cmp.2007.03.07
ed.2008.08.30.11 (Public Review)
Pastor,
Greetings in the name of Jesus! I heard that there were some dissensions about the very extravagant gift you had recently received. Jesus gave very specific commandments regarding stewardship and giving, and I believe that we must remind the Church, even the leadership, that we have freely been given all things. And, as Jesus commanded, "Freely you received, freely give."
It is our willingness to accept that all good things come from God that brings us to acknowledge Him. And in our praise, God finds a dwelling place. It is our determination to be faithful and accountable with every gift that God has given us that lets us know that we should accept these gifts. Otherwise, if we are not faithful, we are more than guilty of those accusations that we are full of greed and selfishness.
It is written that seed is given to the sower. A sower by definition is someone who takes seed that they have and buries it into the ground. And through its death, new life is given. And we also understand that all seed is given to us to be planted.
It is also written that the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance. Even when God gives us more seed to be faithful with, we are not excused from being accountable for what He has given us before. Our responsibilities grow as we grow in favor. If those in the Kingdom are called to plant seed, the Word of God, then everything within our means is simply a tool for that purpose.
To clarify, Scripture speaks clearly concerning wealth and prosperity. Consider prosperity as the ability to make an increase with what we are given and alternatively, wealth as the act of storing that increase. It is certain that His desire for us is to prosper. So in this light, we can understand why Jesus spoke against those who stored up their wealth, but not against prosperity. "Bear one another's burdens, and in this, fulfill the law of Christ."
We will be held accountable for those gifts that we were given and their potential for increase. We have to let those things die to us by releasing our authority over them and placing them under the authority of God. Now, when I say that we must let those things die to us, I am referring to a common truth. When a man dies to the law, the law no longer has authority over him. If we have died to the law, the law has no right to reclaim us or enforce its constraints.
In the same way, if we let something die to us, and if we truly make an offering to God, we surrender our right to take it back or impose constraints on our offering. A sacrifice in every sense of the word implies that our offering literally leaves our possession and given to another.
What do we do then if we offer up our gifts and they return again? We believe that God is honoring His Word that just as our bread is cast upon the water, it has returned to us. Therefore, we continue in obedience and sow that seed again and again knowing that what He has given will always be ours. And, our faith in His Word is evidenced by us freely giving it away over and over.
We so often justify our income, our possessions, gifts and even our lives by claiming that a workman is worthy of his hire. If we negotiate a wage, then we are paid in obligation. Those who are paid through a wage have received their reward. If we are given more above that wage, then what we receive is an act of favor—grace. Therefore, as gifts given in favor there is no possible way to justify why we received them; only when there is a law, an agreement, can we justify why we should be given a wage. Otherwise, our only explanation is favor.
And so, we give again and again knowing that whatever gift that we give for God will be returned to us to give yet again. And in this, our actions are evidence that we truly believe that investments in this life, and rewards in this life, cannot compare to what we believe are in store for those who love God and are called according to Hs purpose. The gifts of God are without repentance, so they will always be ours to give. But, they will never be ours to keep to ourselves. Even concerning the rewards to come, we will lay them down at His feet.
I pray that you grow you favor and peace in God through Christ Jesus, amen.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Monday, August 4, 2008
Matt. 1:23 - Call His Name Immanuel
cmp.2008.08.04
ed.2008.08.08.011 (Public Draft II)
Note: You will need Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic fonts to view this article.
Organization
1. The Testimony
2. The Dilemma
3. An Argument From The Greek Old Testament
4. An Argument From The Aramaic And Greek New Testament
5. An Argument From Mishnaic Hebrew
6. What Did The Apostles Call Jesus?
7. What Did God Call Jesus?
8. Conclusion
1. The Testimony
Matt. 1:23 (NASB)
"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" —which means, "God with us."
Isaiah 7:14 (NASB)
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
2. The Dilemma
All over the world, people refer to the name of Jesus in many different ways.
However, many Messianic Jewish teachers are claiming that it is more correct and "spiritual" to call Jesus, "Yeshua", because Jesus was Jewish, and "Yeshua" is the Hebrew form of the English name, "Jesus". They also argue that when Jesus walked the streets of Israel, He was commonly known as "Yeshua".
So the question is, what are we really supposed to call "Jesus"?
3. An Argument From The Greek Old Testament
In the Old Testament, (1 Chron. 24:11), there was a Priest named "Jeshua", ("Yeshua", יֵשׁוּעַ in Hebrew which is argued to be a shortened form of "Joshua", יְהֹושֻׁע). Now, when the Old Testament was translated into Greek, the name "Jeshua" was consistently translated as "Jesus", (Iesous, Ἰησοῦς in Greek).
It is reasonable to believe that "Yeshua" in Hebrew is the etymological source of the Greek name "Iesous", (which is where we get the name "Jesus").
However, if the translators of the Old Testament and the Apostles had intended to preserve original pronunciations, then the Greek form of "Yeshua" may have been more phonetically accurate and look more like "Ἰησῦα", rather than "Ἰησοῦς".
Therefore, it is reasonable to accept that any concern over the proper phonetic pronunciation of the name, "Jesus" was most probably not that big of an issue for the Jewish scholars in the second and third centuries B.C.
4. An Argument From The Aramaic And Greek New Testament
When we consider Aramaic New Testament manuscripts, we find that the Aramaic version of Jesus' name is a direct letter to letter transliteration from Hebrew into Aramaic. But, the Aramaic name in practice was most probably pronounced differently from Ancient Hebrew, "Isho'", (with a hard gutteral stop at the end), instead of "Yeshua".
In addition, all of the Greek and Aramaic texts of the New Testament make every effort to make sure that "Immanuel" is preserved phonetically as "Ἐμμανουήλ" and "ܥܡܢܘܐܝܠ". Why would the Apostles phonetically preserve the Hebrew name "Immanuel", but never preserve the phonetic pronunciation of "Yeshua"?
The only reasonable conclusion is that the preservation of the prophetic name "Immanuel" was far more important to the Apostolic Church than any of the Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic expressions of the name, "Jesus".
5. An Argument From Mishnaic Hebrew
Which form of Hebrew should we transliterate Jesus' name into? Early Mosaic Hebrew? Pre/Post Babylonian? Mishnaic Hebrew? Modern Hebrew?
If we are trying to determine the most accurate pronunciation of Jesus' name during the age He lived in, it would be more accurate to consult Mishnaic Hebrew instead of Post Babylonian Hebrew because this was the form of Hebrew being used by the religious scholars of that period.
Although I cannot make a sound argument that the "Jesus" referred to in the Talmud actually refers to "Jesus the Nazarene", what we can at the very least determine is how they wrote this very commonly used name as, "Yeshu", ("ישו", A reference can be found in Sanhedrin 107b as well as many other places). So, we can see a change of this name over time, from Yehoshua, to Yeshua, to Yeshu. Even in Israel today, it is a very common practice to shorten Biblical Hebrew names.
So, it is evident that the "Hebrew" form of Jesus' name during and after His life, "Yeshu", is confirmed in both the Aramaic and Greek languages. "Yeshu" in Hebrew, "Isho'" in Aramaic, and "Iesous" in Greek. The third syllable in every ancient representation of Jesus' name is consistently dropped. This is further evidence that Jesus was not referred to as "Yeshua" in ancient times.
6. What Did The Apostles Call Jesus?
An obvious resolution to this issue could be found by deferring to the Apostles since they were given authority over the Church; specifically, they were given twelve thrones to judge the tribes of Israel, which Gentile believers are grafted into.
The Apostles clearly called Jesus, "Ἰησοῦς" in Greek. We can make this conclusion because of Luke's writings and Paul's letters to the Greeks, such as his letter to the Romans. It is certainly not reasonable to believe that Paul proclaimed the Gospel to the Greeks in Aramaic, and certainly not in ancient Biblical Hebrew.
Romans 1:4-6 (NASB)
... Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name's sake, among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ ...
And, if the Apostles wrote in Aramaic (the dialect of the Hebrews, "τῇ Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ", Acts 26:14), then it is reasonable to believe that the Apostles also called Jesus, "ܝܫܘܥ", or "Isho'" in Aramaic.
If Paul introduced himself as "Paul", would we consider it reasonable to disrespect him and call him by his Hebrew name, "Sha'ul"? If the Apostles of Jesus Christ were given authority to establish the Church, and they consistently introduced Jesus to the nations as "Iesous" and "Isho'", could it be considered reasonable to claim that people all over the world called Jesus, "Yeshua" instead?
Since the Apostles used Aramaic and Greek names for Jesus, then it is reasonable for us to express the name of Jesus in different dialects as well. Also, because Hebrew was not widely known in Israel except among scholars, and because there are no ancient Hebrew texts that refer to Jesus as "Yeshua", it is reasonable to conclude that few people, if any, ever referred to Jesus as "Yeshua" as people do today 2000 years later.
7. What Did God Call Jesus?
Matt. 1:23 (NASB)
"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" —which means, "God with us."
Now beyond doubt, this is most arguably the Hebrew name of Jesus. God said it and Gabriel confirmed it. And even both Matthew the Apostle, and Isaiah the Prophet wrote it.
What is really awesome about this is that even though this is not an "Imperative Command", and Scripture does not directly command anyone to call Jesus "Immanuel", (עִמָּנוּ אֵל), it is a "Testimony" of God, something that God has witnessed of the future. Therefore, if God said that Jesus' Hebrew name was Immanuel, we can assume that we know what Jesus' real Hebrew name was.
It was very common for people to have different names in different languages: Peter's name was Simon in Hebrew, Cephas in Aramaic, and Petros in Greek. The list goes on. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that Jesus had an Aramaic name, "Isho'", a Greek name, "Iesous", and a Hebrew name, "Immanuel".
8. Conclusion
It is clear that the Apostles accepted and even encouraged the transliteration of the name of Jesus into other languages.
However, claiming that the Apostles, the people of Israel, or the rest of the world knew of Jesus as "Yeshua" in Hebrew during the period of the Apostolic Church is not supported at all historically.
And, if the Apostles did not consider proclaiming the name of Jesus in Hebrew as necessary, then it is well beyond the intellectualism of anyone today to suggest that the Church should use this name outside of Hebrew speaking communities.
Finally, because we know that faith must be preceded by what God has said and not our own intellectualism, it is not reasonable to ask others to simply believe that Jesus was originally called "Yeshua" in Hebrew. Rather, we can say with certainty that the Apostles, the Apostolic Church, and Scripture, all spoke of Jesus as, "Immanuel", "Isho'", and "Iesous".
ed.2008.08.08.011 (Public Draft II)
Note: You will need Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic fonts to view this article.
Organization
1. The Testimony
2. The Dilemma
3. An Argument From The Greek Old Testament
4. An Argument From The Aramaic And Greek New Testament
5. An Argument From Mishnaic Hebrew
6. What Did The Apostles Call Jesus?
7. What Did God Call Jesus?
8. Conclusion
1. The Testimony
Matt. 1:23 (NASB)
"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" —which means, "God with us."
Isaiah 7:14 (NASB)
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
2. The Dilemma
All over the world, people refer to the name of Jesus in many different ways.
However, many Messianic Jewish teachers are claiming that it is more correct and "spiritual" to call Jesus, "Yeshua", because Jesus was Jewish, and "Yeshua" is the Hebrew form of the English name, "Jesus". They also argue that when Jesus walked the streets of Israel, He was commonly known as "Yeshua".
So the question is, what are we really supposed to call "Jesus"?
3. An Argument From The Greek Old Testament
In the Old Testament, (1 Chron. 24:11), there was a Priest named "Jeshua", ("Yeshua", יֵשׁוּעַ in Hebrew which is argued to be a shortened form of "Joshua", יְהֹושֻׁע). Now, when the Old Testament was translated into Greek, the name "Jeshua" was consistently translated as "Jesus", (Iesous, Ἰησοῦς in Greek).
It is reasonable to believe that "Yeshua" in Hebrew is the etymological source of the Greek name "Iesous", (which is where we get the name "Jesus").
However, if the translators of the Old Testament and the Apostles had intended to preserve original pronunciations, then the Greek form of "Yeshua" may have been more phonetically accurate and look more like "Ἰησῦα", rather than "Ἰησοῦς".
Therefore, it is reasonable to accept that any concern over the proper phonetic pronunciation of the name, "Jesus" was most probably not that big of an issue for the Jewish scholars in the second and third centuries B.C.
4. An Argument From The Aramaic And Greek New Testament
When we consider Aramaic New Testament manuscripts, we find that the Aramaic version of Jesus' name is a direct letter to letter transliteration from Hebrew into Aramaic. But, the Aramaic name in practice was most probably pronounced differently from Ancient Hebrew, "Isho'", (with a hard gutteral stop at the end), instead of "Yeshua".
In addition, all of the Greek and Aramaic texts of the New Testament make every effort to make sure that "Immanuel" is preserved phonetically as "Ἐμμανουήλ" and "ܥܡܢܘܐܝܠ". Why would the Apostles phonetically preserve the Hebrew name "Immanuel", but never preserve the phonetic pronunciation of "Yeshua"?
The only reasonable conclusion is that the preservation of the prophetic name "Immanuel" was far more important to the Apostolic Church than any of the Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic expressions of the name, "Jesus".
5. An Argument From Mishnaic Hebrew
Which form of Hebrew should we transliterate Jesus' name into? Early Mosaic Hebrew? Pre/Post Babylonian? Mishnaic Hebrew? Modern Hebrew?
If we are trying to determine the most accurate pronunciation of Jesus' name during the age He lived in, it would be more accurate to consult Mishnaic Hebrew instead of Post Babylonian Hebrew because this was the form of Hebrew being used by the religious scholars of that period.
Although I cannot make a sound argument that the "Jesus" referred to in the Talmud actually refers to "Jesus the Nazarene", what we can at the very least determine is how they wrote this very commonly used name as, "Yeshu", ("ישו", A reference can be found in Sanhedrin 107b as well as many other places). So, we can see a change of this name over time, from Yehoshua, to Yeshua, to Yeshu. Even in Israel today, it is a very common practice to shorten Biblical Hebrew names.
So, it is evident that the "Hebrew" form of Jesus' name during and after His life, "Yeshu", is confirmed in both the Aramaic and Greek languages. "Yeshu" in Hebrew, "Isho'" in Aramaic, and "Iesous" in Greek. The third syllable in every ancient representation of Jesus' name is consistently dropped. This is further evidence that Jesus was not referred to as "Yeshua" in ancient times.
6. What Did The Apostles Call Jesus?
An obvious resolution to this issue could be found by deferring to the Apostles since they were given authority over the Church; specifically, they were given twelve thrones to judge the tribes of Israel, which Gentile believers are grafted into.
The Apostles clearly called Jesus, "Ἰησοῦς" in Greek. We can make this conclusion because of Luke's writings and Paul's letters to the Greeks, such as his letter to the Romans. It is certainly not reasonable to believe that Paul proclaimed the Gospel to the Greeks in Aramaic, and certainly not in ancient Biblical Hebrew.
Romans 1:4-6 (NASB)
... Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name's sake, among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ ...
And, if the Apostles wrote in Aramaic (the dialect of the Hebrews, "τῇ Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ", Acts 26:14), then it is reasonable to believe that the Apostles also called Jesus, "ܝܫܘܥ", or "Isho'" in Aramaic.
If Paul introduced himself as "Paul", would we consider it reasonable to disrespect him and call him by his Hebrew name, "Sha'ul"? If the Apostles of Jesus Christ were given authority to establish the Church, and they consistently introduced Jesus to the nations as "Iesous" and "Isho'", could it be considered reasonable to claim that people all over the world called Jesus, "Yeshua" instead?
Since the Apostles used Aramaic and Greek names for Jesus, then it is reasonable for us to express the name of Jesus in different dialects as well. Also, because Hebrew was not widely known in Israel except among scholars, and because there are no ancient Hebrew texts that refer to Jesus as "Yeshua", it is reasonable to conclude that few people, if any, ever referred to Jesus as "Yeshua" as people do today 2000 years later.
7. What Did God Call Jesus?
Matt. 1:23 (NASB)
"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" —which means, "God with us."
Now beyond doubt, this is most arguably the Hebrew name of Jesus. God said it and Gabriel confirmed it. And even both Matthew the Apostle, and Isaiah the Prophet wrote it.
What is really awesome about this is that even though this is not an "Imperative Command", and Scripture does not directly command anyone to call Jesus "Immanuel", (עִמָּנוּ אֵל), it is a "Testimony" of God, something that God has witnessed of the future. Therefore, if God said that Jesus' Hebrew name was Immanuel, we can assume that we know what Jesus' real Hebrew name was.
It was very common for people to have different names in different languages: Peter's name was Simon in Hebrew, Cephas in Aramaic, and Petros in Greek. The list goes on. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that Jesus had an Aramaic name, "Isho'", a Greek name, "Iesous", and a Hebrew name, "Immanuel".
8. Conclusion
It is clear that the Apostles accepted and even encouraged the transliteration of the name of Jesus into other languages.
However, claiming that the Apostles, the people of Israel, or the rest of the world knew of Jesus as "Yeshua" in Hebrew during the period of the Apostolic Church is not supported at all historically.
And, if the Apostles did not consider proclaiming the name of Jesus in Hebrew as necessary, then it is well beyond the intellectualism of anyone today to suggest that the Church should use this name outside of Hebrew speaking communities.
Finally, because we know that faith must be preceded by what God has said and not our own intellectualism, it is not reasonable to ask others to simply believe that Jesus was originally called "Yeshua" in Hebrew. Rather, we can say with certainty that the Apostles, the Apostolic Church, and Scripture, all spoke of Jesus as, "Immanuel", "Isho'", and "Iesous".
Monday, July 14, 2008
Messianic Judaism.2008.07.14.01
cmp.2008.07.14
ed.2008.07.14.08 (A very rough draft/organization of an email I responded to.)
Should we observe Jewish Traditions and keep the Laws of Moses?
---------
The Talmud and Mishnah was mostly composed before Jesus even came to earth, weren't they?
---------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mishnah
No. Though, I do concede that some of the traditions that were mentioned in the Mishnah were widely observed during the time of Jesus. However, just because some traditions were followed then, does not necessarily mean that they were passed down from Moses.
I certainly do not have any evidence that some Oral tradition was passed down from Moses and preserved 100%.
According to Judaism, why do Jews believe in tradition?
1. Because Tradition says Tradition is authoritative.
2. Because if they didn't have tradition, they wouldn't know what things in Scripture meant.
If we would admit that we don't know what things mean, we would end up recognizing the prophecies that God would cause a famine where people would not know His Word, (Amos).
But, instead of accepting the possibility that we are far off and need to repent, we claim that we have full knowledge still. But unfortunately, reason says that the evidence of our nearness to God is God being with us. So, we can claim knowledge and intimacy of God all we want, but that doesn't change reality.
"God being with us" is not a subjective truth. It is an objective truth. Even Moses recognized that the presence of God would be apparent to all of the nations when He asked God, "If you do not go with us, how will the nations know that you favor us?"
---------
And I think Jesus' main argument against some of the oral traditions was that the Pharisees were using them to supersede the actual commands of Torah. A good example of this is your example in Mark 7. I think He was giving a parable, not declaring a new truth. In fact verse 17 says "His disciples asked Him about this parable" before the part you quoted below.
He goes on to talk about man's heart. I don't think He was changing the law, He was making a point about men's hearts. Otherwise He would have been contradicting everything He said earlier in the chapter. You're taking the verses out of context. :)
---------
You are right, the disciples questioned Jesus about the parable in Mark 7:17. And, in response, Jesus said that food doesn't make a man unclean. This was the interpretation of the parable. The parable came first, and then this explanation came second. So, it seems as though I am not taking it out of context because the interpretation of this "parable" was that food could not make a man unclean.
Yhe phrase, "Purifying all foods", is contextually considered a comment of Mark the Apostle, (the writer). Mark wasn't speaking in a parable. He was providing a "commentary" of sorts. He was saying, "When Jesus said this, He in effect purified all foods, so that food could no longer be considered unclean." It is not a new thought to believe that purification comes through the Word of God.
Remember, the Law of Moses was given to Israel because of the hardness of their hearts, meaning that they were unwilling to obey. So, God gave them "easier" laws to obey. God wanted them to keep their hearts pure by not defiling it with the things that came out. But, they were unwilling. So, God gave them the dietary laws instead to teach them the concept of being defiled in their hearts.
If Jesus was not trying to say that it was not what goes into us that makes us unclean, but what comes out, then what was Jesus really trying to say? If He wasn't really saying what He said, what else could He have possibly meant?
But, I believe Jesus is right. Food does not defiles us, it is what comes out of us that defiles us. Food cannot make us unclean before God.
Again, eating with unclean hands has nothing to do with kosher laws in the Bible.
--------
Regarding the verse "In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean": Now I don't speak Greek, but I don't believe the words 'in saying this, Jesus declared' are even in the text. I think it says something like "purifying all foods".
--------
http://biblos.com/mark/7-19.htm
If you look at the little horizontal link list, you will see a link that says: Grk/Heb
All you have to do is hover your mouse over the blue Greek words, and it will show you what each word corresponds too. And then, click it. The little pop up definition is different than the definition that they present.
So, if Jesus, as you say, "purified all foods" through what He said, then how could they be considered unclean?
--------
I think He was referring back to the earlier argument about whether or not ritually washing your hands could make food clean or unclean. None of them were eating ham, after all. They were eating bread.
--------
Good point. They initially we talking about not washing their hands before eating bread, (which was a custom or tradition and still is). It certainly was not a law of Moses. But, then Jesus made an argument to prove how stupid their tradition was. He said in essence, "No matter what you eat, it won't make you unclean, so what does it matter if don't wash your hands?
Regardless of any of this, the Disciples still ate without washing, and in Acts, Peter still ate with the Greeks.
--------
If He didn't fulfill Torah perfectly, He could not have been the sacrifice for our sin. And if we're supposed to imitate Him, then why are we changing His Torah when even He didn't do that?
--------
Jesus said, that if anyone would teach anyone to dismiss any of the laws, they would be condemned. So, even if Jesus were fulfilling the law, and He taught His disciples to break it, then Jesus would be guilty too. So, Jesus wasn't teaching them contrary to what Moses taught. Remember, the disciples even picked grain out of the fields on Shabbat. This was explicitly forbidden in the laws of Moses. And, if Jesus taught them that it was okay, then Jesus would be guilty too...
But Jesus made the argument, "You all have no understanding of the Law of Moses". So then, why are Christians going to Jews to understand the laws of Moses if even Jesus said that the Jews did not understand?
Further, Jesus certainly changed the Torah. It is very evident in Scripture. For example, the major component of the Torah were the laws of the Priesthood, the Temple and the Sacrifices. So, we KNOW that Jesus' life, death, resurrection and priesthood dramatically changed the Torah.
So, it seems that it would be inaccurate to say that Jesus didn't change the Torah. He fulfilled and satisfied all of the obligations within it, and because of that, there is no longer a need to satisfy it still. Isn't this what the Gospel is by definition?
--------
Maybe Jesus was a Pharisee, or at least trained by them.
--------
We know Jesus wasn't a Pharisee or taught by them. Otherwise, they wouldn't have asked Him how He knew those things... "Isn't this the carpenter's son?". Remember, He started teaching at 12 and they didn't have a clue how He knew those things then either. He certainly was not a Pharisee. Personally, I think He sided with the Sadducees more. :P But, whatever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisees
--------
Maybe He was so hard on them because of how severely they had misinterpreted the laws away from their original or literal meaning.
--------
He said that He was hard on them because:
1. They sacrificed obedience to the law in order to observe their "traditions".
2. They were hypocritical in that they neglected incredibly important things in the law, and were nitpicky about little things like washing hands, etc.
3. That they added to the law shutting up the Kingdom of Heaven and ended up making people twice the sons of hell than they were.
The guys don't sound very kosher. Ironically enough, Rabbinical Jews are still guilty of all of these things today.
--------
It goes without saying that law does not bring salvation. But why do Christians so quickly throw out the original guidelines God gave for living?
--------
Why do Messianic Jews not study the commandments of Jesus and prefer to study the commandments of Moses and empty traditions of men?
Why do people believe that the Law of Moses was simpler than the Law of Jesus?
Even the Disciples freaked out when Jesus said that even if a man lusted after a woman in his heart, he was committing adultery. Then the Disciples said, how can anyone do this? Then Jesus said that they were right, with men it is impossible... But with God, all things are possible.
In other words, the commandments of Jesus are pretty weighty and must be considered. After all, the Son of God is who proclaimed them.
--------
Even the foreigner and alien living among them in the camp had to follow the law. The gift we have now is the Holy Spirit living His life through us, and open access to His throne because of His blood.
--------
1. This law applied to people in Israel and didn't have anything to do with the U.S.
2. Even Jews in Israel who were Christians observed the new covenant and not the old.
3. The Apostles specifically went out of their way in Acts chapt 15 to make sure that it was clear that Gentiles were under no obligation to the Law of Moses.
4. Paul commanded Gentiles not to observe Jewish law. (The entire book of Galatians.)
This are very compelling reasons, very reasonable, and very Biblical of why Gentiles should not put themselves under the yoke of the Mosaic Law.
Now, did either Jesus or the Apostles ever command Gentiles to obey the laws of Moses or Jewish traditions AFTER Jesus rattified the New Covenant?
--------
Not all traditions are bad - only when they become a burden and a legalistic way of gaining salvation. When a tradition supersedes the actual Torah (like saying unclean hands make clean food unclean), then you have to look carefully at the tradition.
--------
Even Paul taught "traditions". But, to teach people that Jesus observed "Jewish" traditions like Jews do today is historically inaccurate. It is then inaccurate to claim that by immitating Antichrists, (Jews today), that Christians somehow be more like Jesus. It isn't rational. Why are Christians consulting Antichrist doctrine to learn more about Jesus?
--------
The Passover service is like many of the other feasts, isn't it? The traditions and guidelines were laid down much later than the original Torah, or even when Jesus Himself celebrated it. I don't think that invalidates them. It's still full of reminders of truth. I think even the things that were supposed to be 'Anti-Christ' have backfired. (For instance, removing Isaiah 53 from the traditional Yom Kippur readings because of fear of the Jews recognizing Jesus was a pretty silly thing to do. To me that just makes it more obvious that He really is the Messiah).
--------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shalosh_regalim
I am not entirely certain what you are asking... But, there are three major festivals in Judaism, and each is considered a "Shabbat" regardless if it falls on an actual Shabbat or not. For example, if Passover fell on a Thursday night, (15th of Nisan), then Thursday night to Friday night would be considered "Shabbat". And then, Friday night to Saturday night would be considered Shabbat too. This means that two days in a row would be Shabbat. This is why they wanted to get Jesus off of the cross before evening so that He wouldn't be dead and hanging for two days. :(
But, observance of Passover was defined in Exodus and again in Deut. After the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D, Jews began to redefine how Passover was to be celebrated. A whole lot has changed. So, it is apparent that Jesus celebrated it totally different than Jews today.
Just because Jews have changed the way they observe Passover does not mean that the way that Christians were taught how to observe Passover must change. And, Christians were taught to celebrate in the form of communion, as often as we come together, not just one or two times a year.
--------
So, what do you think? Are you playing devil's advocate? I love talking about this stuff.
--------
I think that Christians today who presume to teach others to obey the law of Moses and neglect the commands of Jesus are in effect guilty of the same hypocrisy that the Pharisees were: they strain out a gnat and choke on a camel.
Why is it that Christians believe that they are supposed to eat kosher and not give food to every hungry person that asks of them? Why do Christians presume to follow religiously traditional Judaism every day and do not pursue visiting the orphans, the prisoners, the widows, and preaching the gospel every day? These things are SO much more important. Just like Jesus said, "Depart from me you workers of iniquity, I never knew you because you never did these things for me ...".
So, the great commission is to make disciples, baptizing them, and teaching them to obey all of the commandments that Jesus had taught.
Somewhere along the line, people need to be reminded of these things.
http://www.google.com/search?q=commandments+of+Jesus&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1
ed.2008.07.14.08 (A very rough draft/organization of an email I responded to.)
Should we observe Jewish Traditions and keep the Laws of Moses?
---------
The Talmud and Mishnah was mostly composed before Jesus even came to earth, weren't they?
---------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mishnah
No. Though, I do concede that some of the traditions that were mentioned in the Mishnah were widely observed during the time of Jesus. However, just because some traditions were followed then, does not necessarily mean that they were passed down from Moses.
I certainly do not have any evidence that some Oral tradition was passed down from Moses and preserved 100%.
According to Judaism, why do Jews believe in tradition?
1. Because Tradition says Tradition is authoritative.
2. Because if they didn't have tradition, they wouldn't know what things in Scripture meant.
If we would admit that we don't know what things mean, we would end up recognizing the prophecies that God would cause a famine where people would not know His Word, (Amos).
But, instead of accepting the possibility that we are far off and need to repent, we claim that we have full knowledge still. But unfortunately, reason says that the evidence of our nearness to God is God being with us. So, we can claim knowledge and intimacy of God all we want, but that doesn't change reality.
"God being with us" is not a subjective truth. It is an objective truth. Even Moses recognized that the presence of God would be apparent to all of the nations when He asked God, "If you do not go with us, how will the nations know that you favor us?"
---------
And I think Jesus' main argument against some of the oral traditions was that the Pharisees were using them to supersede the actual commands of Torah. A good example of this is your example in Mark 7. I think He was giving a parable, not declaring a new truth. In fact verse 17 says "His disciples asked Him about this parable" before the part you quoted below.
He goes on to talk about man's heart. I don't think He was changing the law, He was making a point about men's hearts. Otherwise He would have been contradicting everything He said earlier in the chapter. You're taking the verses out of context. :)
---------
You are right, the disciples questioned Jesus about the parable in Mark 7:17. And, in response, Jesus said that food doesn't make a man unclean. This was the interpretation of the parable. The parable came first, and then this explanation came second. So, it seems as though I am not taking it out of context because the interpretation of this "parable" was that food could not make a man unclean.
Yhe phrase, "Purifying all foods", is contextually considered a comment of Mark the Apostle, (the writer). Mark wasn't speaking in a parable. He was providing a "commentary" of sorts. He was saying, "When Jesus said this, He in effect purified all foods, so that food could no longer be considered unclean." It is not a new thought to believe that purification comes through the Word of God.
Remember, the Law of Moses was given to Israel because of the hardness of their hearts, meaning that they were unwilling to obey. So, God gave them "easier" laws to obey. God wanted them to keep their hearts pure by not defiling it with the things that came out. But, they were unwilling. So, God gave them the dietary laws instead to teach them the concept of being defiled in their hearts.
If Jesus was not trying to say that it was not what goes into us that makes us unclean, but what comes out, then what was Jesus really trying to say? If He wasn't really saying what He said, what else could He have possibly meant?
But, I believe Jesus is right. Food does not defiles us, it is what comes out of us that defiles us. Food cannot make us unclean before God.
Again, eating with unclean hands has nothing to do with kosher laws in the Bible.
--------
Regarding the verse "In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean": Now I don't speak Greek, but I don't believe the words 'in saying this, Jesus declared' are even in the text. I think it says something like "purifying all foods".
--------
http://biblos.com/mark/7-19.htm
If you look at the little horizontal link list, you will see a link that says: Grk/Heb
All you have to do is hover your mouse over the blue Greek words, and it will show you what each word corresponds too. And then, click it. The little pop up definition is different than the definition that they present.
So, if Jesus, as you say, "purified all foods" through what He said, then how could they be considered unclean?
--------
I think He was referring back to the earlier argument about whether or not ritually washing your hands could make food clean or unclean. None of them were eating ham, after all. They were eating bread.
--------
Good point. They initially we talking about not washing their hands before eating bread, (which was a custom or tradition and still is). It certainly was not a law of Moses. But, then Jesus made an argument to prove how stupid their tradition was. He said in essence, "No matter what you eat, it won't make you unclean, so what does it matter if don't wash your hands?
Regardless of any of this, the Disciples still ate without washing, and in Acts, Peter still ate with the Greeks.
--------
If He didn't fulfill Torah perfectly, He could not have been the sacrifice for our sin. And if we're supposed to imitate Him, then why are we changing His Torah when even He didn't do that?
--------
Jesus said, that if anyone would teach anyone to dismiss any of the laws, they would be condemned. So, even if Jesus were fulfilling the law, and He taught His disciples to break it, then Jesus would be guilty too. So, Jesus wasn't teaching them contrary to what Moses taught. Remember, the disciples even picked grain out of the fields on Shabbat. This was explicitly forbidden in the laws of Moses. And, if Jesus taught them that it was okay, then Jesus would be guilty too...
But Jesus made the argument, "You all have no understanding of the Law of Moses". So then, why are Christians going to Jews to understand the laws of Moses if even Jesus said that the Jews did not understand?
Further, Jesus certainly changed the Torah. It is very evident in Scripture. For example, the major component of the Torah were the laws of the Priesthood, the Temple and the Sacrifices. So, we KNOW that Jesus' life, death, resurrection and priesthood dramatically changed the Torah.
So, it seems that it would be inaccurate to say that Jesus didn't change the Torah. He fulfilled and satisfied all of the obligations within it, and because of that, there is no longer a need to satisfy it still. Isn't this what the Gospel is by definition?
--------
Maybe Jesus was a Pharisee, or at least trained by them.
--------
We know Jesus wasn't a Pharisee or taught by them. Otherwise, they wouldn't have asked Him how He knew those things... "Isn't this the carpenter's son?". Remember, He started teaching at 12 and they didn't have a clue how He knew those things then either. He certainly was not a Pharisee. Personally, I think He sided with the Sadducees more. :P But, whatever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisees
--------
Maybe He was so hard on them because of how severely they had misinterpreted the laws away from their original or literal meaning.
--------
He said that He was hard on them because:
1. They sacrificed obedience to the law in order to observe their "traditions".
2. They were hypocritical in that they neglected incredibly important things in the law, and were nitpicky about little things like washing hands, etc.
3. That they added to the law shutting up the Kingdom of Heaven and ended up making people twice the sons of hell than they were.
The guys don't sound very kosher. Ironically enough, Rabbinical Jews are still guilty of all of these things today.
--------
It goes without saying that law does not bring salvation. But why do Christians so quickly throw out the original guidelines God gave for living?
--------
Why do Messianic Jews not study the commandments of Jesus and prefer to study the commandments of Moses and empty traditions of men?
Why do people believe that the Law of Moses was simpler than the Law of Jesus?
Even the Disciples freaked out when Jesus said that even if a man lusted after a woman in his heart, he was committing adultery. Then the Disciples said, how can anyone do this? Then Jesus said that they were right, with men it is impossible... But with God, all things are possible.
In other words, the commandments of Jesus are pretty weighty and must be considered. After all, the Son of God is who proclaimed them.
--------
Even the foreigner and alien living among them in the camp had to follow the law. The gift we have now is the Holy Spirit living His life through us, and open access to His throne because of His blood.
--------
1. This law applied to people in Israel and didn't have anything to do with the U.S.
2. Even Jews in Israel who were Christians observed the new covenant and not the old.
3. The Apostles specifically went out of their way in Acts chapt 15 to make sure that it was clear that Gentiles were under no obligation to the Law of Moses.
4. Paul commanded Gentiles not to observe Jewish law. (The entire book of Galatians.)
This are very compelling reasons, very reasonable, and very Biblical of why Gentiles should not put themselves under the yoke of the Mosaic Law.
Now, did either Jesus or the Apostles ever command Gentiles to obey the laws of Moses or Jewish traditions AFTER Jesus rattified the New Covenant?
--------
Not all traditions are bad - only when they become a burden and a legalistic way of gaining salvation. When a tradition supersedes the actual Torah (like saying unclean hands make clean food unclean), then you have to look carefully at the tradition.
--------
Even Paul taught "traditions". But, to teach people that Jesus observed "Jewish" traditions like Jews do today is historically inaccurate. It is then inaccurate to claim that by immitating Antichrists, (Jews today), that Christians somehow be more like Jesus. It isn't rational. Why are Christians consulting Antichrist doctrine to learn more about Jesus?
--------
The Passover service is like many of the other feasts, isn't it? The traditions and guidelines were laid down much later than the original Torah, or even when Jesus Himself celebrated it. I don't think that invalidates them. It's still full of reminders of truth. I think even the things that were supposed to be 'Anti-Christ' have backfired. (For instance, removing Isaiah 53 from the traditional Yom Kippur readings because of fear of the Jews recognizing Jesus was a pretty silly thing to do. To me that just makes it more obvious that He really is the Messiah).
--------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shalosh_regalim
I am not entirely certain what you are asking... But, there are three major festivals in Judaism, and each is considered a "Shabbat" regardless if it falls on an actual Shabbat or not. For example, if Passover fell on a Thursday night, (15th of Nisan), then Thursday night to Friday night would be considered "Shabbat". And then, Friday night to Saturday night would be considered Shabbat too. This means that two days in a row would be Shabbat. This is why they wanted to get Jesus off of the cross before evening so that He wouldn't be dead and hanging for two days. :(
But, observance of Passover was defined in Exodus and again in Deut. After the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D, Jews began to redefine how Passover was to be celebrated. A whole lot has changed. So, it is apparent that Jesus celebrated it totally different than Jews today.
Just because Jews have changed the way they observe Passover does not mean that the way that Christians were taught how to observe Passover must change. And, Christians were taught to celebrate in the form of communion, as often as we come together, not just one or two times a year.
--------
So, what do you think? Are you playing devil's advocate? I love talking about this stuff.
--------
I think that Christians today who presume to teach others to obey the law of Moses and neglect the commands of Jesus are in effect guilty of the same hypocrisy that the Pharisees were: they strain out a gnat and choke on a camel.
Why is it that Christians believe that they are supposed to eat kosher and not give food to every hungry person that asks of them? Why do Christians presume to follow religiously traditional Judaism every day and do not pursue visiting the orphans, the prisoners, the widows, and preaching the gospel every day? These things are SO much more important. Just like Jesus said, "Depart from me you workers of iniquity, I never knew you because you never did these things for me ...".
So, the great commission is to make disciples, baptizing them, and teaching them to obey all of the commandments that Jesus had taught.
Somewhere along the line, people need to be reminded of these things.
http://www.google.com/search?q=commandments+of+Jesus&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1
Thursday, June 26, 2008
A New Heart
cmp.2008.06.26
ed.2008.08.05.01 (Public Review)
Organization
1. The Promise Of A New Heart
2. Hearts Of Stone
3. A New Heart To Hear
4. A New Heart To Obey
5. A New Heart To Know
The Promise Of A New Heart
It is evident throughout Scripture, hearts of flesh and hardened hearts of stone are symbolic of two contrary natures. Our hardened hearts are hearts of stone, and because of the state of our hearts, we rebel against God. But, the heart of flesh is that nature that seeks the Word of God and eagerly submits to His will.
It is written that God has promised to give us a new heart, a heart of flesh in place of our heart of stone. And, as a result, we know that by having hearts of flesh, God has the opportunity to write His law upon our hearts so that we can live in obedience.
God Promises To Give Us Hearts Of Flesh
Ezekiel 36:26 (NASB)
"Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
Hearts Of Stone
Scripture teaches us over and over again that a hardened heart is a heart that does not fear God and a heart that rebels against God.
The conclusion of Ecclesiastes is that the whole duty of Man is to fear God and to obey Him, and this is exactly what a hardened heart of stone does not do.
A Hardened Heart Is Rebellious
2 Chronicles 36:13 (NASB)
He also rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar who had made him swear allegiance by God But he stiffened his neck and hardened his heart against turning to the LORD God of Israel.
A Hardened Heart Strays From God And Does Not Fear Him
Isaiah 63:17 (NASB)
Why, O LORD, do You cause us to stray from Your ways And harden our heart from fearing You? Return for the sake of Your servants, the tribes of Your heritage.
A Hardened Heart Brings Death
Ephesians 4:17-18 (NASB)
So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart;
A New Heart To Hear
In Zechariah, God does not simply compare the hearts of those who cannot hear to stone, but He compares their hearts to flint stone. It cannot be coincidence that God is comparing their hardened hearts to a stone that is harder than granite.
But God promised us a new heart of flesh, where the roots of His seed in us, His word, can grow in order to withstand tribulation. He promises to give us a heart of flesh so that His word will grow in us. And if our hearts are sensitive, we will be able to see with our eyes, hear with our ears, understand with our hearts, and return and be healed.
A Hardened Heart Cannot Hear
Zechariah 7:12 (NASB)
"They made their hearts like flint so that they could not hear the law and the words which the LORD of hosts had sent by His Spirit through the former prophets; therefore great wrath came from the LORD of hosts.
If We Want To Hear His Voice, We Cannot Harden Our Hearts
Psalms 95:7-8 (NASB)
For He is our God, And we are the people of His pasture and the sheep of His hand Today, if you would hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah, As in the day of Massah in the wilderness .
God Promises To Write His Law On Our Hearts
Jeremiah 31:33 (NASB)
"But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
A New Heart To Obey
Throughout Scripture, God consistently expresses His will towards us through His commandments. But over and over again the will of God falls upon our hearts of stone.
We know that the word of God is life. And, because of this, we receive His word with joy. But, when His word has no firm root within our hearts, and because we are only temporary in our steadfastness, we fall from obedience to His word when persecution or affliction arises because of the word given to us.
When He Takes Away Our Hearts Of Stone, We Can Keep His Ways
Ezekiel 11:19-20 (NASB)
"And I will give them one heart, and put a new spirit within them And I will take the heart of stone out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh,that they may walk in My statutes and keep My ordinances and do them Then they will be My people, and I shall be their God.
If We Have Hearts Of Felsh, God Will Cause Us To Obey
Ezekiel 36:26-27 (NASB)
Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.
A New Heart To Know
The singular expressed passion of God towards us is that we may know Him. But how can we know God if we don't even know His will? Unless we have hearts of flesh, God cannot fully reveal His will towards us. If we do not know the will of God, we cannot obey. And, if we do not obey His will, we cannot claim to know God.
God Promises To Give Us A New Heart So That We Can Know Him
Jeremiah 24:7 (NASB)
'I will give them a heart to know Me, for I am the LORD; and they will be My people, and I will be their God, for they will return to Me with their whole heart.
The New Covenant Is A Promise To Know God
Jeremiah 31:33-34 (NASB)
"But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."
We Cannot Know Him If We Do Not Obey
1 John 2:3-6 (NASB)
By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.
ed.2008.08.05.01 (Public Review)
Organization
1. The Promise Of A New Heart
2. Hearts Of Stone
3. A New Heart To Hear
4. A New Heart To Obey
5. A New Heart To Know
The Promise Of A New Heart
It is evident throughout Scripture, hearts of flesh and hardened hearts of stone are symbolic of two contrary natures. Our hardened hearts are hearts of stone, and because of the state of our hearts, we rebel against God. But, the heart of flesh is that nature that seeks the Word of God and eagerly submits to His will.
It is written that God has promised to give us a new heart, a heart of flesh in place of our heart of stone. And, as a result, we know that by having hearts of flesh, God has the opportunity to write His law upon our hearts so that we can live in obedience.
God Promises To Give Us Hearts Of Flesh
Ezekiel 36:26 (NASB)
"Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
Hearts Of Stone
Scripture teaches us over and over again that a hardened heart is a heart that does not fear God and a heart that rebels against God.
The conclusion of Ecclesiastes is that the whole duty of Man is to fear God and to obey Him, and this is exactly what a hardened heart of stone does not do.
A Hardened Heart Is Rebellious
2 Chronicles 36:13 (NASB)
He also rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar who had made him swear allegiance by God But he stiffened his neck and hardened his heart against turning to the LORD God of Israel.
A Hardened Heart Strays From God And Does Not Fear Him
Isaiah 63:17 (NASB)
Why, O LORD, do You cause us to stray from Your ways And harden our heart from fearing You? Return for the sake of Your servants, the tribes of Your heritage.
A Hardened Heart Brings Death
Ephesians 4:17-18 (NASB)
So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart;
A New Heart To Hear
In Zechariah, God does not simply compare the hearts of those who cannot hear to stone, but He compares their hearts to flint stone. It cannot be coincidence that God is comparing their hardened hearts to a stone that is harder than granite.
But God promised us a new heart of flesh, where the roots of His seed in us, His word, can grow in order to withstand tribulation. He promises to give us a heart of flesh so that His word will grow in us. And if our hearts are sensitive, we will be able to see with our eyes, hear with our ears, understand with our hearts, and return and be healed.
A Hardened Heart Cannot Hear
Zechariah 7:12 (NASB)
"They made their hearts like flint so that they could not hear the law and the words which the LORD of hosts had sent by His Spirit through the former prophets; therefore great wrath came from the LORD of hosts.
If We Want To Hear His Voice, We Cannot Harden Our Hearts
Psalms 95:7-8 (NASB)
For He is our God, And we are the people of His pasture and the sheep of His hand Today, if you would hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah, As in the day of Massah in the wilderness .
God Promises To Write His Law On Our Hearts
Jeremiah 31:33 (NASB)
"But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
A New Heart To Obey
Throughout Scripture, God consistently expresses His will towards us through His commandments. But over and over again the will of God falls upon our hearts of stone.
We know that the word of God is life. And, because of this, we receive His word with joy. But, when His word has no firm root within our hearts, and because we are only temporary in our steadfastness, we fall from obedience to His word when persecution or affliction arises because of the word given to us.
When He Takes Away Our Hearts Of Stone, We Can Keep His Ways
Ezekiel 11:19-20 (NASB)
"And I will give them one heart, and put a new spirit within them And I will take the heart of stone out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh,that they may walk in My statutes and keep My ordinances and do them Then they will be My people, and I shall be their God.
If We Have Hearts Of Felsh, God Will Cause Us To Obey
Ezekiel 36:26-27 (NASB)
Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.
A New Heart To Know
The singular expressed passion of God towards us is that we may know Him. But how can we know God if we don't even know His will? Unless we have hearts of flesh, God cannot fully reveal His will towards us. If we do not know the will of God, we cannot obey. And, if we do not obey His will, we cannot claim to know God.
God Promises To Give Us A New Heart So That We Can Know Him
Jeremiah 24:7 (NASB)
'I will give them a heart to know Me, for I am the LORD; and they will be My people, and I will be their God, for they will return to Me with their whole heart.
The New Covenant Is A Promise To Know God
Jeremiah 31:33-34 (NASB)
"But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."
We Cannot Know Him If We Do Not Obey
1 John 2:3-6 (NASB)
By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Phil. 2:12 - Work
cmp.2008.06.23
ed.2009.06.11.02 (Public Review)
Organization
1. The Command
2. The Dilemma
3. Consistent Interpretation
4. Conclusion
5. Textual Analysis
The Command
Phil. 2:12 (NASB)
So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my
presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling;
The Dilemma
When I first heard this verse, it was explained to me that this meant that we should each "figure out" our own salvation with fear and trembling. Even though this may not be a widely taught interpretation, I would like to explain this interpretation in order to clarify this commandment.
In English, we often use the phrase "to work out" to mean "figure out". I do not have an explanation why it was justified to interpret this passage in view of an English idiom, especially from this Greek passage, and in this particular context.
On the otherhand, if this passage really means that we are literally supposed to "work", it would be further evidence that Christians are called to do good work.
Consistent Interpretation
If we are each to "figure out" our own salvation, then there is not one way to find salvation. It is hard to believe that the path to salvation is "relative". Is the path to salvation different for each of us? Is it true that we all have to discover some new way to salvation, or has The Way already been made known to everyone? Christians believe that there is only one way to the Father, and that is through trust in Jesus, His son.
So, if this word "work" does not mean, "figure out", then what does it mean? The word "work" is used several times in this passage. It is unreasonable to interpret this word to mean "figure out" in one place, and as literal "work" in all of the other places. Isn't it reasonable to interpret this word consistently in this context? Either each of these passages in Greek implies "figuring out", or each of these passages imply literal "work" that is done. This is especially true because in every place, the same Greek root word is used.
Since there are no other instances in Scripture where "work" implies "figuring out", and since every use of this word in Scripture implies "something being done", then it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that this passage implies a literal action being accomplished.
Conclusion
If we interpret "work" literally, this command simply states:
"With fear and trembling of your own salvation, work!"
Isn't this also the final conclusion of Ecclesiastes?
Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 (NASB)
The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person. For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil.
Isn't the fear of God the beginning of wisdom? Is it not also written that we are created to do good works?
Christians do not do good works because we are looking to be saved. On the contrary, we do good works as a result of our salvation. God, through the Spirit of Holiness has worked His salvation in us. As a result of what God has worked in us, we work for His pleasure. We do not work to earn salvation, but we live to do good work so that we may glorify God.
Textual Analysis
Argument:
In every case the word "work" is used in this passage, the same Greek root word is used. In every case, this word implies literal "work".
Phil. 2:12
μετὰ φόβου καὶ τρόμου τὴν ἑαυτῶν σωτηρίαν κατεργάζεσθε
with fear and trembling the your [own] salvation work
(Notice that the word "out", (as in "work out"), is not represented in the Greek.)
Phil. 2:13
θεὸς γάρ ἐστιν ὁ ἐνεργῶν ἐν ὑμῖν καὶ τὸ θέλειν καὶ τὸ ἐνεργεῖν ὑπὲρ τῆς εὐδοκίας.
God for is the worker in you [all] and the to will and the to work of the pleasure [of Him]
Phil. 2:30
ὅτι διὰ τὸ ἔργον κυρίου
because through the work [of the] Lord
ed.2009.06.11.02 (Public Review)
Organization
1. The Command
2. The Dilemma
3. Consistent Interpretation
4. Conclusion
5. Textual Analysis
The Command
Phil. 2:12 (NASB)
So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my
presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling;
The Dilemma
When I first heard this verse, it was explained to me that this meant that we should each "figure out" our own salvation with fear and trembling. Even though this may not be a widely taught interpretation, I would like to explain this interpretation in order to clarify this commandment.
In English, we often use the phrase "to work out" to mean "figure out". I do not have an explanation why it was justified to interpret this passage in view of an English idiom, especially from this Greek passage, and in this particular context.
On the otherhand, if this passage really means that we are literally supposed to "work", it would be further evidence that Christians are called to do good work.
Consistent Interpretation
If we are each to "figure out" our own salvation, then there is not one way to find salvation. It is hard to believe that the path to salvation is "relative". Is the path to salvation different for each of us? Is it true that we all have to discover some new way to salvation, or has The Way already been made known to everyone? Christians believe that there is only one way to the Father, and that is through trust in Jesus, His son.
So, if this word "work" does not mean, "figure out", then what does it mean? The word "work" is used several times in this passage. It is unreasonable to interpret this word to mean "figure out" in one place, and as literal "work" in all of the other places. Isn't it reasonable to interpret this word consistently in this context? Either each of these passages in Greek implies "figuring out", or each of these passages imply literal "work" that is done. This is especially true because in every place, the same Greek root word is used.
Since there are no other instances in Scripture where "work" implies "figuring out", and since every use of this word in Scripture implies "something being done", then it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that this passage implies a literal action being accomplished.
Conclusion
If we interpret "work" literally, this command simply states:
"With fear and trembling of your own salvation, work!"
Isn't this also the final conclusion of Ecclesiastes?
Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 (NASB)
The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person. For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil.
Isn't the fear of God the beginning of wisdom? Is it not also written that we are created to do good works?
Christians do not do good works because we are looking to be saved. On the contrary, we do good works as a result of our salvation. God, through the Spirit of Holiness has worked His salvation in us. As a result of what God has worked in us, we work for His pleasure. We do not work to earn salvation, but we live to do good work so that we may glorify God.
Textual Analysis
Argument:
In every case the word "work" is used in this passage, the same Greek root word is used. In every case, this word implies literal "work".
Phil. 2:12
μετὰ φόβου καὶ τρόμου τὴν ἑαυτῶν σωτηρίαν κατεργάζεσθε
with fear and trembling the your [own] salvation work
(Notice that the word "out", (as in "work out"), is not represented in the Greek.)
Phil. 2:13
θεὸς γάρ ἐστιν ὁ ἐνεργῶν ἐν ὑμῖν καὶ τὸ θέλειν καὶ τὸ ἐνεργεῖν ὑπὲρ τῆς εὐδοκίας.
God for is the worker in you [all] and the to will and the to work of the pleasure [of Him]
Phil. 2:30
ὅτι διὰ τὸ ἔργον κυρίου
because through the work [of the] Lord
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
A Letter: The Gospel of Deliverance
cmp.2008.06.17
ed.2009.07.29.01
To my brother in Jesus the Anointed of God, the Lord of Lords and King of Kings!
Because discipleship has become something preached behind a pulpit and not something demonstrated through good works and with dedication to individual lives, I have prayed and cried out for God to send someone who I search out the Scripture with to understand what discipleship means. And because of your heart, I thank God for His faithfulness.
We must seize the word that God has given us and we must lay hold of Godliness. But, what is a form of Godliness without power? The gospel of Jesus Christ is worthless if God is powerless to deliver those who call upon the name of Jesus. If God is powerless to deliver us from lives of sin and from the reward of sin, then the Gospel we preach is worthless.
What are our intellectual arguments without power? Do we presume to establish the faith of men on the intellectualism of men, or will we choose to establish faith on the power of God?
What evidence is there that God actually favors us, or favors the message that we teach? Is not the true testimony of the favor of God towards us His evidential presence in our lives? Even Moses would not leave that mountain until God chose to announce His favor for Israel by His continued and evidential presence with them.
And so, we are left to lofty and intellectual arguments, far from the establishment of faith on the power of God. We are still lacking. We are still thirsty. If the Scripture is true, then we can not claim to either know or love Him if we do not obey Him. And we certainly cannot obey Him fully by just avoiding sin but by we must also pursue holiness by doing what is right.
If we preach a bold gospel and repentance but fail in every respect to demonstrate the power of God to deliver from sin those who trust in the name of Jesus, then our testimony is reduced to the worthless intellectual rhetoric of men.
We must pursue Godliness, because everyone that knows what is right to do and does not do it, for them it is sin.
We must desire to cling to every revelation of what it means to be like Jesus. We must live by every word that God speaks, not just His promises, but His commandments as well. We must learn to walk in the ways of Jesus our Lord. And when we seek this first, we find that the living water of His word will wash and renew us.
And soon, we find that He protects us and guards us from sin for the sake of His name, and also because He loves us as sons and daughters. But how terrible it is when God hands us over to the desires of our hearts when we sin against Him! What discipline is greater for the one that hates sin than to be handed over to sin? And because of this we pray, "Father, I beg you, please do not lead me into temptation but deliver me from evil!"
I hope that despite our differences, you might permit the opportunity for us to spend time in fellowship. More than anything, I pray that God would grant to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him to plant the seed of His word into my life. Perhaps even, by His mercy, God might provide a way for me to plant some seed in the work that He is performing in you. And in this, perhaps I will grow in favor before God.
I pray that this letter finds you in peace. I pray that God would show me kindness and make a way for this letter to find you, either for the opportunity to sow His word into your life, or for even the opportunity for me to be reproved, having an opportunity to walk in a better and more excellent way.
I pray that the seed would be planted, not to just preach repentance, but to teach and disciple others how to walk in the power of God that will guard them from sin. I pray that the Holy Spirit would show you all of the promises in Scripture, and the ways to walk in, that if trusted in, would protect us from continuing in the sin that prevents us from living to do good work.
In the name of Jesus I pray that you continue to preach the gospel of Jesus, which in its simplest expression is: a way has been made for us to find favor with God and this through our trust in His son, Jesus. And through His reign in our lives, we are delivered from the power of sin over our lives.
And in view of this gospel, we must disciple through baptism and by teaching all nations obedience to what Jesus, the Lord of Lords and the King of Kings, commanded us.
I pray that favor and peace are given to you abundantly from God our Father and from our Lord Jesus Christ, Amen.
ed.2009.07.29.01
To my brother in Jesus the Anointed of God, the Lord of Lords and King of Kings!
Because discipleship has become something preached behind a pulpit and not something demonstrated through good works and with dedication to individual lives, I have prayed and cried out for God to send someone who I search out the Scripture with to understand what discipleship means. And because of your heart, I thank God for His faithfulness.
We must seize the word that God has given us and we must lay hold of Godliness. But, what is a form of Godliness without power? The gospel of Jesus Christ is worthless if God is powerless to deliver those who call upon the name of Jesus. If God is powerless to deliver us from lives of sin and from the reward of sin, then the Gospel we preach is worthless.
What are our intellectual arguments without power? Do we presume to establish the faith of men on the intellectualism of men, or will we choose to establish faith on the power of God?
What evidence is there that God actually favors us, or favors the message that we teach? Is not the true testimony of the favor of God towards us His evidential presence in our lives? Even Moses would not leave that mountain until God chose to announce His favor for Israel by His continued and evidential presence with them.
And so, we are left to lofty and intellectual arguments, far from the establishment of faith on the power of God. We are still lacking. We are still thirsty. If the Scripture is true, then we can not claim to either know or love Him if we do not obey Him. And we certainly cannot obey Him fully by just avoiding sin but by we must also pursue holiness by doing what is right.
If we preach a bold gospel and repentance but fail in every respect to demonstrate the power of God to deliver from sin those who trust in the name of Jesus, then our testimony is reduced to the worthless intellectual rhetoric of men.
We must pursue Godliness, because everyone that knows what is right to do and does not do it, for them it is sin.
We must desire to cling to every revelation of what it means to be like Jesus. We must live by every word that God speaks, not just His promises, but His commandments as well. We must learn to walk in the ways of Jesus our Lord. And when we seek this first, we find that the living water of His word will wash and renew us.
And soon, we find that He protects us and guards us from sin for the sake of His name, and also because He loves us as sons and daughters. But how terrible it is when God hands us over to the desires of our hearts when we sin against Him! What discipline is greater for the one that hates sin than to be handed over to sin? And because of this we pray, "Father, I beg you, please do not lead me into temptation but deliver me from evil!"
I hope that despite our differences, you might permit the opportunity for us to spend time in fellowship. More than anything, I pray that God would grant to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him to plant the seed of His word into my life. Perhaps even, by His mercy, God might provide a way for me to plant some seed in the work that He is performing in you. And in this, perhaps I will grow in favor before God.
I pray that this letter finds you in peace. I pray that God would show me kindness and make a way for this letter to find you, either for the opportunity to sow His word into your life, or for even the opportunity for me to be reproved, having an opportunity to walk in a better and more excellent way.
I pray that the seed would be planted, not to just preach repentance, but to teach and disciple others how to walk in the power of God that will guard them from sin. I pray that the Holy Spirit would show you all of the promises in Scripture, and the ways to walk in, that if trusted in, would protect us from continuing in the sin that prevents us from living to do good work.
In the name of Jesus I pray that you continue to preach the gospel of Jesus, which in its simplest expression is: a way has been made for us to find favor with God and this through our trust in His son, Jesus. And through His reign in our lives, we are delivered from the power of sin over our lives.
And in view of this gospel, we must disciple through baptism and by teaching all nations obedience to what Jesus, the Lord of Lords and the King of Kings, commanded us.
I pray that favor and peace are given to you abundantly from God our Father and from our Lord Jesus Christ, Amen.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Posting Your Own Discipleship Blog
cmp.2008.06.12
ed.2008.06.12.05
How to post your own discipleship blog:
ed.2008.06.12.05
How to post your own discipleship blog:
- Make a blog and dedicate it to studying how to follow in the ways of Jesus. It can be on blogger, (http://www.blogger.com), wordpress, (http://www.wordpress.com), whatever. Just make sure it is dedicated to this purpose. As far as I know, there are no limits to how many blogs you can have!
- Create a list of other blogs that are doing the same thing and dedicated to the same purpose.
- Commit some time to help the people you linked on your site in their study to know the ways of Jesus.
- Leave comments, ask questions and answer questions to help refine each other's faith!
- Don't be afraid to hear objections! Remember, the trying of our faith is precious before God!
- If you have questions, create a post with your question, and apply a "Label" or "Category" to your post called "Questions".
- If you can figure out how to do it, in your blog "Settings", make sure you put an email address where it asks you if you want to be notified when people leave comments on your blog. That way, you can respond to people.
- When you do comment, select the box to be notified if someone replies to your comment.
- If you create a new post to answer someone's question, be sure to link it back to that other person's question if you can. Otherwise, post a comment with a link to that specific comment to let the person know that you tried to answer their question.
- Please, please make changes to your original posts whenever you learn something new. Sometimes we might be wrong, so we need to change. We all reserve the right to grow and come to a fuller knowledge of Jesus Christ.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Should We Follow The Commands Of Jesus?
cmp.2008.06.10
ed.2008.06.12.01 (Concept Draft)
Do Christians today feel that it isn't necessary to know or live according to the commandments of Jesus and His Apostles?
We have heard some denominations preach "Holiness" before God. They even forbid women to wear jewelry and to cut their hair. But do any of them know the commandments of Jesus? We have even heard it claimed that it is legalistic to pursue the observance of Biblical commands. But why is it that all throughout the Bible, "Lawlessness" is condemned?
Why is obedience considered legalism?
It is true that in Galatians, Paul called those "accursed" who taught others to live according to the Law of Moses. But what about teaching the commandments of Jesus? Were the commandments of Jesus merely suggestions? If the law that Moses proclaimed was binding even though it was only a shadow of the Heavenly law to come, how much more are the commands of Jesus more binding than the laws of Moses?
Even for those Christians who presume to teach that it is righteousness to preach and obey the Law the of Moses to believers, why don't they start with the commandments of Jesus?
Often I have heard that the only commandments of Jesus are to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself. But this is not true. Jesus very clearly recognized that these two commands were taught by Moses, so we cannot clearly claim that those were Jesus' commandments. But then, Jesus changed those commandments! In essence, He commanded, "No, I don't want you to just love your neighbor as yourself, I want you to love as I have loved you!" And so, it is not with our own heart, mind or strength that we are commanded to love, but to love with the heart, mind and strength of Jesus! Our love is simply too immature to actually fulfill the heavenly edict. Instead, we have to let Jesus love through us. And how do we know that we love God? According to the Apostle John, we know that we love Him if we walk according to His commands!
If the Holy Spirit was given to us, or rather, the Spirit of Holiness, then how can we claim that it is impossible to be Holy? It is clearly commanded that we are to be Holy as He is Holy. Jesus specifically taught us that yes, it is impossible with Man to obey the commands of God. But, Jesus specifically said that with God all things are possible. He was specifically stating that obedience to the will of God was possible, but that it was only possible if God was with us! Does this mean that all Christians who claim that they cannot truly obey the commandments of Jesus do not believe that all things are possible with God? Or, does it mean that it really is impossible for some to stop sinning because God is not with them? Perhaps the answer is more simple: maybe we claim to not be able to stop sinning because we truly do not want to stop sinning.
Where is the doctrine of obedience in the Church today? Why in more than 2000 years do Christians not have the law of God written on their hearts? What is the New Covenant? Isn't the New Covenant to have the law of God written on our hearts and to know Him? Didn't the apostle John teach us that it is impossible to say that we know God if we do not obey Him? And how can we obey Him unless we know His commands?
How is it possible for us to claim to have His commands written on our hearts and not know His commands? How is it possible for us to claim that we love God and not obey Him?
ed.2008.06.12.01 (Concept Draft)
Do Christians today feel that it isn't necessary to know or live according to the commandments of Jesus and His Apostles?
We have heard some denominations preach "Holiness" before God. They even forbid women to wear jewelry and to cut their hair. But do any of them know the commandments of Jesus? We have even heard it claimed that it is legalistic to pursue the observance of Biblical commands. But why is it that all throughout the Bible, "Lawlessness" is condemned?
Why is obedience considered legalism?
It is true that in Galatians, Paul called those "accursed" who taught others to live according to the Law of Moses. But what about teaching the commandments of Jesus? Were the commandments of Jesus merely suggestions? If the law that Moses proclaimed was binding even though it was only a shadow of the Heavenly law to come, how much more are the commands of Jesus more binding than the laws of Moses?
Even for those Christians who presume to teach that it is righteousness to preach and obey the Law the of Moses to believers, why don't they start with the commandments of Jesus?
Often I have heard that the only commandments of Jesus are to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself. But this is not true. Jesus very clearly recognized that these two commands were taught by Moses, so we cannot clearly claim that those were Jesus' commandments. But then, Jesus changed those commandments! In essence, He commanded, "No, I don't want you to just love your neighbor as yourself, I want you to love as I have loved you!" And so, it is not with our own heart, mind or strength that we are commanded to love, but to love with the heart, mind and strength of Jesus! Our love is simply too immature to actually fulfill the heavenly edict. Instead, we have to let Jesus love through us. And how do we know that we love God? According to the Apostle John, we know that we love Him if we walk according to His commands!
If the Holy Spirit was given to us, or rather, the Spirit of Holiness, then how can we claim that it is impossible to be Holy? It is clearly commanded that we are to be Holy as He is Holy. Jesus specifically taught us that yes, it is impossible with Man to obey the commands of God. But, Jesus specifically said that with God all things are possible. He was specifically stating that obedience to the will of God was possible, but that it was only possible if God was with us! Does this mean that all Christians who claim that they cannot truly obey the commandments of Jesus do not believe that all things are possible with God? Or, does it mean that it really is impossible for some to stop sinning because God is not with them? Perhaps the answer is more simple: maybe we claim to not be able to stop sinning because we truly do not want to stop sinning.
Where is the doctrine of obedience in the Church today? Why in more than 2000 years do Christians not have the law of God written on their hearts? What is the New Covenant? Isn't the New Covenant to have the law of God written on our hearts and to know Him? Didn't the apostle John teach us that it is impossible to say that we know God if we do not obey Him? And how can we obey Him unless we know His commands?
How is it possible for us to claim to have His commands written on our hearts and not know His commands? How is it possible for us to claim that we love God and not obey Him?
How Can We Know The Will Of God?
cmp.2008.06.12
ed.2008.06.12.08(Concept Draft)
Living By Every Word That God Says
How can we come to know the will of God?
It is written that man cannot live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.
We often find believers who go and study the promises of God. We yearn for the blessings of God. But, God spoke more than blessings.
According to Pslams 119, God reveals His will to us in more ways than just making promises to us. He speaks to us His commandments, His laws, His precepts, His statutes, His testimonies, and in many more ways. What are the differences between a law and a commandment? What is the difference between a satute and a testimony? What is a precept?
Can We Expect God To Only Speak To Us Directly?
Some may question whether or not we need to study Scripture to know the direction that God wants us to walk in. They believe that because Jesus promised to give us the Holy Spirit that they do not need to study Scripture because the Holy Spirit would personally lead and guide them into all truth.
It is absolutely true that we have the Holy Spirit to lead and guide us into all truth. But, Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would bring us into rememberance of all the things that Jesus taught. And, the Apostles wrote to us about the things that Jesus taught. Christians believe that the apostles made known to us the Gospel of Jesus through the Holy Spirit by writing to us. So, how can studying Scripture be considered unnecessary if the Holy Spirit made a way for us to have Scripture?
If we all had the gift of the Holy Spirit to lead and guide us in all truth, and we could all discern the voice of the Holy Spirit, and we all could preach the words of God with integrity, then why are there divisions among us? How can one denomination preach a certain doctrine and another preach a completely contrary doctrine if the same Holy Spirit is fully revealing all truth to all of us?
But how do we come to the place where the Holy Spirit can lead and guide us into all truth?
God Has Already Revealed His Will
If we truly desire to know the will of God, then we should embrace what God has already revealed to us concerning His will in Scripture.
For example, at a Church service I recently attended, a pastor lead the congregation in prayer concerning China. China had gone through many earthquakes and millions of people were left homeless and hungry and are still currently in desparate need.
This pastor led the congregation to prayer to ask God for His direction and His will about what God would like the Church to do. The pastor's prayer certainly got me thinking.
Why would God reveal more of His will to us if the Church today does not cherish and obey what He has already revealed? What part of Jesus' commands to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, clothe the naked, take care of orphans and widows, and preach the gospel to all nations does the Church need clarification on? The Church already knows what God wants us to do in China, so why are we asking God to tell us again?
To Meditate On His Word
It stands to reason then that we must search through Scripture as David did. If we are truly passionate, we would meditate on His word day and night. If we study Scripture in this way, with the passion of David, we would certainly understand and be able to discern the will of God for our lives in all cases.
If we hold true and faithful to the will of God that He has already revealed to us, how much more will God freely give wisdom to those who are faithful to what He has already given?
What Has God Already Revealed To Us?
So then, if it is true that God gives seed to the sower, and if it is true that God gives more to the faithful, then we must seek out and understand every revelation that God has given us to know His will.
We cannot simply stand on the promises of God, but we must live by every word that God speaks to us. So what are the promises, commands, statues, judgments, testimonies, laws and ways that God has revealed to the Church? How do we even define these things?
ed.2008.06.12.08(Concept Draft)
Living By Every Word That God Says
How can we come to know the will of God?
It is written that man cannot live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.
We often find believers who go and study the promises of God. We yearn for the blessings of God. But, God spoke more than blessings.
According to Pslams 119, God reveals His will to us in more ways than just making promises to us. He speaks to us His commandments, His laws, His precepts, His statutes, His testimonies, and in many more ways. What are the differences between a law and a commandment? What is the difference between a satute and a testimony? What is a precept?
Can We Expect God To Only Speak To Us Directly?
Some may question whether or not we need to study Scripture to know the direction that God wants us to walk in. They believe that because Jesus promised to give us the Holy Spirit that they do not need to study Scripture because the Holy Spirit would personally lead and guide them into all truth.
It is absolutely true that we have the Holy Spirit to lead and guide us into all truth. But, Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would bring us into rememberance of all the things that Jesus taught. And, the Apostles wrote to us about the things that Jesus taught. Christians believe that the apostles made known to us the Gospel of Jesus through the Holy Spirit by writing to us. So, how can studying Scripture be considered unnecessary if the Holy Spirit made a way for us to have Scripture?
If we all had the gift of the Holy Spirit to lead and guide us in all truth, and we could all discern the voice of the Holy Spirit, and we all could preach the words of God with integrity, then why are there divisions among us? How can one denomination preach a certain doctrine and another preach a completely contrary doctrine if the same Holy Spirit is fully revealing all truth to all of us?
But how do we come to the place where the Holy Spirit can lead and guide us into all truth?
God Has Already Revealed His Will
If we truly desire to know the will of God, then we should embrace what God has already revealed to us concerning His will in Scripture.
For example, at a Church service I recently attended, a pastor lead the congregation in prayer concerning China. China had gone through many earthquakes and millions of people were left homeless and hungry and are still currently in desparate need.
This pastor led the congregation to prayer to ask God for His direction and His will about what God would like the Church to do. The pastor's prayer certainly got me thinking.
Why would God reveal more of His will to us if the Church today does not cherish and obey what He has already revealed? What part of Jesus' commands to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, clothe the naked, take care of orphans and widows, and preach the gospel to all nations does the Church need clarification on? The Church already knows what God wants us to do in China, so why are we asking God to tell us again?
To Meditate On His Word
It stands to reason then that we must search through Scripture as David did. If we are truly passionate, we would meditate on His word day and night. If we study Scripture in this way, with the passion of David, we would certainly understand and be able to discern the will of God for our lives in all cases.
If we hold true and faithful to the will of God that He has already revealed to us, how much more will God freely give wisdom to those who are faithful to what He has already given?
What Has God Already Revealed To Us?
So then, if it is true that God gives seed to the sower, and if it is true that God gives more to the faithful, then we must seek out and understand every revelation that God has given us to know His will.
We cannot simply stand on the promises of God, but we must live by every word that God speaks to us. So what are the promises, commands, statues, judgments, testimonies, laws and ways that God has revealed to the Church? How do we even define these things?
The Great Commission
cmp.2008.05.21
ed.2008.06.09.01 (Concept Draft)
“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
If we are to make disciples of all nations, teaching them to observe all that He has commanded us, then how can it be possible to disciple anyone without teaching them to obey what Jesus commanded?
If we know that we are commanded to make disciples by teaching all nations the commands of Jesus, then we must accept that we cannot teach what we do not know.
If we do not know the commandments of Jesus, then we cannot say that we have been discipled, otherwise we would already know the commandments of Jesus.
Who is it that can presume to disciple who does not teach the commands of Jesus let alone knows these commandments for themselves?
ed.2008.06.09.01 (Concept Draft)
“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
If we are to make disciples of all nations, teaching them to observe all that He has commanded us, then how can it be possible to disciple anyone without teaching them to obey what Jesus commanded?
If we know that we are commanded to make disciples by teaching all nations the commands of Jesus, then we must accept that we cannot teach what we do not know.
If we do not know the commandments of Jesus, then we cannot say that we have been discipled, otherwise we would already know the commandments of Jesus.
Who is it that can presume to disciple who does not teach the commands of Jesus let alone knows these commandments for themselves?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
