Journey Revolution

Reading Your Bible, Training Your Heart

2011-07-31T21:40:00.003-04:00

During the month of August, I'm going to read one chapter of Proverbs a day (August 1, chapter one; August 2, chapter two, etc). Each day I'll pick a verse or two that speaks to me in some way and then post those verses to my facebook status. I encourage you to do the same. The discipline of reading the Bible each day will have an impact on your life. Its a small thing to do each day, but done over a long period of time, this discipline will train your heart and mind to think like God thinks and to see as God sees. The Word of God is a powerful thing in the heart of a person.

Gianna Jessen Abortion Survivor

2010-09-30T18:58:00.004-04:00

I'm still processing what Gianna said in this video. It's hard to ignore someone who has lived through something like this. Decide for yourself.

How Can You Love God?

2010-03-12T12:18:00.001-05:00

"... and a little child will lead them" (Isaiah 11:6, NIV).

Let's face it: loving an invisible God whom you cannot see can pose a difficult challenge! I've heard many teachers and pastors say that we're to have a love-relationship with God. But ... how?

Sometimes the simplest answers to the most profound questions come from the lips of children. The following video sums it up perfectly. Here you'll listen to a six year old little girl on the playground record an impromptu song (with the help of her four year old friend acting as a cameraman) that answers this most difficult question. And quite honestly, I don't have much to add to what she sang because sometimes wisdom and insight are not respecters of age!

Going Deeper is Simple

2010-02-11T17:52:00.004-05:00

It was many years ago now that I heard something on the radio that really took me to a whole new level in terms of my Bible knowledge. I had been through Seminary and was preaching at a small church. I knew the Bible pretty well, I thought. But when I heard the challenge, I thought, "Okay, I'll give it a try."

The preacher on the radio said something really simple. "If you want to learn what's in the Bible then you've got to read it." So far, nothing profound. And then he said it, "You need to take the same passage and read it once a day, every day for thirty days." I'd never done that before, and to be honest I thought it sounded a little dull. But I gave it a try anyway.

I cannot tell you how much that simple little exercise impacted my life, my heart, and my ministry. Nothing I'd ever done before taught me so much about specific Bible passages like this simple exercise of reading it once a day, every day for thirty days. Since I was a young pastor at the time, I decided to read the book of First Timothy. It only had six chapters, so I thought that would be a good place to start.

On the first day it took me about 20-25 minutes to read (I've always been a slow reader). I tried to keep my mind focused and just read trying to resist the temptation to look up other passages as I read. I tried not to underline too many things, because I knew I was going to be at this for an entire month.

Second day I read it again. It sounded familiar! "Yeah, I read that yesterday," I thought to myself. But I read the whole thing.

Third day I read it again. "Okay, here we go again. This is beginning to feel like a rut - and it's only the third day!"

Fourth day, fifth day, sixth day, seventh day. "It's been a whole week! I can't do this for thirty days!" I thought to myself. It was getting painful reading the same exact thing again and again.

Nothing was new and I like new things!

Eighth day. Ninth day. Tenth day. Now I started underlining things (I use a pencil in case I make a mistake).

Eleventh day. "Okay I'm beginning to see how things in chapter one relate to things in chapter three. But this is still boring!"

Twelfth day. "Do I really have to keep doing this? I know what I'm reading. I've read it day after day and I'm getting sick of it." It was a real test of my discipline to keep at it.

Thirteenth day. Fourteenth day. Fifteenth day. Sixteenth day. Seventeenth day. Eighteenth day. Nineteenth day. Twentieth day. "Hey, what do you know! It only took me about twelve minutes to read all six chapters." I thought I was actually becoming a speed reader, of sorts! I wasn't skipping over things, but my mind knew what was coming and I just ripped right through it.

Twenty-first day. Twenty-second day. Twenty-third day.

~OKAY, TIME OUT~

Remember back in the 1990's these poster-sized pictures that were computerized? They looked like just a blob of random colors. They said that if we looked at the "picture" long enough that we'd start to see it in 3-D. Yeah right. Remember looking at those dumb things? I looked and looked and looked; nothing! I crossed my eyes and stared at the silly poster; nothing! It was a sham! And then one day I kind of blurred my vision just slightly and then BAMB! There it was! I saw all kinds of things in that poster-picture. Trees, and people, and cars, and birds! It felt like I had just walked into the picture itself and was standing among all the things I was looking at. Unbelievable!

Well, that's kind of what happened to me on day twenty-four of reading First Timothy, yet again. As I read it again that day, all of a sudden I felt like I had just stepped into the book and I was seeing things in 3-D like I'd never seen them before. It was truly amazing! I couldn't believe all the things I was seeing and understanding that I hadn't the other 23 days. I was underlining like crazy and scribbling notes. I had truck loads of insight into the passage that I didn't have before.

Now, just to be clear: all I was doing was reading the text. I wasn't reading a commentary alongside of the text. I wasn't reading the footnotes in some study Bible. All I was doing was reading the simple text of First Timothy.

Twenty-fifth day. Twenty-sixth day. Twenty-seventh day. All most done.

Twenty-eighth day. Twenty-ninth day. Thirtieth day. I think the last day I read the book in about ten minutes! The insights kept coming. It seemed like each day I saw yet another facet of what the text was saying.

And then I realized something else. Ever looked at something for several seconds and then closed your eyes? When you shut your eyes there is kind of an "imprint" in your head of what you were looking at.

I realized that after 30 days of reading First Timothy that there was an "imprint" of that entire book upon my heart. I knew just about where every phrase appeared in that book. I could name you book, chapter, and verse of every topic that Paul wrote about. I was truly amazed at what a simple, repetitive reading actually accomplished.

I was so excited that I did it again the next month with a different book in the Bible (Second Timothy and Titus). And then I did it with the book of James, the books of First and Second Peter, the book of Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, First, Second, and Third John. Then I started in the book of Romans and read the first 5 chapters in the same way. Then I took the next section of Romans and read it in the same way. And then the final section of Romans. Then I went to Matthew 5-7 (the Sermon on the Mount) and did the same way. I just kept going and my experience was the same.

That's how I learned the Bible. I'm thankful for my Seminary education. But I'm equally thankful for that radio preacher who said, "Read it once a day, every day for thirty days."

If you want to "go deeper" and if you want to get to know the Bible better then you have to read it. And I would suggest you begin with a short book or a short passage and read it once a day, every day for thirty days.

So, are you going to go deeper?

Justin's Christmas Prayer

2009-12-27T14:18:00.011-05:00

A few years ago we began video taping our Christmas morning. We've caught some really precious moments with our kids and their excitement, but this year something special happened at the very beginning.

Click on the title of this post to view a larger version of this video on YouTube.

What Is A Type of Christ?

2009-11-02T23:44:00.005-05:00

You know what a “double-take” is? It’s when you glance at something, look away and then realize that you saw something you didn’t expect to see. So you take a closer second look. Well, the Old Testament is filled with “double-take” value.

At first glance, the Old Testament just seems to be the history and stories of some fascinating people from ancient times. But it is much more than that. It is the detailed record of God’s unfolding plan to send Jesus to walk on earth and live a perfect, sinless life, and then die on a cross for the sins of the world.

The double-take value comes in when you realize that certain people, events, and practices recorded in the Old Testament serve as hints, clues, and pre-illustrations of the life of Jesus. These are sometimes called a “type” of Christ. In the Bible, a “type” is something that points to a future event and spiritual reality, either by similarity or by contrast. If there were just a handful of them, you could pass it off as coincidence. However the truth is that the Old Testament is filled with types that ultimately point to Christ. This is strong testimony as to the divine origin of the Bible, and more than that: to the divine identity Jesus Christ.

The first Old Testament type of Christ is in Genesis 1:26 when we learn of the creation of the first man, Adam. Just a few verses later, we read of the first sin as Adam disobeyed a direct command from God. As a result of his sin, death entered into the human race. Although we are not personally guilty of Adam’s sin, we are still under the consequences of his sin: death.

The New Testament book of Romans makes an interesting statement about Adam when it says that, “Adam was like the One who was coming in the future” (Romans 5:14, NIV). As you read the following verses, notice how the One who was coming brought a blessing, not a curse. Notice also what the similarities and/or differences are between Adam and Jesus.

15But the gift that God was kind enough to give was very different from Adam's sin. That one sin brought death to many others. Yet in an even greater way, Jesus Christ alone brought God's gift of kindness to many people. 16There is a lot of difference between Adam's sin and God's gift. That one sin led to punishment. But God's gift made it possible for us to be acceptable to him, even though we have sinned many times. 17Death ruled like a king because Adam had sinned. But that cannot compare with what Jesus Christ has done. God has been so kind to us, and he has accepted us because of Jesus. And so we will live and rule like kings. 18Everyone was going to be punished because Adam sinned. But because of the good thing that Christ has done, God accepts us and gives us the gift of life. 19Adam disobeyed God and caused many others to be sinners. But Jesus obeyed him and will make many people acceptable to God. 20The Law came, so that the full power of sin could be seen. Yet where sin was powerful, God's kindness was even more powerful. 21Sin ruled by means of death. But God's kindness now rules, and God has accepted us because of Jesus Christ our Lord. This means that we will have eternal life. Romans 5:15-21 (NCV)

45The Scriptures tell us, “The first man, Adam, became a living person.” But the last Adam—that is, Christ—is a life-giving Spirit. 47Adam, the first man, was made from the dust of the earth, while Christ, the second man, came from heaven. 48Every human being has an earthly body just like Adam’s, but our heavenly bodies will be just like Christ’s. 49Just as we are now like Adam, the man of the earth, so we will someday be like Christ, the man from heaven. I Corinthians 15:45, 47-49 (NLT)

Notice some of the differences between Adam and Jesus. Adam avoided taking responsibility for his sin by blaming his wife. Speaking of Jesus, the Bible says that although “he committed no sin … he himself bore our sins in his body on the tree” (1 Peter 2:22, 23, NIV). I n other words, Jesus took personal responsibility for the sins of others. What a contrast.

When the moment of truth came, Adam chose to hide from God rather than be confronted with the truth. However the Bible records that when a mob of soldiers came to arrest Jesus and take him away to be crucified, Jesus stepped forward (John 18:4) and offered himself up for the sins of the world.

Adam and Jesus were alike in some ways, also. Neither Adam nor Jesus had a physical, earthly father. Their Father was God himself. Both Adam and Jesus came into the world without the stain of sin.

Well, not only is Adam a type of Christ, so is Moses and King David, Joseph and Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and many others. You can’t help but to have a double-take as you read through the Old Testament. Time and again Jesus is being represented through people, places, things, and events.

Now here is one final thought. In Genesis, God starts with nothing and makes something great. Out of nothing, God crated the universe and called it “good.” After Adam and Eve rebelled and sin and corruption entered into the world, Genesis 3:15 records the promise of God of one who would destroy the work of the serpent. That One was Jesus Christ. God went to a man named Abram, who was just an ordinary man. And because of God’s work in his life, Abraham’s story is known throughout the world still to this day. Joseph was young and despised by his brothers. He was sold into slavery and forgotten as though dead. However, God did not forget. He had other plans for Joseph and caused him to rise to great heights as the second in command throughout the ancient empire of Egypt. Through Joseph, countless people were spared of death by a famine.

God is in the business of taking nothing and making something great. He has not changed. He is not only able to do the same for you, but he desires to do so. The question for us is this: will we open our lives up to God’s leading and allow him to create in us something great?

What Are You Chasing?

2009-10-23T11:55:00.004-04:00

"My soul finds rest in God alone; my salvation comes from him."

~Psalm 62:1

American author Iving Kristol said, "Being frustrated is disagreeable, but the real disasters of life begin when you get what you want."

This is because what we want -- or what we think we want -- is so often not what we really need in order to live a fulfilled, meaningful life. There comes a time when we realize that the trinket we worked so hard to aquire, or even the goal we sacrificed so much to reach, doesn't bring the satisfaction we expected it could. We then find ourselves asking, as so many have, "Is that all there is? Is this as good as it gets?"

Goals will always have a place in our lives, and accumulating possessions will always be part of the human experience, but we serve ourselves best the sooner we understand that these things will never be enough. We serve ourselves best when we are learn, as Augstine said, "Our hearts are restless, until they rest in thee."

Where are you seeking your rest today? In a paycheck? In a relationship? In a status symbol? In a measure of success? These things may not be the enemy -- they're not bad in and of themselves -- but it's important that we understand that they're not the finish line, either. If your heart is restless today, take a moment to re-evaluate what you really want. Strive to say, as David said, "My soul finds rest in God alone."

The Big Bang and the Bible

2009-10-20T07:47:00.002-04:00

Cosmology is the science of the origin and development of the universe (it has nothing to do with makeup artist in the local department stores). One of the major questions cosmologists have wrestled with is where did the universe come from? How did it get here?

The prevailing idea from the time of Plato and Aristotle up through 19 century was that the universe was eternal; it had no beginning and it has always been here. This view was challenged by at least two different discoveries of science.

The first challenge came from the discovery of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This is the law of entropy which says that with no outside influence energy will dissipate over time and be used up. Heat up a pot of chili on the stove and then turn off the burner. After a while, the heat energy will be used up and the chili will cool to room temperature.

Time Magazine ran an article a few years ago: “How the Universe Will End.” It basically said that a day will come when all pockets of heat will go cold and all sources of light will burn up and the universe will grind to a halt and be motionless. Lights out, party is over.

You ask, so what does all of this prove in relationship to the eternal nature of the universe? Well, the point is if the universe will one day use up all its energy, that means that it cannot be eternal. Eternal means always has been always will be. If the universe will some day "die" then it's not eternal and therefore has a beginning.

The second scientific discovery that led cosmologists to believe the universe had a beginning started to surface in 1915 when Einstein’s came up with the General Theory of Relativity which basically states that the universe exists in a continual state of expansion or contraction. This theory was proven to be true in 1929 with empirical data by astronomer Edwin Hubble (yeah, the guy they named the telescope in Earth's orbit after).

Hubble discovered that galaxies were moving away from us at a speed that was proportional to their distance from the earth. Since this was true it meant that at some point in the past the entire universe began. As you trace this expansion back in time the universe grows denser and denser until finally the entire known universe is contracted down to a state of infinite density which, essentially, marks the beginning of the universe. Cosmologists call this The Singularity where all matter and energy, physical space and time came into being. This literally represents the origin of the universe from nothing. Hubble’s discovery was that the universe had an absolute beginning at some point in the finite past.

So, science has confirmed that the universe, time, space and matter exploded into existence: BANG!

Prior to 1929, faith and science were opposed on the need for a Creator to have given us our origins. If the universe is eternal then there was no need for a Creator to explain things. But after science proved that the universe had a definite beginning where time, space, and matter came into existence faith and science took one GIANT step toward each other. Science proved that the universe had a beginning and was created out of nothing.

Humm. Kind of reminds me of a verse from the Bible where it says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And God said, 'Let there be....'" (Genesis 1:1-2).

BANG!

Robert Jastrow, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies once commented,

What is the ultimate solution to the origin of the universe? The answers provided by the astronomers are disconcerting and remarkable. Most remarkable of all is the fact that in science, as in the Bible, the world begins with an act of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

The Big Bang theory, rather than making the notion of a Creator obsolete has served to demonstrate that it’s scientifically and philosophically more intelligent to believe that God created the universe a finite time ago … just as the Bible has always taught.

As it turns out, the big bang has a Banger who is bigger!

Why Was God Angry with Balaam?

2009-05-25T15:22:00.000-04:00

In Numbers 22:20 God told Balaam to go with the men from Balak. Why is God angry in verse 22 when Balaam does go?

It would appear that God knew something about the attitude of Balaam’s heart that we do not. Balaam was clearly told he could not go to curse these people because they had been blessed. Yet, when presented with more tempting offers, Balaam asked again to see if God might reconsider. Perhaps God allowed Balaam to go so that he could show his displeasure for Balaam’s craving. The Bible later says that Balaam (loved the wages of wickedness–2 Peter 2:15).

–The Quest Study Bible

If So Many People Died During the 40 Years of Wandering, Where are Their Graves?

2009-05-25T15:04:00.001-04:00

If nearly the whole adult generation of Israel died during the forty years' wandering, why is not that whole region full of their graves (Numbers 14:34-35)?

Under the nomadic conditions of the wilderness journey, with a constant shifting from one site to another, there is no way that sturdy or well constructed graves could have been made as the adult generation passed away. Shallow burials beneath the surface of the sand or gravel would have failed to preserve any of the skeletons for a very long period, even though they might have escaped disturbance by carrion-eating wild animals (which is doubtful). No excavations conducted anywhere in the world have ever exhumed identifiable burials of this type, and in the nature of the case it would be very surprising if they did.

–Dictionary of Bible Difficulties

When Did Moses Give Joshua His Name?

2009-05-25T15:02:00.001-04:00

How could Moses be said to have given Hoshea the name Joshua in Numbers 13:16 when he has already been referred to as “Joshua” in Exodus 17:9 and 24:13?

There is no difficulty here, for the final composition of Exodus by Moses undoubtedly occurred toward the end of the forty years' wandering. Even though Joshua may not have acquired the name from Moses until later in the journey from Egypt to Canaan, nevertheless in retrospect it would have been only natural to refer to Joshua by the name he bore at the time Exodus was composed by Moses. It should be added that Yehosua‘ ("Jehovah is salvation") is virtually the same name as Hosea‘ ("salvation"), both being derived from the root yasa‘.

–Dictionary of Bible Difficulties

Where Did the Mission of the 12 Spies Begin?

2009-05-25T15:01:00.000-04:00

Did the mission of the twelve spies start from Paran (Numbers 13:3) or from Kadesh Barnea (Numbers 20:1)?

Both statements are true. The Wilderness of Paran extends from the port of Eloth (Eilat) on the Gulf of Aqabah in a north-northeast direction across the the Nahal Paran and Har Ramon to include the site of Kadesh Barnea, which lies on the same latitude as Punon. The spies therefore set out from Kadesh, which is located in the Wilderness of Paran (Numbers 13:26: “in the Wilderness of Paran, at Kadesh").

–Dictionary of Bible Difficulties

Was Moses Really Humble?

2009-05-25T14:57:00.002-04:00

How can Numbers 12:3, with its emphasis on Moses' humility, be an authentic comment from Moses' own pen?

One scholar, Haley (Alleged Discrepancies, p. 248), makes this observation with regard to this:

“Moses, under the impulse of the Holy Spirit, was writing history 'objectively.' Hence he speaks as freely of himself as he would of any other person. It is also to be observed that he records his own faults and sins with the same fidelity and impartiality.”

So far as Numbers 12:3 is concerned, it should be observed that Moses' failure to speak in his own defense, even when put under great pressure by Aaron and Miriam to lose his temper, calls for special explanation. That explanation is found in his complete deliverance from pride and his thoroughgoing commitment of himself to the Lord God as his vindicator and protector. Any other leader in his position would surely have faced them with a withering reply, but Moses turned the matter completely over to God. We really need the information contained in v.3 in order to make sense of his amazing meekness in this situation.

–Dictionary of Bible Difficulties

Why Was God So Strict About Complaining?

2009-05-25T14:56:00.001-04:00

Why was God so strict about “complaining” (Numbers 21:5-6)?

The people’s complaining was symptomatic of a much deeper problem: distrust of God. Their verbal barrage assaulted God’s character. Israel refused to take God at his word.

–The Quest Study Bible

Why Did God Punish People for Eating Quail in Numbers 11?

2009-05-25T14:54:00.001-04:00

How could God punish the Israelites for eating the quail He had miraculously provided as their food (Numbers 11:31-34)?

If we read the whole account of Numbers 11 carefully, we can understand why God was so highly displeased with the Hebrew malcontents who were tired of His daily supply of manna and longed for meat and vegetables in their diet (verses 4-9). God gave them what they were asking for, thus bringing them to see how foolish they were to despise the good and sufficient food He had apportioned them in favor of that which they chose for themselves. In other words, in order to teach them a much-needed lesson, God saw fit to give the discontented rabble exactly what they asked for–rather than that which would be best for them. Such a huge number of dead birds would speedily begin to rot in that hot desert, despite the people’s best efforts to convert them into dried meat that could be preserved. There is little wonder that they began to suffer from food poisoning and disease as soon as they began chewing this unaccustomed food. In the end a great many of them died of plague and had to be buried right there in the desolate wilderness, at Qibrot Hatt'avah, “The Graves of Greed."

–Dictionary of Bible Difficulties

Why Were Such Specific Instructions Given how the Tribes Should Travel and Camp?

2009-05-25T14:50:00.001-04:00

Why such specific instructions on how the tribes should travel and camp (Numbers 10:11-28)?

There is powerful imagery and meaning in the way Israel camped and traveled. The plan God gave was one that kept the tabernacle (a symbol of God’s presence) in the very middle of their lives. When they camped, the tabernacle was in the center of the camp. As a matter of fact, all the doors of the tents were to open toward the tabernacle. When they traveled, the tabernacle was central in their procession. This is a powerful reminder of the need to realize that God should be central in every aspect of our lives. This picture should encourage us to evaluate our lives and make sure God is at the center of all we do.

–Kevin Harney

What is the Curse of Adultery for Women in Numbers 5:21-22?

2009-05-25T14:48:00.002-04:00

What is the curse mentioned Numbers 5:21ff.?

The passage reads that the curse would cause “her thigh to waste away and her abdomen to swell.” This is figurative language for infertility. It indicates a physical malady or reproductive problem that would prevent a woman from bearing children. During this time the Israelites viewed the inability to have children as a divine punishment for personal sin (see Deuteronomy 7:14), though not necessarily limited to adultery. God’s Word, however, does not make such blanket generalizations. Sarah, for example, bore disgrace for decades, though later she was called “holy” (1 Peter 3:5-6).

–The Quest Study Bible

Why Were Women Subjected to "Tests" for Suspected Adultery?

2009-05-25T14:44:00.003-04:00

Why should an innocent wife go through all this because of a suspicious husband (Numbers 5:14-31)?

This would be for her own protection. This test actually functioned as a protective measure for a woman falsely accused of having an affair. Without it, the furious husband might harm her–even kill her. The law served as a deterrent against private acts of vengeance and retribution, and ensured justice in a potentially explosive situation.

–The Quest Study Bible

Why Would Glancing at Holy Things Result in Death?

2009-05-25T14:42:00.001-04:00

Why would God kill people because they glanced at holy things (Numbers 4:20)?

Through strict requirements like these, God impressed upon his people the seriousness of his holiness. The underlying reason for this warning on God’s part may well have been mercy. It was a mercy of God that he had made himself known to anyone; it was the continuing mercy of God that he did not destroy more persons more quickly because of their wickedness; and it was a condescending mercy of God that he presented himself in their midst. The revelation of God’s word brings with it demands, some of which seem harsh and difficult. But God is near. Some seem to be so judgmental; yet God has not destroyed all. Some seem to be so threatening; yet God by his mercy allows some sense of his presence to remain known in the camp. His manifestation is based on his mercy; his strictures allow his mercy to continue to be realized.

–NIV Bible Commentary

What is the "Sea Cow" Mentioned in Numbers 4:6?

2009-05-25T14:32:00.001-04:00

What is a “sea cow” (Numbers 4:6)?

Sea cows are dugongs, marine animals abounding on the coral banks of the Red Sea and in other tropical waters. A dugong grows to 11 feet long, with a round head, fish-like tail and flippers for forelimbs. Their appearance is similar to seals. Because the Red Sea borders ancient Egypt, it’s not surprising that Israel used their hides for various purposes.

–The Quest Study Bible

What Is the Tent of Meeting?

2009-05-25T14:29:00.003-04:00

What is the “Tent of Meeting”?

The “tent of meeting” (Numbers 1:1) is frequently used to designate the pre-Solomonic sanctuary, while elsewhere the entire structure is often called the tabernacle. The phrase, “Tent of Meeting,” probably derives from the belief that this structure served as the meeting place between God and Moses (Leviticus 1:1) and also between God and the people of Israel (Exodus 29:42–43).

-Dictionary of Old Testament Theology

Did the Israelites Ever Make Camp in the Desert?

2009-05-25T14:12:00.003-04:00

During the Israelites’ journey through the wilderness, did they ever stop to set up camp?

The Israelites camped throughout the journey. For example, they camped at Mt. Sinai for at least eighty days while Moses was on the mountain (Deuteronomy 9:9,18). Numbers 33 gives a comprehensive list of the encampments along the way.

–Don Porter

How Did the Jews Survive 40 Years in the Desert?

2009-05-25T13:56:00.004-04:00

How did the Jews survive 40 years in the desert?

The objection that the natural resources of the Sinai desert could never have supported two million people or more for a period of forty years' wandering is absolutely valid. But it completely overlooks what the Pentateuch makes abundantly clear: Israel did not receive its food and drink from the ordinary natural resources of the Sinai terrain. This multitude was said to have been supplied in a miraculous way with manna from the sky and water from the cloven rock, all during the journey through the wilderness. The God who led the Israelites in the pillar of fire and the cloud was the one who supplied them with their nourishment by way of a supernatural intervention on their behalf.

–Dictionary of Bible Difficulties

How Many Jews Left Egypt?

2009-05-25T13:23:00.004-04:00

How many Jews left Egypt?

Jacob's family came to Egypt with a total of 70 people (Exodus 1:5). After 430 years of brutal slave labor, that number rose to about 600,000 men (Exodus 12:37), which is remarkable considering the fact that many of the people would have died under cruel and dangerous work conditions. The book of Numbers begins with a national census (1:45-46). This census was conducted after the exodus from Egypt and it totals 603,550 men above the age of 20. Since these figures apply only to adult males, it has been traditionally assumed that the total number of participants including women and children, could have approximated 2.5 million people.

Some believe that the number could have been much higher than that. The estimated 2.5 million people is reached by estimating that the men would have been married and each family having at least 2 children. Among the Jewish people of ancient culture, large families were considered an honor. It is reasonable to believe that families would have totaled many more children than just two. If the number of children per family were just four, then the number of people that left Egypt could have been 3.5 million people.

The Hardest Part is Waiting

2009-04-25T19:54:00.002-04:00

In his sermon "Better Odds" Andy Stanley makes a great statement. He's talking about waiting on God, and he says something along these lines: We look at our watches; God looks at the calendar.

One of the most difficult lessons for believers to learn is to wait on God. By nature we're not patient, and our culture offers little encouragement to develop the habit. We want, we need, we think we deserve everything now.

Remember that Sarah waited until she was old for the son she had always dreamed about; Moses waited for 40 years on the backside of the desert for God's call; Joseph languished in prison for 15 years before God vindicated him. Even Paul spent 17 years in preparation before he began the ministry that God called him to on the road to Damascus. But you can be sure that each of these saints would say it was worth the wait. It always is.

There are, no doubt, a number of things that you are waiting for, too: victory, healing, peace, growth, vindication, success. Today I encourage you to remember one thing: God is on his way. Sometimes the night seems to last forever. Sometimes his silence seems permanent. That's because we look at the clock while he looks at the calendar.

Solomon wrote, "God has made everything beautiful for its own time. He has planted eternity in the human heart, but even so, people cannot see the whole scope of God's work from beginning to end." (Ecclesiastes 3:11)

We cannot see the whole scope of God's work, but the scope exists. And we may not see the big picture, but there is one. Today might be just another day of waiting for you, but here's how you can make it better: Take your eyes off the clock and turn them toward Jesus. Spend this time waiting in expectation rather than desperation. God is at work in your work in life, making all things beautiful in their time.

Why were people with diseases asked to live outside the camp?

2009-03-24T13:22:00.000-04:00

It doesn’t seem fair. The ones who lived outside the camp faced great difficulties, since they were completely cut off from society (except for supplies left behind). Yet everyone understood the measure as an unpleasant but necessary way to prevent God’s dwelling from being defiled (Numbers 5:1-4). On the positive side, these harsh requirements served to protect the unclean person, keeping the holy things at a distance so no one would die for accidentally touching them. These rules also protected the rest of the camp, quarantining the disease and preventing its spread. No exceptions were made–even Moses' sister Miriam was exiled.

If we’re all “beautiful” in the sight of the Lord, then why is He so selective and prejudicial with regard to the handicapped?

2009-03-24T13:21:00.002-04:00

Leviticus 21:18. This rule had nothing to do with individual rights. Serving as a priest was not a right but a privilege reserved for only a few. Those with physical defects were no more discriminated against than were most of the people of Israel: Only men of a certain age, ceremonially clean, without defect, from the tribe of Levi and descended from Aaron were granted the privilege to represent God as priests. At issue was whether the priests would project an image of a holy, perfect God to the people. Like the sacrifices that had to be without defect, the priests were to typify Christ’s perfection (Heb 9:13-14). The uniqueness of the call preserved the image. Nonetheless, Aaron’s descendants with defects were not barred from other priestly benefits.

–The NIV Study Bible and The Quest Study Bible

Were all of the animal offerings completely consumed by the fire?

2009-03-24T13:21:00.001-04:00

Only in the case of the burnt offering was the whole animal consumed by fire (all of it offered to God). This became a picture of total consecration, for in the same way the nation was to be utterly committed to God. In most sacrifices, however, the animal was eaten as part of a meal. The priests would literally butcher the meat and bring it back to the person and/or family who offered it (they would then eat the meal as part of worship).

–Don Porter

Why were male goats sacrificed for some sins, females for others?

2009-03-24T13:20:00.001-04:00

It’s unclear why. Some think a sinner of higher status required a sacrifice of greater value. A high priest’s sin, for example, would have had more serious repercussions than an individual's. If so, then male goats were considered more valuable, though this does not always seem to be the case. Others, however, think the distinction was due to the public nature of the sin. Since priests and leaders were more visible, sacrifices for their sins were treated like public sin offerings.

–The Quest Study Bible

Why send a goat off into the desert?

2009-03-24T13:19:00.000-04:00

Leviticus 16:20-22. A sacrifice was a substitute, symbolically bearing sin and receiving its consequences. This goat, however, was a living sacrifice–banished from camp as a symbol of guilt removed far from the people and God’s presence. The people watched as the goat was led to a distant spot–a striking portrayal of God’s promise to remove their sins from them.

–The Quest Study Bible

Why is a woman declared unclean twice as long after giving birth to a girl as opposed to a boy?

2009-03-24T13:18:00.000-04:00

Leviticus 12:1-5. First, let’s look at why the woman would be considered unclean after giving birth. According to the text, bleeding made the woman unclean. Some suggest this regulation protected women from infection. Others see it as a symbol for a lack of wholeness. Perhaps because blood meant life, bleeding implied the opposite, symbolizing death and sin.

Now, with regard to the question above, we don’t really know why God gave this command. Sometimes God’s instructions reflected cultural views held during that time. Ancient peoples may have believed a woman bled longer after delivering a girl. Or perhaps the passage acknowledges the higher value their culture placed on males. Though such a perspective seems unfair today, Biblical teaching raised the status and rights of women far above any other laws or cultures of the time.

–The Quest Study Bible

What is the difference between a “sin offering” and a “guilt offering”?

2009-03-24T13:17:00.000-04:00

Leviticus 6:24-30 & 7:1-10. The difference between the sin offering and the guilt offering was in the nature of the sin. The former was for what might be called general sins; the latter was for sins that injured other people or detracted from the sacred worship. The guilt offering thus involved not only a sacrifice but also restitution plus a fine of 20 percent (6:5).

–NIV Bible Commentary

If there are sin and guilt offerings for “unintentional sins,” are there no offerings for “intentional sins”?

2009-03-24T13:15:00.001-04:00

Leviticus 5:15. The expression “to sin unintentionally” calls for some comment. The NIV reading may give the impression that there was no sacrifice for intentional sins. This presents a problem, for many of our sins are more or less intentional (though not necessarily deliberate). The word basically means “to err, go astray, wander, or stagger.” That is, the notion of intent or lack of intent is not basic to the meaning of the Hebrew word and ought not to be imported. The usual sins we fall into are covered by the sin offering and the guilt offering. For instance, lying, stealing, cheating, and false swearing are surely intentional. And yet, each of these sins are specifically covered by the guilt offering (Leviticus 6:2-3).

–NIV Bible Commentary

Why were the people guilty for a priest’s sin?

2009-03-24T13:14:00.001-04:00

Leviticus 4:3. In the Old Testament, it was the role of the priest to represent the people before God. Thus, the life of the priest would impact the people. If the representative was guilty, he “brought guilt upon the people.” Fortunately, God made provision for dealing with the priest’s sins. Also, it should be noted that this principle of “representation” is picked up in the New Testament as Jesus is seen as the representative of humanity in whom our righteousness is found!

–Don Porter

Why would God hold someone responsible for an accidental sin?

2009-03-24T13:12:00.002-04:00

Leviticus 4:2. The original word for “unintentionally” meant “wandering away.” It is our human condition that we tend to wander from God. Whether this is done intentionally or accidentally, the Lord holds us accountable to our choices and makes it clear that the “wages of sin [accidental or intentional] is death” (Romans 6:23). A holy God demands that we are holy, and any sin makes us “unclean.” This is true whether our sin is “intentional” or “unintentional.”

–Don Porter

With so much emphasis on “blood sacrifices,” why was provision made for a grain offering?

2009-03-24T12:54:00.002-04:00

With so much emphasis on “blood sacrifices,” why was provision made for a grain offering (Leviticus 2:1-16; 6:14-18)?

The grain offering was presented as a gift, an act of worship rather than restitution for sin. The grain offerings were offerings of fine flour or of unleavened bread, cakes, wafers, or of ears of grain (2:1, 4, 13-14; 5:11) Although the poor could mix grain with an animal sacrifice as a substitute sin offering (Leviticus 5:11), the grain offering itself was probably intended simply to remember God’s favor and, by remembering, to please him (an aroma pleasing to the Lord).

–The Quest Study Bible and NIV Commentary

What is a "Fellowship Offering"?

2009-03-24T12:52:00.002-04:00

What is a “fellowship offering” (Leviticus 3:1)?

In the phrase “fellowship offering,” the word translated “fellowship” includes the ideas of health, wholeness, welfare, and peace. It is reflected in the common Jewish greeting “Shalom!” This offering apparently symbolizes peace with God because the worshiper joins in the sacred meal (symbolized sharing a meal with the Lord). A fellowship offering could be voluntary as a special offering of thanks to God or could be given as the result of a vow or as a freewill offering (7:12-26). This offering was given by the thousands at special celebrations when many people joined in the sacred meal (1Kings 8:63). If a man was too poor to bring a voluntary fellowship offering, he would probably be given a share in the offerings of others

– NIV Bible Commentary

Why Would God be so Concerned About the Priestly Garments?

2009-03-24T12:46:00.001-04:00

Why would God be so concerned about the priestly garments (Exodus 39)?

Some of the pieces of the priestly garments were not only beautiful but also significant. For example, one part of the high priest’s uniform was the breastpiece. On the front of the breastpiece were attached 12 precious stones, each inscribed with the name of a tribe of Israel. This symbolized how the high priest represented all the people before God. The breastpiece also contained pockets that held two stones or plates called the Urim and the Thummim, which were consulted to determine God’s will for the nation.

–NIV Life Application Study Bible

After the 10 Commandments, Why Were There Multiple Marriages?

2009-03-24T12:45:00.002-04:00

Why were there multiple marriages in Israel after the giving of the Ten Commandments?

The fact of the matter was that while polygamy was contrary to God’s intention and ideal, nevertheless, because of what Christ called “the hardness of men’s hearts” (Matthew 19:8). This practice was tolerated especially in the case of a political leader whose dynasty would fail if he were unable to produce a son by his first wife.

–Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties

How Did the Lord "Speak" to Moses?

2009-03-24T12:43:00.002-04:00

How did the Lord “speak” to Moses?

On occasion it seems Moses actually heard an audible voice (Numbers 7:89). Other times he may have experienced a mystical inner sensation or had a mental impression. God communicated with Moses more directly than with the other prophets who received visions or dreams (Numbers 12:6-8). In more than 20 ways and over 150 times, Numbers records that God spoke to Moses.

–The Quest Study Bible

Why was Moses' Face Radiant?

2009-03-24T12:41:00.001-04:00

Why was the face of Moses “radiant” after he came down from the mountain (Exodus 34:30)?

Some think this radiance was the glory Moses prayed for during his second 40 days (33:18). Others believe that Moses' anger when he first descended the mountain (32:19) canceled out any glory that would have appeared on his face. When Moses descended the second time, he was not angry.

–The Quest Study Bible

What Was Moses Asking for When He Said "Show me Your Glory"?

2009-03-24T12:40:00.002-04:00

What was Moses asking for when he said to the Lord, “Show me your glory” (Exodus 33:18)?

The glory of God is the worthiness of God–the presence of God in the fullness of his attributes in some place or everywhere (Exodus 16:10; 29:43; 33:19-34:8; Isaiah 6:3). Thus, Moses wanted to see the character of God. In a sense, Moses' prayer was answered on the Mount of Transfiguration (Luke 9:30-32), where he shared a vision, however brief, of the Lord's glory with Elijah and three of Jesus' disciples.

–NIV Bible Dictionary

What Does It Mean that God Spoke "Face to Face" with Moses?

2009-03-24T12:38:00.002-04:00

What does it mean when we read that the Lord spoke to Moses “face to face” (Exodus 33:11)?

The phrase “face to face” is a metaphor that, along with the phrase “as a man speaks with his friend,” suggests spiritual communion and intimacy. The image should not be taken literally, especially in view of the fact that God said no one, including Moses, could see his face and live. It describes God’s straightforward and deep communication with Moses, not his physical presence (Numbers 12:6-8).

–The Quest Study Bible

Did Joshua go with Moses up the Mountain Even though Moses Was to Go Alone?

2009-03-24T12:36:00.003-04:00

Exodus 24:13 seems to indicate that Joshua accompanied Moses up the mountain. Wasn’t Moses instructed to go alone?

While it is true that only Moses was to “approach the Lord,” there were others who were to accompany Moses to the mountain. In light of verse 24:18, it seems clear that only Moses went up the mountain in accordance with God’s instructions (“and he stayed on the mountain forty days and forty nights”).

–Don Porter

Who Are the "Poor" that are referred to in Exodus 23:3?

2009-03-24T12:34:00.001-04:00

Who are the “poor” that are referred to in Exodus 23:3 (i.e., are these slaves)?

The Hebrew word used in this passage is dal, which can be literally translated as “weak, thin, lean, or needy.” Thus, while this could refer to a slave, what is intended here are the “poor” in general.

–Don Porter

Does God Favor Male Slaves over Female Slaves

2009-03-24T12:32:00.002-04:00

Why would God make provision for a husband and wife not to leave together when the husband is freed as a slave (Exodus 21:4)?

First, it would be helpful to consider why God allowed Hebrews to enslave other Hebrews. Though they had all been slaves in Egypt and were now set free, Moses permitted a sort of voluntary slavery to continue. Individuals could sell their services for up to six years to repay debts or make restitution. Hebrew slaves were regarded more as hired hands. The seventh year, their debts were canceled, and they received their freedom.

Second, with regard to why God would make provision for a husband and wife not to leave together when the husband was no longer a slave. This would make more sense to us if we could see through the lens of their culture. Their customs required a man to “purchase” a wife by paying a bride-price to her father. If a slave owner purchased a bride for his servant, however, she technically belonged to the one who paid the price. This policy seems harsh, but it was softened by other provisions (see Exodus 21:8,11,26-27).

–The Quest Study Bible

Does God Command Murder?

2009-03-24T12:30:00.002-04:00

If God values life, why did he direct the Israelites to totally destroy the people of the neighboring nations (particularly in light of the commandment, “You shall not murder”)?

Much confusion has arisen from the misleading translation of Exodus 20:13 that occurs in most English versions. The Hebrew original uses a specific word for murder (rasah) in the sixth commandment and should be rendered “You shall not murder” (as opposed to many English versions which read “kill”). This is not a prohibition against capital punishment for capital crimes, since it is not a general term for the taking of life, such as our English word “kill” implies. Exodus 21:12, in the very next chapter, reads: “Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death.” This amounts to a specific divine command to punish murder with capital punishment, in keeping with Genesis 9:6: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.”

Violence and bloodshed are occasionally mentioned in the record of man’s history throughout Scripture, but never with approval. Yet there were specific situations when entire communities (such as Jericho) or entire tribes (such as Amalekites) were to be exterminated by the Israelites in obedience to God’s command. In each case these offenders had gone so far in degeneracy and moral depravity that their continued presence would result in spreading the dreadful cancer of sin among God’s covenant people.

–Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties

Why did the sons of Israel stay in Egypt after the famine?

2009-03-15T23:45:00.004-04:00

Why did the sons of Israel stay in Egypt after the famine (Genesis 50:22)?

Perhaps the Israelites enjoyed the prosperity and goodness of Egypt. Canaan was more on the frontier, less stable politically and perhaps not as fertile. Since the Israelites lived in Egypt throughout Joseph’s lifetime (three generations), they were probably more familiar with Egypt. Also, they may have had some obligation to Pharaoh. Everyone in Pharaoh’s land would in some way be indebted to him, even though we see no indication of their slavery until the book of Exodus. Though Joseph knew he would die and not see the time when his sons returned to the land, he nevertheless expressed clearly the hope and trust that he had in God’s promise: “God will surely come to your aid and take you up out of this land to the land he promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” As has been characteristic of the literary technique of the Joseph narratives, Joseph repeated a second time (cf. Genesis 41:32) his statement of trust in God’s promise: “God will surely come to your aid, and then you must carry my bones up from this place."

–The Quest Study Bible and the NIV Bible Commentary

What kind of divination did Joseph do?

2009-03-15T23:43:00.003-04:00

What kind of divination did Joseph do (Genesis 44:15)?

“Divination” is the attempt to obtain secret knowledge, especially of the future, either by inspiration (Acts 16:16) or by the reading and interpreting of certain signs called omens. The divination was accomplished by placing oil drops upon water and observing the resulting patterns. Divining God’s will through dreams, the budding of plants, sheep fleeces and the casting of lots was not condemned in the Old Testament. People believed God was totally in control and spoke through these means. The Mosaic Law does not forbid divination, but it condemns consulting the dead through “mediums.”

–The NIV Bible Dictionary and The Quest Study Bible

Was Joseph wrong to marry the daughter of a pagan priest?

2009-03-15T23:41:00.003-04:00

Was Joseph wrong to marry the daughter of a pagan priest (Genesis 41:45)?

The text makes no judgment about this marriage. In the context of Genesis 41, Joseph’s marriage appears positive, underscoring the power and prestige Joseph had gained in Egypt. The marriage was apparently another blessing from God, along with all the other good things happening to him.

–The Quest Study Bible

Did Pharaoh come to believe in the true God?

2009-03-15T23:40:00.002-04:00

Did Pharaoh come to believe in the true God (Genesis 41:37-39)?

Probably not. Pharaoh uses the word “Elohim,” a generic name for God that could also be translated “gods.” Here Pharaoh did not necessarily make a confession of faith, but probably only referred to a god or gods generally, according to his understanding. The word “spirit” in verse 38 is therefore typically not capitalized, since reference to the Holy Spirit would be out of character in statements by pagan rulers.

–NIV Study Bible

Why would God speak to Pharaoh?

2009-03-15T23:39:00.002-04:00

Why would God speak to a “non-believer” like Pharaoh (Genesis 41:16)?

God will work through anyone to accomplish his purposes. Earlier there was Abimelech, the Philistine king to whom God spoke in a dream (Genesis 20:3-7). God influenced mighty leaders like the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar (Jeremiah 25:9), an unnamed Assyrian king (Isaiah 10:5-12) and Cyrus, the founder of the Persian empire (Isaiah 45:1), to accomplish his will.

–The Quest Study Bible

Why would God allow Joseph to be forgotten?

2009-03-15T23:37:00.003-04:00

Why would God allow Joseph to be forgotten (Genesis 40:23)?

Although God may allow people to forget those who have helped them, God never forgets those who belong to him. Perhaps this was a time of spiritual development for Joseph. Although nothing negative is said about Joseph in this account, his heart might not have been ready for the responsibilities God had in store for him.

–The Quest Study Bible

Why would a brother be intimate with his deceased brother's wife?

2009-03-15T23:34:00.004-04:00

What is this business of a brother lying with his deceased brother’s wife to bear children? Was that God’s plan (Genesis 38:8)?

This was a custom of the day intended to perpetuate the line of a deceased brother and provide for the needs of his widow. This was later defined in the Mosaic Law so that the brother could back out of the responsibility, but not without some shame (Deuteronomy 25:5-10).

–The Quest Study Bible

Why did God put some people to death?

2009-03-15T23:33:00.004-04:00

Why did God put some people to death (Genesis 38:7-10)?

It may seem that God is arbitrary in his punishment. Some men and women have been executed for what seem to be minor offenses; others – perverse criminals – have been allowed to wallow in their wickedness. Why is it that God sometimes appears inconsistent in his discipline?

The Bible reminds us that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. He wants every person to take responsibility for his or her own wrongdoing and to turn from it (Ezek. 33:11). On the other hand, God in his wisdom chooses to make examples of some people, and that may have been the case with the men in these verses. Their punishment reminds us that even relatively minor offenses separate us from God. Perhaps God allows some of the wicked to live because he wants to give them time to turn from their evil ways, no matter how deeply depraved they may appear to be. He has tolerated the corruption of some for decades or even a lifetime. Some of the most evil people in history have turned from their immoral ways to become great builders of God’s kingdom. The apostle Paul is an example of such a person.

–The Quest Study Bible

What's the deal with Joseph's robe?

2009-03-15T23:30:00.004-04:00

Was there more to the special robe that Joseph received than just a fancy piece of clothing? His brothers were very angry, was something else going on behind the scenes (Genesis 37)?

There was a ceremony involving such robes in the Ancient Near East that marked the recipient as the father’s primary heir. Joseph, the eleventh son in the family lineage takes the rights of the firstborn. Joseph gets the farm. When he receives this special robe, the situation is packed with emotions because the whole family inheritance is at stake. This was a volatile moment because the older boys would have clearly seen that Joseph had been placed before all of them. This was a recipe for sibling civil war, and that is exactly what happened.

–John Ortberg

Did Jacob really wrestle with God?

2009-03-15T23:23:00.006-04:00

Is Jacob really wrestling with God? How can this be if God is a Spirit (Genesis 32:22-32)?

Jacob’s wrestling with an angel epitomizes the whole of Jacob’s life. He had struggled with his brother (chapters 25, 27), his father (chapter 27), and his father-in-law (chapters 29-31), and now he struggles with God (ch. 32). Jacob’s own words express the substance of these narratives about him: “I will not let you go unless you bless me.” Here is a graphic picture of Jacob struggling for the blessing–struggling with God and with a man (32:28).

The unexpected and sudden introduction of this man (v. 24), who wrestles in the dark with Jacob, captures something of the event itself. By the time their contest comes to an end, Jacob is convinced that his opponent is God himself (v. 30). This is not improbable, given that God had previously come to Abraham in human form (18:1-15). The story contains an interesting wordplay in the Hebrew: God wrestles (ye'abeq) with Jacob (ya'aqob) by the Jabbok (yabboq).

Significantly, Jacob emerges victorious in his struggle. His victory, even in his struggle with God, came when the angel “blessed him.” The importance of the name “Peniel” is that it identifies the one with whom Jacob was wrestling as God. Jacob’s remark that he had seen God face to face did not necessarily mean that the “man” he wrestled with was in fact God. Rather, when one saw the “angel of the Lord,” it was appropriate to say that he had seen the face of God.

–NIV Bible Commentary & ESV Study Bible

Why promise a tenth?

2009-03-15T23:22:00.002-04:00

Why promise a tenth (Genesis 28:22)?

It seems to be a way of acknowledging the authority and generosity of the one who has provided the blessing. Later God required a tenth from all Israelites (Leviticus 27:30-32; Numbers 18:26; Deuteronomy 14:22-28).

–The Quest Study Bible

Are dreams messages from God?

2009-03-15T23:20:00.004-04:00

Are dreams messages from God (Genesis 28:12-15)?

Dreams can be messages from God, but they are not always. In this case God repeats the promises made to Jacob’s father and grandfather. The dream corresponds to the already revealed will of God. Likewise, if God chooses to reveal his will to us in a dream, it will correspond to the teaching of Scripture.

Dreams should never replace sound and well thought-out decisions. Scripture and respected members of the church should be consulted carefully. We shouldn’t expect God to tell us in a dream whom to marry or what career track to choose. That isn’t God’s pattern of revealing his will. This dream was given to assure Jacob that God was present with him and that God intended to bless him, keeping the promise made to his ancestors. It also marked the beginning of Jacob’s lifelong relationship with God.

–Don Porter

Why did Abraham have his servant put his hand under his thigh?

2009-03-15T23:18:00.004-04:00

Why did Abraham have his servant put his hand under his thigh? Was this symbolic of something (Genesis 24:2)?

This was a covenant ritual, apparently an ancient custom, though no extra-biblical material mentions it. The intimacy that such a practice would require suggests the high level of trust sought in the oath. This practice is found in other places in the Bible and it is always associated with a solemn oath.

–Don Porter

Why would Abraham ask Sarah to say she was his sister?

2009-03-15T23:16:00.003-04:00

Why would Abraham ask Sarah to say she was his sister (Genesis 12:13; 20:2)?

Abraham’s response was driven by his fear of being killed by men who would long for his beautiful wife. It was understandable enough that Sarah complied with his request under those circumstances. Yet it was a sin on the part of both of them, and it robbed them of all possibility of witnessing to the truth of God before the idolatrous society of Egypt.

It seems quite clear that this account of Abraham’s failure is an honest inclusion of his lack of faith as manifested by this entire episode. If he had not believed that Yahweh was able to protect him with honor and integrity if he went down to Egypt, then he should never have gone there at all. As it was, he brought dishonor on himself and the cause he stood for, discrediting himself before the moral standards of Egypt itself.

–Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties

Why would Lot offer his virgin daughters to a mob of men?

2009-03-15T23:12:00.003-04:00

Why would Lot offer his virgin daughters to a mob of men (Genesis 19:8)?

Three factors may have contributed to Lot’s outrageous proposal: (1) Hospitality was considered to be one of the highest measures of a man. To take a stranger in and let him eat your food was to guarantee his safety – even at personal risk. (2) Wives and daughters were typically viewed as property in his culture. (3) Living as he did in a degenerate society, Lot’s values were likely off center. Sin distorts priorities and blurs the line between right and wrong. It was no doubt the combination of these factors that caused Lot to value the safety of his guests more than the well-being of his daughters.

–The Quest Study Bible

Why cut an animal in half to establish a covenant?

2009-03-15T23:09:00.003-04:00

What was the significance in cutting the animals in half (Genesis 15:10-17)?

In those days, when people made a covenant, they would take animals and literally cut them in two pieces and set the two pieces next to each other, side by side. Then they would go for a covenant walk. They would pass between the pieces of the animal, and the symbolic meaning of this was, “May this be my fate if I don’t live up to the covenant, if I don’t honor the covenant, if I’m not faithful.” Jeremiah 34:18 says, “Those who have violated my covenant … I will treat like the calf they cut in two and then walked between its pieces.” When people cut a covenant, blood was shed. It was a way of saying, “I take this very seriously.”

–John Ortberg

What about polygamy?

2009-03-15T23:07:00.003-04:00

Why were multiple wives or concubines allowed in the Old Testament?

Genesis 2:23-24, as Christ pointed out, teaches monogamy as God’s will for man. Now there is no possibility of a husband’s constituting a unity with one wife if he also has another wife–or several others. This is made very clear by the analogy in Ephesians 5:23. The implication here is that there is but one true church and that it stands in a relationship to the heavenly Bridegroom like that of the wife toward her husband. Christ is not the Head of many different churches; He has but a single mystical body–not several different bodies–and therefore His one and only church is viewed as the antitype of monogamous marriage. Polygamy is absolutely excluded. As we examine the scriptural record, we come to the realization that every case of polygamy or concubinage amounted to a failure to follow God’s original model and plan. The fact of the matter was that while polygamy was contrary to God’s intention and ideal, nevertheless, because of what Christ called “the hardness of men’s hearts” (Matthew 19:8), it was tolerated–especially in the case of a political leader whose dynasty would fail if he produced no son by his first wife.

–The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties

Why did God command Abraham to be circumcised?

2009-03-15T23:04:00.003-04:00

Why did God command Abraham, and those men who followed, to be circumcised (Genesis 17:10)?

Circumcision was usually practiced in the ancient world as a rite of passage into puberty or marriage, though it does not seem to have been practiced among the Canaanites. God, however, gave this peculiar custom new meaning when he required it of Abraham. For Abraham, circumcision was a mark of possession, indicating that he belonged to God. It was also a sign of commitment, symbolizing that the Lord alone would be the one he would trust and serve. Some think it indicated a type of oath: “May I be cut off from my people as my foreskin has been cut off, if I am not faithful to the Lord (Gen. 17:14).

In many ways, God’s relationship with Abraham, as symbolized by circumcision, is similar to that of a marriage covenant. The commitment that God intends a husband and a wife to have for each other illustrates the commitment that God wanted from Abraham. Throughout the Old Testament, God characterizes himself as a husband to his people, and adultery is used as a metaphor for their idolatry and unfaithfulness to him (see, for example, Hosea 2:16; 4:15).

–The Quest Study Bible

Jacob Blessed for Deceiving?

2009-03-15T22:56:00.002-04:00

Why was Jacob blessed even though he deceived his father to receive the blessing (Genesis 27:5ff.)?

First, a comment about the rite of blessing. Our culture affirms equality and even distribution, which make Isaac’s response difficult to understand. But in that culture only one son could inherit the family blessing. In this case only one son could provide the family line through which the Messiah would come.

Why would God bless a deceitful person? Obviously not because the person was deceitful. For a reason known only to God, he chose to bless Jacob and not Esau. Paul points out that since his choice was made before they were even born, it was not based on their merit (Romans 9:10-13) but on God’s sovereign freedom. God’s grace and blessing are always undeserved and unexpected.

–The Quest Study Bible

How did Zipporah Save Moses' Life?

2009-03-08T03:17:00.004-04:00

Exodus 4:24-26 (NIV)

²⁴At a lodging place on the way, the LORD met Moses and was about to kill him. ²⁵But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son's foreskin and touched Moses' feet with it. "Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me," she said. ²⁶So the LORD let him alone. (At that time she said "bridegroom of blood," referring to circumcision.)

This event happens right before Moses goes to Pharaoh to deliver the Israelites from Egypt. This account of Zipporah circumcising her son, touching Moses' feet with the foreskin, and then calling Moses a "bridegroom of blood" seems very odd. On top of that, we read that God was about to kill Moses and the actions of his quick-thinking wife saved his life. This also seems out of place.

There is a fair amount of consensus among Old Testament scholars that this is a story about the profound importance of circumcision in the covenant. Circumcision was a kind of signature on the part of a person, which meant they wanted to be in a covenant relationship with God. Apparently Moses had not circumcised his son, although he knew he should have. Most likely, he has not been circumcised himself, which means he is deliberately disobeying God. He is holding himself outside of a covenant relationship with the Lord. There is simply no way he can take on God's mission until this is remedied.

So Zipporah, his wife, recognizing what's happening, takes a flint knife--the appropriate instrument--and circumcises their son. Then she touches Moses' feet. The word for feet is often a euphemism in Semitic culture for genitals. She touches him as a kind of temporary, vicarious circumcision of Moses until the time comes when Moses can be properly circumcised.

When Zipporah makes that statement about "you're a bridegroom of blood to me, " it might sound like a negative thing to say, like, "What a lot of bloodshed you and your God are causing me." But this is not what she is saying. It was actually a ritual marriage statement that a Hebrew bride would make when her groom had been circumcised before marriage. It's a positive statement: "You are blood kin to me. We're members of one family. We're a covenant people together." What's really happening here is that Moses has been disobedient to God's covenant calling. God is serious about it, and Zipporah's quick insight and actions save Moses' life!

-John Ortberg

Sons of God Marrying Daughters of Men?

2009-02-19T23:52:00.005-05:00

Who were the "sons of God" that married the "daughters of men"?

The phrase "sons of God" in Genesis 6:2 has been interpreted to refer either to angels or to human beings. In such places as Job 1:6 and 2:1 it refers to angels, and perhaps also in Psalm 29:1 (where it is translated "mighty ones"). Some interpreters also appeal to Jude 1:6-7 (as well as to Jewish literature) in referring the phrase here to angels.

Others, however, maintain that intermarriage and cohabitation between angels and human beings, though commonly mentioned in ancient mythologies, are surely excluded by the very nature of the created order (Genesis 1; Mark 12:25). Elsewhere, expressions equivalent to "sons of God often refer to human beings, though in contexts quite different from Genesis 6:2 (see Deuteronomy 14:1; 32:5; Psalm 73:15; Isaiah 43:6; Hosea 1:10; 11:1; Luke 3:38; 1 John 3:1-2, 10). "Sons of God" (Genesis 6:2, 4) possible refers to godly men, and "daughters of men" to sinful women (significantly, they are not called "daughters of God"), probably from the wicked line of Cain. If so, the context suggests that Genesis 6:1-2 describe the intermarriage of the Sethites ("sons of God") of Genesis 5 with the Cainites ("daughters of men") of Genesis 4, indicating a breakdown in the separation of the two people groups.

Another plausible suggestion is that the "sons of God" refers to royal figures (kings who were closely associated with gods in the ancient Near East) who proudly perpetuated and aggravated the corrupt lifestyle of Lamech son of Cain (virtually a royal figure) and established for themselves royal harems.

-The NIV Study Bible

Where Did Cain Find His Wife?

2009-02-19T23:00:00.002-05:00

Where did Cain find his wife (Genesis 4:17)?

Adam had “sons and daughters” (verse 5:4), so Cain’s wife was probably a sister (though some think God may have created other human beings besides Adam and Eve). Marriages between close relatives were at first unavoidable if the whole human race came from a single pair. Only later was marriage between siblings prohibited (Leviticus 18:6-18).

–The Quest Study Bible

The Equality of Men and Women

2009-02-19T22:56:00.004-05:00

If God created man and woman equal at the beginning, at what point in time did this change to make “women lower than men”? And, why did God do this?

First, a comment about the unique creation of woman. Prior to the fall, God himself concluded it was not good for the male to be alone. While the animals and other creatures had been created in pairs, the Lord allowed Adam to come to the self-realization that he needed fellowship, friendship, and intimacy from a creature corresponding to himself. Thus God made him a helper. This does not mean that women are inferior to men or that they are designed merely to be assistants to men. The word helper may more accurately mean a strength or a power, and thus women are comparable to men. Often God himself is designated by the term helper or strength (see, for example, Psalm 33:20). God, therefore, made woman for the man as his equal and his match as a partner in life. She was taken from one of the man’s ribs, probably to show an interdependence. She was dependent on the man; men are dependent upon a woman to give birth to them. Some observe that the earliest language of Mesopotamia, Sumerian, has a word for rib that also means life.

The first question with regard to the consequence of the woman’s choice to sin is, “What do labor pains have to do with sin (Genesis 3:16)?” Perhaps nothing. The conception and birth of children would remain a blessing from God (Genesis 1:28). The emphasis here may be on the sorrow of raising children in a sin-tainted world, rather than on the pain of childbearing itself. However, some believe the consequences of sin ruined creation not only by introducing pain into childbirth but by opening the world to all sorrow, pain and illness.

The second question with regard to Genesis 3:16 is, “What is meant by, ‘Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you’?” Some see this as a warning that women will turn (from God) to their husbands, who, in turn, will rule over them. Others see desire as a source of conflict between husbands and wives, just as sin desires to dominate and control (Genesis 4:7). Finally, others argue that the woman’s sexual attraction for the man, and his headship rule over her, will become intimate aspects of her life in which she experiences trouble and anguish rather than unalloyed joy and blessing.

–NIV Study Bible and The Quest Study Bible

Is God One or Many?

2009-02-19T22:54:00.002-05:00

Why did God say, “Let us make man in our image” (1:26)?

Many attempts have been made to explain the plural forms: “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness” : e.g., (1) the plural is a reference to the Trinity; (2) the plural is a reference to God and his heavenly court of angels; (3) the plural is an attempt to avoid the idea of an immediate resemblance of humans to God; (4) the plural is an expression of deliberation on God’s part as he sets out to create the human race. The singulars in v. 27 (“in his own image” and “in the image of God”; cf. 5:1) rule out explanation 2, since in the immediate context the creation of man and woman is said to be “in his image,” with no mention of them in the image of the angels. Explanations 3 and 4 are both possible, but neither explanation is specifically supported by the context. Verse 27 states twice that “man” was created in God’s image and a third time that man was created “male and female.” The same pattern is found in Genesis 5:1-2. The singular “man” is created as a plurality, “male and female.” In a similar way the one God (“And God said”) created humankind through an expression of his plurality (“Let us make man in our image”). Following this clue the divine plurality expressed in v. 26 is seen as an anticipation of the human plurality of the man and woman, thus casting the human relationship between man and woman as a reflection of God’s own personal relationship with himself.

–NIV Bible Commentary

Made in God's Image?

2009-02-19T22:50:00.003-05:00

What does it mean that we are created “in the image of God” (Genesis 1:27)?

People are God’s image bearers on earth. This doesn’t mean the invisible God, who is spirit, has a body from which he made copies. But God designed the whole of a person (body and soul) to reflect what he is like in many ways: intelligence, capacity to rule and live in relationship to him and fellow human beings. Being made in the image of God means every human being has inherent value and worth. God’s image is neither to be murdered (Genesis 9:6) nor cured (James 3:9-10). The Bible later speaks of other aspects of one’s image that originate with God such as righteousness and holiness (Ephesians 4:24) and knowledge (Colossians 3:10). So, God’s image does not refer to anything physical but rather to something spiritual. Most point to the human spirit by which individuals can communicate with God and have a relationship with their Maker. Some expressions of the human spirit may be the conscience, personality and will – aspects also seen in God’s character.

–The Quest Study Bible

Mysterious Human Author

2009-02-19T22:31:00.005-05:00

Who was the author of the first five books of the Old testament?

Genesis opens with God creating the universe. But no one was around when this happened. So, who was the mysterious human author of this portion of the Bible? Historically, Jews and Christians alike have held that Moses was the primary author/compiler of the first five books of the Old Testament. These first five books are often called the Pentateuch. The word "Pentateuch" is from two words--penta--like in pentagon. Penta means five, and teuch means scroll. It means the five scrolls, because these are the first five books of the Old Testament. The Jews called it the Torah, and in the New Testament it’s called the Law.

In the New Testament when you read a phrase, “The Law and the Prophets,” it’s referring to these first five books. They’re essentially the work of Moses. Now, he didn’t write every word in the Pentateuch. We know that, for instance, because Deuteronomy records the death of Moses. Obviously he did not write about that.

Numbers 12:3 has this statement, “Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth.” There is obviously an editor-type involved at this point because certainly Moses would not write of himself, “I was a very humble man, more humble than anyone.”

So the authorship of the first five books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) are basically associated with Moses. As you read through these books think of them as essentially one book with five divisions.

Noah Exposed!

2009-02-19T22:04:00.006-05:00

Genesis 9:20-27 (NIV)

²⁰ Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard. ²¹ When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. ²² Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside. ²³ But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father's nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father's nakedness.
²⁴ When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, ²⁵ he said,
"Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers."
²⁶ He also said,
"Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem!
May Canaan be the slave of Shem.
²⁷ May God extend the territory of Japheth ;
may Japheth live in the tents of Shem,
and may Canaan be his slave."
Footnotes:
Genesis 9:20 Or soil, was the first
Genesis 9:26 Or be his slave
Genesis 9:27 Japheth sounds like the Hebrew for extend .
Genesis 9:27 Or their

What was the big deal about one of Noah's sons seeing him naked in Genesis 9:22?
The reason Noah cursed his son Ham was that he had derided and dishonored his father after he found him naked, sleeping off a drunken stupor. Ham should have treated him respectfully, even though his father (who had apparently never tasted liquor before) had made a fool of himself.

It should be noted that it was Noah, and not God, who cursed his son and his grandson. Also, some scholars believe the act of Ham could have been a repudiation of his father’s religion, marked by his joy and satisfaction at finding his “righteous” father naked in a drunken state. Thus, he reveled in his father’s sin! By contrast, Ham’s brothers grieved for their father and did what they could to remove the indignity.

–Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties

Biblical Creation & Modern Science

2009-02-19T22:01:00.007-05:00

How do we reconcile the creation account of Genesis 1–2 with modern science?
No one can read these early chapters of Genesis and miss the fact that modern cosmology and evolutionary biology make strikingly different claims about how the universe came into being. Here are two considerations to keep in mind as you explore this issue further. First, up until recent times heated scientific debates raged around the question of whether the universe was eternal and infinite (never had a beginning and went on forever) or whether it had a beginning and was finite. Philosophically, those are the only two options. Many scientists were reluctant to acknowledge a beginning to the cosmos because of the theological implications: if there was a start to the universe, no explanation exists for why it started, and what brought it into being. Yet in the last century, the scientific community has come to accept the fact the universe did have a beginning and is not eternal. This of course was never an issue for those who read in the Genesis 1:1 that “In the beginning, God created” space and time. Second, in the field of biology the Intelligent Design movement is pointing out the deficiencies in the prevailing evolutionary explanations for life. Within all life forms are biochemical as well as mechanical features that are “irreducibly complex”–that is to say, they cannot be simplified any further and still function. Therefore because no mechanism exists to explain how they arouse from a more simplified form–but here they are anyway–they must have had this complexity from their inception. The hard facts point to design by intelligence and irreducibly complex systems that no known natural process can account for. Again, for those who read in Genesis that there is a Being who has the power to simply declare things into existence (“Let there be … and it was so”) this scientific discovery comes as no surprise.

The Bible does not discuss the subject of evolution. Rather, its worldview assumes God created the world. The biblical view of creation is not in conflict with science; rather, it is in conflict with any worldview that starts without a creator.

The most important aspect of the continuing discussion is not the process of creation, but the origin of creation. The world is not a product of blind chance and probability; God created it.

The Bible not only tells us that the world was created by God; more important, it tells us who this God is. It reveals God’s personality, his character, and his plan for his creation. It also reveals God’s deepest desire: to relate to and fellowship with the people he created. God took the ultimate step toward fellowship with us through his historic visit to this planet in the person of his Son, Jesus Christ. We can know in a very personal way this God who created the universe.

–Judson Poling & The Life Application Bible

The Two Creation Accounts in Genesis

2009-02-19T21:57:00.004-05:00

Are the two accounts of creation in Genesis in conflict with one another?

Genesis 2 does not present a creation account at all but presupposes the completion of God’s work of creation as set forth in chapter 1. The first three verses of Genesis 2 simply carry the narrative of chapter 1 to its final and logical conclusion, using the same vocabulary and style as employed in the previous chapter. It sets forth the completion of the whole primal work of creation and the special sanctity conferred on the seventh day as a symbol and memorial of God’s creative work. Verse 4 then sums up the whole sequence that has just been surveyed by saying, “These are the generations of heaven and earth when they were created, in the day that Yahweh God made heaven and earth.” Having finished the overall survey of the subject, the author then develops in detail one important feature that has already been mentioned: the creation of man. As we examine the remainder of Genesis 2, we find that it concerns itself with a description of the ideal setting that God prepared for Adam and Eve to begin their life in, walking in loving fellowship with Him as responsive and obedient children. From the survey of the first fifteen verses of chapter 2, it becomes quite apparent that this was never intended to be a general creation narrative. Genesis 1 is the only creation account to be found in the Hebrew Scripture and it is presupposed as the background of Genesis 2. . . . Quite clearly, then, chapter 2 is built on the foundation of chapter 1 and represents no different tradition than the first chapter or discrepant account of the order of creation.

–Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties

Suffering & Optimism

2008-12-22T08:34:00.002-05:00

Well, this is the last in this mini-series of posts on Suffering. This last benefit is one that, quite frankly, doesn’t happen very often. The reality is that suffering produces optimism. It is hard to be optimistic when you’re getting pummeled! Optimism and suffering don’t seem like they go together, but they do.

At this point some of you may think, "What are you saying? How can suffering produce optimism? The way I see it is that suffering makes people weak and miserable and negative."

Well, often it does. That's because people "waste" their sorrows and do not let the Holy Spirit work in their lives when times are tough. They focus on their problems and continually ask "Why Me?" instead of using their problems to become stronger. However, if you approach suffering with the right attitude, you experience a complete transformation. “Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance (produces) character; and character (produces) hope” (Romans 5:3-4, NIV).

Too often, we use the word “hope” as a synonym for "wishful thinking." For example, say we have scheduled a family picnic and the skies become cloudy and gray, we might say with resignation "I hope it doesn't rain." Unspoken is the thought, "But by all appearances it will, and there's nothing I can do about it." That's not hope, that's just helpless, wishful thinking.

The Bible uses the word differently. The Greek word in Romans 5:4 means "facing life with confidence, knowing God is in control." With this definition of hope, we would react to the rainy skies with the attitude, "It may be cloudy and gray, but not even the rain keep me from having a great time with my family this afternoon."

Suffering produces an attitude of confident optimism, because once you have suffered you realize that problems aren't all they're cracked up to be. They have limitations, and there are some things your problems cannot do. For example, they cannot separate you from God's love. They cannot destroy your happiness. They cannot keep you from living life to the fullest...unless, of course, you allow them to.

I read about a bull rider by the name of Gene. Every weekend he rides in a rodeo. Once in a small town in Oklahoma he had drawn a pretty mean bull, and he knew it would be a tough ride. Now a ride is supposed to last 8 seconds; his lasted about a second. When the gate opened up and the bull came out of the stall, before his back feet had hit the ground Gene was already in the dirt. Unfortunately for him, it wasn't over. His hand was caught in the rigging, and the bull drug him around the arena for a while. When he finally got loose, the bull speared him once or twice before the clowns came to the rescue. On the way home, Gene said, "The toughest part about getting throwed is having to wait a week before I get another chance to ride. I know what I did wrong, and I know I'll get it right next time, but I've got to wait a whole week to do it!"

After the beating Gene took, most people would have said "That's it for me. I'll find a new hobby." But Gene wasn't afraid of getting thrown. He had been thrown enough to know that it wouldn't kill him (most likely), and he left the rodeo that night convinced that next week he would do better!

That is hope. Some people would define it as crazy -- and do you know what? It does seem a little crazy to have a hopeful, confident, optimistic attitude in the face of suffering.

In the midst of his troubles, Job's wife gave him some rather cynical advice: she said, "Curse God and die!" (Job 2:9). In other words, "Give up! How long can you keep hanging on to this foolish belief that God is in control?" Well, eventually Job’s fortune, health, and family was restored to him and "the Lord blessed the latter part of Job's life more than the first" (Job 42:12, NIV).

When you suffer, and you stay with it, you become stronger and your problem becomes weaker.

What good is suffering? Well, when you suffer the right way ... when you rejoice in your sufferings ... when you approach hardship with the right attitude ... you discover that suffering doesn't beat you down, it builds you up. It makes you stronger. God has the ability to take any trial or hardship or crisis or negative situation you face--and cause it to work to your benefit (Romans 8:28). What may appear to be a curse in your life can actually become a blessing (Nehemiah 13:2).

Nobody likes to suffer, and nobody in their right mind would choose to suffer, but followers of Jesus Christ need not fear suffering. In fact, when it comes (and it will from time to time) you can rejoice in the midst of it, because the end result will be that you become stronger, and God is glorified in your life.

Suffering & Staying Power

2008-12-18T07:15:00.001-05:00

Last time we found that our suffering produces inner-strength.

Have you ever been house hunting, and the agent said "I've got a great property for you to look at. It's an older home, but it has character." When a real estate agent says it has "character" it's about like saying a blind date has a "good personality." You know the house may not be beautiful, but most likely it will look like it has weathered some storms.

Romans 5:3
“Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance (produces) character ….”

The word translated “character” can also be translated “proof.” Another good term is “staying power.” When you weather storms you have a chance to prove to the world what you're made of, and prove to the world how God is faithful to protect you through trials.

Bible teacher Steve Brown says that, “Whenever a non-Christian gets cancer, God allows a Christian to get cancer so that the world can see the difference.” Now obviously Brown’s statement is made somewhat facetiously. The statement is intended simply to make a point: a believer endures difficulties differently than a non-believer. God's presence in the life of a believer gives him the power to endure, and the proof is in the end result. When you endure suffering, you develop character; you develop staying power.

All kinds of records have been set in major league sports. Most have them to do with a player's performance in a single-game, or a particular season. Cal Ripken Jr.'s record (he played 2,632 baseball games consecutively) is different. It is not a record that can be attributed to talent, but character. He has proven that he had the drive to hit the field every day, even when his body hurt, or his head ached, or his nose was runny, or he had personal problems, or he was in a slump, or he didn't feel playing that particular day. We don't have to wonder if Cal Ripken Jr. was a great player; his record is proof that he was.

When you endure suffering, you develop staying power. Staying power proves to yourself and to the world that God’s power really is “perfected in weakness” (2 Corinthians 12:8).

Suffering & Inner Peace

2008-12-15T07:57:00.001-05:00

What do rejoicing and suffering have in common? Nothing, if you asked someone walking down the street. But the Bible says that the two actually do go together for the believer.

Romans 5:3 “… we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance….”

Suffering, by itself, is no good. But God is able take something bad and turn it into something good, positive and beneficial. Romans 8:28 “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.”

The Greek word for perseverance in Romans 5:3 literally means "to handle pressure." Suffering puts us under a tremendous amount of stress and the Bible says that being under stress of suffering teaches you to handle pressure.

You cannot be successful in any field unless you learn how to handle pressure. When we see an NBA star sink a three pointer at the buzzer to win the game for their team, they make it look so easy that we forget that most of us would crack under that kind of heat. You make the shot and you're a hero; miss it and you're an overpaid bum. How do they do it? For them, it's all in a day's work. They have been in that situation countless times, and they have learned from success and failure how to handle the pressure of a close game.

In the story of David and Goliath, at first glance David seems to be an inexperienced kid who appears out nowhere to slay the giant, but that was not really the case. David could handle the pressure of facing Goliath in battle because he had endured similar pressure fighting lions and bears who threatened his sheep (1 Samuel 17:34-35). Enduring those pressure-filled situations gave him the strength to face the pressure of fighting Goliath.

You can rejoice in suffering because, at the very least, your problems will help you develop inner-strength. And inner-strength is one of the virtues suffering produces in our lives. It is the inner-strength that suffering produces that enables us to handle the uncommon circumstances that life throws our way.

We’ll look at another benefit of suffering in the next post.

Suffering: Friend or Foe?

2008-12-12T23:11:00.005-05:00

It is interesting how some words look and sound like their meaning. Take the word "Joy." It is a great word that is fun to say. When I say the word, it makes me feel a little better. Happiness is another of those kinds of words. Or take the words "beautiful" and "ugly." See what I mean? Or how about this word: suffering. It just doesn't produce those warm, tingly feelings on the inside, does it?

And regardless how you feel about that word it is a reality that we each must face from time to time. It may be physical pain and suffering or it may be suffering of a broken heart. It may be the suffering of a prolonged season of bad circumstances that drive you to the edge.

There are some who believe that if you commit your life to Jesus Christ that he promises to take away your suffering and your problems. It is the sentiment of him being some kind of Giant Fixer. But the reality is that suffering is a part of our human and Christian experience. Jesus said, "In this world you will have trouble" (John 16:33, NIV). In fact, the prophet Isaiah said of the coming Messiah, "He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering" (Isaiah 63:3, NIV).

Unfortunately, many within the Christian community have this idea that when you live for Christ he will reward you by making your life trouble-free.

This simply is not the case. In fact, scripture promises just the opposite. Consider these passages:

Philippians 1:29, NIV
For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him....

1 Peer 4:12, NIV
Dear friends, do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering, as though something strange were happening to you.

Matthew 5:45, NIV
God causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

Everyone's life is filled with sunshine and rain. Sunshine isn't always evidence that God favors you--even the evil get some sunshine. Rain isn't evidence that God is punishing you--even the righteous have to face the rain. Suffering is a part of life that everyone must endure. However, when it comes to suffering, Christians have some advantages. The obvious one is that God will help you through hard times. A second advantage is that no matter what kind of problems you face, God has promised to use them for your benefit, and for his glory.

The Bible says, "We know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose (Romans 8:28, NIV). So when you suffer, whether it is illness, mistreatment, job problems, relationship problems, money problems, or whatever it may be, it is crucial that you approach your suffering with the right attitude, so that you will ultimately benefit from the problems you face. What is the right attitude? The Bible says, "... but we also rejoice in our sufferings..." (Romans 5:3, NIV).

This is the attitude that we must have whenever we face hard times. An attitude of rejoicing. Now, don't misunderstand me. Our attitude doesn't have to be some kind of phony, Pollyanna way of thinking that says, "Hooray for me. I am suffering! I'm in pain and my life is coming apart at the seams. Aren't I lucky?" This is not what the Bible means. We don't rejoice because of our sufferings, or for our sufferings--we rejoice in spite of our sufferings. This would sound like crazy advice, except there are two factors that make rejoicing in suffering a reasonable idea: First, God will help you through the problems. Second, your problems themselves will help you too, and work to your advantage.

Think of it this way. Pretend that you are prisoner of war and you have an evil taskmaster who tries to make you weak and powerless by forcing you to carry a heavy boulder on your shoulders all day. Some of your fellow prisoners give in under the strain, and stop trying, and let the boulder crush them completely. But you keep carrying the weight. Soon you discover that carrying that boulder isn't making you weaker, it's making you stronger. Eventually you have the strength to cast the boulder aside and overpower your captor and earn your freedom.

This is exactly what your problems can do for you. You can give up and let your problems destroy you, or you can use them to become a stronger and better person. No one in their right mind would choose to suffer, but when it happens, we can rejoice in the fact that the suffering isn't going to beat us; we will eventually win the battle.

This is why we rejoice in suffering; because there are certain benefits that we can claim whenever we are faced with it.

In the next few posts, we're going to try and answer the question, "What good is suffering? There are three advantages to suffering that we'll look at and I hope you'll find them helpful. By the end I hope the "S" word won't look so ugly.

"Why Believe in a god?" Ad Campaign

2008-11-13T13:39:00.009-05:00

I just saw a new AP story about a new add campaign from the American Humanist Association which is intended to cause people to question their believe in a deity. The group's spokesman Fred Edwords says, "we are trying to plant a seed of rational thought and critical thinking and questioning in people's minds." Well, at least they are honest. Here is the story in its entirety.

You better watch out. There is a new combatant in the Christmas wars.

Ads proclaiming, "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake," will appear on Washington, D.C., buses starting next week and running through December. The American Humanist Association unveiled the provocative $40,000 holiday ad campaign Tuesday.

In lifting lyrics from "Santa Claus is Coming to Town," the Washington-based group is wading into what has become a perennial debate over commercialism, religion in the public square and the meaning of Christmas.

You better watch out. There is a new combatant in the Christmas wars.

Ads proclaiming, "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake," will appear on Washington, D.C., buses starting next week and running through December. The American Humanist Association unveiled the provocative $40,000 holiday ad campaign Tuesday.

In lifting lyrics from "Santa Claus is Coming to Town," the Washington-based group is wading into what has become a perennial debate over commercialism, religion in the public square and the meaning of Christmas.

"We are trying to reach our audience, and sometimes in order to reach an audience, everybody has to hear you," said Fred Edwords, spokesman for the humanist group. "Our reason for doing it during the holidays is there are an awful lot of agnostics, atheists and other types of non-theists who feel a little alone during the holidays because of its association with traditional religion."

To that end, the ads and posters will include a link to a Web site that will seek to connect and organize like-minded thinkers in the D.C. area, Edwords said.

Edwords said the purpose isn't to argue that God doesn't exist or change minds about a deity, although "we are trying to plant a seed of rational thought and critical thinking and questioning in people's minds."

The group defines humanism as "a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism, affirms our responsibility to lead ethical lives of value to self and humanity."

Last month, the British Humanist Association caused a ruckus announcing a similar campaign on London buses with the message: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

In Washington, the humanists' campaign comes as conservative Christian groups gear up their efforts to keep Christ in Christmas. In the past five years, groups such as the American Family Association and the Catholic League have criticized or threatened boycotts of retailers who use generic "holiday" greetings.

In mid-October, the American Family Association started selling buttons that say "It's OK to say Merry Christmas." The humanists' entry into the marketplace of ideas did not impress AFA president Tim Wildmon.

"It's a stupid ad," he said. "How do we define 'good' if we don't believe in God? God in his word, the Bible, tells us what's good and bad and right and wrong. If we are each ourselves defining what's good, it's going to be a crazy world."

Also on Tuesday, the Orlando, Fla.-based Liberty Counsel, a conservative Christian legal group, launched its sixth annual "Friend or Foe Christmas Campaign." Liberty Counsel has intervened in disputes over nativity scenes and government bans on Christmas decorations, among other things.

"It's the ultimate grinch to say there is no God at a time when millions of people around the world celebrate the birth of Christ," said Mathew Staver, the group's chairman and dean of the Liberty University School of Law. "Certainly, they have the right to believe what they want but this is insulting."

Best-selling books by authors such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have fueled interest in "the new atheism" — a more in-your-face argument against God's existence.

Yet few Americans describe themselves as atheist or agnostic; a Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life poll from earlier this year found 92 percent of Americans believe in God.

There was no debate at the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority over whether to take the ad. Spokeswoman Lisa Farbstein said the agency accepts ads that aren't obscene or pornographic.

I have a few thoughts on this matter that I'll save for another post. In the meantime, I'm interested in your honest and respectful thoughts about this.

Merry Christmas!

My Thoughts on the Abortion Discussion

2008-11-01T18:14:00.007-04:00

One of the issues I’ve been following in recent months is the discussion about abortion as it relates to our current political season. I have been surprised to learn that there is growing divergence of views among Christian people and leaders. There is growing emphasis among certain segments of the Christian community that has abandoned the traditional “pro-life” views and has adopted a “pro-reduced abortion” view. What I have been reading has motivated me to put my own thoughts out there. So for those who are interested, here they are.

As a pastor, I’ve talked with broken-hearted women who have had an abortion. One lady came and talked to me 25 years after the fact. Besides her doctor and her then husband, I was the only other person she had told. At the time of her abortion, she was in a difficult life situation and she made a choice she has regretted ever since. It is conversations like these that have made me have utmost compassion for women who have made similar decisions.

Unfortunately, the historically uncompassionate reaction to unwed pregnancy from the Christian community has fueled many young women to seek abortions so as not to be rejected or punished by their families, friends, and church. This is not to condone the actions that lead to unwed pregnancy; it is simply to say that those of us in the Christian community should respond with mercy and compassion and support for a young girl thrust into motherhood by poor choices.

When I was in high school a girl in my church became pregnant by her boyfriend. She decided to go away to a home for pregnant teenagers to avoid the embarrassment she thought she would receive. I was thankful that she changed her mind and stayed at home with her parents and remained an active part of our youth group. Because of her pregnancy she couldn’t get a date to prom. So I asked her to go with me. We had a lot of fun. I’m sure people “talked” about us going to prom together, but I really didn’t care. She was a friend. By the way, she had a beautiful baby boy and eventually married a pastor. She and her family now live in Indiana and we remain friends to this day.

With all of that said, I believe abortion should be ban with limited exceptions: one example is to save the life of the mother. I wish all Christians and pro-lifers could agree at least at this level. Unfortunately the current law and Court ruling on this is inclusive of the mother’s “health” and therefore is accepting of abortion on demand for basically any argued reason. Some in the “pro-reduced abortion” group have suggested that laws do not change hearts and that only Christ can change the heart. I suppose they are willing to give up on the overturn of Roe v Wade as a result. My question is: Since only Christ can change the heart does that mean we should strike all laws from our books and have a law-less society?

It seems to be trendy for those who support abortion to place a heavy emphasis upon “reducing the number of abortions.” If memory serves me correctly, it was Bill Clinton who, in the 90's, popularized this growing trend we see today. I simply don’t understand the logic behind the “fewer abortions” argument. If you really want fewer abortions, how is lifting ALL restrictions on abortion, as some elected officials want to do, going to reduce the number of abortions? How does the Freedom of Choice Act, which some elected officials would like to pass, reduce the number of abortions? How does letting the Hyde Amendment expire, as some elected officials would like to do, reduce the number of abortions (the Hyde Amendment has blocked nearly all federally funded abortions since 1976)? How would ending the federal funding of pregnancy crisis centers, as some elected officials would like to do, reduce the number of abortions? How can those who support Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton legitimately claim that their pro-abortion policies are going to drastically reduce the number of abortions? Seriously, how would a fiercely pro-abortion executive branch teamed with a pro-abortion congress drastically reduce the number of abortions? I'm concerned that under our fiercely pro-abortion executive branch we will see a push toward the federal funding of abortions and we will have judicial appointments that would ignore the right to life of the unborn. How do these realities drastically reduce the number of abortions?

If you want to really reduce the number of abortions, then you must do the things that actually restrict and limit abortions. Is it really in doubt that the single greatest thing to “limit the number of abortions” is to over-turn Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton? It is true that reversing these Court decisions is not the only thing that can and must be done to “reduce the number of abortions” but reversing these decisions would be the single most effective thing.

It should be noted that a president does not write the laws; that’s the job of congress. The only thing a president can do is to sign bills or veto them. The president can’t interpret laws or determine legal precedents; the judicial branch does that. Among the most important things a president can do to limit the number of abortions is appoint judges who value the right to life of the unborn. Sometimes I think people forget these realities and limitations of the presidency.

And let’s be honest about the so-called Litmus Test issue for judicial appointments. Every president has a litmus test for the appointment of judges; they just can't admit to it publicly. Pro-abortion people WANT their pro-abortion president having a pro-abortion litmus test for any potential judicial appointees. And pro-life people WANT the same kind of thing from a pro-life president.

Some have expressed concern that if we ban abortion as we know it now, that women would go to “back-alley clinics” and that the rate of botched abortions would severely increase the risk to the health and life of the woman. My question is: What about concern for the life of the unborn child? Are we saying we don’t mind taking the life of the unborn baby, but we wouldn’t dare want to harm the mother’s health or infringe on her “rights” as defined in Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton? That’s a difficult argument for me to understand.

Others make a comparison between a ban on abortion and the prohibition against alcohol. In my opinion, this is not a very good argument. That comparison is between the life of the unborn and a non-essential drinking beverage. Are they really the same? In my opinion, they're not even close.

It is true that our educational system in America is doing poorly. Some argue that the reason it is doing poorly is largely because of a lack of funding from the terrible Republicans. This is untrue. We spend more money on education than ANY nation on earth! And the charge that pro-life Republicans, as some make, really don’t care about children after they're born (i.e. really aren’t pro-life) because they supposedly “underfund” education and do not mandate health care is an equally untrue and, dare I say, unfair charge. Lack of money is not the problem in our educational system. Our broken education system, in my humble opinion, is a policy issue. And to date no federal politician (Republican or Democrat) has been able to make significant headway. Could targeted educational funding significantly improve our educational system? Not without better policies. It sounds compassionate to want to give unlimited amounts of money to the educational system but to date it hasn’t produced the positive, educational results we all desire.

It is troubling to me that some national religious leaders are trying to redefine “pro-life” by saying that the REAL pro-life people are those that 1) say they believe there should be fewer abortions, 2) desire taxpayer funded, government mandated universal health care for underprivileged children, 3) are anti-war, 4) support virtually unlimited funding of our broken educational system, 5) are concerned about global poverty and disease. This effort from some national figures threatens to dilute the definition of pro-life to include these other things and will have the unwitting result of muzzling those defending the silent voices of the unborn.

To me, pro-life is about defending the right to life of the unborn. Practically speaking, pro-choice is about silencing the right to life of the unborn in deference to the will of the mother. As a pro-lifer, I cannot separate the right to life of a baby in the womb and the right to life of a birthed child. Just because a baby is unborn should not give the mother the choice to end the life of the child pre-birth. The right to life of the unborn should be protected just like every other person’s right to life. Life is equally sacred in and outside of the womb.

Just for the record, there are 42,000,000 abortions worldwide each year. Think about that staggering number. There are 1,370,000 abortions in the U.S. each year. What other cause of death among children comes close to that in America? Let’s have a healthy discussion about war, education, poverty, and disease (by the way, who is for more wars, bad education, increasing poverty and disease?). But equating those issues with the issue of abortion weakens the traditional pro-life stance and undermines their efforts. Remember, we’re actually talking about 1,370,000 unborn children in the U.S. who could live if we protected their lives. They are, without a doubt, the most innocent and defenseless among us and as such deserve laws that protect their right to life.

Let’s find solutions to our educational woes, but let’s not mix those issues with the right to life of the unborn. Let’s find ways to assist the health-care issue of underprivileged children, but let’s not mix those issues with the right to life of the unborn. Let’s pray for peace and work toward peace, but let’s not mix those issues with the obligation of government to fight (when necessary) just wars and the right to life of the unborn. Let’s come together to fight global poverty and disease, but let’s not mix those causes with the right to life of the unborn.

Every year, there are 1,370,000 unborn children in the U.S. who are depending on us to defend their right to life. Let’s not lump them in with every other noble cause. If we do their voices will be silenced forever.

A Biblical Perspective on Voting

2008-11-01T09:11:00.001-04:00

If you are like me, you have some interest in the political process. And, if you are like me, you get a little hopeful that your candidate do well in an election and win. I think it is important that Christian people are involved in the political process, and the most basic way we can be involved in the political process is to VOTE.

Perhaps your candidate is doing well this election cycle; perhaps your candidate is not. If you're happy about how your candidate is doing, well ... good for you. And if you're not happy about how your candidate is doing, well ... relax a little.

As Christians, we should keep a level-head in times like these and remember that we're citizens of the Kingdom of God first, and then citizens of our country second. With this in mind I'm going to share with you an edited version of a recent article by Pastor John Piper on voting as though you were not voting.

Voting is like marrying and crying and laughing and buying. We should do it, but only as if we were not doing it. That’s because “the present form of this world is passing away” and, in God’s eyes, “the time has grown very short.” Here’s the way Paul puts it:

The appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away. (1 Corinthians 7:29-31)

Let’s take these one at a time and compare them to voting.

1. “Let those who have wives live as though they had none.”

It means: If she is exquisitely desirable, beware of desiring her more than Christ. And if she is deeply disappointing, beware of being hurt too much. This is temporary—only a brief lifetime. Then comes the never-disappointing life which is life indeed.

So it is with voting. We should do it. But only as if we were not doing it. Its outcomes do not give us the greatest joy when they go our way, and they do not demoralize us when they don’t. Political life is for making much of Christ whether the world falls apart or holds together.

2. “Let those who mourn [do so] as though they were not mourning.”

So it is with voting. There are losses. We mourn. But not as those who have no hope. We vote and we lose, or we vote and we win. In either case, we win or lose as if we were not winning or losing. Our expectations and frustrations are modest. The best this world can offer is short and small. The worst it can offer has been predicted in the book of Revelation. And no vote will hold it back. In the short run, Christians lose (Revelation 13:7). In the long run, we win (Revelation 21:4).

3. “Let those who rejoice [do so] as though they were not rejoicing.”
So it is with voting. There are joys. The very act of voting is a joyful statement that we are not under a tyrant. And there may be happy victories. But the best government we get is a foreshadowing. Peace and justice are approximated now. They will be perfect when Christ comes. So our joy is modest. Our triumphs are short-lived—and shot through with imperfection. So we vote as though not voting.

4. “Let those who buy [do so] as though they had no goods.”
So it is with voting. We do not withdraw. We are involved—but as if not involved. Politics does not have ultimate weight for us. It is one more stage for acting out the truth that Christ, and not politics, is supreme.

5. “Let those who deal with the world [do so] as though they had no dealings with it.”
So it is with voting. We deal with the system. We deal with the news. We deal with the candidates. We deal with the issues. But we deal with it all as if not dealing with it. It does not have our fullest attention. It is not the great thing in our lives. Christ is. And Christ will be ruling over his people with perfect supremacy no matter who is elected and no matter what government stands or falls. So we vote as though not voting.

By all means vote. But remember: “The world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever” (1 John 2:17).

Voting with you, as though not voting,

Pastor John

So what do you think? I'm interested in your thoughts.

To read John Piper's unedited article copy the follwing into a new web browser:
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2008/3347_Let_Christians_Vote_As_Though_They_Were_Not_Voting/

What is the Freedom of Choice Act?

2008-10-31T07:51:00.003-04:00

I've heard about the Freedom of Choice Act but had no idea what it was. I found the following blog by Justin Taylor informative.

As many know, Senator Obama told Planned Parenthood in 2007 that “the first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.” But how many of us know what the "Freedom of Choice Act" (hereafter FOCA) entails? Here's an attempt to explain what this would mean. It's important to note at the outset that this congressional statute is often presented as codifying Roe v. Wade. Hence, if Roe was ever overturned, FOCA would prevent things from changing. While this is true, FOCA goes far beyond this. The 2007 version of FOCA (for the House bill, see H.R. 1964; for the Senate bill, see S. 1173) includes the following provision:
A government may not
(1) deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose –
(A) to bear a child;
(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or
(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or
(2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.
Section 6 adds:
This Act applies to every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.
The section highlighted above in bold italics means that FOCA, if passed, will accomplish two things:
it would invalidate all current and future statutes, ordinances, regulations, administrative orders, decisions, policies, or practices--at any level of government--that regulate or restrict abortion in any way;
it would mandate taxpayer funds to be used at the state and federal level for abortion services (not to do so would discriminate against the "rights" of abortion set forth in the bill).
The National Organization of Women says that FOCA "would sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws, policies." Planned Parenthood says FOCA "would invalidate existing and future laws that interfere with or discriminate against the exercise of the rights protected." What are some of these state laws? The Family Research Council has complied the following list:
All 50 states have abortion reporting requirements
46 states have conscience-protection laws for individual health-care providers
44 states have laws about parental notification
40 states have laws restricting late-term abortions
38 states have bans on partial-birth abortions
33 states have laws requiring counseling before an abortion
16 states have laws about having ultrasounds before an abortion
One of the states that has had FOCA-type acts on the books since 1991 is Maryland. The result of eliminating all restrictions and regulations, unsurprisingly, is that the Maryland rate of abortion has risen while the national rate of abortion has fallen. Some people reading the Freedom of Choice Act notice that is says a woman has a "right to choose" "to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman" (my emphasis). A surface-reading of FOCA (which is seeking to codify Roe v. Wade) might suggest that there is a meaningful, legitimate restriction on late-term, post-viable abortions, namely that abortions are allowed only in cases where a woman would die or be physically harmed. But this simply isn't true. Roe v. Wade was handed down on the same day as Doe v. Bolton, and Justice Blackmun said they were to be read together. Doe defines maternal health to include virtually any factor: "emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age." The effect is abortion on demand--abortion for any reason. So to summarize this act--which again, Barack Obama has promised to sign as his first order of business in the White House--abortion on demand will become codified, all regulations and restrictions will be stripped away, Christian hospitals and physicians will not have a choice regarding the performance of abortion (since their accrediting agencies are approved by the federal government), and teenagers will not have to tell their parents about an abortion.

Kingdom Growth

2008-10-31T00:12:00.006-04:00

Over the past 30 years many churches have focused on building and developing programs as a means to grow the church. This approach has had a lot of success in bringing people into the church, and in many cases helping people enter into a relationship with Jesus Christ. The thinking has been, “The more effective programs you have the more people you will attract to your church.” There is nothing wrong with this approach and it has been blessed by God in thousands of churches across the country.

When I first came to Journey I said that it was not my primary intention to “grow the church.” I said that the reason I came to Journey was to extend the Kingdom of God in our community. In my mind there is a difference between the two.

In the New Testament, the "Kingdom of God" doesn't refer to a geographical boundary (John 18:36). When the New Testament speaks of the Kingdom of God it is referring to the reign of God in the hearts of people. Every time a person opens their heart to the Lordship of Jesus Christ the Kingdom of God expands to one more person. This is what God celebrates … when he reigns in the heart. Biblically speaking, this is Kingdom expansion.

So our question becomes, “How can a church facilitate this kind of Kingdom expansion?” There is a growing discussion among church leaders across the country about the shifting focus from developing programs to developing people. Personally, I believe we’ll be more effective at “extending the Kingdom” if we focus on people rather than church programs. When we focus on programs our focus is on …well, programs and not people. We can develop a great program but never really develop a person. The two aren't the same. Consider the difference in approach:

Program Development Vs. People Development*

Standardized approach ---------------------------Individually customized

Scripted pattern -------------------------------------- Shaped (life coaching)

Participation -------------------------------------------- Life transformation
(get more people in the programs)

Didactic ------------------------------------------Everyone discovers together
(someone stands up and lectures)

Delivery of information ----------------------- Debriefing life experiences

Curriculum guided ----------------------------------------- Life-centric

Plugged in (to existing church programs)------------------------- Pushed out

(to make a difference in the world)

Growing into service ----------------------------- Growing through service

Generationally "silo-ed" ---------------------------- Inter-generational

Compartmentalized (in life) ------------------------------ Integrated

(life and spirituality)

Artificial ----------------------------------------------------------- Organic

Build the organization ------------------------------------- Develop people

Do you see the difference? If you do, then you understand Journey Christian Church a little better. Although there is nothing wrong with it, our focus is not on having a lot of programs by which we try and attract people to our church. We try and simplify our approach in order to focus on people. We try to create and develop environments where people can grow. We focus on people serving people and we believe that our personal growth comes from serving, not from being served.

Ultimately we're less concerned about how many people show up and much more concerned about the state of a person's heart. Having lots of people in a room does not mean that Kingdom expansion is occurring. Kingdom expansion is a matter of the heart and since this is true we will focus on relationships. Our mission statement at Journey is to invite and lead people into a growing relationship with Jesus Christ. The better we are at accomplishing our mission, the more the Kingdom will grow.

So, how's your relationship with Jesus Christ?

*Source: Greg Nettle

Abortion and Politics: One Man's Perspective

2008-10-18T16:35:00.026-04:00

It is a risky thing to post something about abortion in a heated political season. However, I found the following blog by Randy Alcorn to be an interesting read. I felt like he was fair, respectful, and truthful about his own convictions.

Judge for yourself.

A year and a half ago, when I first heard about Barack Obama, I got excited. I really wanted to support him. An evangelical Christian told me Obama was prolife. I didn’t care that Obama was a Democrat. I wanted a pro-life, pro-environment, pro-racial equality president who took seriously our need to care for the poor and defend the needy.

Granted, I also wanted someone who wasn’t a New Age anti-industry activist with a “Meat is Murder” bumper sticker. I wanted someone who is committed to national defense, but knows when not to go on offense. I wanted someone who doesn’t hear every Douglas fir screaming when it’s cut down.

But, frankly, I relished the opportunity to show I wasn’t a lockstep Republican. I was, and still am, tired of the Pat Robertson sort of Republicanism that supported proabortion-Republican-who-publicly-cheated-on-his-wife Rudy Giuliani because he's the only guy who could beat Hillary. (This was a non-prophetic endorsement on too many levels to count.)

That Barack Obama is an African-American was a real plus to me, and not for superficial reasons. I believed it could help further the vision of Martin Luther King in my favorite speech of the modern era, in which he said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” I get tears in my eyes just hearing that speech in my head.

I knew from the first time I heard him speak that Obama was cool. And if the candidate I supported, for reasons of substance, also happened to be cool, that would be a nice plus. I coach high school tennis, and I like it when the kids like me. And hey, my generation invented the word cool! (Of course it also invented the word groovy, but....).

Then the sad day came. I checked out Obama's actual position on abortion and I was demoralized. I found that in every single vote related to the issue he's favored abortion, its legality and even the killing of children who survive abortion.

But Obama is savvy. He wants to attract young voters, including young evangelical Christians who are sort-of-prolife. He knows to say that he favors reducing or limiting abortions. Which is like limiting rather than criminalizing murder and rape and kidnapping and slavery. A candidate could say “I’m personally opposed to rape,” while he has a 100% voting record favoring the legality of rape. And he could say he favors limiting or reducing the number of rapes. But if he actually supports the legality of the hideous crime of rape, discerning people would see through his rhetoric of rape-reduction.

When I discovered Obama was an all-out defender of legalized child-killing, I was disappointed beyond words. And I knew that in the next election, I was not going to get to be cool.

Well, here we are, and I have been asked what I think about the evangelical brothers and sisters who support Obama despite his uncompromising pro-choice stance. I have specifically been asked about Don Miller, author of Blue Like Jazz, because Don prayed at the Democratic Convention and has been widely quoted as a supporter of Obama.

On a previous blog I wrote about Obama and McCain, Leanne left in her comment a link to an interview with Don Miller, concerning his support for Barack Obama. (I’m glad she did.) I recommend that you hear directly from Don, who is prolife. Perhaps you should read that interview now so you really hear what he's saying.

I have hesitated to say anything publicly, but there's so much conversation that has been generated by Don's endorsement of Obama, I think I need to. By the way, as soon as I post this, I'm going to send a link to this blog to Don to tell him if he wants to respond I'll publish anything he has to say in a follow-up blog. (This is the same morning I posted this blog, and I just got an email response from Don; I've just deleted a few things that he thought were unfair, though my overall thoughts remain the same.)

First, Don is a friend of mine, and a good brother. He is sharp, kind-hearted, interesting and genuinely funny. He is also sincere. I enjoy hanging out with him, though I don't get to as much as I'd like, four times I think in the last couple of years. By the way, I was one of the pastors at (and am still part of) the church in the suburbs he went to, which he says in Blue Like Jazz was like "going to church at The GAP." I got a good laugh out of that and many other things he said.

A while ago, Don and I had coffee (something we're one on) and talked about things mostly that we agreed about, and some on which we disagreed. You can disagree and still be friends and brothers and Christ-followers, you know.

Don and I agreed that day at Starbucks that many Republican Christians have been used by the Republican Party. We agree that there are other important issues besides abortion and homosexual marriage. (Again, I repeat, Don is not proabortion, he is prolife; he says he has stated his disagreement with Obama on this issue, and I believe him.) Among those common concerns we have are racial justice and concern for the poor, and stewarding the environment. Of course, not all with the same concerns agree on which programs and policies are, in the long run, most helpful in furthering these righteous causes.

Don and I agreed that day that Christians should be first and foremost followers of Jesus, not political parties.

I went on record long ago as being unwilling to vote for a Republican nominee if he was not willing to stand up for the right to life of innocent children. (Don tells me that he too doesn't always vote with his party.) The prolife statement in the Republican platform is probably the most God-honoring thing it says, and if there's a Republican politician who doesn't hold to it, as Senator Bob Packwood didn't here in Oregon, there is no way I'll ever vote for him. Packwood never got my vote even though some Christian Republicans told me I should support him because he was conservative, at least until he was exposed for his sexual conduct. (Click here to compare what the Republican and Democratic Party platforms have to say about abortion.)

John McCain wasn’t my first choice for president. But at least McCain's a hero, he suffered for his country and fellow soldiers. And at least he thinks innocent children shouldn’t be slaughtered, and has consistently voted that way. And he's chosen a running mate who not only professes to be prolife but lived it out by valuing a precious Down Syndrome child that 80% of people would have aborted. McCain and Palin are far from perfect. But I believe they would honestly stick up for the most oppressed and violated people group in this nation, unborn children.

Of course, these days it’s especially not cool to support a Republican, even if he would defend innocent children, because Republicans are part of the party of George Bush, someone who is hated by cool people. (Nobody mentions that the Republican Party was the party of Lincoln, that opposed slavery; they were hated for that too.)

I am deeply concerned about the one, two or possibly three Supreme Court justices to be appointed in the next presidential term. If you listen to the candidates, it's obvious that McCain/Palin would make a concerted effort to choose justices likely to reverse Roe v. Wade and it is equally obvious that Obama/Biden would choose justices most likely to uphold Roe v. Wade.

So, does God care about who his children vote for? In many cases, with not much difference between them, I doubt it. But here's what he says about the needy and afflicted who have no one to help them and are on the brink of death:

"For God will deliver the needy who cry out, the afflicted who have no one to help. He will take pity on the weak and the needy and save the needy from death. He will rescue them from oppression and violence, for precious is their blood in his sight." (Psalm 72:12-14)

The blood of weak and needy unborn children is precious in God’s sight. Please don't tell me abortion isn't the only issue. Of course it isn't. Treatment of the Jews wasn’t the only issue in 1940 Germany. Buying, selling and owning black people wasn’t the only issue in the United States of 1850. Nonetheless, both were the dominant moral issues of their day. Make no mistake about it. In our own day if we support a candidate who defends abortion, who is dedicated to that cause, we are supporting the killing of children. Yes, even if he’s the coolest candidate to come along in decades.

We will stand before the judgment seat of Christ for our decisions, and a vote is a decision in which we assume responsibility for the known beliefs and moral positions of the candidate.

This is not speculation, it is not a spin, it is demonstrable fact: Barack Obama IS committed to continuing the legalized killing of unborn children in this country.

Some Christians claim otherwise. But in his July 17, 2007 speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund Obama said,

"We know that a woman's right to make a decision about how many children she wants to have and when— without government interference—is one of the most fundamental freedoms we have in this country. . . . I have worked on this issue for decades now. I put Roe at the center of my lesson plan on reproductive freedom when I taught constitutional law. . . So, you know where I stand. . . The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do."

If you don't know about the Freedom of Choice Act, it was written by the most radical proabortion activists because they saw informed consent and parental consent laws being passed at the state level. They wanted something powerful that would dismantle anything that could serve to reduce abortions through requiring that people be told the truth before an abortion or before their sixteen year old, who can't be given an aspirin without their permission, can have an abortion.

Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. Obama standing in front of them and promising he's 100% on their side is the equivalent of a presidential candidate 160 years ago addressing an assembly of the owners of the slave ships, and saying, “If you elect me, the first thing I will do is sign an act that will insure slaves won’t be freed, and that nullifies any and all voter-approved state legislation that restricts slavery.” (And sadly, yes, even hearing this, some Christians would have campaigned for and voted for him.)

Now, “first thing” means first thing, right? So before helping the poor and protecting the environment and addressing the economy and national defense, what is President Obama going do? He's going to assure that abortion stays legal and that the numbers are NOT reduced, by signing an act that will devastate decades of work at the state level by the prolife movement. Requirements of parental notification and informed consent and bans on partial birth abortions? History, if Obama has his way.

When Obama made this promise, he was either lying or telling the truth. If he was lying, he has a serious character problem. If we can’t trust him to do this, why trust him to follow through on any other promise, including those for which evangelicals are supporting him?

Ironically, however, if Obama was not lying, then he has a far worse character problem. Why? Because he is committing himself to oppose the rights of unborn children to live. I would rather he be a liar than that he be the defender of the killing of weak and vulnerable children, the orphans and fatherless.

I think he is sincere and likable, but on this matter, a matter of enormous significance, it is no exaggeration to say he is standing in defiance of the Creator. (A Creator whose blessing we should not dare ask if we defend the legalized killing of the children He creates.)

It is certainly a bad thing to promise something good, then not carry out your promise, as some Republican politicians have done in the prolife arena. (But though I don't always agree with him, George Bush—dare I even bring up his name?—did appoint two Supreme Court judges who have shown a respect for prolife issues.)

But it is even worse to promise something bad, something that is in fact evil—the furthering of the shedding of innocent blood—and then keep your promise.

We may want to show the world that we Christians are cool enough to support the coolest political candidate who’s come along in decades. I really wanted to. But I just can’t get past child-killing. That's a price for coolness that's just too high.

If you want to hear directly from the candidates about their positions on the shedding of the innocent blood of the unborn, check out these interviews with Rick Warren at Saddleback Church. (Below the videos I close out with some Scripture that makes God's position on this issue pretty clear).

Obama on abortion: (if you are unable to view the video, go to www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRswgN-Wf6g):

McCain on abortion: (if you are unable to view the video, to go www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzJdSlQYd0Q):

God on abortion (no video, just a transcript):

"Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD." (Leviticus 18:21)

"Do this so that innocent blood will not be shed in your land, which the LORD your God is giving you as your inheritance, and so that you will not be guilty of bloodshed." (Deuteronomy 19:10)

"Therefore as surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I will give you over to bloodshed and it will pursue you. Since you did not hate bloodshed, bloodshed will pursue you." (Ezekiel 35:6)

Shedding innocent blood? Not cool.

Supporting and voting for those committed to the legalized shedding of innocent blood? You tell me.

Randy Alcorn

http://www.randyalcorn.blogspot.com/
http://www.epm.org/

What do you think? I'd like to hear your thoughtful and respectful comments.

Is the Bible Trustworthy?

2008-09-23T21:38:00.010-04:00

It is estimated that since it’s first printing over 17 billion (17,000,000,000) copies of the Bible have been distributed. Yet as history’s all time best-seller, perhaps no other book has sparked more controversy or been more debated. In reality the Bible has withstood the unrelenting attacks of critics, philosophers, humanists, skeptics, and every other brand of critic. But not only has it survived these attacks, it has triumphed over them.

The French atheist Voltaire confidently proclaimed that the Bible would be an extinct book within 100 years of his lifetime. Instead, within fifty years of his death, the Geneva Bible Society was using his house and his printing press to publish an avalanche of Bibles! His house later became the Paris headquarters for the British and Foreign Bible Society.

Thomas Pain, who wrote “Age of Reason” vowed to rid society of the Bible. He predicted that within a generation that the Bible would only be found in museums. After a lifetime of seeking to destroy the Bible, Paine’s dying words are a startling testimony of the Bible’s triumph: “I would give words, if I had them, if the ‘Age of Reason’ had never been published. O Lord, help me! Christ, help me! Stay with me! It is hell to be left alone.”

For a long period of time, critics of the Bible dismissed it as nothing more that the creative invention of a skilled novelist. While some of the Biblical citations of people, places, and events have not been substantiated, modern archaeology is giving credence to the historicity and legitimacy of the Biblical text.

For example, on August 9, 2005, The Los Angeles Times reported that while repairing a sewage pipe in the old city of Jerusalem, workers had discovered the biblical Pool of Siloam. According to tradition it was a freshwater reservoir that was a major gathering place for ancient Jews making religious pilgrimages to the city. In the Gospel of John it was the site where Jesus cured a man blind from birth. The Biblical Pool was discovered less than 200 yards from one that had been created around 430 A.D. in an effort to reconstruct Biblical sites.

Princeton Theological Seminary New Testament scholar James Charlesworth admitted that many critics of the Bible said that the Gospel of John was not rooted in history but was purely theological. Therefore they denied the existence of the Pool of Siloam. Unfortunately for the critics and skeptics, the Pool of Siloam was found exactly where John said it was. Those questioning the historicity of John’s Gospel have now been silenced.

Jeffery Sheler, an award-winning journalist at U.S. News & World Report, says that other discoveries like the Pool of Siloam discredit the theory that the Bible, and specifically the Old Testament, is the work of a good historical novelist. According to Sheler, it would be a huge leap of faith for skeptics to believe that a human novelist could have so accurately recorded “the arcane details of the economic and social milieu of distant times and places.”

What does all of this mean? Well for me it means that my trust in the Bible has a reliable foundation rooted in historical accuracy. I'll write more on this issue later, but for now I'll leave you with these words, “The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever” (Isaiah 40:8, NIV).

How has this blog been helpful to you? Your comments and thoughts are encouraged. Simply click on the "comments" link below.

Using God's Grace

2008-09-18T06:53:00.003-04:00

"We have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand" (Romans 5:1, NIV).

To encourage people to "use" God's grace may seem a bit alarming. So what do I mean by "using God's grace"? I mean, use the grace of God to build your life upon and to turn your life around.

In reality, God's grace is our strength for living from day-to-day. In many circumstances in life we literally stand by his grace. When our lives are filled with sorrow and pain, either through our own mistakes or circumstances beyond our control, God's grace has the power to get us through. In fact, God's grace has the power to use our sorrow and pain for his glory and for our good. "...we rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance produces character; and character, hope" (Romans 5:3, NIV).

Your sufferings, whatever their cause may be, can be used to strengthen you. The Bible says they give you 3 things: perseverance, character, and hope.

Perseverance teaches you, "I can overcome anything--even my own sinful mistakes--through the power of God's grace."
Character teaches you, "And through his grace, I can become the kind of person who doesn't make such foolish mistakes."
Hope teaches you, "Because, through his grace, he's making me into a new person; he's making me like Christ."

Let God's grace be your source of strength, the foundation upon which you stand and build your life.

Chuck Colson understands the transforming power of God's grace. Back in the early 1970's he had made a mess of his life through his involvement with President Nixon and the Watergate scandal--a mess that landed Colson in prison. God used that mess not only to turn his life around, but to give him a platform for ministry that continues to this day. While in prison Colson converted to Christ and vowed that he would not forget his fellow inmates. As a result he founded Prison Fellowship, a world wide minstry to those who are incarcerated. Today Colson is a respected Christian leader with a world-wide impact for God's Kingdom.

So, use God's grace in your life. He can take the mistakes you have made and turn them into something amazing.

Accepting Daily Grace

2008-09-14T07:09:00.004-04:00

By its very nature sin messes things up. Nothing good can ever come of sin, because sin is incapable of producing good (Romans 6:23). When we mess with it, it makes a mess of us. Therefore we need to experience God's amazing grace and become brand new people in him. There's a sense in which this happens at salvation: "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old is gone, the new has come!" (2 Corinthians 5:17)

But God's work of grace in our lives doesn't end at salvation, it begins at salvation. As we walk with him, his grace transforms us--changes us into brand new people. When you find yourself in a mess, you need God's grace. The good news is: even if it's a mess created by your own sin, God's grace is available. Romans 5:20 says, "Where sin increased, grace increased all the more."

That means as much grace--or as much help--as you need to get out of the mess you've created, God will give. As much mercy as you need to experience full and complete forgiveness, God will give. As much of his power that you need to turn your life around, he will give. As much peace as you need to overcome your fears, he will give. As much acceptance as you need to be free from guilt, he will give. You cannot out-sin God's grace in your life. You cannot make such a mess of things that he is no longer able to help you out. That's how powerful his grace is.

Forgiveness is a free gift. You don't earn it or deserve it. And his forgiveness is total and complete. Your wife may not be ready to forgive you--neither may your boss, or your children, or your parents, or your friends, or your enemies--but God has forgiven you completely. Romans 5:6 says, "You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly." The ungodly: you and I fall into that category. We're the ones he died for. Romans 5:8 says, "God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." God forgives us in spite of the fact that we don't deserve it. In fact, even before we had considered asking for forgiveness, before we felt even a hint of remorse, he had already died for our sins.

Someone once said, "Accepting God's forgiveness at salvation was easy, but when I have sinned in my Christian life, accepting God's forgiveness has been more difficult--because I'm constantly reminded of how little I deserve it."

Can you relate to that statement? I can. But you know what? This attitude reveals a lack of understanding of the scope of God's forgiveness. We tend to think that God can forgive small sins, but not big ones. Or old sins, but not new ones. But when Jesus Christ died on the cross, he died for all sins--the ugly ones, the wicked ones, the stupid ones--all sins.

Romans 5:9 states, "Since we have been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!" The fear of God's wrath is a thing of the past for Christians, we have been saved from it. We don't have to live in dread of what God is going to do to get even with us, because the punishment that our sins deserved was paid for by Jesus Christ. If you make a mess of your life with sin, God will forgive you, but why in the world would you intentionally want to create that kind of pain for yourself? Anyone who views God's grace as a free ticket to go out and "have fun" with sin is in for a rude awakening. The wages of sin is death and it always leads to misery. Anyone who has made a mess of their lives with sin already knows this.

It's not fair, is it, that Jesus should have to die for our sins and we should get off scot-free? No, it's not fair at all. It's not what we deserve. But it's what we've been given. Accept it. Every day. Just like you accepted it on the day you were saved, accept God's forgiveness in your life ... and turn away from willful sins.

Why is Islam growing so rapidly?

2008-09-13T06:17:00.002-04:00

Someone asked me, "Why is Islam growing so fast in the world, given the comparison to Christianity? I just don't understand the appeal when you compare/contrast the doctrines of the two religions and compare/contrast Jesus/Muhammad. I am sure the Muslim religion must be presented differently to those inquiring or considering but I just am not seeing the appeal of the religion in modern times around the world."

Well, one reason may have to do with the different cultures around the world. The Middle East is a much different culture than our own. They have a completely different mindset than we do. That’s true of Europe also. People look at life and view the world differently. The Middle East has been dominated by a very intense religious mindset for centuries.

Another reason may be the fact that to them commitment really means something. It is easy to be a Christian in America. There are a number of Christians who take their faith as an inclusion in some kind of a spiritual club; almost as kind of a luxury or amenity of sorts. Islam is a completely different mindset. When you make a commitment to Islam, you are making a life-altering commitment. It is a serious deal. A lot of American Christianity is void of that kind of serious commitment. I’m not at all talking about a “radical” kind of commitment with violence; I’m simply referring to an absolute commitment of one’s life.

In reality, Jesus calls us to an absolute commitment to him (Luke 14:25-35). I'm not sure how so many of us in America have managed to avoid this kind of total commitment to following Christ. We tend to enjoy following Jesus as long as it takes to where we want to be. The version of Christianity so common in America is that God is here to serve us and our needs. While it is true that God is interested in meeting our needs (Philippians 4:19), it is a significant misunderstanding of the Creator and the creation. We exist to serve God and his purposes, not the other way around (Luke 4:8).

Anyway, the call of total commitment seems to be appealing to the kind of mindset that is found in other parts of the world. In America it seems that we are reluctant to make a commitment to much of anything that doesn’t serve our own purposes. That’s not a slam on America, it is just an observation.

Interracial Marriage

2008-09-12T10:54:00.007-04:00

Many people think that the Old Testament forbids interracial marriages (i.e. Jews inter-marrying with another race). In one sense it is true that the Jewish people were forbidden to intermarry with other races. However, God's intention was that the Jews keep themselves from being influenced by other pagan cultures and religions. God, in his wisdom, knew that if they married outside of the Jewish faith, they would be led away from their singular commitment to God, as Deuteronomy 7:1-6 clearly states. Perhaps one of the clearest illustrations of this is found in 1 Kings 11. Although God warned his people over and over again they failed on many occasions, and in 1 Kings 11 we see that clearly illustrated in one person. By the way, Nehemiah 13:23-27 is an interesting commentary on 1 Kings 11.

Please understand that the command God gave to his people was based on faith issues rather than race issues. It wasn't an issue of marrying outside of the Jewish race, it was a matter of marrying outside of the Jewish faith. There is a big difference. In the Old Testament, many converted to Judaism and married other Jewish people, and that was fine. God even condoned marriage with women who were taken captive in war and subsequently became Jewish (Deuteronomy 21:10-13).

You will not be surprised that the New Testament carries forward that same principle for Christians. Second Corinthians 6:14-7:1 clearly sets forth the teaching for the church: Christians must not join themselves with unbelievers in strategic alliances. This passage teaches a broad principle that would apply to such things as business partnerships, marriage, alliances with religious groups outside of the Christian faith, etc. The principle taught in Galatians 3:26-29 makes it clear that there is no race distinction in God's eyes. The teachings of these passages make it clear that when it comes to marriage it is an issue of faith, not race.

As a Christian, can I marry someone of a different race? If they have committed their lives to Jesus Christ, absolutely. However, as I understand the Scripture, I must not marry someone who is not a Christian, as 1 Corinthians 7:39 clearly states. First Corinthians 7:10-39 is an excellent passage on marriage and I would encourage you to read it carefully. Please note that 1 Corinthians 7:17-24 is talking about someone who has become a Christian after they were married and so they find themselves in a situation where they are married to an unbeliever.

In summary, the scriptures teach at least three principles on this subject:

There is nothing wrong with inter race marriages, as long as both husband and wife are believers in Christ (Galatians 3:26-29)
There is nothing wrong with being married to an unbeliever so long as both were unbelievers at the time of their marriage (1 Corinthians 7:17-24; 1 Peter 3:1-4)
Christians should not pursue an alliance, such as and including marriage, with a non-believer (1 Corinthians 7:39; 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1)

September 11

2008-09-11T06:42:00.002-04:00

Some time back someone asked me my thoughts on the events of September 11, 2001 and what part God had in it, if any. Here is how I responded.

My personal views . . . from a spiritual standpoint I think it is has been some time that we could honestly say that we are a Christian nation. Sure we have a church on "every corner" but most of those churches are empty -- and what percentage of the people who do attend church are really "fully-devoted" followers of Christ? As I look at our nation, I do not see a lot of evidence that we are following God (2 Timothy 3:1-5). Let's be honest, there are many sins that grip our nation and an argument could be made that we are on a slippery slop morally and spiritually.

Does September 11 have a link to these realities? Perhaps. The Bible teaches that we live in a fallen, evil world (Ephesians 2:1-2; 6:10-18; 2 Corinthians 4:4). That is reason enough for something like September 11 to happen. Is God unleashing his Judgment on our nation? That is a question no one but God himself can answer. I suppose time will tell.

However it seems that this event has been used of God to stir the hearts of countless people and cause them to seek Him -- and that is a positive thing in my book! People are re-evaluating their lives as never before. Will this last? I pray to God that it will! I do believe that the heart and soul of this nation is up for grabs and that the church has an unprecedented opportunity to communicate and demonstrate the love and grace of God.

Scott, I think you would enjoy Chuck Colson's website: www.breakpoint.org. Colson is a brilliant Christian thinker and a compelling apologist for the Christian faith. His background in the Nixon Whitehouse gives him a uniquely qualified perspective on political and world issues. His most recent book is an excellent treatment of the subject of the Christian's world view (Title: How Now Shall We Live?).

Also, a study of the Old Testament prophetic books would also give you a unique view of our nation. Specifically the books of Amos, Hosea, Micah, and Zephaniah would shed some light on how God deals with a wayward nation. As you read through Amos and Hosea you may find some similarities between the Northern Kingdom of Israel and our own nation. The prophetic books I listed are fairly brief. If you are looking for more, try Isaiah and Jeremiah.

I'm interested in your thoughts on the impact of 9-11 seven years later.

What Can I Eat?

2008-09-09T17:08:00.003-04:00

Several years ago someone sent me the following question:

Dear James,

I have a question to ask that has been a concern of mine for quite a long time. Deuteronomy 14:8 says, “The pig is also unclean; although it has a split hoof, it does not chew the cud. You are not to eat their meat or touch their carcasses.” Leviticus 11:10 says, “But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales-whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water-you are to detest."

I have attempted to find later teachings that would change these dietary sins, but I must have missed it somewhere. So my question is, why are Christians allowed to eat pork, crab, shrimp, lobster etc.? Where does the church stand on this issue?

Please let me know your thoughts on this subject. I have stopped eating all pork products already, but the seafood is going to be a bit difficult to give up (my family loves it!), but so be it if our Lord requires this of us!

Thank you in advance for this information.

Here is the response I gave:

Our church does not have an "official position" on the questions you have raised. We simply search out what the Scriptures have to say on any particular subject and live accordingly. With that understood, here are some personal thoughts on the issues you have raised.

The Old Covenant established with the nation of Israel was rendered null and void by the New Covenant established through and by Jesus Christ (Hebrews 8:13; 9:10, 15; 10:9). As Christians we are not bound to the Old Covenant and its rules and regulations, including its dietary system (Colossians 2:16-17, 20-22).

A study of the passages I have listed below will be very helpful to you in understanding the differences between the Old Covenant established with the nation of Israel, and the New Covenant established through Christ to every person who will receive Him (John 1:12; 3:16). Some of the passages are short; others are longer. The entire book of Hebrews is written to make clear that the Old Covenant was set aside and rendered null and void through the New Covenant which Jesus established through his life, death, and resurrection from the grave. I cited a few verses from Hebrews above, but I would encourage you to study the entire book as it is the best place in Bible to explain the differences between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.

And by the way, the Old Covenant is referred to as "Old" because it is no longer binding on Christians (i.e. it is old and no longer useful). The word "testament" is synonymous with the word "covenant." The Bible is divided into two parts: the Old Testament and the New Testament. Or – if you will – the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. Another word that is used for "covenant" is "will." So as you read through the scriptures I have listed below, just keep an eye out for these three words and understand that they refer to the same thing.

Romans 14

1 Corinthians 9

2 Corinthians 3 & 4

Galatians

Colossians 2:6-23

Hebrews

The bottom line is that in Christ you are free to eat whatever you like. However, you may want to take into consideration how some foods effect your health. It is generally accepted that eating meat is not always the most healthy diet. But spiritually speaking, there is nothing wrong with eating meat of any kind. The only sin we can commit through eating is what the Bible calls gluttony. And you can be a glutton with Jell-O!

I hope this helps.

Let me know your thoughts.

Do Animals Go to Heaven?

2008-09-08T12:42:00.002-04:00

The Bible does not specifically speak to this subject. However, it does not say that there won't be animals in heaven. In fact, there is probably good reason to believe that there will be based upon the fact that when God created a perfect world in Genesis, a part of His creation included animals. So to reason that there will be animals when God re-creates the world (2 Peter 3:3-13) is not such a stretch.

However, that being a possibility, the Bible teaches that only human beings were created in God's image and have a soul that lives on after physical death. This is why the Bible places infinite value on human life and why God's law in the Old Testament demanded the death penalty for the murder of another human life. Animals were not created in God's image and do not, as such, have an eternal soul. Because human beings are created in God's image, we possess a sanctity of life unlike any other living thing in all creation. This is one reason why human sacrifice was strictly forbidden in the Old Testament. However, under the Old Covenant, animal sacrifice was God's prescribed way--for animals have no living soul.

Animals are a wonderful gift from God. They bring much joy into our lives, and that is part of God's design. I am thankful for the "pets" that I have had in my life and for the wonderful memories of them. My life has been enriched because of those experiences. However, I do not anticipate seeing those same pets again in heaven as I do friends and family members who have passed from this life to the next. As a personal opinion, I do believe that there will be animals in heaven and that we will enjoy pets who never grow old, never get sick, never go blind, never make a mess where they're not supposed to (!), and who never die. Our enjoyment of animals in heaven will be full, complete, and infinitely satisfying . . . as a part of God's design.

God's Firstborn

2008-09-06T06:58:00.001-04:00

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation” Colossians 1:15 (NIV).

This is one of the great verses in the Bible which teaches us about Jesus Christ. It is a part of a wonderful passage on Jesus, but this one verse often gets a lot of questions. The Greek word for “image” is the word from which we get our English word “icon.” It means, “copy” or “likeness.” Jesus Christ is the perfect image-the exact likeness—of God and is in the very form of God, and has been so from all eternity. By describing Jesus in this manner, Paul emphasizes that Jesus is both the representation and manifestation of God. Thus, Jesus is fully God in every way.

The Greek word for “firstborn” can refer to one who was born first chronologically, but most often refers to pre-eminence in position, or rank. In both Greek and Jewish culture, the firstborn was the ranking son who had received the right of inheritance from his father, whether he was born first or not. It is used of Israel who, not being the first nation, was however the preeminent nation (cf. Exodus 4:22; Jeremiah 31:9). Firstborn in this context clearly means highest in rank, not first created for several reasons: 1) Jesus cannot be both “first begotten” and “only begotten” (cf. John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9); 2) when the “firstborn” is one of a class, the class is in the plural form (cf. v. 18; Romans 8:29), but “creation,” the class here, is in a singular form; 3) if Paul was teaching that Jesus was a created being, he was agreeing with the heresy he was writing to refute; and 4) it is impossible for Jesus to be both created, and the Creator of everything (v. 16). Thus Jesus is the firstborn in the sense that he has the preeminence (v. 18) and possesses the right of inheritance “over all creation” (cf. Hebrews 1:2; Revelation 5:1-7, 13). He existed before the creation and is exalted in rank above it. As supreme over all creation, Jesus has all the priority and authority ... including over the spirit world (see Colossians 1:16).

Colossians 1:15 is a bedrock verse of Christianity. In fact the whole passage from verse 15 to verse 20 is perhaps the fullest description of Jesus' authority and divinity in the Bible. As a Christian, I find it encouraging to know that I'm not just following a prophet of old or a great moral teacher from ancient times. I'm following the God who wrapped himself in human flesh: Jesus Christ.

I'm curious, what implications do you think these things have on those of us who claim to follow Jesus Christ? I welcome your comments....

Credit: some of the above thoughts have been adapted from John MacArthur

The Unforgivable Sin

2008-09-05T06:23:00.013-04:00

You’ve probably heard of “the unforgivable sin” before. Does such a sin exist? If so, what is it and how can you avoid it? You can find “the unforgivable sin” in three places: Luke 12:10, Mark 3:28-29, and in Matthew 12:31-32. In the latter Jesus says, “And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” Luke 12:10 classifies the sin as “an eternal sin.”

The religious leaders accused Jesus of blasphemy, but ironically they were the guilty ones when they looked Jesus in the face and accused him of being possessed by Satan. The unforgivable sin means attributing to Satan the work that the Holy Spirit accomplishes (see Matthew 12:22-30). Thus it is a deliberate and ongoing rejection of the Holy Spirit’s work and even of God himself. It indicates a deliberate and irreversible hardness of heart. The sin is unforgivable not because it is worse than any other, but because the person who is guilty of it will never ask for or seek forgiveness. Why? Because the person who rejects the prompting of the Holy Spirit removes himself/herself from the only force that can lead him or her to repentance and restoration to God. A person who fears having committed “the unforgivable sin” shows by their very concern that he/she has not sinned in this way.

How has this blog been helpful to you?
Your comments and thoughts are encouraged.
Simply click on the "comments" link below.

A Prayer to Begin Your Day

2008-09-04T08:57:00.002-04:00

I like reading books on leadership and church development and I like reading books that speak to the soul. One of my favorite authors for the latter is Richard Foster. He has written several books that speak to spiritual formation. He writes with both simplicity and a sense of the profound. His book entitled Prayer: Finding the Heart's True Home speaks to me deeply. Each chapter is on a different aspect or kind of prayer and each chapter ends with a sample prayer. Here's one you might find helpful as you begin your day tomorrow. It comes from the chapter entitled, "The Prayer of Relinquishment."

Today, O Lord, I yield myself to You. May Your will be my delight today. May You have perfect sway in me. May your love be the pattern of my living. I surrender to You my hopes, my dreams, my ambitions. Do with them what You will, when You will, as You will. I place into Your loving care my family, my friends, my future. Care for them with a care that I can never give. I release into Your hands my need to control, my craving for status, my fear of obscurity. Eradicate the evil, purify the good, and establish Your Kingdom on earth.

For Jesus’ sake, Amen.

How God Spells Love

2008-08-31T06:33:00.007-04:00

Loving God is a very difficult thing. I mean, how do you love someone you can’t see, feel, or touch? For many people loving God is an abstract thing. In reality, loving God is a very practical matter. Sometimes we have an emotional response to God when we’re singing along with some worship music. Some people feel close to God and they would say that is a feeling of love. And it probably is for them.

But how does God define our love for him? He spells our love for him like this:

O-B-E-D-I-E-N-C-E

Biblically speaking loving God has more to do with our actions than our emotions. Look at these simple verses:

1 Samuel 15:22-23a (NLT)
²²What is more pleasing to the Lord: your burnt offerings and sacrifices or your obedience to his voice? Obedience is far better than sacrifice. Listening to him is much better than offering the fat of rams. ²³Rebellion is as bad as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as bad as worshiping idols.

John 14:15 (NIV)
If you love me, you will obey what I command.

1 John 5:3 (NIV)
This is love for God: to obey his commands.

2 John 1:6 (NIV)
And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his (God’s) commands.

So on a practical level, here are some ways we can love God better…

Keep your word to people

Matthew 5:37 (NIV)
Simply let your “Yes” be “Yes,” and your “No,” “No.”

Put God’s agenda above your own

Matthew 6:33 (NIV)
But seek first His Kingdom and His righteousness…

Pay your taxes

Mark 12:17 (NIV)
Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.

Honor God with your Tithe

Proverbs 3:9 (NIV)
Honor the Lord with your wealth, with the firstfruits of all your crops.

Follow Christ in Baptism

Matthew 3:13-17 (NIV)
¹³Then Jesus came from Galilee to be baptized by John. ¹⁴But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” ¹⁵Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented. ¹⁶As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water…. ¹⁷and a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

Reconcile your relationships

Ephesians 4:31-32 (NIV)
³¹Get rid of all bitterness, rage, anger, harsh words, and slander, as well as all types of malicious behavior. ³²Instead, be kind to each other, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, just as God through Christ has forgiven you.

Maintain your morality

1 Thessalonians 4:3-8 (God’s Word Translation)
³It is God’s will that you keep away from sexual sin as a mark of your devotion to him. ⁴Each of you should know that finding a husband or wife for yourself is to be done in a holy and honorable way, ⁵not in the passionate, lustful way of people who don’t know God. ⁷God didn’t call us to be sexually immoral but to be holy. ⁸Therefore, whoever rejects this {order} is not rejecting human authority but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit.

Now there’s some food for thought.

Discipline & Regret

2008-08-30T09:12:00.002-04:00

Jim Rohn said, "We must all suffer from one of two pains: the pain of discipline or the pain of regret. Discipline weighs ounces--regret weighs tons."

Do have any regrets? I've got a few; I guess we all do. Rohn's quote resonates with me, because most of my regrets stem from lack of discipline. If only I had been more diligent. If only I had been more consistent. If only I had been more persistent. If only I had been more determined. And on and on.

Regret weighs tons, but it's foolish to bear this burden longer than necessary. Know how to get out from under it? It's in the first half of Rohn's corollary: Take another swing at the habit of discipline.

Ask yourself: What good thing...what necessary thing ... must I start doing today -- and every day -- if I feel like it or not? Whether it's a walk around the block or more time in the Word or cancelling a golf game to spend the afternoon with your kids, the short-lived pang of making a decision that doesn't come easily is nothing compared to the relief it brings from the dread of regret -- in fact, these tough decisions result in immeasurable joy.

There's a verse in Hebrews that refers to discipline. The writer is speaking here about the discipline (correction) that God sometimes works in us, but these words also apply to the discipline we have the power to exact on ourselves.

No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it. (Hebrews 12:15)

Here's to good training.

Choosing Your Way

2008-08-29T09:13:00.008-04:00

Victor Frankl wrote, "We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms -- to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way."

Think of all the things that you can't control: the weather, the behavior and choices of those with whom you work, what comes in the mail to you, spam, the price of gas, your health, the decisions your children make, the decisions your parents make, and many others. You may have some influence over these things, but not complete control.

The one thing you can control is how you will respond to the situations you face. With anger, doubt, and self-pity ... or with faith, hope, and love.

Again and again in the Psalms we encounter David in difficult situations -- surrounded by enemies, struggling with sin, sinking in despair -- and again and again we see his absolute resolve to think right: Why are you so downcast, O my soul? Why so disturbed within me? Put your hope in God, for I will yet praise him, my Savior and my God. (Psalm 43:5)

You and I can't control what happens today, but we can control our actions. Don't let your situations get the best of you today; no matter what you face, you can choose your own way.