LISTEN to BLACK MAN THINKIN’


Are You Willing to Act?

It was Passover in Jerusalem, a festive time for Jews, and one of great preparation for remembering God’s liberating Israel from bondage. There was plenty of activity and good spirits in the city, and there was likely no more festive and active place than the Temple of the Living God. However, not everyone was happy:

    John 2:14-17 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: (15) And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables; (16) And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise. (17) And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.

Righteousness has a reputation for being gentle, caring, and a danger to no one. However, seemingly unprovoked, the most righteous man fashioned a Roman implement of corporal punishment and went off on the people in God’s Temple…as they prepared for Passover. This does not square with the perception many have of Jesus; there is a broad perception of Jesus as someone who would not hurt a fly. After all, it is written of Him:

    Isaiah 42:1-3 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. (2) He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. (3) A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth.

Yet, there He is, whip in hand, turning over tables, scattering money, and running folks out. Was Jesus being righteous? Could this actually be righteousness? Of course, the answer to both questions is “Yes.” In fact, it was a willingness to act forcefully on behalf of righteousness. Of course, Jesus is a special case, as human beings go; He did things in the name of righteousness that would be inappropriate for others to even consider…

Oh really?

    Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth. (Numbers 12:3) That is definitely a Christ-like quality, as the Lord Himself said, Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. (Matthew 11:29)

So, Moses was meek, even before Christ had come. And the meek are hardly harsh or forceful, right? There is that Christ-in-the-Temple incident, but Jesus of Nazareth was God manifest in flesh, a little indignation is forgivable; others should never represent God in that way, right?

    Exodus 32:19-20, 26 – 28 And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses’ anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount. (20) And he took the calf which they had made, and burnt it in the fire, and ground it to powder, and strawed it upon the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it…Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD’S side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him. (27) And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour. (28) And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

That sounds like pretty harsh and forceful action, in pursuit of righteousness, from the meekest man on earth, does it not? Now, I can hear the objection, “Well, that was BEFORE Numbers 12; Moses did not have his act together yet. After he walked with the Lord awhile longer, THAT’S when he became so meek.” Well, only if Numbers, Chapter 12 occurs AFTER Numbers, Chapter 20:

    Numbers 20:7-12 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, (8) Take the rod, and gather thou the assembly together, thou, and Aaron thy brother, and speak ye unto the rock before their eyes; and it shall give forth his water, and thou shalt bring forth to them water out of the rock: so thou shalt give the congregation and their beasts drink. (9) And Moses took the rod from before the LORD, as he commanded him. (10) And Moses and Aaron gathered the congregation together before the rock, and he said unto them, Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock? (11) And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock twice: and the water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their beasts also. (12) And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.

Moses displayed the same “anger management” problem in the wilderness that Jesus of Nazareth showed in the Temple. Or was it simply a willingness to act for righteousness, even when the action was harsh?

There are numerous examples in scripture of righteousness that many would consider harsh, cruel, or injurious; they are righteous nonetheless, because righteousness is not determined by how it impacts people’s thinking, but by whether it adheres to God’s standards. Therefore, the prophet wrote, But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away (Isaiah 64:6) and, For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55:8-9)

So, the question, the only question, for the saint of God, is whether he is willing to act in righteousness, even when such actions bring harm? Moses did so, as did Christ. Recall what happened in the time of Ezra:

    Ezra 10:1-4, 9-14 While Ezra prayed and made confession, weeping and casting himself down before the house of God, a very great assembly of men, women, and children, gathered to him out of Israel, for the people wept bitterly. (2) And Shecaniah the son of Jehiel, of the sons of Elam, addressed Ezra: “We have broken faith with our God and have married foreign women from the peoples of the land, but even now there is hope for Israel in spite of this. (3) Therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all these wives and their children, according to the counsel of my lord and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God, and let it be done according to the Law. (4) Arise, for it is your task, and we are with you; be strong and do it…” (9) Then all the men of Judah and Benjamin assembled at Jerusalem within the three days. It was the ninth month, on the twentieth day of the month. And all the people sat in the open square before the house of God, trembling because of this matter and because of the heavy rain. (10) And Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, “You have broken faith and married foreign women, and so increased the guilt of Israel. (11) Now then make confession to the LORD, the God of your fathers and do his will. Separate yourselves from the peoples of the land and from the foreign wives.” (12) Then all the assembly answered with a loud voice, “It is so; we must do as you have said. (13) But the people are many, and it is a time of heavy rain; we cannot stand in the open. Nor is this a task for one day or for two, for we have greatly transgressed in this matter. (14) Let our officials stand for the whole assembly. Let all in our cities who have taken foreign wives come at appointed times, and with them the elders and judges of every city, until the fierce wrath of our God over this matter is turned away from us.”

Could righteousness require family break-ups and sanction divorce, something God hates (Malachi 2:16)? While many see God hating divorce yet compelling His people to divorce wives and abandon children as contradictory, I do not. God had, long before, forbid such unions for Israel (Exodus 34:10-17, Deuteronomy 7:3-4). Ezra, along with the Israelites, was willing to act for righteousness, despite the pain it would cause. Most people, including those in the church, would think the right way to address the matter would be to leave things alone. After all, the people had acknowledged their guilt, and were truly sorry. They would prefer that to the way of God chosen by Ezra and Israel. To those having that view, that God’s way somehow was not the best approach, God has a reply:

    Ezekiel 18:25-27 Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal? (26) When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. (27) Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.

The trouble is, many of us would like for God to amend His decrees to make our unrighteous choices at least acceptable, because we see no problem with our decisions. This is especially true if making things right with God is painful for us or those for whom we care. We object: “How insensitive of God to ignore our pain and demand we do hurtful things to be righteous. A loving God should never bring pain upon His children in pursuit of what is right. That’s too narrow a view and has no compassion. With God, nothing is impossible; there is always another way!”

Well, not exactly:

    Mark 14:35-36 And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. (36) And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.

If the Son of God was unable to alter what God required for Him to do in pursuit of righteousness, though it meant excruciating pain and temporary alienation for Him, should anyone believe that God will change the requirements of righteousness for them?

Correcting our unrighteousness requires no action on God’s part; He has already done all to pave the way to heaven. However, there remain some things for us to do:

    1 Corinthians 5:1-5 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife. (2) And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. (3) For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, (4) In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, (5) To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
    Isaiah 1:16-17 Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; (17) Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.
    2 Corinthians 6:17-18 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, (18) And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
    John 5:14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.

God’s righteousness will require that people do things they would rather not do, as Simon Peter learned from the resurrected Christ, John 21:18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. When all is said and done, there are only two responses:

    Acts 21:10-14 And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus. (11) And when he was come unto us, he took Paul’s girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles. (12) And when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem. (13) Then Paul answered, What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus. (14) And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done.

Or,

    2 Timothy 4:10 For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia.

Again, the question, the only question, for the person who belongs to God, is whether he is willing to act in righteousness, whatever that may require. For those who seek compassion for the flesh, they should remember that saving the soul will always be more compassionate than sparing the flesh any pain.

The “Editors” Are At It Again

Periodically, the modern equivalent of the moneychangers Christ drove from the Temple set up shop in the marketplace of ideas, pushing some odd notion and finding isolated scriptures to support their point.

This past week, a trio of Iowa-based religious scholars published an op-ed, reminding readers that despite popular opinion, the Bible does not simply define marriage as between one man and one woman.

Turns out, their agenda item is to weigh in on the subject of marriage equality. While it may not expressly be the editorialists’ aim, the aim of many citing the editorial is clear: to use scripture to argue against the idea that homosexual marriage has any biblical opposition.

The citers’ argument is a bit roundabout, challenging the idea that the Bible teaches marriage is always a one man, one woman proposition. After successfully disputing that idea (and, I believe, they were successful), they, in effect argue that, since God does not limit marriage to one man and one woman, how can one conclude that He limits marriage to two people of opposite genders?

Sigh…

To support this assertion, they point out that the Bible does not condemn polygamy. Indeed it does not; rather, it teaches that those who would have leadership positions in the Church of Christ should have a monogamous marriage:

Titus 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach

1 Timothy 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Even those who would be recognized as widows were to have had a monogamous marriage, 1 Timothy 5:9 Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man.

To be exact, the Bible does not say a man cannot have more than one wife, provided he is not seeking to serve in a leadership role. The writers also, and correctly, cite the polygamy of Abraham and David, whom God favored and blessed. They could have included Israel, Elkanah (the father of Samuel), Solomon (whose wives numbered in the hundreds), and others. The point of course is that polygamy is more of a social than a moral issue. That is a difficult assertion with which to disagree.

The editorial writers went on to state, among other things, that Jesus encouraged self-castration, using this verse:
Matthew 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Personally, I don’t quite see how stating what some have chosen to do, followed by saying, in effect, “If that’s you, then go for it; if not, then leave it alone”, qualifies as encouragement.

They also revive the worn, torn argument that the Bible teaches against interracial marriage:

Ezra 10:2-11 And Shechaniah the son of Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam, answered and said unto Ezra, We have trespassed against our God, and have taken strange wives of the people of the land: yet now there is hope in Israel concerning this thing. (3) Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law. (4) Arise; for this matter belongeth unto thee: we also will be with thee: be of good courage, and do it. (5) Then arose Ezra, and made the chief priests, the Levites, and all Israel, to swear that they should do according to this word. And they sware. (6) Then Ezra rose up from before the house of God, and went into the chamber of Johanan the son of Eliashib: and when he came thither, he did eat no bread, nor drink water: for he mourned because of the transgression of them that had been carried away. (7) And they made proclamation throughout Judah and Jerusalem unto all the children of the captivity, that they should gather themselves together unto Jerusalem; (8) And that whosoever would not come within three days, according to the counsel of the princes and the elders, all his substance should be forfeited, and himself separated from the congregation of those that had been carried away. (9) Then all the men of Judah and Benjamin gathered themselves together unto Jerusalem within three days. It was the ninth month, on the twentieth day of the month; and all the people sat in the street of the house of God, trembling because of this matter, and for the great rain. (10) And Ezra the priest stood up, and said unto them, Ye have transgressed, and have taken strange wives, to increase the trespass of Israel. (11) Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives.

However, if that is the case, then why did God have no problem with the marriage of Joseph (to an Egyptian), or of Moses (to an Ethiopian)? Then there is Song of Solomon, the Bible book devoted to Solomon’s love for his black wife who was not a Hebrew. The idea that God had a problem with “race-mixing” is, therefore, illogical on its face. Recall, Paul’s words to those at Mar’s Hill:

Acts 17:24-26 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; (25) Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; (26) And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation

If all men came from one man, indeed from one blood, then what “races” are there? Can there really be more than one race in the view of Him Who created all men from one man? The simple truth is that God’s prohibition against inter-marriage was not a matter of trying to keep races pure, but of trying to keep faith from being tainted:

Deuteronomy 7:3-4 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. (4) For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.

So, playing the race card, when discussing marriage and the Bible, is more than a little intellectually dishonest.

The editorialists concede that it is not accurate to state that the Bible allows for homosexual marriage, and further conclude that the Bible is not hard over on marriage being a “one-on-one” proposition. Again, those two ideas are difficult to dispute. However, they end by warning against the use of “ancient texts” to regulate modern ethics and morals, when those texts “endorse” practices that most Christians would condemn today.

Of course, this is a nod to the idea that ethics and morals are man-created and, therefore, subject to human revision once the original documentation becomes old or out of fashion. And this opens the doors for those who would promote consensual sodomy as something with which the Bible has no problem or does not speak against. One of the editorialists is quoted as saying, “[Anyone who argues that] the Bible speaks plainly on one issue, especially something as complicated as marriage … haven’t take[n] the time to read all of it.”

Indeed.

How these learned men missed Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them, or:

Romans 1:25-28 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. (26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: (27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. (28) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient

The simple test of scriptural truth remains: if you take a position, concluding what the Bible represents on any issue, and that position fails to harmonize with all of scripture, then that position is not what the Bible teaches.

I personally believe heaven chuckles whenever the term “marriage equality” rises higher than the cloud layer, especially when used to validate the practice of homosexuality. However, that is because heaven is governed by the one who says, “I am the Lord. I change not…” Unfortunately, under the sun, there is a disturbing lack of resoluteness, which those who oppose God consistently seek to exploit – and every challenge resonates, to some degree, with some soul who is lukewarm toward God’s word.

This challenge is no different. The argument is, and remains, flawed, hilariously so, yet it will sway some from a steadfast position to a more “enlightened” point of view…which is why it will be used again. Can only hope the Lord returns before too many yield to arguments designed for itching ears.

What to Do with a Multitude of Sins?

Part of the problem in coming to a proper response may lie in how some prefer to regard Romans 3:23, For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. I find people often tend to see their sins as one, or just a few, transgressions and that, on the whole, they are pretty good people. And some things that Jesus said can reinforce this odd notion among the self-righteous:

Luke 7:39-47 Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner. (40) And Jesus answering said unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he saith, Master, say on. (41) There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty. (42) And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most? (43) Simon answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged. (44) And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head. (45) Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet. (46) My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment. (47) Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.

Those who do not see themselves as having the lifestyle as a prostitute might believe that they are not very sin-burdened sins and, therefore, in a different class from those who are criminals, the immoral or general ne’er-do-wells. They may only owe the fifty pence as opposed to the five hundred. I daresay most of us fall adopt that line of reasoning.

However, that simply means that most of us have forgotten God’s view of His own people (Isaiah 1:4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward.), God’s view of people in general (Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one), and the insight Paul gave into how each man might view himself (Romans 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?)

There are not a few people with a lot of sins, while most have a smaller sin problem, and others deal with not much sin at all. Everyone has a supertanker’s worth of sin, with more added daily, as John wrote, If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. (1 John 1:8)

This does not diminish the Jesus’ Name baptism’s power to remit all sins, nor the power of Christ’s blood to cleanse sins that occur after a man is saved. However, people are sin factories – at any time, every man is awash in a multitude of sins…unless Paul was just out of his mind when he wrote Romans 7…and the cleansing of sin is a continual process. The word and blood of Jesus would not continue to cleanse if no new sin stains did appear.

So, it is not so much that the saint has fewer sins than the unbeliever as it is that the former has subscribed to a divine cleaning service. Of course, the man who embraces God’s Gospel will demonstrate marked changes in behavior and abandon any consistent practice of past misdeeds. However, the saint who believes he has beaten sin is mocked not only by 1 John 1, but also by the apostle Paul, Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. (1 Corinthians 10:12)

I cover all this in preparation to present the following verses as being more applicable to those inside the church as to those without:

James 5:19-20 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; (20) Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

1 Peter 4:8 And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.

The writers of these verses were not addressing the circumstances of those who had not heard the gospel, had not repented from sin, had not received the Jesus’ Name baptism, or had yet to receive the Holy Ghost; they were writing to the saints of God regarding the saints of God. Why does this matter?

Well, for one thing, it should increase humility among the faithful. If more saints are willing to say, “I have a sin issue and it will continue until I see God face-to-face,” then few of them should be on the wrong side of Isaiah 65:5 Which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou. These are a smoke in my nose, a fire that burneth all the day.

For another, those who recognize what it took for God to redeem them, and what is required to keep them, are more amenable to Jude’s admonition, And of some have compassion, making a difference: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh. (Jude 1:22-23), when interacting with the lost or fellow saints.

However, what may matter most is that they get an understanding of how to deal with the sins of the saints, whether theirs, or someone else’s.

Neither James nor Peter wrote of removing the multitude of sins in the verses cited above. The word “hide” in James 5:20, and the word “cover” in 1 Peter 4:18, are the same Greek word, καλύπτω, kaluptō (kal-oop’-to); to cover up (literally or figuratively): – cover, hide.

That is a far cry from what John wrote of in 1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. The word “cleanse” is καθαρίζω, katharizō (kath-ar-id’-zo); to cleanse (literally or figuratively): – (make) clean (-se), purge, purify. It is also different from what Luke described in Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. “Remission” is ἄφεσις, aphesis (af’-es-is); freedom; (figuratively) pardon: – deliverance, forgiveness, liberty, remission.

So, John speaks of purging sins, and Luke wrote of sins being pardoned. However, both James and Peter wrote of hiding sins. There are other points as well: Luke wrote of what is done regarding the sins of the unregenerate, while John, James, and Peter refer to the church’s sins. Also, while John and Luke addressed what only God can do, James and Peter addressed what saints should do.

This should not be confusing, because scripture is clear . However, there is a fair amount of muddled teaching out there. To break this down into more direct language:

    • No one but God can remit, purge, or cleanse sin,
    • The church, in showing compassion to the lost, exposes the sins of the unregenerate, and
    • The church, by loving one another, keeps its own sins from view

To many, those last two points will seem hypocritical. How can one treat sins differently, just because one person says they love God, while another is not part of the church? After all, sin is sin, and no person is better than another, right?

The answer is sin is not treated differently; if a man’s sins are to be removed, then no matter who that person may be, they must be taken to God. However, different people are handled differently getting them to take their sins to the throne. The preaching of the Gospel exposes sin; for the unregenerate, it can lay bare his misdeeds before all, and give him a perspective he did not previously consider. Recall that, on the day of Pentecost, those whose hearts were pricked had not thought themselves in sin regarding Jesus of Nazareth. Suddenly, their sin was being loudly publicized in Jerusalem. It brought them to repentance…at least some of them.

Those who belong to God are handled another way – not because they are better than the unregenerate – but because they are in greater peril:
Hebrews 6:4-6 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, (5) And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, (6) If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

The unregenerate always has a chance; the misguided saint may not. You plead with the enlightened to regain their senses; it is useless to preach to them as though Jesus is a new concept. Exposing them to open ridicule may be the surest way to push them to dig in their heels against God.

Nevertheless, hiding or covering sin does not mean ignoring sin. There is the work of restoration, referred to by James and explained more fully by Paul:

Galatians 6:1-5 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. (2) Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. (3) For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself. (4) But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. (5) For every man shall bear his own burden.

That is hardly looking the other way; it’s simply not making a news item of something that is a family matter, between God and his (wayward) child.
Consequently, it is difficult to explain the popular practice within the church of saints “carpet bombing” one another regarding sins, real or imagined, and broadcasting the faults they see in one another far and wide. However, scripture makes it clear that is not the working of love as described in 1 Corinthians 13.

And, again, neither is ignoring sin the working of love. As Matthew recorded:

Matthew 18:15-17 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. (16) But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. (17) And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

When dealing with the multitude of sins, remember that you are dealing, primarily, with those who know God. What is paramount is to get them back to God and to separate them from their sins. Only God can perform the separation, but it is up to His other children to encourage the errant one to bring what must be purged to God, and not to make sin a public affair while that most private transaction occurs.

The Problem with Government

Government is failing; failing in its responsibilities to its citizens, and failing to take responsibility for its shortcomings. Whether the failure to safeguard (or even allow) freedoms or liberties, the failure to protect private property, or the failure to protect life and limb, government is being exposed as unable to deliver on promises it makes to those who live under its rule.
Nevertheless, mankind continues their love affair with government. Having deemed it necessary, they endure government abuses…and even pay for the “privilege”…with seemingly no concern for its costs, economic or otherwise.

This is not about any political party or organization. Nor is it about any particular system, capitalism, communism, socialism, etc. This is about human nature or the design of man; the simple truth is that man was never intended to be governed by another man.

Now we witness governments under-performing everywhere. The US is troubled; a growing government has put its citizens’ liberties and welfare in decline. Europe abandoned many liberties for the “safety” of the state long ago. Now, as economic turmoil continues unabated, governments there are further imposing themselves upon their people. The Arab Spring, which many hailed as a democracy movement across North Africa and the Persian Gulf, has not been a move away from dictatorships and totalitarian control.
As governments fail, in so many ways and in so many countries, it amazes me that so many people miss a clear thread in scripture: all human government is a departure from God’s plan for man, and an assault upon God’s design of man.

The first man, Adam, answered only to God. Indeed, it was as much an interaction between friends, with God coming to the Garden in the cool of the day to enjoy the man’s fellowship, as a superior-subordinate arrangement. In the absence of sin, God imposed no rule upon the man, save one, regarding eating of the tree whose fruit unlocked the knowledge of good and evil. With that single, and hardly onerous, exception, Adam was free to do as he pleased. Then he fell.

Adam was ensnared by sin; attaining the knowledge of good and evil made him subject to his own conscience. However, he was still not subject to another human being. In response to sin’s arrival, God instituted an order, applicable to marriage (Genesis 3:16) The wife became subject to the man for whom she was created, yet God demanded no other superior-subordinate associations for mankind.

While sin changed man’s relationship with God, it did not change man’s nature. Man was created an innocent ruler, with dominion over the earth’s animal and the planet itself, accountable only to God. When Adam forfeited his innocence, God did not then make him a slave; each man subject to his own conscience. Unfortunately, that did not work out well (Genesis 6:5-6) God determined to destroy man, but not completely: Noah, a descendant of Adam, found grace in the eyes of the Lord.

When the floodwaters receded, God did not start mankind over with a new group that would readily submit to human rule. God remained true to the idea that man was answerable to Him alone – not another man – by repopulating the earth with people descended from Adam.

However, men became uncomfortable with that idea. If you know much about Nimrod, then you will understand that organized rebellion against God, in the form of human government, likely began with him. There is no mention, in scripture, of a king prior to Nimrod’s appearance in Genesis 10. While it requires external reading to understand how evil his influence may have been, the proof of that influence appears in the following chapter (Genesis 11:1-4).

God desired that the whole earth be inhabited by mankind. I do not believe God has a problem with men forming societies and partnering, one with another, to accomplish any purpose that is consistent with His purposes for man. However, that is not what went on here. Instead of wanting to be called by God’s name in all the earth, man wanted to be called by a name of their own choosing in one part of the earth. The confusion of languages once again made each man more accountable to God, as he could no longer communicate with his fellow. It also made them more compliant to populating the whole earth, but that did not kill off human government: by the time God called Abram, there were many kings on the earth. Mankind had nearly given themselves over to the notion of being ruled by other men.

As an aside, has anyone noticed that were no kings are (euphemistic term for any form of human government), it is exceedingly difficult to find any wars? That is likely the subject of another post.

A notable exception to the mad rush to humans ruling humans was the nation Israel. Not that Israel had no societal hierarchy, or governing practices; indeed, the Law of Moses was intended to keep things in check. However, the Law of Moses was not human, either in nature or origin. And, as was written at the close of the book of Judges (Judges 21:25). Translation: all remained answerable to God, via their own conscience; external leadership was not the rule, per se.

Let me be clear: Israel always had leaders, beginning with Moses and Aaron who led them out of Egypt. However, compliance with God’s laws was different. First of all, it was voluntary; no police force and DA checked the people to enforce the 10 Commandments. Matters usually became issue for Law when those involved could not handle it on their own, and sought help. In other words, they would take their troubles to the priests; the priests did not go looking for the peoples’ troubles.

And so it went until the end of Samuel’s days, when Israel made its demand (1 Samuel 8:5), and Samuel described to them what that would mean (1 Samuel 8:11-18). These warnings made no difference, as the people showed Samuel just how much confidence they had lost in God (1 Samuel 8:19-21).

They would rather be as other nations, even having a man to fight their battles, though God had prevailed over men in battle on their behalf. And so the subjugation of man to man was complete, as God’s people abandoned the true King to pledge loyalty to one never intended to rule.

Again. Let me be clear: the problem with government is that it places those not designed for subjugation in the care of those never intended to rule. Consequently, human government will always create the problem the apostles faced in Jerusalem (Acts 5:27-29). Unfortunately, men often bend to the will of government, which lacks both patience and compassion, and seek a less stressful moment to bend their will to God. What is more, human government has no problem punishing those who will not put allegiance to them first, even if the only One above government, in the eyes of those the government would punish, is God (Hebrews 11:35-39).

I recognize the Romans 11 crowd will be out on this, citing that those in governmental authority are put there by God, and they are correct. However, in the same way God gave in to man’s insistence on getting a divorce when hearts were hardened against spousal reconciliation, He similarly acquiesced regarding human government. However, the same is true of human government as is true of divorce, “…but from the beginning it was not so.” (Matthew 19:8)

Those things of which Samuel warned Israel are now upon us even more heavily than the seer would have imagined. It is the fact that we have strayed so far from what God intended, that some have great difficulty understanding, after receiving salvation, with whom their allegiance should lie.

Those who should never rule another have subjugated us all. Men were never intended to rule other men, and they fare quite poorly in the task. Though we are charged with following the laws of the land, we must never forget that this is not the land we were promised.

I Will Not Sacrifice What Costs Me Nothing

Categories: ... 'bout Faith
Tags: No Tags
Comments: Comments Off
Published on: September 30, 2012

What, in your view, is a sacrifice? Is it a tithe, or an offering? Is it a shout or a testimony? Is it the giving of time or talent? I have seen all these things in the church; I have done all these in my church. I can attest that any of these things can be a sacrifice; I am also a witness that none of them necessarily are sacrifices. The issue is the cost to the one who “sacrifices.”

Regarding sacrifices, the question is not “What did you give?” but rather “What did you give up?” Recall this:

Mark 12:41-44 KJV And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much. (42) And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. (43) And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: (44) For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.

Above, the one who gave the least was the only one who made a sacrifice.

As as aside, I point out that some treat sacrificial offerings to God as a payment that affords them a free sin pass. Some believe that a sacrifice can divert God’s attention while they ponder doing what they know would offend Him. Others, believe God is appeased with a sacrifice, consistent to what appears in the Old Testament

However, each of those views is at least somewhat flawed. There is no sacrifice a man can offer and “bank” against sins he has yet to commit; there is no “pre-payment” for sin. Also, God cannot be bribed into looking the other way while a man sin; there is no “sin pass”. Finally, while the blood sacrifices of Temple worship could cover sin, it only did so for those whose sin was not intentional.

Without the right attitude toward sin, a material sacrifice is nothing more than giving stuff away. It is imperative that no man forget, The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. (Psalms 51:17 KJV)

A sacrifice should be uncomfortable to give, acknowledging the discomfort any transgression of His word causes God. However, no one should imagine that a sacrifice, in and of itself, no matter how painful it is to give, will make matters right with God. If a man allows his sin, and his sacrifices for them, to become routine, then he will likely hear what God told Israel:

Isaiah 1:11-14 KJV To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. (12) When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? (13) Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. (14) Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.

When God questions the purpose of gifts given to Him, something has gone wrong. When God calls the religious activities of His people iniquity, there is clearly a problem. Simply put, God sees the sacrifice as not having a high enough cost to the one offering it. Of course, I can already here the preemptive protests: “Well, at my church, the Spirit is so high when we worship, we can tell that God is pleased!” “Our praise is so strong that you can feel the Lord’s presence – you know He dwells in the midst of praise!”

To that, I say: the Lord’s presence does not always show the Lord’s pleasure. Sometimes, the Lord appears, not because He is pleased, but because He wants an explanation or, worse, because He is angry. It is as important WHY the Lord appears as it is THAT He appears. Just ask Moses’ sister:

Numbers 12:4-10 KJV And the LORD spake suddenly unto Moses, and unto Aaron, and unto Miriam, Come out ye three unto the tabernacle of the congregation. And they three came out. (5) And the LORD came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam: and they both came forth. (6) And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. (7) My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. (8) With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses? (9) And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them; and he departed. (10) And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, she was leprous.

But I digress – back to the topic.

When a man offers anything to the Lord, it is the Lord’s decision whether the offering is an acceptable sacrifice:

1 Samuel 15:22-23 KJV And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. (23) For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

God desires the sacrifices He prescribes, not simply what people are willing to offer. Obedience, an acceptable and prescribed sacrifice, has a high cost – a man’s will is precious to him. To heed God’s word is also an expensive sacrifice, costing a man his unfettered ability to rule himself. Not only are these sacrifices very expensive, they are also more personal items than a ram, goat, bull, or a check. When these are given to God, God is receiving a part of the person, not just something that was in their possession.

But there is another issue here. Saul wanted to sacrifice to God things he should never have had – the belongings of the Amalekites. The strange thing to me is, since God had already commanded that those things be destroyed, that Saul would believe God would accept them as sacrifices.

What seems valuable to you is not always valuable to God, and He may not accept it if offered. God wants YOUR good things as sacrifices, not what you’ve stumbled upon that belonged to someone else. I think of the person who finds money on the street and, instead of trying to return it to the rightful owner, seeks instead to put it in an offering envelope or, worse yet, seeks to give all or part of it as a tithe. This should never be:

2 Samuel 24:22-24 KJV And Araunah said unto David, Let my lord the king take and offer up what seemeth good unto him: behold, here be oxen for burnt sacrifice, and threshing instruments and other instruments of the oxen for wood. (23) All these things did Araunah, as a king, give unto the king. And Araunah said unto the king, The LORD thy God accept thee. (24) And the king said unto Araunah, Nay; but I will surely buy it of thee at a price: neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the LORD my God of that which doth cost me nothing. So David bought the threshingfloor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver.

The spoils of a war God fought for you, found money, spare time, clothes that no longer fit or were never worn or have fallen out of favor – none of these qualify as sacrifices. What did they cost you? How will you be adversely affected if you give them away?

What must happen, should anyone wish to offer a sacrifice to God, is what they give must impact their lives, not allow it to continue in the same way as it would were nothing given. In the Old Testament, with Israel being a nation of farmers and herders (and there were no John Deere tractors rollin’ through Israel), giving up a healthy, unblemished animal to God was a sacrifice. Instead of getting income, work, or even food from that animal, the owner instead simply watched it go up in smoke. If the sacrifice was to address some transgression, that sin now had a tangible cost.

Sacrificing to God remains an important part of maintaining faith in Him. However, in an increasingly disposable society, finding acceptable material sacrifices is increasingly difficult to do. Still, sacrifices must have a cost to the one offering them; shouts on Sunday, spare time, spare time, or spare change is not always enough. I do not advocate anyone quit their job or give up their car to make a sacrifice worthy of God; if the spirit is not broken and the heart not contrite, then it would be meaningless anyway.

However, when God has moved upon you to sacrifice, it needs to sting down here so you might, Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. (Colossians 3:2 KJV) It needs to be uncomfortable, so that being apart from Christ is too harsh a state in which to remain. It needs to be expensive, so a man can say, without hesitation, that he has placed a greater value on eternal life than the one he lives on the earth. Finally, it needs to be of those things that are truly his, so that the cost of the sacrifice is paid by the one who needs God’s grace, and is acceptable to the One Who is rich in mercy.

How Angry Must You Be To Miss A Miracle?

Categories: ... 'bout Faith
Comments: Comments Off
Published on: September 29, 2012

I daresay this has happened to almost everyone: something God does causes a change in someone or something, and a man doesn’t see that change as God’s handiwork, especially if it goes against a purpose that man has set. Since many of God’s people believe, when they set their mind to something, that they are about their Father’s business, they conclude that opposes their efforts is the work of the devil.

The responses range from “Loose here, Satan” to other, less “spiritual” words or deeds. It is not until after they have allowed emotion, often anger, to run its course, that they see God’s hand:

Numbers 22:15-33 KJV And Balak sent yet again princes, more, and more honourable than they. (16) And they came to Balaam, and said to him, Thus saith Balak the son of Zippor, Let nothing, I pray thee, hinder thee from coming unto me: (17) For I will promote thee unto very great honour, and I will do whatsoever thou sayest unto me: come therefore, I pray thee, curse me this people. (18) And Balaam answered and said unto the servants of Balak, If Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the word of the LORD my God, to do less or more. (19) Now therefore, I pray you, tarry ye also here this night, that I may know what the LORD will say unto me more. (20) And God came unto Balaam at night, and said unto him, If the men come to call thee, rise up, and go with them; but yet the word which I shall say unto thee, that shalt thou do. (21) And Balaam rose up in the morning, and saddled his ass, and went with the princes of Moab. (22) And God’s anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him. (23) And the ass saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and the ass turned aside out of the way, and went into the field: and Balaam smote the ass, to turn her into the way. (24) But the angel of the LORD stood in a path of the vineyards, a wall being on this side, and a wall on that side. (25) And when the ass saw the angel of the LORD, she thrust herself unto the wall, and crushed Balaam’s foot against the wall: and he smote her again. (26) And the angel of the LORD went further, and stood in a narrow place, where was no way to turn either to the right hand or to the left. (27) And when the ass saw the angel of the LORD, she fell down under Balaam: and Balaam’s anger was kindled, and he smote the ass with a staff. (28) And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times? (29) And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee. (30) And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? And he said, Nay. (31) Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and he bowed down his head, and fell flat on his face. (32) And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass these three times? behold, I went out to withstand thee, because thy way is perverse before me: (33) And the ass saw me, and turned from me these three times: unless she had turned from me, surely now also I had slain thee, and saved her alive.

Now, I’ll go out on a limb regarding two things here: 1) Balaam had never struck his donkey before; and 2) the donkey and Balaam did not have conversations “on the regular.” Of course, I could be wrong but, for the purposes of discussion, let’s go with that.

Balaam was so incensed at the donkey’s behavior that when she began to speak to him, he threatened her. For the donkey’s part, her conversation was respectful and reasonable, given that the angel of the Lord stood before her with a drawn sword, and someone out of God’s will sat on her back.

But why does not Balaam immediately ask how it is that his donkey speaks? He was, after all, a prophet of God. Moreover, how is it that someone to whom God speaks does not see angel of the Lord, with sword drawn, the first, second or even the third time?

Balaam’s focus was on doing what God had already forbade, and that robbed him of godly perception. (If that sounds familiar, please do not raise your hand.) A reasonable question would be, “When did God forbid Balaam to do anything?” The answer would be found shortly before the above passage, in verse 12, And God said unto Balaam, Thou shalt not go with them; thou shalt not curse the people: for they are blessed. (Numbers 22:12 KJV)

Now, if Man A is asked to do something by Man B, and God denies Man A permission to do it, then is it reasonable to believe, when Man A later receives the same request from Man B, that God has somehow changed His mind? Is it not written, For I am the Lord, I change not… (Malachi 3:6)? Balaam himself would later state, God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent… (Numbers 23:19) So, how did Balaam get it in his mind that he should go to Balak and do something about which God had already said, “no”?

Perhaps it was the same way Israel determined that a divorce law was good and necessary thing: And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he (Moses) wrote you this precept. (Mark 10:5 KJV). A man’s desire to do as he pleases, regardless of his motivation, and without regard to God’s counsel, can cause God to relent, but it will never cause Him to repent. God may stand aside when a man is bent on doing something wrong, but He will not stand down; He will not change his mind about what the man does, nor will he change or withhold consequence:

Numbers 22:31-35 KJV Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and he bowed down his head, and fell flat on his face. (32) And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass these three times? behold, I went out to withstand thee, because thy way is perverse before me: (33) And the ass saw me, and turned from me these three times: unless she had turned from me, surely now also I had slain thee, and saved her alive. (34) And Balaam said unto the angel of the LORD, I have sinned; for I knew not that thou stoodest in the way against me: now therefore, if it displease thee, I will get me back again. (35) And the angel of the LORD said unto Balaam, Go with the men: but only the word that I shall speak unto thee, that thou shalt speak. So Balaam went with the princes of Balak.

Now, please hear this: Even if God permits a man to go where he wants, that is not to be taken as permission to do as he wants. God was prepared to kill Balaam. But notice the persistent nature of Balaam’s desire, even as he acknowledges he was wrong before God: “IF it displease thee, …”

C’mon, Balaam! Do you really think the angel of the Lord was there, sword drawn, scaring your donkey, and calling your way “perverse” because God was PLEASED? Really?

This is common human behavior. Someone will start doing something they wish that truly offends someone else, and they know it will. Nevertheless, they begin. When they are called on it, they make it as though the problem is that the other party is offended, not that they did anything wrong, and offer to stop. It is bad enough when people do this to each other. Balaam, however, pulled the stunt with God.

Which reveals the second miracle that Balaam missed but, this time, not due to anger – that God’s grace and mercy kept him alive. Not only that, but He also allowed Balaam to continue on the journey. However, if Balaam’s way was perverse before God, then why would God allow the journey to continue?

Because it was not Balaam’s going which was the perversity; it was his motive for going. Balaam went to “make that money, man”, and to do so by speaking as prophecy something God had not said. Peter confirmed this regarding Balaam, Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness (2 Peter 2:15 KJV) That was the perversion, and God had to remind the prophet to Whom his mouth belonged. Was the method dramatic? Perhaps, but that only shows how much God values His word and the souls of His prophets.

But how much do God’s people value God’s word and presence? Is it enough to keep them from ever doing something that offends God? Unfortunately, the answer to that question is no. Perhaps a better questions is this: “What does it take to get a man back in God’s way after he has stepped out of God’s will?”
Whenever a child of God gets sideways with the Father, some poorly conceived reasoning may be involved, but some out of control emotion is always involved, But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. (James 1:14-15 KJV)

Still, how can he be stopped, and made to see God’s good hand before he deals himself a bad hand? This is what it took for Balaam, But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man’s voice forbad the madness of the prophet. (2 Peter 2:16 KJV).

Is that what it might take for you? Maybe your car has to start speaking to you…in tongues…before your emotional lock on doing what God does not want done is picked. Perhaps your health, or that of a loved one, has to be touched before you abandon an emotional mindset and take on a more spiritual mindset. Perhaps you need to be struck blind as was Saul of Tarsus; it was the only way to get him to start pursuing the Lord and stop pursuing the Lord’s people.

It is my hope that no one ever requires such. It is my hope that no emotion would come upon any man so strongly that he would miss a miracle sent to warn him, or need a miracle to restore him to God’s good graces.

Having Obtained Help of God

Categories: ... 'bout Faith
Comments: Comments Off
Published on: September 16, 2012

As I post this, I recognize there are people doing their best against other people and circumstances whose best seem a little better than theirs. That is not just discouraging; it can be debilitating.

There is nothing more humbling than the realization that your best is simply not good enough – not good enough to obtain what you want. Perhaps not even good enough to hold on to what you have. It is even more sobering when what once “got the job done” now can’t even apply for the job.

This is not just about the person who lost a good-paying job to the current economy and all their skills, experiences, and references can’t even secure an interview. There is also the young person who, if they showed up on the first day of any class, then an “A” was guaranteed…but now high school is over and a butt-kicking awaits them in every class. There may be a young mother who figured she had the hang parenting and was eager to have the next child…and now multiple children in diapers and pull-ups has her sleepless and eating strained peas because she’s too tired to cook.

Whether these, or some other, circumstance leaves someone overwhelmed, a word that comes to mind is John 15:4-6.

It does not matter how someone, who once did great things, comes to find themselves doing next to nothing apart from God – whether the rug was pulled out from under them, or they ran so fast that they could not stay on the rug. What matters is, when their best became ineffective, when they found that they could do nothing, whether they realized they were no longer abiding in Christ.

At issue is often a human perspective on progress versus a spiritual journey of progress. A common understanding is this: people grow, mature, and gain and develop skills. As a result, they get more things, hold more influence, and have an increasing cycle of gain, material and otherwise. Indeed, that is the pattern by which many people, in or out of the body of Christ come to lead productive and prosperous lives. However, for anyone believing that is the way things should always occur, I offer a name: Job.

Some may say the rug was pulled out from under Job. I disagree, after considering Job 1:20-22. The rug was pulled out from under Job’s belongings, not the man himself. Job clung to his rug – the name of the Lord.

Which is my point in part: abiding in Christ requires a man hold on to Christ. Had Job abandoned faith because his belongings abandoned him, no help would have come from the throne. Job would have experienced what Matthew later observed when Christ held back good deeds, And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief. (Matthew 13:58 KJV)

Abiding in Christ requires tenacity. The branch that loses, for whatever reason, its connection to the vine does not survive. Similarly, the man who does not cling to Christ will find himself separated from the only help that can truly benefit him. With that thought in mind, consider Romans 8:35-39 carefully.

My first thought is to note all that seeks to separate a man from Christ’s love. A man’s troubles seek to come between a man and the love of God by creating fear, debasement, or pain. They do not relent, nor do they change purpose. Problems do not come to strengthen any man; they come to destroy him. Whether they succeed depends on the divine help a man obtains to withstand the attack. God is eager and willing to help any who call on Him. However, obtaining God’s help is no passive activity:

Psalms 34:4-6 KJV I sought the LORD, and he heard me, and delivered me from all my fears. (5) They looked unto him, and were lightened: and their faces were not ashamed. (6) This poor man cried, and the LORD heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles.

The “waiting whipping boy” will not get help from the Lord. Instead of cowering under the blows of his circumstance, he must venture out and seek God. The “silent sufferer” will not get help from God; when a man is not certain he is hearing from God, he must make sure God hears from him – CRY OUT. God’s man is not some great stone that quietly resists adversity. Rather, The righteous cry, and the LORD heareth, and delivereth them out of all their troubles. (Psalms 34:17 KJV)

Moreover, he will need to seek and cry again, for Many are the afflictions of the righteous: but the LORD delivereth him out of them all. (Psalms 34:19 KJV) The Lord continues to deliver, because the “hits” will “keep on comin’.”

This brings me to Paul’s thorn in 2 Corinthians 12:8-9.

God’s help, even God’s deliverance, does not necessarily end of the struggle. Rather, it is the beginning of His power, countering what troubles His child. As troubles mount, the power resting on a person increases.

We remember with difficulty that, despite how it looked, Christ’s time on the cross was no moment of despair, but one of power. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. (1 Corinthians 1:18 KJV) Power met Christ on the cross, to counter and overcome His trouble. Can any more trouble can mount, upon any man, than to be nailed to a tree and left to die for another’s sin? …But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound. (Romans 5:20) God did not remove the sins from Christ; He helped His Son bear them so they would be abolished upon His death. In the same way, God will not remove trouble from His people; He will help them bear up under troubles until they, like Christ, come home.

This is what to do with help obtained from God: Acts 26:19-22. Continue on the path God has set, no matter the obstacles, no matter the opposition. God’s help overcomes obstacles that a man might continue in the way God chooses for him. It does not come so that a man or woman might turn to the right or left to avoid either this trouble or even the next one. Consider what Paul was able to do with the help obtained of God:

2 Corinthians 11:24-28 KJV (24) Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. (25) Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; (26) In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; (27) In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. (28) Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches.

Whether Paul survived these troubles was less important than the fact that God, by these troubles, heaped the power of Christ upon Paul, and let it rest there, because Paul would not turn from what God had told him to do.

The question often becomes whether a man wants God’s power upon His life, or whether he wants a comfortable life, with or without God’s power. This matters because the power of God is no show horse, abiding upon a man or woman simply to display God’s greatness. God’s power, and the help obtained by it, is a workhorse, transforming those upon whom it rests from people who take comfort in the world into people who take comfort in God.

Having obtained help of God, I continue…despite everything that seeks for me to stop. I continue, moving beyond many things over which I have neither power nor control. I continue, having not seen Christ, but increasing my love for Him. I continue, persuaded that in the Father’s house with many mansions, one waits for me.

I continue, because I have many problems, about which I cry out. Fortunately for me, there is so much God, of Whom I obtain so much help. So also is there help for you.

May God Bless and Help You All.

For Your Hardness of Heart

Categories: ... 'bout Faith
Comments: Comments Off
Published on: September 8, 2012

I recently re-encountered a passage of scripture that has long interested me. This time, however, instead of just treating it as a destination, I began to see it as a door to a more comprehensive understanding, at least for me. The passage is Matthew 19:3-8.

Instead of seeing this as no more than a treatise on marriage, I began to see it as a glimpse into how God deals with human resistance to His will and rejection of His word.

Many still envision God a petulant being that fumes over the daily sins of men, and waits, ready to punish every misguided act. However, here God is willing to set aside a matter that is part of His eternal will for mankind, the permanence of marriage. When it was clear that men would not honor God’s construct, He gave them an easement to keep their offense from ending their fellowship. This was not the only variation given to Israel; the entire system of sacrifice was a way for God to stay connected with man despite his sinfulness. Eventually, that system no longer served God’s purpose, as Hebrews 8:7-8 demonstrates. God tired of making exceptions to the law and replaced it, using the body and blood of His Son. All this was done to accommodate the hardness of man’s heart.

Regarding the Greek word translated ‘hardness of heart’, it appears only three times in the New Testament. The first two occurrences, in Matthew 19 and Mark 10, refer to the origin of Jewish divorce law. The third occurrence, Mark 16:14, refers to something else altogether.

This different application retains a common thread with the divorce references: man’s refusal to accept and comply with the faithful witness they have received about God. It is one thing for a man to no longer want his wife. But to understand that what causes a man to abandon a spouse is similar to what would make him reject the Resurrection moves me to broaden my understanding of how hard heartedness manifests, and to call it out as such, even when some would call it something else, especially when I see the ties between hardness of heart and unbelief.

Consider the man whose desire to see his son delivered stood at odds with having found no help for him in Mark 9:20-24.

The man’s condition is not often discussed as hardness of heart. However, once he admits to unbelief, it is in play. Hardness of heart is a defense mechanism; a man shields himself from emotional and spiritual pain by closing himself off from what hurts. That does explain, perhaps more than some may admit, why people turn off on their marriages; something, which may or may not be caused by their spouse, has become so hurtful that a person shuts down to prevent further pain. Unbelief is also involved, as the person may choose to no longer believe their spouse loves or cares for them.

The man’s case was no different. The normal, even rational, thing to do, about something that destroys peace is to close one’s heart to it, or risk being overcome. In this man’s case, he was well down the path of accepting that his son was beyond help; his heart was hardening against the prospect that relief was possible. However, this was his son; when he heard that there might yet be hope, he sought out Jesus.

The man’s unbelief was the fear to hope; he had been disappointed before. To watch as an intruder into his child’s being tore him, sought to burn and drown him, caused him to foam at the mouth, and to see every effort he made to help his son fails was devastating. To keep his heart at all, it is not surprising that something inside had to shut down so he might continue to function. He was not seeking to disobey God; he had put himself in survival mode.

People believe there is a set amount of disappointment they can take. As they approach that limit, just as people fill and place sand bags to combat a coming flood, they will also harden their hearts to combat the coming disappointment. However, hardened hearts, no matter the reason they become so, are not open to God’s possibilities, which is why, He answereth him, and saith, O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him unto me. (Mark 9:19 KJV)

So, are you bringing your unresolved matters to Christ? Or have you become so fearful of more discouragement and disappointment that your heart has hardened, for protection’s sake, and you are content to keep your situation from Him, in case Jesus can or will do nothing about it? Remember, all things are possible to him that believeth.

Of course this does not mean that there is not outright sinful rebellion behind the hardness of heart of some people. Consider Jeremiah 5:3-4 and Isaiah 1:4-6. Regarding those passages, those of us with a Southern upbringing might say, “Some folk just think fat meat ain’t greasy.” Hardness of heart comes upon those who decide God’s way deserves neither their time nor effort, and make up their minds that they WILL NOT obey God, no matter what God does to them. It is scary to meet someone who would rather go to Hell than do what God requires: maybe they will not forgive a repentant transgressor; perhaps they will not abandon an immoral or illegal livelihood; maybe they have a family or cultural tradition they consider more precious than God or His word. That was Paul’s problem (Acts 9:1-5)

Aside from approving Stephen’s death (Acts 7), there are few mentions of outright pricks that Paul resisted, or kicked against. In my mind’s eye, I can see Saul of Tarsus, being persuaded by Stephen’s testimony before the Jews, right up until Stephen called them all “stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears.” After that, Saul had no problem consenting to Stephen’s death (Acts 7:58). However, after Saul of Tarsus became the apostle Paul, he would write of the mercy that accompanied his conversion (1 Timothy 1:12-16).

I know of two things God will do: First, He will do whatever He must to crack the shell of a hardened heart – do you need to see an “impossible” prayer answered? A front row seat will be available. Do you need to have your earthly possessions removed because you believe you trust more in them than in Him, or believe you accumulate them without His aid? Prepare to apply for unemployment and food stamps. Do you need to be struck blind so that you can finally see Him and commune with Him as He desires? There is yet a road from Jerusalem to Damascus; He is able to either put you on it or bring it to you.

The second thing God is willing to do is never let one whose heart is softened, or even broken, for Him, live a day without the knowledge of his mercy:

2 Peter 3:9 KJV The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

The one who denied Christ three times while Jesus was on trial has a testimony. He, who happily saw Stephen martyred, and even more happily made martyrs of other saints, before he became one himself, has a testimony. Martha and Mary, who had given up hope regarding their brother Lazarus who was three days in his tomb before Jesus arrived, have a testimony.

Each of these overcame hardness of heart, whether caused by the tearing pain of failure and cowardice, the sin of rejecting God’s testimony of Himself in favor of his own testimony about God, or by the response to personal loss.

The hardened heart has chosen to disbelieve that something God said is true. Of course, that is not a good place to be. For it to change, there must first be recognition. But those with hard hearts often don’t recognize what they have done, or the condition in which they reside. In other words, they can’t see it, nor will they often let others describe it to them. However, God is able to hold a mirror before one’s face, one from which they cannot turn away. In it lies the diagnosis and cure for your hardness of heart.

God Bless You All

Get Government Out Of Marriage Before Politics Takes Over…Again.

Politicians and advocates, on both sides, have all had their about same-sex marriage in this election cycle. Now, they have moved on to the coming November referendum on the current administration. That battle is more economic; social issues, apart from Sandra Fluke‘s free birth control, have lost their moment in the campaign spotlight.

In the wake of the latest “debate”, there is a tattered and confused narrative regarding the bedrock institution of any society: marriage. Depending on whom you heed, either the nation is moving inexorably toward “legalizing” homosexual marriage, or 31 US states banning homosexual marriage, either by popular vote or by their legislatures (including California twice and, most recently North Carolina), tell a different story. Adding to the disparate narrative is the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, whereby Congress relieved each state from having to recognize marriages performed outside its borders.

There is adequate information, whether electoral, or legislative, even a presidential weigh-in, for anyone to adopt any position they wish on homosexual marriage and find assurance that their view is…reasonable.

So, while the political class hyperventilates over the coming election, now is an opportunity to make a clear statement about marriage in the US…before there is another Chick-fil-A moment. In the interest of full disclosure, my view of homosexual behavior does not deviate from what appears in the Holy Bible. However, my view on marriage will surprise many, even those who know me well. Here goes….

It should not concern the government, particularly the federal government, who marries whom. Further, and taking a libertarian stance, states should exit the business of licensing, and legislating either for or against marriage. In other words, marriage is God’s institution; it can, and should, rise or fall on its own merit.

Some will argue that government should promote marriage; plentiful and strong marriages benefit society. I agree that marriage benefits society, which helps governments. However, given the US divorce rate, while marriage benefits government, government support is not helping marriage. Indeed, it is hard to imagine why an institution that gave rise to the principles of government, and which existed when there was no formal government, should now need government to thrive, or even to continue. And it certainly does not need government to define it.

So what should government do about the state and nature of marriage? I recall Frederick Douglass’ response to what America should do with the Negro:

“I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us!”

Government involvement has indeed already played mischief with marriage. It created a preferred tax position – but why should one’s marital status impact the amount of taxes they pay? Do the unmarried work less hard for, or have less need of, their earnings?

Government has determined that a married person whose spouse dies should receive more in government payments, but couples in financial distress could only receive more government money if the man physically separates from his family and children. Giving a widowed person more government money for their loss, but withholding government help from married couples unless they live apart plays mischief with marriage.

That last one has done particular harm to the black community, pushing marriage rates lower and illegitimacy rates higher in the last half-century.

Now, government would seek to define marriage, to say what it is, whose union qualifies for governmental sanction, to say what schools teach about marriage? An effective government emulates both the structure and function of marriage and the family. How is it that government should presume to define, or re-define, what gave rise to it?

How much more mischief can government play with marriage?

America should remove government from marriage, letting it be an article of faith for those who choose to live that united life:

    • Stop taxing people differently because of their marital status,
    • Stop dictating who can enter a hospital room on that basis, and
    • Abandon the divorce and family laws that give governments, via the courts, control over the assets and children of married couples. Make those who form relationships as an article of faith, keep that faith with regard to offspring and property, whether or not they choose to stay together.

Finally, regarding homosexual marriage, I neither sanction nor support it. Nevertheless, I do not oppose two people uniting their lives, and they can call that union whatever they like. Everyone knows what marriage is; taking the government out of the equation makes the issue a matter of conscience rather than one of politics, which is clearly what marriage has become.

Before the politicians get revved up again, perhaps we take this matter off the table. Eliminating government preferences mutes political arguments. Ending government endorsement heads off discussions of unfairness. Killing government efforts to define marriage puts everyone on notice that the issue is between them and the Almighty, as it should be.

He will have His way with all who seek to use, or misuse, His institution when all is said and done. Government should leave marriage alone.

Copyright 2012. blackmanthinkin.com

Don’t Run From the Moment! The Lord is There.

Categories: ... 'bout Faith
Comments: Comments Off
Published on: September 1, 2012

I imagine all experience this. Anticipation of a huge moment, either of joy, of pain, or of testing, triggers the “fight or flight” response – even when there’s no one, and nothing, to fight. Many athletes may experience this before a contest, or during “crunch time.” Students may experience this before a final exam, after endless study leaves them yet feeling unprepared. Speakers may feel this as they listen to another introduce them before a keynote address.

The feeling is not restricted to athletes, academics, or public speakers. A new job, a wedding day, or planning a large family gathering can bring this feeling to anyone.

It is at those times, when people feel either so invincible or so inadequate that they cannot be still, that they must, Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth. (Psalms 46:10 KJV)

Men and women often lay the groundwork that leads to a great moment…which they then wish to tear down (fight) or from which they wish to run (flight). The approaching moment brings increasing anticipation, and heavy pressure to do SOMETHING. The natural thing is to move; the reasonable course of action is to change position, the overwhelming temptation is to RUN. However, There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it. (1 Corinthians 10:13 KJV)

God desires a man flee nothing, apart from fornication. It may surprise some that God wants men and women to feel and bear the pressure of the moment; not that they would be crushed, but that they might have greater confidence in Him. It also creates a greater awareness of one’s own limitations. Not the limits of their comfort, but the true limits of their faith and trust in God. However, to learn those limits, people must be compelled to face them.

When Israel departed Egyptian bondage, God positioned His people so they could neither fight nor flee the Egyptian chariots and army:

Exodus 14:10-12 KJV And when Pharaoh drew nigh, the children of Israel lifted up their eyes, and, behold, the Egyptians marched after them; and they were sore afraid: and the children of Israel cried out unto the LORD. (11) And they said unto Moses, Because there were no graves in Egypt, hast thou taken us away to die in the wilderness? wherefore hast thou dealt thus with us, to carry us forth out of Egypt? (12) Is not this the word that we did tell thee in Egypt, saying, Let us alone, that we may serve the Egyptians? For it had been better for us to serve the Egyptians, than that we should die in the wilderness.

The pressure that triggers the “fight or flight” response restricts vision and distorts perception:

    • A blessed man, unemployed for months, can lose sight of how he and his family yet remain in their home and still share meals, so great is his anxiety over the lack of income,
    • A single parent frets over the safety of children he must leave alone so he might work. How does he forget the retired neighbor who reports to him daily on his offspring’s welfare and antics while he was away?
    • The collegian that fails every test in a class and dreads her final grade. How is she blinded to the countless extra credit assignments she completed that guarantees she will pass?

In each of these examples, God’s way of escape helped no one run, but enabled them to bear more pressure, Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. (Ephesians 6:13 KJV)
Israel’s pressure, however, differed from that of unemployment, babysitting, or passing a class; it was life and death. Caught between the enemy and the sea, Israel may have wanted to fight, but a nation humbled by 4 centuries of slavery and lacking weapons knew they were no match for Pharaoh. And, with an army before them and the sea behind, there was nowhere to run and nowhere to hide.

That pressure caused Israel to lose sight of this:

Exodus 14:19-20 KJV And the angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them: (20) And it came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel; and it was a cloud and darkness to them, but it gave light by night to these: so that the one came not near the other all the night.

How anyone can forget God’s accompanying pillar of cloud, I do not know. Nevertheless, this is what allowed Israel to bear the pressure of an approaching army, while the Lord spent all night drying a path through the sea.

1 Corinthians 10:11 KJV Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

The “fight or flight” reflex is a fear response. Often, folks under pressure lose their vision and perspective as fear compromises what faith they have. Not only did God record ensamples of those who gave into fear with great cause, yet needlessly, He spoke to the greatest fear of those under pressure – that they are alone:

Genesis 26:24 KJV And the LORD appeared unto him the same night, and said, I am the God of Abraham thy father: fear not, for I am with thee, and will bless thee, and multiply thy seed for my servant Abraham’s sake.

Isaiah 41:10 KJV Fear thou not; for I am with thee: be not dismayed; for I am thy God: I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness.

Isaiah 43:5 KJV Fear not: for I am with thee: I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather thee from the west

Jeremiah 1:8 KJV Be not afraid of their faces: for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith the LORD.

Jeremiah 1:19 KJV And they shall fight against thee; but they shall not prevail against thee; for I am with thee, saith the LORD, to deliver thee.

Even the removal of the Old Testament did not remove God’s presence:

Matthew 1:23 KJV Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Matthew 28:20 KJV Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

God is never on the way when His child is under pressure – He is already there, Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I deliver him: I will set him on high, because he hath known my name. He shall call upon me, and I will answer him: I will be with him in trouble; I will deliver him, and honour him. (Psalms 91:14-15 KJV)

Consider this, So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him. (Isaiah 59:19 KJV)

It is the enemy that comes, not God; the Spirit of the Lord simply responds, for he was already, and is always, there. The fact that people struggle to see God’s presence neither minimizes nor negates it.

2 Kings 6:15-17 KJV And when the servant of the man of God was risen early, and gone forth, behold, an host compassed the city both with horses and chariots. And his servant said unto him, Alas, my master! how shall we do? (16) And he answered, Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them. (17) And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

If, in the moment of his greatest trouble, at the time when he feels most pressured – if a man would run from that moment, he is not running toward God, but running away. God is in the moment. God is in the trouble. God is with him. And God is with you.

Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth, (Psalms 46:10 KJV) especially if you don’t run from your moments.

God Bless You All.

Copyright 2012. blackmanthinkin.com

«page 1 of 2

The World of Black Man Thinkin’
ARTICLE ARCHIVES
WDFP Radio Show Archives

Welcome , today is Sunday, December 22, 2024