Tim Hayes – Page 7

Let This Mind Be in You

Jesus Christ, being equal with God the Father (Php 2:6), submitted Himself as an obedient servant to the Father (7-8) and esteemed His Father greater than Himself. (Jn 14:26) In highlighting this attitude in Christ and calling us to be like Him (5), Paul is telling us how to walk in humility by esteeming others better than ourselves. (3)

The Greek word translated better is ὑπερέχοντας, huperechōntas, which means superior, surpassing, above, over, better than. The word compares and contrasts one with another. The renowned theologian Albert Barnes, in his exegesis here, understands better in a moral context: the humble consider others to be, apart from God’s grace, morally superior to themselves.

While saints are currently being trained and equipped to judge all human behavior (1Co 6:2-3), it’s tempting to practice on our own before the time (1Co 4:5), without full knowledge of God’s Way, or of the human heart. (1Co 2:11) Not a good move. (1Co 4:3)

While we’re not to evaluate others’ moral goodness yet (Mt 7:1), trying to decide how good or bad someone is or determine what punishment or reward they deserve, we may act as if others are morally superior to ourselves, above us; we may esteem or consider them to less evil than we would be without God’s restraining grace. This violates no law of God, and in following Christ, in emulating His lowliness and meekness (Mt 11:29), God tells us to do exactly this: “Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.” (Php 2:3)

God will judge us all according to our works (Ro 2:6), measuring and evaluating our thoughts, motives and actions according to His perfect, righteous standard (Jn 5:45); we’ll each score on the moral spectrum uniquely, no two of us being exactly alike. If we think to place ourselves above anyone else on this scale, with no way of knowing precisely where we stand, or exactly where anyone else does, we’re being presumptuous, proud (1Pe 5:5), thinking more highly of ourselves than we ought. (Ro 12:3) Rather, in lowliness of mind, we’re to avoid any tendency to exalt ourselves. (Ga 6:3)

In esteeming others better than ourselves, we should not conflate moral superiority with significance (ESV95), or value (NIV) or importance (NASB95); in providing His Son as an atoning sacrifice for each and every individual, God has infinitely valued each human being equally; we ought not to consider any person more or less valuable, significant or important than any other. Doing so is partiality, being a respecter of persons (De 16:19), which violates the law of Love. (Ja 2:8-9) In love and humility we’re to prefer one another in honor (Ro 12:10), not value, pleased as others are lifted up above ourselves.

Further, we should not confuse humility merely with a call to serve others. While it’s clear Christ humbly submitted Himself to His Father as a servant, it doesn’t follow that we’re to submit ourselves as servants to others; this is actually forbidden. (1Co 7:23) We’re to consider ourselves servants to Christ, not other people, and order our lives to as to please God and not men. (Ga 1:10) In submitting to God we will generally serve others in love (Ga 5:13), and defer to the needs and interests of others (Php 2:4), yet this is always in a context of stewardship and wisdom before God, not a blanket, boundaryless neglecting, disvaluing or demeaning of ourselves in interpersonal relationships. (2Co 8:13)

Christ, our example in humility, though He didn’t consider God the Father morally superior to Himself (for both are morally perfect), He did defer to the greatness and majesty of His Father, to the Father’s Headship within the Trinity itself. (1Co 11:3b) We’re called to follow His steps (1Pe 2:21), to emulate Christ’s lowliness of mind in our relations with one another, yet we can’t do exactly as Christ did here, using the same scale He did with His Father, since on that scale of headship all those within each gender are equivalent with one another. (3a)

Since we’ve eliminated importance, significance and intrinsic worth or value as proper ways to rank ourselves, the only relevant scale or ranking we may rightly refer to here in esteeming others better than ourselves is a moral one, the scale God Himself will use to rank us. (Mt 5:18) However, we’re forbidden to make any formal judgements of ourselves or others for the time being. (7:1-2)

Thus, our default position, if we’re going to esteem others better than ourselves, must be one of considering ourselves to likely be at the very bottom of this moral scale, to potentially be, apart from God’s grace, the most evil person who has ever lived, as Paul the Apostle evidently did (Ga 3:8, 1Ti 1:15), and in this God calls us to follow his example. (Php 4:9)

articles ♦ blog

The Covenants of Promise

In God’s dealings with the nation of Israel there are two covenants (binding agreements) in play: the first is a conditional covenant made with Israel at Mount Sinai (Ga 4:24); the agreement is that if Israel will obey God’s Law He will bless them, otherwise He will curse them. (De 11:26-28)

The second (or new) covenant is an unconditional covenant God will eventually make with Israel: He will put His Laws into their minds write them in their hearts (He 8:10), be their God and accept them as His people, ensure they all know Him, and put away all of their sins. (11-12) He will give each of them a new nature which delights in His laws (Ro 7:22), redeeming and saving the entire nation. (Ro 11:26-27)

This first covenant with Israel is not a promise of salvation by works; it’s simply a promise given to Israel as a nation to bless them if they honor and follow God’s law to the best of their ability, evidently as a signal to the rest of us that there’s tremendous blessing in obeying God (Ps 1:2-3), and trouble if we don’t. (Ps 119:118) Israel has, of course, failed miserably to keep their end of the covenant and are being punished by God as a consequence.

The second covenant God will eventually make with Israel certainly is a promise of redemption and eternal salvation for Israel as a nation, but it’s incomplete and mysterious at present, how He will accomplish this and what it will look like.

In the interim, in between these two covenants, we’re left to work out an understanding of how we’re all to relate to God, for it’s through these two covenants God reveals His redemptive plan. (Ps 50:5) They hold within them the keys to having a relationship with God; in being estranged from them we have no hope, and are without God in the world. (Ep 2:11-12)

Yet these two covenants with Israel don’t comprise the whole picture: God makes a third covenant related to redemption, but this one is unique in that God makes it with Himself (Ga 3:20); this is a covenant between the Father and the Son (He 10:8-10): the Father gives the Son a group of people (the elect, or chosen) to redeem, and the Son redeems these people for the Father. (Jn 6:37) This covenant is flawlessly secure because both parties to the covenant are unfailingly perfect. (Ro 4:16) This divine agreement is actually the first covenant of the three, made in eternity past (Ep 1:4, 1Pe 1:19-20) and publicly formalized, revealed and confirmed in front of Abraham, well before Sinai. (Ga 3:17)

The eternal covenant between God the Father and God the Son is evidently related to the two covenants God makes with Israel in that God produces obedience to the Law in the hearts of His elect as required in the Sinai (first) covenant (De 5:29) by providing Himself as the new heart (Ez 36:26), the divine nature within the elect (Co 1:27) inclining us to obey (1Pe 1:2), as promised in the future New Covenant with Israel. (He 10:16-17) In this way, God unites us with Himself and His Law so we partake in both of these two covenants of promise He makes with Israel (1Ti 1:6), giving us hope of eternal life and fellowship in Him. (Ep 2:13-14)

articles ♦ blog

Stone Him

Since God’s Law requires stoning stubborn rebellious sons (De 21:20-21a), it seems most Christians would argue the old Mosaic laws, or at least some of them, are obsolete, inconsistent with the Law of Love. (Ro 13:10) This is so obvious to most of us it’s offensive to suggest otherwise. (Ps 119:172) Yet Christ affirms otherwise: the entire Mosaic Law remains valid so long as Heaven and Earth stand. (Mt 5:18-19) We do well to ponder the maxim: Obviousness is always the enemy of correctness. (Is 8:20)

First, note that this command to stone a defiant son may not be obeyed in isolation, parents taking matters into their own hands: following this command requires the collective assessment and agreement of an entire civil community. Parents accuse the son of rebellion in front of the city elders, in the city gate where civil matters are formally resolved. (De 18:18-19) The elders then enquire, question the parents, the son and others familiar with the situation, and must align with the parents in their struggle. Then all the men of the community participate in executing the son, after his legal conviction.

So, unless parents live in a society which incorporates the civil aspects of Torah within its legal code (as every society should), this command to stone a rebellious son cannot be rightly obeyed. This does not mean the law is obsolete; God has not abolished it (Mt 5:17); it simply doesn’t apply outside this civil context. However, when Messiah returns to rule the nations (Ps 2:9), we can be sure He will enforce this law (Mi 4:2), and it will be holy, righteous and good. (He 1:8)

Secondly, the charge requires both parents to publicly testify that their son is in willful rebellion against them both (De 21:20a), implying both parents are uniquely accountable for training their children into adulthood, and in this case neither parent has been successful in getting their son to cooperate

Thirdly, the requirement for the son to obey implies he is still a child, not yet an adult, and therefore unable to provide for himself; he remains under his parents’ roof and dependent on them, and therefore required to obey them. Further, the context implies the son is sufficiently mature to understand the gravity of the consequences of his rebellion; though still a child, he is choosing to defy his parents and is old enough to be held accountable for his actions.

Finally, the accusation must include the sense that the son, in addition to being defiant, is focused on pursuing his own interests and pleasures. (De 21:20b) The rebellious son is intent on gratifying his own personal appetites without providing for himself; he is acting irresponsibly and burdening his parents rather than contributing to the welfare of the family.

These public accusations, and the threat of brutal execution looming before him, provide a final opportunity for the rebellious son to repent, or perhaps to expose his parents if they’ve been neglectful, abusive or cruel. (De 25:1) In either case, the conflict is dealt with decisively by the community such that open childhood rebellion is not normalized at any level within the culture. (De 21:21c)

Just imagine this command of God playing itself out in a society over decades, over centuries, as parents raise up children amidst grandparents, aunts and uncles, extended family all keeping an eye out for domestic strife, ready to intervene, to love, encourage and advise as needed.

What parent could afford to be careless, negligent or selfish here, unreasonably harsh or undisciplined, knowing a bloody execution could be the outcome? That they’d lose a son, nephew or grandson in brutal termination before the entire community. To be remembered as the family who couldn’t control their kids.

What sobriety this would encourage! (Ti 2:1-6) What self-control and wisdom! What prayerful discipline of all the children in the household, care taken to promptly and prayerfully address any signs of rebellion with firmness, impartiality, fairness, consistency and love! (Pr 19:18)

How it would encourage wisdom in courtship! to choose a compatible, godly spouse, to intentionally avoid turmoil and chaos in the home. How it would motivate parents to collaborate and work together to solve relational issues, both between themselves and among their children, to seek God in maintaining a loving, stable equilibrium in the family, constantly aware of the pulse and disposition of each of their children as they grow and mature.

Might this be a good thing?

And what are our alternatives? Tolerate such abuse and disruption in the family? Do nothing of consequence to deter and prevent it? (Ps 119:155)

And how is that working out for those who despise God’s Law? (Pr 28:9)

I hear the Jews claim that throughout their recorded history, not a single Jewish son has ever been stoned for rebellion. If true, this certainly is something to think about, as we search down the corridors of our prisons — it’s rare indeed to find among the inmates the son of a practicing Jewish family.

articles ♦ blog

A Soft Answer

As we enter into strife with others, as we become agitated, defensive or oppressive in trying to control a situation, the outcome is seldom good; we’re actually forbidden to do this (Php 2:3), since our striving is generally rooted in pride. (Pr 28:5)

Calming ourselves down and getting ourselves grounded again in God is certainly the first step (2Ti 2:24), yet this is only part of the equation; when others are pursuing contention (Pr 26:21), knowing how to deescalate and avoid strife is invaluable. (Pr 19:11)

A de-escalation technique recommended in scripture is a soft answer (Pr 15:1), which comprises more than a gentle, unassuming posture or tone. It might be couched in this general demeaner, and perhaps often should be (Mt 10:16), but it can be much more subtle and powerful. (Pr 25:15)

For example, calmly repeating back what we hear, asking for clarification, confirmation and agreement on intent, is offering an accuser an opportunity to think through their words and stand by them under cross-examination. It gently introduces a bit of accountability without being aggressive or confrontational. This is softness, but not weakness. (Jn 18:23) It actually demonstrates strength, for only a mature, stable, secure soul can tread unthreatened out into the vast, uncertain territory of Accusation. Further, it clearly tells our accuser they’re valued, and that they’ve been heard and understood. With a person of good will, this might be all we need to disarm them.

Calmly and thoughtfully summarizing and re-stating a claim dispenses with emotionalism, and this will invariably both weaken the accusation itself (for, we tend to emotionally charge claims when evidence itself is insufficient) and confront any manipulation, irrationality and/or inconsistency without retaliating. If the claim has merit at all, this will distill and clarify the relevant substance for inspection.

Then we might also explore the implications of an accusation, as if we’re a neutral investigator, asking if the ramifications were thought through and intended, and how any apparent inconsistencies have been resolved. (Mt 12:2-4) Doing this does not strengthen false accusation; invariably it brings truth and light to bear, exposing any darkness for what it is. Showing any implication of a claim to be false proves the claim itself is false: it’s proof by contradiction.

People often speak emotionally within a specific context, perspective or presupposition which is not apparent to others, or perhaps even to themselves. Asking insightful questions exposes these presuppositions and allows them to be analyzed thoughtfully, challenged and corrected as needed. (Mk 10:18) This is helpful to all who are engaged in conflict.

Another key, when people accuse, is to remind ourselves they may indeed be entirely wrong, merely telling us something about themselves and nothing at all about us.

We’re often much too quick to accept an accusation as authoritative, without realizing we need not defend ourselves or be intimidated. It’s in trying to protect our own vulnerability and hide our imperfections that we’re lured into resisting groundless accusations and defending ourselves when this is entirely unnecessary. (1Pe 2:23)

And if an accusation happens to be legit, even partly, humility rejoices in discovering another opportunity to grow, makes amends, and asks God for grace to overcome, unconcerned in the efforts to shame, disvalue or belittle, resting in ultimate security in God. (Php 4:7)

When we take ourselves too seriously, thinking too highly of ourselves (Ro 12:3), that we’re something when we aren’t, we’re deceiving ourselves (Ga 6:3); this isn’t Love (1Jn 2:16), it’s the pride of life. When our mind is stayed on God, grounded in Love (Ep 3:17), we’ll be at perfect peace. (Is 26:3)

articles ♦ blog

Bring Them Up

The goal of parenting should be to equip children with the knowledge and skills necessary to become successful and productive adults. (Ep 6:4) It’s an educational mandate we ought not delegate; we may entrust others with formal academic training, but we’re required to teach our children how to live (De 6:6-7), and enable them in every way possible. (Pr 22:6) In order to do this effectively, parents are given authority in the home and children are required to obey their parents. (Ep 6:1-3)

But this state doesn’t last forever; children grow up. When and how are they supposed to transition into adulthood? When, if ever, are children free from the duty to obey their parents?

God does not instruct adults to obey their parents (1Co 11:3); He instructs children to do so. (Co 2:20) So, the duty of children to obey their parents ends as they mature into adulthood, yet this process of becoming an adult is not formally defined in scripture. How should we navigate this?

Well, we might take a cue from Nature (1Co 11:14a); God has designed the human body to mature in the second decade of life; we reach a given height and stop growing. It’s a reasonable, tangible measure of adulthood.

Another consideration is mental maturity, reasoning ability, discipline and self-control; when one is capable of taking care of themselves with minimal assistance from others, able to navigate the basic complexities and challenges of life, equipped to live independently and provide for themselves, they’re an adult.

If parents are wise, caring and respectful toward their children (Ro 12:10), this transition into adulthood should be natural, healthy and gradual; there’s not a specific day in which a child turns into an adult, yet if they’re being prepared for adulthood by their parents, they’re becoming more and more adultlike as they mature physically.

Parents should be preparing and equipping their children for this transition from early childhood, teaching them responsibility and letting them learn from their mistakes (within reason), guiding them with wise counsel, and explaining life to them. Parents who are neglectful here, as well as those who are overly protective, domineering and/or controlling, do immense harm to their children, violating their dignity and stunting their personal growth and development, which may provoke children to anger, frustrating and discouraging them. (Co 2:21)

As children mature, parents must respect the basic dignity and humanity of their children as God’s image bearers, not lording authority over them or demanding they agree with all their personal beliefs or perspectives. Children are free moral agents, responsible before God for what they believe as they are capable of understanding. A wise parent will respect each child’s unique gifts and orientation, leading by example, reasoning with them as unique individuals and honoring their choices within reason, even if they disagree.

Further, young adults should never have to struggle to free themselves of their parental home, nor should they be forced to leave ill-equipped and unprepared, if they’ve been willing to learn and bear responsibility within their capability. (De 15:13-14) When either tragedy occurs there’s been a terrible breakdown in the family unit, and there’s no pleasant way to resolve it.

When parents perceive their son (Ge 2:24) or daughter (1Co 7:34a) is prepared to live on their own, they should encourage and enable them to do so and mark the occasion with a special ceremony, celebrating their childhood and commemorating their transition into adulthood. This is a wonderful opportunity for both parents, especially fathers, to bless their children, formally acknowledge their adulthood and give them the confidence they need to begin directly facing the challenges of life, receiving them as equals before God, just as God Himself has designed and honored them to be. (Ga 6:4-5)

In this complex journey of shaping lives, parents ought to be constantly asking God to help them and work through them to equip each of their children to fulfill His perfect design and calling in their lives. Parents should be looking to God to bestow a sense of completeness and adulthood in their children through them.

One might even say our Heavenly Father sovereignly works through the strivings of our earthly parents, even in the man-made rituals and ceremonies, to convey the ultimate sense of adulthood in each of us, helping us understand, accept and celebrate our own maturity and adulthood in Him.

articles ♦ blog

Yea, Hath God Said

The Fall of Man provides insights on a number of levels. The saga begins with a question, initiated with an unexpected conjunction: “Yea,” typically used to join two thoughts, the first of which is evidently unrecorded.

It is as if Satan has already engaged Eve in pleasant dialogue, providing a positive context in which to highlight an apparent contradiction. Aligning himself with Eve, isolating her, befriending her, disarming her, this is all tactical, the art of war: the enemy isolates us, aligns as a friend, then destroys.

It’s likely Eve’s first mistake, to engage without Adam, without God, to neglect her spiritual community and tangle with Satan alone. We learn from Eve: engage the Devil in no conversation, give him no ear or audience. Bring God and others into the equation immediately; ignore the enemy and resist by drawing near to God. (Ja 4:7-8a)

This first word, Yea, is the Hebrew אַ֚ף (’ap̄), although, an adversative contrasting one idea with another, comparing two opposing thoughts in the form of a question: “Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” (Ge 3:1) Satan draws attention to God’s command as an opposition, something holding Adam and Eve back from something good. It is Satan’s way: position God and His Law as the adversary. (Ro 7:22)

The question itself seems innocuous enough; Satan asks Eve to affirm God’s only command, a restriction placed on herself and Adam, which she actually does inaccurately; Eve adds to God’s command an additional prohibition: “neither shall ye touch it.” (2-3) She only has one law to consider, which she fails to recall correctly. She is not yet fallen and remains innocent, yet she is inexperienced, ignorant, naive and careless. We ought not so to be. (1Co 14:20)

Whether this is Adam’s indiscretion in teaching Eve, or Eve’s own carelessness, it’s weakness which Satan is all too eager to exploit. If he convinces Eve to touch the tree and she sees no harm, perhaps eating of it will do no harm either. More instruction in spiritual warfare: Don’t add to God’s Word, and don’t shorten it. (De 12:32) Know the Word, by heart, and like Jesus (Mt 4:4) be ready always to take the sword, the sword of the Spirit, quoting it in context to address temptation, so God’s Way is clear.

The dialogue then leads to Satan’s explicit claim: “Ye shall not surely die: for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” (4b-5) It is a two-part claim: [1] God’s not good and can’t be trusted; [2] breaking His command will go well for you. Satan accuses God of lying, of having ulterior, malicious motives in giving us His laws, and promises benefit in disobeying God. Satan accuses God of doing exactly what he himself is doing in order to get us to turn against God. It doesn’t really matter which law we break if we do it willfully, the result is the same. (He 10:26-27)

Satan comes as benevolent, spiritual, an angel of light, and his ministers as holy men. (2Co 11:13-15) He offers freedom from God’s Law, freedom to disobey, and lies about the consequences. He started way back in the Garden and hasn’t changed. To overcome, we must hold to the goodness of God, believing all His Laws are for our good (1Ti 1:8), obey Him and submit to Him.

articles ♦ blog

Signs and Wonders

A miracle is when God disrupts the natural order of Creation to cause an event with no natural explanation. When and why God chooses to perform miracles is a bit of a mystery, yet I expect we’d all love to see one; for many of us it would be a first. They’re indeed rare, and it’s quite natural to ask why God doesn’t do them more often, and put Himself on public display.

Yet a better question may be whether our desire to see a miracle or a sign from God is healthy and appropriate. God certainly does them from time to time, so there’s evidently good purpose in them when they occur, but is it ever right to ask God to perform a miracle or a sign to help us with our faith? or to be seeking signs and wonders, pursuing the miraculous as a manner of life?

As Christ rebukes Jewish leadership for their unbelief, some asked Him to perform a miracle or sign to prove He was/is the Messiah. Yet Christ dismisses the request, saying evil and adulterous people ask for signs. (Mt 12:38-39)

And as Zacharias asked how he would know if the prophetic words of the angel of God would be fulfilled, evidently asking for some additional proof beyond the simple angelic promise, he was questioning God’s character, so God rebuked his unbelief, striking him with dumbness for nearly a year. (Lk 1:18-20)

On the other hand, God didn’t seem to mind Gideon’s request for a sign that he’d be victorious in battle, asking for dew only upon fleece, and then only on the ground. (Ju 6:36-40) Evidently, there are times when our faith is weak, and it’s OK to ask for a little confidence boost.

Perhaps it’s related to our motive, what we’re struggling with. If we’re responding to all the light we have, if what we’re wanting to believe has little evidence to support it, and the personal stakes for acting on it are high, as in Gideon’s case, perhaps the request is reasonable. But if we’re just being stubborn and selfish, as the Jewish leaders evidently were, or if we’re putting God to the test, as perhaps Zacharias did, then this displeases God. (1Jn 5:10)

Asking for proof of God’s existence, when Creation itself proves it undeniably, when even atheists inadvertently prove God is real in the very delusion of denial, this is wickedness. Just like Pharisees asking for further proof of Christ’s Messianic claim in the face of countless miracles, unmatched in all human history (Jn 15:24), in light of the power, precision and holiness of His message (Jn 7:46) … not a good idea. (Jn 4:49)

Even now, those with reasonable access to the abundant witness of Christ’s resurrection (Ac 17:31) and message (Jn 12:48) will be held accountable for how they respond. Additional proof should not be expected here; it might do more harm than good. (Mt 13:58)

Our interest in finding proof where God has not provided it, desiring further miraculous witness when God is generally pleased to work merely through apparently natural means, may be problematic in itself. The very existence of the Tanach is more powerful testimony than a resurrection (Ac 16:31), and its prophetic content is more compelling than Christ appearing to us in person. (2Pe 1:19)

God provides sufficient witness to convince anyone who’s willing to see, but not so much that mercifully limiting the condemnation of unbelievers is unreasonable. (Ro 11:32) We should be thankful for the abundant testimony God has already provided, and trust that the amount and types of evidence He chooses to give us are perfectly suited to fulfill His ultimate purposes and glorify Himself.

articles ♦ blog

His Elect

Scripture refers to God’s elect (Mt 24:31), those whom He has chosen: some angels (1Ti 5:21), as well as a few people. (Co 3:12) Why would God refer to certain angels and people as elect? What does this imply?

The saints are elect unto obedience (1Pe 1:2), chosen before the foundation of the world (Ep 1:4) to submit to God and walk with Him, so it seems reasonable the angels are chosen similarly.

Evidently, those whom God doesn’t choose rebel against Him. along with Satan, and are now at war with God, both humans (Ps 2:1-3) and angels. (Re 12:7)

This non-elect group of rebels evidently comprises nearly all people (1Jn 5:19), a full third of the angels, who chose to remain in Heaven after they rebelled (Re 12:4), along with a number of angels who’ve been chained up for leaving their Heavenly habitation (Ju 6), evidently to intermarry with humans (Ge 6:1-2), corrupt the human race (12), and prevent the Messianic prophecy from being fulfilled. (Ge 3:15)

As a particular showcase example, this ante-diluvian human-angelic mutiny, as it played out prior to the Great Flood, was so effective and pervasive God evidently had to step in and intervene to keep even a single strand of humanity intact (Ge 6:9), preserving a purely human ancestry through which to bring Messiah, destroying all the rest of humanity, most all animal life (Ge 6:13), and starting over, constraining such destructive angelic behavior going onward.

What is impressive (at least to me) about this overwhelming level of depravity, as it persists in both the angelic realm since the Creation week, as well as in humanity since the Fall, particularly as showcased in the ante-diluvian period, is that it apparently occurs even with full knowledge of the Godhead. Satan is so effective in his ability to deceive, he is able to win over anyone and everyone whom God has not graciously enabled to resist (Mt 24:24), even if we’re fully aware of the existence, holiness and omnipotence of God.

That Satan’s ability to deceive is not merely a testament to inherent human or angelic depravity, but evidence of the profound appeal, intelligence and subtlety of Satan (Ez 28:14-15), consider that Eve was enticed by Satan in Paradise when she had no need, trouble or discomfort, no reason to betray God, and did not have a depraved nature. And the angels who sided with Satan evidently did so in plain sight of God, without an inherently evil nature. (For, if God created fallen angels as inherently evil, or with an involuntary predisposition to evil, it is difficult to imagine how they would be culpable for acting out their God-given design.)

The implication is that every sentient, conscious being with the ability to make a moral choice has willingly chosen to depart from God at the first opportunity, even when bathed in the full knowledge of the glory, majesty and power of Almighty Godhead, unless God mercifully intervenes and restrains us. And also, that God has mysteriously chosen to intervene only in extremely few cases. (Mt 7:14)

Both of these mysteries should humble us, and fill us with joy unspeakable for the incredible mercies of God (Ps 103:11), those He has given the grace to believe on Him and follow Him. (Mt 19:25-16) We are precious few in number (Ro 11:5), and no better than the lost when left to our own devices. (Ga 6:3)

It should not surprise us when others do not receive the truth (2Ti 4:3-4), turning against it and against us, even when the truth is stated as clearly, plainly and lovingly as it can possibly be stated. Truly, no flesh shall glory in His presence. (1Co 1:29)

articles ♦ blog

As a Sparrow Alone

Terminal cancer is no joke. When we hear we have so little time left, what do we do? Re-calibrate? Re-orient? Get out our bucket list and try to live it up? It’s perfectly understandable, whatever we do when we face our fragile little selves for what we really are (Ga 6:3), feeling alone (Ps 102:7), afraid, uncertain. (He 10:31)

Truly, we’re all dying of a terminal condition: Life itself. But as long as death seems far away, not imminently close, we comfort ourselves however we can, asleep at the wheel.

Facing our mortality wakes us up, helping us realize what and who we are (Ja 4:14), what and who we have, or don’t have. (Ga 6:4-5) It’s clear we don’t take our stuff, our friends or family (1Co 6:29-31), or even our man-made religion (Mk 7:7); we leave it all behind. (1Ti 6:7) We will face God alone, and deal with Him one on one, for eternity. (Ro 14:11-12)

It isn’t so much a choice between Heaven and Hell, though that’s implied; it’s more about being a devoted lover of God, or His enemy: there’s no middle ground with Him. (Mt 12:33)

Think of it this way: no matter where we end up, it’s just going to be like each one of us as an individual is alone with God (2Co 5:8), as if no one else will be on our radar, distracting us from Him (Ps 27:4), part of our routine, conscious focus, except Him. (Ps 73:25)

What will that be like … if we love God? (1Co 8:3) or if we don’t? (16:22)

For sure, those in Heaven will be in community together, in a sense (He 12:22-23), as well as those in Hell, but as God unveils us into His immediate omnipresence (Jn 17:24), His infinitude will completely consume, occupy and overwhelm all our senses. (Re 20:11) From that moment on, out into eternity, we will see and experience God as All in All (1Co 15:58), drinking in the infinite majesty of Jehovah God. (Re 22:3-5)

If we love God, in that eternal moment, we’ll have all there is to have (Ro 8:17); and if we don’t love God, we’ll be forever face-to-face with the indignant fury of the Almighty (Re 6:16), Who repays all who hate Him to their face. (De 7:9-10)

We may think we don’t actually hate God, perhaps we’re just indifferent or lukewarm, but that’s all the same to Him; He might even detest indifference more intensely. (Re 3:15-16) God cannot be trifled with (Ga 6:7); He commands us to love Him with all our being; mind, heart, soul and strength. (Mk 12:30) Nothing less is acceptable.

False religion is how we deceive ourselves into thinking God will accept us on our merits, because we belong to a special club and follow certain rituals, and the more truth our religion contains the more deceptive it can be. (2Co 11:13-15) Any religion offering us hope by adhering to it is a counterfeit; religion can’t bring us to God. Shedding all formal religion, leaving only the divine relationship, may help us see whether we’re relying on emptiness here.

If we’re honest with ourselves (1Co 3:18), we can tell what and who we truly love. Is it truth? (2Th 2:10) Is it God? Above everything and everyone else? (Jn 12:25) Is this reflected in our lives, day to day? (Pr 20:11) Are we obeying Him the best we know how, submitting our entire lives to Him? (Jn 14:23)

There’s only one Way to God: the Person of Jesus Christ. (Jn 14:6) He is all we need, but to have Him we must give up everything else (Mt 13:44-46); He tolerates no rivals in our affections or loyalties. (Lk 14:26)

If me and Christ forever sounds like Heaven (Ps 84:4), we’re likely one of the chosen few to find the narrow gate and we’re well on our way (Mt 7:14); otherwise, we’re likely still on the broad road with the mass of Mankind, the walking dead (Ep 2:1), headed to eternal death and destruction. (Mt 7:13) Look for that tiny little gate, find it and strive to enter (Lk 13:24); it’s only One Person wide, and His name is Yeshua: Jesus.

articles ♦ blog

By the Scriptures

The thought that Christ came to start a new religion, which we now call Christianity, evidently lies at the heart of Christianity itself as a distinct religion. Christians claim to follow Christ, to believe in Him and worship Him, find their salvation in Him, and believe their unique practices and beliefs are what Christ Himself has commanded of them. For these divine instructions they rely exclusively upon the New Testament.

There is, however, a very basic problem with this understanding: Christ Himself never taught this, that He came to start a new religion, neither did any of His apostles. Both Christ and all of His apostles, including the Apostle Paul, believed the one true faith (Ep 4:4) was an old one, largely lost in Judaism yet embodied within the Tanakh, what we now call the Old Testament, which they referred to as the scriptures. (Jn 5:29) There was no concept of a New Testament (NT) scripture during the lifetime of Paul or the Twelve Apostles; they never based any of their teachings on anything but the Tanakh. They had no other scriptural authority, and scriptural authority was all they truly had. (Ac 17:11)

Both Christ (Jn 3:10) and the Apostles taught that the true and correct religion (Ju 3), the way to be in right relationship with God, was the historic faith embodied in the Tanakh. (Ro 16:25-26) Christ’s work and message didn’t alter this in any way, shape or form. (Ps 19:7-9) This is, in fact, how Christ Himself frames His entire ministry: He affirms that His message and redemptive work are grounded in, explained by and perfectly consistent with the Tanakh. (Mt 5:17-19)

While it is evident (at least to me) that the NT writings are just as inspired as the Tanakh, it is also evident that if we’re not properly grounded in the Tanakh we can easily misread, misinterpret, and misapply the NT, particularly the writings of Paul. This is, I believe, the fundamental problem with Christianity as a whole, and it is not a recent problem; it traces as far back as the early second century CE and includes nearly everything which makes Christianity a distinct religion, such as Sunday worship, the Eucharist (the Lord’s Supper), a belief that Christ has abolished or annulled Torah, and a variety of corruptions of the gospel which are deeply inconsistent with the Tanakh. Though considered fundamentals of Christian faith today, such beliefs were foreign to the early Church.

In the earliest days of the Faith, during the Apostolic Age, the disciples of Christ were considered a Jewish sect, The Way (Ac 9:2), a subset of Judaism; gentile believers were largely indistinguishable from their Jewish brothers and sisters in their worship and practice. (Ga 2:14) This sect was distinct from traditional Judaism in two fundamental ways: [1] a return to justification by faith (rejecting Judaism’s legalism) and [2] recognizing salvation was available to gentiles even if they didn’t become Jewish proselytes and observe Jewish customs and man-made traditions (as required in Judaism). Apart from these two key differences, the early Church was essentially identical to Judaism; the Church simply corrected the errors of Judaism in these two key areas where she had departed from the way of truth defined in the Tanakh.

It wasn’t until after the death of the apostles, as persecution of the Jewish people become more intense, that a move began to distance the churches from Judaism and from the Tanakh, to redefine the Faith as distinctly non-Jewish. Deceitful workers found plenty of fuel in the Pauline epistles (2Co 11:13), inventing another Jesus, another gospel, and fabricating an entirely new religion. (1Co 11:4)

Peter himself warns us about this, that some of what Paul writes is hard to understand and easy to misinterpret, such that those who are unlearned and unstable typically wrest Pauline statements, as they do also the Tanakh, unto their own destruction. (2Pe 3:16) And Paul himself warned that soon after his departing grievous wolves would enter into the Church, not sparing the flock. (Ac 20:29)

To the degree any Christian sect strays from the Tanakh it will be in error, and when the lies are couched in the very language of scripture, those who are deceived in them are exceptionally difficult to reach, since the words and many of the key concepts are already accepted and believed, but incorrectly, out of context.

This is particularly true of the gospel itself; very few (if any) Christian presentations of the gospel are based on the Tanakh, and what most Christians actually believe about salvation cannot be found within it. In fact, most Christians believe Christ actually came to change the way we’re saved, such that we’re now saved in a different way than those in the old dispensation. Nothing could be farther from the truth, or more eternally dangerous.

As it was for me personally, Christians may indeed find themselves inoculated against the true faith of God, thinking they’re eternally safe when they aren’t, hoping they have spiritual life when they’re still dead in sin. (Re 3:1) It is sobering to realize that many, perhaps most of those complacent in their Christianity will fail to make their calling and election sure (2Pe 1:10), and will be lost in the end, as Christ Himself predicts. (Mt 7:21-23)

Given this tendency to misinterpret and misapply the NT, and the eternal danger this poses, a good litmus test for any Christian teaching about the nature of God or Man (Ro 3:10), or about our duty to God or Man, or about how to be rightly aligned with God and in fellowship with Him (Ro 4:3), is that it must be grounded solidly in the Tanakh. (2Ti 3:16-17) This is following the example of Christ and His apostles; it is exactly what they did. (14-15)

So, if our understanding of the gospel, the ground of our salvation, is not firmly established within the Tanakh (Ro 4:16), and perfectly consistent with it (Ps 119:115), we need to keep seeking and praying until we find God in truth. (Lk 16:27-31) Inundated by counterfeit gospels, the Tanakh makes us wise unto salvation, teaching us what faith in Christ looks like and how to obtain it (1Ti 3:14-15); we cannot afford to be amiss here. (Mt 26:16)

And if any other teaching or doctrine cannot be derived primarily from the Tanakh (Ro 15:4), being only reinforced and supported in the NT, we should hold it loosely, with a bit of suspicion and caution, at arm’s length as it were, and not close to the heart. And, certainly, if any doctrine contradicts or dismisses any part of Torah in any way, we may safely discard it as darkness. (Is 8:20)

articles ♦ blog