Fellowship. Its a relatively common word among Christians, but I've pretty much never used it in any other context. The word itself has no functional meaning to most Americans. You never hear athletes talk about the "fellowship" they have with other guys in the locker room. Joe College Guy never uses fellowship to describe hanging out with the dudes on his floor. Its a strange word in our culture, and I wonder if there's another word or phrase that would communicate the idea more clearly.
But in spite of that, we do need to understand what it means. And I would argue that most Christians don't really know what the scriptures are saying when they talk about fellowship. And in addition to the question of what fellowship is, I would ask this: do we need it? The assumption in virtually every Christian circle is yes, but biblically I don't think that holds water. First, though, what is fellowship?
I don't really want to come up with a definition in the strict sense; I'd like to try a different way of defining it. But I will mention the Greek word most commonly translated as fellowship: koinonia. It appears 20 times in the NT, notably Acts 2:42, where the believers in Jerusalem have fellowship with one another and all things in common, and 1 John 1, where he speaks of our fellowship with Christ and with one another. Koinonia relates to participation and community, and I think those ideas are at the core of what it means.
Interestingly enough, those passages aren't the ones that tend to come up in the discussions I have with others about fellowship. For me the conversation about fellowship begins like this:
Person X: "Where do you go to church?"
Me: "We don't." (sometimes I give a longer response)
Person X: "Oh......then what do you do for fellowship?"
Me: "Well, we meet with some other believers in homes."
Person X: "Just as long as you aren't forsaking the gathering of the bretheren......"
The passage they often refer to is Hebrews 10:24-25:
"...let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near." (NAS)
I appreciate the intent behind those questions. Its usually out of genuine concern for me and my family. But at the same time I'm not sure it comes from a full understanding of what fellowship is. Most folks stop reading in the first half of verse 25--"do not forsake assembling together." But the writer isn't just saying get together with other Christians; he elaborates: encourage one another....stimulate one another to love and good deeds. Its not getting together, its what happens when you do. There's 'one-anothering' that ought to go on when we come together.
But what happens in the majority of gatherings? One brother gets up in front and gives a lecture while everyone else sits and listens. Greetings are exchanged (sometimes only when dude up front tells you to.....), and everyone goes on their way. Don't get me wrong--lectures are fine. I've heard many great lectures. But that ain't fellowship. And yet, if I'd responded to the question by saying, "we go to da-ta-da-ta-da church," they probably wouldn't have thought twice about it. Of course, I know not every gathering is like that. This isn't at all about institution vs. non-institution. Gatherings in homes can be devoid of fellowship in the same way--I've been to some that are. It's very different than that.
Here's the thing: 'fellowship' is held over the heads of many Christians as something that we need. We're told we have to be in fellowship or we'll go off the deep end. And sometimes examples are cited of folks who left and now who knows what's happened to them. But do the scriptures say we need it? I would say no. In fact, there are numerous examples of folks who didn't have fellowship for long periods of time. Consider:
- Moses was in the desert for 40 years;
- John was exiled on Patmos, and he seemed to do just fine;
- John the Baptist lived alone in the wilderness for a long time;
- Paul spent more time alone in a prison cell than with other believers in the later years of his life.
These men didn't set out to be certain they had fellowship/community/another person who followed God with them in whatever they did. They followed Him, and that led them into times of great and deep fellowship, as well as times of being alone.
Another side of it is that fellowship may not happen in the way we would expect. Personally, I've been in a situation with less fellowship recently, and what we've had has looked very different than I thought it would. When we moved to Champaign we knew some believers that were already here, but a lot of the relationships never developed into a "meet together weekly or more frequently" sort of thing (for a variety of reasons....and not because we didn't want them to). The most significant fellowship I’ve had since moving here has been with Lisa. For some reason I feel that we are trained not to associate ‘fellowship’ with our family conversations, but in reality that’s a big part of why we got married. We have always had deep fellowship with one another; I’ve just grown to appreciate that more.
But apart from that I think Father had a two and a half year period of less fellowship in store for us when we came here. We talked about attending a Sunday gathering, and even went to a couple of meetings. We had folks over to our place in hopes of something starting. We met in another family's home for a while. We have enjoyed the time with believers that we've had here, and we'll probably keep in touch with some of the folks. But none of it really became what I expected: a group of Christians we can share life with in a deeper way. A lot of it seemed like us trying to make something happen that the Lord didn't want.
Then, I walk off of the plane in San Antonio for my audition in January, and within 12 hours I've had deep, significant fellowship in Christ with a group of 20ish Christians I'd never met. I had a sense immediately that these were believers that we could live life with. It was to the point where I didn't really care about getting the job; I wanted to move and hang out with these people. It has been so easy since He has orchestrated it, and it was like banging my head against the wall when we tried to do it ourselves. As I've reflected on our time in Illinois, I think Father wanted us to have less fellowship. There were things that needed to be worked out in me, and chances are that wouldn't have happened if things had been different.
Would we have rather had more fellowship while we were here? Absolutely! Did we die spiritually because we didn't have it? Quite the opposite. Did we violate the scripture from Hebrews 10? I don't think so. All it says is "don't forsake." If there are believers God wants you to meet with, meet with them. Don't blow that off. Taking the verse beyond that is an exaggeration. I don't think it means you have to meet with whatever group of Christians is in your town. Even if you find a group, fellowship is deeper than just getting together with other Christians. He needs to lead us. And if there isn't anyone around that He wants you to meet with, He will sustain you, just like He sustained Paul and John. And they didn't just get by--they flourished.
So about fellowship I would say this: its deeper and different than just meeting together, it isn't a requirement, you won't go off the deep end if you don't have it, and God Himself will lead you into it.
Showing posts with label scripture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label scripture. Show all posts
May 12, 2009
May 7, 2009
Original Sin
This is a note I sent to a friend regarding original sin....
What is the effect of Adam's sin (original sin) on us today?
The easiest way to talk about this might be to walk through the second half of Romans 5.
12Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—
Death came through one man--Adam. That's the first implication of original sin. We die because our father Adam sinned. But if death is the wage of sin (6:23), then there must be some connection between Adam's sin and us. If there's no sin, there's no death, right? So at the end of that verse Paul says that "all sinned." What does that mean? Does it refer to our individual sins? I would say no; he instead takes a detour to explain that phrase. I'll elaborate on this as I go, but I think the overarching point Paul is making here is a comparison between Jesus and Adam. We would expect him to follow his "just as" in verse 13 with a "so also," but he doesn't. We don't get the "so then" until verse 18--"so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men." The comparison, then is between one act (Jesus death on the cross) leading to righteousness for many, and one act (Adam's sin in the garden) leading to death for many. If this phrase referred to individual sins, the comparison would break down, since we are not saved by individual acts of righteousness.
13for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
As we discussed, sin was not counted before the law was given through Moses. But, says Paul, death still reigned between Adam and Moses. The people's individual sins were not counted against them, but they still died. Why? They had a connection with Adam's sin--this would be imputation. This is a major implication of original sin: Adam's sin is imputed to us, and that is enough to make us worthy of death. Even apart from our individual sins, we would die because of this imputation; even if we didn't sin "like the transgression of Adam," we would die because of his sin.
15But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
In addition to discussing the similarities of Adam and Christ, Paul also shows the differences. The emphasis remains on one trespass and one act of righteousness (the free gift). Not only does he show that the transgression and righteousness are opposites. He also points to there being greater certainty of the grace of Jesus Christ (verse 15). He points to the gift covering over many trespasses, not just one (verse 16). And he points to the reign we will have over sin and death in Christ (verse 17). Everything about our righteousness in Christ is much more certain and greater than our sin in Adam.
18Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. 20Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Summary....Paul shows in verse 19 that Adam's sin was disobedience, and that Christ's righteousness (and therefore a righteous life) is rooted in obedience. So to summarize, two of the implications of original sin for us are that Adam's sin is imputed to us, and that is why we die; and we can better understand what Jesus did for us on the cross by comparing that with what Adam did in the garden.
Now, one of the other things we discussed was the "sinful nature." That isn't the thrust of what Paul is considering here, and there are other passages that would be good to consider for that topic, but there are a couple of places that seem to allude to it. The first is verse 13: "sin was in the world before the law was given..." And the second is verse 19: "by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners....." I mention that, but I'd like to see if you have any thoughts on the above before digging into other passages.
What is the effect of Adam's sin (original sin) on us today?
The easiest way to talk about this might be to walk through the second half of Romans 5.
12Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—
Death came through one man--Adam. That's the first implication of original sin. We die because our father Adam sinned. But if death is the wage of sin (6:23), then there must be some connection between Adam's sin and us. If there's no sin, there's no death, right? So at the end of that verse Paul says that "all sinned." What does that mean? Does it refer to our individual sins? I would say no; he instead takes a detour to explain that phrase. I'll elaborate on this as I go, but I think the overarching point Paul is making here is a comparison between Jesus and Adam. We would expect him to follow his "just as" in verse 13 with a "so also," but he doesn't. We don't get the "so then" until verse 18--"so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men." The comparison, then is between one act (Jesus death on the cross) leading to righteousness for many, and one act (Adam's sin in the garden) leading to death for many. If this phrase referred to individual sins, the comparison would break down, since we are not saved by individual acts of righteousness.
13for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
As we discussed, sin was not counted before the law was given through Moses. But, says Paul, death still reigned between Adam and Moses. The people's individual sins were not counted against them, but they still died. Why? They had a connection with Adam's sin--this would be imputation. This is a major implication of original sin: Adam's sin is imputed to us, and that is enough to make us worthy of death. Even apart from our individual sins, we would die because of this imputation; even if we didn't sin "like the transgression of Adam," we would die because of his sin.
15But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
In addition to discussing the similarities of Adam and Christ, Paul also shows the differences. The emphasis remains on one trespass and one act of righteousness (the free gift). Not only does he show that the transgression and righteousness are opposites. He also points to there being greater certainty of the grace of Jesus Christ (verse 15). He points to the gift covering over many trespasses, not just one (verse 16). And he points to the reign we will have over sin and death in Christ (verse 17). Everything about our righteousness in Christ is much more certain and greater than our sin in Adam.
18Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. 20Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Summary....Paul shows in verse 19 that Adam's sin was disobedience, and that Christ's righteousness (and therefore a righteous life) is rooted in obedience. So to summarize, two of the implications of original sin for us are that Adam's sin is imputed to us, and that is why we die; and we can better understand what Jesus did for us on the cross by comparing that with what Adam did in the garden.
Now, one of the other things we discussed was the "sinful nature." That isn't the thrust of what Paul is considering here, and there are other passages that would be good to consider for that topic, but there are a couple of places that seem to allude to it. The first is verse 13: "sin was in the world before the law was given..." And the second is verse 19: "by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners....." I mention that, but I'd like to see if you have any thoughts on the above before digging into other passages.
Jan 24, 2009
Love vs.......
In Christian circles, it seems like love and grace are always contrasted with justice, holiness, and truth. I've heard on numerous occasions that those ideas must be "balanced." You can't talk too much about the love of God because then people will think he doesn't care if we sin. And you can't talk too much about truth, justice, holiness, and sin because then people feel beat up.
Do those things really work against each other? Does talking about the love of God mean you have to be soft on sin and holiness? Can you make God too loving? I personally find myself thinking differently about these things. Certain scriptures point to a different interaction between these ideas than the opposition to each other they are characterized as having.
Paul speaks of both sorrow (2 Cor. 7) and kindness (Rom. 2) leading us to repentance. There are times when its appropriate to be direct and harsh with sin, and there are times when speaking about the kindness of God, His tolerance and patience, will fight sin. Paul also talks about speaking truth in love, meaning that truth is a part of love, not opposed to it.
This all may sound rather rudimentary, but in terms of practice I have hardly ever seen this lived out the way Jesus did. I don't think He was trying to balance grace and truth, I think He was loving. His love for people absolutely manifested itself in different ways, be it showing grace to an adulterous woman or throwing tables around in rage, but love was always present.
Why does love have to be soft on sin? Actually, let me rephrase that: how can love be soft on sin? And how can truth be separated from love? Is it even possible to make God "too loving" or "too nice?" I don't think so. He still hates sin, and He always will. But He is love.
Perhaps more on this later....
Do those things really work against each other? Does talking about the love of God mean you have to be soft on sin and holiness? Can you make God too loving? I personally find myself thinking differently about these things. Certain scriptures point to a different interaction between these ideas than the opposition to each other they are characterized as having.
Paul speaks of both sorrow (2 Cor. 7) and kindness (Rom. 2) leading us to repentance. There are times when its appropriate to be direct and harsh with sin, and there are times when speaking about the kindness of God, His tolerance and patience, will fight sin. Paul also talks about speaking truth in love, meaning that truth is a part of love, not opposed to it.
This all may sound rather rudimentary, but in terms of practice I have hardly ever seen this lived out the way Jesus did. I don't think He was trying to balance grace and truth, I think He was loving. His love for people absolutely manifested itself in different ways, be it showing grace to an adulterous woman or throwing tables around in rage, but love was always present.
Why does love have to be soft on sin? Actually, let me rephrase that: how can love be soft on sin? And how can truth be separated from love? Is it even possible to make God "too loving" or "too nice?" I don't think so. He still hates sin, and He always will. But He is love.
Perhaps more on this later....
May 19, 2008
Again........
After yet another long layoff, let's try this again.......I've had a lot of things on my mind over the last SIX months since my last post. Rather than blogging about them, I've put some of them into emails. I'll try to post those things here soon (stop me if you've heard that one before). Here's something from a couple of days ago:
I've heard a lot of folks over the years talk about understanding the scriptures "in context." By this it seems that we usually mean understanding a particular verse in the bible within the paragraph or chapter (and sometimes letter/book) in which it was written (we'll call this Context #1). For example, one verse that is often taken out of context is 1 Corinthians 14:33: "For God is not a God of confusion, but of peace." I often hear folks try to use that verse as a proof text to say that we should have an understanding of how God works because "God is not a God of confusion." But the context is a discussion on order in worship, and Paul is making no such statement. In addition, the larger context of the whole of scripture (Context #2) clearly shows that the idea that we should relatively fully understand how God works is preposterous (see Isaiah 55:8-9).
Through some reading I've done recently (particularly the writings of Frank Viola--the church planter, not the Cy Young winner from the Twins and Mets) I think I'm seeing the idea of context in a an additional way (Context #3) that much of the time we neglect. This is in the larger narrative context of the New Testament. Take Paul's letters.......they are listed from longest to shortest, completely separated from the narrative that surrounds them. Most of the time, in a good bible discussion, we will mention a few things about when the letter was written, the audience, where Paul was, etc., but I personally have not taken a close enough look at how the story of the church fits into the larger narrative context. So often it seems that historical study and bible study are separated, but for us to have a full understanding of what the scriptures say we need to study both. Perhaps the best way to explain this is with an example........
One topic that is interesting to examine in this way is that of church planting. The NT picture of church planting becomes clear as we study the pattern in the scriptures. Jerusalem is a unique church for obvious reasons, and Antioch was a product of the dispersion of Acts 8. After that a clear pattern emerges. Paul and others would travel to a town. They would preach the gospel, see a group of believers raised up, leave after a relatively short amount of time, usually return to check up on things and maybe acknowledge some elders (they acknowledged elders rather than appointing them), and wrote letters if they heard of problems they needed to address. What didn't they do? Stay for long periods of time in order to direct everything that goes on. They also didn't immediately appoint elders; they left the brethren to figure things out themselves by the Spirit. Several churches, including Antioch and Corinth, are never mentioned as having elders. And we don't know that Jerusalem has them until Acts 11--fourteen years after the church began there.
In his letters Paul uses the word 'brethren' 130 times; he mentions 'elders' five times, and he uses the word pastor once. His letters were never addressed to elders; it was always to 'the church.' Time and again we see that the brothers and sisters under the headship of Christ were the ones to discern the direction things should go, even as the churches grew. This picture of church planting is very different from the modern method of getting a few families from an existing place, setting up shop in a living room, and sticking around for the next 10+ years. Also, the role that Paul, Timothy, Silas, Barnabus, and others functioned has been pretty much lost in the Western church. They weren't pastors or elders, they were apostles, church planters, itinerant workers in the body of Christ. They were the ones who watched over the churches until elders emerged, and they did so from afar. A more thorough treatment of this particular matter was undertaken by Viola in an e-book you can read for free on his website--"Straight Talk To Pastors" at ptmin.org. It's an interesting and quick read if you can take the time to check it out.
All of this is to say that I want a better understanding of the historical context of the scriptures. I think God has a lot to say if we are willing to look at what He did chronologically. Lisa and I are reading through the lives of Saul and David in the OT in this manner, which means Psalms are mixed in with 1 and 2 Samuel. I hope to undertake a chronological reading of the NT sometime soon.
I've heard a lot of folks over the years talk about understanding the scriptures "in context." By this it seems that we usually mean understanding a particular verse in the bible within the paragraph or chapter (and sometimes letter/book) in which it was written (we'll call this Context #1). For example, one verse that is often taken out of context is 1 Corinthians 14:33: "For God is not a God of confusion, but of peace." I often hear folks try to use that verse as a proof text to say that we should have an understanding of how God works because "God is not a God of confusion." But the context is a discussion on order in worship, and Paul is making no such statement. In addition, the larger context of the whole of scripture (Context #2) clearly shows that the idea that we should relatively fully understand how God works is preposterous (see Isaiah 55:8-9).
Through some reading I've done recently (particularly the writings of Frank Viola--the church planter, not the Cy Young winner from the Twins and Mets) I think I'm seeing the idea of context in a an additional way (Context #3) that much of the time we neglect. This is in the larger narrative context of the New Testament. Take Paul's letters.......they are listed from longest to shortest, completely separated from the narrative that surrounds them. Most of the time, in a good bible discussion, we will mention a few things about when the letter was written, the audience, where Paul was, etc., but I personally have not taken a close enough look at how the story of the church fits into the larger narrative context. So often it seems that historical study and bible study are separated, but for us to have a full understanding of what the scriptures say we need to study both. Perhaps the best way to explain this is with an example........
One topic that is interesting to examine in this way is that of church planting. The NT picture of church planting becomes clear as we study the pattern in the scriptures. Jerusalem is a unique church for obvious reasons, and Antioch was a product of the dispersion of Acts 8. After that a clear pattern emerges. Paul and others would travel to a town. They would preach the gospel, see a group of believers raised up, leave after a relatively short amount of time, usually return to check up on things and maybe acknowledge some elders (they acknowledged elders rather than appointing them), and wrote letters if they heard of problems they needed to address. What didn't they do? Stay for long periods of time in order to direct everything that goes on. They also didn't immediately appoint elders; they left the brethren to figure things out themselves by the Spirit. Several churches, including Antioch and Corinth, are never mentioned as having elders. And we don't know that Jerusalem has them until Acts 11--fourteen years after the church began there.
In his letters Paul uses the word 'brethren' 130 times; he mentions 'elders' five times, and he uses the word pastor once. His letters were never addressed to elders; it was always to 'the church.' Time and again we see that the brothers and sisters under the headship of Christ were the ones to discern the direction things should go, even as the churches grew. This picture of church planting is very different from the modern method of getting a few families from an existing place, setting up shop in a living room, and sticking around for the next 10+ years. Also, the role that Paul, Timothy, Silas, Barnabus, and others functioned has been pretty much lost in the Western church. They weren't pastors or elders, they were apostles, church planters, itinerant workers in the body of Christ. They were the ones who watched over the churches until elders emerged, and they did so from afar. A more thorough treatment of this particular matter was undertaken by Viola in an e-book you can read for free on his website--"Straight Talk To Pastors" at ptmin.org. It's an interesting and quick read if you can take the time to check it out.
All of this is to say that I want a better understanding of the historical context of the scriptures. I think God has a lot to say if we are willing to look at what He did chronologically. Lisa and I are reading through the lives of Saul and David in the OT in this manner, which means Psalms are mixed in with 1 and 2 Samuel. I hope to undertake a chronological reading of the NT sometime soon.
Jul 8, 2007
Backlog
I find that I'm very good at thinking of things, not writing them down, and then not meditating on them as long as I ought. There are several ideas that I have been pondering in the last month, but I haven't gotten around to jotting them down.......so here's a bit of it, probably with more to come. I enjoy not being in school because my mind is more free to think on such things.
After several weeks of hemming and hawing about it, I finally purchased and read Who Is Your Covering? by Frank Viola. The topic is authority in the church. His assessment is that questions such as the one in the title or "to whom are you accountable?" are really asking the question "who controls you?" It's a question that comes up for those believers who are outside of the institutional church setting as they meet other believers, and often the answer they're looking for is a person (pastor, elder, etc.), a denomination, or something similar. Very much in a nutshell, Viola suggests that the top-down hierarchical leadership structure practiced by the vast majority of Christians in the West is actually quite different from the picture of the church presented in the scriptures. He also says that the offices of pastor, elder, etc., wrongly place authority with man instead of with God Himself. (For related verses, see Mt. 20:25-28, 23:8-12, and Lk. 22:25-26)
Viola then presents a picture of the first-century church characterized by brotherhood and the involvement of every member of the body of Christ in building up, mutual subjection (that is, believers subjecting themselves to one another and authority coming from the Holy Spirit instead of authority coming to a person or persons through an office and demanding obedience), and confidence that the churches can seek the Lord on their own without a single dynamic leader. (Paul had this confidence in the churches he planted--2 Cor. 2:3, Gal. 5:10.) You can't judge a book by its summary :), but that gives you some idea of what he has to say. Feel free to ask questions if you like. Viola has clarified and developed some ideas I have had over the last several years, so I greatly enjoyed the book.
I've started reading another of his books (Covering is #2 of 5 in a series) called So You Want To Start a House Church? So far its a study of church planting as it was done in the scriptures--interesting stuff. I'm sure I'll write something on it soon, as well as something on the things stirring in my heart as a result of reading.
Other things on the backlog: Job, Philemon, how the Holy Spirit speaks
After several weeks of hemming and hawing about it, I finally purchased and read Who Is Your Covering? by Frank Viola. The topic is authority in the church. His assessment is that questions such as the one in the title or "to whom are you accountable?" are really asking the question "who controls you?" It's a question that comes up for those believers who are outside of the institutional church setting as they meet other believers, and often the answer they're looking for is a person (pastor, elder, etc.), a denomination, or something similar. Very much in a nutshell, Viola suggests that the top-down hierarchical leadership structure practiced by the vast majority of Christians in the West is actually quite different from the picture of the church presented in the scriptures. He also says that the offices of pastor, elder, etc., wrongly place authority with man instead of with God Himself. (For related verses, see Mt. 20:25-28, 23:8-12, and Lk. 22:25-26)
Viola then presents a picture of the first-century church characterized by brotherhood and the involvement of every member of the body of Christ in building up, mutual subjection (that is, believers subjecting themselves to one another and authority coming from the Holy Spirit instead of authority coming to a person or persons through an office and demanding obedience), and confidence that the churches can seek the Lord on their own without a single dynamic leader. (Paul had this confidence in the churches he planted--2 Cor. 2:3, Gal. 5:10.) You can't judge a book by its summary :), but that gives you some idea of what he has to say. Feel free to ask questions if you like. Viola has clarified and developed some ideas I have had over the last several years, so I greatly enjoyed the book.
I've started reading another of his books (Covering is #2 of 5 in a series) called So You Want To Start a House Church? So far its a study of church planting as it was done in the scriptures--interesting stuff. I'm sure I'll write something on it soon, as well as something on the things stirring in my heart as a result of reading.
Other things on the backlog: Job, Philemon, how the Holy Spirit speaks
May 31, 2007
Waxing prose.......
I was in Des Moines last weekend for my brother's graduation. I had an interesting moment as I was walking around the neighborhood where my parents live and recalled what has happened since we moved there almost twelve years ago. I've gone to college, gotten married, and moved out of state. My brother has grown up, as have the two kids that lived in the house next door. The neighbors on the other side have gotten divorced, and their kids have had kids out of wedlock. The folks behind us have dealt with the sorrow of the death of one child, the joy of the birth of another, and multiple heart attacks for his dad. And the tiny house across the street has had at least three owners and is now on sale for over $120,000-- way too much if you ask me.
Then I looked at the tree out in front of our house. I remember John climbing to the top when he was younger, and now it seems almost twice as high. It provides much more shade than it used to, as do the other trees around our house. Those trees were there long before we moved in, and they stand a chance to be there long after Mom and Dad head somewhere else. They've seen the hottest of summers, the dead of winter, storm after storm, and who knows how many people, and they still stand strong. This passage seemed appropriate:
"The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me to bring good news to the poor; he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound; to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn; to grant to those who mourn in Zion--to give them a beautiful headdress instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, the garment of praise instead of a faint spirit; that they may be called oaks of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he may be glorified." Isaiah 61:1-3
Lord, help us to comfort those who mourn, that they and we may be oaks of righteousness for Your glory. May we stand strong in You while the world changes around us.
Then I looked at the tree out in front of our house. I remember John climbing to the top when he was younger, and now it seems almost twice as high. It provides much more shade than it used to, as do the other trees around our house. Those trees were there long before we moved in, and they stand a chance to be there long after Mom and Dad head somewhere else. They've seen the hottest of summers, the dead of winter, storm after storm, and who knows how many people, and they still stand strong. This passage seemed appropriate:
"The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me to bring good news to the poor; he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound; to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn; to grant to those who mourn in Zion--to give them a beautiful headdress instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, the garment of praise instead of a faint spirit; that they may be called oaks of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he may be glorified." Isaiah 61:1-3
Lord, help us to comfort those who mourn, that they and we may be oaks of righteousness for Your glory. May we stand strong in You while the world changes around us.
May 8, 2007
Finals....ly.......
The semester's over, and that's pretty sweet. I turned in a paper and had my jury on Friday, and now I'm done until August. Now to find a job for the summer......substitute teaching for a few weeks, a couple of music camps, and who knows what else.
Tonight I was reading 2 Peter 1, and I was struck by verses 12 and 13. Peter just listed qualities that believers ought to have: faith, virtue, knowledge, self-control, steadfastness, godliness, brotherly affection, and love (v. 5-7). Then he writes, "Therefore I intend always to remind you of these qualities, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have. I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to stir you up by way of reminder..." At times I feel that I should be beyond hearing about things regarding following Jesus that I already know, and often this is a product of my pride. But shouldn't I welcome encouragement and exhortation from the Lord and my brothers and sisters? This also reminds me that I should take every opportunity to build up another believer, even if I'm telling them something they "already know." Sometimes I shy away from that, too.
I have some thoughts on Philemon, too, but I'll save them for another time--hopefully not so late.......
Tonight I was reading 2 Peter 1, and I was struck by verses 12 and 13. Peter just listed qualities that believers ought to have: faith, virtue, knowledge, self-control, steadfastness, godliness, brotherly affection, and love (v. 5-7). Then he writes, "Therefore I intend always to remind you of these qualities, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have. I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to stir you up by way of reminder..." At times I feel that I should be beyond hearing about things regarding following Jesus that I already know, and often this is a product of my pride. But shouldn't I welcome encouragement and exhortation from the Lord and my brothers and sisters? This also reminds me that I should take every opportunity to build up another believer, even if I'm telling them something they "already know." Sometimes I shy away from that, too.
I have some thoughts on Philemon, too, but I'll save them for another time--hopefully not so late.......
Apr 19, 2007
Update
Ok, I'm getting to a point in the semester where I have a bit more time. Only two juries and a paper left! I had an interview this week for an assistantship, and I'm applying for two more. Please lift this up as you think of it. The Lord will take care of us.
Lisa and I have been reading Jeremiah lately. Chapter 20 is particularly interesting......dude is schizophrenic! Verse 13: " Sing to the LORD; praise the LORD! For he has delivered the life of the needy from the hand of evildoers." Verse 14: "Cursed be the day on which I was born!" What?! Reading that reminds me of the freedom we have to be ourselves before God. Jeremiah, David, Abraham, they all spoke their mind, and God allowed it to be included in the scriptures. It's better to tell the Lord how angry you are with Him and others than to pretend you're not angry at all. What a gracious God He is to allow us to say things like "you have deceived me, and I was deceived!" (v. 7)
Here is another quote:
'Execute justice in the morning,
and deliver from the hand of the oppressor
him who has been robbed,
lest my wrath go forth like fire,
and burn with none to quench it,
because of your evil deeds.'
I'll probably say more about this later, but justice and help for those in need is a BIG deal to God. I want us (Lisa and I) to consider more seriously how we can love and serve the poor more than we are now (which isn't really very much.....).
Did you know that if you have a savings account, you're among the wealthiest 8% of people in the world?
Lisa and I have been reading Jeremiah lately. Chapter 20 is particularly interesting......dude is schizophrenic! Verse 13: " Sing to the LORD; praise the LORD! For he has delivered the life of the needy from the hand of evildoers." Verse 14: "Cursed be the day on which I was born!" What?! Reading that reminds me of the freedom we have to be ourselves before God. Jeremiah, David, Abraham, they all spoke their mind, and God allowed it to be included in the scriptures. It's better to tell the Lord how angry you are with Him and others than to pretend you're not angry at all. What a gracious God He is to allow us to say things like "you have deceived me, and I was deceived!" (v. 7)
Here is another quote:
'Execute justice in the morning,
and deliver from the hand of the oppressor
him who has been robbed,
lest my wrath go forth like fire,
and burn with none to quench it,
because of your evil deeds.'
I'll probably say more about this later, but justice and help for those in need is a BIG deal to God. I want us (Lisa and I) to consider more seriously how we can love and serve the poor more than we are now (which isn't really very much.....).
Did you know that if you have a savings account, you're among the wealthiest 8% of people in the world?
Mar 28, 2007
Yeah.......
It's been a while........I read The Treasure Principle by Randy Alcorn last month, and I think it's one of the best I've read on the proper biblical use of money. His main point is that our money is God's (Ps. 24:1, Dt. 8:18) and we ought to use it as such. I'm a little foggy since I read it a month ago, but it was very timely. My funding for next fall is a bit up in the air (I found this out while reading the book), and the Lord used the things written here to remind me of how He is in control of those things. I highly recommend the book; Alcorn has one that's a bit more comprehensive that Lisa is reading right now, and I'm guessing that's good, too.
Also, a question I'm pondering: what does it mean to not forsake the gathering of the bretheren (Heb. 10:25)? I suppose the ensuing words help clear that up--"but encouraging one another..." Not meeting together is contrasted with encouraging. So being in the same room with other believers doesn't cut it. And it isn't that we are to simply receive encouragement; we are to be encouraging. So it seems that fulfilling this command involves being around and encouraging other followers of Christ. So, when you are around other believers, do you seek to build them up and encourage them?
I don't think the American model of Christianity always encourages that, at least not in the typical Sunday AM gathering. One brother shares, and the rest sit and listen to what he has to say. That is a good thing, but for the body of Christ to operate as it ought, for the gathering of the brothers and sisters to not be forsaken, everyone needs to encourage each other when we come together. If that never happens, the body does not grow in the proper way.
It's interesting that that question arose for me tonight. I went running the other night (outside!) and was burdened with a desire to pour my life into believers in a more significant way than I do currently. Perhaps the Lord is pushing me harder than I thought. :)
I won't give a specific date, just so I don't break my word, but I hope to post in a more timely fashion next time. The busiest time of the semester has almost passed, so that should make it easier. May His grace and peace fill you with joy.
Also, a question I'm pondering: what does it mean to not forsake the gathering of the bretheren (Heb. 10:25)? I suppose the ensuing words help clear that up--"but encouraging one another..." Not meeting together is contrasted with encouraging. So being in the same room with other believers doesn't cut it. And it isn't that we are to simply receive encouragement; we are to be encouraging. So it seems that fulfilling this command involves being around and encouraging other followers of Christ. So, when you are around other believers, do you seek to build them up and encourage them?
I don't think the American model of Christianity always encourages that, at least not in the typical Sunday AM gathering. One brother shares, and the rest sit and listen to what he has to say. That is a good thing, but for the body of Christ to operate as it ought, for the gathering of the brothers and sisters to not be forsaken, everyone needs to encourage each other when we come together. If that never happens, the body does not grow in the proper way.
It's interesting that that question arose for me tonight. I went running the other night (outside!) and was burdened with a desire to pour my life into believers in a more significant way than I do currently. Perhaps the Lord is pushing me harder than I thought. :)
I won't give a specific date, just so I don't break my word, but I hope to post in a more timely fashion next time. The busiest time of the semester has almost passed, so that should make it easier. May His grace and peace fill you with joy.
Feb 13, 2007
Snowed in!
So I guess a couple of days really means over a week.........
For those who haven't heard, we're in the middle of a huge blizzard here in Champaign. There's a foot of new snow on top of the couple of inches we already had. I made my way to the bus stop at 8:45 this morning only to have the bus driver tell me that the University canceled classes today (and tomorrow) for the first time since the late 70's. It was nice to have an extra day at home with Lisa and Stephen.
This weather got me thinking about the Lord and if it is something that He allows Satan to use. Is He the one that caused this? What about other natural disasters? Here are a few verses (there are many others):
"For to the snow he says, 'Fall on the earth,' likewise to the downpour, his mighty downpour." Job 37:6
"For he commanded and raised the stormy wind, which lifted up the waves of the sea."
"He made the storm be still, and the waves of the sea were hushed." Psalm 107:25, 29
"And he awoke and rebuked the wind and said to the sea,'Peace! Be still!' And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm." Mark 4:39
So obviously God is the one in control of the weather (even the snow.....). In many instances it relates to judgment, but not always. It makes me wonder if there is some sort of judgment related to this storm. Hmmm..........Job 1 presents an interesting case. God seems to allow Satan the opportunity to at least control the wind in order to test Job:
"And the LORD said to Satan, 'Behold, all that he has is in your hand. Only against him do not stretch out your hand.'"
".....a great wind came across the wilderness and struck the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young people....." Job 1:12, 19
So does God give Satan control of other aspects of weather? How often does that happen? I need to ponder this a bit more........
For those who haven't heard, we're in the middle of a huge blizzard here in Champaign. There's a foot of new snow on top of the couple of inches we already had. I made my way to the bus stop at 8:45 this morning only to have the bus driver tell me that the University canceled classes today (and tomorrow) for the first time since the late 70's. It was nice to have an extra day at home with Lisa and Stephen.
This weather got me thinking about the Lord and if it is something that He allows Satan to use. Is He the one that caused this? What about other natural disasters? Here are a few verses (there are many others):
"For to the snow he says, 'Fall on the earth,' likewise to the downpour, his mighty downpour." Job 37:6
"For he commanded and raised the stormy wind, which lifted up the waves of the sea."
"He made the storm be still, and the waves of the sea were hushed." Psalm 107:25, 29
"And he awoke and rebuked the wind and said to the sea,
So obviously God is the one in control of the weather (even the snow.....). In many instances it relates to judgment, but not always. It makes me wonder if there is some sort of judgment related to this storm. Hmmm..........Job 1 presents an interesting case. God seems to allow Satan the opportunity to at least control the wind in order to test Job:
"And the LORD said to Satan, 'Behold, all that he has is in your hand. Only against him do not stretch out your hand.'"
".....a great wind came across the wilderness and struck the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young people....." Job 1:12, 19
So does God give Satan control of other aspects of weather? How often does that happen? I need to ponder this a bit more........
Jan 15, 2007
Job, part 1
I've always had a difficult time following the lengthy discussions in Job, where he and his friends discuss the meaning of the circumstances of Job's life. (translation: I fall asleep because I get bored.......not that that's right) I've undertaken the task of figuring out what's going on in that book, what exactly is being said. Here is the first installment of a summary of the arguments (sorry if it's a bit like The Message). I've noted the chapters, and I can provide a list of the particular verses used in the summary.
Chapter 3 – Job: “I wish I had never been born….the pain is too great.”
Chapters 4-5 – Eliphaz: “Now it’s your turn; shouldn’t you have confidence in God? The innocent prosper, but who is truly innocent? No created thing will help you. If it were me, I would cry out to God. He causes pain, but He also heals. He does miraculous things!”
Chapters 6-7 – Job: “God is against me, that’s why I’m so distraught. Why doesn’t He just finish me off before I blaspheme Him? Don’t beat around the bush, just tell me, friends, what I have done wrong! Aren’t I right?! My life is EMPTY!! I’m at my wits end, so I will speak my mind, speak of my bitterness. Why are you after me, God?! It’s one thing after another! Please, just let me be! And what is my life to you, anyway?”
Chapter 8 – Bildad: “Listen to yourself! How long can you say these things? Obviously, your children sinned and God punished them. But if you repent before Him, He will restore you. The godless have no hope, but in Him you will find joy again.”
Chapters 9-10 – Job: “How can a man be right before God? I cannot answer Him. My words would condemn me even though I’m in the right……and I am right. Since I’m innocent and my life is like this, I can only conclude that God brings hardship on both the righteous and the wicked. Nothing will change, so why should I even bring my case before Him? I’m afraid of what will happen unless someone mediates, but who can do that? But here’s what I’d say if I could speak with Him: ‘What have I done, God? Why have you torn apart my life? You made it so good, and now you’ve destroyed it. You didn’t tell me that living righteously would get me this. At least give me a little joy before I die…..”
Chapter 11 – Zophar: “Job, do you think we can hear you say these things and not say anything? You think you’re perfect, but the reality is that God isn’t giving you half of what you deserve! He knows all and sees your sin. But still, if you reach out to Him, He will take away your shame.”
Chapters 12-14 – Job: “Look, genius, you have nothing on me. Who doesn’t know these things?! The well-off make fun of me, thinking they can take care of themselves, but the reality is that God is the one in control, and all will answer to Him. I’m asking God directly, not you liars who make up answers for Him and who think you need to defend Him! Keep silent, and let me say my piece. I only ask, two things, God: that you end my suffering, and that I get to talk this over with you face to face. Show me what I’ve done!
“God, we humans are so fleeting. Why even waste your time with us? Just make things a little easier for us. Oh, that I would have a second chance, a resurrection, where You would let me be with You, with my sins forgotten. But I do not have that hope; You keep it from me. Only death awaits me…….”
It was all I could do to not add ".....with nasty, big, sharp pointy teeth" to the end of that last line. :)Jan 2, 2007
Speaking of swords....
Hello all, it's been a while, but as of now I hope to post something at least once a week. Tuesday seems to be the day for that, so you might check then if you're interested. Feel free to post comments, I appreciate being told when I'm off my rocker. :)
Many believers (certainly myself included) quote verses from the bible, and often they are used as proof of various Christian ideas, for encouragement, etc. Much good and building of the kingdom comes from this, but there are two things I will mention here that happen that are not so good. The first is using a verse so out of context that the meaning is completely lost. An example is the way I've heard many use the following: "God is not a God of confusion..." (1 Cor. 14:33) I've been told many times that, "as this verse says," I should always have an understanding of what God is doing, and that if something does not make sense, it is not of the Lord.
However, the context of the verse clearly shows that it relates to order in the gathering of believers, and that the body is encouraged and built up when prophecy (and teaching, etc.) are done in an orderly manner. We are not to all talk at once because God is not a God of confusion. Actually, other verses point to the fact that we will not be able to understand God (Isaiah 55 comes to mind). So one problem is that verses can be taken out of context and used in a way that distorts their meaning (there are more aggregious examples, to be sure).
The second came to mind today as I read Ezra 1:
"In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom and also put it in writing." (1:1)
My thought was, "Where did Jeremiah prophesy this?" So I looked at a few cross references before I came across Jeremiah 29:10 (also 25:12, but that isn't as relevant for this discussion):
"For thus says the LORD: When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place."
Jeremiah 29 is a letter written to the Israelites exiled in Babylon after the fall of Jerusalem. They had witnessed the utter destruction of their nation, of the temple of their God, and were forced to travel to a land that was not their own, the hope of their captors being that they would lose their national identity. But Jeremiah sought to encourage them with the word of the Lord, that God would fulfill His promise to return His people to His land. Their hearts were no doubt faint, and those who still loved the Lord (many didn't, that's why they were exiled) were no doubt discouraged in a way that I cannot imagine. Their entire life was thrown into upheaval, and God said, "I'm still here, and I will bring you back! Endure this time, and I will fulfill my word, as I always do!"
I don't know about you, but I am personally much more familiar with the next verse: "For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for wholeness and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. " And this verse, Jeremiah 29:11 is one of the most quoted in all of the bible. But it isn't just a feel-good verse. It's a powerful comment that one makes when they quote it! It isn't just a nice thing God said. It's a promise made to a nation! And it reveals SO MUCH about the character of God!
So on one hand, believers need to take care not to quote a verse out of context, and use the word (sword) in a manner that accurately reflects its meaning. And on the other hand, as we do quote it, we should seek the fullness of what God said, that we might bask in the depth of His wonderful word. Jeremiah 29:11 has much to offer, as does every verse if we take the time to see it.
"Open my eyes, that I may behold
wondrous things out of your law." Psalm 119:18
Next topic: Faith in every day life
In the future: How does the Holy Spirit speak? This will probably consist of several posts.
Many believers (certainly myself included) quote verses from the bible, and often they are used as proof of various Christian ideas, for encouragement, etc. Much good and building of the kingdom comes from this, but there are two things I will mention here that happen that are not so good. The first is using a verse so out of context that the meaning is completely lost. An example is the way I've heard many use the following: "God is not a God of confusion..." (1 Cor. 14:33) I've been told many times that, "as this verse says," I should always have an understanding of what God is doing, and that if something does not make sense, it is not of the Lord.
However, the context of the verse clearly shows that it relates to order in the gathering of believers, and that the body is encouraged and built up when prophecy (and teaching, etc.) are done in an orderly manner. We are not to all talk at once because God is not a God of confusion. Actually, other verses point to the fact that we will not be able to understand God (Isaiah 55 comes to mind). So one problem is that verses can be taken out of context and used in a way that distorts their meaning (there are more aggregious examples, to be sure).
The second came to mind today as I read Ezra 1:
"In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom and also put it in writing." (1:1)
My thought was, "Where did Jeremiah prophesy this?" So I looked at a few cross references before I came across Jeremiah 29:10 (also 25:12, but that isn't as relevant for this discussion):
"For thus says the LORD: When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place."
Jeremiah 29 is a letter written to the Israelites exiled in Babylon after the fall of Jerusalem. They had witnessed the utter destruction of their nation, of the temple of their God, and were forced to travel to a land that was not their own, the hope of their captors being that they would lose their national identity. But Jeremiah sought to encourage them with the word of the Lord, that God would fulfill His promise to return His people to His land. Their hearts were no doubt faint, and those who still loved the Lord (many didn't, that's why they were exiled) were no doubt discouraged in a way that I cannot imagine. Their entire life was thrown into upheaval, and God said, "I'm still here, and I will bring you back! Endure this time, and I will fulfill my word, as I always do!"
I don't know about you, but I am personally much more familiar with the next verse: "For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for wholeness and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. " And this verse, Jeremiah 29:11 is one of the most quoted in all of the bible. But it isn't just a feel-good verse. It's a powerful comment that one makes when they quote it! It isn't just a nice thing God said. It's a promise made to a nation! And it reveals SO MUCH about the character of God!
So on one hand, believers need to take care not to quote a verse out of context, and use the word (sword) in a manner that accurately reflects its meaning. And on the other hand, as we do quote it, we should seek the fullness of what God said, that we might bask in the depth of His wonderful word. Jeremiah 29:11 has much to offer, as does every verse if we take the time to see it.
"Open my eyes, that I may behold
wondrous things out of your law." Psalm 119:18
Next topic: Faith in every day life
In the future: How does the Holy Spirit speak? This will probably consist of several posts.
Dec 12, 2006
I'll take two burgers, fries, and a sword........with extra mustard.......
Ok, done for the semester..........it's amazing how my affections for the Lord can be affected by how busy I am. It's not that I wasn't thinking of Him or spiritual things, it's just that I was doing so much over the last week or so that my heart wasn't set on Him in the way it should be. And honestly, I think procrastination and busyness can be major contributors to this (my issues were more related to the latter this semester--I wasn pretty on top of things). I pray that will change next semester.
There was discussion a while back of a passage in Luke 22:
35And he said to them,"When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?" They said, "Nothing." 36He said to them, "But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. 37For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors.' For what is written about me has its fulfillment." 38And they said, "Look, Lord, here are two swords." And he said to them, "It is enough."
It seems that this passage cannot be taken literally for a couple of reasons. Jesus is not telling the disciples to build up their collection of armaments. First, He had been preaching non-violence throughout His time on earth:
Matthew 5
21"You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.' 22But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment;
Second, he condemns a disciple for using a sword a few verses later:
Luke 22
47While he was still speaking, there came a crowd, and the man called Judas, one of the twelve, was leading them. He drew near to Jesus to kiss him, 48but Jesus said to him,"Judas, would you betray the Son of Man with a kiss?" 49And when those who were around him saw what would follow, they said, "Lord, shall we strike with the sword?" 50And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. 51But Jesus said, "No more of this!" And he touched his ear and healed him.
So if Jesus rebuked one of the twelve (one of the other gospels names Peter as the one with the sword) for taking Him literally, we should not make the same mistake.
Third, He says that two swords are enough (Lk. 22:38). Utterly rediculous! There is no way two swords are enough to fend off the number of folks that were to come upon them. So what does He mean? The reason given in the passage for this exchange is so that the scripture will be fulfilled that says, "And he was numbered with the trangressors." (Is. 53:12) My assumption, then, is that the possession of swords is part of the fulfillment of this word, as are the other instructions: take a moneybag and a knapsack.
So the only plausible explanation I can come up with is that the disciples were supposed to have the swords as a symbol of the fact that they were soon to be seen as transgressors among the people of Judea. Before this, they had been able to "depend on the kindness of strangers." (Said with a southern drawl--isn't that a quote from some old movie? See Luke 10) Now, they would have to fend for themselves a bit more.......not that God wouldn't provide for them, but they were now in very different circumstances. Since they were seen as criminals, as the scripture foretold, why shouldn't they have swords like criminals? They just weren't supposed to use them.
There was discussion a while back of a passage in Luke 22:
35And he said to them,
It seems that this passage cannot be taken literally for a couple of reasons. Jesus is not telling the disciples to build up their collection of armaments. First, He had been preaching non-violence throughout His time on earth:
Matthew 5
Second, he condemns a disciple for using a sword a few verses later:
Luke 22
47While he was still speaking, there came a crowd, and the man called Judas, one of the twelve, was leading them. He drew near to Jesus to kiss him, 48but Jesus said to him,
So if Jesus rebuked one of the twelve (one of the other gospels names Peter as the one with the sword) for taking Him literally, we should not make the same mistake.
Third, He says that two swords are enough (Lk. 22:38). Utterly rediculous! There is no way two swords are enough to fend off the number of folks that were to come upon them. So what does He mean? The reason given in the passage for this exchange is so that the scripture will be fulfilled that says, "And he was numbered with the trangressors." (Is. 53:12) My assumption, then, is that the possession of swords is part of the fulfillment of this word, as are the other instructions: take a moneybag and a knapsack.
So the only plausible explanation I can come up with is that the disciples were supposed to have the swords as a symbol of the fact that they were soon to be seen as transgressors among the people of Judea. Before this, they had been able to "depend on the kindness of strangers." (Said with a southern drawl--isn't that a quote from some old movie? See Luke 10) Now, they would have to fend for themselves a bit more.......not that God wouldn't provide for them, but they were now in very different circumstances. Since they were seen as criminals, as the scripture foretold, why shouldn't they have swords like criminals? They just weren't supposed to use them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)