"Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know -- this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power. (Acts 2:22-24 NASB)
"Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ -- this Jesus whom you crucified." (Acts 2:36 NASB)
I have heard for years from a lot of different quarters that the church today should emulate the early church. I have talked with people who have a variety of ways we should accomplish that. Some of the views and ideas of practice make sense, and some do not. The ones saying we need to adopt the early church theological perspectives probably interests me the most. I wonder if they realize what they're saying.
Unbeknownst to most, but knownst to systematic theologians with PhD's and so on, the theological positions we typically hold today have been developed over the last two thousand years (or longer depending the particular theologian you talk to). At this point it would shock people how much would need to "jettisoned" that has been added to explain various points about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and church (ecclesiology).
It's not that there isn't biblical support for the developments, it's just that they are "logical" (mostly) developments from considering Scripture rather than from Scripture. They are one step away from the text in some cases, and more and others. They attempt to explain what can be deduced from the writers, the intent of the Holy Spirit, and what we see of what God has revealed about Himself through Scripture.
This could (and probably should) make some people feel a bit uncomfortable, especially if you've never really traveled on this train of thought. Many heretics have been burned, not for countering Scripture, but interpretations of it. Much of church strife has centered around theological positions, not necessarily Scripture. So, these few steps away from the text to explain the text have become critical to us, whether we are aware of it or not.
Peter, on the day of Pentecost says the words in the initial text I used to explain Jesus. He calls Him a Nazarene, but here refers to where He's from (Nazareth) rather than a Nazarite Vow. He refers to Him as a man through whom God performed miracles and wonders and whom God raised from the dead. To this point, Jesus doesn't sound divine per se. In verse 36 Peter finally declares that God has made Jesus both Lord and Christ. This is where I want to hang out for a second.
There are two ways to understand Lord in Peter's day. One way refers to those in authority over people, as in kings, governors, and so on. The other is the Scriptural reference to the name of God in the Hebrew Scriptures. By this time, the Greek text of the Hebrew Scriptures is in wide use. That Scriptural translation does not use the name of God, but substitutes "Lord". So Peter's crowd might see this as a reference to Jesus being exulted as God or deified. So, God has made Jesus a deity rather than Jesus being deity from the beginning? There are other Scriptures that clearly make the point that Jesus is One with God from the beginning (John 1:1-3 for instance). But how does Peter understand Jesus and present Him here? Not later on, but at the moment he speaks on Pentecost.
Before you get all "freaky" on me and start grabbing torches and pitchforks and your witch-burning paraphernalia (especially those of you who know my address), I'm not reducing Jesus to non-eternal God status. What I'm asking is how Peter understood Jesus on the day of Pentecost. I'm not espousing a theological position about Jesus, but asking if getting back to the theology of the early church would be as comfortable or as easy as it sounds.
Why do I ask? Because I am pretty confident in my theological positions, comfortable in my view of the major systematic theological categories, and believe I can adequately explain my views on Scripture, God, the church, and so on. But that does not give me any sort of right or obligation to pound someone else's. That I may be able to explain mine doesn't make me right. I need to go back and re-read these sorts of passages to remind myself that these positions are neither as easy to understand nor as cut and dried as I seem to make them out to be.
Yes, I believe Jesus is the eternal Son of God, but I have to admit that, in making a point, some of the writers of Scripture (and therefore the Spirit inspiring them) sacrificed support for that view (as in Acts 2:36). These passages are not the definitive statements on such theological perspectives, but since I am to consider all of Scripture, not just my "favorite" passages, I also need to consider these. What I learn by doing that is it is possible that Peter didn't have all the systematized theological support lined out 10 days after the ascension of Jesus. What I come away with is that if Peter didn't necessarily have it all together, maybe I don't. Think of the difficulty of stating the glorification of Jesus, holding in tension the divinity and humanity of the unique Son of God, second Person of the Trinity, and not sacrifice at some point, some element of all Who Jesus is. I don't think I could do it.
So, I am left with the realization that I am comfortable in my beliefs, but perhaps I'm too complacent as well. Can I think of anything more worthy than the Person of my Master? Why would I stop considering Him, as if I have Him figured out? What real comfort can there be in the presence of the One responsible for enormous stars, vast nebulae, the internal structures of living cells in simple and complex creatures, molecules, atoms, electrons, and quarks? How can I be comfortable in His presence? And isn't the summation of my beliefs about Him grounded in what He has revealed of Himself in Scripture? Isn't the Person revealed there awesome and powerful enough to completely remove any comfort in His presence?
I'm either trembling because I'm cold, and the ceiling fan above me isn't helping, or I'm finally getting the point, and sensing I'm in the presence of my Master. Only my skin is cold, inside I feel very warm. I think it's time for me to worship. See you tomorrow.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Monday, August 27, 2012
Where and How Do I Spend My Time?
Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved. (Acts 2:46-47 NASB)
Culture has a huge part to play in how I prioritize my time. But I can't blame everything on culture. In the early days of the Jerusalem Church, being in the temple every day wasn't a huge deviation from their culture. I don't think the traveling dinner was either. But these things weren't common either.
In my culture, being at the meeting house or sanctuary is just another appointment or part of our week. The meetings go on my calendar, and the Sunday worship time is something I know I'll do every week. For some in churches in this culture, going to the church property for meetings and even worship can be usurped by baseball or soccer games if they're scheduled then. Vacations always take priority over time at church. And it seems that giving is only something done when church is attended, if at all.
When my wife and I were dating, we'd visit my family and attend my church when in town. When we'd visit her family, we thought about finding a church to visit, but decided to avoid the uncomfortable feelings of visiting a strange church and spend more time with her family. It's odd, but now, 20 years later, we don't even question that practice. Is that a lesson I want my daughter to learn?
I can't help but look at the description of this group of believers in Jerusalem and feel like I'm missing something very important, actually several things. I need to air them, examine their validity, and maybe make some changes in how my family spends our time through the week.
First, day to day they met on temple grounds and in one mind. I get to our church grounds twice a week, only three if necessary. I could easily add another day just to help clean the place, pick weeds, or whatever needs to be done around there. And those are pragmatic reasons beyond the opportunity to just go and pray for those who go in and out of those doors, pray for my pastors and their staff, and pray for those who drive by and see our sign. I can always do that.
Second, they broke bread from house to house. The small group I have the privilege to lead decided on their own to serve dinner just before. The dinner and ensuing discussions take up as much time as the study itself. We spend time talking about all sorts of things sharing and learning about each other. It has built intimacy that no Bible discussion could have. We do that once a week. For our culture, that's a lot. And we are considering adding a regular, possibly quarterly (or seasonal) backyard barbecue into the mix. So, there I think I have been led to follow the pattern of this Scripture to a comfortable degree. But I also see the benefit of it.
The last things are the attitude of sincerity and unity that pervaded the group. In my culture, we don't say what's on our mind, we use "tact" to beat around the bush, and avoid confrontation. Ironically, that doesn't necessarily characterize our families. So how intimate is a group relationship when we don't feel we can be honest, forthright, and don't feel safe to criticize? This does not characterize church in most cases. I do know one person in my church who doesn't have a problem with this, and I really appreciate him, as do many of our congregation. He's not perfect, but he is respected. He's both honest and forthright, but I never got the impression he was belligerent or mean, in fact he was a concerned about how he might be taken, but not deterred by that concern. Why can't that characterize everyone or most rather than one? I'd like it if it characterized me at least.
If these things characterized me, my Master's presence in my life would be noticeable. It is beginning to characterize my small group. That will become an influence in my church (we're not that huge that 10 or 12 people won't have an effect). I hope that my life will begin to change and take on more of these qualities, but I will have to let it and encourage it. It will affect my attitude toward my church, they will become a huge priority. It will affect my life with my Master, He will have more of me to use for His purposes and Kingdom. It will affect my influence in my community, I will be more bold to engage them with the good news I know, and they need. And it will make an impression on my daughter who will see the validity not just sincerity of a Biblical-based church, and will seek that for the rest of her life. Life change, that is the main effect; and my Master will add daily to the numbers of those being saved through this sub-culture.
Culture has a huge part to play in how I prioritize my time. But I can't blame everything on culture. In the early days of the Jerusalem Church, being in the temple every day wasn't a huge deviation from their culture. I don't think the traveling dinner was either. But these things weren't common either.
In my culture, being at the meeting house or sanctuary is just another appointment or part of our week. The meetings go on my calendar, and the Sunday worship time is something I know I'll do every week. For some in churches in this culture, going to the church property for meetings and even worship can be usurped by baseball or soccer games if they're scheduled then. Vacations always take priority over time at church. And it seems that giving is only something done when church is attended, if at all.
When my wife and I were dating, we'd visit my family and attend my church when in town. When we'd visit her family, we thought about finding a church to visit, but decided to avoid the uncomfortable feelings of visiting a strange church and spend more time with her family. It's odd, but now, 20 years later, we don't even question that practice. Is that a lesson I want my daughter to learn?
I can't help but look at the description of this group of believers in Jerusalem and feel like I'm missing something very important, actually several things. I need to air them, examine their validity, and maybe make some changes in how my family spends our time through the week.
First, day to day they met on temple grounds and in one mind. I get to our church grounds twice a week, only three if necessary. I could easily add another day just to help clean the place, pick weeds, or whatever needs to be done around there. And those are pragmatic reasons beyond the opportunity to just go and pray for those who go in and out of those doors, pray for my pastors and their staff, and pray for those who drive by and see our sign. I can always do that.
Second, they broke bread from house to house. The small group I have the privilege to lead decided on their own to serve dinner just before. The dinner and ensuing discussions take up as much time as the study itself. We spend time talking about all sorts of things sharing and learning about each other. It has built intimacy that no Bible discussion could have. We do that once a week. For our culture, that's a lot. And we are considering adding a regular, possibly quarterly (or seasonal) backyard barbecue into the mix. So, there I think I have been led to follow the pattern of this Scripture to a comfortable degree. But I also see the benefit of it.
The last things are the attitude of sincerity and unity that pervaded the group. In my culture, we don't say what's on our mind, we use "tact" to beat around the bush, and avoid confrontation. Ironically, that doesn't necessarily characterize our families. So how intimate is a group relationship when we don't feel we can be honest, forthright, and don't feel safe to criticize? This does not characterize church in most cases. I do know one person in my church who doesn't have a problem with this, and I really appreciate him, as do many of our congregation. He's not perfect, but he is respected. He's both honest and forthright, but I never got the impression he was belligerent or mean, in fact he was a concerned about how he might be taken, but not deterred by that concern. Why can't that characterize everyone or most rather than one? I'd like it if it characterized me at least.
If these things characterized me, my Master's presence in my life would be noticeable. It is beginning to characterize my small group. That will become an influence in my church (we're not that huge that 10 or 12 people won't have an effect). I hope that my life will begin to change and take on more of these qualities, but I will have to let it and encourage it. It will affect my attitude toward my church, they will become a huge priority. It will affect my life with my Master, He will have more of me to use for His purposes and Kingdom. It will affect my influence in my community, I will be more bold to engage them with the good news I know, and they need. And it will make an impression on my daughter who will see the validity not just sincerity of a Biblical-based church, and will seek that for the rest of her life. Life change, that is the main effect; and my Master will add daily to the numbers of those being saved through this sub-culture.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Addressing The Need
And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need. (Acts 2:44-45 NASB)
I assumed that the commune movement of the 60's and 70's in the United States was a new idea born out of the philosophical ideas of the times. I was wrong. This sort of thing has been going on since Civil War days, (technically before if you consider colonies in this light), and only received revived attention during the 60's and 70's. They're still around, and one actually exists in the City of Chicago, born out of the Jesus Movement of the 70's.
The idea is not really a comfortable one for the sort of Americans I was raised by and around. It goes against the idea that you own what you work to earn or gain or make. But I grudgingly have to admit that the idea has much in line with Scripture. I'm not comfortable considering the things I have worked to accumulate and "systems" I have setup to be the property of my "group". I want to care for them, and I like them the way I have them. I'm wrestling with the idea that this creates idols out of my "stuff".
I have always comforted myself in my life with my Master by saying out loud that all I have I have from my Master. Easy to say, because I still have it. I have learned over the years to then claim that I am merely the steward of these things, not the owner. That is easy to say, but difficult to live out. How available is my "stuff" to others? The practice in Acts 2 is very different than my practice.
I have been taught that the majority of the 3000 souls added to the church on Pentecost were from out of town. If that were true, there would be a large displacement of people to accommodate in Jerusalem. This communal answer may have been a response to a very real and pressing need. On the other hand, it reflects and attitude that whatever was possessed was available to everyone else in the group. Regardless of how the idea came about, the attitude that made it possible is really what I'm after.
What would it be like if I considered my home computer network available to my church for whatever need they had? What would it look like if my truck were available to anyone who had need of it? How about our motor home? Utility Trailer? What if someone really needed a vacation and wanted to go kayaking, would our kayaks be available or would they stay hanging from the rafters? I have a lot of stuff. I look at others, and I see some have more. But I don't answer for how much I have, rather I answer for how I've used what I have. One of the attitudes or principles that my Master considers important is how available this stuff is to His use in His Kingdom. He wants to see that the things He has provided are available for Him to use for His purposes.
While my wife and I each struggle with this issue, we do so differently. I am willing to share parts she is not, and she's willing to share parts I am not, and there are parts we both are willing to share. Together we make one good believer. Over all, we're willing to share what we have with others. That sound pretty good doesn't it? We're willing to share, but are we willing to relinquish? The way the attitude of the people in this new mega-church responded was to sell off possessions and give the proceeds to those in need, whoever was in need, as much as they needed. This takes "availability" to new levels for me.
I'm not sure that I would be willing to do that. It hasn't been asked of me, but what if it is? What if the only way I can meet a need is to sell something I like. On a smaller scale, what if I cancelled my TV service and used the cost I've been paying to contribute more to those in need? That's not something I own per se, but a service I enjoy and on which I spend a lot of money. So, that might be someplace to start. But what those kayaks? What about the motor home? Would I be willing (or able to talk my wife into) selling those and contributing the proceeds to the church for those in need? What if the church itself is in need? Isn't that "us" enough that we would consider that a need to sell and contribute toward?
The problem I see here is the required shift in my attitude and my view of my stuff. It would need to be softened way beyond stewardship to "warehouse management". It is hard for me to envision that what I have I merely hold on to so that it's available to those who might have need, in whatever way they may have that need. I spent money on it, money I earned by working. I have had use of these things, and want to continue using them. So, seeing them as available to others, and really owned by the group rather than myself is a difficult mental shift to make. But I'm wrestling with seeing any other alternative. On this, I think I may wrestle some more. This is a difficult thing to wrap my mind around. Conceptually I see it, but the practice is wreaking havoc in my mind. I clearly have more growing to do.
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Who Am I To Be Used By God?
They were amazed and astonished, saying, "Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born? (Acts 2:7-8 NASB)
Every time I have gone over this passage, I have wondered how they knew the group was from Galilee rather than "local" or whatever. A miracle of speaking and hearing is performed, yet in a Galilean "twang"? It just seems interesting that the crowd could tell. I thought maybe John was wearing a tee-shirt with "Property of Sea of Tiberius" or "Fish Galilee" or "Zebedee's Fresh Fish Company".
I have often wondered what made it obvious. From the statement it had to be obvious, so what was it? Because that piece of information, that detail, factored into the amazement and astonishment of the crowd. Sure they were hearing the great wonders of God in their own dialect, but from Galileans? Now that was crazy. The fact that they were Galilean removed any support for another explanation, it had to be divine.
But why was that? Are there no schools in Galilee? Are there no teachers, mentors, or tutors? Are the only schools in Jerusalem? What about immigrants? Couldn't immigrants from other regions explain a plethora linguistic ability? There were so few that it wouldn't? So, I return to Nathaniel's statement from John 1:46, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" That was one place within a larger region, and Nathaniel was from the region, a Galilean shore-town named Bethsaida, like Philip, Peter and Andrew. So even within the "Region of Illiteracy" there were places worse than others. It seems Jesus Himself was from one of the worst.
Regardless of what made it obvious, it was a detail that contributed to the shock of the event for the crowd. And I move on to wonder if that too was part of the design of my Master? In using such obviously unqualified people, wouldn't the event have to be a work of the Maker of the universe? In choosing such a group no one else would choose, my Master makes His mark indelible; it can't be missed, and it can't be otherwise explained.
So, am I, with all my failures; physical, moral and spiritual; one who glorifies my King through my weaknesses? Sort of. To the extent I am redeemed from my moral failures, yes. To the extent that the work demonstrates spiritual growth and faith, yes. But not through moral and spiritual failure, that isn't what displays the glory of my Master. These illiterate speakers of various languages were not pointed out because they were excluded by their God, but because they would not be expected to speak anything but Aramaic, maybe some simple Greek to conduct business, and a few phrases in Latin to stay out of trouble; the common language of the day. No one would expect them to speak the specific language and dialect of Phrygia.
So, yes, my Master can use one such as me for His glory. He can make His handiwork obvious in the process, and it can clearly overshadow me in every way. But He will do so when my guilt and shame are not what make it unusual or what competes for the attention. Or will He? My only comfort at this point is David. Other than him, I don't know of an obvious sinner used by my Master. In fact David was really a moral failure only after attaining the great blessings of God as king. Perhaps his son, Solomon would also be an example. I really can't rely on those though. They were examples of what not to do, and that's not really the example I want to give. Sure they are also examples of God's redemption and use of "broken vessels", but still, there was a sense of repentance and change that made the story of their moral failures able to be told.
Will my Master use me? He can. I hope He will. I hope people will hear or see something in me and say, "That's impossible! What can it mean?" It would be awesome and humbling for people to see me and hear me, but not be distracted by me; to be able to be ignored so my Master can shine forth. That would be really cool. More than likely God will not be using me in this way, it would just be cool. Maybe I should invest in a shirt from Galilee?
Every time I have gone over this passage, I have wondered how they knew the group was from Galilee rather than "local" or whatever. A miracle of speaking and hearing is performed, yet in a Galilean "twang"? It just seems interesting that the crowd could tell. I thought maybe John was wearing a tee-shirt with "Property of Sea of Tiberius" or "Fish Galilee" or "Zebedee's Fresh Fish Company".
I have often wondered what made it obvious. From the statement it had to be obvious, so what was it? Because that piece of information, that detail, factored into the amazement and astonishment of the crowd. Sure they were hearing the great wonders of God in their own dialect, but from Galileans? Now that was crazy. The fact that they were Galilean removed any support for another explanation, it had to be divine.
But why was that? Are there no schools in Galilee? Are there no teachers, mentors, or tutors? Are the only schools in Jerusalem? What about immigrants? Couldn't immigrants from other regions explain a plethora linguistic ability? There were so few that it wouldn't? So, I return to Nathaniel's statement from John 1:46, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" That was one place within a larger region, and Nathaniel was from the region, a Galilean shore-town named Bethsaida, like Philip, Peter and Andrew. So even within the "Region of Illiteracy" there were places worse than others. It seems Jesus Himself was from one of the worst.
Regardless of what made it obvious, it was a detail that contributed to the shock of the event for the crowd. And I move on to wonder if that too was part of the design of my Master? In using such obviously unqualified people, wouldn't the event have to be a work of the Maker of the universe? In choosing such a group no one else would choose, my Master makes His mark indelible; it can't be missed, and it can't be otherwise explained.
So, am I, with all my failures; physical, moral and spiritual; one who glorifies my King through my weaknesses? Sort of. To the extent I am redeemed from my moral failures, yes. To the extent that the work demonstrates spiritual growth and faith, yes. But not through moral and spiritual failure, that isn't what displays the glory of my Master. These illiterate speakers of various languages were not pointed out because they were excluded by their God, but because they would not be expected to speak anything but Aramaic, maybe some simple Greek to conduct business, and a few phrases in Latin to stay out of trouble; the common language of the day. No one would expect them to speak the specific language and dialect of Phrygia.
So, yes, my Master can use one such as me for His glory. He can make His handiwork obvious in the process, and it can clearly overshadow me in every way. But He will do so when my guilt and shame are not what make it unusual or what competes for the attention. Or will He? My only comfort at this point is David. Other than him, I don't know of an obvious sinner used by my Master. In fact David was really a moral failure only after attaining the great blessings of God as king. Perhaps his son, Solomon would also be an example. I really can't rely on those though. They were examples of what not to do, and that's not really the example I want to give. Sure they are also examples of God's redemption and use of "broken vessels", but still, there was a sense of repentance and change that made the story of their moral failures able to be told.
Will my Master use me? He can. I hope He will. I hope people will hear or see something in me and say, "That's impossible! What can it mean?" It would be awesome and humbling for people to see me and hear me, but not be distracted by me; to be able to be ignored so my Master can shine forth. That would be really cool. More than likely God will not be using me in this way, it would just be cool. Maybe I should invest in a shirt from Galilee?
Friday, August 24, 2012
Shock and Awe, and the Holy Spirit
They were amazed and astonished, saying, "Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? (Acts 2:7 NASB)
And they all continued in amazement and great perplexity, saying to one another, "What does this mean?" (Acts 2:12 NASB)
The words used here to describe the crowd as they gathered at the noisy expression of the Spirit of God are interesting. The one translated as "amazed" and "amazement" is the same, the other in each verse is a little different. The word translated as "amazed" literally means "to move something from a place or alter it." To me, it sounds like the mental gymnastics forced on a mind when a paradigm collapses. It is truly a Greek idiom, but one where the dots of meaning can be connected. It's the problem we face when someone alters our perception of the world by moving something we're used to having in a particular place. If we're not careful, bumps and bruises follow from tripping over this new reality. I think "shock" may have been a better word to use in translation.
The other two words refer really aren't even related to each other. The first is typically translated as "marvel" and refers to the human response to divine miraculous events. So, surprise, astonish, wonder, and admire would also work for it. It is more detached or removed from the event, as if observing it from the outside looking in, where the word used twice is more overwhelmed by the whole event.
The other word used in verse 12 is formed from a root with two prefixes applied. The root word means to carry over, or in the case of the River Styx, ferry over. To this word is first applied the negation prefix, 'a', a linguistic element of English as well. So it moves from "carry over" to "not carried over". At this point, the preposition "through" (as in "through a pipe" or "down along through a valley") is prefixed. We are left with "through not carried over". This fits well with the shock of a forced paradigm shift. The dilemma faced by the crowd was that, having had a paradigm collapse, they couldn't move on to a new one.
I have experienced these feelings. In a negative way, they were a good description of my exodus from ministry. On a more positive note, they might describe my struggle to loose weight (which I lost, and am now finding again). I had to make a leap out of a failed paradigm. The assumptions I had about myself, my environment, and my relationships had to change; or rather they had to be destroyed and replaced. These things are not easy, but they are necessary. I see the same world I've always lived in but I see it differently.
While the crowd had their paradigm shift forced on them, I wrestled with mine for a long time. Now I see that I'm not able to sustain the new one very well. The old patterns that led to my weight problem are returning. Essentially I'm rebuilding the old failed paradigm. How many of the crowd went on with their lives, traveled back to their far countries, and let the experience fade. Work, struggles, and just surviving eventually overcome the shifted perspective with which the crowd walked away. The struggle now is to not let those things overwhelm my paradigm shift.
I know the missing component. It is my old nemesis, exercise. For me, the paradigm I'm loosing was grounded in an exercise program. It was a "spiritual discipline" that made me more available to my Master. The physiological effects clarified things by helping me overcome other, debilitating physiological issues. It was like taking my medicine. Not everyone needs it, nor does everyone need it to the same degree, not does it affect everyone the same. It helps me on enough levels to make it no longer an option, but an imperative. But like most disciplines, it's not fun, at least not at first. So, I guess my choice at this point is "workout DVD" or Wii Fit.
And they all continued in amazement and great perplexity, saying to one another, "What does this mean?" (Acts 2:12 NASB)
The words used here to describe the crowd as they gathered at the noisy expression of the Spirit of God are interesting. The one translated as "amazed" and "amazement" is the same, the other in each verse is a little different. The word translated as "amazed" literally means "to move something from a place or alter it." To me, it sounds like the mental gymnastics forced on a mind when a paradigm collapses. It is truly a Greek idiom, but one where the dots of meaning can be connected. It's the problem we face when someone alters our perception of the world by moving something we're used to having in a particular place. If we're not careful, bumps and bruises follow from tripping over this new reality. I think "shock" may have been a better word to use in translation.
The other two words refer really aren't even related to each other. The first is typically translated as "marvel" and refers to the human response to divine miraculous events. So, surprise, astonish, wonder, and admire would also work for it. It is more detached or removed from the event, as if observing it from the outside looking in, where the word used twice is more overwhelmed by the whole event.
The other word used in verse 12 is formed from a root with two prefixes applied. The root word means to carry over, or in the case of the River Styx, ferry over. To this word is first applied the negation prefix, 'a', a linguistic element of English as well. So it moves from "carry over" to "not carried over". At this point, the preposition "through" (as in "through a pipe" or "down along through a valley") is prefixed. We are left with "through not carried over". This fits well with the shock of a forced paradigm shift. The dilemma faced by the crowd was that, having had a paradigm collapse, they couldn't move on to a new one.
I have experienced these feelings. In a negative way, they were a good description of my exodus from ministry. On a more positive note, they might describe my struggle to loose weight (which I lost, and am now finding again). I had to make a leap out of a failed paradigm. The assumptions I had about myself, my environment, and my relationships had to change; or rather they had to be destroyed and replaced. These things are not easy, but they are necessary. I see the same world I've always lived in but I see it differently.
While the crowd had their paradigm shift forced on them, I wrestled with mine for a long time. Now I see that I'm not able to sustain the new one very well. The old patterns that led to my weight problem are returning. Essentially I'm rebuilding the old failed paradigm. How many of the crowd went on with their lives, traveled back to their far countries, and let the experience fade. Work, struggles, and just surviving eventually overcome the shifted perspective with which the crowd walked away. The struggle now is to not let those things overwhelm my paradigm shift.
I know the missing component. It is my old nemesis, exercise. For me, the paradigm I'm loosing was grounded in an exercise program. It was a "spiritual discipline" that made me more available to my Master. The physiological effects clarified things by helping me overcome other, debilitating physiological issues. It was like taking my medicine. Not everyone needs it, nor does everyone need it to the same degree, not does it affect everyone the same. It helps me on enough levels to make it no longer an option, but an imperative. But like most disciplines, it's not fun, at least not at first. So, I guess my choice at this point is "workout DVD" or Wii Fit.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
The Difference Between Son Powered and Wind Powered Life
So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls. They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe; and many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles. And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need. Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved. (Acts 2:41-47 NASB)
In Acts 2, much attention in the chapter and from believers is focused on the immediate effects of their speech and the ensuing sermon of Peter. It seems the end of the chapter gets disconnected from the noisy event of the disciples being filled with the Holy Spirit. I'd like to correct that problem. I start by asking a very strange question: Would you rather have the Son of God to follow, or the Holy Spirit to lead you? See, I told you it was odd.
Hopefully, after some mental wrangling, the initial panic of heresy calms down and the decision is pondered as a "win-win" set of options. I ask because of something at the end of Acts 2 that is amazing to me, especially as an American. When I consider that 3,000 people from all over the world were added to 120 believers in Jerusalem, I have to wonder if the logistics of that was overwhelming to the initial 120. We don't typically think about it, but 3,000 people needed jobs, places to live, food, all in Jerusalem. Did Jerusalem's economy support such a surge in population? The economy of Jerusalem at that time probably did not support such a surge easily. As people left the festival to return home, the jobs actually decreased, not increased (although housing was more available).
So God has brought 3,000 souls to the church in one morning, most of them are from elsewhere and haven't lived in Jerusalem. What do you do now? The believers settled into an interesting pattern. They continued in focusing on four things: the apostles' teaching, fellowship, the breaking of bread (communion?), and prayer. In order to meet the overwhelming needs, the people shared everything (they had all things in common). In fact, some sold property and used the proceeds to assist in meeting these new needs.
Where did they learn that? What in their Scriptures told them that was the correct response to such a need? Would you believe the laws on tithing? In Deuteronomy 14:28-29, a use for the tithe is given that is overlooked almost universally by Jesus' followers. I suspect that part of the teaching of the apostles included a solution based on these principles. There are other passages that could have been used, but this one specifically addresses those among the people who did not have any land among them. At the time those in these categories were ineligible to own land among them (at least the "alien"). So while 2/3 of the tithe went to the temple (to be used for a party by the way), the other 1/3 was used to help the needy around them.
Two reasons I don't see the response of the believers to this need as a direct effect of the noisy wind-and-fire-tongue event is that they already had "received" the Holy Spirit. They selected their Twelfth Man before this, so the Holy Spirit was already working in them to solve issues. It was nice to have that twelfth guy once the 3,000 showed up, that was good timing (or God-timing). And, second, it wasn't just the 120 (i.e. the ones in the room when it happened) that were sharing. It turns out Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, had property in the area (or maybe elsewhere) who sold it and gave the proceeds to the apostles. They eventually nick-named him Barnabas. I believe he was an example of the scope of the sharing.
So what I see is a Spirit-led response to need through generosity. It's not that they were all "gifted" with generosity, the all responded in that way. All needs were shared, and so were all the possessions necessary to meet the needs. In the United States, we are offended when we're told, "you didn't build that." We take our possessions very seriously. The fruit of our labor is ours, we worked hard for it, we did too build it! Yet Scripture asks us, what do we have that did not come from our Master? Sure that's not what was meant when we were told we didn't build what we have, but I have to agree that I didn't build what I have apart from my Master's provision. So is it possible that He has provided these possessions to me so that I might have more to give to meet the needs around me?
No one has the right to ask me to give my possessions to meet needs, except my Master. The needs around me can be met by other sources, but what about His call on me? I can't solve the problems, meet all the needs, and make everyone happy. But I don't think the call is to either of those things, those are the jobs of my Master. What He wants of my is the resources He has entrusted to me so He can use them to meet those needs, solve those problems, and bring happiness to the ones in need. I have a few loaves and some fish (I'm always happy to give up fish). I can't solve anything. This isn't about solving the problems, it's about the things entrusted to me by my Master being available to Him for His purposes. Well, I think some budget adjustments may need to be made in my household. What fun...oh wait, I'm to be a cheerful giver. What fun! To see what God will do is one of the most fun things there is. I just have to hold on to that thought.
In Acts 2, much attention in the chapter and from believers is focused on the immediate effects of their speech and the ensuing sermon of Peter. It seems the end of the chapter gets disconnected from the noisy event of the disciples being filled with the Holy Spirit. I'd like to correct that problem. I start by asking a very strange question: Would you rather have the Son of God to follow, or the Holy Spirit to lead you? See, I told you it was odd.
Hopefully, after some mental wrangling, the initial panic of heresy calms down and the decision is pondered as a "win-win" set of options. I ask because of something at the end of Acts 2 that is amazing to me, especially as an American. When I consider that 3,000 people from all over the world were added to 120 believers in Jerusalem, I have to wonder if the logistics of that was overwhelming to the initial 120. We don't typically think about it, but 3,000 people needed jobs, places to live, food, all in Jerusalem. Did Jerusalem's economy support such a surge in population? The economy of Jerusalem at that time probably did not support such a surge easily. As people left the festival to return home, the jobs actually decreased, not increased (although housing was more available).
So God has brought 3,000 souls to the church in one morning, most of them are from elsewhere and haven't lived in Jerusalem. What do you do now? The believers settled into an interesting pattern. They continued in focusing on four things: the apostles' teaching, fellowship, the breaking of bread (communion?), and prayer. In order to meet the overwhelming needs, the people shared everything (they had all things in common). In fact, some sold property and used the proceeds to assist in meeting these new needs.
Where did they learn that? What in their Scriptures told them that was the correct response to such a need? Would you believe the laws on tithing? In Deuteronomy 14:28-29, a use for the tithe is given that is overlooked almost universally by Jesus' followers. I suspect that part of the teaching of the apostles included a solution based on these principles. There are other passages that could have been used, but this one specifically addresses those among the people who did not have any land among them. At the time those in these categories were ineligible to own land among them (at least the "alien"). So while 2/3 of the tithe went to the temple (to be used for a party by the way), the other 1/3 was used to help the needy around them.
Two reasons I don't see the response of the believers to this need as a direct effect of the noisy wind-and-fire-tongue event is that they already had "received" the Holy Spirit. They selected their Twelfth Man before this, so the Holy Spirit was already working in them to solve issues. It was nice to have that twelfth guy once the 3,000 showed up, that was good timing (or God-timing). And, second, it wasn't just the 120 (i.e. the ones in the room when it happened) that were sharing. It turns out Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, had property in the area (or maybe elsewhere) who sold it and gave the proceeds to the apostles. They eventually nick-named him Barnabas. I believe he was an example of the scope of the sharing.
So what I see is a Spirit-led response to need through generosity. It's not that they were all "gifted" with generosity, the all responded in that way. All needs were shared, and so were all the possessions necessary to meet the needs. In the United States, we are offended when we're told, "you didn't build that." We take our possessions very seriously. The fruit of our labor is ours, we worked hard for it, we did too build it! Yet Scripture asks us, what do we have that did not come from our Master? Sure that's not what was meant when we were told we didn't build what we have, but I have to agree that I didn't build what I have apart from my Master's provision. So is it possible that He has provided these possessions to me so that I might have more to give to meet the needs around me?
No one has the right to ask me to give my possessions to meet needs, except my Master. The needs around me can be met by other sources, but what about His call on me? I can't solve the problems, meet all the needs, and make everyone happy. But I don't think the call is to either of those things, those are the jobs of my Master. What He wants of my is the resources He has entrusted to me so He can use them to meet those needs, solve those problems, and bring happiness to the ones in need. I have a few loaves and some fish (I'm always happy to give up fish). I can't solve anything. This isn't about solving the problems, it's about the things entrusted to me by my Master being available to Him for His purposes. Well, I think some budget adjustments may need to be made in my household. What fun...oh wait, I'm to be a cheerful giver. What fun! To see what God will do is one of the most fun things there is. I just have to hold on to that thought.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
The Lot of Ministry
At this time Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren (a gathering of about one hundred and twenty persons was there together), and said, "Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was counted among us and received his share in this ministry."
(Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out. And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)
"For it is written in the book of Psalms, 'LET HIS HOMESTEAD BE MADE DESOLATE, AND LET NO ONE DWELL IN IT'; 'LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE HIS OFFICE.' Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us -- beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us -- one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection." (Acts 1:15-22 NASB)
I've been away from this blog too long. Part of the reason is that I have been busy working over Acts 1. For some reason the Greek was giving me problems that I had not been having with Hebrew. I thought it was supposed to be the other way around. But having completed this passage, I find a few things that shed light on the character of my Master for me.
Two of those things are in the passage above. The first one has to do with an opinion that in this passage, the disciples make a mistake in selecting a replacement for Judas. The view goes that God selects Paul later, and what they do here is a selection by human wisdom. I disagree with this view. It's not widely held, but is not uncommon either.
Part of what is seen as the problem is that the disciples didn't wait for the Holy Spirit Who figures prominently in the next chapter. It's my opinion about this opinion that the ones holding it see that event incorrectly as well. I understand Jesus to have "breathed on them" and they received the Holy Spirit after His resurrection (John 20:22). In Luke 24 Jesus opens their minds to understand the Scriptures. So, I don't see any reason the disciples would have been deficient in their ability to make godly decisions.
Apart from my disagreement with the opinion over those interpretations, I found something else this past week. In verse 17, Peter refers to Judas being given the ministry by lot. It is never translated that way, but the word used is the same used for the process of selection in verse 26. So Matthias receives his share in ministry just as Judas did, at least in the understanding of the disciples. I never caught that before because translation opted for two different ways to translate the same thing. That may have been appropriate, but it also obscured a connection clearly made in the original language.
The second thing I noted was the purpose for the "office" or ministry. It wasn't to "rule" the people, it was to safeguard the memory of Jesus' earthly ministry. I don't think Paul would have been able to do that. When Paul says that the apostles didn't add anything to his message, he wasn't referring to his knowledge of Jesus, but the good news he proclaimed to the Gentiles; salvation in Jesus. The details of Jesus' life had to be filled in, and that had to come from these 12 men who were actually there.
I find it interesting that there were at least 2 others who were there the whole time. I never really thought that anyone other than the initial disciples were there, but it makes sense. Jesus had to choose 12, which implies that some were not chosen, that He had a group to choose from numbering over 12. So how many were there, and why Judas over Matthias right at the beginning?
The character of my Master that I see shining through in this passage is His use of lots. I just think that is interesting. It is a concession on His part to our limitations of knowledge and inability to really communicate with Him. And it is an act of faith on our part acknowledging that we have those limitations and it is truly up to our Master to decide, it throws the decision into His court. I also see it interesting that they saw their initial selection in somewhat the same way. In the absence of Jesus, the casting of lots was the closest they could come to the same process.
I think I need to acknowledge the end of my understanding and my need for a "lot" at points in my life. I'm not all that ready to do this simple thing sometimes. I expect that I can figure it out (or that I'm supposed to), that I can just follow this process and my Master will conform to it, or that I already know enough to move on. When facing several choices, all of seemingly excellent spiritual quality and God-glorifying potential I have to fall back on my Master and not rely on my own wisdom. I'm only more "numbskullish" when I don't fess up to my obvious limits in knowledge. It's one thing to be a numbskull, and I often am, but it's even worse to pretend I'm not and not seek my Master's clarity in such an obvious need. I suppose sometimes is a problem caused by my not seeing the choices in this way, but that is again the numbskull-matt taking control. Yes, I am some sort of numbskull.
(Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out. And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)
"For it is written in the book of Psalms, 'LET HIS HOMESTEAD BE MADE DESOLATE, AND LET NO ONE DWELL IN IT'; 'LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE HIS OFFICE.' Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us -- beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us -- one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection." (Acts 1:15-22 NASB)
I've been away from this blog too long. Part of the reason is that I have been busy working over Acts 1. For some reason the Greek was giving me problems that I had not been having with Hebrew. I thought it was supposed to be the other way around. But having completed this passage, I find a few things that shed light on the character of my Master for me.
Two of those things are in the passage above. The first one has to do with an opinion that in this passage, the disciples make a mistake in selecting a replacement for Judas. The view goes that God selects Paul later, and what they do here is a selection by human wisdom. I disagree with this view. It's not widely held, but is not uncommon either.
Part of what is seen as the problem is that the disciples didn't wait for the Holy Spirit Who figures prominently in the next chapter. It's my opinion about this opinion that the ones holding it see that event incorrectly as well. I understand Jesus to have "breathed on them" and they received the Holy Spirit after His resurrection (John 20:22). In Luke 24 Jesus opens their minds to understand the Scriptures. So, I don't see any reason the disciples would have been deficient in their ability to make godly decisions.
Apart from my disagreement with the opinion over those interpretations, I found something else this past week. In verse 17, Peter refers to Judas being given the ministry by lot. It is never translated that way, but the word used is the same used for the process of selection in verse 26. So Matthias receives his share in ministry just as Judas did, at least in the understanding of the disciples. I never caught that before because translation opted for two different ways to translate the same thing. That may have been appropriate, but it also obscured a connection clearly made in the original language.
The second thing I noted was the purpose for the "office" or ministry. It wasn't to "rule" the people, it was to safeguard the memory of Jesus' earthly ministry. I don't think Paul would have been able to do that. When Paul says that the apostles didn't add anything to his message, he wasn't referring to his knowledge of Jesus, but the good news he proclaimed to the Gentiles; salvation in Jesus. The details of Jesus' life had to be filled in, and that had to come from these 12 men who were actually there.
I find it interesting that there were at least 2 others who were there the whole time. I never really thought that anyone other than the initial disciples were there, but it makes sense. Jesus had to choose 12, which implies that some were not chosen, that He had a group to choose from numbering over 12. So how many were there, and why Judas over Matthias right at the beginning?
The character of my Master that I see shining through in this passage is His use of lots. I just think that is interesting. It is a concession on His part to our limitations of knowledge and inability to really communicate with Him. And it is an act of faith on our part acknowledging that we have those limitations and it is truly up to our Master to decide, it throws the decision into His court. I also see it interesting that they saw their initial selection in somewhat the same way. In the absence of Jesus, the casting of lots was the closest they could come to the same process.
I think I need to acknowledge the end of my understanding and my need for a "lot" at points in my life. I'm not all that ready to do this simple thing sometimes. I expect that I can figure it out (or that I'm supposed to), that I can just follow this process and my Master will conform to it, or that I already know enough to move on. When facing several choices, all of seemingly excellent spiritual quality and God-glorifying potential I have to fall back on my Master and not rely on my own wisdom. I'm only more "numbskullish" when I don't fess up to my obvious limits in knowledge. It's one thing to be a numbskull, and I often am, but it's even worse to pretend I'm not and not seek my Master's clarity in such an obvious need. I suppose sometimes is a problem caused by my not seeing the choices in this way, but that is again the numbskull-matt taking control. Yes, I am some sort of numbskull.
Friday, August 10, 2012
Meandering Back Home
It seems strange to be here, and now leaving. It has been a vacation both relaxing and stressful. I don't know what I'm walking back into at work. There are issues at church.
The world has been moving along without me for a week. Nothing exploded. Nothing has died (so far). Family in the hospital and out, friends we've been visiting sick then well, that's about it. Nothing we could control here or at home.
So I sit here with my coffee on the shores of Lake Pens Orielle (pond aray) soaking in the dawn splendor of my Master's creativity.
All is well with my environment. So far my Master has permitted me to grow in such an environment, yet there's so much I can't see; consequences coming I hadn't thought of. Life hasn't stopped, it's the illusion of it "pausing" for a week. It hasn't, and things of stress and frustration are waiting for me back home. I feel better able to handle them. I have the perspective of the peace of my Master all around me.
So the only real delema I face is how to maintain this peace amidst the storms of my life back home. The only real way I can think of is to remember this place is here, remember my friends here, remember how I sensed my Master here. That should help keep the perspective of Pend Orielle alive in the normal storms of my life back home.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Why So Clear?
Abraham said to his servant, the oldest of his household, who had charge of all that he owned, "Please place your hand under my thigh, and I will make you swear by the LORD, the God of heaven and the God of earth, that you shall not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I live, but you will go to my country and to my relatives, and take a wife for my son Isaac." The servant said to him, "Suppose the woman is not willing to follow me to this land; should I take your son back to the land from where you came?" Then Abraham said to him, "Beware that you do not take my son back there! The LORD, the God of heaven, who took me from my father's house and from the land of my birth, and who spoke to me and who swore to me, saying, 'To your descendants I will give this land,' He will send His angel before you, and you will take a wife for my son from there. But if the woman is not willing to follow you, then you will be free from this my oath; only do not take my son back there." (Genesis 24:2-8 NASB)
Do not get a wife for Isaac from the Canaanites but from Abraham's family; and even more, do not take Isaac to Abraham's family. Why so specific? Abraham has met Melchizedek who he tithed to and who blessed him in one of the names Abraham used for his God. Isn't he and his city, Salem, righteous enough to produce a wife for Isaac? What about Abimelech, the king to whom Abraham lied about Sarah being his wife? He demonstrated both character and faith, why couldn't his city produce a righteous woman for Isaac? What is it about Mesopotamian women or ones from his clan that is so important?
On the surface, pagan beliefs and practices would seem to be the cause. Yet examples of places in Canaan where those were not practiced were also found. So it had to be something else as well. I believe Abraham is thinking about his "descendants".
What if his concern is that his descendants become 'Canaanite' rather than a distinct people who will dispossess the Canaanites? I think this might be more toward the issue with Abraham. Another clue to that being so prominent in his mind is the other charge, 'only do not take my son back there.'
Isaac needs to remain in Canaan, but not integrate with them. If he goes back to Abraham's family then the danger is he will not return; the promise would fail. If he marries among the Canaanites, he will loose his distinction and become yet another Canaanite tribe. But really, what's the big deal? As long as descendants of Abraham inherit the land, who cares who marries whom?
The only way I can meander through some sort of understanding of this is to follow Abraham as he follows God. God tells him his descendants will inherit the land, yet Abraham doesn't have any. God tells him that the promise will be for children of his. So he tries to fix it with a "non-barren" wife, Hagar, and it seems to work. God rejects this one. Hagar is an Egyptian, part of the line of Ham. God promises to bless Ishmael, but the promise of the land is not for him.
Part of the lesson Abraham learns from Isaac's birth is that this blessing he has been given will not be through any line but his family's. It is a thoroughgoing rejection of the line of Ham (Genesis 9:20-27) which includes a curse on Canaan. This is even though Canaanites demonstrate moments of lucid worship of God (i.e. Melchizedek, Abimelech, Shechem, and perhaps Mamre and Hebron). That amount of good "seasoning" were not enough to overcome the rejection. It's sobering to consider the total rejection of an entire 'branch' of humanity by their Maker.
So what do I learn from this 'possibility'? Well, I see my Master a bit differently. He can choose to reject entire branches of humanity, even though they demonstrate some degree of righteousness. I see this as indicative of His complete knowledge of all things regardless of time. Sure Melchizedek and Abimelech demonstrated righteous understanding of God, but their influence is gone in a few generations. The 'remnant' left over is actually recovered by my Master, but out of that line, and into the line of His chosen people. So, while the entire 'branch of humanity' is rejected, my Master reserves a remnant for Himself; it's not a total and complete rejection. There's hope for me in that.
But in the midst of this rejection on such a wide scale I see grace at work. While it may be shocking to think that the Maker of the universe would "have mercy on whom He will have mercy, and wrath on whom He will have wrath;" the real wonder is that He doesn't have wrath on everyone. We all deserve it, we have all failed Him, there are none righteous, no not one. Yet not all are destroyed. Why not? If I focus just on the ones under His wrath, then I miss a key element of His character. Even among those rejected, He still pulls out an remnant. Even in the midst of His wrath, He still saves some.
It is arrogance that sees this as unfair to those rejected. It is the height of rebellion against the Maker to call Him to task for the destruction of His wayward and apathetic creatures. And yet, it still bothers me. That some are destroyed makes me uncomfortable because I see that there is little distinction between myself and them. I stand before a Master Creator Sovereign King, and I see that it is only by His work I stand there. People fall to either side of me, and I should be among them. It's not about me, I diminish into the background of His mercy and grace; elements of His glory and holiness.
These two things help me understand my Master better. They help me see myself more truly as I am (powerless), not as I wish I were (powerful). I can't change this world, the people around me, or the circumstances I find myself within. I can only change how I respond to the One truly able to change this world (which He created), the people around me, and the circumstances I find myself within. I respond in worship. He is worthy of all my praise, my adoration, the focus of my entire life, and all within my grasp. He is worthy of it all. The problem is that I am so often unwilling to give it. That is where my lesson is; school is now in session (does it seems early this year?).
Do not get a wife for Isaac from the Canaanites but from Abraham's family; and even more, do not take Isaac to Abraham's family. Why so specific? Abraham has met Melchizedek who he tithed to and who blessed him in one of the names Abraham used for his God. Isn't he and his city, Salem, righteous enough to produce a wife for Isaac? What about Abimelech, the king to whom Abraham lied about Sarah being his wife? He demonstrated both character and faith, why couldn't his city produce a righteous woman for Isaac? What is it about Mesopotamian women or ones from his clan that is so important?
On the surface, pagan beliefs and practices would seem to be the cause. Yet examples of places in Canaan where those were not practiced were also found. So it had to be something else as well. I believe Abraham is thinking about his "descendants".
What if his concern is that his descendants become 'Canaanite' rather than a distinct people who will dispossess the Canaanites? I think this might be more toward the issue with Abraham. Another clue to that being so prominent in his mind is the other charge, 'only do not take my son back there.'
Isaac needs to remain in Canaan, but not integrate with them. If he goes back to Abraham's family then the danger is he will not return; the promise would fail. If he marries among the Canaanites, he will loose his distinction and become yet another Canaanite tribe. But really, what's the big deal? As long as descendants of Abraham inherit the land, who cares who marries whom?
The only way I can meander through some sort of understanding of this is to follow Abraham as he follows God. God tells him his descendants will inherit the land, yet Abraham doesn't have any. God tells him that the promise will be for children of his. So he tries to fix it with a "non-barren" wife, Hagar, and it seems to work. God rejects this one. Hagar is an Egyptian, part of the line of Ham. God promises to bless Ishmael, but the promise of the land is not for him.
Part of the lesson Abraham learns from Isaac's birth is that this blessing he has been given will not be through any line but his family's. It is a thoroughgoing rejection of the line of Ham (Genesis 9:20-27) which includes a curse on Canaan. This is even though Canaanites demonstrate moments of lucid worship of God (i.e. Melchizedek, Abimelech, Shechem, and perhaps Mamre and Hebron). That amount of good "seasoning" were not enough to overcome the rejection. It's sobering to consider the total rejection of an entire 'branch' of humanity by their Maker.
So what do I learn from this 'possibility'? Well, I see my Master a bit differently. He can choose to reject entire branches of humanity, even though they demonstrate some degree of righteousness. I see this as indicative of His complete knowledge of all things regardless of time. Sure Melchizedek and Abimelech demonstrated righteous understanding of God, but their influence is gone in a few generations. The 'remnant' left over is actually recovered by my Master, but out of that line, and into the line of His chosen people. So, while the entire 'branch of humanity' is rejected, my Master reserves a remnant for Himself; it's not a total and complete rejection. There's hope for me in that.
But in the midst of this rejection on such a wide scale I see grace at work. While it may be shocking to think that the Maker of the universe would "have mercy on whom He will have mercy, and wrath on whom He will have wrath;" the real wonder is that He doesn't have wrath on everyone. We all deserve it, we have all failed Him, there are none righteous, no not one. Yet not all are destroyed. Why not? If I focus just on the ones under His wrath, then I miss a key element of His character. Even among those rejected, He still pulls out an remnant. Even in the midst of His wrath, He still saves some.
It is arrogance that sees this as unfair to those rejected. It is the height of rebellion against the Maker to call Him to task for the destruction of His wayward and apathetic creatures. And yet, it still bothers me. That some are destroyed makes me uncomfortable because I see that there is little distinction between myself and them. I stand before a Master Creator Sovereign King, and I see that it is only by His work I stand there. People fall to either side of me, and I should be among them. It's not about me, I diminish into the background of His mercy and grace; elements of His glory and holiness.
These two things help me understand my Master better. They help me see myself more truly as I am (powerless), not as I wish I were (powerful). I can't change this world, the people around me, or the circumstances I find myself within. I can only change how I respond to the One truly able to change this world (which He created), the people around me, and the circumstances I find myself within. I respond in worship. He is worthy of all my praise, my adoration, the focus of my entire life, and all within my grasp. He is worthy of it all. The problem is that I am so often unwilling to give it. That is where my lesson is; school is now in session (does it seems early this year?).
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
How to Face a Tough Quest
Abraham said to his servant, the oldest of his household, who had charge of all that he owned, "Please place your hand under my thigh, and I will make you swear by the LORD, the God of heaven and the God of earth, that you shall not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I live,
but you will go to my country and to my relatives, and take a wife for my son Isaac." (Genesis 24:2-4 NASB)
The servant is never named, but according to an earlier chapter, Abraham has one in his household who will inherit his possessions if Abraham never had children. This could be the same guy. If so, the servant is from Damascus, and not from the region to which he is being sent. Abraham came from a place called Haran, but when the servant gets there, the name has changed to Nahor, another brother of Abraham.
So the information that Abraham is able to provide to his servant is dated, and much will have changed (not just the name). The hope here is that just as news of his family reached him in Hebron, he will have some idea of what his servant is to expect here. Even so, this is going to be a difficult task. The only way to be free from the oath is if he finds someone and she will not return with him. He still needs to find someone.
Where do you start something like this? Besides just traveling to the region, some sort of approach needs to be decided on to achieve success. The impression from the servants chosen approach is that he had no idea of names. That would seem strange since at least Bethuel was mentioned to Abraham in Hebron. But without knowing the status of families, who's still alive, who's well regarded or not regarded at all, it may not be safe to just go around asking after a family. Besides, this servant may not know the customs and practices of this region. Who knows?
But, it could be that, among all the other pragmatic approaches open to the servant, he still decides to throw the whole thing into the lap of the God of his master. If that were the case, once again, the faith of Abraham has touched another life, and influenced one of his household. Of course, Abraham did say that his God would send a messenger ahead to prepare the wife for his son, still it took faith to rely on that this way.
Even the quality of the test was fascinating. Only someone who was selfless or hospitable enough to water his camels as well as him would pass the test. There is a quality of character required. It's not just that he tests, but the qualifications he's looking for as well which make this an act of faith. Abraham stipulated only that this person come from his family. The servant goes further and seeks someone with character qualities as well. So, he demonstrates not just faith, but devotion to his master.
The question I ask myself is, "Do I demonstrate this faith and devotion to my Master?" Do I have the faith to approach my insurmountable tasks with a faith that relies on my Master rather than my own wisdom? Do I have the devotion to my Master to seek the quality that will glorify Him the most, or do I simply do the minimum to achieve the plain statement of the task? I am reminded of the parables of the talents. What do I do, double or triple what is entrusted to me? Or do I bury it and give it back as is?
Right now, I am being kept from doing what I want to do to work in a crisis situation at my church. What I have tried has not worked, people have not responded, and what I had hoped to accomplish isn't going to happen. I've been here before.
When I was considering coming out here, I had no job prospects, but I did know that my company employs remote sales people all over. So I tried to find something like that. I couldn't. Ones I had seen less than a month before had evaporated. Every option I tried, including trying to get a position created I knew we needed failed. This is not new ground for me. It looks rather familiar. In that prior experience, I had to resign myself to the work of my Master, and move on what I did know. He had revealed that I was to go, and when. I would just do that and leave the rest to Him. He came through even before we left.
As it turned out, my Master provided me an opportunity I wouldn't have even considered. In fact, had it been offered to me initially, before all my own efforts, I may not have taken it. But by the time that I had exhausted all my options, I was ready for whatever He provided. So, what was needed was provided only after I had exhausted my efforts. The solution could not be claimed by me, but was clearly the solution of my Master. Here and now I have another opportunity to experience the same problem-solving work of my Master. I am still adjusting to letting go of my own solutions, but still. I know where the solution will come from. That is enough. I think.
but you will go to my country and to my relatives, and take a wife for my son Isaac." (Genesis 24:2-4 NASB)
The servant is never named, but according to an earlier chapter, Abraham has one in his household who will inherit his possessions if Abraham never had children. This could be the same guy. If so, the servant is from Damascus, and not from the region to which he is being sent. Abraham came from a place called Haran, but when the servant gets there, the name has changed to Nahor, another brother of Abraham.
So the information that Abraham is able to provide to his servant is dated, and much will have changed (not just the name). The hope here is that just as news of his family reached him in Hebron, he will have some idea of what his servant is to expect here. Even so, this is going to be a difficult task. The only way to be free from the oath is if he finds someone and she will not return with him. He still needs to find someone.
Where do you start something like this? Besides just traveling to the region, some sort of approach needs to be decided on to achieve success. The impression from the servants chosen approach is that he had no idea of names. That would seem strange since at least Bethuel was mentioned to Abraham in Hebron. But without knowing the status of families, who's still alive, who's well regarded or not regarded at all, it may not be safe to just go around asking after a family. Besides, this servant may not know the customs and practices of this region. Who knows?
But, it could be that, among all the other pragmatic approaches open to the servant, he still decides to throw the whole thing into the lap of the God of his master. If that were the case, once again, the faith of Abraham has touched another life, and influenced one of his household. Of course, Abraham did say that his God would send a messenger ahead to prepare the wife for his son, still it took faith to rely on that this way.
Even the quality of the test was fascinating. Only someone who was selfless or hospitable enough to water his camels as well as him would pass the test. There is a quality of character required. It's not just that he tests, but the qualifications he's looking for as well which make this an act of faith. Abraham stipulated only that this person come from his family. The servant goes further and seeks someone with character qualities as well. So, he demonstrates not just faith, but devotion to his master.
The question I ask myself is, "Do I demonstrate this faith and devotion to my Master?" Do I have the faith to approach my insurmountable tasks with a faith that relies on my Master rather than my own wisdom? Do I have the devotion to my Master to seek the quality that will glorify Him the most, or do I simply do the minimum to achieve the plain statement of the task? I am reminded of the parables of the talents. What do I do, double or triple what is entrusted to me? Or do I bury it and give it back as is?
Right now, I am being kept from doing what I want to do to work in a crisis situation at my church. What I have tried has not worked, people have not responded, and what I had hoped to accomplish isn't going to happen. I've been here before.
When I was considering coming out here, I had no job prospects, but I did know that my company employs remote sales people all over. So I tried to find something like that. I couldn't. Ones I had seen less than a month before had evaporated. Every option I tried, including trying to get a position created I knew we needed failed. This is not new ground for me. It looks rather familiar. In that prior experience, I had to resign myself to the work of my Master, and move on what I did know. He had revealed that I was to go, and when. I would just do that and leave the rest to Him. He came through even before we left.
As it turned out, my Master provided me an opportunity I wouldn't have even considered. In fact, had it been offered to me initially, before all my own efforts, I may not have taken it. But by the time that I had exhausted all my options, I was ready for whatever He provided. So, what was needed was provided only after I had exhausted my efforts. The solution could not be claimed by me, but was clearly the solution of my Master. Here and now I have another opportunity to experience the same problem-solving work of my Master. I am still adjusting to letting go of my own solutions, but still. I know where the solution will come from. That is enough. I think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)