John 11:1-44
The Gospel of John is about signs, and of course, the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. I point out in this sermon that the Gospel of John is often divided into two primary sections. First, up through chapter 11 is the Book of Signs and then from chapter 12 on is the Book of the Passion of Jesus. This is an oversimplification in many ways, but still helpful. For example, there is another miracle of Jesus in John 21 and of course the resurrection of Jesus is the most central miracle of all. However, John 21 is obviously a kind of epilogue, balancing the prologue of John 1, and the resurrection of Jesus is of a nature very different from the miracles Jesus preformed on others.
The first chapters record seven miracles that Jesus did, which John calls signs. Signs point to something, and for John, the miracles of Jesus point to His glory. (Link to the sermon power point for more info.) I've always had trouble defining "glory." In the sermon I say that glory is "brightness, splendor, honor and essence." These are the central ideas given by any Greek lexicon. The idea is that the miracles Jesus preforms, at least in the way John is looking at them, reveal something about the splendor and honor and glory of Jesus. In his first chapter, as he is introducing Jesus, John says, "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14)
So each miracle is a window into the true essence of Jesus. Each one points to some truth about his real nature and purpose. Take the time, if you will, to look at each of these seven miracles and ask, "What does this sign teach me about Jesus?" As you seek the meaning of the miracle, pay attention to the context, especially the conversation and teaching that happens as a result of the sign. In the sermon, I mention briefly the relationship of the sign in John 2 and the conversation with Nicodemus in John 3. Here are John's seven signs:
Water to wine, John 2:1-11
Healing the son of a nobleman, John 4:46-50
Healing a lame person by the pool of Bethesda, John 5:1-17
Feeding the multitudes, John 6:1-13
Calming the storm (and walking on water), John 6:13-21
Open the eyes of one born blind, John 9:1-41
Raising Lazarus from the dead, John 11:1-44
After you do this exercise, you might google the seven signs of the Gospel of John and see how others have viewed these miracles. Bible students find different things (not that every one is always right!) and hearing from each other can be a good thing.
Another key to understanding these two primary sections of John can be seen in the use of the word "hour." In the first section, Jesus tries to avoid attention and escapes harm, because his hour had not yet come (see 2:4; 7:20; 8:20). However, in chapter 12, things change and Jesus says his "hour has come" (see also 13:1 and 17:1). The "hour" no doubt is the time for his crucifixion, his passion as we call it, and the latter part of John is all about Jesus preparing his followers for his departure, and then the crucifixion and resurrection, and then Jesus' appearances afterward, leading up to his ascension.
John is a wonderful telling of the life of Jesus and a great piece of finely crafted literature. Study it and you will not be disappointed.
Thanks for digging deeper.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Friends, Do Not Be Afraid
Luke 12:1-12
There are two things I would like to do in this blog. One is to share a personal account of my own struggle with the "yeast of hypocrisy" and the other is to give more background to the Valley of Ben Hinnom and the idol worship of Molek.
First my story. In the sermon I talk about how the fear of what others will say or think about us is the driving force behind hypocrisy. As a young preacher just starting out in church leadership (and I was young, being 19 when I was called to the ministry, 20 when I was licensed and 23 when ordained), I had my own struggle with fear. Ashamedly, I was overly concerned with how people would view me and it impacted how I preached and dressed and lived. I remember one dream I had sometime into my early ministry years. I dreamed that I had made a commitment to be true to the Word of God no matter what others thought. As I recall, I had been reading the journals of Jonathan Edwards, Puritan reformer in New England, in which he talked about his list of life resolutions. The first one was: Resolved to live for Jesus no matter how hard it gets (my paraphrase. Read his list here.) Anyway, in my dream I made this commitment (which was not just a dream, because I had recently responded to an invitation at a crusade and made this very commitment), and as a result, in my dream I saw all my friends walking away from me, and I was all alone.
I woke up a bit shaken. Over the next years as I both matured spiritually and in my own personality (I was a bit of a dweeb way back then), this dream proved itself to be true. I did lose friendships because of stands I took, some of which I see now were more influenced by the people I wanted approval from, than they were by a pure reading of the Word.
As the years unfolded, I grew more and more hungry for the approval of God and less concerned about the approval of others, and that has led to a higher level of authenticity and integrity in my life. But it has come with a price--the price of strained relationships and associations. But living true to oneself and true to what one believes are the purposes of God, is worth any sacrifice one makes. I still do not live this out perfectly--everyone is impacted by the "yeast of hypocrisy" to one degree or another. I continually pray, asking God to show me where I need to be strong and more authentic.
Now Molek.
In the sermon I talk a bit about the history of the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, which encompasses Jerusalem on the West and South sides of the city.
Worship of Molek and the associate child sacrifice was strongly condemned in the Old Testament. Prohibitions exist in the early law codes of Leviticus (18:21 and 20:1-5) and by the prophets, particularly Jeremiah (32:35). However, its presence in such a central place continued to cause trouble for Israel. Molek played a role in the fall of Solomon (1 Kings 11:1-6) and the evil kings Ahaz (2 Chron. 28:1-4) and Manasseh (2 Chron. 33:1-6). Righteous Josiah desecrated the idol of Molek (2 Kings 23:10).
By the time of Jesus, the idol was long gone, but its memory lingered. The Valley of Ben Hinnom, Gehenna in Greek, was now the garbage dump of Jerusalem where a fire burned continuously. This is the image that lies behind the word Hell, as Jesus used it in the Gospels (and James one time in his writing). Here is a list of the references, copied from the Wiki entry for Hinnom:
There are two things I would like to do in this blog. One is to share a personal account of my own struggle with the "yeast of hypocrisy" and the other is to give more background to the Valley of Ben Hinnom and the idol worship of Molek.
First my story. In the sermon I talk about how the fear of what others will say or think about us is the driving force behind hypocrisy. As a young preacher just starting out in church leadership (and I was young, being 19 when I was called to the ministry, 20 when I was licensed and 23 when ordained), I had my own struggle with fear. Ashamedly, I was overly concerned with how people would view me and it impacted how I preached and dressed and lived. I remember one dream I had sometime into my early ministry years. I dreamed that I had made a commitment to be true to the Word of God no matter what others thought. As I recall, I had been reading the journals of Jonathan Edwards, Puritan reformer in New England, in which he talked about his list of life resolutions. The first one was: Resolved to live for Jesus no matter how hard it gets (my paraphrase. Read his list here.) Anyway, in my dream I made this commitment (which was not just a dream, because I had recently responded to an invitation at a crusade and made this very commitment), and as a result, in my dream I saw all my friends walking away from me, and I was all alone.
I woke up a bit shaken. Over the next years as I both matured spiritually and in my own personality (I was a bit of a dweeb way back then), this dream proved itself to be true. I did lose friendships because of stands I took, some of which I see now were more influenced by the people I wanted approval from, than they were by a pure reading of the Word.
As the years unfolded, I grew more and more hungry for the approval of God and less concerned about the approval of others, and that has led to a higher level of authenticity and integrity in my life. But it has come with a price--the price of strained relationships and associations. But living true to oneself and true to what one believes are the purposes of God, is worth any sacrifice one makes. I still do not live this out perfectly--everyone is impacted by the "yeast of hypocrisy" to one degree or another. I continually pray, asking God to show me where I need to be strong and more authentic.
Now Molek.
In the sermon I talk a bit about the history of the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, which encompasses Jerusalem on the West and South sides of the city.
In Old Testament times, the idol to the god Molek was located in the Valley of Hinnom, most likely near its juncture with the Kidron Valley. (Interestingly enough, today at this juncture there is the Greek Orthodox Saint Onuphrius Monastery. I love the way God redeems things!) Molek was one of the gods in the pantheon of Canaanite gods. His worship involved the propitiatory sacrifice of children. Read more about Molek
here.Worship of Molek and the associate child sacrifice was strongly condemned in the Old Testament. Prohibitions exist in the early law codes of Leviticus (18:21 and 20:1-5) and by the prophets, particularly Jeremiah (32:35). However, its presence in such a central place continued to cause trouble for Israel. Molek played a role in the fall of Solomon (1 Kings 11:1-6) and the evil kings Ahaz (2 Chron. 28:1-4) and Manasseh (2 Chron. 33:1-6). Righteous Josiah desecrated the idol of Molek (2 Kings 23:10).
By the time of Jesus, the idol was long gone, but its memory lingered. The Valley of Ben Hinnom, Gehenna in Greek, was now the garbage dump of Jerusalem where a fire burned continuously. This is the image that lies behind the word Hell, as Jesus used it in the Gospels (and James one time in his writing). Here is a list of the references, copied from the Wiki entry for Hinnom:
- Matt.5:22 whoever calls someone "you fool" will be liable to Gehenna.
- Matt.5:29 better to lose one of your members than that your whole body go into Gehenna.
- Matt.5:30 better to lose one of your members than that your whole body go into Gehenna.
- Matt.10:28 rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.
- Matt.18:9 better to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into Gehenna.
- Matt.23:15 Pharisees make a convert twice as much a child of Gehenna as themselves.
- Matt.23:33 to Pharisees: you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to Gehenna?
- Mark 9:43 better to enter life with one hand than with two hands to go to Gehenna.
- Mark 9:45 better to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into Gehenna.
- Mark 9:47 better to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into Gehenna
- Luke 12:5 Fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into Gehenna
- James 3:6 the tongue is set on fire by Gehenna.
Lastly, here is an old artistic rendition of what the idol Molek looked like:
The arched opening at the base is where you built the fire that heated up the bronze idol. Then, if the image on the left side is correct, you threw your child in the fire. If the one on the right is correct, after the arms were glowing red with heat, you placed your child in the idol's arms.
It does not get any more detestable than that.
Thanks for digging deeper.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Friend, Your Sins are Forgiven!
Luke 5:17-26 (Mark 2:1-12) Matthew 18:21-35
Well I'm back from a two week trip to Israel. (View pictures here: Israel Pictures.) It was an awesome trip (my 7th) with some neat new experiences, like snow in Jerusalem. But now I'm back to preaching. While I was off, my colleagues, Jim Carson and Kim Ream, started our Lenten series for 2012. We are calling the series, Jesus, Friend of Sinners, from the reference in Matthew 11:13 and Luke 7:34. What a great title for Jesus. In the biblical account, it was meant in a derogatory way, but we see it differently.
The idea is that during Lent, as we study The Relationship Principles of Jesus in our classes and groups, our sermons will look at the times Jesus referred to people as friends. The first two sermons were Jesus, Friend of Sinners from 7:18-35 and Luke 15:1-31 (preached by Jim Carson) and You are my friends if... from John 15:1-17 and Matthew 21:28-32 (preached by Kim Ream). You can listen to these sermons by following the sermon link to the right of this column.
My sermon today is the third in this series that looks at the times Jesus called someone, friend. Jesus uses the word friend rather frequently. Most often, it occurs in his teaching material, especially in parables. However, there are a handful of times when Jesus addresses someone by calling the person "friend." Here they are: Matthew 26:50 (Judas); Luke 5:20 (friends of the the paralytic who is let down through the roof--today's sermon); Luke 12:4 (disciples); John 15:13-15 (multiple references to his disciples as friends); John 21:5 (his disciples) and John 11:11 (Lazarus).
Today's sermon considers the theme of forgiveness, as Jesus grants it to the paralytic and also heals him.
For further reading, here is a good article from the Mayo Clinic and another one, with multiple questions to explore, from a Christian source.
Thanks for digging deeper.
Well I'm back from a two week trip to Israel. (View pictures here: Israel Pictures.) It was an awesome trip (my 7th) with some neat new experiences, like snow in Jerusalem. But now I'm back to preaching. While I was off, my colleagues, Jim Carson and Kim Ream, started our Lenten series for 2012. We are calling the series, Jesus, Friend of Sinners, from the reference in Matthew 11:13 and Luke 7:34. What a great title for Jesus. In the biblical account, it was meant in a derogatory way, but we see it differently.
The idea is that during Lent, as we study The Relationship Principles of Jesus in our classes and groups, our sermons will look at the times Jesus referred to people as friends. The first two sermons were Jesus, Friend of Sinners from 7:18-35 and Luke 15:1-31 (preached by Jim Carson) and You are my friends if... from John 15:1-17 and Matthew 21:28-32 (preached by Kim Ream). You can listen to these sermons by following the sermon link to the right of this column.
My sermon today is the third in this series that looks at the times Jesus called someone, friend. Jesus uses the word friend rather frequently. Most often, it occurs in his teaching material, especially in parables. However, there are a handful of times when Jesus addresses someone by calling the person "friend." Here they are: Matthew 26:50 (Judas); Luke 5:20 (friends of the the paralytic who is let down through the roof--today's sermon); Luke 12:4 (disciples); John 15:13-15 (multiple references to his disciples as friends); John 21:5 (his disciples) and John 11:11 (Lazarus).
Today's sermon considers the theme of forgiveness, as Jesus grants it to the paralytic and also heals him.
For further reading, here is a good article from the Mayo Clinic and another one, with multiple questions to explore, from a Christian source.
Thanks for digging deeper.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
The Power of Confession
I John 1:1 - 2:2 and James 5:16
This sermon leads into a healing service where people are encouraged to follow the simple directions of James 5:13-16. The sermon, however, focuses not so much on the anointing service and the promise of God to heal, as it does on the power of making confession to God and to each other.
A few weeks ago as the staff at church were working through the chapter on confession in Richard Foster's book, Celebration of Disciple, I was caught by his comment that sometimes we do not find freedom from habitual sin because we fail to confess our sins to each other. He was referring to James 5:16. Not long after that, our Leadership Team was away for a weekend retreat. We had asked Dave Witmer, a local church leader, to come and listen to us and share his evaluation. In the course of our time together, and sort of in passing, Dave mentioned that we "confess to God to be forgiven and to each other to be healed." He was referring to 1 John 1:9 and James 5:16.
I must confess, that even after my nearly 40 years in ministry and having done countless anointing services, this struck me as a new thought--or at least a new insight into an old thought. There is no doubt that as part of the Protestant Church, we have been a bit afraid of the "Confessional." In the Catholic Church, as you may know, times of confession are offered wherein you come to a priest and in the privacy of the confessional booth, share your confession and receive forgiveness. Protestants have reacted to this on a number of levels. One, we do not believe confession must be made to Priest, not that a Priest has any power to grant forgiveness. Secondly, we believe that to "require" confession leads to insincere and spurious confession, which lacks any spiritual benefit.
Unfortunately, by reacting to the formalized confession of the Catholic Church, we lost the power of confession our sins to each other. We emphasize confessing sin to God, but not confessing to each other. We Brethren have held on to this concept through the anointing service. When ever we practice this rite, we are taught to encourage the one receiving it to examine his or her life and make appropriate confession. But I must admit, in my own experience, I have seen so many shallow confessions that I sometimes gloss over this part of the service. I know, shame on me!
What would a Protestant confession look like, especially one in the Anabaptist vein of the church. Let me venture a guess. The power of confession to each other would be taught. People would freely seek out each other, trusted friends, and confess their sin to each other. The friend would pass along from God his promise forgiveness and then walk in relationship with the person as he or she continues to strive to live free from the sin. There would be relationship, friendship, discipleship and accountability in love. It is a beautiful thing.
I know this kind of confession happens more often in the Body of Christ than we realize. It happens in the midst of our groups of people who come together to pray and study; it happens between friends who are pursuing intentional spiritual friendships; and it happens in the home as couples pray for and love each other and as parents train up their children in the Lord.
But it could happen more, and the impact on the Body of Christ would be beautiful. Link here to a short section from the Inter-Varsity New Testament Commentary on James, written by George M. Stulac as he comments on the impact on the church, when people come together in confession and prayer. It is a good read and encouragement
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QfWHRzM0aOzBT2NFvVB2GMXMc1xOBVVrieOabqJwZBI/edit
Thanks for digging deeper.
This sermon leads into a healing service where people are encouraged to follow the simple directions of James 5:13-16. The sermon, however, focuses not so much on the anointing service and the promise of God to heal, as it does on the power of making confession to God and to each other.
A few weeks ago as the staff at church were working through the chapter on confession in Richard Foster's book, Celebration of Disciple, I was caught by his comment that sometimes we do not find freedom from habitual sin because we fail to confess our sins to each other. He was referring to James 5:16. Not long after that, our Leadership Team was away for a weekend retreat. We had asked Dave Witmer, a local church leader, to come and listen to us and share his evaluation. In the course of our time together, and sort of in passing, Dave mentioned that we "confess to God to be forgiven and to each other to be healed." He was referring to 1 John 1:9 and James 5:16.
I must confess, that even after my nearly 40 years in ministry and having done countless anointing services, this struck me as a new thought--or at least a new insight into an old thought. There is no doubt that as part of the Protestant Church, we have been a bit afraid of the "Confessional." In the Catholic Church, as you may know, times of confession are offered wherein you come to a priest and in the privacy of the confessional booth, share your confession and receive forgiveness. Protestants have reacted to this on a number of levels. One, we do not believe confession must be made to Priest, not that a Priest has any power to grant forgiveness. Secondly, we believe that to "require" confession leads to insincere and spurious confession, which lacks any spiritual benefit.
Unfortunately, by reacting to the formalized confession of the Catholic Church, we lost the power of confession our sins to each other. We emphasize confessing sin to God, but not confessing to each other. We Brethren have held on to this concept through the anointing service. When ever we practice this rite, we are taught to encourage the one receiving it to examine his or her life and make appropriate confession. But I must admit, in my own experience, I have seen so many shallow confessions that I sometimes gloss over this part of the service. I know, shame on me!
What would a Protestant confession look like, especially one in the Anabaptist vein of the church. Let me venture a guess. The power of confession to each other would be taught. People would freely seek out each other, trusted friends, and confess their sin to each other. The friend would pass along from God his promise forgiveness and then walk in relationship with the person as he or she continues to strive to live free from the sin. There would be relationship, friendship, discipleship and accountability in love. It is a beautiful thing.
I know this kind of confession happens more often in the Body of Christ than we realize. It happens in the midst of our groups of people who come together to pray and study; it happens between friends who are pursuing intentional spiritual friendships; and it happens in the home as couples pray for and love each other and as parents train up their children in the Lord.
But it could happen more, and the impact on the Body of Christ would be beautiful. Link here to a short section from the Inter-Varsity New Testament Commentary on James, written by George M. Stulac as he comments on the impact on the church, when people come together in confession and prayer. It is a good read and encouragement
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QfWHRzM0aOzBT2NFvVB2GMXMc1xOBVVrieOabqJwZBI/edit
Thanks for digging deeper.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
When Hell Invades Earth
Genesis 6:1-8 and 1 Peter 5:5-8
This is sort of a follow up sermon to last week's sermon, "When Heaven Invades Earth." In this sermon I talk about Satan, who he is, and his methodology in promoting evil throughout the world.
In the sermon, I do not discuss the difficult question of where Satan came from. I'll take a shot at that here.
When the Bible opens in Genesis, Satan is present and active, as seen in the temptation of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 3. So we logically conclude he was here then and thus his origin lies before that event..
The origin of Satan and thus evil are somewhat cloaked in the mysteries of ancient times into which God's revelation of truth has not given clear insight. You can ask "why not?" but only God can answer that one.
Now that said, there may be some glimpses in Scripture. Two Old Testament texts have been seen by some scholars as perhaps giving some insight into the question of where Satan came from. Let me quote here from the Nelson's Bible Dictionary:
"Two Old Testament passages-Isa 14:12-15 and Ezek 28:11-19-furnish a picture of Satan's original condition and the reasons for his loss of that position. These passages were addressed originally to the kings of Babylon and Tyre. But in their long-range implications, many scholars believe, they refer to Satan himself. They tell of an exalted angelic being, one of God's creatures, who became proud and ambitious. He determined to take over the throne of God for himself. But God removed him from his position of great dignity and honor.
"Building upon this foundation, Rev 12 sketches the further stages in Satan's work of evil. In his fall from God's favor, Satan persuaded one third of the angels to join him in his rebellion (Rev 12:3-4)."
(from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Copyright © 1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers)
Take the time to read the Isaiah and Ezekiel passages, and their larger contexts. It does seem to me that the language of these verses "goes beyond" application to the earthly kings to which they are directly addressed. This is a normal way in which Old Testament prophecy works. Most of the passages that we understand as being messianic prophecies in the OT, have first of all an immediate reference and fulfillment, and then also a future and more far reaching one (e.g. the virgin of Isaiah 7:14).
This rebellion of angels in heaven may, in part, lie behind the comment in Jude 6. And in four OT accounts, Satan appears as an angel. Consider Numbers 22, Job 1-1, Zechariah 3 and 1 Chronicles 21 (as it interprets the events of 2 Samuel 24). (The revised International Standard Bible Encyclopedia has an excellent article on Satan which elaborates on these four texts).
What we do know is that Satan is a being of super human powers, but not divine powers. In other words, he is stronger than us but not a strong as God. He is a spirit being who has corralled a host of other spirit being helpers who are subordinate to him. We call them demons. Just as good angels seem to have some kind of leadership structure (angels and archangels and seraphim and cherubim) so too demons have some kind of functional structure (thus Jesus refers to Beelzebub, the prince of demons.) They are given rather free reign to rule the world, as their domain, raking havoc as they will. But even so, they have their powers ultimately limited by God. This is especially true in reference to their affliction of God's people. (My sermon works at these concepts a bit.)
One might ask, "Why would God allow Satan to lead people astray and to afflict the world with so much suffering?" That is not a bad question, for which, unfortunately, we do not have a complete answer. But think about it, what joy would there be in your life if your spouse, or special friend, or kids, only loved you because there were no other options. Not much joy in that. However, when I realize that out of all the possible men my wife could have chosen (and believe me, she had options!), she chose me. Wow! And so it is; God wants us to choose him; not because there were no other options, but rather, to choose him in the midst of man of what appear to be very enticing options.
And that is really the purpose of these two sermons--to help us think about how our choices always reflect which kingdom we are living in--the kingdom of this world, or the Kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ.
Choose wisely.
Thanks for digging deeper
This is sort of a follow up sermon to last week's sermon, "When Heaven Invades Earth." In this sermon I talk about Satan, who he is, and his methodology in promoting evil throughout the world.
In the sermon, I do not discuss the difficult question of where Satan came from. I'll take a shot at that here.
When the Bible opens in Genesis, Satan is present and active, as seen in the temptation of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 3. So we logically conclude he was here then and thus his origin lies before that event..
The origin of Satan and thus evil are somewhat cloaked in the mysteries of ancient times into which God's revelation of truth has not given clear insight. You can ask "why not?" but only God can answer that one.
Now that said, there may be some glimpses in Scripture. Two Old Testament texts have been seen by some scholars as perhaps giving some insight into the question of where Satan came from. Let me quote here from the Nelson's Bible Dictionary:
"Two Old Testament passages-Isa 14:12-15 and Ezek 28:11-19-furnish a picture of Satan's original condition and the reasons for his loss of that position. These passages were addressed originally to the kings of Babylon and Tyre. But in their long-range implications, many scholars believe, they refer to Satan himself. They tell of an exalted angelic being, one of God's creatures, who became proud and ambitious. He determined to take over the throne of God for himself. But God removed him from his position of great dignity and honor.
"Building upon this foundation, Rev 12 sketches the further stages in Satan's work of evil. In his fall from God's favor, Satan persuaded one third of the angels to join him in his rebellion (Rev 12:3-4)."
(from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Copyright © 1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers)
Take the time to read the Isaiah and Ezekiel passages, and their larger contexts. It does seem to me that the language of these verses "goes beyond" application to the earthly kings to which they are directly addressed. This is a normal way in which Old Testament prophecy works. Most of the passages that we understand as being messianic prophecies in the OT, have first of all an immediate reference and fulfillment, and then also a future and more far reaching one (e.g. the virgin of Isaiah 7:14).
This rebellion of angels in heaven may, in part, lie behind the comment in Jude 6. And in four OT accounts, Satan appears as an angel. Consider Numbers 22, Job 1-1, Zechariah 3 and 1 Chronicles 21 (as it interprets the events of 2 Samuel 24). (The revised International Standard Bible Encyclopedia has an excellent article on Satan which elaborates on these four texts).
What we do know is that Satan is a being of super human powers, but not divine powers. In other words, he is stronger than us but not a strong as God. He is a spirit being who has corralled a host of other spirit being helpers who are subordinate to him. We call them demons. Just as good angels seem to have some kind of leadership structure (angels and archangels and seraphim and cherubim) so too demons have some kind of functional structure (thus Jesus refers to Beelzebub, the prince of demons.) They are given rather free reign to rule the world, as their domain, raking havoc as they will. But even so, they have their powers ultimately limited by God. This is especially true in reference to their affliction of God's people. (My sermon works at these concepts a bit.)
One might ask, "Why would God allow Satan to lead people astray and to afflict the world with so much suffering?" That is not a bad question, for which, unfortunately, we do not have a complete answer. But think about it, what joy would there be in your life if your spouse, or special friend, or kids, only loved you because there were no other options. Not much joy in that. However, when I realize that out of all the possible men my wife could have chosen (and believe me, she had options!), she chose me. Wow! And so it is; God wants us to choose him; not because there were no other options, but rather, to choose him in the midst of man of what appear to be very enticing options.
And that is really the purpose of these two sermons--to help us think about how our choices always reflect which kingdom we are living in--the kingdom of this world, or the Kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ.
Choose wisely.
Thanks for digging deeper
Monday, February 6, 2012
When Heaven Invades Earth
Matthew 6:10 and 33, Mark 1:14-15
I am struck by the fact that when Jesus began his ministry, as recorded in each Gospel, his message was "The Kingdom of God has come. Repent and believe the good news." He spent a great deal of time in the Gospels (especially Matthew) explaining what the kingdom of heaven was like (check out all those parables in Matthew 13). And yet, the modern church today says so little about the Kingdom.
First off, we should not get too hung up over the difference between the Kingdom of Heaven (used most often in Matthew) and the Kingdom of God (used mostly in the other Gospels). We are rather sure that Matthew was simply keeping to good Jewish form in not wanting to use the name of God and thus substituted Heaven. The concepts are the same for both phrases in all the Gospels. This can be seen in that the phrases--Kingdom of Heaven and Kingdom of God are used interchangeably. Matthew does use Kingdom of God (4 times: 12:28, 19:24, 21:31, 21:43) and when Matthew uses Kingdom of Heaven, the other Gospels use Kingdom of God. For example, in Matthew Jesus begins preaching by announcing that the Kingdom of Heaven has come (Matt 3:2) but Mark records him as saying that the Kingdom of God has come (Mark 1:15; and also Luke 8:1). So the terms seem to be interchangeable.
(I know it seems like I am making much of this, but a whole system of biblical interpretation has been built around the idea that the two are different.)
Secondly, it can be a bit hard wrapping our heads around this idea because it is rather meta-physical. Jesus was clear that we cannot see the kingdom (Luke 17:21) and John says to perceive of it, one needs to be "born again" (John 3:3). The Kingdom of God does not have geographical boundaries. There is no capitol, at least not here on earth. The Kingdom of God is a reality and exists whenever and wherever anyone crowns God in Christ as Lord and Sovereign of their lives. It is a spiritual reign, not a physical realm.
That said, one might be tempted to say that the Church is the Kingdom of God. The Church both is and is not the Kingdom. Let me try to explain. Scholars often talk about the true, invisible, Church and the physical church. The invisible Church is the collection of all genuine believers in Jesus and the physical church, or the visible one, includes a mixture of genuine believers and those who are attracted to the beauty and activity of the church, but fall short of true belief. Jesus spoke about this in the parable of the Drag Net in Matthew 13:47-52.
The Kingdom of God is the sovereign rule of God when and where ever it exists. The true, invisible, Church is the group of individuals who respond to that rule. So the Kingdom includes the true Church, but is not limited to it. God's coverings rule extends beyond the church.
The real purpose of this sermon is to help us think about choosing to live in the Kingdom by choosing to live by kingdom values. We actually live on the front lines of a battle field in which two sides are warring against each other. This is happening 24/7. Next week I will speak about the converse idea to Heaven Invading Earth--When Hell Invades Earth--and will look a bit at this war. However, being on the front lines, as it were, it is far to easy for us to vacillate from one side to the other.
Lord, help me choose Your Kingdom, Your will, everyday in every way!
Thanks for digging deeper.
I am struck by the fact that when Jesus began his ministry, as recorded in each Gospel, his message was "The Kingdom of God has come. Repent and believe the good news." He spent a great deal of time in the Gospels (especially Matthew) explaining what the kingdom of heaven was like (check out all those parables in Matthew 13). And yet, the modern church today says so little about the Kingdom.
First off, we should not get too hung up over the difference between the Kingdom of Heaven (used most often in Matthew) and the Kingdom of God (used mostly in the other Gospels). We are rather sure that Matthew was simply keeping to good Jewish form in not wanting to use the name of God and thus substituted Heaven. The concepts are the same for both phrases in all the Gospels. This can be seen in that the phrases--Kingdom of Heaven and Kingdom of God are used interchangeably. Matthew does use Kingdom of God (4 times: 12:28, 19:24, 21:31, 21:43) and when Matthew uses Kingdom of Heaven, the other Gospels use Kingdom of God. For example, in Matthew Jesus begins preaching by announcing that the Kingdom of Heaven has come (Matt 3:2) but Mark records him as saying that the Kingdom of God has come (Mark 1:15; and also Luke 8:1). So the terms seem to be interchangeable.
(I know it seems like I am making much of this, but a whole system of biblical interpretation has been built around the idea that the two are different.)
Secondly, it can be a bit hard wrapping our heads around this idea because it is rather meta-physical. Jesus was clear that we cannot see the kingdom (Luke 17:21) and John says to perceive of it, one needs to be "born again" (John 3:3). The Kingdom of God does not have geographical boundaries. There is no capitol, at least not here on earth. The Kingdom of God is a reality and exists whenever and wherever anyone crowns God in Christ as Lord and Sovereign of their lives. It is a spiritual reign, not a physical realm.
That said, one might be tempted to say that the Church is the Kingdom of God. The Church both is and is not the Kingdom. Let me try to explain. Scholars often talk about the true, invisible, Church and the physical church. The invisible Church is the collection of all genuine believers in Jesus and the physical church, or the visible one, includes a mixture of genuine believers and those who are attracted to the beauty and activity of the church, but fall short of true belief. Jesus spoke about this in the parable of the Drag Net in Matthew 13:47-52.
The Kingdom of God is the sovereign rule of God when and where ever it exists. The true, invisible, Church is the group of individuals who respond to that rule. So the Kingdom includes the true Church, but is not limited to it. God's coverings rule extends beyond the church.
The real purpose of this sermon is to help us think about choosing to live in the Kingdom by choosing to live by kingdom values. We actually live on the front lines of a battle field in which two sides are warring against each other. This is happening 24/7. Next week I will speak about the converse idea to Heaven Invading Earth--When Hell Invades Earth--and will look a bit at this war. However, being on the front lines, as it were, it is far to easy for us to vacillate from one side to the other.
Lord, help me choose Your Kingdom, Your will, everyday in every way!
Thanks for digging deeper.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Servant Leadership, Part 2: How to follow well
1 Timothy 5:17-24
As I mentioned in the sermon, when we are discussing what it means to follow well, we enter into some principles that have often been wrongly interpreted and painfully applied.
Basically, the primary principle that governs how we follow those who lead us is submission. On every level of life, the Bible calls us to submit to those who are over us, whether it be our government leaders (elected or otherwise--Romans 13), parents (Ex 20:12 and other places), masters or employers (Eph 6:5 and other places), in marriage (Eph 5:21-22), or to church leaders (Heb 13:7, among others).
This being the case, it is imperative that we understand what it means to submit. I work at that in the sermon, and also mention that submission does not necessarily equate to obedience. We honor God with our primary submission, and we must obey him before man (Acts 5:17-39).
Submission is first and foremost an attitude that governs our life in respect to how we relate to each other--in all human relations. The Greek word which is virtually always translated "submit" or "subject" is hupotasso and is formed from a prefix and main word. The prefix hupo is also a standard preposition in Greek and means under or beneath. The main word, tasso, means "to arrange something in an orderly manner", or "to appoint it to an proper position." As far as I have seen, the word hupostasso is always used in a passive voice, meaning the subject of the verb creates action that flows back on themselves. Thus the frequent translations "subject yourselves" (Rom 10:3; 1 Cor 16:16; Eph 5:21; Col 3:8, etc.)
So the first thing one might notice is that submission is a voluntary act that we do for ourselves. It is a choice we make, not one forced upon us. God asks us to submit ourselves to the powers that be. We do it, because it is the right thing to do and brings with it the fulfillment of God's promises, that flow from our obedience.
Antonyms of submission are concepts like rebellion, disrespect, and disobedience. In the sermon, I work a bit at the importance of living under the authority that God places over us and what happens when we do not. The warning of 1 Samuel 15:23 is chilling: "rebellion is like the sin of divination." How can that be? Divination (attempting to foretell the future via omens and the like) is one of many forms of Spiritualism that when practiced opens up our lives to deeper forms of Satanic involvement. Rebellion does the same thing. Rebellion occurs whenever we belligerently disobey a form of authority under which God calls us to live. This being true, disobedience to authority is a serious issue.
Ephesians 5:21 calls us to submit to one another and suggests that to do so is a part of what it means to be filled with the Holy Spirit. Submission, as I understand it, relates to my attitude, which then impacts my actions. To live in the attitude of submission, means I honor other people, see their importance and respect their value, treating them as I would want to be treated. Submission is the strength to view others as better than ourselves and to bless them and see them prosper. It is to understand that we are a called to serve each other, not to lord it over one another. Submission is the natural outgrowth of true love (1 Cor 13 kind of love).
So the question arises: What do I do when someone, especially someone who is in authority over me, asks me to do something that I believe violates biblical teaching and goes against my conscience? I must obey God rather than man, but I also am not supposed to disobey for fear of losing the protection that God gives me through those over me in authority.
I suggested in my sermon that there are ways to disobey submissively, and there are ways of disobeying rebelliously. It comes down to a matter of the heart. There are a few simple steps we should follow when we find ourselves in a position where we cannot blindly obey someone or some law.
First, we should appeal to the appropriate person/people calling on them to reconsider their decision.
Second, our appeal should be based on the harm that said decision will have on them (our boss, parents, company, church, or whatever). In other words, why is this a bad decision? What will be the consequences?
Third, we should present, if possible, a creative alternative. Sort of a "I cannot do that, but I would do this." During WWI there was no allowance for Conscientious Objectors (CO's) to War in our selective service system. After the war, and as war clouds were again gathering in Europe which eventually led to WWII, representatives from the historic peace churches when to Washington. They effectively said, "To not have some way of honoring CO's is to deny the principles upon which or Constitution is built. To keep on this way harms who we are as a people." They also presented an creative alternative. It is called, guess what, "Alternative Service." They basically said, "we cannot take human life for any reason, but we will serve our country in non-violent ways." The government heard their appeal, recognized the fundamental correctness of it, accepted their creative alternative, and thus many people have been able to save their conscience and serve their country.
Fourth, if all this is to no avail, we must be true to our understanding of what is right, even if it means we disobey those over us. If we need to disobey, we do so carefully, prayerfully and submissively. In other words, we do not rise up in rebellion, but rather firmly resist. We accept the consequences of our choice to obey God rather than man. We do not run from it. (Of course, we make use of every honorable way to escape pain and death. Paul was quick to call upon his rights as a Roman citizen. Acts 22:22-29) That means we may lose our job, our home or our lives. But we will not lose our honor.
As I write this, I see Martin Luther standing in the courtyard before the judges at his inquisition, declaring "Here I stand, I can stand nowhere else. God help me." I see Rosa Parks taking a seat in the front of the bus. I see Nelson Mandela writhing in jail for 20 odd years because he would not submit to the yoke of Apartheid. I see my wife's ancestor in the tower prison in Basel Switzerland because he chose adult baptism.
God grant to me and to you, the grace to be honorable in both our submission and, when necessary, our disobedience.
Thanks for digging deeper.
As I mentioned in the sermon, when we are discussing what it means to follow well, we enter into some principles that have often been wrongly interpreted and painfully applied.
Basically, the primary principle that governs how we follow those who lead us is submission. On every level of life, the Bible calls us to submit to those who are over us, whether it be our government leaders (elected or otherwise--Romans 13), parents (Ex 20:12 and other places), masters or employers (Eph 6:5 and other places), in marriage (Eph 5:21-22), or to church leaders (Heb 13:7, among others).
This being the case, it is imperative that we understand what it means to submit. I work at that in the sermon, and also mention that submission does not necessarily equate to obedience. We honor God with our primary submission, and we must obey him before man (Acts 5:17-39).
Submission is first and foremost an attitude that governs our life in respect to how we relate to each other--in all human relations. The Greek word which is virtually always translated "submit" or "subject" is hupotasso and is formed from a prefix and main word. The prefix hupo is also a standard preposition in Greek and means under or beneath. The main word, tasso, means "to arrange something in an orderly manner", or "to appoint it to an proper position." As far as I have seen, the word hupostasso is always used in a passive voice, meaning the subject of the verb creates action that flows back on themselves. Thus the frequent translations "subject yourselves" (Rom 10:3; 1 Cor 16:16; Eph 5:21; Col 3:8, etc.)
So the first thing one might notice is that submission is a voluntary act that we do for ourselves. It is a choice we make, not one forced upon us. God asks us to submit ourselves to the powers that be. We do it, because it is the right thing to do and brings with it the fulfillment of God's promises, that flow from our obedience.
Antonyms of submission are concepts like rebellion, disrespect, and disobedience. In the sermon, I work a bit at the importance of living under the authority that God places over us and what happens when we do not. The warning of 1 Samuel 15:23 is chilling: "rebellion is like the sin of divination." How can that be? Divination (attempting to foretell the future via omens and the like) is one of many forms of Spiritualism that when practiced opens up our lives to deeper forms of Satanic involvement. Rebellion does the same thing. Rebellion occurs whenever we belligerently disobey a form of authority under which God calls us to live. This being true, disobedience to authority is a serious issue.
Ephesians 5:21 calls us to submit to one another and suggests that to do so is a part of what it means to be filled with the Holy Spirit. Submission, as I understand it, relates to my attitude, which then impacts my actions. To live in the attitude of submission, means I honor other people, see their importance and respect their value, treating them as I would want to be treated. Submission is the strength to view others as better than ourselves and to bless them and see them prosper. It is to understand that we are a called to serve each other, not to lord it over one another. Submission is the natural outgrowth of true love (1 Cor 13 kind of love).
So the question arises: What do I do when someone, especially someone who is in authority over me, asks me to do something that I believe violates biblical teaching and goes against my conscience? I must obey God rather than man, but I also am not supposed to disobey for fear of losing the protection that God gives me through those over me in authority.
I suggested in my sermon that there are ways to disobey submissively, and there are ways of disobeying rebelliously. It comes down to a matter of the heart. There are a few simple steps we should follow when we find ourselves in a position where we cannot blindly obey someone or some law.
First, we should appeal to the appropriate person/people calling on them to reconsider their decision.
Second, our appeal should be based on the harm that said decision will have on them (our boss, parents, company, church, or whatever). In other words, why is this a bad decision? What will be the consequences?
Third, we should present, if possible, a creative alternative. Sort of a "I cannot do that, but I would do this." During WWI there was no allowance for Conscientious Objectors (CO's) to War in our selective service system. After the war, and as war clouds were again gathering in Europe which eventually led to WWII, representatives from the historic peace churches when to Washington. They effectively said, "To not have some way of honoring CO's is to deny the principles upon which or Constitution is built. To keep on this way harms who we are as a people." They also presented an creative alternative. It is called, guess what, "Alternative Service." They basically said, "we cannot take human life for any reason, but we will serve our country in non-violent ways." The government heard their appeal, recognized the fundamental correctness of it, accepted their creative alternative, and thus many people have been able to save their conscience and serve their country.
Fourth, if all this is to no avail, we must be true to our understanding of what is right, even if it means we disobey those over us. If we need to disobey, we do so carefully, prayerfully and submissively. In other words, we do not rise up in rebellion, but rather firmly resist. We accept the consequences of our choice to obey God rather than man. We do not run from it. (Of course, we make use of every honorable way to escape pain and death. Paul was quick to call upon his rights as a Roman citizen. Acts 22:22-29) That means we may lose our job, our home or our lives. But we will not lose our honor.
As I write this, I see Martin Luther standing in the courtyard before the judges at his inquisition, declaring "Here I stand, I can stand nowhere else. God help me." I see Rosa Parks taking a seat in the front of the bus. I see Nelson Mandela writhing in jail for 20 odd years because he would not submit to the yoke of Apartheid. I see my wife's ancestor in the tower prison in Basel Switzerland because he chose adult baptism.
God grant to me and to you, the grace to be honorable in both our submission and, when necessary, our disobedience.
Thanks for digging deeper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)