is. Peter confesses him as the Christ, the Messiah, their Savior, the one who was promised. Jesus confirms Peter, telling him that his Father in heaven, God himself has revealed that to him. Peter has had his eyes opened by God and sees Jesus for who he really is. And yet that is not enough. Just a few verses later Jesus rebukes him because he has the things of man in mind and not the things of God. Jesus has told him that he must suffer and die and Peter rebuked him, telling him he would never allow that to happen. Peter sees death as bad as undesirable, as a tragedy that cannot take place. Jesus tells him that this mindset is of man, not God. In fact, Jesus goes on to say that not only will he suffer and die, but anyone who would follow him must suffer the same. This is the mindset of God and not man. Death is good and, in fact, required for any follower of Jesus. Peter does not understand this because his mind is still set on the things of man and not God, even though he just confessed Jesus as Christ. A confession of Jesus as Christ is not enough, one must continue on to suffer death, if he is to be a true follower of Jesus. A servant becomes like his master (John 15). Taking Jesus' rebuke into consideration, we can infer that basically Jesus is saying to Peter, "Peter, your confession of me as the Christ is incredible, and was given to you by God himself, but that is not enough, you still have the things of man in mind. You have to set your mind on things above, on the things of God. Then you will see that confession is not enough, that death must come and it is good and necessary. Then you will have the things of God in mind." We cannot stop at confession and think we are there. We must suffer death. We must die to ourselves and our flesh. We must lose our life if we are to save it. Simple confession is to set one's mind on the things of man and avoid death and denial of self, and ultimately a loss of life, real life. Real life embraces death and denial. For what does it profit a man if he saves his life, prolongs his desires and gain and survives? This is not exchangeable for one's soul.
Jesus asks his disciples who people say he is, then asks them who they say he is. Peter confesses him as the Christ, the Messiah, their Savior, the one who was promised. Jesus confirms Peter, telling him that his Father in heaven, God himself has revealed that to him. Peter has had his eyes opened by God and sees Jesus for who he really is. And yet that is not enough. Just a few verses later Jesus rebukes him because he has the things of man in mind and not the things of God. Jesus has told him that he must suffer and die and Peter rebuked him, telling him he would never allow that to happen. Peter sees death as bad as undesirable, as a tragedy that cannot take place. Jesus tells him that this mindset is of man, not God. In fact, Jesus goes on to say that not only will he suffer and die, but anyone who would follow him must suffer the same. This is the mindset of God and not man. Death is good and, in fact, required for any follower of Jesus. Peter does not understand this because his mind is still set on the things of man and not God, even though he just confessed Jesus as Christ. A confession of Jesus as Christ is not enough, one must continue on to suffer death, if he is to be a true follower of Jesus. A servant becomes like his master (John 15). Taking Jesus' rebuke into consideration, we can infer that basically Jesus is saying to Peter, "Peter, your confession of me as the Christ is incredible, and was given to you by God himself, but that is not enough, you still have the things of man in mind. You have to set your mind on things above, on the things of God. Then you will see that confession is not enough, that death must come and it is good and necessary. Then you will have the things of God in mind." We cannot stop at confession and think we are there. We must suffer death. We must die to ourselves and our flesh. We must lose our life if we are to save it. Simple confession is to set one's mind on the things of man and avoid death and denial of self, and ultimately a loss of life, real life. Real life embraces death and denial. For what does it profit a man if he saves his life, prolongs his desires and gain and survives? This is not exchangeable for one's soul.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)